@Lord Shonus, your link to the .pdf article clearly suggests superiority of German armour.
Look at the tables of penetration to failure ratios and 'hits to knock out a tank'. These are not terribly flattering for the Sherman tanks.
If you read the entire thing, it's explained that the analysis is based on vehicles recovered from the battlefield after the Germans left, and that it only consists of equipment damaged beyond the possibility of salvage.
More importantly, apart from the wholly inadequate 75mm on the Sherman, every tank gun in service penetrated German armor with great reliability - even the 6-pounder that the British
started the war with had a 69% success rate. On page 13 of the PDF there is a table of hit locations on Panthers compared to penetration which is extremely important for this discussion - 33 out of 42 of the hits examined were in the sides of the hull or turret. Meanwhile, despite doing all of the attacking and thus being much less able to control where the enemy are going to be firing from, the Shermans took a
roughly equal percentage between hull and sides. This clearly means that most of the vehicles destroyed were outflanked (requiring, at the time, the Allied tanks to run through a perfect killing ground) without being able to retreat successfully - proof positive that the lack of mobility was a fatal Achilles Heel.
Further, note that all German vehicles burned at roughly the same rate as the M4 (which should be a stake in the heart of the "Tommycooker" myth forever) , and that it was
standard practice at the time (page 5) to return vehicles that had caught on fire but were repairable to service - resulting in the armor on said vehicles to be far softer and less resistant to penetration than normal.
Finally, note that there were 45 M4 Shermans in the destroyed survey, lost between 6/6/44 and 10/7/44 (a one month period) which represents the total losses, while the survey of German armor over the two month period shows
110 German tanks knocked out. Even dividing that in half to represent it being twice as long a period, you get 55 per month, the majority to tank fire. Assuming that those 110 were the entirety of the German casualties and all other vehicles got off without a scratch, the "Wunderwaffen" managed, under tactical conditions that make a
firing range look difficult, managed to kill a full 90% of their own losses (the rule of thumb is 2 defenders should be able to kill 3 attackers of equal capability under normal conditions) while still giving up every single position. In actuality, of course, the Germans salvaged anything that they could, and those 110 tanks probably represented the 25%-50% that they weren't able to - meaning actual losses were more likely to be 220-440. Truly an impressive accomplishment.