The photo that John posted only shows 4 of the 6 windows. Sideways vision, and vertical vision for that matter, is actually excellent.
The two "missing" windows appear to be in the sides of the cockpit, sort of behind the pilots, and not overhead to provide vertical vision. I still don't see how Airbus solved the same problems Alenia, Lockheed, and Douglas all solved with overhead windows, and that's why I'm asking.
There are no knee windows in the A400 either. C-27, C-130, and C-17 all have windows down low to provide forward and downward vision, enabling the pilots to taxi right up to the edge of a runway/taxiway or parking apron. In the C-17 these knee windows are roughly where the side stick consoles are on the A400. And another small nit for me is the placement of the nose gear. The C-17 uses a DC-10 nose, (the loft lines are identical) with one really big modification. The nose gear has been moved forward to put the nose gear right under the pilots. C-130 nose gear is under the pilots also. This plus the downward vision windows are really important for operating on small austere airstrips. A400's nose gear is behind the pilots. This plus the lack of downward vision windows causes me to scratch my head wondering how Airbus solved the problems Alenia, Lockheed and Douglas all solved with those features.
.
Also, many C-130 and all C-17 have "combat lighting" in the nose. These are basically taxi lights in the nose that emit in the IR to facilitate taxiing in close quarters at night with NVG. How did Airbus solve that problem?
Please understand that I am NOT calling the A400 a "bad design". Airbus just seems to take their own approach to solving various tactical issues. (For example, the A400 has kneeling landing gear while the C-17 does not. And Airbus chose to go with big turbo props rather than hi-bypass fan jets. The cargo floor design is also very different, as are the sidewall seats.) My experience is with the C-27, C-130 and C-17. I'm trying to get my head around the approach Airbus used to solve certain problems in comparison to the approach Alenia, Lockheed, and Douglas all used to solve the same problems.