About vision, values, and armor and a [apparently] wrong conception

Hey Miki
Since we were both former armorers, I see it appropriate to share with you something I call “Vision, Values, and Armor.”
I was a Sherman driver, and in the reserves, a Sherman tank destroyer, and I also knew various tanks.
While still in regular service, I submitted “efficiency proposals” for upgrading the Sherman. I must admit that my proposals were based on complete ignorance of engineering…
About 15 years ago, when I was watching the History Channel about the armor battles of World War II, it became clear to me that American armor commanders were disdainful of the lives of their fighters.
The Sherman tank had a short 75mm gun, which could not penetrate the armor of the heavy German tanks. But the Americans had many tanks, they would send a platoon of Shermans against a Tiger, the Tiger would destroy 4 Shermans, but in the process the last Sherman would hit the Tiger from behind and destroy it.
Oh well – the Americans had a lot of tanks, and it turns out that the fate of the tankers didn’t bother them that much!…
One article claimed that American commanders refused to install the British 17-pounder [76.2 mm] gun on their Shermans. Why? Because it was English! Until about 20 years ago, the Americans refused to adopt foreign technologies –
NOT INVENTED HERE-NIH
Later, when they belatedly realized the inferiority of the Sherman’s original gun, they installed a 76.2 mm gun of their own manufacture in the 27th.
I assume you are familiar with the Sherman’s tall silhouette. Its rear deck is sloped backwards, because we were told that this slope allows the gun to fire while lowering backwards! But the fact is that before and after the Sherman, this slope was eliminated, so lowering the gun backwards was probably hardly used. So I asked myself why the American armor commanders did not take advantage of the fact that the Sherman’s tall silhouette was to replace the engine that was installed in the Sherman at the time with a larger and more powerful engine.
I read a few articles on the subject, and it was explained there that this structure of the hull was dictated, among other things, by the use of a [r975] radial engine, which is characterized by a short length but a large diameter. The power of this engine is about 400 hp. And this large diameter caused the high silhouette. [Not only that!]
And I wondered [and still wonder!] – since the height of the hull was already dictated in advance [attempts to lower the Sherman made in Israel were unsuccessful!] why not take advantage of this height of the hull, go with this height to the edge of the deck, and insert another engine – a larger and therefore more powerful engine that would allow the armor to be thickened [by welding steel plates] and increase the survivability of the crew and the tank without reducing speed.
I checked what engines were in World War II, and it turns out there were suitable engines – long ones that were used in airplanes, some of them V-engines.
The Sherman’s engine compartment was shortened anyway, because the entire length was not needed, so there was enough room to extend the engine compartment.
In short: the grand vision was to defeat Nazi Germany.
On the way – several more American soldiers are killed [apparently there is nothing to be done!…] And of course it is no wonder that the bomber pilots who bombed the Wehrmacht’s fuel production facilities passed over Auschwitz and did not lift a finger to hit the extermination camps.
The main thing is the big vision. I saw a need to share this matter with you, as it is a conceptual failure that causes harm to the lives of many fighters, replicated in thousands of units [tens of thousands of Sherman tanks], while before and after it no tank was developed that allows the cannon to be lowered to the rear.
I don’t know of any similar cases [at the principle level] that are happening today, but since it doesn’t seem to me that the human race is improving, because consistently
On the way to realizing lofty visions, we trample on several values, so I estimate that even today there are quite a few cases in which it would be better to stop and ask whether a certain move is indeed desirable and appropriate, or not?…
I’ve pretty much drilled your brains enough. Thank you for your willingness to absorb this crap.
All the best