Question on tanks.....

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Question on tanks.....

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Question on tanks.....

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Question on tanks..... - 7/12/2000 2:10:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

I have a couple of questions on tanks. 1)what was the best overall tank in ww2? (In terms of overall average in fire control, turret raverse, main gun lethality(I know that factors in ammo too), mobility, and reliability) 2)if you had a magic wand and could fix the glaring deficiencies in the CHAR 1B-BIS would it have been in the running? The reason I ask is I am not at all well educated on ww2 era french armor and this tank has captured my imagination. It seems to be rated as being almost as strong as the Sherman. regards, sven p.s. Once again a heartfelt thanks to all of those involved in making this wonderful game. I would especially like to compliment the MOB and scenario makers.(I love the new armor system I am an ex tow-gunner and always thought SP had way too many one shot kills for ww2.) I am waiting with baited breath for spnam. ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

Post #: 1

- 7/12/2000 2:21:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

Generally either the panther or T34 is considered the best tank. The panther was technically better (radios, optics, etc.) but required more effort to build and maintain. The T34 had well sloped armor, was fast and ubiquitious. In determining "best" you have to consider the integration of the tank into the physical and doctrinal role it had to fullfill. The Soviets never could have built or maintained Panthers or Tigers in any large numbers and they needed large numbers of them to win. Of note is that both the Germans and Soviets used each other's tanks. There were German T34 battalions and Soviet Panther battalions (at least one that I know of). This shows that there was some advantage in each tank that the other side admired enough to use them. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 2

- 7/12/2000 2:27:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: Generally either the panther or T34 is considered the best tank. The panther was technically better (radios, optics, etc.) but required more effort to build and maintain. The T34 had well sloped armor, was fast and ubiquitious. In determining "best" you have to consider the integration of the tank into the physical and doctrinal role it had to fullfill. The Soviets never could have built or maintained Panthers or Tigers in any large numbers and they needed large numbers of them to win. Of note is that both the Germans and Soviets used each other's tanks. There were German T34 battalions and Soviet Panther battalions (at least one that I know of). This shows that there was some advantage in each tank that the other side admired enough to use them.

Did the Panther suffer from similar traverse problems like the tiger? ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 3

- 7/12/2000 2:30:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Well, I was all set to say Panther, but then you had to go and bring reliability into it. I guess maybe the T-34/85? Maybe the Patton, although I really don't know much about it. Even though the heavies like Tiger II and IS-2 have enormous guns and armor, they're quite cumbersome, and the IS-2 has very few shots. I think the Panther is marginally to significantly better than the T-34/85 in all respects, except that you can't drive it more than about 20 yards before something falls off. Panther probably stands for: Please, Another New Transmission & Heavy Engine Repair! As far as the Char B1bis, give it a decent radio, a bigger engine, perhaps some better f/c and a better crew disposition, and you've got a world-beater. For early 1940, that is. It can't possibly even try to compete with an early T-34, much less a Tiger, etc. It was a very nice tank, but outdated in concept.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 4

- 7/12/2000 2:31:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by sven: Did the Panther suffer from similar traverse problems like the tiger?

I assume that you mean the slow traverse of the Tiger. I've read that German crews would slew the tank towards the target while rotating the turret in order to acquire the target quicker. The panter did not have this problem ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 5

- 7/12/2000 2:34:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by sven: I have a couple of questions on tanks. ... 2)if you had a magic wand and could fix the glaring deficiencies in the CHAR 1B-BIS would it have been in the running? .. regards, sven ..

If you could have fixed the problems on any tank I suppose that it would have been in the running.

The CHAR suffered from design flaws as well as doctrinal ones. A one man turret and nearly walking speed is sufficient for supporting slow moving infantry which was its role. The French would have had to full embrace mobile warfare (as promoted by DeGaul) first then they would have had a reason to "fix" the CHAR. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 6

- 7/12/2000 2:37:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

Thanks for the answers. I am interested in other people's opinions also. I factored in reliability because it would seem to have a huge impact on lethality in an indirect way. I am having an arguement that with a lad that swears it is the Tiger2. Did the Germans ever go "hull down"? If they did the slow traverse rate could not be remedied by swinging the hull. I wonder if the Germans ever really designed their armor for their doctrine late in the war. regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 7

- 7/12/2000 2:44:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Well, I think Stugs and most of the low-slung Jpz were meant to be the hull down answer. I can't imagine that anyone wanted to dig a hole big enough for a Tiger II. If the Tiger II had been faster, I would say that it was the best. It had a very good gun, excellent armor, was more reliable than the Panther (but still not really up to snuff), but just too slow. If you could make one go 25mph cross-country, I'd be willing to overlook almost any reliability problems. Almost no other deficiencies, aside from the glacial traverse rate. Did I mention that the Panther was prettier than the T-34? That should count for something

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 8

- 7/12/2000 2:48:00 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by sven: ...Did the Germans ever go "hull down"? If they did the slow traverse rate could not be remedied by swinging the hull. I wonder if the Germans ever really designed their armor for their doctrine late in the war. regards, sven

Even when hull down, you can just slew the tank behind the barrier. Late in the war the Germans were on the defensive and needed heavily armed, "mobile pill boxes" more than fast tanks for blitzkeigs. That's why the Tiger II and Maus were developed. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 9

- 7/12/2000 2:52:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: [QUOTE]Originally posted by sven: ...Did the Germans ever go "hull down"? If they did the slow traverse rate could not be remedied by swinging the hull. I wonder if the Germans ever really designed their armor for their doctrine late in the war. regards, sven

Depends on the ditch you dig... =) God that was the only time I ever felt sorry for tankers. Even when hull down, you can just slew the tank behind the barrier. Late in the war the Germans were on the defensive and needed heavily armed, "mobile pill boxes" more than fast tanks for blitzkeigs. That's why the Tiger II and Maus were developed. [/B][/QUOTE] ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 10

- 7/12/2000 3:20:00 AM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

Now the best Tank that all depinds on many factors. Panther & T-34s: Fast and reliability and good sloped armor. Good for attacking. Tiger I & II: Very good armor and good gun. Good for defince but the Tiger II was to heavy. It used the same engine as the Panther but was much heavyer. Most bridges could not support it weight so it was limited in were it could go and it was hard on fuel. But if you could get it to were the battle was it was the King. SturmTiger: Not a tank but best unit for city fighting. Could nuck down a building with one shot. Overall for the best tank in WWII I would have to say the Panther becouse it has the best of everything, armor, speed, fire control and reliability in the later models.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 11

- 7/12/2000 10:21:00 AM

Tombstone

Posts: 764
Joined: 6/1/2000
From: Los Angeles, California
Status: offline

It's hard not to vote for the Panther. T-34/85 is the only one that comes close. (Well I don't know how effective Pershing's were or of they count) This is modelled in SP games pretty good in my opinion. You can feel the usefulness of Panthers when you have them, and feel the hill you have to climb to rid yourself of them when they're against you. Tomo

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 12

- 7/12/2000 10:50:00 AM

sven

Posts: 10293
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: brickyard
Status: offline

The T34/85 was one hell of a suprise for the Germans indeed. I am wondering if the Comet rates anywhere in there? (if not top two maybe top five?) If not what were it's flaws. regards, sven ------------------ Give all you can all you can give....

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 13

- 7/12/2000 1:33:00 PM

Leibstandarte

Posts: 122
Joined: 6/19/2000
From: Austin, TX USA
Status: offline

I spoke to my Grandfather after reading the posts here (german tanker in WWII)and he mentioned that the later model Panthers were quite reliable. They still had their problems but no more so than other tanks of the time. He ended up being on both models of Tigers after about mid 44 (could be off on the date) and thinks if they were faster they would have been the best. But excepting the Tiger he went with the Panther. I then asked him other than German tanks (naturally he is biased for German tanks) which one did he think was the best. He said hands down the T-34 series, especially the T-34/85. He has very few kind words for the Amis tanks, British wasn't much better in his opinion. Hope this sheds a little insight. By the way if any of you have any questions from a German tanke point of view I would be happy to ask my Grandfather. [This message has been edited by Leibstandarte (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

Cavalry Trooper (8th US) and Grandson of a Leibstandarte Tanker.

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 14

- 7/12/2000 7:59:00 PM

Charles22

Posts: 912
Joined: 5/17/2000
From: Dallas, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Leibstandarte: Hmmm, I'll take advantage of your proposal. As you may know, we've been debating on whether the Tiger (PZVIE) is worthy of the 200mm front turret armor it's been given. Some see a hole for the gun (big surprise) and think it's peculiar to the Tiger, hence such reasoning suggests that it's not worthy of the 200mm rating. Why don't you ask him, if it's hole around the gun was any larger than any other tanks he knows of? Did he feel as secure with that frontal armor as is so commonly related? (Ask him both questions if you would, please) [This message has been edited by Charles22 (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 15

- 7/12/2000 9:51:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

I'd say the Comet's big disadvantage was it's wimpy armor. To add to the problem of low armor thickness, the scheme was rather slab-sided. The gun was pretty good, but not as good as an 88. It is very fast, but not much else. I wouldn't put it in the running.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 16

- 7/12/2000 10:16:00 PM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

My vote goes to the T-34. One of the most important aspects of weapon systems is the ability to buid large numbers quickly and relatively cheaply. The T 34 system did this better than any other. This was a characteristic of Sherman tanks, too, except that they were inferior in many other ways. I agree that taken individually German tanks had outstanding characteristics, and that the Panther was probably the best. However they were more difficult to build, and were not produced in sufficient numbers. This is also partly due to the German tendency to have too many models ,rather than stick to fewer and make more of them. I have never been a fan of super-heavy tanks in the WW2 context because of the greater limitation to their mobility (less bridges could take the weight, and they always tended to be grossly under-powered) and the fact that they were very expensive. They suited defense more than attack, but then by the time that they were coming out that was the strategic situation of the German Army. ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 17

- 7/12/2000 10:24:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Well, if the Russians had produced Panthers, they would probably have made almost as many. Anything's easy to produce in large numbers when you have enough factories.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 18

- 7/12/2000 10:30:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

as others have said 'best' can be very subjective and depends on what quantifiers the askee considers most relevant. From a pure 'technical' standpoint it would probably have to be the Pz-V. No other tank could (one on one) match its winning combination of speed/firepower/armor....the 3 primary facets by which a tank is judged. However there are other factors which while far less glamerous (and less vital when in a purely tactical situation) are equally or even *more* important than the above, such as range, mobility, ease of construction and reliability. For me, the final arbiter is the 'strategic' impact that a weapon has. However mighty a Konigstiger may be, did the time and effort to construct such a montrosity justify its existance? or did it help make matters worse for a country already badly outgunned in the production dept. Given the reletive size of today's modern AFV's the answer seems pretty clear. Going back to the Strategic or overall impact that a weapon has made the hands down winner must be the T-34. While not the baddest tank (in terms of ability to destroy) of WWII its revolutionary design influenced virtually all future tanks by other nations. (The Panther specifically owes it's existance and basic design pattern to this tank and was built spec to counter this tank) This tank gave the Soviets a weapon which allowed them to be competetive throughout the entire length of the war...starting from overwelming, to adequate, (mid-war, at this point #'s could make up for inadequacies in armor protection and firepower) back up to competetive again with the introduciton of the T-34/85. Had the Germans produced a design like this from the start they could have built a whole lot more tanks, probably not enough to change things but its a tantilizing 'what if' none the less. Only the Sherman gives the T-34 a run for its money in this regard, being similarily practical and easy to produce and "good enough" to get the job done with adequate #'s. However i still give the nod to the T-34 given its has a greater # of '+'s than '-'s. While the Sherman has similar good protection forward, it's high silowette and unsloped sides would have not given it the near invulnerability that the T-34 enjoyed during its debut year in 41 thus the 'shock' and dismay to the German Panzers would not have been as great (its one of the great shames of the war that the Soviet mech arm was in such a sorry state that the decisive edge given them by the T-34 and the KV could not be fully exploited until the Germans had started producing weapons to counter them) Early Shermans also had a distressing tendancy to catch fire when hit. The only negative for the T-34 was the two-man turret, eventually corrected in the T-34/85 Panther may have been the techincal award king...but it was the Sherman and T-34 both which soldjiered on post war in the dozens of different nation's armys. It was really too large and complicated a tank for a "medium" and though i love to play with the tank ;-) the Germans really should have swallowed their pride and just copied the T-34 as closely as practical and mass produced it. 2) alas, it would take a magic wand to sufficiently improve the Char B1(bis) though a potentially awesome opponent in certain tactical engagements the whole design was based on a method of war made thouroughly obsolete by the new Blitzkrieg that was just being unleashed. If i could change one thing though....it would be the elimination of the vulnerable engine grill in the side. To this day i cant figure the logic of placing such an obvious weak point in an otherwise very heavily protected infantry tank!

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 19

- 7/12/2000 10:41:00 PM

JJU57

Posts: 54
Joined: 6/9/2000
From: Chicago, IL. USA
Status: offline

It's one thing to discuss the technical merits or battlefield merits of each. But to assume that if the Germans produced a T-34 or Sherman the result might be different is crazy. It didn't matter what tank the Germans produced. The problem wasn't with the tank but with the number of factories and availability of raw resources. Would 10,000 extra T-34 mattered if there was no ammo or fuel for them? Remember the Germans lacked many raw goods and never could produce enough ball bearings to meet their needs. Finally, it wasn't till '43 that they actually went into full wartime production.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 20

- 7/12/2000 11:04:00 PM

Drake666

Posts: 313
Joined: 4/22/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by JJU57: It's one thing to discuss the technical merits or battlefield merits of each. But to assume that if the Germans produced a T-34 or Sherman the result might be different is crazy. It didn't matter what tank the Germans produced. The problem wasn't with the tank but with the number of factories and availability of raw resources. Would 10,000 extra T-34 mattered if there was no ammo or fuel for them? Remember the Germans lacked many raw goods and never could produce enough ball bearings to meet their needs. Finally, it wasn't till '43 that they actually went into full wartime production.

Your right about that. The German had to go for tanks that were better then what other nations had they never had the fuel to support the number of tank that the US and soviets could. What they should have did late in the war is produced the panther and the jagpanther. They were two very good weapons that worked will togethere becouse of their speed and armor.

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 21

- 7/12/2000 11:04:00 PM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Well, if the Russians had produced Panthers, they would probably have made almost as many. Anything's easy to produce in large numbers when you have enough factories.

I am not an expert on this, and I would defer to someone with greater in-depth knowledge of Tank production. However, I am almost certain that the overall effort required to produce one Panther tank was a multiple of that required for a T-34. Given that Soviet industrial capacity would have been constant, the number of units would have been lower, but I can't estimate by what factor. The mechanical complexity of the Panther made it less reliable, and that would have further hampered its overall effectiveness. So, if the Soviets would have been producing Panthers, it is interesting to see if the lower number of less reliable but technically more advanced vehicles would have produced an overall effectiveness equal, superior or inferior to that of the actual number of T-34 variants that were produced. Someone with greater knowledge than mine of the relevant facts may care to comment. ------------------ Fabs [This message has been edited by Fabs (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 22

- 7/12/2000 11:14:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

like most things, all the 'little' factors added together to create the overall effect. so while its true that producing a cheaper and less complicated tank alone would'nt have solved the problem it 'was' one of the main factors that contributed to Germany's lack of numbers. a not so well-known fact of the war was that for a large % of the time period the entire German economy was'nt even fully geared up for the war effort!!!! how much lost production did that add up too? sticking to the one issue though it cannot be denied that every forced upgrade and modification forced upon the Germans with the debut of battlewinners like the T-34 cost production. development of such a big and complicated answer to the T-34 (Panther) cost more production. finally Hitler's obsession with Super-heavy tanks cost yet more production Granted, given the sheer economic power of the ALlies it probably would'nt have made much difference in the end (except maybe to prolong the war) but one does not help things when they produce tanks so huge and complicated that they can only build say......489 of them! (Pz-VIb)

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 23

- 7/12/2000 11:20:00 PM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Well, I think reliability is a very valid factor, and frankly, an exact duplicate of the Panther built by Russians would have been even worse. How many T-34's were built during the Panther's production run ONLY? That's a much better basis for comparison. I'm certain that there was more effort in one Panther than one T-34. I just don't think this matters. For instance, the Japanese and Italians produced pitiful numbers of planes, and the Americans produced rivers of more advanced designs. We obviously weren't too worried about how much time one of them took to make, because our factory floor area was probably the size of Holland

Of course the better tank is going to be harder to make, it shouldn't be penalized for that. Another thing, of course the Sherman and T-34 are actually still around in small numbers. (Well, the T-34, at least.) There were a lot of them, and the side that made them won. I saw a mint looking M3 Stuart in a Paraguayan military parade on TV. Doesn't mean it's a good tank, just that Paraguay is poor, and probably will keep putting truck engines in it for another 50 years. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 24

- 7/12/2000 11:27:00 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

I saw what appeared to be a full intact M3 as i was passing the FT Lewis installation south of Tacoma WA on I-5. heh, almost wiped out. Hard to drive when one is craining their neck over trying to get a better look!

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 25

- 7/12/2000 11:55:00 PM

Voriax

Posts: 1719
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: Finland
Status: offline

I try to keep out of this best tank discussion...

This story has really nothing to do with it but as you begun talking current use/existance of T-34..you may find this interesting: http://guns.connect.fi/gow/T34tank1.html Voriax

_____________________________

Oh God give Me strength to accept those things I cannot change with a firearm!

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 26

- 7/12/2000 11:57:00 PM

Fabs

Posts: 444
Joined: 6/5/2000
From: London, U.K.
Status: offline

Ok, Seth, but the point I am making is IMO a fairer way to arrive at a comparaison. 1)Apply Soviet production capacity allocated to the T-34. 2) Using a factor that my limited knowledge can't suggest, determine how may Panthers would have been produced by that capacity in the same timescale. 3) applying another factor for effectiveness, balancing reliability with the higher technical spec and its effect on overall effectiveness, arrive at a final number that would show which weapon system is the best. I can't make the judgements involved in determining the two factors, I simply don't know enough about the subject. I would not assume that the Soviet built Panther would be less reliable than the T-34. This is probably true, but then one would have to also question Soviet crews ability to operate a more complex machine (not necessarily because they were less skilled than the Germans, but because the numbers of skilled crewmen required may have been difficult to find). The more refinements like this you try to include, the less meaningful the comparaison will be. I know there are very clued up individuals participating in this forum. Would anyone care to stick their neck out and tell us how it would pan out? ------------------ Fabs

_____________________________

Fabs

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 27

- 7/13/2000 12:03:00 AM

Greg McCarty

Posts: 234
Joined: 6/15/2000
From: woodbury,mn,usa
Status: offline

Here are the best figures I have. During the war: T34 Overall production: over 40,000. PzkwV: 5500; most were Ausf A and G. That suggests an auful lot about kill ratios AND production capacity. Sources are World Almanac edited by a British historian.

quote:

Originally posted by Seth: Well, I think reliability is a very valid factor, and frankly, an exact duplicate of the Panther built by Russians would have been even worse. How many T-34's were built during the Panther's production run ONLY? That's a much better basis for comparison. I'm certain that there was more effort in one Panther than one T-34. I just don't think this matters. For instance, the Japanese and Italians produced pitiful numbers of planes, and the Americans produced rivers of more advanced designs. We obviously weren't too worried about how much time one of them took to make, because our factory floor area was probably the size of Holland Of course the better tank is going to be harder to make, it shouldn't be penalized for that. Another thing, of course the Sherman and T-34 are actually still around in small numbers. (Well, the T-34, at least.) There were a lot of them, and the side that made them won. I saw a mint looking M3 Stuart in a Paraguayan military parade on TV. Doesn't mean it's a good tank, just that Paraguay is poor, and probably will keep putting truck engines in it for another 50 years. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

Greg.

It is better to die on your feet
than to live on your knees.

--Zapata

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 28

- 7/13/2000 12:31:00 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

cool site Voriax thanks!

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 29

- 7/13/2000 12:34:00 AM

Seth

Posts: 737
Joined: 4/25/2000
From: San Antonio, TX USA
Status: offline

Voriax-Wow! In my car, I can pretty much laugh at SUV's, but I think I'd yield to that if I met it downtown. Fabs-The point is that easy to make does not equal best. If that were true, then Ferrari would be worse than a Trabant. There may be some merit to the ease of use issue, but then again, the more technically advanced, the better. If the crew is poorly trained, it doesn't make the tank bad. If it's hard to do basic things, like drive it, that's one thing, but if some peasants can't figure out what the rangefinder does, that's different. Swamping superior equipment under numbers doesn't make worse equipment better. [This message has been edited by Seth (edited 07-12-2000).]

_____________________________

(in reply to sven)

Post #: 30