M4 Sherman vs Tiger

[Grumbler]

Some did. Von Luck started off the war as a Plt. leader in a Recon company. That was a pretty high risk hobby. My theory is that no matter how bad it gets, some one will survive. Humans are like that. After all, not every Kamikazi died. Ever catch a cab in Toyko?
Meanwhile, back on topic, if you were a crew, the Tiger was better, if you were a Divisional Commander, the Sherman was better. If you were a REMF in charge of getting beans, bullets, etc. to the front, the Sherman was much better. It wasn't until the Generals were scrambling to get out of the way of the Tigers that ithey thought it might be a good idea to mount a more powerful gun on the Sherman.
The Officers commanding the American Army in the ETO were all either infantry or Artillery officers. The few like Patton and Rose that were capable of thinking and fighting at tank speed were shouted down by those that wern't. In '43, Tank battalions were NOT organic to an Infantry division. The American theory was that the heart of an Army was it's infantry, and the infantry divisions should be as mobile as possible, which meant any units such as Armor, Tank Destroyers, Recon and Anti-Aircraft battalions should be poo;ed and then assigned where they were needed.
This system failed since the Germanys refused to co-operate. The Sherman was the Tank that the American high command wanted, short 75 and all.
If SHAEF had wanted a Sherman with a long 76, they could have had it in late '43. If they had wanted a Pershing with a 90, they could have had it in time for D-day. It was only after the US Generals had the experience of being hunted by German Armor that having more powerful tanks seemed like a good thing.
Then the model that the Ordinance Borad had been developing were put on the front burner and rushed off to the ETO. SHAEF adopted the broad front approach because Ike, Bradley, et. al. were just not capable of thinking in armor speed. The supplies were there for an armored thrust to Berlin in '44. What wasn't there was the bold leadership at the top needed for such an event. A broad front, grind it out assault eats more logistics then a armored thrust on a narrow front. Montgomery was correct about that.