whitelancer wrote: Yes and Challenger has 10 degrees depression, but why not more? Because more would require an increase in the height of the turret. Indeed Soviet/Russian tanks have less depression in order to minimise height.
Or the turret to be further forward. Or thinner glacis. Or fewer features on the glacis. Or a compact breech (like CT40). Or a roof bulge. It's really not that simple...
The S-Tank is more of a special case, its really a Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun rather than an MBT. Chieftain was deliberately designed to have the lowest possible profile consistent with other requirements for instance gun depression. Hence the reclining drivers seat. Challenger followed suit.
The S-tank is a tank. It's armed as a tank. It's armoured as a tank. It's designed to compete with... Tanks. It wasn't designed to assault anything. Very much the opposite.
There's a whole host of reasons to recline the driver, it's not just depression angle.
You have to make a choice beforehand, depending on the nature of the operations you are engaged in, then live with the downside of your choice. I didn't say it was the best option.
That's not the kind of theatre entry decision you make. You're working on the idea that they've mounted the RWS as high as they liked. It's not. It's as low as it can be to meet the user's need.
Not the best choice of photos I admit. I was just trying to give some idea of how prominent the RWS would be in a combat situation. Ideally it would have been pictures of Ajax in a hull down position with the RWS fitted and not fitted, against various backgrounds, just to show how prominent the RWS would be. You mention that the RWS fitted on Ajax was for PSO, fair enough, but then what was the point of fitting Barracuda camouflage, just for demo purposes, maybe! But then look at a pic of Ares its RWS just seems unnecessarily prominent to me.
Believe it or not the British Army did in the past try to keep its AFVs as low profile as possible. It seems now they have other priorities.
Yes, and that time was long, long before EO and RWS.
The PSO fitment includes the ECM equipment, same for CR2. It's taller than the RWS on either.
Not sure about your gripe with a RWS on an otherwise unprotected vehicle. If you can't achieve you're lookdown angles them you're very much at risk from infantry.