Are you aware of the reason the design was not continued? Guesses would be cost effectiveness, Ammo storage or poor mechanical performance.
The minimal resources I reviewed on these indicated the following:
1. The unreliability of the transmission.
2. Extremely limited traverse of MA.
3. Firing High-Velocity AP rounds caused excessive dust kick-up in front of the AFV - eliminating the crew ability to spot fall of shot. An external spotter was required.
4. HE low-velocity rounds were limited in range.
The AFV was built to take on the Petit-turreted weapons in the Maginot Line defenses, at ranges beyond the effective combat range of fixed HMGs and cupola mounted small caliber(<=40mm) guns. It had some use as the AP rounds were specifically designed for the 105 MA - but the actual fielding of it as a tank destroyer in Barbarossa was disappointing, all thoughts of using it as a stop gap against Russian T-34s and KVs ended with the battle reports from the prototypes.
Beyond that, I am interested in learning a bit more about this AFV. Why protect the loader and not the gun crew? In ASL , did KE or CH give it OT AF, or unarmored rear? How can one model blow out ammo storage in ASL? A few other lingering questions.
KRL, jon H