Ahem. M18 Hellcat?
Patton was correct in the M4 Sherman’s adequacy... for everything but tank v tank combat. The M4 was excellent for antiobstacle and antipersonnel usage. And to be fair, most of the time they weren’t fighting other tanks.
1. I did not deliberately exclude the M18. I was writing on the fly. Read my post agin: I reference variables like barrel length.
2. I acknowledged that tank-versus-tank combat was not the original purpose.
3. Patton was not correct on the Sherman, and many tanks and crews paid for his excessive influence. Being a brilliant field commander did not make him necessarily the best judge on design and function. Simply asserting he was correct is no argument. There are multiple incidents of a single Panther or Tiger holding off an entire group of Shermans.
4. I suggest you read the following book, which strongly confirmed my longstanding opinions (having written a term paper on Patton in school):
“Death Traps: Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII” - by Belton Y. Cooper. He was an expert on the front lines, and saw the result of the high command yielding to Patton on the Sherman. (The Russians liked the Sherman because it was well made, with luxurious features, not because it was superior in combat to the T-34.)
5. My suspicion is that you have the same attitude toward Patton that many here have toward Trump: He is an infallible leader who never makes a mistake, and may never be criticized.
P.S.
The M-18 entered service in the Summer of 1944: in other words, when the ETO had less than a year left of war.
The bulk of the worst fighting - except for the Bulge - took place before that, with other tanks and tank destroyers. The US also had air superiority by then, with zero-length 5” HVAR fighters, making the need for other anti-armor less extreme.
I also did not mention the Pershing: same scenario.