KV1 vs Churchill

Much is made of the fact that the KV1 (and KV2) came as a nasty shock to the Germans when they encountered it, their 50mm & 37mm AT guns completely failing to make any impression on it. It was a heavy tank, with a small gun for its size, that relied on thick, unsloped armour for protection.

When the Churchill was first introduced into combat at El Alamein (not counting Dieppe, as the shingle immobilised them) out of 6 Churchills only 1 was knocked out - by a mine. One Churchill was found to have been hit 31 times by 50mm & 47mm AT guns, yet still be in full working order. It was a heavy tank, with a small gun for its size, that relied on thick, unsloped armour for protection.

So, which was better, KV1 or Churchill?

 

I would guess the KV was a better all rounders but the Churchill probably had advantages in certain areas.

 

hmmm Yes Churchill might have some strong points against the KV-1.Tehy are both Slow .But the KV-1 does have very thick armor at the time .Depends on which version also because the KV-1C had a more armor but slower . the KV-1C had the cast turret as well . I think the KV-1 would be the likely one to win in a battle .Simply because the Churchill probally wont get close enough in time to use the advantages it has against the KV-1

 

The Churchill was apparently very good mountain climber by tank standard. A feature that I believe prevent it from being cancelled mid war.

 

The Churchill's many small wheels required much maintenance (I have read that the maintenance crews could be up all night while the tank crews slept) but the unique suspension gave it it's legendary ability to cross ground that other vehicles could not, i.e. the mud of the Reichswald battle. I would guess that this ability was better than that of the KV or any other tank of the time.

 

There is more to tanks than comparing them simply as "KV1 vs Churchill" in single tank combat. A tank is useful in a larger frame - think tactically, strategically. Many factors have to be taken into account.

The Mk. III Churchill was a drastic improvement over earlier models, and superior to the KV 1 (depending slightly on which versions are being compared, of course).

 

I was rather thinking more of 'which tank is better' than 'which tank would win in a one-on-one fight'...

Or rather - why has the KV-1 got a reputation as an impenitrable beast when the Churchill was just as tough?

 

Probably because the KV earned its rep when things were at their worst for the Russians. By the time the Churchill saw the light of day things were starting to swing in favour of the Western Allies.

In terms of British tanks the Matilda 2 is the closest to matching the rep of the KV. Before anyone jumps on me I know that there is a pretty big gap in their capabilities, but the Matilda 2 did up to 1941 have the capacity of severely screw you unless you were packing something fairly serious.

 

Very true - the 'Queen of the Desert' gave the Germans a nasty shock in France, and Italians could scarcely touch it in North Africa.

 

I don't think you can compare these two tanks on equal footing. They may have similar characteristics, but only within their own timeframe - the KV1 became outdated as the Germans began to mount long 75mm guns on their tanks, whereas the Churchill did not. The KV-1 was already around when the war started, while the Churchill only first appeared halfway through.

However, the KV1's legacy continued in the form of the JS series heavy tanks, which were completely out of the Churchill's league by 1945...

 

Thanks Roel,
Because of the Churchills good qualities, coupled with it's small turret ring, that's why I think they should have continued with the SP version from 1941. I think they were really onto something with the 50 or so SP 3" Gun Carriers they made, and I feel that would have given them a heavy powerful vehicle until a new class of vehicle - the Centurion - was ready, as the suspension of the cruiser tank was too light for heavy armament & armor.
As for the KV, I'm not very familiar, but I have the impression it was very simple and robust.

 

It was robust in the way that it had good armor protection, but it was not mechanically reliable - gearboxes especially. Poor ergonomics and difficult steering were also flaws. It brought the same amount of firepower as the T-34 to the battlefield for a higher price. Russian crews preferred the T-34.

 

Which was a later development designed for an altogether different purpose - definitely not comparable with the KV-1 - which accidentally carried the same gun.

The Churchill, like the KV-1, was famed mostly because it had thick armour, but other than that few advantages become apparent. Like Panzerman said, the KV-1 had a pretty feeble gun that could easily be fitted to tanks little more than half the KV-1's weight; other than that it had a terrible crew compartment layout which made it difficult to use. The Churchill was not so bad in this sense but in compensation it was hard to maintain and tediously slow. It's only if you consider trench crossing and hill climbing to be vital for SP guns that this chassis would be useful for that purpose.

 

The Churchill did have the advantage that it was an ideal basis for a large number of 'funnies' - basically AVRE tanks, Bridgelayers, Bobbins, Arks, Fascines, etc etc. Tough armour to survive in the front line, roomy hull, fairly low hull with a flat top, etc etc. Only problem was the speed...

 

I was not comparing them as tanks, but noting that the crews preferred the lighter and arguably "less survivable" of the two... would a Pz IV crew have done the same in regards to the Panther, which is in the same weight class as the KV1?

 

Which in the engineering role wasn't a problem. Anti tank ditches and bunkers aren't noted for getting up and running away.

Churchill put simply was a fantatic tank IF you were refighting WW1. It didn't do too badly but it always had the problem of being designed for a different kind of war.

 

Weight class yes, but purpose no. The Panther and KV-1 are just as incomparable because one is a medium tank and a purpose-built MBT while the other is a heavy tank.

Russian crews may have preferred the T34 in action but that tank was not supposed to be used in the same roles as the KV-1, and therefore the preference of the crew is irrelevant.

 

http://www.tarrif.net/cgi/production/vs_vehicles.php try this site and compare the two i compare the mk 3 version of the churchill and the 1942 version of the KV-1

 

the Kv-1 has the upper hand on Armor and range also fuel consumption . The Kv-1 also uses a Diesel engine less prone to catch on fire .

 

The KV 1 has 110mm @ 60° and, 40mm @ 25° on the glacis while the Churchill has 152mm @ 90° ... which is thicker.

*The Churchill has it straight though (ninety degrees), maybe the KV 1 has more when you take the slope into account... I am not sure how to calculate this.

Overall, it seems to me that the Churchill has more armor in the right places. You are correct when it comes to range and speed - the difference offroad is neglible at 3 kph...

Overall, the Churchill is better.