Sherman variants

As I read Hunnicutt's Sherman... I am amazed to learn how many variants and subtle changes were put in the field on the Sherman tank. Having read that this was the logisitic undoing of the German armored force (and air force) I wonder why the US didn't run into a huge problem with parts and repairs for the Sherman. The only book I've ever read that touched on field repair/maintenance was Death Traps and I don't recall a mention of problems there.

Anyone have an idea why we didn't have field repair and maintenance headaches?

 

The US took care of the logistics and maintenance in several ways. The major one was to try and allot specific variants to certain end users. Thus, the US Army got M4A1 and A3 tanks, the British the A2 and A6. The Soviets mainly the A2 and A5 as with the French. The suspension and track components were all largely interchangable so these were not a major headache. One could also even switch engines without major amounts of effort although it is easier to stay with the engine for the variant under discussion rather than changing it. The T23 (76mm) turret fits any Sherman. The 75mm gun mount can be swapped with any other variant of that mount...... The British even took that mount and turned it upside down and put it on a Chruchill (the 75 NA variant) in Italy!
That was the real beauty of the American system: All their vehicles had maximum interchangability of parts. The German problem is that each of their tanks was a custom built vehicle that had next to zero in common with any other vehicle.

 

I believe that answers it nicely Terry. While there were many "various" engines, the logistical basis was to assign them to "groups" where they would have inter-changeable commonality. I have read somewhere (of course I forget where), that the main reason the British were the recipients of that bizarro 30 cylinder engine was because there were already a number of Plymouth trucks in Great Britain which used the same engine. But as single six cylinder flat head engines. This meant there was already a base stock of mechanics familiar with the engine type. Don't hold me to that, as I might be having a senior moment there.

 

Hunnicutt's got a picture of that thing. "Bizarro" is the word for it. He mentions that it was deemed unsatisfactory for overseas service for our guys and was used for stateside training and given to the Brits via Lend Lease. He doesn't mention the rest but I think you got points there.

 

Here is a link to both a photo and a short description of that Chrysler engine. It was used in both the M3 and M4 mediums, fewer in the "Grant/Lee" tanks than in the M4 "Shermans".

Goto:

http://shopswarf.orconhosting.net.nz/chrypen.html

 

It certainly didn't hurt to have the vast majority of your tracked vehicles, and your primary allied partners all using the same basic vehicle for just about every purpose you can imagine. Unless my memory fails me, the M4 was based on the M3 so you already had a lot of interchangeable parts already in the field before it appeared in service. My book (Chamberlain) states that assembly line production/maintenance symplicity was one of the primary considerations for the M4 tank. You didn't need people with a lot of special training to support them (within reasonable parameters I'm sure).