the difference of all the examples you have put is that churchil can defeat a tiger 1 vs 1

Can? Yes, but only with astronomically unlikely RNG.

The Churchill Mk VII has 240 frontal armor and 1400 health, meaning that it takes 9 penetrating Tiger hits to kill it. The Tiger has 300 frontal armor and 1040 health, meaning that it takes 7 penetrating Churchill hits to kill it. But the Tiger has between 200 and 240 armor penetration while the Churchill only has between 105 and 135 armor penetration. We can do some simple math here to see the average number of hits it will take each tank to kill the other. Taking armor/penetration gives the average number of hits it takes to get one penetration, so in the case of the Tiger hitting the Churchill that's 240/240 to 240/200 but to be simple here I'm just going to take both tank's medium range penetration values, so 220 for the Tiger and 120 for the Churchill. So 240/220 = ~1.1 hits per penetration against the Churchill. 300/120 = 2.5 hits per penetration against the Tiger.

We can now multiply the hits per penetration by the total number of penetrations necessary to kill each tank to get the average number of hits to kill. For the Tiger shooting at the Churchill this is 1.1*9 = ~9.8. For the Churchill shooting at the Tiger this is 2.5*7 = 17.5. So on average it takes the Churchill almost twice as many hits to kill the Tiger. But this calculation is only for number of hits, so it doesn't take into consideration accuracy (which slightly better for the Tiger at every range due to better range) or the significantly better reload rate of the Tiger (5.25 for the Tiger and ~6.8 for the Churchill). In addition, the Tiger actually out-ranges the Churchill, giving it another advantage in combat. The Churchill has much better acceleration but a lower top speed, so the Tiger will struggle to kite the Churchill effectively but can disengage if it needs to. But as we saw, the Tiger should easily win a 1v1 even if they are both in range.