...yes, and Heinz Guderian said that the ENGINE was a weapon (if you think about it operationally, he's right).
The Sherman Tank's twin virtues were its relative simplicity & it's ruggedness. It didn't break down as frequently as its German counterparts. When it did it was rapidly put back into action either by its own crew or by support troops. The attrition rate due to malfunctions can be as significant as combat losses when you are trying to maintain the momemtum of an advance.
Quite agree with your analysis. Also, the Shermans were made in enormous quantities, and the Germans were to be overwhelmed wherever possible. Superior firepower was the view evolved in the pre-WWI German military (sorry, had to put that in, just finished Mosier’s “The Myth of the Great War”).
Patton’s view (originating in his WWI experiences, when the tanks were POS) regarding armor was that it was to be used analogously to cavalry (breakthroughs, flanking, pursuit) rather than to, say, guard a bridge. Even if the bridge was being used as a nice spot to piss in the Rhine. :’)