Do that yourself, please. I didn't say you suggested it should get identical durability to the T-34/76, but that you wanted to lower its stock durability which would bring it closer to a T-34/76. Why would someone gamble 140 fuel for a vehicle that isn't as distinctly more durable and then be forced to risk it to get veterancy before it properly achieves its damage sponge role?
By decreasing its stock durability you would decrease the distinction between its role and that of the T-34/76, which is exactly the opposite of what you suggested should happen afterwards.
The argument that it would bring them closer is completely mute since the distance between the durability of the two vehicles is very big.
In addition I can reverse the argument and says that the current implementation is all wrong because vet bonus brings the the vehicles closer.
T-34/76 vs KV-1 vet bonuses
Vet 2 identical at +35% weapon rotation speed/+30% reload speed.
vet 3 identical at +20% reload speed/+20% rotation speed/+20% maximum speed with T-34/76 getting an extra +20% ac/de-celeration
A heavy tank KV-1 should not have this vet bonus it should had durability bonuses instead.
And the unit has a Pop that is simply too low.
It got the damage reduction ages ago, I'm not sure why you are bringing that up. The only buffs it received recently was the MG DPS change (and are you seriously including the meme rear facing turret MG?) and the new vet 1 ability that is situational.
It doesn't matter what the argument was, you specifically said yourself that it was buffed because it
which just isn't true. It got buffed because it was bad. The T-34/85 was never a part of that decision.
It might not have been your decision but the unit was simply not bad and as I said this argument it used commonly: Why should I get commander with KV-1 when I can get commander with T-34/85 especially since most commander with T-34/85 also come with good abilities.
(Even the fact that it got the same MG as the T-34/85/76 says something)