Tank Duel Questions & Some CM Suggestions

[John Kettler]

Could someone please explain the following occurrences to me? They're really bugging my friend Jim, the unfortunate recipient. The scenario is Reiseberg.

1. We have repeatedly observed the Germans losing duels in which they already had the Americans in their sights and were static, while the Americans fired on the move. Jim had his Tiger on the bridge (targeted on me), in what certainly looked like a hull down position. My M-18 ended its turn in plain sight, pointed directly at the Tiger, fully exposed on the ridge in scattered trees. The turn began, with the Tiger (veteran SS crew) being knocked out with one shot by my moving M-18 after the Tiger fired once and missed. The other situation has the Tiger firing and missing, followed by the M-18's scoring a first round kill. The Tiger has a better (more exposed) target, better gun and better optics, so why is it consistently losing duels in which the gun starts out aimed squarely at the target and the Americans have to traverse their turrets in order to engage?

In that same engagement an unbuttonned StuG further up the road advanced slowly on hunt orders and met my M-18 on move orders and some of my deploying infantry (Germans were practically atop my entry point), causing the StuG to button up. I crossed directly in front of him as I moved to envelop right after smoking the road as far down the hill as I could see (OPs saw Tiger and StuG pass through en route to bridge), yet I fired on the move and killed him before he could even shoot.

The AI had ample time to fire at me before I fired at the StuG, and LOS was not blocked either. Why didn't Jim get to shoot?

It's beginning to look to both of us as though some factor is operating which heavily favors the TDs in duels. Note that I'm not talking about an off-axis target in which I have to frantically try to bring the Tiger's turret around. It's already pointing right at me.

2. Why is it that Americans can use bazookas against infantry targets but the Germans can't do the same with their Panzerfausts?

2a Speaking of which, how do you fire them?

The Germans definitely used Panzerfausts against targets other than AFVs. During the Battle of the Bulge the Germans had an American platoon trapped in a stone farmhouse and demanded its surrender. The American commander declined, figuring nothing short of armor could drive him out of such a strong position. One stone shattering Panzerfaust shot later, the entire stunned platoon surrendered.

3. Does CM model the casualty effects against personnel, materiel and vehicles of white phosphorous in American smoke rounds?

4. Though all I have is the Beta demo (how I envy your testers!), can you please tell me specifically which ammo types your sources (please cite) show for the U.S. 57mm antitank gun? Someone I know claims that the British supplied us with APDS for the gun, but this is news to me. I'd guess it was APC and APCR, no APDS, but I simply don't have the data.

5. Does CM model VT (variable time) late war radar proximity fuzes and the common mechanical time fuzes for airburst artillery fire? Does it model the resultant enhanced lethality against exposed personnel?

5a.Does CM model treebursts of mortar and artillery shells and their enhanced lethality against personnel lacking top cover?

6. Does CM model the mobility effects of ground pressure for tanks? There are reports, for example, of M-5 Stuart tanks being able to race across mud which completely bogged the Sherman tanks. Similarly, the M-18's ground pressure was so low that it could essentially go anywhere an infantryman could.

6a.Could we please have a going map for each scenario? It would show which areas were trafficable by various vehicle classes.

7. In playing Chance Encounter I noticed that the German woods, renowned for their meticulous clearing of underbrush and for their numerous maintenance/logging trails, had no such trails, severely hamstringing my hasty defense plan. Nor does there seem to be any way to work armor through woods, when this was done repeatedly during the war, including the invasion of France and the Battle of the Bulge. The Russians were notorious for their ability to move armor through such "impassable" terrain. Why can't we?

Suggestions

1. Please provide some sort of keyable terrain elevation contour map. The 3-D map is terrific, but it's a time consuming pain to use when siting units.

2. Please provide a marked map with the scenario briefing and include a print option for that briefing.

3. Please provide a compass rose so that I can tell where I'm going and can plan my operations effectively.

4. Please provide some way of systematically laying out defenses. The LOS tool is great, but what I need is a defense overlay showing all the unit visibility arcs, target reference points, artillery and mortar concentrations, final protective lines, minefields and barriers, etc. This was standard practice during the war. Among other things, it allowed units to keep vital points under fire, even when darkness, smoke or fog was present.

5. Please provide graphic control measures, such as phase lines, fire support coordination lines, unit boundaries, etc. Again, standard practice during the war.

The game is incredible, demanding and gorgeous. And that's coming from a dyed-in-the -wool board wargamer and miniature combat nut. I used to loathe computer wargames. When does the holotank version of CM come out?

Keep up the incredible work!

John Kettler

[Guest Babra]

Rounds fired by the 6 pounder (57mm) in British use were:

APC M51 (APCBC-T)

AP M74 (AP-T)

HE M63

Cannister M2

The T indicates tracer. It seems unlikely the British would be producing APDS ammo for the US and not using it themselves.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Moon]

Whooo... ok, I'll try...

1. We have repeatedly observed the Germans losing duels in which they already had the Americans in their sights and were static, while the Americans fired on the move...

There are so many variables in this that it's really tough to find an answer. Was the Tiger firing at something else? Was it buttoned up? Was it reloading? Was it a beta demo thing?

2. Why is it that Americans can use bazookas against infantry targets but the Germans can't do the same with their Panzerfausts?

2a Speaking of which, how do you fire them?

It's a bug in the beta demo with regard to bazookas and PFs. The full version works correctly and both can be used against infantry targets when ordered to.

3. Does CM model the casualty effects against personnel, materiel and vehicles of white phosphorous in American smoke rounds?

Nope, WP is not simulated. So far, it has not been proven how common this type of round was for tactical use other than smoke.

5. Does CM model VT (variable time) late war radar proximity fuzes and the common mechanical time fuzes for airburst artillery fire? Does it model the resultant enhanced lethality against exposed personnel?

5a.Does CM model treebursts of mortar and artillery shells and their enhanced lethality against personnel lacking top cover?

VT is in. Not sure about the mechanical fuze. And yes, airbursts (in trees or because of VTs) are simulated - i.e. lethal against infantry and open targets, but less lethal against tanks.

6. Does CM model the mobility effects of ground pressure for tanks?

Not sure if it is in the beta demo already, but when you hit ENTER after selecting a tank, you'll see the ground pressure in its stats. And it is used in the game as well.

6a.Could we please have a going map for each scenario? It would show which areas were trafficable by various vehicle classes.

How would you know that before you send one of your units there and see if it gets stuck?

7. In playing Chance Encounter I noticed that the German woods, renowned for their meticulous clearing of underbrush and for their numerous maintenance/logging trails, had no such trails, severely hamstringing my hasty defense plan. Nor does there seem to be any way to work armor through woods, when this was done repeatedly during the war, including the invasion of France and the Battle of the Bulge. The Russians were notorious for their ability to move armor through such "impassable" terrain. Why can't we?

You can move your tanks through scattered trees. These also simulate small paths through the woods. Despite the myth that tanks can regularly and easily drive over houses and ram a path through the thickest woods, CM simulates their abilities much more realistically, by allowing them to only enter and pass through "scattered trees". Tanks CAN do all of the above, but it takes time and preparation, and the risk of throwing a track is so high, that it would have been rarely done in combat situations.

1. Please provide some sort of keyable terrain elevation contour map. The 3-D map is terrific, but it's a time consuming pain to use when siting units.

The ground texture for the final version has been tweaked and contours are MUCH more visible now.

2. Please provide a marked map with the scenario briefing and include a print option for that briefing.

That's on the list as far as I know, but I have no clue if it makes v1.0

3. Please provide a compass rose so that I can tell where I'm going and can plan my operations effectively.

Compass rose is in the full version already.

4. Please provide some way of systematically laying out defenses. The LOS tool is great, but what I need is a defense overlay showing all the unit visibility arcs, target reference points, artillery and mortar concentrations, final protective lines, minefields and barriers, etc. This was standard practice during the war. Among other things, it allowed units to keep vital points under fire, even when darkness, smoke or fog was present.

I can see where you're coming from, the "all-control" wargames of the past. You'll need to "unlearn" certain things for CM, one of the most important ones is the "total control" aspect. The game will not show you more than you would know yourself. For everything else you have the LOS tool which you can use during the setup phase and create your own concentrations of fire etc.

On a side note - the full version has also what is called "Target reference point" which can be targetted by on and off-map artillery even if not in sight.

[Lanzfeld]

Nice Job Moon! That goes for BTS as well! Your responses to the questions on this board really reflect the effort you are putting into this cutting edge sim.

For what its worth....I have noticed that if I park my Tiger on the hill to the Germans left flank in LD to duke it out with the Hellcats, its seems that the Hellcats score hit after hit after hit on me (shell usually bounces off) and my 88 rounds go wide. Maybe its just my bad luck.

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

I played the Americans in Last Defense recently and the Germans left their Tiger up on the hill where it started and it just bombarded the town.

Then when my Hellcats came in, the Tiger could shoot at them, and vice versa. My shells bounced off or missed. I lost all three TDs in two turns from shots all the way across the freakin' map!

What kind of crap is that?

------------------

"Wars are not won by dying for ones country. Wars are won by making the other poor bastard die for his country."--George S. Patton

[Herr Oberst]

Old B&G: That, poor boy, is called reality, or at least a darn simulation of it. I have played LD numerous times and, more often than not, the Tiger prevails from long range. The M-18 shells tend to ricochet, or break up. This is a characteristic of the shell manufacture in the latter case. I have also had the Tiger miss, and get killed on the first or second shot from the three M-18's, or get immobilized, making it a big iron 88 emplacement. What you are seeing is a few variants of an emormously variable equation.

Mr. Kettler: Why would you need Compass Rose? She was a good little ship, but after her sinking, she would be of little use on dry land. (Anyone care to guess the movie?)

[Guest Zulu1]

"The Cruel Sea"

A great movie about Canadian Corvettes in the North Atlantic.

[John Kettler]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Babra:

Rounds fired by the 6 pounder (57mm) in British use were:

APC M51 (APCBC-T)

AP M74 (AP-T)

HE M63

Cannister M2

The T indicates tracer. It seems unlikely the British would be producing APDS ammo for the US and not using it themselves.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Rounds fired by the 6 pounder (57mm) in British use were:

APC M51 (APCBC-T)

AP M74 (AP-T)

HE M63

Cannister M2

The T indicates tracer. It seems unlikely the British would be producing APDS ammo for the US and not using it themselves.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

Dear Babra,

While your post was interesting, it was not responsive, other than by analogy, since I specifically asked for ammo data for the U.S.

57mm antitank gun. As it happens, I have now located something I consider to be authoritative on the subject, by a renowned ordnance expert, Ian V. Hogg.

It took some digging, but per Ian Hogg (former Master Gunner in the Royal Artillery) in THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF INFANTRY WEAPONS OF WORLD WAR II, page 124, the U.S. 57mm antitank gun fired only two ammo types period: AP and APC. Hogg says "The greatest difference was that the American gun never had the range of projectiles available to the British weapon, only AP and APC projectiles ever being issued for it."

For the record, he lists (p.118) the 6 pdr. ammo types as successively being AP, APC,APCBC,APCR (briefly), culminating in APDS early in 1944. No mention is made of the other ammo types you cite, but this may be because the bulk of the article on the gun is focused on its ongoing ammo changes to keep up with German armor developments.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Babra]

I bow to the Master Gunner of the Royal Artillery.

I did not directly address the question because I did not have American data for the British gun. I was attempting show that since the British did not use APDS (or so I thought) then it was unlikely at best that it would have been provided to the Americans.

I made one small mistake though. My source was Hunnicutt's history of the Sherman, and by 1944 there were no Sherman variants still in service mounting the 6 pounder, so of course they would not have been issued APDS ammo for it. An error of omission on my part.

As for the other ammo types listed I'm sure they are correct for 1942.

Per your discovery, I certainly hope the capabilities of the British 6 pdr is properly reflected in the game viz the US 57mm.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Doug Beman]

When did Shermans have 57mm (6 pdr) guns?

DjB

[John Kettler]

I'm new to this, but for clarity I'll put my replies to Moon in caps.

John Kettler

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Moon:

Whooo... ok, I'll try...

1. We have repeatedly observed the Germans losing duels in which they already had the Americans in their sights and were static, while the Americans fired on the move...

There are so many variables in this that it's really tough to find an answer. Was the Tiger firing at something else? Was it buttoned up? Was it reloading? Was it a beta demo thing?

NO, IT WAS TARGETED DIRECTLY ON MY M-18. YES, IT WAS BUTTONED UP. UNKNOWN, BUT PROBABLY NOT, SINCE IT HADN'T FIRED AND WAS LOOKING FOR THE ENEMY FOR SEVERAL TURNS. WE WERE PLAYING THE BETA DEMO.

2. Why is it that Americans can use bazookas against infantry targets but the Germans can't do the same with their Panzerfausts?

2a Speaking of which, how do you fire them?

It's a bug in the beta demo with regard to bazookas and PFs. The full version works correctly and both can be used against infantry targets when ordered to.

GOOD TO KNOW!

3. Does CM model the casualty effects against personnel, materiel and vehicles of white phosphorous in American smoke rounds?

Nope, WP is not simulated. So far, it has not been proven how common this type of round was for tactical use other than smoke.

WILL DO SOME DIGGING CONCERNING THIS.

5. Does CM model VT (variable time) late war radar proximity fuzes and the common mechanical time fuzes for airburst artillery fire? Does it model the resultant enhanced lethality against exposed personnel?

5a.Does CM model treebursts of mortar and artillery shells and their enhanced lethality against personnel lacking top cover?

VT is in. Not sure about the mechanical fuze. And yes, airbursts (in trees or because of VTs) are simulated - i.e. lethal against infantry and open targets, but less lethal against tanks.

GLAD VT'S IN; MT SHOULD BE THERE, SINCE TECH DATES BACK TO NAPOLEONIC PERIOD--SHRAPNEL SHELLS WROUGHT HAVOC AT WATERLOO.

6. Does CM model the mobility effects of ground pressure for tanks?

Not sure if it is in the beta demo already, but when you hit ENTER after selecting a tank, you'll see the ground pressure in its stats. And it is used in the game as well.

NICE TOUCH!

6a.Could we please have a going map for each scenario? It would show which areas were trafficable by various vehicle classes.

How would you know that before you send one of your units there and see if it gets stuck?

THAT SUCH GOING MAPS WERE USED IS SHOWN BY THE FACT THAT THE BRITISH PLANTED A FAKE ONE ON ROMMEL AT EL ALAMEIN BY "LEAVING" IT IN AN ABONDONED, SHOT-UP ARMORED CAR. IT CAUSED HIM NO END OF TROUBLE. SIMILARLY, THE ALLIES HAD COMPLETE ANALYSES (OFTEN SAMPLES) OF THE COMPOSITION OF THE BEACHES ALL ALONG THE CHANNEL COAST. THIS INFO WENT DIRECTLY INTO THE BEACH SELECTION PROCESS AND WAS FACTORED INTO THE PLANS ON HOW TO GET VEHICLES ASHORE AND THEN OFF THE BEACH. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I EXPECT TO KNOW EVERYTHING ABOUT THE BATTLEFIELD, BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THINGS LIKE ROUTE RECONNAISSANCE AND TRAFFICABILITY STUDIES WERE INTEGRAL PARTS OF MILITARY PLANNING LONG BEFORE WORLD WAR II. ALLIED MAPS WERE SO DETAILED THAT GERMAN COMMANDERS OFTEN SURRENDERED AFTER DISCOVERING THAT THE AMERICAN COMMANDER HAD MORE INFO ON THEIR WEAPONS, THEIR LOCATIONS AND FIELDS OF FIRE THAN THEY DID THEMSELVES.

7. In playing Chance Encounter I noticed that the German woods, renowned for their meticulous clearing of underbrush and for their numerous maintenance/logging trails, had no such trails, severely hamstringing my hasty defense plan. Nor does there seem to be any way to work armor through woods, when this was done repeatedly during the war, including the invasion of France and the Battle of the Bulge. The Russians were notorious for their ability to move armor through such "impassable" terrain. Why can't we?

You can move your tanks through scattered trees. These also simulate small paths through the woods. Despite the myth that tanks can regularly and easily drive over houses and ram a path through the thickest woods, CM simulates their abilities much more realistically, by allowing them to only enter and pass through "scattered trees". Tanks CAN do all of the above, but it takes time and preparation, and the risk of throwing a track is so high, that it would have been rarely done in combat situations.

WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING, THERE SHOULD STILL BE TRAILS, EVEN IF THEY'RE ONLY ONE VEHICLE WIDE AND CAN BE USED ONLY AT A WALKING PACE.

1. Please provide some sort of keyable terrain elevation contour map. The 3-D map is terrific, but it's a time consuming pain to use when siting units.

The ground texture for the final version has been tweaked and contours are MUCH more visible now.

THANKS!

2. Please provide a marked map with the scenario briefing and include a print option for that briefing.

That's on the list as far as I know, but I have no clue if it makes v1.0

YAY!

3. Please provide a compass rose so that I can tell where I'm going and can plan my operations effectively.

Compass rose is in the full version already.

DITTO.

4. Please provide some way of systematically laying out defenses. The LOS tool is great, but what I need is a defense overlay showing all the unit visibility arcs, target reference points, artillery and mortar concentrations, final protective lines, minefields and barriers, etc. This was standard practice during the war. Among other things, it allowed units to keep vital points under fire, even when darkness, smoke or fog was present.

I can see where you're coming from, the "all-control" wargames of the past. You'll need to "unlearn" certain things for CM, one of the most important ones is the "total control" aspect. The game will not show you more than you would know yourself. For everything else you have the LOS tool which you can use during the setup phase and create your own concentrations of fire etc.

I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE FULL KNOWLEDGE OF EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME. AS A FORMER PROFESSIONAL MILITARY ANALYST FOR HUGHES AND ROCKWELL I AM WELL SCHOOLED IN THE FOG OF WAR AND CLAUSEWITZ'S CONCEPT OF FRICTION. ALL I'M ASKING FOR IS THE SAME LEVEL OF INFO MY WWII

COUNTERPART HAD. SINCE IT WAS CUSTOMARY TO PRODUCE DEFENSIVE TARGET CARDS BASED ON WALKING THE TERRAIN TO IDENTIFY BLIND SPOTS, ESTABLISH INTERLOCKING FIELDS OF GRAZING (FOOT HIGH MG FIRE), PROTECT KEY CROSSROADS AND APPROACHES, AND PLAN FINAL PROTECTIVE FIRES, I FAIL TO SEE WHY WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS ANYTHING BUT REASONABLE FOR A STATIC DEFENSIVE SITUATION. NATURALLY, THE LONGER I'M THERE, THE MORE INFO I'LL HAVE.

On a side note - the full version has also what is called "Target reference point" which can be targetted by on and off-map artillery even if not in sight.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BIG HELP. IT'S BEEN FRUSTRATING NOT BEING ABLE TO USE MORTARS PROPERLY.

THANKS, MOON.

JOHN KETTLER

[Guest Babra]

The Canadian Ram II mounted a 6 pdr Mk III. This vehicle was based on the M4 hull. They were taken out of service without having seen combat and relegated to a training role. Late in 1944 many were converted to Armoured Personnel Carriers and others were used for Command Post vehicles with the gun removed.

Interesting vehicle but probaby just as well it never saw combat.

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Guest KwazyDog]

Hi John, just watned to mention in response to the following

_____________

WHILE I UNDERSTAND YOUR REASONING, THERE SHOULD STILL BE TRAILS, EVEN IF THEY'RE ONLY ONE VEHICLE WIDE AND CAN BE USED ONLY AT A WALKING PACE.

_____________

Ive found Scattered trees are quite useful for represent this, John. Just place a heavy forest with a scattered tree 'trail' through the middle and theres your trail or firebreak, etc.

They do slow vehicles down, provide cover for ambushing units and degrade LOS. I agree its not as picturesque as having a little trail in there, but I think the end result is pretty much the same

[Guest Mike]

So happens I was reading my Airfix guide to WW2 British tanks last night and they said the Ram was built on M3 chassis (Lee/Grant for the cultured among us ).

After all - why would you go to the trouble of designing a new turret for a perfectly good 75mm tank (well it was in 1942-3 when hte Ram was designed & built).

Mike

[Guest Babra]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mike:

So happens I was reading my Airfix guide to WW2 British tanks last night and they said the Ram was built on M3 chassis (Lee/Grant for the cultured among us ).

Mike<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right. My bad. Hunnicutt's history of the Sherman includes the M3 series as part of the overall development program for the M4. Sort of a stopgap while they figured out how to mount a 75 in a turret. The Commonwealth wanted a turret mounted gun larger than the 37mm of the Lee/Grant and thus the Ram was born, though it originally mounted only a 2 pdr.

I'm just full of misinformation today

------------------

Floreat Jerboa !

[Major Tom]

There was a much previous post about the 6 Pounder, stating that it had a better AT capability than the American designed 75mm. The Allied 75mm was a good HE gun, but, the 57mm was a better AT gun. I am not sure why, possibly due to ballistics. Bigger ain't always better. There was a German 28mm AT gun which used some sort of special ammo, which, the Germans ran out of by 1943, luckilly for the Allies. This was a GREAT AT weapon, I think it was used and designed for the Airborne formations, even though they were only used as light infantry 1941 on.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi John and welcome.

First off, you should use the Search feature on this BBS. There are something like 26,000 posts on here. All of the questions you asked and the points you raised have already been discussed (in some cases several times and in great detail). CM's design process has been open to discussion for over a year, and the demo has ben out for almost 3 months now. We are generally surprised when we see something totally new posted This of course will change once the final is out.

I'll pipe in a couple of responses here...

The tank duels in CM involve more factors than I can remember to list. But one of them is a simulated target identification penalty. I don't know if you have ever been in a buttoned up AFV, but visibility SUCKS. So while something might only be 10 degrees off center front, you might not see it at all. This is why it is important to note if the TC is buttoned or unbuttoned. Unbuttoned tanks get a much greater chance of spotting the enemy. As for misses and hits, 3 TDs vs. 1 Tiger increases the odds of a favorable outcome for the US greatly. But as many will tell you, it is absolutely unpredictable.

As for maps showing intricate details prior to ops, this was VERY rare on the whole. Yes, they had maps for things like D-Day. Why? Because they spent MONTHS making them before hand. Such ops are the exception rather than the rule. And maps were very often wrong.

CM is designed to simulate the average battle, and in the average battle you already have far more information than the attacking commander would ever have. For big operations maps would be a bit more detailed, but still not as detailed as the 3D map you play on in CM. If the scenario designer wishes you to have details about enemy units they will be provided in the Briefings before the battle.

As for knowing where your vehicles might bog down, there is NO way you should have this info at your finger tips. In Europe ground conditions would be different on any given day, any given hour. No army had that sort of info at their disposal, not then and not even today. Only general conditions can be known for a given area unless you have just recently done recon on the whole patch.

Trails are simulated by the designer either creating a path of scattered trees or open ground. Solid woods are impassible unless the designer has provided such paths for you to use. As someone who lives in the woods and also has a WWII tracked vehicle, I can tell you for sure that this is more than realistic

In regards to your request for LOS from any spot, this is unrealistic. Yes, the defender generally had the opportunity to figure out key points for offensive and defensive purposes. Less common was the situation where the defender had time to walk ever inch of ground and know all there was to know about the terrain being defended.

The ability for the player to determine detailed fire plans is already present. Look at the map, identify where you think x should be placed for y task, plop the unit down, check out the LOS, then place the unit there or someplace else. If you are simply looking for a shortcut to double check all this info, we can not do so. 3D LOS is VERY demanding in terms of CPU power. To check every 2x2 meter sector of the map for every unit is simply not possible to do.

TRPs are only available if the scenario designer decides you should have them. The process of sighting in spots for prepared artillery fire is not a simple and quick process, and was generally unavailable to anything but a force in position for more than a day. We are, er..., "blessed" with a LOT of artillery folks (ex and current service) and it is their info that has helped shape the simulation.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 02-02-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

One reason that M18's score hits on Tigers more often than vice-versa is simple: Tigers are much bigger targets. The Tiger is a 50+ ton heavy tank, while the M18 is a relatively small, low-silhouette tank destroyer: a very different machine. The M18 survives (or at least tries to survive) not by thick armor, but by being small and fast. Combat Mission shows this pretty well, IMO.

Charles