http://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/38eczd/world_war_2_was_like_predators_versus_humans/
This thread in /r/badhistory seems to have a consensus that Sherman tanks were equal to or superior than most German tanks. (Except, apparently, the Panzer IV) if that's the case then why does it seem like everyone else agrees the Sherman was far outmatched. Movies like Fury and Kelly's Heros seem emphatic on that account. To paraphrase Donald Sutherland from Kelly's: "ain't nobody go up against a Tiger unless you got 5 on one, and even then your only chance of hitting him is sticking your gun right up his ass where the armor's weakest!" When I was a kid, I visited the Michigan Museum of Natural history and they had an exhibit about GM producing Sherman tanks and even it talks about how the crews considered them death traps when fighting German armor.
So were Sherman's better or worse than typical German tanks?
I think you mis-understood the gist of what was being said in that thread. Most of the people were implying the Sherman was superior or competition for German armor up and until the Panzer IV - its where the Panther and heavier pieces that had a far more noticeable tactical presence.
I can't believe I'm saying this but /u/ChristianMunich got it more or less correct with regards to tactical engagements, and /u/DuxBelisarius does a good job of pointing out that that tactical edge really matters for little when it could no longer be tied into a combined-arms team.
By the end of 1943 German armor was attacking without the superb co-ordination they had shown with air and artillery forces, in certain areas of Southern France in September 1944, they were even attacking without effective anti-air or reconnaissance support; a deadly necessity for a tired army. When holding a relatively static front, such as in Normandy, this inferiority in fighting a battle of maneuver was slow to manifest, thereafter, it was plainly evident.
Performance of the Sherman increased favorably as room to maneuver and defensive cohesion was respectively gained and lost in the ETO. In North Africa, the M4 was undeniably superior, as /u/CaptainPyjamaShark pointed out, to its erstwhile rivals. British tank losses often remained high however, by the German's wise tactical choice to avoid 'armor-on-armor' battles (they simply did not have the numbers to waste manouver forces in such a manner). Repeated baiting of British armored units, often inadequately supported, into high-velocity anti-tank guns is worth a discussion in and of itself.
The Sherman's superiority over the Panzer IV isn't clear-cut, but there's a case for it. In terms of firepower it goes clearly to the Panzer IV, in terms of crew comfort, equal. In terms of strategic range and endurance, narrowly to the Sherman - both tanks were impressive in this regard. Gunnery optics generally is considered superior in German models, but optics for situational awareness - such as periscopes, hatches, cupola peeps, etc., definitely were aplenty and superior on the Shermans, especially the quintessential M4A3. The fact remains the Sherman had more eyes looking at any one time than its counterpart - and he who acquires targets first at combat range often wins, irrespective of technical details.
I'll let a man infinitely more learned then me wrap this up, I quote:
Both the light and medium tanks were fully developed, proven designs with good mobility and a favorable power-to-weight ratio and were especially prized for their mechanical reliability. However the general purpose 75-mm guns carried by most M-4s....were outclassed by the high-velocity [calibers] found on the German tanks of the day. Nonetheless, through superior teamwork [with all arms] and tactical mobility...the 4th Armored Division established a favorable kill ratio over German armor"
I just think its noteworthy that Dr. Gabel goes out of his way to fail to mention armor. Its a deliberate and correct omission for what is an article on a battle of rapid movement and delivery of firepower.
This thread in /r/badhistory[2] seems to have a consensus that Sherman tanks were equal to or superior than most German tanks. (Except, apparently, the Panzer IV)
This depends on the Sherman and Panzer IV type these tanks were quite equal for the most part but some later Panzer IVs versions got an edge over the Sherman. The Sherman firefly would outclass the Panzer IV when it comes to dueling. These two tanks are pretty comparable overall.
Sherman vs Tiger:
The Tiger dominates the Sherman in duel situation very hard. Unless the version is equiped with the 17 pounder (Sherman Firefly mostly fielded in British-Canadian forces) or the 76mm ( a Sherman version fielded by the Us forces). The Tiger main gun penetrates the Sherman virtually from all ranges most hits result in a knock out. Tiger-Sherman duels were rather rare because most Heavy Tank Battalions were fielded in the east. Most of the Tiger-Sherman engagements would be found around Cean during Operation Overlord. The Tiger Battalions reported 500 knock outs and only a handful of the losses were attributed to enemy tanks. The Tiger superior duel characteristics were enhanced by their crews which were very experienced, this is especially true for the units in Normandy. 501st SS & 502st SS & 503rd Heavy tank battalions.
Panther vs Sherman.
The front glacis of the Panther was superb and made penetrations unlikely even against the stronger anti tank guns fielded by the allied armies. The sides however were pretty thin and here the panther was as vunerable as the Sherman this is in stark contrast to the Tiger which also had pretty strong side armor since it was designed as breakthrough tank which has to withstand fire from multiple angles. The 75mm from the Panther was comparable to the Tiger in regards to penetrations and would penetrate a Sherman with high likelyhood but with maybe little less damage because of the smaller caliber. The Panther in duel situations is weaker than the Tiger but still better than the Sherman. The quality gap of the tanks is the biggest in a head on duel. The chance of a Sherman to fight a Panther head on is very grim. The chances of the Sherman were greater if it fielded the 17 pounder or 76mm. In contrast to the Tiger Battallions the Panther crews were not as experienced than the Tiger crews but this varied greatly from unit to unit.
Both German tanks had excellent minor perks like good gun sights good commanders copula et cetera. These things allowed for fast tracking of the enemy tank, fast target aquring and overall good hit percentages. This together with the good guns and protection made the Panzer V and VI very good duelists. But the outcome of such duels is also depending on the experience and skill of the tank commander.
Overall its important to understand that a tank might have different purpose than an other tank. The Sherman wasn't neccessarily designed for tank on tank duties. The Sherman was without a doubt inferior in duel situations to the Tiger and Panther but it was also mostly used infantry support. The Tiger was developed as "breakthrough" tank which meant it was envisoned to crush the first line of resistance and take a beating while knocking out armored counter attacks. The production numbers for the Tiger were never planned to allow the Tiger as form of infantry support. The Tiger has a far lower range than for example the Sherman.
To show how rare Tiger engagemants were. The US army overall had only a handful encounters with the Tiger I. In Normandy all Tiger units were fighting the British-Canadian units and only at the very end some single Tigers met US units around Falaise. The only heavy tank battalion fighting the West Front after Normandy was the 506th all other units were employed in the east only for the Battle of the Bulge some of them would come back and here only with minimal fighting.