KOBRA..... or should I say KOBRA's... Fixing Soviet GLATGM's

[hansbroger]

TL:DR
Most KOBRA armed tanks are using the wrong missile.

Normally when you move from a CatC ATGM carrier such as M2 Bradley with TOW we logically expect the CatB M2A1 to carry a better missile such as I-TOW (actually it should be TOW-2 but thats another post..), and largely, in 99% of cases this is the norm. This is in fact so common as to almost be considered the rule except that....... Unfortunately in the case of MBTs such as the T-64 and T-80 series, the vehicles move from CatC-CatA, getting progressively more expensive while continuing to pay a premium for an increasingly obsolete missile. This stems from an erroneous assumption that there are only two missiles in the KOBRA family, the 9M112 "Kobra" and the 9M128 "AGONA". This assumption is erroneous because cursory research has turned up at least two, if not three "KOBRA" variants, 9M112 and 9M112M, (9M112M2). This wouldn't really be a problem except for the fact that 9M112 "KOBRA" is a decidedly CatC missile that keeps ending up on CatA MBTs, Its like the M2A2 being forced to carry around TOW instead of TOW-2.

Wikipedia seems to be relatively spot on as far as variants go although nomenclature varies from source to source, nomenclature and system assignment data displayed on the wiki page correlates with that of independent sources on the web. The actual penetration is anyone's guess and any values are placeholders, i'm going to rely on Eugen to figure out what is best for 9M112M and 9M112M2. CTH for the 9M112 family has been raised to 50%, it is guided by a highly advanced, integrated FCS that combines everything from LRF to meteorological sensors. Of course looking at these one has to wonder if SVIR might need a 5% accuracy bump... being a laser guided system..... but that's a different post.

An illustrative explanation.... In French for relevant persons....
http://monindependancefinanciere.com/le ... -kobra.php

Firstly, accuracy values provided for the KOBRA family of missiles (apart from AGONA) are derisively low, the system has a CTH conservatively estimated as .8 against a moving tank sized target at 4000m, this is definitely worth at least 50% acc for base variants. The missile's slow speed and high number of hit rolls, not to mention low ammo count an RoF will continue to limit its utility, and ability to be a long range menace. I will also take the time to address the abominable treatment of the T-64B/BM gun as well, this is relevant because it will illustrate why "KOBRA" should not have the abominable accuracy it currently has been assigned.

For our purposes the variants we are concerned with are:

9M112 basic version of the missile entered service in 1976 as part of the missile system 9K112 T 64B;
9M112M changes improved tested in 1977 and adopted in 1978 as part of the missile system 9K112 1 in the T 80B, armor penetration increased by 20%. Production started in 1979;
9M112M2 variant 9M112 with armor penetration increased by 40% compared to the original model, testing began in 1983. The dimensions of the missile and the operating conditions remained unchanged.

The tanks will be addressed on a case by case basis:

T-64B
As far as the missile is concerned the T-64B has sort of the right missile. The T-64B was equipped with the 9K112 armament system firing the 9M112 missile which we know in game as "KOBRA", according to some sources the 9M112 had only a limited production run and was superseded by the 9M112-1 for use on the T-64B.
The fire control complex of the T-64B is the 1A33:

The fire-control system is designated the 1A33 and enables the T-64B to engage stationary and moving targets while the vehicle itself is stationary or moving. The fire-control system includes the two-axis stabilised IG42 laser range-finder sight, the 1V517tank ballistic computer with data inputs being automatic (from the range-finder or manual), the 2Eh36M armament stabiliser, the IG43 fire-control panel and some other elements..... such as a a 1B11 cross-wind sensor

Thus the absurdity of it being assigned the 2100m range customarily assigned to coincidence rangefinder equipped tanks quickly becomes apparent. It is a tank with a high caliber, high velocity smoothbore main gun controlled by a digital FCS with integrated LRF and meteorological suit in addition to dual plane stabilization, most other tanks with the same FCS+armament characteristics get 2275m.

Spoiler : :

T-80B
The T-80B is using the wrong missile. Why? Because the 9K112 armament system of the T-64B was updated to a new variant for T-80B called 9K112-1 with a completely new missile variant designed for the T-80B, designated 9M112M, This missile was developed and in production by 1979 (Pre CatC) and quickly backfitted to T-64B's, replacing the 9M112 (likely the source of the confusing 9M112-1 designation). The T-80B should thus be carrying the 9M112M, a missile supposedly possessing 20% more penetrative power than that fixed to the 9M112 "Kobra".

Spoiler : :

T-64BM
Same FCS story as T-64B, Absolutely ZERO reason for this tank to be burdened with 2100m range, it even has a damn crosswind sensor in addition to a LRF, digital FCS, multi-axis stabilization.... need we go on? Oh right!! The missile! This tank has an intro date of 1983, meaning it is able to take advantage of either the 9M112M or 9M112M2 missiles. Testing of the 9M112M2 missile was begune in 1983, resulting in a missile with armor penetration increased by 40% compared to the original model. That being said I believe that missile should be reserved for the T-80BV, the result being that the T-64BM is therefore assigned 9M112M, and needs no change in price.

Spoiler : :

T-80BV
This is a CatA MBT, yet it is still carrying the 9M112, the Soviet equivilant of TOW or Shillelagh-A.... Obviously the tank needs a much better missile, seeing as Eugen is understandably skittish about giving the 9M128 to T-80BV, a perfectly viable compromise is to choose a further incremental development of the 9M112 family, that missile of course is 9M112M2 the testing of which again began in 1983 (the only differences being minor, constituting a different warhead, no changes to guidance).

Spoiler : :

The good old CIA weighs in on the T64B
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... 4n4L2rGJ6g
Functioning of the 9K112 armament system:
http://www.kotsch88.de/f_9k112.htm
http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-80_fla.htm
http://www.kotsch88.de/f_t-80_fla.htm#1G42
Info on "KOBRA" missile variants:
http://www.designation-systems.net/non-us/soviet.html
KOBRA on the T-80
https://books.google.com/books?id=IEAf3 ... ra&f=false
This is slight rehash of a previous post.
viewtopic.php?f=160&t=50224&hilit=+kobra

[Brutoni]

I like the idea of improving the T-64's gun. The T-64 gun variant was a solid staple in my ALB decks and while it is good to see the T-80 delivering capability now it is sad to see the T-64 series do so poorly.

However I have to say that for what is an otherwise exceptional post in terms of research and delivery you have let yourself down with the statement that BLUEFOR tanks with high calibre guns with digital FCS, a laser range finder and 2 axis of stabilisation has 2275m range.

The Chieftain line from Mk.5 has this and is stuck at 2100m (including some impression LRF/FCS fusion and integration kit in Mk.10)

The M1IP also suffers from 2100m. While the barrel was 105mm the FCS was excellent.

There are certainly more examples and while REDFOR suffers from this a lot more it is not exclusive to you.


So:

1) Love the idea of range buff to high calibre tanks with good FCS. Is mental that bias French 105mm tanks from before even 1980 can out range a 1980s high calibre digital fully stabilised weapon on a more modern tank!

2) The rest of the post was for the majority well written. Improvement of some of the TGMs is certainly another way to revitalise some specific T-80/T-64 tanks. That said I'm not sure they are so terrible as people make out from a balance argument... will consider more

3) The lack of standardisation in calibre/FCS/LRF is not a REDFOR only issue. You suffer from it more but that sweeping statement mars an otherwise excellent post.

[trotskygrad]

range buffs for everyone!

[Bougnas]

A suggestion thread that uses historical sources Alleluïa !


Sounds good.

@Trotsky: I think all ATGMs shoud have their range adjusted according to their IRL stats: 2450m for the 2000m IRL ATGM (Milan, RBS 56, Chu-Mat), 2625 for 3000m, 2800 for 4000m, 2975 for 5000m and above.

Then ground ATGMs would be a better threat against tanks and anti-helo AA would be more important (and btw only a few ATGM would get 2975m: HJ-9, Hellfire, Ataka, Kokon....)

[Brutoni]

A suggestion thread that uses historical sources Alleluïa !


Sounds good.

@Trotsky: I think all ATGMs shoud have their range adjusted according to their IRL stats: 2450m for the 2000m IRL ATGM (Milan, RBS 56, Chu-Mat), 2625 for 3000m, 2800 for 4000m, 2975 for 5000m and above.

Then ground ATGMs would be a better threat against tanks and anti-helo AA would be more important (and btw only a few ATGM would get 2975m: HJ-9, Hellfire, Ataka, Kokon....)

Standardisation is good!

[SpeisCheese]

+1
But what I would like more is a range and accuracy buff. My T-4A and B were my most successful tanks in ALB when playing Soviets, but now, it is much more difficult to have "Cheap but effective", "Medium MBT" and "Heavy Support Tank" classes in my deck. Now, the Soviets don't have cheaper good tanks(like the accurate T-64A was in ALB). Example, Eurocorps. They have the AMX10RC, powerful, cheap, but not armoured. Then you have the 2nd class, the "Medium MBT" which is the Leopard 2(AMX40 could also fit in but its armour and avaibility is too low for), and then the "Heavy Support Tank", which is in this case the Leopard 2A1/4(I would never use them to directly attack, this would be a too big points loss). But this doesn't work with Soviets anymore, and so I would like a simple accuracy buff for the first T-64s.

[codextero]

well lets not short-sell the Kobra too much, in game it is a good bit better than TOW/Shillelagh, more of a peer to the ITOW than TOW, featuring the same AP, and trading off accuracy for stabs.

That's not to say Kobra on post 1982 tanks isn't under-modeling it, or giving the base tow to a 1982 unit.

[hansbroger]

I like the idea of improving the T-64's gun. The T-64 gun variant was a solid staple in my ALB decks and while it is good to see the T-80 delivering capability now it is sad to see the T-64 series do so poorly.

However I have to say that for what is an otherwise exceptional post in terms of research and delivery you have let yourself down with the statement that BLUEFOR tanks with high calibre guns with digital FCS, a laser range finder and 2 axis of stabilisation has 2275m range.

The Chieftain line from Mk.5 has this and is stuck at 2100m (including some impression LRF/FCS fusion and integration kit in Mk.10)

The M1IP also suffers from 2100m. While the barrel was 105mm the FCS was excellent.

There are certainly more examples and while REDFOR suffers from this a lot more it is not exclusive to you.


So:

1) Love the idea of range buff to high calibre tanks with good FCS. Is mental that bias French 105mm tanks from before even 1980 can out range a 1980s high calibre digital fully stabilised weapon on a more modern tank!

2) The rest of the post was for the majority well written. Improvement of some of the TGMs is certainly another way to revitalise some specific T-80/T-64 tanks. That said I'm not sure they are so terrible as people make out from a balance argument... will consider more

3) The lack of standardisation in calibre/FCS/LRF is not a REDFOR only issue. You suffer from it more but that sweeping statement mars an otherwise excellent post.

The treatment of chieftan has been particularly shameful, IMO the series should start at 2100m with the Mk.2 and hop up to 2275m with the Mk.5 but like so many mediums it is stuck back in EE/ALB stat land while new units were brought in at a different, more permissive standard. The chieftan is another exception to the rule but outside the scope of the post, I do not for example extend my argument to D10T armed tanks with the same fcs criteria due to limitations of ammo performance and projectile velocities, in the case of high caliber smoothbores (or rifled guns) however there should be little question in regards to range, especially in a tank optimized from the onset for long range combat like chieftan. (Powerplant issues were largely figured out by Mk.5 too so my proposals generally include a 50 km/h speed as well).

The M1IP was again outside the scope of the post and despite all efforts in the USA thread seems to be deliberately nerfed to give USA a reasonably priced high capability medium tank somewhere between the M1 and the M1A1. This is likely because the capabilities of the M60A3 are under modeled and the M60A3 TTS isn't even included in game, this of course forces the M1 to serve as the US tank in the 60-70 point range and the M1IP as the tank in the 70-80 point range. IMO both tanks need to sit elsewhere with better range and PEN, the role of american medium tanking under 70 pts should be handled by the M60A3/A3 TTS.

I made this thread to comment specifically on Kobra carrying tanks (T64B, T64BM, T80B, T80BV), the gun commentary was incidental yet necessary to draw attention to the competence of the integrated FCS. The accuracy of the gun and missile on T64B for example seem to have been assigned under the assumption it was controlled by a non integrated fcs with an optical rangefinder. As the 1A33 fire control system provides ranging and meteorological data to the 9K112 missile command system it was necessary to touch on the system's capabilities to justify my request for 50% accuracy.

I apologize for stepping on the chieftan and M1IP's toes along the way though, OP is modified accordingly. I've made detailed posts on both (as well as M1A0 and Mk.10) but recieved no official response.

[hansbroger]

well lets not short-sell the Kobra too much, in game it is a good bit better than TOW/Shillelagh, more of a peer to the ITOW than TOW, featuring the same AP, and trading off accuracy for stabs.

That's not to say Kobra on post 1982 tanks isn't under-modeling it, or giving the base tow to a 1982 unit.

I've played around with the idea of making 9M112 Kobra 17-18 ap and 55% acc to make it less of a whopper, reserving the 19-20 AP for 9M112M and 22 AP for the 9M112M2. This would make the missiles more useful yet would also prevent T64Bs from causing too much damage to tanks over 100 points, while the missiles would hit more often, to really do more than chip the paint on an M1A1 for example you would have to buy a more expensive tank like T64BM or T80BV.

[Cheesehead]

well lets not short-sell the Kobra too much, in game it is a good bit better than TOW/Shillelagh, more of a peer to the ITOW than TOW, featuring the same AP, and trading off accuracy for stabs.

That's not to say Kobra on post 1982 tanks isn't under-modeling it, or giving the base tow to a 1982 unit.

I've played around with the idea of making 9M112 Kobra 17-18 ap and 55% acc to make it less of a whopper, reserving the 19-20 AP for 9M112M and 22 AP for the 9M112M2. This would make the missiles more useful yet would also prevent T64Bs from causing too much damage to tanks over 100 points, while the missiles would hit more often, to really do more than chip the paint on an M1A1 for example you would have to buy a more expensive tank like T64BM or T80BV.

TBH, I like this proposal slightly better since it seems slightly more realistic and balanced. From my limited experience, the soviets are kings of the class C fights since they can spam a ton a for the time frame decent missiles to make up for crappy ACC on their guns while a good chunk of NATO's stuff is still lightly armored during this timeframe.