In which world conflicts has low tank profile been more useful than gun depression?

Question is in the title. Also, given that central europe and Germany was very hilly, why did the soviets still see low profile as better than high gun depression when high gun depression is invaluable when attacking or defending hills and ridges? Were there any discussions in the soviet general staff to improve gun depression after the Yom Kippur war where the israelis had a massive advantage in tank to tank battles because of the high gun depression of centurions and M60s?

Check the item that was the most successful out of the German WW2 armored inventory.

It's no Pz. It's the Stug. Sort out your question.

KoTeMoRe wrote:Check the item that was the most successful out of the German WW2 armored inventory.

It's no Pz. It's the Stug. Sort out your question.

The stug had very good gun depresssion AFAIK. Even if thats true, then why didnt the siviets just make turretless tank destroyers like the strv103?

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Check the item that was the most successful out of the German WW2 armored inventory.

It's no Pz. It's the Stug. Sort out your question.

The stug had very good gun depresssion AFAIK. Even if thats true, then why didnt the siviets just make turretless tank destroyers like the strv103?

Stug 3 is so low (1.9 to 2.2m) that it doesn't even need the -10° depression angle. The gun stands at a 1.4/1.5 m height depending on variants. It is thus almost impossible to need the 10°, especially if you don't use the Stug as a tank.

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Check the item that was the most successful out of the German WW2 armored inventory.

It's no Pz. It's the Stug. Sort out your question.

The stug had very good gun depresssion AFAIK. Even if thats true, then why didnt the siviets just make turretless tank destroyers like the strv103?

Stug 3 is so low (1.9 to 2.2m) that it doesn't even need the -10° depression angle. The gun stands at a 1.4/1.5 m height depending on variants. It is thus almost impossible to need the 10°, especially if you don't use the Stug as a tank.

But Im talking about usage as a tank. I specifically asked about tanks.

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

KomissarBojanchev wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:Check the item that was the most successful out of the German WW2 armored inventory.

It's no Pz. It's the Stug. Sort out your question.

The stug had very good gun depresssion AFAIK. Even if thats true, then why didnt the siviets just make turretless tank destroyers like the strv103?

Stug 3 is so low (1.9 to 2.2m) that it doesn't even need the -10° depression angle. The gun stands at a 1.4/1.5 m height depending on variants. It is thus almost impossible to need the 10°, especially if you don't use the Stug as a tank.

But Im talking about usage as a tank. I specifically asked about tanks.

Again sort out your question. Tactical use of AT weapons renders the proposal of a purely AT tank obsolete. Gun depression further more is rather a limited value for an AFV when compared to mobility and the proponents of the higher elevation/depression cannot explain why armed with better tanks, Arabs still lost against Israel.

One of the cornerstone of the tanks as a purely AT asset has been the Israeli/Arab wars. While in fact those wars were mostly decided by a better prepared, better executing side that made its goal in life to become a survival society. Many of you don't understand what Israel was about from 1950 to 1975. It really was a huge ass military commune, with a military industry that posed as a technological asset, rather than the contrary.

Meanwhile Most Arab states were shafted, both internally and externally.