Jump to content


XM551 Sheridan - my opinion

Sheridan light tank tier 10 USA Light

  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

Vito101 #1 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:28 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8640 battles
  • 35
  • [B1C] B1C
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

Hello there fellow tankers,

 

I recently bought Sheridan and so far I like it so far, it's fast, has a nice gun, good view range and it has a DERP gun! 

However, I think we really should get another model (something smaller pls wg) of tank cuz this one seems rather huge, it feels like playing retarded medium's cousin.

- What do you guys think about this tank? 

- Would you rather get another tier X light over Sheridan (and which one) ?

- Do you think a T49 feels more like a light tank then Sheridan?

- What's up, yo ?

 

 Your opinions are always welcome!

 

 

 



Enforcer1975 #2 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:35 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18508 battles
  • 9,858
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014
Dunno....both the T49 and Sheridan are typical US tanks....big and fat.

commer #3 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:38 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38080 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011
Fat Leopard is all that needs to be said

Vito101 #4 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:39 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8640 battles
  • 35
  • [B1C] B1C
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostEnforcer1975, on 28 November 2017 - 04:35 PM, said:

Dunno....both the T49 and Sheridan are typical US tanks....big and fat fluffy*.

 

There , I fixed it for you :teethhappy:



Shaade_Silentpaw #5 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:48 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 21151 battles
  • 336
  • Member since:
    10-12-2015

Someone else finally noticed?

This is exactly why i'm not interested in WG's Sheridan and just going to stick with the T49.

Real vs. WoT:

 

Posted Image

 

WG just loves making tanks look ugly as mud.



Dava_117 #6 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:53 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17629 battles
  • 2,197
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostShaade_Silentpaw, on 28 November 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

Someone else finally noticed?

This is exactly why i'm not interested in WG's Sheridan and just going to stick with the T49.

Real vs. WoT:

 

Posted Image

 

WG just loves making tanks look ugly as mud.

 

That is the anti-HEAT spaced armour added to the hull. Check on tanks.gg the model without it.

Vito101 #7 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:54 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8640 battles
  • 35
  • [B1C] B1C
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostShaade_Silentpaw, on 28 November 2017 - 04:48 PM, said:

Someone else finally noticed?

This is exactly why i'm not interested in WG's Sheridan and just going to stick with the T49.

Real vs. WoT:

 

Posted Image

 

WG just loves making tanks look ugly as mud.

 

Front part also looks different (Ignore the grill, but look at the angle of UPF). I think the reason behind its boxy look that they were too lazy to actually make a proper look, so they just drew a box and added stuff on it.

Vito101 #8 Posted 28 November 2017 - 04:58 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8640 battles
  • 35
  • [B1C] B1C
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View PostDava_117, on 28 November 2017 - 04:53 PM, said:

 

That is the anti-HEAT spaced armour added to the hull. Check on tanks.gg the model without it.

 

I don't want to be rude, but dude, that spaced armor is literally useless, I'd rather have a smaller tank. :confused:



commer #9 Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:01 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 38080 battles
  • 1,995
  • Member since:
    06-14-2011

View PostVito101, on 28 November 2017 - 04:58 PM, said:

 

I don't want to be rude, but dude, that spaced armor is literally useless, I'd rather have a smaller tank. :confused:

 

The tank is same size. If you hit a spaced part where there is no armor behind it - 0 dmg shot

Vito101 #10 Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:05 PM

    Private

  • Player
  • 8640 battles
  • 35
  • [B1C] B1C
  • Member since:
    10-03-2013

View Postcommer, on 28 November 2017 - 05:01 PM, said:

 

The tank is same size. If you hit a spaced part where there is no armor behind it - 0 dmg shot

 

That's true, but without unnecessary spaced armor, it would have better camo rating (which scout needs more than spaced armor). 

qpranger #11 Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:05 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30772 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
Stopped at T49 and love to play it occasionally, see no point in upgrading to the Sheridan unless WG buff the derp gun rate of fire on it.

Dava_117 #12 Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:15 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 17629 battles
  • 2,197
  • [B-BAS] B-BAS
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostVito101, on 28 November 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

 

That's true, but without unnecessary spaced armor, it would have better camo rating (which scout needs more than spaced armor). 

 

Yes, but IIRC this spaced armour was really employed. It was designed to try to stop RPG like HEAT. So it should be historical at least...

Enforcer1975 #13 Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:23 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18508 battles
  • 9,858
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View PostVito101, on 28 November 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

 

There , I fixed it for you :teethhappy:

 

I had this in mind with big and fat...but fluffy works too. :trollface:



Enforcer1975 #14 Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:27 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 18508 battles
  • 9,858
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2014

View Postqpranger, on 28 November 2017 - 05:05 PM, said:

Stopped at T49 and love to play it occasionally, see no point in upgrading to the Sheridan unless WG buff the derp gun rate of fire on it.

 

No need to buff ROF when you can't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with it. They need to adress aimtime and bloom...you twitch just one pixel and you have a circle the size of Kim Kardishian's butt.

Edited by Enforcer1975, 28 November 2017 - 05:28 PM.


qpranger #15 Posted 28 November 2017 - 05:31 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 30772 battles
  • 5,061
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013

View PostEnforcer1975, on 28 November 2017 - 06:27 PM, said:

 

No need to buff ROF when you can't hit the broadside of a barn from the inside with it. They need to adress aimtime and bloom...you twitch just one pixel and you have a circle the size of Kim Kardishian's butt.

 

Yeah, improving at least that would make the Sheridan slightly more attractive.

_EXODUZ_ #16 Posted 28 November 2017 - 06:05 PM

    Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 34165 battles
  • 1,935
  • [RGT] RGT
  • Member since:
    11-05-2014
Stopped at T49. There's no point for me to take this barn into Tier 10 games.

Sir_Bad #17 Posted 28 November 2017 - 11:12 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 44037 battles
  • 475
  • [GO-IN] GO-IN
  • Member since:
    10-08-2011

T49 is one of my absolute favorites, while this Sheridan is just an ugly barn I see really no point in playing.

If I want to play a t10 scout with 390 alpha, I would much rather play the WZ-132-1. I gladly trade in the DPM for better camo and a tank that isn't the size of a house with atleast a little turret armor.

On the other hand, the derp gun, while absolutely awesome on T9, just seems inadequate on a T10 tank.  And therein lies the problem with the Sheridan imo. It just does not seem like much of an improvement over the T9 to bother with it.

 

I would like to see WG balance the tank around the use of the derpgun. There are enough other scouts with 390 alpha on T10. Make the derpgun worthwhile on T10 by giving it better dpm/softstats/accuracy/aimtime and you have a unique T10 scout, that would be a logical upgrade from the T49.



Pandabird #18 Posted 29 November 2017 - 01:05 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 33973 battles
  • 4,517
  • [KOFF] KOFF
  • Member since:
    05-19-2013
It doesn't add pretty much anything the T49 doesn't already have, the model is awkward and i feel it's even harder to actually hide in a bush with it due to the big wide boxy angles. Pretty sure camo values are worse too. Maybe even gun constraints(?)

Strizi #19 Posted 29 November 2017 - 04:44 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 33475 battles
  • 555
  • Member since:
    06-16-2011
Sheridan looks fine, i like it more with spaced armor at the back. Would be nice if wargaming gave you some options for customization of your tanks to make everyone happy.

RamRaid90 #20 Posted 29 November 2017 - 04:50 AM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 19727 battles
  • 5,904
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

View PostSir_Bad, on 28 November 2017 - 10:12 PM, said:

T49 is one of my absolute favorites, while this Sheridan is just an ugly barn I see really no point in playing.

If I want to play a t10 scout with 390 alpha, I would much rather play the WZ-132-1. I gladly trade in the DPM for better camo and a tank that isn't the size of a house with atleast a little turret armor.

On the other hand, the derp gun, while absolutely awesome on T9, just seems inadequate on a T10 tank.  And therein lies the problem with the Sheridan imo. It just does not seem like much of an improvement over the T9 to bother with it.

 

I would like to see WG balance the tank around the use of the derpgun. There are enough other scouts with 390 alpha on T10. Make the derpgun worthwhile on T10 by giving it better dpm/softstats/accuracy/aimtime and you have a unique T10 scout, that would be a logical upgrade from the T49.

 

I think the problem lies with you can't meet tier VII tanks in the Sheridan, where the T49 really comes into it's own.

 

Although destroying a T110E5 in a single shot with the T49 is about as satisfying as it gets.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users