Jump to content


Why the hate for the Sheridan?

Sheridan Tier X Light Tanks

  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

24_inch_pythons #1 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 05:46

    Major

  • Players
  • 29971 battles
  • 5,701
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    03-28-2012

http://wotreplays.eu/site/4928970#steppes-24_inch_pythons-xm551_sheridan

 I don't get it. Always seemed like a good light tank to me, even at Tier X. And why the hate for the Tier X lights in general? Overall they don't seem that bad. I've even seen people who consistently perform well in the RHM. 

 On a side note I'm wondering what people feel about the Tier X Chinese light... is it just the gun depression issue why no one plays it?



VooDooKobra #2 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 05:55

    Major

  • Players
  • 10000 battles
  • 5,846
  • [MOVE] MOVE
  • Member since:
    04-23-2011
While i do find my T49 a little bit more fun i do like to break out the sheridan.  i do not find it to be a bad tank but something about the smaller T49 is a bit more entertaining.  wolfpacking either of these though is super fun

Edited by VooDooKobra, Jun 18 2019 - 05:56.


PotatoLegend99 #3 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 06:08

    First lieutenant

  • -Players-
  • 35389 battles
  • 713
  • Member since:
    05-11-2014

Because nobody likes to share with Dan (I'm the master of bad puns)

 

Spoiler

 



24_inch_pythons #4 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 06:11

    Major

  • Players
  • 29971 battles
  • 5,701
  • [HSOLO] HSOLO
  • Member since:
    03-28-2012

View PostPotatoLegend99, on Jun 17 2019 - 23:08, said:

Because nobody likes to share with Dan (I'm the master of bad puns)

 

Spoiler

 


:trollface:



F1O1 #5 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 06:36

    Captain

  • Players
  • 60 battles
  • 1,583
  • [SAMUS] SAMUS
  • Member since:
    01-11-2012

Sheridan is great for WN8.  Same with T49, stock guns.

 

The problem comes from their concept. They are bad, large, more visible light tanks, with an emphasis on combat.

But if that were the case, you are missing out because you are no where near a medium. lts a dilemma.

 

Good DPM for light tank. But bad light tank, as its easily visible, large size. 

Bad DPM for medium tank, bad armour/HP for medium, bad pen for medium

 

Don't get me wrong, they are a blast in random pubs. But in these situations, they are generally used for all the wrong reasons.



F1O1 #6 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 06:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 60 battles
  • 1,583
  • [SAMUS] SAMUS
  • Member since:
    01-11-2012

Since they are unique among their class, l really think they should be made more into medium tanks.

 

T49 needs penetration increases to 219/270. Accuracy improved to .38

Sheridan needs penetration increases to 242/287

l am also not sure why T49 lost the high Pen HE, like M41GF

 



Genzing #7 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 07:24

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 23430 battles
  • 648
  • [HARM] HARM
  • Member since:
    03-27-2011
I like playing my Sheridan... But, in comparison to the T49, it's ENORMOUS... That's really it for me lol, if WG gave it a sleeker hull or made the entire hull just a tad smaller, I would have no issues with it at all, it's fast, the 105 is a great alternative to the derp, idk, it's a great light in my opinion, but a bit big.

leeuniverse #8 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 08:13

    Major

  • Players
  • 39347 battles
  • 8,082
  • [LAMP] LAMP
  • Member since:
    01-30-2013

People don't like the Sheridan because it's WORSE in every way to the T49 save a bit better gun stats and speed.

 

However:

- The Sheridans speed actually makes it a WORSE tank because of the donkey **** Great PHysics Nerf wargaming ruined tanks with, so the Sheridan is far more "uncontrollable" due to the speed increases.

- This uncontrollability in tank movement also makes the gun worse than the T49, due to the **** Bloom these tanks have, even though stats wise the gun is better than the T49.

- Its SIZE makes it worse.

 

Frankly, I think Wargaming should switch the positions.  Put the T49 at T10 instead, switch everything else, but maybe keep the T49's speed, unless Wargaming had balls to remove the crap physics from lights, which they won't.



F1O1 #9 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 08:45

    Captain

  • Players
  • 60 battles
  • 1,583
  • [SAMUS] SAMUS
  • Member since:
    01-11-2012

Sheridan is better than T49.

 



Tiberianblitz #10 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 11:01

    Corporal

  • Players
  • 17251 battles
  • 91
  • [E-N-D] E-N-D
  • Member since:
    05-03-2011
they need to make the usa light tanks smaller ... other then that there fun but there are better light tanks

venom286 #11 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 11:42

    Captain

  • Players
  • 43318 battles
  • 1,275
  • [BROK3] BROK3
  • Member since:
    11-08-2012
are you using the derp ? 

ThatoneguyKaz #12 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 11:44

    Captain

  • Players
  • 20516 battles
  • 1,568
  • [SNPAI] SNPAI
  • Member since:
    02-28-2013
I just hate that whenever i shoot at its hull i seem to bounce off of random things... its got the most random bounce zones

NeatoMan #13 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 13:23

    Major

  • Players
  • 28180 battles
  • 20,571
  • Member since:
    06-28-2011

Both it and the Rhm have the worst win rate curves of any tank in game. That's a clear sign that they suck. You can have games where you rack up damage with the derpy guns, but most of the time it's useless damage. Most every other LT can do the same thing as these two, but much better.

 

The only time I feel confident in my Rhm is when I see another Rhm or Sheridan on the other team, and we are the only LTs in battle



FatFreddiesCat #14 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 19:48

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 41070 battles
  • 123
  • [T_K_O] T_K_O
  • Member since:
    07-13-2013
It has to be played as a light medium, using it's gun depression to get shots in to support the forward tanks where possible. It's speed and alpha are it's strong points so moving to get hits in more than spotting and scouting but can be used to scout if when needed or support a flank. It's more a tweener utility tank, it's fun to learn and can be rewarding when you figure it out.

redjkent #15 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 20:09

    Captain

  • -Players-
  • 96526 battles
  • 1,190
  • [Y2KBB] Y2KBB
  • Member since:
    07-24-2014

ive had more success with it playing it more like a medium, its kinda too big in my opinion to be a light tank

 



golruul #16 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 22:21

    Captain

  • Players
  • 22118 battles
  • 1,717
  • Member since:
    11-05-2011

I don't like lights in general because they're just a severely gimped medium when playing corridor maps, which happen to be most maps. 

 

On open maps or Frontlines they're fantastic. 

 

Most telling of how bad they suck was during ranked battles -- lights were very, very rare there. 



Mikosah #17 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 23:45

    Major

  • Players
  • 17582 battles
  • 4,452
  • Member since:
    01-24-2013

The trend we see in the Bulldog, T49, and Sheridan is mobility at the cost of huge silhouette size and poor camo ratings. And for scouting tactics, this is not good news. Of the three, the T49 is probably the most viable because of its relative firepower. The Bulldog has no firepower to speak of and the Sheridan may well be using the same 152mm howitzer as the T49 but a tier higher. The Sheridan is also an ugly piece of work with that bulky cardboard box prototype model that WG dug up. If they had used the production model hull it would likely have more fans. 

 

Otherwise, tier 10 lights in general aren't very popular because they have unusually high pen dropoff at range. WG was terrified that hey may actually be good at anything and over-nerfed them preemptively. And the mediums are typically fast and stealthy to begin with, so there just isn't anything exciting to see here. The two that do get some mileage are the AMX 13-105 and T-100 because these are small and fast enough to actually play like light tanks.



Trakks #18 Posted Jun 18 2019 - 23:54

    First lieutenant

  • Players
  • 3801 battles
  • 760
  • Member since:
    11-24-2011

In real life the Sheridan was simply not a good vehicle. It was built to fulfill a requirement for a tank that could airdropped into a combat zone so it had to be light enough to be carried inside a cargo plane but it also had to be able to pack a powerful gun so a bigger hull and turret would be required than previous light tanks had. It was solved by making them out of aluminum. The gun system they chose for it was also a disaster. It could fire either conventional shells or wire guided missiles. It sounds good, in theory, but the reality was that in order to fire missiles the barrel of the gun had to be impeccably clean. You couldn't simply fire a bunch of shells then switch to missiles without cleaning the barrel first to remove any residue left behind by the firing of the shells. 

 

The fact that it was made of aluminum makes me wonder how WG solved the problem in game of aluminum being a softer metal than steel and less able to take a hit. They can't just use the thickness of the armor and assume it is steel when it is not. They would have to use the effective thickness rather than the actual thickness when determining whether it gets penned or not. 



SporkBoy #19 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 02:05

    Major

  • Players
  • 48403 battles
  • 2,837
  • [PZB] PZB
  • Member since:
    02-06-2014
It looks like an amphibious vehicle. WG should let it drive through water - that would be something!

_Spade_ #20 Posted Jun 19 2019 - 08:26

    Sergeant

  • Players
  • 21908 battles
  • 210
  • [NEET] NEET
  • Member since:
    03-03-2011

View PostTrakks, on Jun 18 2019 - 17:54, said:

In real life the Sheridan was simply not a good vehicle. It was built to fulfill a requirement for a tank that could airdropped into a combat zone so it had to be light enough to be carried inside a cargo plane but it also had to be able to pack a powerful gun so a bigger hull and turret would be required than previous light tanks had. It was solved by making them out of aluminum. The gun system they chose for it was also a disaster. It could fire either conventional shells or wire guided missiles. It sounds good, in theory, but the reality was that in order to fire missiles the barrel of the gun had to be impeccably clean. You couldn't simply fire a bunch of shells then switch to missiles without cleaning the barrel first to remove any residue left behind by the firing of the shells. 

 

The fact that it was made of aluminum makes me wonder how WG solved the problem in game of aluminum being a softer metal than steel and less able to take a hit. They can't just use the thickness of the armor and assume it is steel when it is not. They would have to use the effective thickness rather than the actual thickness when determining whether it gets penned or not. 

 

You left out that firing conventional shells knocked the gun optics out of alignment and that the shells were two-piece with bagged powder instead of conventional single shells. Also the whole reason the Sheridan exists is because NATO had just discovered that the PT-76 coukd swim and lost their minds about it. Adding an amphibious requirement killed the T92 light tank project, which was almost ready to enter production.







Also tagged with Sheridan, Tier X Light Tanks

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users