Since some people seem to have extremely hard time grasping context and need everything laid down directly to even begin to comprehend something a clarification:
-The context was about churchills -DAMAGE- which confused people would notice themselves, if they had attention span long enough to read the post quoted in the post they got so worked up with
-With above in mind and with context of the post, aka firepower, being already established, can you claim with a straight face that churchill boasts a great firepower? Or will you get off the blue pill and acknowledge that it is a heavy tank with medium tanks firepower, therefore, still in the context of firepower, it will struggle to penetrate aka damage certain high armor units, resulting in a very long time to kill and no way to shorten it up because of very poor mobility.
The Churchill has the same Damage as PzIV and even higher penetration is most ranges.
The Churchill will "struggle to penetrate aka damage" against high armor unit like the KT the same way a PzIV will "struggle to penetrate aka damage" against high armor units like the IS-2.
Churchill struggles against OKW P4 and vet2 ost P4.
It will not however struggle vs the OKW PzIV as the it was originally claimed, it will win in most cases.
The claim is simply false and misleading and will remain so no matter how much "smoke and mirrors" are used.
I suggest to simply move on and stop trying to prove a false claim as correct.
(edited straggle since some people struggle with issues)