Do Not Engage: Warriors Vs. PALs/SHDs

[Estu]

I've heard the argument here that warriors are superior tanks in classic EQ because they have better defensive skills, hence better damage mitigation. However, they have issues holding aggro, to the point that they sometimes need to have the DPS classes delay engaging the mob for a while as they gain hate.

Here is my question. While the warrior is doing this, the mob is effectively not taking any damage (OK, it's taking appreciable damage, but compared to the damage it would be taking if all DPSers were engaged, it's quite small). Overall, the mob takes longer to die, and will hence spend more time beating on the tank. If, on the other hand, your tank is a paladin or a shadowknight, DPS classes can engage immediately (feel free to correct me if I have this wrong), and the mob hence goes down faster, and will spend less time beating on the tank.

How does this extra time spent taking damage compare to the extra damage mitigation warriors have? Can one make a case to use a paladin or a shadowknight instead since the damage taken by the end of the fight might be comparable, or is the superior mitigation so powerful that this issue is minor?

Also, again correct me if I'm wrong, but a warrior has a greater need to focus on DEX and STR gear-wise so that he can hold aggro, while SKs and PALs can afford to gear up with AC, STA, and AGI since they can hold aggro with spells. To what extent does this make a difference in the end game in terms of the ability to soak up damage?

I also hear that warriors get better come Kunark. In what way? Does this mean that SKs and PALs are even less desired?