How much would WWII have changed if the US developed and equivalent

>>34541224
>What else would the 105 be used on?

Killing nazis. Because that was the main business of the Sherman. And with a 105mm it would have been fucking incredible at that. The F1 has a HE-penetration of roughly 350mm RHA at 2 klicks. If would have eaten every german tank alive.

>>34541224
Why the 105mm when the 17pdr firefly was a thing

Considering we are using a gun developed 25 years later, why not just skip to L7 mounted on a pershing or something

>>34541224
It might actually make things worse early-on as by the time the Sherman came out the majority of its purpose was as a platform for the 75 mm that could mount it on a turret, unlike the M3 lee. Assuming it still came out on-schedule, production would have to be shifted away from the 75 and towards building more 105mm guns which would end up wasting months in order to get it up to parity versus churning out more 75s.

But at least nobody would be complaining about the Sherm ever being undergunned, amirite?

How much would WWII have changed if Nazi Germany developed and equivalent of the fat man nuclear bomb and mounted them on the Arado Ar 234 right from its first deployment, basically giving them the total upper hand in 1943? How would this have affected doctrine? What else would the fat man nuclear bomb be used on?

>>34541224
it wouldn't because Americans barely participated in WW2 against Nazi Germany

>>34541272
>But at least nobody would be complaining about the Sherm ever being undergunned, amirite?

They'd complain about the ammo capacity instead.

>>34541274
The difference is that the US theoretically had the technology to do it during the period, but rightfully didn't do it because it would complicate logistics and reduce the amount of time they would spend fighting when they already delayed their entry into the war by years. The entire reason the Lee and Sherman were sent into combat half-completed was because they were needed now, both by the British and by the US. The 105 would have been bad for the Sherman as it would reduce is ammo capacity and increase logistical strain when all it needed to do for its debut in Africa was punch a hole through Panzer IVs.

How much would WWII have changed if every French soldier was replaced by two Leclercs right from their first deployments, basically giving France twice as many Leclercs as they had soldiers? How would this have affected doctrine? What else could the Leclerc have replaced?

How much would WWII have changed if Poland had 1000 T-72s and F-16 jets right from the beginning of the conflict?

You should have had a more plausible scenario, like the PZIV having a L48 7.5cm gun its first models, and Shermans starting with 90mm guns and t34s starting with the 85mm model.