Rickshaw is quite right. Nobody was dealing with the headache of all those variants because nobody was operating that many variants in one unit. It's not like they were assigned variants from the entire production run of the Sherman at random.
Something just struck me about earlier discussions about the logistical advantages of the Sherman over other allied types in that there were seven standardised Sherman models with five different engines (diesel and petrol), two turrets (with different guns), cast and welded hulls of different lengths and this doesn't count the Jumbo or Firefly variants. Basically the M-4 was a family of similar looking vehicles produced in very different configurations at different locations concurrently, it wasn't even a case of incremental improvements, it was very different versions being built at the same time to do the same job. It wasn't even a case of versions being built for different missions, i.e. infantry support, battle tank version for the armoured divisions, a version for the marines, or even specific export versions for allies. Logistics must have been quite challenging to sort out to say the least.
That's a definite misrepresentation of the situation. Few militaries used more than two engine variants concurrently. The hull construction didn't matter because the main components were interchangeable. You could take the turret off of a welded hull Sherman and put it on a cast hull Sherman and vice versa. You could even mix and match portions of the hull. That was the case with the M4 Composite. It had the front hull of an M4A1 and and the rear hull of an M4.
They were far from a maintenance nightmare because you rarely had more than one engine type in a unit and almost everything else was interchangeable. They were modular, like a LEGO kit or a modern M4 carbine. You could mix and match pieces to suit your needs.
"Sure, you could theoretically mix and match, but how often was that done?"Well, you'd be surprised, actually. All those 76mm Sherman Jumbos were done in the field by taking 76mm guns out of normal Shermans. Heck, even the 76mm turret itself was just nabbed from the T23 family intended to replace the Sherman. The M36B1 was possible because you could take the turret from a standard M36 and plop it on a Sherman hull. And on that note, the M36 itself was just a new turret on an otherwise standard M10 or M10A1 hull. The M10, M10A1, M36, M36B1, and M36B2 use just two engines—the same GM 6046 diesel and Ford GAA gasoline engines used in the M4A2 and M4A3, respectively.
Also, many of those options were effectively incremental upgrades, just with overlap in production. The Ford GAA was a replacement for the Continental R975, The T23-style turret replaced the original turret, the 76mm was a replacement for the 75mm, and the HVSS running gear replaced the VVSS. The suspension on the Sherman was merely a continuation of that originally introduced on the M2 Medium Tank, widened for use on the M3 Lee, then used again on the M4 Sherman, where is saw the most upgrades.
Again, so they could make these sorts of changes, but how often did they?Well, the best-known examples of this was the replacement of the running gear and engines was the Israeli Shermans. Most of those started off as VVSS Shermans with various gun and engine types. They then purchased HVSS suspension units, and eventually new engines for their different variants. Ones with the smaller 75mm and 105mm turrets got the French 75s to become M50s and the 76mm turrets got the French 105s to become M51s.
Probably my favorite case where the components were swapped, though, is the one from your home country, Volkodav. The M3 Lees and Grants operated by the Australian Army were kept on after World War Two ended, but there was no longer a ready supply of M3 Medium Tank components and those from the M4 Sherman were superior and compatible. As a result, for a while after WWII, you had M3s running around Australia with Sherman running gear. It is for that reason that you'll often read that the M7 Priest and M12 GMC were M4 Sherman variants when they were, in fact, M3 Lee variants. At least, when they first came out they were, by the time their product was finished, they were using Sherman components.
The reason why you saw so many Sherman variants was because you could mix and match with little consequence. Many US units had both M4 and M4A1 Shermans in the same unit because they were automotively identical. They used the same turret, gun, suspension, and engine. Then the US Army decided to replace those with the new M4A3, which still used the same gun, turret, and suspension, despite having the new engine. As more firepower became necessary, they went to the M4A3 76mm, which shared the same hull, engine, and suspension with existing M4A3s. Finally, the US started switching over to the new HVSS M4A3 76s, which used the same hull, engine, turret, and gun as the existing M4A3 76s. So, it was all incremental and you didn't generally have VVSS M4A1 75s operating in the same battalion as HVSS M4A3 76s, at least not for very long.
That's more extreme than most units, too. The Marine Corps, for example, was the primary American user of the M4A2, because having the option of selecting a diesel powered tank, allowed them to just use Navy fuel stocks (since they were hogging all the diesel during wartime anyway). The Army didn't mess with the M4A2 for the most part and during WWII, the Marine Corps didn't much use the M4, M4A1, or M4A3. The Americans basically didn't use the M4A4 at all during WWII, forcing those on the British instead, who weren't in a position to be picky given that all of their tanks were worse than even a Sherman with that A57 Multibank. It was that mix and match capability that allowed US industry to convert 12 M4A2 Shermans to M32B2 recovery vehicles specifically to support the USMC units operating M4A2 diesel Shermans.
Your assertion is that having M32, M32B1, and M32B2 variants of the Tank Recovery Vehicle would complicate logistics. Quite the opposite, in fact. It simplified it.
The three piece transmission housings on the early Shermans? Many of those were eventually replaced with the single piece cast nose, or even the later sharp nose transmission housing. They were largely interchangeable, so that's what some operators (like the Israelis) did.
In fact, this variety was often an advantage rather than a disadvantage. It allowed early production equipment to be updated quickly and easily as time progressed. M3 Lees were converted into M31 Tank Recovery Vehicles with some updated suspension components from Shermans. Early model Shermans were refurbished into M32 Tank Recovery Vehicles, sometimes with HVSS suspension later on. M7 Priests built on M3 Lee chassis later got cast hull noses when they were refurbished.
Cheers,
Logan