Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: MBT Tank Turrets - (question)
Message-ID: <7604@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 20 Jun 89 03:47:31 GMT
References: <7406@cbnews.ATT.COM> <7457@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Lines: 25
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: fiddler@Sun.COM (Steve Hix)

In article <7457@cbnews.ATT.COM>, welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty) writes:
> 
> 
> From: welty@lewis.crd.ge.com (richard welty)
> =cindi%bucsb.BU.EDU@bu-it.bu.edu (Cynthia Fong) writes:
> =>    a) Reduced tank gun depression.
> 
> =And this is important; depression is critical for obtaining hull
> =defilade positions behind hill crestlines.
> 
> indeed.  this is one of the reasons why US tank designs have tended
> to be taller than Soviet designs since WWII (another reason is that
> US tank designers take crew comfort more seriously than Soviet
> designers.)

The Swedish S-tank (?) did away with the turret entirely.  The use
the adjustable suspension to get elevation and depression of the
main gun.  (And differential steering for aiming.)

This makes for a *really* low profile, but how well does the beast
work in practice?