Jump to content


SU-100 vs Jagdpanther


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
19 replies to this topic

Poll: SU-100 vs Jagdpanther (27 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 5 battles in order to participate this poll.

Which is better?

  1. SU-100 (8 votes [29.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.63%

  2. Jagdpanther (19 votes [70.37%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.37%

Vote Hide poll

Matthew J35U5 #1 Posted 03 November 2014 - 11:25 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013
The SU-100 is an up-gunned and up-armoured SU-85: After the introduction of the T-34-85, the utility of the SU-85 was at an end, and the Soviet authorities decided to modify the SU-85 by arming it with a 100 mm gun, expanding the casement to accommodate the larger gun, and increased the frontal armour to 75 mm.

 

The Jagdpanther is a German TD built on a Panther chassis, it is armed with an 88 PaK 43 main gun, and has 80 mm of frontal armour.

 

The SU-100 and Jagdpanther seem quite similar vehicles: both have similar frontal armour, with the SU-100 having a slightly more aggressive slope, and the Jagdpanther having slightly stronger armour. Their main guns have similar performance, according to Soviet tests (used because I have a source which tested both guns, hence relative performance should be accurate) the 100 D10S penetrates 170 mm of flat armour at 100 m, 149 mm at 1000 m, and 125 mm at 2000 m, while the 88 PaK 43 penetrates 168 mm at 100 m, 14X mm at 1000 m, and 12X mm at 2000 m (my image is obscured on the last digit for the PaK 43). The 88 PaK 43 has a slightly higher muzzle velocity however, 1000 m/s compared to the D-10S's 900 m/s.*

 

In terms of mobility, both claim similar top speeds, and similar specific powers. However, the operational range of the SU-100 is twice that of the Jagdpanther (320 km to 160 km), and the SU-100 weighs only ~32 tons to the Jagdpanther's 45.

 

Regarding other characteristics of the two vehicles, the D-10S has a somewhat shorter barrel than the PaK 43 does, useful considering that both vehicles were at risk of hitting their gun barrels into the ground when going down slopes. The accuracy of the PaK 43 and the D-10S would be more-or-less the same. The inter-leaved suspension of the Jagdpanther is more comfortable for the crew, but is harder to maintain. (Mud getting stuck in it would be painful). The Jagdpanther is 0.42 m wider, and 0.46 m taller. 

 

My Pick

 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


MegaB0B0 #2 Posted 04 November 2014 - 12:33 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

Jpanther is the better tank on the field thanks to German optics, way better operating crew ergonomics and gun reliability. It carries more ammo, plus it looks better lol.

Too few of the jp were produced, but concept wise the jp has way better rough terrain mobility and all round protection than the su-100 in reality.

Two thing it compare weaker than su-100 is crap reliability in engine and transmission and cost more money and men hour to produce per tank than su-100.

german engines are way heavier than Russian engines cause German does not have the material to build light engines for tanks, hence the weight of the thing, the jp is heavier cause it carries more complex equipment and engineering, it has more sets of wider wheels for a start than the su-100. 

 

 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

Matthew J35U5 #3 Posted 04 November 2014 - 01:18 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostMegaB0B0, on 03 November 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Jpanther is the better tank on the field thanks to German optics, way better operating crew ergonomics and gun reliability. It carries more ammo, plus it looks better lol.

Too few of the jp were produced, but concept wise the jp has way better rough terrain mobility and all round protection than the su-100 in reality.

Two thing it compare weaker than su-100 is crap reliability in engine and transmission and cost more money and men hour to produce per tank than su-100.

german engines are way heavier than Russian engines cause German does not have the material to build light engines for tanks, hence the weight of the thing, the jp is heavier cause it carries more complex equipment and engineering, it has more sets of wider wheels for a start than the su-100. 

 

The Americans who were sent a T-34 and KV-1 to study (in 1943) had this to say on Soviet optic quality, "Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America." It seems unsubstantiated to claim the Jagdpanther has an advantage in optics.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


The Raider777 #4 Posted 04 November 2014 - 03:58 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 20117 battles
  • 4,421
  • Member since:
    11-09-2013
SU-100 is my favorite tank. So invisible.

Crazedtiger77 #5 Posted 04 November 2014 - 07:19 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 11426 battles
  • 2,420
  • Member since:
    05-17-2014
It's very close but I think the JPanther was best as it was an all round better performing tank, it's only weakness compared to the Su100 is being bigger and more costly to make. This article is interesting to read: http://reocities.com...on/3120/td.html There were cases in the war where 2 JPanthers knocked out 15 Churchills with no losses, showing its value.

Edited by Crazedtiger77, 04 November 2014 - 07:20 AM.


MegaB0B0 #6 Posted 04 November 2014 - 07:42 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 04 November 2014 - 12:18 PM, said:

 

The Americans who were sent a T-34 and KV-1 to study (in 1943) had this to say on Soviet optic quality, "Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America." It seems unsubstantiated to claim the Jagdpanther has an advantage in optics.

 

that's opposite to what I read on what happen between German and Russian equipment quality.

german optical equipment was the best in the world as they had the most capable and innovative optical / camera companies in the world at the time develop optics for them, where as Russians were lagging behind even the british has better optical equipment because years of battleship optical system research they got. 

the success of German tanks in the early years of the war was had to the gun sight equipment quality and ease of use to thank for.

 

 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

Matthew J35U5 #7 Posted 04 November 2014 - 11:43 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostMegaB0B0, on 04 November 2014 - 02:42 AM, said:

 

that's opposite to what I read on what happen between German and Russian equipment quality.

german optical equipment was the best in the world as they had the most capable and innovative optical / camera companies in the world at the time develop optics for them, where as Russians were lagging behind even the british has better optical equipment because years of battleship optical system research they got. 

the success of German tanks in the early years of the war was had to the gun sight equipment quality and ease of use to thank for.

There is a lot of things claimed about German tanks that isn't true. For example here, Soviet optic quality was as good as German because the Soviet Union was producing license copies of German optics.

 

Other commonly believed but untrue things about German tanks is that their armour was better than other nations armour (untrue even at the beginning of WWII, completely false at the end of WWII), or that their guns were more accurate than other nation's tank guns (which, aside from certain exceptions is also untrue. The ML-20S is less accurate than a KwK 43 for example, but not by that much, a D-25 is about as accurate).


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


bob3464 #8 Posted 04 November 2014 - 11:47 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9421 battles
  • 2,493
  • Member since:
    05-11-2014
I'm never happy to see a SU-anything because it's usually the last thing I see.

I hate being bi-polar. It's awesome!

 

 


Matthew J35U5 #9 Posted 04 November 2014 - 11:59 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostCrazedtiger77, on 04 November 2014 - 02:19 AM, said:

It's very close but I think the JPanther was best as it was an all round better performing tank, it's only weakness compared to the Su100 is being bigger and more costly to make. This article is interesting to read: http://reocities.com...on/3120/td.html There were cases in the war where 2 JPanthers knocked out 15 Churchills with no losses, showing its value.

Well, that top ten seems completely wrong, how does one not place the StuG III at number 1? Certainly it served the longest of any of those, and had an exemplary combat record over the course of the war.



MegaB0B0 #10 Posted 04 November 2014 - 12:13 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 9991 battles
  • 3,963
  • Member since:
    02-13-2014

View PostMatthew J35U5, on 04 November 2014 - 10:43 PM, said:

There is a lot of things claimed about German tanks that isn't true. For example here, Soviet optic quality was as good as German because the Soviet Union was producing license copies of German optics.

 

Other commonly believed but untrue things about German tanks is that their armour was better than other nations armour (untrue even at the beginning of WWII, completely false at the end of WWII), or that their guns were more accurate than other nation's tank guns (which, aside from certain exceptions is also untrue. The ML-20S is less accurate than a KwK 43 for example, but not by that much, a D-25 is about as accurate).

German did sold some of their panzer 2/3 level optics to the Russian before the war, during the cooperation era when Russian are making tank design testing for them. Early quality t34/kv-1/kv-2 are up there with German production quality.  It was crew training, tactics and lack of servicing (units don't even have right shells) that doomed the first batches of new tanks. 

Issue was during the whole chaos at the beginning of the invasion, lot of quality equipment and skilled professionals were lost, hence what I read was on how crude every component of the Russian tanks were since late 1941 and production quality only starting to return prewar level til late 1943. 

 

German tanks were crap in design protection style from the beginning until the panther and their tanks engine and transmission reliability never catch up to US Russian levels thanks to complexity of the designs. But the crew ergonomics and operating structure design were always better than Russian machines. Crews of t34 were very hard jobs and often skinny guys were forced to drive them.

the worst late war tanks for Germany in ergonomics was the hetzer, but every other tanks is nice to operate in but a nightmare to maintain. 

 


That one bounced... WTF..not at 100m and not twice in a roll and not on the side of a Walfe-100 with a BL-10!!!

BrinkOfInfamy #11 Posted 20 November 2014 - 06:11 AM

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 1612 battles
  • 838
  • Member since:
    10-11-2013
Matthew, I'd like to introduce you to Wehraboo Bingo

Ban #13

 


Major Fulcrum #12 Posted 20 November 2014 - 06:25 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 12586 battles
  • 24,863
  • [KMD]
  • Member since:
    08-23-2013

View PostD0omedEx1stence, on 20 November 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Matthew, I'd like to introduce you to Wehraboo Bingo.

That was funny.



Matthew J35U5 #13 Posted 20 November 2014 - 10:48 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostD0omedEx1stence, on 20 November 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

Matthew, I'd like to introduce you to Wehraboo Bingo

 

Already playing. :trollface:

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


BlazinWeedies #14 Posted 21 November 2014 - 01:49 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 14685 battles
  • 408
  • Member since:
    10-12-2013
There is one other, perhaps mute point. It is known that German armour had as much as twice the strength to thickness as allied armour, including the Russians. Also, Russia did not give "superb" optics either. EVERY thing was made to be cheap. Plus Russian doctrine called for closing to as close to the enemy as possible. Why put sights to hit over 1000m when you want to be within 20m..Not saying either one is better. It comes down to combat which frankly there isnt enough data from actual combat....which leaves it to Our battlefield to decide..TO THE BETTER TANKER GOES VICTORY.  and may RNGesus be with you. :playing:

Matthew J35U5 #15 Posted 21 November 2014 - 05:50 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostBlazinWeedies, on 20 November 2014 - 08:49 PM, said:

There is one other, perhaps mute point. It is known that German armour had as much as twice the strength to thickness as allied armour, including the Russians. Also, Russia did not give "superb" optics either. EVERY thing was made to be cheap. Plus Russian doctrine called for closing to as close to the enemy as possible. Why put sights to hit over 1000m when you want to be within 20m..Not saying either one is better. It comes down to combat which frankly there isnt enough data from actual combat....which leaves it to Our battlefield to decide..TO THE BETTER TANKER GOES VICTORY.  and may RNGesus be with you. :playing:

 

This is hilariously wrong. Like, all of it. I can't post pictures when on my iPad, but when I get home I'll address this properly.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Mariousic #16 Posted 21 November 2014 - 07:12 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14939 battles
  • 3,337
  • [BNKR]
  • Member since:
    08-01-2014
I've used the SU-100 the 122mm is amazing on it! loved it was amazing unfortunately i cant' comment on the JPanther but one of my friends have had it and he said it's not very good so. i'd say SU-100! all the way!


Matthew J35U5 #17 Posted 21 November 2014 - 08:15 PM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostRole Mario, on 21 November 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

I've used the SU-100 the 122mm is amazing on it! loved it was amazing unfortunately i cant' comment on the JPanther but one of my friends have had it and he said it's not very good so. i'd say SU-100! all the way!

This is about the historical vehicles, not the in-game ones. Glad you enjoyed the SU-100 in-game though, I found it pretty fun as well. Don't be afraid of the Jagdpanther though, I thought it was pretty good, and it was one of the only 2 tier 7 TD's I kept after grinding through it. 

View PostBlazinWeedies, on 20 November 2014 - 08:49 PM, said:

There is one other, perhaps mute point. It is known that German armour had as much as twice the strength to thickness as allied armour, including the Russians. Also, Russia did not give "superb" optics either. EVERY thing was made to be cheap. Plus Russian doctrine called for closing to as close to the enemy as possible. Why put sights to hit over 1000m when you want to be within 20m..Not saying either one is better. It comes down to combat which frankly there isnt enough data from actual combat....which leaves it to Our battlefield to decide..TO THE BETTER TANKER GOES VICTORY.  and may RNGesus be with you. :playing:

So, basically there are three claims here:

  • German armour is superior to Soviet steel of the same thickness
  • Soviet Optics were bad
  • Soviet doctrine called for closing to the closest range possible. 

First:

Before the war, the Soviet Union was sent a Pz. III. They tested a 30 mm thick section of its armour by firing a 45 mm shell at it. (Effective range was ~1600 m). This was the result:

The Soviet testers were surprised by this as they expected a 30 mm plate to withstand a 45 mm shell at such a low impact velocity, so they had a local factory build them an identical test plate. They carried out the same test:

Certainly not twice as strong as Soviet steel of the same thickness. Furthermore, after operation Barbarossa, consideration was given to copying the T-34. Guderian writes:

"In November of 1941, high ranking engineers, industry representatives, and armament directorate officers came to my tank army in order to familiarize themselves with the Russian T-34 tank. Frontline officers suggested that we should build tanks exactly like the T-34 in order to correct the unpleasant position of our armoured forces, but this position did not receive support from the engineers. Not because they were opposed to imitation, but because it was not possible to rapidly set up manufacturing of important components, especially the diesel motor. Additionally, our hardened steel, whose quality was dropping due to a lack of natural resources, was inferior to the Russians' hardened steel."

H. Guderian, "Memories of a Soldier", page 268

(Emphasis mine)

It seems completely contrary to evidence to suggest that German steel was at all to steel produced by the Soviet Union.*


*Though apparently German steel was superior to steel produced by Czechoslovakia. 

Secondly, the claim that Soviet optics were bad: As I mentioned above on this very page, American examiners of the T-34 and KV-1 sent to them by the Soviet Union declared of the optics, "Consensus: the gun sights are the best in the world. Incomparable to any currently known worldwide or currently developed in America." Now, one could perhaps argue that Americans might be unaware of what Germany had for optics at the time, and thus, "best in the world" might be a bit of hyperbole, but it seems evident that even if soviet optics weren't "the best" they were pretty damn good. 

 

Lastly, the claim that Soviet doctrine was to close to the smallest possible distance:

The "Directive of the Military Council of the 1st Ukrainian Front on the use of IS-2 and ISU-152 regiments in combat", writes of the use of the IS-2 and ISU-152 that,

"The IS-122 and ISU-152 should open direct fire at ranges of up to 2000 meters. Most effective fire is from 1500 meters"
Now, obviously an SU-100 is neither an IS-2 nor an ISU-152, however the D-10S has similar ballistic performance to the D-25T, so there is no reason to think that the SU-100 could not also be effective opening fire between 1500-2000 m. 


Edited by Matthew J35U5, 21 November 2014 - 08:16 PM.

KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


v Skoll v #18 Posted 22 January 2015 - 10:20 PM

    Captain

  • Beta Tester
  • 9977 battles
  • 1,744
  • [GRU]
  • Member since:
    11-08-2013

Funny that I just now saw this thread.  I just ordered this book a couple days ago, and am waiting for it's arrival.

 

Before I knew of WoT, I was already an enthusiast on German tank destroyers and assault guns.  I never really much cared for the proper German tanks of the Panzer line, as it was clear to me that they were inefficient vehicles in far too many ways; difficult to manufacture, mechanically unreliable, resource consuming, and mostly inferior to many of the Soviet designs.

 

The assault guns and the tank destroyers though, in general, were much more reliable (especially those based off the Pz.III chassis), and typically more economical both in resources and cost.  Relative to the other nations, they were at least equal to the tank destroyers and assault guns fielded by the other nations, and enjoyed considerable success due to the eventual nature of the war Germany would find themselves in throughout much of WWII; defense.  

 

Reliability was slightly better for the Jagdpanther relative to the Panther, due to the way in which tank destroyers were used, often in a rather immobile or "dug in" fashion, and in general did not suffer as much "wear-and-tear".  The Jagdpanther came along when the initial teething issues of the Panther were being worked out, but still suffered from the same limitations of the design, such as the interleaved track wheel design and general over-design of the vehicle.

 

Unlike the Jagdpanther, to which I had acquired a couple books on and had read and researched as extensively as possible prior to ever playing WoT, the SU-100 is a tank I have become enamored with thanks to WoT.  Unfortunately though, English books specifically about the SU-100 seem to be essentially nonexistent, and I have been limited in my ability to research this tank.  The site battlefield.ru has been helpful for a lot of my interests into the Russian armor and arms of the WWII period, but I am still not satisfied with the amount of information out there.

 

Still though, from what I understand of the two vehicles, here is my analysis of the two.

 

Ease/Cost of Production:

I can not answer the cost, as I have no idea how much the SU-100 cost per unit.  Ease of production, assuming equal resources and similar manufacturing ability, would be the SU-100 due to the smaller dimensions and less complicated design.

 

Armament:

In my opinion the 100mm D-10S and 8,8cm Pak 43 guns are near identical in performance, and there is nothing to suggest one is better than the other.  The various ammunition used for the Pak 43 guns was around 10kg or 11kg, where as the D-10S used ammunition in the 16kg range.  The Pak 43 rounds had a typically higher velocity than the D-10S; depending on sources, the average difference between the velocity of ammunition for the two guns is around 100 m/s.

 

Unfortunately, more advanced analysis of ammunition is hard to come by, and as such I have never seen any source which gives the Ballistic Coefficient and Sectional Density values of the various projectiles used in tank/anti-tank guns of this period.  These values would help in determining penetrative and accuracy determination, but are sadly non-existent as far as I can tell.  Still though, there was enough testing information and battlefield analysis of both rounds, to draw a fair conclusion as to the performance of both.

 

In short, combat and testing performance of both guns show an effectively equal performance in terms of penetration and accuracy.  Either gun is as capable as the other. 

 

Armour:

Both are very similar.  The Jagdpanther has 5mm more base armour on both the frontal superstructure and the lower glacis.  The glacis of both is essentially angled the same, where as the superstructure front of the SU-100 is a half dozen degrees better angled.  Frontally the Jagdpanther has the edge, but not by a significant amount.

The side armor is again better on the Jagdpanther, both in base thickness and angle.  Again though, the difference is not drastic.

The rear armor, both hull and superstructure works out to be roughly the same for both.

 

All in all, both are strong frontally for the WWII era, but are very weak everywhere else.  This is of course not surprising, as tank destroyers are meant as ambush and defensive vehicles, and aren't meant to trade shots with other vehicles.  Neither of the two vehicles have an armour scheme that will save them from the potency of the others gun, even at the longer operational engagement ranges.

 

Mobility and Area of Operation Performance:

From everything I have read, the mobility of both vehicles appears to be excellent.  Both use water cooled V12 engines, with the stronger engine being the Maybach on the Jagdpanther, outputting at 200hp higher, with an RpM at 3000 versus 1800 for the W-2.  The Jagdpanther seems to have a slight edge over the SU-100 in speed and terrain performance, with the SU-100 being the slightly more agile vehicle.

 

Ultimately the Jagdpanther is the better of the two in all-around mobility. 

 

The SU-100 has a much greater operational range, thanks to having a lower outputting diesel engine and lower weight, which end up giving it roughly twice the range both in cross country and in road use.  Both vehicles can carry a fair amount of fuel internally, though the Jagdpanther can carry the most but not enough to compensate for range performance of the SU-100.

 

The SU-100 has been proven to operate in extreme cold and extreme heat, and in difficult environments such as the Middle Eastern deserts (as the SU-100M).  The Jagdpanther can operate in cold, snowy environments, but runs into complications due to icing in regards to the interleaved wheel design.  This is a known and well chronicled problem of this wheel design.  It is not limited to icing, but other debris can cause issues between the overlapping wheels.  Further, the Jagdpanther did not see desert environments, so it's ability to operate in sandy conditions is unknown as is it's ability to be modified to operate in said environment.  

 

The SU-100 is the better of the two for it's ability to operate in all environments and weather, and it's operational range. 

 

Conclusion:

I will have to answer this in a variety of ways;

 

  • In combat situations used in it's proper role; both are equal
  • In combat situations used out of it's intended role; both are equal
  • In a direct combat situation against the other; both are equal
  • In a less than ideal or hazardous environment conflict; the SU-100 is better
  • In terms of non-combat functionality; the SU-100 is better
  • In terms of what vehicle I would choose if I was building an Army; I would choose the SU-100

 

I think that combat wise you have two great vehicles, and the only real faults of the Jagdpanther stem not from actual combat ability, but from aspects of the vehicles design.  Thus reliability is likely worse in general for the Jagdpanther, as it uses the Panther chassis and other components, and has a poor wheel design in regards to potential environmental/weather obstruction.  I am partially talking out of my 455 here, as I have not read as much about the SU-100 as the Jagdpanther due to limited sources.  The wheel design is problematic, as is the other Panther elements of the Jagdpanther.  I have also never seen reports on SU-100's actual reliability in terms of   That much I do know.  What I don't know, is if there has been captured SU-100's or 100M's and if analysis was conducted as to the overall reliability.

 

 



Matthew J35U5 #19 Posted 23 January 2015 - 12:21 AM

    Major

  • Players
  • 14028 battles
  • 12,033
  • [GIRLS]
  • Member since:
    09-09-2013

View PostSTURMHAUBITZE42, on 22 January 2015 - 05:20 PM, said:

[snip]

Should be interesting to see what the book has to say, perhaps when you get it you could share its conclusion with us?

I more-or-less agree with all of your points. If both are as combat effective, and one is (presumably) cheaper and faster to build, it would appear to be the better vehicle. 


KeystoneCops, on 14 June 2015 - 12:51 PM, said:


Nocturnal814 #20 Posted 23 January 2015 - 12:47 AM

    Major

  • Beta Tester
  • 16690 battles
  • 9,952
  • Member since:
    08-09-2013
I would choose an su100 with a pak 43. While both guns have virtually the same performance, the German gun will get the edge because of the weight of the shells. The loader will tier less throwing an 11 kg shell than a 16kg shell, allowing for a higher rof and a crew that is able to operate at peak rof for a longer period of time. Also, the extra 100m of shell velocity will make a difference as far as shell trajectory goes and allow a straighter shot to be taken.

something, something, something, dark side...




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users