Thanks.
I had a buddy who was a tank crew member in the invasion of Normandy. He related to me that, while he was told his tank was the best in the world, it did not compare to the Panther. Well, yes and no. If you were up against a Panther, one on one, in a Sherman, especially in the open field and at a distance, the Panther was definitely superior. But, given its costliness, weight, maintenance requirements, and other factors, how many Panthers were available to the Germans at the times and places when they would be decisive? When there were tank battles, the differences in sheer numbers, maneuverability and dependability of the Shermans were its advantage.
As to which overall strategy was better - larger numbers of medium tanks (M4s) or smaller numbers of a mix of heavy tanks (Panthers) and medium tanks (Mark IIIs and IVs), I’ll leave for others. However, in the attack, the sacrifice of numbers for having some heavy tanks in the mix has its argument. On the eastern front, when the Germans were on the offense, they would use the Panthers very well as the spearhead of an attack, with Mark IIIs and IVs coming in the second wave for the purpose of penetration and exploitation of the breach of the enemy’s front line.
All things considered, I think the T-34 was the best tank of WWII.
The problem, of course, is that Panthers only became available starting in mid-1943. From this point on, the Germans were less and less frequently on the offense.