Re: SG2 Vehicle Questions

> At 21:39 22/07/98 -0400, you wrote:
> >	   There is little doubt that the turrets on the vehicle are
probably
> >remotes (I believe the vehicle in question is the APC featured on the
back
> >cover of the rules book, & the dimentions look too small for a crew
to
> >occupy). I find it interesting, that the commander is designated as a
gunner
> >along with his responsibilies of commanding the vehical. If I recall,
one of
> >the draw backs of Soviet, French, and British early WWII tanks was
that the
> >commander was preoccupied with loading, aiming, and firing the main
> >armanment of the tank. This affected his ability to command the
vehical and
> >select new targets. I know SGII is far in the future, but I don't see
how
> >these disadvantages would be overcome. Presently, almost all Western
built
> >tanks still use a 4 man crew, while Russian and other eastern built
tanks
> >operate with three (I realize this is due to an auto-loader in these
> >vehicles). I can only assume that the Western nations do this for a
reason.
> >I believe their vehicles are concidered more technologically
advanced, so
> >it's not because of lack of tech. Any suggestions?

One word... Maintenance.

With a crew of four maintaining the vehicle is 33% easier than with 3
people.
Yes, you
have technical crew, but field and daily maintenance are always
performed by the
crew, unless it involves something big like removing the engine.

Another reason is redundancy - if an auto-loader break down, how do you
load the gun? If a loader becomes incapacitated, you push him out of the
way and can still fire the main gun.  Auto-loaders tend to be cranky and
unless
maintained well, have a habit of acting up.  Once again you get more
maintenance
with less crew... A factory fresh tank might perform to specs but what
is it
going
to be like after a few months in the field with less than optimal
maintenance?

--Binhan