What if NATO chose L11A5 as the standard tank gun?

The L11A5 120mm rifled gun had a 440mm penetration while using L15A5 APDS, and was enough to penetration the upper glacis of T-64.
So What if NATO chose it in the late 1960s as the successor of L7, instead waiting for one more decade to acquire Rh-120?
 
NATO now focuses more on using HESH instead of multipurpose HEAT rounds. NATO might switch to a variant firing ammunition that isn't two piece to speed up loading rates and ROF. I could see the RH 120 being introduced later if there is a shift to wanting single pieced ammo, and less reliance on HESH as a substitute for HEAT.

Find a way to get HEAT protection rapidly out pacing HEAT penetration, and its more likely that NATO focuses on KE rounds, and so the rifled 120 makes sense to standardize.
 
Well, having a decent High Explosive round in the M1 in Iraq would be a benefit over using the M830 HEAT round with it's 3.5 lbs of HE, the 120mm HESH was almost 9 lbs of HE
 
NATO now focuses more on using HESH instead of multipurpose HEAT rounds. NATO might switch to a variant firing ammunition that isn't two piece to speed up loading rates and ROF
UK APFSDS used the two piece loading as an advantage, as the penetrator could be longer than with fixed ammo
 
UK APFSDS used the two piece loading as an advantage, as the penetrator could be longer than with fixed ammo
That is interesting. I was under the apparently mistaken impression that fixed ammo for tank guns typically allowed for longer penetrators as the penetrator could extend into the cartridge case. Do you know off hand how long the "longer" UK penetrators were ?
 
NATO might switch to a variant firing ammunition that isn't two piece to speed up loading rates and ROF.

I thought for these big rounds the 2 piece ammo was faster to load, or at least not slower, than the 1 piece which was big, heavy and clumsy to handle in the tiny space.
 
Carrying the next round on your lap while the previous one is already loaded. You can do that with two part ammo because the first part is inert.
 
What's lap loading?

The British gun ammo is 2 piece (actual 3 if you include the primer but thats in a clip already inserted into the gun)

So once the gun is loaded the loader (who is the 2IC of the tank) can keep the Projectile in his 'lap' and when it comes to reloading the gun can very rapidly reload the weapon as only the propellent charges are sealed away and as such are easier to handle than a single piece ammunition.

Tried to find a video of the process but my google fu is weak
 
The British gun ammo is 2 piece (actual 3 if you include the primer but thats in a clip already inserted into the gun)

So once the gun is loaded the loader (who is the 2IC of the tank) can keep the Projectile in his 'lap' and when it comes to reloading the gun can very rapidly reload the weapon as only the propellent charges are sealed away and as such are easier to handle than a single piece ammunition.

Tried to find a video of the process but my google fu is weak

I thought as much, not pulling out the projectile would help get that second shot away faster. I've also read that when cruising along they kept a projectile in the barrel to stop up the NBC over-pressure system.
 
During the NATO tank gun trials IIRC the Brits proposed a development of this gun that used unitary ammo like the L7 and it came close to winning. Maybe have NATO select this instead of the Rh120 and there you have it.
 
NATO now focuses more on using HESH instead of multipurpose HEAT rounds. NATO might switch to a variant firing ammunition that isn't two piece to speed up loading rates and ROF. I could see the RH 120 being introduced later if there is a shift to wanting single pieced ammo, and less reliance on HESH as a substitute for HEAT.

Find a way to get HEAT protection rapidly out pacing HEAT penetration, and its more likely that NATO focuses on KE rounds, and so the rifled 120 makes sense to standardize.

NATO could go with the novel solution the French developed for firing HEAT from a rifled barrel.
 
Top