Not to discourage further responses, but I answered a similar question some time ago here.

This tank is famously very cheap and fragile, the americans pretty much went for a “quantity over quality” stragety. On the other hand the germans were famous for their Tiger tank which took the complete opisite aproch, to the Sherman. In that it went for quality over quantity they were robust and strong and they clearly outmatched the american tanks everytime they would meet.

This reputation is largely unwarranted; see this post, which has links to others.

This tank is famously very cheap and fragile, the americans pretty much went for a “quantity over quality” stragety.

This was very much not the case. The M4 was a medium tank, and, especially in later-war models like the M4A3E2 "Jumbo", were relatively well armoured. Indeed, some models had a greater relative armour thickness than some of the German 'big cats'. The Sherman was popular for its reliability, and its high rates of crew survival, as well as its ease of repair. While the low velocity 75mm gun lacked effectiveness against German heavy armour, this was a defect that was eventually rectified.

On the other hand the germans were famous for their Tiger tank

The workhorse of the German army throughout the war was the Panzer IV, which started as an infantry support tank, but took on an increasing number of roles as its turret was capable of mounting heavier anti-tank weapons than the Panzer III, which had originally been conceived to fill the 'anti-tank' role. The Germans also made particularly extensive use of Sturmgeschutz self-propelled guns, in particular those mounted on the repurposed chassis of now-obsolete Panzer IIIs.

they clearly outmatched the american tanks everytime they would meet.

Mass armoured battles between US and German forces were relatively uncommon; the highest concentration of armoured warfare, at least in 1944, was between British/Commonwealth and German forces around Caen. In either contexts, however, allied armour proved superior to the Germans. Armoured battles aren't like World of Tanks with single rivals chipping away at each other's health bars across an empty field. The biggest factors determining the victor of an armoured engagement were speed, and who saw who first. As this now-famous After Action Report shows, a British Sherman fitted with a standard 75mm main gun was more than capable of disabling German heavy armour, or at least panicking the crew enough to abandon their vehicle, on a number of occasions when it got the first shot in, or was able to catch it unawares. At battles like Villers-Bocage, British armoured forces were capable of inflicting heavy losses on their German counterparts, especially Tigers, when fighting from prepared positions with infantry support. Famously, at the Battle of Arracourt, one of the few major armoured engagements between US and German forces, the 4th Armoured Division defeated 2 Panzer brigades and elements of 2 divisions from the 5th Panzer Army, knocking out 200 German vehicles for the loss of only 32 American vehicles, while outnumbered.

tank that had a chance at going toe to toe with the german Tiger tank?

For British forces, this was the Sherman 'Firefly', armed with the powerful 17-lber anti-tank gun, capable of effectively engaging German heavy armour at long range, but manoeuvrable to keep up with squadrons of mobile Cromwell tanks. Fireflies were used to deadly effect against German heavy armour around Caen in June and July 1944. Famously at Norrey-en-Bessin on the 9th of June, a Firefly under the command of Lt. G. K. Henry knocked out 5 Panther tanks with just 6 rounds.

They did. The M26 Pershing in the case of the Americans but here's the thing. There was no need for it so it saw very little combat. There are a few things in your post that are very common misconceptions. Most obviously the german armored superiority but also the impact of the Tiger. So, if you'll bear with me, let's look at German tanks first.

For the most part of the early war, such as the invasions of Poland and France, the majority of German tanks were light tanks. Worse still, they were quite often out-dated and/or booty tanks. That is, a tank that is not produced by the user country but captured from somewhere. In Germany's case this was quite often Czechoslovakia. During the mid/late war Germany used primarily medium tanks of various kinds, primarily Panzer IV's and Panthers. The heavy tanks, Tiger I/II's were always few in number. Too few to make a significant difference. Only around 1900 were ever built.
As for the Tanks Germany did build, they were not particularly good tanks. Or rather, they were sometimes good on paper. Big guns, think frontal armor. This is good if you're going to stand in an open field and slug it out with another tank. The thing is, that's very rarely how armored combat worked. Most German tanks were, compared to the allied workhorse the Sherman, slow, had relatively poor visibility, poor sights, relatively limited zones of immunity (a weakness the Sherman shares) and slow rates of fire. I won't get in to the reliability here, it's been covered in other posts but suffice to say German tanks were in general much more maintenance intensive than their allied counterparts, a problem often exasperated by the large number of different versions fielded by Germany.

In reality, Shermans killed Panthers at a rate of 3,6 to 1. That is, the Germans lost 3,6 Panthers for every Sherman. In simple terms, the superior speed, mobility and sights of the Shermans generally allowed the to out-maneuver the German tanks or take strategic ground ahead of time and have the advantage of fighting from a prepared defensive position. In these cases the theoretical superiority of the Panther did not matter much. In the interest of fairness it should be pointed out that when the German armor had a defensive position they also killed Shermans at a rate of about 3,5 to 1.

So what about Tigers? Well, as I said there weren't too many of them. Particularly not towards the end of the war in the WTO. So while a Tiger II is scary, a few won't make a big difference. Also, there are many things that can kill a tank. TDs which the US had aplenty can knock out a Tiger, CAS which the allies again had plenty of, along with near complete air superiority, can easily knock out a Tiger, artillery can knock out a Tiger. Hell, at close enough range even infantry can render a Tiger inoperable.

So, there was, at least according to General McNair very little need for a heavy allied tank in the WTO. McNair was an artillery man who favoured tank destroyers, artillery, air support and other means to deal with enemy armor. He gets a lot of criticism for holding back the development of the Pershing but in hindsight, can you really blame him? The US forces did not had significant problems dealing with Axis armor, adding a heavy tank that is a supply guzzling beast to already overstreched supply lines was just not an attractive prospect.