Piss off with your quantitative argument!!! My opinion trumps that11!!!! The only thing that trumps it are the only other two non doctrinal tank destroyers when there are only three in the game!!! Just lol at how fail that response was...
I don't necessarily agree with what Jaigen wrote but your stats argument is extremely flawed because of the way you're trying to twist things, and cherry picking the stats that you want to use to try and make your, completely ignorant and invalid, point.
If we're to compare the Jackson to the Panther as you seem so apt to do you have to factor in the Jackson's significant range advantage over the Panther (60 vs 50). Combine this with the speed of the Jackson and with proper micro it isn't all that hard to beat Panthers with Jacksons, especially considering the much higher cost of the Panther. This becomes even easier in a proper team game (since as I've already admitted, TDs in general seem to underperform in 1v1s [except the OKW panther] because you're spending so many resources on strict AT capabilities) when you combine the Jackson with the power of Soviet/M20 mines, Mark Target, AT nades, ZiS/USF AT guns etc etc.
Statistically the Jackson is an extremely powerful TD, it only lacks in armor and HP - but it more than makes up for that with the punch it brings to the field - and in practice the Jackson is the most powerful TD in the game (barring Elefant/JT) by a wide margin. The only thing it need fear are AT guns, as it should, because they're the natural and necessary counter to a TD like the Jackson.
The SU85 is actually awful. Honestly it is probably the worst/most useless tank in the game. It struggles to kill properly micro'd P4s and completely flops over against anything heavier. Its lack of mobility and turret are a huge liability. It is woefully vulnerable to flanks and doesn't have any of the utility that a Jackson can provide with vehicle crew swapping (free vet 3 Scott anyone? those things are disgusting), repairing of itself/allied tanks or simply pop-cap abusing.
Sure the Jackson isn't great on all maps (ettlebruck I'm looking at you) - but any map it performs poorly on the other TDs (Su85/Jp4) will perform worse on.
I think it should be pretty obvious by this point that the Jackson is light-years ahead of the SU85 and a lot of the same arguments could be made about the Jackson vs the Jp4, although I rate the Jp4 as considerably better than the Su85 (but still not good given the current price/alternatives). The Jp4 has an amazingly low model size and actually wonderful frontal armor - plus it can stealth. Clearly better than the Su85 already, and if given enough tender love and care to get to high levels of vet it could begin to out-perform the Jackson. The only true downfall of the Jp4 is how much manpower/fuel it costs and the consideration that you can get a Panther without spending too much more. Sure the Panther isn't great against infantry, but at least it has a couple of MGs available that will do decent enough.
Anyways, I think this post is long enough at this point, and I need some sleep. But please, you simply cannot just try and cite a specific assortment of stats (of which you actually haven't provided specific numbers/comparisons) to try and make an argument. Stats in CoH 2 are more of a guideline/correlation of how fights should go or how units should be used. In almost all cases actual in-game experience and the reality of the ways in which units interact is significantly more important than a bunch of numbers in a spreadsheet. Yes the data is great to have so that you can understand and learn the underlying mechanics of the game but being a spreadsheet warrior will always lose when compared with in-game expertise.