Here is a review of the Osprey book on the Panther vs. the Sherman.
It''s an involved review on a book with two subjects. Check it out and see if you''re interested.

Link to Item

If you have comments or questions please post them here.

Thanks!

Great review; definitely made me interested.
I'm sorry to say, though, that there is one thing that might not be on the spot. It is about the quality of the Panther, and what Mr Zaloga actually says about it. In one of the sample pages it is explicitly said that the Panther was not an adequate weapon compared to the Sherman because of the "balance between mass and quality". It's hard to judge his conclusion by this page only, but it contradicts the conclusion of the review. I guess I'll have to buy the book to find out.

If you're assuming that:

a) the Panther was technically more reliable than the M4 (it wasn't)

b) there were as many Panthers on the Western Front as people seem to think (there weren't)

c) If German tactical doctrine at the end of the war was superior to that of the Allies (it wasn't)

d) The Germans had superior logistics (they didn't)

e) The Germans weren't totally vulnerable from Allied Air-Superiority (they were)

Shall I continue?

Allied report: 5 Shermans lost per beaten Panther...

though what you say is true, although the point about mechanical unreliability is really REALLY over-estimated and harks back to the Ausf. D initial deployment, point of fact is, the Panther in relative number outperformed the Sherman AND the T-34.

It is simply a matter of numbers of tanks available. That is what brought down the German army. Due to several strategical mistakes, being the march to Russia, fighting in the desert and not invading the UK, plus having to go into the Balkan areas due to Italy's incompetence in fighting, made their armies stretched out.

Add to that that the German war industry in general terms, not due to bombing, was much smaller than what the USSR and USA could produce per day/week/month, it is easy to see where the whole thing would be going.

And add to that again the bombing campaign, although that too didn't really have the impact on production as is often claimed. The German war industry was not beaten from the air. Severely hampered yes, Tiger-B production was nearly halted in IIRC june-july 1944, but not defeated.

And doctrine, well, if the only orders given are to hold your ground without being allowed to retreat, you ARE going to lose everything you have.

POF if one reads the page in the review, troop availability on December 1st in 101%. So MORE than actually needed.

But still, the flood of Shermans, T-34's, KV-1's and all other vehicles simply swamped anything the Germans had, including excellent vehicles like the Stug and JgdPz IV.

Actually, Germany's industrial base in 1941 was considerably larger than the mainly agrarian Soviet Union's. Had the Germans rationalized their designs and settled on something cheap and simple to build, they could have easily matched Russian (though not US) production. The reason German armor is so much fun to build is the sheer insane variety of it, but this is a symptom of their chaotic and shortsighted wartime production policies.
As for the Allied bombing campaign, King Tiger production was reduced by two thirds over planned goals due to strikes on the Henshel factory, and the only reason the Sturmgeschutz IV existed at all was the need to replace Sturmgeschutz III production lost when Alkett's factory was flattened.

The comments you make apply to most every Osprey book IMHO - too little covering too much! They generally need to be at lease 3 x thicker to give enough detail.

It's a grossly oversimplified statement.
It'd take a book to answer to this, but think about the following: it does not really matter how big your gun is or how strong your armor is. What matters is how well it functions in the integrated battlefield. And in this the Sherman wins hands down. The inadequacies of the tank meant that more people died needlessly -but it did not matter in the long run. (At least not for the generals. If you were the unfortunate one to be burned alive inside of these tanks, it's a different matter. But the same goes for Panthers decimated by P-47s, IS-2s, even T-34/85s.)
The Germans had nothing like the system the US had in place for logistics (to keep as many in working order as possible), for cooperation between different arms to eliminate treats. After the general location of a Panther or Tiger (or whatever) is known, the Shermans do not need to engage; the artillery or the fighter-bombers will do that for them. Cooper makes a very good case why the tank was bad; but he also points out the problems with the german uber-tanks. (Those that he's aware of, at least.)
If you want to make a fair comparison, look at the IS-2; that tank was a very real threat not only to the Panther but to the King Tiger as well, though it was the same size as the latter.

This does not boil down to just the numbers; that's a very simplistic way to look at this thing. (Not to mention the fact that the T-34 is one of the most influental tank designs of all time, and not just a tinbox that overswarmed the opposition by numbers...) It's about different philosophy about waging war. And industrial capacities. Logistics and maintanence. A Sherman if not burned out could be returned to service within days, and fixed in the field; a broken down Panther needed a machine shop for almost all repairs. Just to remove the final drive took 3 days. Though they were strained by a multiple front war, the Germans made some serious lapses of judgement in their planning and strategy. It's easy for me to say, as hindsight is 20/20, but they spent enormous resources on things they should not have, and left themselves open and exposed. If you want to take over the world, you really should plan better, I guess is the moral. The German tanks have an enormous fanboy-following, but they weren't perfect. The wiki entry for the Tiger and KT are simply fan-fictions, and so are other pages; but the fact is, that beside the big armor and big gun, they had not much to go with. Heavy, their operational and tactical mobility is limited (the panther somewhat better in this respect), and resource-hogs on an already strained war-economy.

To illustrate the difference between the two philosophies, an analogy. (However shaky it is.)
My grandfather's '49 Omega Seaman is a remarkable watch; much better all around than my Swatch Irony. But if you need to mass-produce, and service a watch, you'll probably make do with the Swatch. It has modules that are easily switched, it's parts are interchangable to a range of other watches and it's cheaper to make -and it is great if you want to know the time... If you fight a war with watches, go with the Swatch.

I'd have much rather been sitting inside a Panther than a Sherman, if the combat was limited to tank vs. tank. Yes, American air power and artillery decimated more Panthers than Sherman's did and a good number of Panthers suffered mechanical problems. But, don't forget the German 88's, they produced as much -- if not more -- terror than any tank the Germans fielded.

But this is the point: the war-machine was more effective of which the Sherman was but a cog. The Panther having superior armor and gun actually strained the German's ability to wage war -as did almost all of their projects from the V1-2 to the Maus. (And if I can choose, I'd pick the IS-2.)
The terror of 88 and Tiger is understandable; but don't forget that 1. for a soldier who's being shot at any gun and tank is the 88 and Tiger (understandably) 2. The germans had the same scare for the T-34...