Shermans were light and maneuverable and worked rather well at everything they were meant to do, which did not include tank vs. tank fighting. Shermans were produced in huge numbers so they could easily hold out against Panzer battalions which were often massively outnumbered, but they were meant more as support.

Tigers were meant to smash through enemy fortifications at specific points, able to deal with fixed fortifications, bunkers, direct-fire fortress weapons, anti-tank weapons, etc. Once a Tiger punches through then a Panzer division can drive deep into enemy territory. Their range was poor, their turret traverse was slow, and they were not very maneuverable but Tigers were rare, and by the time they appeared in greater numbers the Germans were already retreating, which put them in more of a tank-destroyer role. The Tiger's armor was quite immune to munitions from 1942-1943, but by mid 1944 this was not the case.

The Sherman's low-velocity 75mm gun could only penetrate the side or rear armor of a Tiger at less than 300 meters whereas the Tiger's 88mm gun could punch straight through anything less than a heavy tank at 2000 meters. It would take multiple Shermans out-maneuvering a Tiger at close ranges for them to be a threat, which is exactly the situation in Fury.

^^edit: ^^changed ^^76mm ^^to ^^75mm

the Tiger eliminates 3 of the tanks (and crew)

Just on this point, Armoured Thunderbolt by Stephen Zaloga claims the casualty rate per M4 Sherman destroyed was 1 killed and 1 wounded.

It would have been really quite rare for the entire crews of 3 consecutively destroyed tanks to all have been killed.

In addition, there was a degree of "Tiger panic" where allied tankers would over-report hits as being from 88mm guns, when in fact more were from 75mm guns, while the reverse was not observed. Presumably this is due to the fact that a humble PzIV looks a lot like a Tiger from the constrictions of a viewport in combat, and PzIV's were far more common on the battlefield than Tigers.

And even then, as I have pointed out before on this sub, only 14% of allied tank losses were due to enemy tank fire, the remainder being due to StuG's, anti-tank guns, mines, panzerfausts etc.

4 Shermans head-on charging 1 Tiger is possibly the worst attack plan ever

I found the whole film to be stupid, with this as a moment of no more than average stupidity. Most disappoint.

The Sherman was not nearly suited for combat with the Tiger in a one on one situation. The Sherman was a much smaller tank with a smaller gun and lighter armor. That being said each Tank commander knew that there was a certain likely hood in that situation of being killed as the gun on the Tiger tank could easily tear the Sherman to shreds and was not a welcome sight among the allies. About the flawed tactics you have mentioned above I cannot speak for them as I have not seen the movie however I do know outdated formations such as the V formation were used in at least North Africa. More about tank warfare is discussed in the series Commanders at War as well as Greatest Tank battles, both can be found on the History, Military channel etc and possibly YouTube.

The Smithsonian Channel did a documentary called "Tanks of Fury" that is available here.

In the documentary they do interviews with tank crews from WWII that kind of give you perspective as to why the Tiger was so intimidating and in some cases feared.

Shermans were initially outgunned by the Tiger. So it wasn't as easy as tank verse tank, there were some very strategic moves in order to take down a Tiger. As mentioned, later versions of the Sherman increased it's firepower, somewhat leveling the playing field.

One key problem with this scene is that the Tiger I shown was pretty much withdrawn from combat and replaced with the much more capable Tiger II by the time the fictional events in the movie are supposed to occur. Which is early 1945 during the American advance into Germany.

Secondly by that period in the war, the US army had plenty of 76mm armed Shermans, including the M4A3E8 model, which 'Fury' is claimed to be. Fury's 76mm gun would have been able to penetrate a Tiger I's hull quite easily from around 400m. Although the Tiger I was still able to kill at Sherman at much longer ranges the scene shows the engagement happening within the 400m range.

A Tiger II would have been a different question and would have required that the Shermans out flank the vehicle as the thicker slopped frontal armor would have been nearly impossible to penetrate.

However immediately following the D-Day invasion and for some months afterwards the Army was primarily equipped with 75mm armed Shermans. The 75mm could not penetrate the Tiger I's frontal armor^[1] from any distance and even a side shot was iffy. Firing from cover, using smokeless powder and with excellent optics Tigers were often able to pick off Shermans at ranges where they could remain unspotted and more or less impervious to return fire.

Suimmary : If the scene were taking place in the summer or autumn of 1944 it would make much more sense and the tank commanders would justly have been very apprehensive about taking on a Tiger I with just four Shermans.

^[1] Baring a lucky hit on a weakspot.