Apart from you frothing at the mouth about the Panther i haven't seen real info yet why it should be crap.
-A transmission that broke down half the tanks before they saw battle. France equiped a formation after the war purely by going around and collecting Panther tanks in france that had broken down without seeing battle and hadn't been destroyed by retreating Germans.
-An engine that would catch on fire if driven uphill during a long trip
-50mm side armor on a tank that weighed 45 tons.
-A gun that made it dangerous for friendly forces nearby due to blowback
-An overweight gun that required the engine to run at all times because if the engine stopped the electric motor couldn't move the turret which is an example of the extremely convoluted shit you get when your tank is crap and you have to kludge everything together
-No secondary gunners scope, making it virtually impossible for the tank to fire quickly
-Poor commander visibility
-Horribly overweight leading to it getting stuck in the mud constantly
-Much more expensive then the Sherman, the tank that consistently trounced it
The thing about the Panther you have to understand is that the tank that actually existed was a poor cousin resemblance to the statistics that were popularized. They set unrealistic goals and so they had to cut a million corners to meet the specifications while cheating in other places. The result was a horrible, overpriced piece of crap.
And let me guess, next you will look at wikipedia and say that the Panther was cheaper then the Panzer IV. That's because the Panther prices are based around the assumption that you are using slave labor to a much greater extent then the Panzer IV and the Panther paid less for it's materials then the Panzer IV because crony capitalism intensified the further along in the 3rd Reich you go. In terms of actual economic cost, the Panther was absurdly expensive although that was also due to horrible production techniques. The numbers rose so much because the Nazis were devoting more and more resources away from things like feeding people and towards war materials. But then some of those production techniques were the fault of a bad design, like a heavy tank requiring material strength you cant deliver so you need to resort to expensive stress hardening to meet the specifications (at the expense of brittle metal).
And the glorification of the Sherman is somehow amusing. Yes it was simple, yes it could be produced in huge numbers and then the US lost 20.000 of them on the Western Front compared to Germanies total of four thousand tank losses. Then we can add British and French tank losses and we are at over 46.000 losses in tanks.
1) Your numbers are hilariously inaccurate
2) The Sherman lost more tanks because THERE WERE MORE SHERMANS. Tanks lost to other tanks were a small minority. More Shermans were lost to landmines then German tanks in western Europe. Artillery by far killed more tanks then everything else. So you put more tanks on the battlefield and there are more tanks for artillery to destroy. Even a Joseph Stalin tank or a Tiger II has little chance of surviving a 155mm artillery shell. A decent barrage by a 75mm company broke up tank attacks on many, many occasions.