They had that in spades already
The Wright powered M4 and M4A1, the Diesel M4A2 , Ford V8 M4A3 all did the same job, and that's leaving out the M4A4 for lend lease
Then the mix of 75mm, 76mm and 105mm armament in a variety of different turrets.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
They had that in spades alreadyThe army also didn't want two different types the same vehicle doing the same job.
missed opportunity, really.Since in used the same engine as the M4, the same gun and since it was only a few ton lighter and wasn't any faster, they canceled the order for 3000 from International Harvester.
There was also one bad reason: internal, i.e., uniformed, politics within the US Army.The Sherman had a couple of good reasons for continuing in production rather than changing to what would be a similar tank.
First, it was already in production. This is important as spares and maintenance knowledge were all there and going.
The Sherman was much easier than other tanks to maintain already.
Second, it was already in production. Around 45 per day produced and sent out. Very few issues (if any) mechanically
and easy to ship. Also important as they had to get to conflict areas that way. It was not seen as a good idea to stop
production for any period to change over to another vehicle that would essentially be given the same tasks.
That was an unfortunate case in many countries. In Britain the cavalry still held sway in the thirties even after exercisesThere was also one bad reason: internal, i.e., uniformed, politics within the US Army.
Not saying M4 production had to end. The US had enough production capability to do more than one type, and able to do logistics for more than one type.The Sherman had a couple of good reasons for continuing in production rather than changing to what would be a similar tank.
I was wrong, the Churchill one does say:Edit: I skimmed my old AFV Profiles for Cromwell, Churchill and Crusader and width doesn't come up - they don't go into great detail into the design process admittedly. But then there's that book quoted in Wiki saying "The British railway loading gauge required that the width should not exceed 10 ft 8 in (3.25 m) and the optimum width was 10 ft 3 in (3.12 m),[15]" So ?
They also removed the outer row of road wheelsIn order to transport the Tiger I by rail, transport tracks were installed and the mudguards removed, so I imagine the British did something similar.
They also removed the outer row of road wheels
View attachment 762644
Combat track was laid out under the tank.
Most or all British tanks didn't have road wheels that were that 'modular'.
Google "Tiger tank rail transport"
Yes - the T23 turret was basically a drop-in replacement for the original Sherman turret. It must be noted that even before the original Shermans were deployed to North Africa, fitting the 3" High Velocity Gun (The same as the M10 Tank destroyer) was already well under way. The problem was, that while they could wedge it in, Armored Force concluded that, while teh gun performance was fine, there was no way to effectively us it in that turret. So - it was back to the drawing board, and the process was slowed by the emphasis on T23. But it paid off, and by early 1944, all further Sherman production was to be 76mm Gun armed. (Other than the 105mm Howitzer armed Assault Guns)The army also didn't want two different types the same vehicle doing the same job.
This turned out to be a correct decision. The T23 cast turret for the 76mm gun was used as the basis for 76mm
gunned Shermans as the original turret was unsatisfactory.
Work with the T-23 evolved into the T-25 and T-26 which became the Pershing. This was then upgraded to become
the Patton.