I would say the design and philosophy behind the Sherman was deeply flawed, as evidenced by it being the first and last tank designed behind this philosophy. I know the use of armor was in its infancy, or close to it, at the time. But If other major powers got it right, that tanks should be designed to kill other tanks, then why didn't we? Since then we have never looked back. We are just lucky we got the other elements of combined arms right and that we had some brilliant generals. We still should have gone to war with a better tank.
Incorrect. The Germans used the same philosophy with the 37mm armed PzkwIIIs being for anti-tank role (37mm being the standard German AT gun of 1939) and the PzkwIV armed with a low velocity 75mm howitzer for infantry support. US armored doctrine was roughly based, or rather reinforced, by the German successes of '39 and '40.
Furthermore, the IVs were only upgraded to use true AT guns after encountering the much heavier armored Russian tanks after Barbarossa. During the initial invasion they were still intended to be infantry support, not tank killers (although, as the Americans would also learn, it is hard to expect reality to conform to your ideal).
The British tanks also had something comparable. Most early war Brit tanks had two versions -- one with the 2 pounder (40mm) AT gun, and a "CS" version with either a 3 inch or 95mm howitzer for infantry support.
Finally, the 75mm gun was most certainly a dual-purpose gun, unlike the howitzers mounted on the early IVs and Brit tanks. It's armor penetration was inferior to the US 76mm guns, to be sure, but it performed roughly on par with the Russian 76.2mm gun, which I rarely hear anyone say was substandard or inferior by 1941-42 standards.
And I have asked this several times, but never received a satisfactory answer -- what better 30 ton tank would you want? The Sherman was competitive -- at worst it lagged its contemporaries by months rather than generations. Contemporaries being the T-34 and PzkwIVs, not the Panthers or Tigers which outweighed them by 50%+, but to which the Sherman is often erroneously compared.
Logistics and a doctrine of mobility had much to do with fielding a medium tank vs. a heavy. To call the tank itself a failure of some sort or a "bad tank" is erroneous, because it fit the doctrine well.
The game I think doesn't really reflect the realities of the actual war that made the Sherman worthwhile. In the game we are pretty much killing other tanks with tanks. Even the Panzer lV and its high vel gun would far outclass the Sherman. Fireflys and T-34s would chew them up and spit them out. Especially since they cost so few perks to up, perks easily made up for with wirbels.
A "standard Sherman" with a 76mm gun would be roughly equal to the T34/85. A "standard Sherman" with the snub 75 would be roughly equal to the T34/76. If modeled with a gyrostabilizer, it would have an offset to the T-34's advantage of speed. The .50cal pintle gun would certainly be welcome! So, no, I disagree that a Sherman wouldn't match up well in the game or that they would be chewed up and spit out.
I would also argue that if you put in some earlier PzkwIVs with the lower velocity 75s or the PzkwIIIs to get a good representative of the MW tanks (something sorely lacking, not to mention EW), and the '42 snub 75mm Sherman is most certainly competitive if not superior. ('42 Tiger still pwns, of course.)
(mild hijack) You do bring up a good point about the WW's ENY value -- it should probably be a 10 or 15 vs. the 25 it currently posesses. They are practically perk farmers. (end mild hijack)
