...And heavy assault tank. Yes, granted, but that still didn’t make it a great choice of weapon for the money.
A lot of ifs obviously, but I would point out that after the war the U.S., UK, and USSR all fielded a similar concept of super heavy tanks supporting smaller tanks. Each country found the same problem. They were super expensive, although fielding considerable armor they were impossible to conceal and massive targets, they were tremendous logistical problems being too large and heavy for the normal infrastructure to support. I didn’t make them bad, just questionably useful. After experimenting with their own “Tiger” concepts, all of the major powers realized that the extra armor just wasn’t worth it. A lighter, yet still heavy, tank with the same gun made for a better all around weapon system.
Although monsters when in position, the Tigers posed a huge problem with movement. Often not taking part in fights because they couldn’t be transported in time, or they were withdrawn early, for fear of not being able to make a hasty enough withdrawal if the line moved too fast and they were caught on the wrong side of a creek, marsh, etc.
Armor-gun-weight-power is always a balance, which isn’t to say that having the right balance is always best. The best all around athlete isn’t the best football lineman, but when you are playing football being a 300 lb monster is great.
For those interesting in what actual WW2 Armor officers thought of the Sherman and much else, see the following:
Maneuver Center of Excellence (MCoE) Libraries
MCoE HQ
Donovan Research Library
Armor School Student Papers
http://www.benning.army.mil/library/content/Virtual/Armorpapers/index.htm
There are papers there from WW2 through Korea (with one for the French in Vietnam).