Something I'd not come across before: the FV 215 heavy gun tank, intended as a ripost to the Soviet heavy tanks.  Read all about it: https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/cold-war-british-prototypes/fv215-heavy-gun-tank/

A monster gun was designed for this vehicle: the 'Ordnance, Quick-Firing, 183 mm Tank L4 gun' of which about a dozen were made and tested. There was only one combat loading - a HESH shell weighing no less than 160 lb (72.5 kg) and fired at an MV of 2,350 fps (716 m/s). Not surprisingly, two loaders were needed. The shell was capable of demolishing any tank, and was quite useful against other targets also, so it was effectively an "all-target" munition. Some nice illustrations in the article.

There is a book called 'The Dark Age of Tanks' by David Lister (who is also credited in your link) which has information on the FV 215 too. The book also mentions experiments in the 1950s on liquid mono-propellant and bi-propellant and why this was abandoned, primarily due to inconsistent velocities achieved and hence poor accuracy; it makes me wonder whether subsequent developments in engine fuel injection technology and fluid flow modelling could yield better results.

autogun said:

Something I'd not come across before: the FV 215 heavy gun tank,

So you are not a World of Tanks player ;)
 

PRM2 said:

There is a book called 'The Dark Age of Tanks' by David Lister

Good read. Can be recomended.

PRM2 said:

t makes me wonder whether subsequent developments in engine fuel injection technology and fluid flow modelling could yield better results.

there's a small difference between the tank gun and the combustion engine.

The modern engines have a maximum cylinder pressure as high as 150 bars

The tank gun pressure is around 4-5 K bar

also, in the combustion engine small (and even large) deviations in pressure between strokes are completely negated by the inertia of all the moving masses

with the tank gun, each stroke is a separate event and even the relatively small variations in the pressure curve (say, about 5-10%) can result in significant variations of the muzzle velocities and accuracy

PRM2 said:

it makes me wonder whether subsequent developments in engine fuel injection technology and fluid flow modelling could yield better results.

The short anywer is: yes advancements in technology would lead to better results.
But as Max wrote and as usual the devil is in the details.

Even if the deviation in pressure could be solved this doesn't mean a liquid propellant gun is a good idea. Or that it offers advantages that outweight the disadvantages.
The main problems that caused more or less all nations to drop the technology are related to the propellant handling. Basically we talk about liquid explosives. Solid explosive besides usually offering better energy density are easy and safe to handle. Liquid propellants are in the best case like handling toxic and corrosive rocket fuel in the worst case like handling liquid explosives that allmost desperatly want to react and go off.
Furthermore advances have been made in solid propellant, primer and ignition technology as well. Diminishing the potential advantages of liquid propellant. Even MRSI has been possible with solid propellant using artillery pieces at least since the '90. Modular charges and automatic charge handling is pretty common, mature and cheap. There are only a few thing left where liquid propellant could offer advantages. So its simply not worth the cost.

The only exception i currently see would be in the use of electro thermal or electro thermal chemical guns. But the feasibility of this technology is linked to the availablity of large amounts of electrical power and the ability to store and release it quickly. Which will most likely not be the case for decades to come.

Just when you thought some bad idea is killed.... up pop the gamers.