Just so there's no confusion, I'm referring to the armored fighting vehicle known as an assault gun. Assault guns do seem to offer a number of advantages when compared to tanks: they are easier and cheaper to build and maintain, have a lower target profile, and need less weight for a comparable amount of armor and firepower compared to tank (which also gives advantages to speed, fuel consumption, etc). On the other hand, lacking a turret tends to restrict the tactical flexibility of the assault gun compare to a tank, as the casement mounting only allows a very limited field of movement before the entire vehicle needs to be shifted to aim the main weapon. So, how well do assault guns measure up against tanks, and would it be a practical military decision for a nation to use assault guns as the bulk of an armored fighting force instead of tanks? What would have been the effects if, for example, WWII Germany were to focus more on production of and improvements too the StuG series rather than producing the Panther and Tiger of OTL? Would the Swedish Stridsvagn 103 (classified as a tank but similar in concept to vehicles like the StuG III) have functioned as well as more traditional designs in combat?