That may have been your intent, but the link to that rather excellent website was not to the analysis of its combat effectiveness, but rather to what it was like to drive. In any case, the problem as I see it was the Germans tried to invent a "better mousetrap" than the Marder series of vehicles, but only succeeded in getting a less effective, albeit fully enclosed, vehicle. It is analogous to the discussions regarding providing an armored cover for the open top turret of American GMC...it may have better protected the turret crew from mortar and artillery fragments, but it also negated the excellent visibility and situational awareness the open top granted TD crewmen. They were not as effective as the StuG, but then that was because the StuG btterer suited the requirements for an "infantry accompanying gun" combined with a "mobile antitank gun". So I think it evident that is directly related to the vehicle. I suspect it may actually have been better - or at least more effective - to keep the early 1944 Inf-Div Typ 44 Pz-Jg-Abtl organization with one company of StuG and one company of Marder. The later organization of one company of JgPz 38(t) and one company of 7.5cm towed guns was a major retrograde in capability. Indeed, but that applied to all tactical capability, so was an even-handed deficit that applied to all equipment. Thus, all things being equal, less capable equipment reduced the effectiveness even more.