Quote Originally Posted by Husar
Now the germans had their share of tank destroyers but I find it noteworthy that the guns in the Panther, Tiger and Tiger II were pretty much antitank guns put into tanks, just like the guns in their tank destroyers which I guess is one of the reasons their tanks fared so well against the allied tanks while the pure infantry support tanks would have large caliber, low-velocity guns to destroy buildings etc., like the Brummbär for example or the earlier versions of the Panzer IV. The Panther and Tiger seem to me more like intermediate versions in the sense that they could destroy tanks but you can use pretty much any cannon to shoot a hole into a building when necessary, the ones they made were just smaller. The sherman however was apparently rather useless against other tanks, at least from the front so the american forces had more of a gap between tank destroyers and tanks if I understand that correctly.

Still curious about cannon stabilization though, does anyone know about that?
Well, the Tiger was originally planned as a breakthrough tank - heavy armor, heavy gun, and slower speed. As the name implies, it was meant to lead major offensives, soaking up enemy fire and eliminating whatever it encountered - infantry, guns, or tanks. By the time it was employed, however, it was mainly used to thwart the growing multitude of T-34s.

The Panther was a direct result of the T-34, and embodied the modern day main battle tank more than any other tank. It was heavily armored, heavily gunned, and pretty fast. The Panther was comfortable taking on fixed positions and tanks equally. It most clearly demonstrates the distortion between infantry support and AT AFVs that was so stark earlier in the war.

The King Tiger continued in that vein, as German armoured planning moved to the light/medium/heavy distinctions, instead of the role oriented ones. It was very similar to the Panther, only with heavier armour and a bigger gun.

Only American tanks had stabilizers during WW2. They were so effective that the British removed them and the Americans usually did not maintain them. They were removed from American tanks after the war. IIRC, the British were taught to fire on the move early in the war, but it was shown to be completely ineffective and discarded. As Kagemusha said, its still not an optimal situation today, although the Abrams, for instance, has a very good system.