KV1 vs Churchill

And the Churchill had thicker armor ALL AROUND than most designs, which is beneficial in assault combat. Also apparently it was more resistant to being killed, as opposed to being hit, as a result of the design - I remember a photo of one that got repeatedly hit, but damage was either superficial or to the track horns/sprockets, rather than penetrating to the crew. Matilda was good in this way too. But it was the unique suspension that allowed it to traverse mud when other vehicles could not. The Churchill is special in that way.

 

Nice site thank for sharing it Baron

 

About 120mm according to a very crude drawing I just made.

Armour on the Churchill had a maximum thickness of 102mm on every version preceding the Mk.VII. The one under discussion here appears to be the Mk.III, which would therefore have no armour thicker than 102mm. Also it is important to remember that the famous 152mm armour on the Churchill Mk.VII was only the driver's front plate and hull gunner plate; everywhere else it had less.

Which, like I already said, is not too surprising since it is a much more recent design.

 

I know, I know.. I just like repeating myself Although the KV 1 was inferior, it did evolve into something FAR superior... the IS series. Time for a new thread!

 

But then the Churchill evolved too... though the Black Prince was never taken further as we had a much better design at hand.

 

In terms of tanks the Churchill was basically an evolutionary deadend.

 

Wow ! What a thought - the impact that the Churchill would have made in WW1 ! Pointless speculation I know, but all the same ...

 

anytime guys I was just looking on the internet and found that site . Well only one way to find out which one will win in battle .Anyone have a KV-1 and a Churchill ? lol

 

That would not reveal anything.

 

course it does think about it

 

# The winning tank in such a battle would not prove which one is best, but rather, which crew is best. An isolated, single occurence does not prove that... it might prove which crew had the most skill, or was luckiest.

# There is more to a tanks quality than can be seen from such a battle.

# There is more to a tanks quality than tank vs tank combat.

I could go on... But I won't.

 

Only if you produce clones of the crew (With identical upbringing and training) and place them on a symetrical battleground with equal objectives, otherwise it's largely meaningless.

The kind of "Duels" we discuss on forums such as this largely never happened in real life.

 

Statistically speaking, a more accurate picture of the tanks' respective performances would be produced each time the number of units on each side is increased by an equal number - the greater the number, the smaller the effect of wild factors on the result and the more accurate and, therfore, useful the information gathered. For example, if two tanks fought each other we might not be able to draw any wothwhile conclusions, if five tanks of one type fought 5 tanks of a different type we may learn something but not enough to bet your house on but if we had 1000 on each side we would very soon see definite trends developing. Of course, this model deliberately ignores all the other variables but we should still get a reasonable picture of what is occuring.

 

Lone Wolf, you hit the nail squarely on its head! Simple statisticially oriented logic.

Baron, if a T-34-76 and a Tiger II had a duel, and the T-34-76 won, would it be a more powerful tank?

 

Such statistics would probably reveal an answer that would still have no real value, because as I said, if the KV-1 was in fact comparable to the Churchill that would make it veryfar ahead of its time. By which I mean to say that it's unlikely to beat a tank that has three more years of tank design development at its advantage.

 

such that the Numbers dont mean anything in battle .

 

I do not understand what you mean, Baron.

 

Yes they do, a numerical advantage is the best way of negating a deficiency in equipment or training.

Numbers are ultimately how we rate things, penetration values, armour values, range, efficiency, availability are all quantifiable and can be used to work out roughly how effective any given type of equipment can be. True, there is always the chance of a lucky shot killing or disabling an unfortunate tank or crew, but overall the probabilities favour the crew of the tank with the statistics on their side (i.e. Thicker armour = more survivable).

 

Not necissarially, look at Barbarrosa, the Russians lacked training and good tanks. Having 20 000 of them half in reserve didnt really help them much.

 

then basically if what your saying is true Simon then Panzerman's whole statement is wrong .Gunter is exactly right