@TemDesBur Yeah.

Compared to weapons such as the 76mm M1, the Soviet ZiS-S-53, the Soviet ZiS-2, and the British Ordnance QF 17-pounder, I believe the best of the bunch was the 76mm M1, and that's not due to American bias.

The American 76mm M1 was known for its power and accuracy. None of these guns, save for the 17-pounder firing APDS, could penetrate the front of a Jagdtiger or King Tiger. However, wartime APDS was incredibly inaccurate; it was only until after the war did they manage to make an APDS round that was accurate.

In the meantime, the 90mm M3 (which I didn't add, because it's comparable to the 8,8 cm KwK 36 L/56 on the Tiger) could penetrate the front of a Jagdtiger with HVAP, and was available for use on the M36 tank destroyer and later, the M26 Pershing heavy tank.

@Pilotmario also, the L48 was able to penetrate the front of the T34-85 at combat ranges

@TemDesBur That too.

I think the main strength of the Sherman was the American insistence on reliability and ergonomics.

Reliability was a given. The drivetrain and suspension of the M4 could be traced back to the M2 Medium Tank, from the 1930's. This gave a LOT of time for R&D to make it work.

@Pilotmario different from the normal L/40 on the PZ 4 F2

@Pilotmario and an upgraded L/48 KwK gun only otherwise seen on the PZ 4 and later StuG models

@TemDesBur I know.

@Pilotmario the Panzer 4 H had 80mm of unsloped frontal armour

@TemDesBur There was the proposed Panzer IV K, which had 80mm of sloped frontal armor, like a Panther. This actually save lots of weight in the design and added lots of internal space, but was never adopted.

@TemDesBur Of note about Panther development, it was between three designs by Damiler-Benz, Krupp, and Maschienfabrik Augsburg-Nurnberg AG, or MAN, in the VK 20 program. When this became the VK 30 program after encountering the T-34 and KV-1, Krupp dropped out.

Heinz Guderian ordered a special commission on the study of the T-34, which considered the 76.2mm medium-velocity gun, the sloped armor, and wide tracks to be the most important features.

The Benz design looked like a Teutonized T-34, where the MAN design was more conventional. After trials, where various commissions would favor one design over the other, Hitler decided to go with the MAN design, since it used an existing turret design by Rheinmetall Borisg.

This time-saving measure would prove to be the downfall of the design process, as during the process, Albert Speer noted that although given the name "Panther" to denote agility, Hitler insisted bigger guns and better armor, which brought the weight from 30 tons to 48 tons.

@Pilotmario the Germans would have done better in the war if they stuck to the Pz 4 and just kept upgrading it

@TemDesBur That too.

@Pilotmario Hitler was a bad tactician

@TemDesBur It was designed with one simple goal: be better than the Panzer III and Panzer IV.

That's all they had to do.

@Pilotmario it was designed to be able to kill the Kv1, T34, Kv2 and IS1

@TemDesBur It's also part of the reason why the Germans lost Kursk.

Hitler delayed the offensive to allow the Panther to see combat. This gave the Soviets time to create one of the best counter to blitzkrieg; defenses in depth.

@TemDesBur Right.

@Pilotmario thats not an opinion, its fact

IMO, the Panther was designed for long-range combat in Russia, not close-range brawls with Shermans in hedgerows: @TemDesBur

@Pilotmario yep, the panthers also had the advantage of range

And defenders typically have the advantage over attackers. @TemDesBur

@Pilotmario and in most situations the panthers were defending, allowing them to position themselves in a way that gave them the advantage, such as looking towards the shermans

@Pilotmario yes but the panther F had a better turret

Still had the same side armor. @TemDesBur

@Pilotmario the panther (A) was a simple thing to knock out, the panther F is a different story

@TemDesBur I'd rather be the Sherman crew. Because the question of "Will my tank break down? If so, will I enter the fight as infantrymen?" is not something I'd want to consider.

After all, a Sherman tank provides more physical protection than any steel helmet can dream of.

Anyways, the reason why the Americans left their 76mm-armed Shermans back in England on D-Day was because none of the battalion commanders wanted them. Why? Because they were doing just fine with their 75mm guns, and that the 75mm M3 in Italy was able to knock out Panthers and Ferdinand tank destroyers in combat situations without problems. Why go through the process of adopting a new weapon when something you already have seems to work perfectly fine?