Okay, I'm intrigued. What are the key features of your set of tank rules? Hit locations, I assume? Because "Hull Down" position would be probably the most important component missing in tank warfare in 40K Roleplay.
Location of hit, armor thickness and angle, angle of impact, location of crew positions inside the vehicle, relative motion of the vehicle and target.
Then we get into things like number of rounds that a given hull holds in it's ammo racks (not to be confused with magazines as are represented in weapons stat lines), variant munitions, turret transverse speeds, ammo rack location, mines, losing a track/wheel, spall liners, Schürzen and improvised armor, going hull down (as you mention), mine launchers, and realistic vehicle critical hits.
Armour angle and angle of impact might be overkill for games on the abstraction level of 40K Roleplay. Hit location does matter, in particular top and bottom armour are required. It would have been very easy to add that to the game. I think FFG should add times put more effort into adding granularity (see my inquiry to you about Small Craft rules in the other thread), instead of creating a d10 version of 40K or BFG.
Reload times also matter a lot, obviously. I like your idea, it sounds like Combat Mission gone 40K but, tbh, it seems a bit too much. The games aren't entirely simulationist and realistic rules probably ask too much from your average gamer. What I would have liked was a middle ground approach somewhere between what we have got in 40K RP (d10 40k rules) and what you have created there.
For me, it would have been enough if realistic tank warfare tactics would be required to be effective within the game mechanics. To give players a basic feel for what armoured warfare in the 41st millenium is really all about.