For the ones developed for the T-55s and T-62s still in storage, the main benefit is that it offers a bit of extra range compared to regular shells and it still hits hard enough that anything short of a tank is gonna have a bad time. For a state like the Soviet Union, cost was no objection because they didn't operate on any notion of there being a limit to the defense of the revolution.
Both guaranteed ways to be court martialed.
Cost WAS a issue. Yes there were benefits. But often times units didn't get the ATGMs because they cost more than the tank. It was a catch 22. Yes they had it and yes it upgraded the range, but you might as well build another T-62 at that point.
Will strongly disagree as the Challenger I and II do have proper APFSDS. Unfortunately have to quote fucking wikipedo.
L23A1 APFSDS: The penetrator is made from a tungsten–nickel–copper alloy with a 6 bladed aluminium fin and is located in a three-segment aluminium alloy saddle-type sabot. The shot 120mm TK APFSDS, L23 is used with the L8A1 charge. The L23A1 is capable of defeating the NATO Single Heavy Target (150mm RHA at 60°) at 6350 m and the NATO Triple Heavy Target (triple array equivalent to 110mm RHA at 65°) at 6300 m. In 2010, BAE Munitions undertook a feasibility study to model the ballistic/energetic effect of the L23A1 APFSDS and the L18A1 CCC charge combination. Function and consistency tests were completed in September 2012 with armour plate firing completed in December 2012 and strength of propelling charge tests completed in February 2013 at the Lulworth ranges. The Challenger 2 live crew clearance firing tests were completed in May 2013. The Royal Army of Oman expected the L18A1 charge to be certified for operation with their Challenger 2's 120 mm L23A1 ammunition in August 2013 with deliveries taking place by mid-2014.[8]
L23A2 APFSDS:[9] Considered as a replacement for the L23A1 shot. British qualification had been scheduled for 2010 and production for Oman was supposed to start just after. The L23A2 is backwards-compatible with the older L11A5 gun used by the Royal Jordanian Army Al-Hussein main battle tanks (phased out in 201.
L26A1 APFSDS: It was developed under the CHARM 1 (CHallenger ARMament 1) programme and can be fired from both the L11 gun and the L30 gun. It has a depleted uranium long rod penetrator surrounded by an aluminium alloy sabot. The L26A1 shot and the less-volatile L14 bag charge combination is known as the JERICHO round[10] (Jericho 1 with the L8 charge and Jericho 2 with the L14 charge). The Jericho 1 combination was about 15% better in penetration terms than the L23A1 and closer to 25% when fired from the L30A1 gun with the L14 charge.[11]
L27A1 APFSDS: Also known as CHARM 3 (CHallenger ARMament 3), it features a longer penetrator made of depleted uranium to defeat complex armour arrays and advanced forms of ERA.[12] The 120 mm Tk APFSDS CHARM 3 uses the safer L16A1 CCC (Combustible Cartridge Case) charge and is designated CHARM 3A1 when using the L17 bag charge. The L27 entered in service in 1999.[13] Muzzle velocity is 1,650 metres per second (5,400 ft/s)[1][dubious – discuss]
L28A1 APFSDS: A private development initiated in the late 1990s, Royal Ordnance Defence began the development of a new tungsten alloy long-rod penetrator APFSDS-T round (the L2
L28A2 APFSDS: A newer export 120 mm APFSDS projectile designated L28A2. The UK Ministry of Defence funded the L28A2 work specifically for Oman,[16] which wanted to replace its old L23A1 APFSDS. The work on the L28A2 round also included some of the technology incorporated into the CHARM 3 (C3TR) propelling charge system already in service with the British Army. This used a British low-pressure charge system and advanced penetrator material, as used in other in-service rounds. The L28A2 contract was supposed to enable BAE Systems Land Systems to complete the de-risking of the L28A2 in early 2008. Qualification tests and mass production were scheduled for 2009
Imagine creating a machine that is for all intents and purposes self contained and self reciprocating with no need for an external power source. Now imagine some jackass comes along and says "Hey, you know what would make that machine better? An external power source!" Now imagine not punching that man in the throat. That's how you get the chain gun.
The packaging is really the big issue here, in order to get missiles similar to man portable ATGM systems you're going to need something in the 150ish mm range for your main gun. Issues relating to size and weight are always exponential problems, you can't just increase the size of one thing, you have to increase the size of every other thing attached to that thing or else you end with with either packaging issues where things don't fit together quite right, or you end with reliability issues because your shit isn't beefy enough. The same thing works in reverse, if you can make one piece smaller or lighter, you can make a bunch of other pieces smaller and/or lighter as well since there's now a smaller space requirement and/or there is less strain on those pieces.
The drinking with hot babes would hurt most of all for little piggy. He lusts after "femboys", which to me has always translated to "prison gay".
I remember reading once upon a time that the Brits were phasing out HESH or were planning to since it was no longer a viable AT round and HE worked just as well if not better for soft skinned/light armored vehicles as well as being more effective on infantry positions and fortifications. I could be wrong on this but HESH really does seem to keep going with the Brits for the same reason the British MOD hangs onto everything they have; they're all penny smart pound foolish and the Brits as a people have a near autistic resistance to change.
There are some advantages, notably with chain guns, multiple ammo belts with different rounds that can be switched by the machine very quickly. But... it's in 7.62. It should all be AP with a few tracers on the belt. So it's very stupid.
Basically the big issue. Hense these missiles usually cost more than the tank theyre fired from. It takes a lot to get a 100-125mm diameter missile to actually be effective against a western MBT. Which is why many units didnt get them. Do you think the soviets trusted Ivan in the reserves to use this thing? Fuck no. Gun launched atgms were for elite units in small quantities.
I know lol, hense I suggested it.
I will give you that there are advantages but not on a ground vehicle (at least on an MBT where you will be expected to take at least one hit) where it will be expected to continue the fight while damaged. On something like an aircraft where if you're hurt badly enough to lose your electronics you have far bigger issues than "my gun isn't working" or on a naval vehicle where you will have (in most cases) multiple layers of redundant power it makes a lot more sense. The fact it's in 7.62 is kind of just insult to injury imo, although to be perfectly fair to the Brits a 7.62 with a solid mounting is still more than capable of being accurate out to extreme ranges and still has enough mustard to shred infantry and soft skinned vehicles, would a fifty or 20mm+ be better? Eh, maybe, but they'd also (in theory) carry less ammo and the coax isn't exactly your main way to deliver hate to people. The coax being in 7.62 is honestly one of the lesser evils the Chally commits.
7.62 coax is just standard pretty much tbh. Lots of rounds (the Abrams has 12,500!), low cost, and if you need something bigger, you either have the 50 cal up top if your tank has one, or the boomstick. Really only the French anymore do weird things with the coax, theirs being .50 cal, bur they're French.
And tbh I do love chainguns as much as I joke about how stupid they are. I mean look at this shit, this is mechanical sex.
But why a chaingun in 7.62 when a mounted FN MAG would be just as effective weigh less cost less and be easier to maintain?
The main cost was in the actual developmental work. Once that is done, the actual batch made is not that relevant.
Because a chain gun is almost impossible to jam and because of that you can wedge it basically anywhere since the crew will never have to touch it either to reload it or unjam it. A chaingun also has an infinitely adjustable dwell time so you can delay ejection as long as possible so as to let less gas out since the extraction and ejection are externally controlled and not reliant on a gas or recoil operated system. Basically you can hold the bolt closed long enough that no gas goes back into the crew compartment. This is good for a tank because you can place it basically anywhere you want leaving your ergonomics in good shape. The Brits, of course, did this really badly where their chaingun on the Chally is mounted in such a way that it cannot be aimed within 200 yards unless you physically watch the tracers and walk the gun on target.
To feel even dirtier, the Challengers is one of the three tanks families that have all of its main gun ammunition (bagged charges) in armored storage compartments. Compared to the Abrams and Merkevas, the Challenger ammo storage layout is atrocious. As it is a holdover from the previous era of let's put the ammo literally everywhere where there is space for it inside the tank.
I haven't heard of Brits phasing out HESH as it still is very effective against everything that isn't a MBT. But with the Brit MOD having all domestic tank ammunition shitcanned and outsourced to India almost twenty years ago, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case.
Doesn't the Challenger technically use a three piece ammunition system since the projectile, charge bag, and primer are all separate pieces?
Yup and that primer is the principle difference between their main gun ammunition and the Russian two piece main gun ammunition. If I am wrong on this I loved fo be corrected.
Well here's a video of a Chally II firing from inside and it looks like it really is two piece ammo so I'm probably incorrect about a separate primer.
The Sheridan had a few "turret Ka-booms" , IIRC, and were cancelled shortly
