Several more inches if you eliminate the commander's cupola on the Panzer IV. Also, higher than it was wide. This makes firing on the move more difficult, as the gun's shaking around more, f.e. if the tanks all go over a quarter-metre hillock with one track, the Sherman tilts up by 5.48°, but only 4.98° for the Panzer IV, and 4.78° for the T-34. Now this might not sound like much, but at combat ranges (ie ~500m), the difference is marked.
HAHAHAHA.Firing on the move at 500m in a ww2 tank more difficult because the tank is taller?
Indeed, and threading a needle blindfolded while a doberman bites your nose would be marginally more difficult if you also had to whistle the Marseillaise, but not enough to make any meaningful difference.
Go on, feast your eyes on the svelte sportscar-like lines of that low-slung T-34. Observe the miniscule almost-invisible compactness that will supposedly compensate for the horrible ergonomics, cramped escape hatches, flaky (or absent) radio, leg-amputating lack of a turret basket, poor optics and vision blocks, and inferior reliability.
Balls, quite frankly. If the historical Sherman is seen as not good enough, give it wet ammo stowage a bit earlier and something like the 77mm OQF or 3" M7 in a couple of tanks per platoon in time for D-Day. Job done, move on to more important things.