Being able to climb steep mountains isn't the most valuable trait in Western Europe, however, and that's where the majority of US Army formations were fighting at that time. Despite that, the Sherman was no slouch in this area. The Sherman was noted by German in Italy for being able to climb mountains they could not. The US Army noted the same thing about the Sherman in Korea compared to the M26 and M46. Finally, the Israeli Shermans were used in the Six Day way to climb steep mountain trails that Centurions could not. The Sherman was good enough to handle the slopes encountered in Western Europe.
Doesn't need the 76mm gun? It looks like Eisenhower was wrong in the memo, I guess. That's all he wanted on Jumbos. As the US Army found out, you don't get to decide what threats you encounter. There's no "infantry only, please" box you can check before the battle.
Yes, I think it does show the US Army's willingness to adopt the Firefly. Or, more accurately, it's unwillingness. The 17pdr was the best AT gun in Western service from 1943-45. Why do you think none saw combat with the US Army in WWII? They didn't want the logistic headache. The half-hearted, way too late attempt to acquire too few Fireflies during the last year of the war is—if anything—evidence of the US Army's desire to complicate its logistics chain. And that was just a new ammunition type! The Churchill VII would have everything BUT a new ammunition type.
Now, I can see a limited adoption of the Churchill VII by US units in Italy where Commonwealth forces represented a larger percentage of the overall Allied strength, its low top speed was less of a disadvantage, it's mountain goat nature was more of an advantage, and the US wasn't sending new equipment their way, anyway. Even then, I think it's a bit of a wash. Also, I think the organization of Churchill variants into independent battalions of "Funnies" would also be fine, even for operations in NW Europe, but the US Army found that they really didn't need most of them. I think they were right. Crocodiles were useful, as were Sherman Crabs, but the Sherman with the dozer blade was about the only engineer tank the US really "needed". Things like the DD tanks, Leaflet tanks, etc. proved to be more trouble than they were worth for their very limited operations. They were "cool", but not worth the trouble.
It would seem that Israel in its early struggles against its neighbours had a myriad of different armoured vehicles such as Patton, Centurion, and different models of Shermans. They seemed to have done fine even while resulting logistical complication lasted.
That's absolutely true, but none of those vehicles were as much trouble to maintain as the Churchill. Also, the only British tank of the group, the Centurion was much loved by the Israelis and certainly the best of the three, but that was only after the Israelis replaced the engine and transmission with American ones. The Israeli comments on the Meteor engine are not...flattering.
Again, as you note, they did what they could to standardize the types they had. They standardized on the HVSS and Cummins engine for all their myriad of Sherman variants. They replaced the guns on early Centurions and the M48s with the L7 105mm, gave them both the engine from the M60 (which they had just started using), and gave both the Centurion and M48 the same Allison transmission.
Finally, I don't know if you've ever been to Israel, but it's a VERY small country. You can get from the northern end to the southern end in just a matter of hours. Because of this, conflicts are—by their very nature—short, sharp engagements. As a result of all this, logistical variety is less of an issue than it was for the United States in WWII. Reliability is just as important, but it wasn't necessary for everything to be the same.
Cheers,
Logan