ATMOS( wheeled spa)vs tracked armored spa

Actully the Spike LR can't be jammed ...so we are safe with that..
Spike is wire quided also , but it has a fiberoptica cable... the Operator can steer it like he wants (he has a view from the missile head). Is really cool ... expensive as hell too .. there is avideo on RoAF where 330 Socat fie a Spike ER missile.

we do have improved maliutka .... (improved guidance and warhead- from MILAN-2).
The question is.... how many do we have ...

Not necessarily, if Romania attacks first. The NATO treaty is a defensive treaty.

Though I think we are way out in to paranoid territory here. It's never going to come to that.

More on topic re. the counterbattery issue.... look at the Iraqi experience in 91 and 03 Gulf Wars. Iraq had plenty of artillery at the start. What was the big killer of it? Not MLRS or any other coalition artillery. It was airpower.

Considering teh fact that the majority of the countries in teh region have outdadted outacalssed(with a few eceptions:the uktainian su-27s and tu-22s,also the ceh and hungarian jas gripens,and at some extent teh romanian lancer) we cnat really consider that these countries have a doctrine that is centered around the use of air power in the first phase of the war to neutralize the enemies command and control ,ad,aircraft strips etc .These countries have limted cas capabilities excepting maybe ukraine and belarus wich have he su-24 s,tu-22s and tu-16 s whoc na be used for deep strike missions.
The doctrine of these countries is mainly based on teh use of land power similar to the russian(soviet) doctrine.Laso teh use of combined arms operations is limited due to the poor maintanance,poor readiness of these armies.

I dont think a doctrine for paralysing the enemy command and control or airstrips was at issue, but airpower in countering enemy artillery.

All military doctrines are hinged around landpower. The fact that the US has developed its airpower and projecting power to such an extent that it can offer the politicians the option to use airpower alone in certain contexts/conflicts, has lead to an increased theoretical development of airpower doctrine, but one shouldnt forget that airpower is there to support landpower.

take care

The age of conventional warfare, with large masses of infantry, is coming to an end. Air supremacy and electronical warfare has the final word. It is enough to bring to knees the enemy. Land forces are still required as occupation forces, but not required to win the battle. If the weapon of the First World War was the machine-gun, and the weapon of the Second World War was the tank, the weapon of our times is the carrier.

Dragos thank you for the history and strategy weapon,and for the fact you have enlightened us.On the behalf of all the people who write on this forum i greatfully thank you.

You're welcome! I'm waiting for the beers

Yes,electronics will rule the modern battlefield. Aviation could have the first and the last word in such conflict.The technology is such advanced these days that two enemy pilots can't see them each other the radar screen onward to the target returning to see that their base have been destroyed.

MLI - underarmed

Both ones are underarmed. Specially compared with BMP-3. BMP-3 is more powerfull then a T-54/55/59 and can fight even with T-62 and T-64. His 100 m.m. main gun can make a K.O. against them from a proper range. I don't remember, but it is possible to launch AT rockets so... And the rest of BMP-3 arsenal is quite impressive. Ignoring main gun, and our MLI is underarmed again - no? BMP-3 had a 30 m.m. secondary gun, and MLI had a 25 m.m. And BMP-3 had rockets too...

Look at the swedish CV-90, probably the best AFV in the world: they have a Bofors 40 m.m./70!!! And i try to ignore variants of CV-90 family...

For the future is an anglo-france project (or two separate projects? uh! my memory...) for an automatic gun with 45 m.m. designed specially for AFVs - his projectile is amasing as a new tech...

Iama

P.S. - In a possible conflict scenario the most dangerous weapon system of our adversary will be BMP-3 with his arsenal and his desant.

I dont like such simplifications. Airpower and landpower work together and are complementary. Moreover, in contemporary times the airpower doctrine has been tried on countries that could not field comparable airforces and airdefense systems.
As for the weapon of WWII, one cannot decide which one it was. It was the bomber, the tank, the carrier, the submarine, the landing craft. Depends which theatre, which period, which point of view...

Well there is the big confusion
BMP-3 100mm gun (so called gun) is actually a grenade launcher( equivalent to AG-9). It has a low velocity at exit. 250m/s. Yes it can take out the tanks ... but with the gun barrel fired antitank missile laser guided .. so let say there is same power as the MLI-84M with Spike. But for Infantery support the 100mm is a tool that we can't ignore our MLI84 M doen't have anything like that.
The Oerlikon KBA is more or less equivalent with the 2A72 30 mm gun... I might say that it fire a projectile at higher velocity (1100 m/s vs 960m/s) ...

I'd say the 84M will handle well agains competion... assuming that we will manage to finish the proposed number of IFV's.

How many Spikes have a MLI? (8 AT-10 Sttaber for BMP-3)

It is Spike superior to AT-10?

Iama

That's the thing we don't know...
84M has 2 Spike ready to fire..I don't know how many are in the hull stored..

Spike LR has 4000 m engagement range. penetration ... I dare you to find the values... Not even the manufacturer site give that value.

AT-10 is rated to 4000 m range and depending on source to 500mm RHA penetration or 800mm RHA.

But what i suspect is that 84M armament would consist mostly from Maliutka 2 modified because is cheaper.

Romania is surrounded mainly by t-55s,t-62s,t-72s and some 300 t-80s(84s).
Now if you look at the armor thickness of these tanks the values are as following:t-55>>>>210mms,t-62>>>>240mm ,t-72>>>500-560mm and these figures are from the frontal arc wich is the best protected part of a tank.Now assumingly that any of these tanks find themselves facing a mli-84 armed with spikes with a 4000 m range or a at-3 sagger (3000 m range in the calssical config and 720 mms armour penetration behind era) the t-55 is surrely a gonner,the t-62 alos,t-72 has some chances but only the more advanced varainats and if he finds the ifv first.The problem is around the optical sight of the mli and the range he can spot enemy vehicles because the missiles instaled on it are good enough to take out any tank in the region,not to mention the fact they dont have ir homing heads so they cant be jammed by the oplots in ukraines inventory.And dont forget the main task of the if antitank system is to gurad itself from a tank,not to go on a tank hunt.Its purpose is to provide more survaibility on teh battlefield and to ensure the infatry deployed isnt overun by tanks.I would say that the mli-84 is among the best if not teh best (due to its optical tracking sighting system) in the region.And with Romanias military doctrine that is mainly based on teh national defence of teh teritorry and not overseas operations i would say that the mli provides sufficient firepower.If you want something really capable on taking out mass cocnetrations of tanks and alos provide armored reconiassance for the mechanized divisions you should look at the sa rooikat,the italian centauro, french amx-30 rc,the us lav-105.