I agree with Peter. The lugs are angled exactly as one would expect if used for a four point lift. It's just too difficult to access the rear shackles or go under the hull, and the shape of the diesel hulls at the rear only makes it more difficult. The cables would invariably be bearing on plate edges and corners. This damages the cables, damages the plates, and will cause some amount of sliding and shifting until the weight of the tank settles in. That last bit is probably the biggest issue, as having a load slip, jump, and bounce is disconcerting at the least and fatal at the most. The washer-like reinforcements are telling: This is common where a shackle is installed and the primary stresses warrant a thinner plate than pin-bearing stresses (or just the width of the shackle) would dictate. (In other words, you would not make the whole thing out of 2-inch plate when 1-inch plate works everywhere but at the eye.) I think it is telling that lifting lugs were included on the design of the Sherman from the start. As to the strength of the attaching welds, compare these to those holding the hoisting eye (as they were called) onto a Sherman hull! What's surprising to me is that something like this wasn't added as part of the T2/M31 conversion. I'm guessing the engineers could not make something work on the riveted structure with an acceptable safety factor while the depot that designed this probably only looked at the loads on the welds and the lug itself.
Regarding the title, can't that be changed? I've been viewing this in the index for awhile and keep wondering what people in SE Asia are so angry about . . .