File1301384924.jpg-(2.41 MB, 2229x1672, obj_v41160_US WW2 M10 Wolverin(...).jpg)
It is really damn cute.
On another note, Western policy was that tanks were not supposed to go tank-on-tank. That was supposed to be handled by other elements. The French were something of an odd man out by having the much heavier tanks, while Britain and the United States dealt with things in the terms of infantry support (Britain), cruiser (cavalry) tanks, and Tank destroyers. Leave the funny people with their heavy tanks get outmaneuvered by the shoot-n-scoots or CAS while the bulk of your tank forces blow the tar out of the defensive positions erected in a combined arms effort.
In the context of this, Shermans were perfectly adequate in their role as cavalry for the new age. Furthermore, they were considered the equal of the Pz IV design, and America had done quite well at producing a fuckton of them for a country that was more interested in becoming the Arsenal of Democracy (America got 20,000 Shermans, Britain 17,000, Russia 4,000) than outputting extreme numbers of armored divisions for only themselves.
The Sherman played a modified version of the oldschool Blitzkrieg game, the one in 1940s France. But by the time it was fielded it was 1942, Germany had already taken its lessons from an enemy who had mass produced tanks with a take-all-comers edge, and who already were adjusting accordingly. By the time the Americans were on the mainland in actually decent tank driving terrain, it was halfway through 1944 (Italy is shit for tanks. Mountains and hills everywhere all the way up the boot). It wasn't bad at what it did, it's just that the war had already eclipsed their use, and there was resistance to 'needlessly' change combat doctrine. People still thought they could get away with this tank destroyer doctrine for the War.