(Snip)
Aboslutely no point crediting this rambling mess with a formal response.
You can't just throw down some wild abstraction of multiple vehicles, infantry and support weapons all being used at once in tandem as 'proof' that the Churchill is too good. It's a void. It has no frouding in reality or asaumptions underpinning it.
What point of the game even is this? If you're facing at LEAST a churchill and a firefly you are a bare minimum of last tier and hundreds of fuel deep, not to mention that apparently this wild, hypotherical Ost army apparently can't snare, can't overlap AT sources and can't back up an AT gun with StuG cover that it aoparently has.
Hey, look, I can play wildly under explained test cases too! Turns out that churchills are bad because they can't do anything against a Tiger aupported by AT guns, because if you push your TD to fire at the tiger to make it back off the AT guns delete it, but the firepower of two PaK and a Tiger with faust inf in support is op. And if you buy AT guns a shotgun pakzerwerfer deletes them, and the Tiger deletes infantry. Tigers OP. See how easy it is to just spin crap?
Quantify your bullshit. Make some sort of viable in game comparison. A late gate combined arms approach of hundreds of fuel is going to be powerful.
Nobody is impressed by you correctly identifying that 300 fuel plus of top tier armour is good.