Profile of schnuersi

Some things in the article wich is a nice collection of information caught my attention.
The Panther version D, A and G are all different. Not at first glance in the case of D and A but there were constant improvement made to ease manufacture and improve performance as well as reliability.
The version G is not defined by the infrared equipment. Actually all Panther versions could have used it. The Ausf. G is easy recognisable because it doesn't have a step in the side overhang of the track. No driver vision port in the front plate. Later a modified gun shield was added. Ausf. A and D are easiest to tell appart by the different equipment storage and exaust manifold. Allthough this was further changed during the production run of D.

The Panther performed exaptionally well during the Battle of Kursk. Even more so if the teething problems the vehicle suffered from are taken into account. Less than 60 Panther were lost in combat for around 300 enemy tanks knocked out. That is in the 5:1 range. Concidering the high rate of mechanical breakdowns and unrealiable systems its really an astonishing kill rate.

The frontal armor of the Panther can't be reliable penetrated all full caliber AP shots of up to 90 mm. Sub caliber shots more effective though.
The 17 pdr using APDS can penetrate the Panther at all realistic combat distances. But this is a beast of a gun and arguably the best AT gun in the 75-76 mm class of the whole war.
The US 76 mm using APCR (HVAR) also could penetrate at 500 m.
APCR was in low supply. APDS also was rare but less so.
All HEAT shells with enough penetration also would have been effective but the allies didn't really use any that big.

The problem now is that we have to learnn using them like shock troopers closing them to hug distance in order to kill efficiently.

That is not true.
The Sturmpios are still as effective at mid range as they used to be. In green cover they will still dominate any not upgrades T1 infantry and lots of higher tier and upgraded T1 inf. They just can't charge in over open ground without cover and win vs infantry not in green cover this way anymore. Wich was pretty much BS befor.

Now they are counterable with T1 inf. Wich is how it should be. If a unit wins a fight depends on wich player makes the better decisions.

The MG34 hasn't been tone down a lot. It has been changed. Actually it got more acurate at short range and the reload time is reduced. Wich is a buff.
The set up time is a bit slower, the supression is a bit lower and the long range effectiveness is a bit lower. So its performance as such has changed. Its not a MG42 with a different skin anymore. Its a different weapon.
Since its a doctrine unit as such its not a reliable or go to solution anyways.

For blob controll the Kübelwagen works pretty good now. Since it has been changed and is much more usefull. A K'wagen and two Volks can stop a blob. A K'wagen and two Sturmpios can "de blob" if the the supressed units don't retreat.
Wich again is how it should because now the OKW has access to a usefull supression weapon without having to pick a certain doctrine.

As far as I can tell now its very much like in CoH1. Neither for the US or SU nor for the Wh or OKW blobbing rally works anymore. For example on of the preferred Wh tactics of simply spamming Assault Grenadiers is allmost an auto loss now. With a little micro and the wonder of focus fire this can be kept under controll until the first armored unit hits the field. Since Assault Grens have zero AT capability this usually means gg. A single Maxim or Dushka and the blob is flat on his belly.
Same the other way round. A single supression weapon and its either retreat you blob or get deblobbed.
Blobbing is not really an effective strategy. Its just a unimaginative brute force approach with minimum skill requirement. Now flanking and maneuvre and combined arms beats it every time.

About advantages of no-turret build you haven't mentioned to most important one. The main idea was to put 75mm gun on Pz III and here is the problem, turret of this tank is too small for that...

Sorry but this is plain and simple false.

The PIII could have been armed with a 7.5 cm L24 guns like the early StuG or the early PIV marks were was carrying. In fact the final model of the PIII the Ausf. N did carry exactly this gun.

It wasn't done unti '42 since the PIII was intended as primary battle tank with the main purpose of fighting other AFVs. The 7.5 L24 is more of a high velocity grenade launcher or howitzer than a real tank gun. Its main purpose it to lob HE shells at soft targets and field fortifications. Its anti vehicle performance is really poor. The "short" L42 5 cm gun easily outperforms it in any regard (exept the payload of the HE shell) while using smaller, less bulky ammo. The 5 cm gun was the originally intended armament for the PIII. It was delayed as a cost saving measure. This is also the reason why the 7.5 cm L24 fits the PIII turret. It was designed for a 5 cm gun right from the start. The 3.7 cm gun is to small for it.
This is why the PIV wich was originally intended as a support tank for the PIII wich was intended as the main battle tank was armed like this.
In 42 it became apparent that the PIII had reached the end of its usefullness as a main battle tank and its final model was used as a support tank. The PIV with the medium velocity 7.5 cm gun taking its place as the main battle tank. Rearming the last PIII until production shut down with 7.5 cm L24 therfore made perfect sense.

The PIII hull was chosen for the StuG because it was big enough and available in sufficient numbers. The turret was omited because the StuG should have a silhoute as low as possible. To be precise the design requirement was hight over all about the size of a standing man. Wich forbade the use of a turret. It also made the vehicle cheaper, reduced the need for complex and limited supply parts (very important bearings for the turret ring) and since the frontal area was smaller it could be armored better while keeping inside the weight limit of the PIII.