Are we allowed to know the details behind nerfing the M551 Sheridan? For all I can tell, there was no need for this nerf, and it was absolutely uncalled for in every circle. If we compare the Sheridan to the other top 2 ATGM carriers (IT-1 and Raketen HOT), it's fairly easy to see that the Sheridan is not the best nor did it need any sort of nerf to align it with the others. It has the least pen: 431mm vs 500mm on the IT-1 and 800mm on the Rak-HOT. It has the worst reload, of over 35 seconds compared to 10 seconds on the IT-1 and 13 seconds on the Rak-HOT. In order for the Sheridan to fire it's missiles, it has to bare it turret entirely; the IT-1 and Rak-HOT do not. Additionally, the M551 can now only carry 10 ATGMs, while the IT-1 can carry 15 and the Rak-HOT can carry 20. Moreover, if one chooses to use ATGMs on the M551, they are hit with a 20 second reload delay. The main reason for bringing the M551 in your lineup was to combat the amount of IT-1s and Rak-HOTs that your team would already be fighting, and it's main accolade was having the highest missile velocity of any ATGM. Am I missing some major detail that lead to this nerf? The amount of things that were changed with the M551 are far too significant to be an accident with a patch, so why did the M551 have to get hit so hard?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the data about the M551 about the amount of missiles came from this source: "Comparative characteristics of main battle tanks " Fort Knox 1973 / DARCOM P-706-253 "Engineering design handbook: Breech Mechanism Design" / FM 17-12 1977 version C1 "Tank Gunnery". What Gaijin Entertainment follow the information given by the source.

In the server update what happen to the M551 was:

Shell fire rate has been changed from 4 to 5 shots per minute.
Anti tank guided missile reload time has been changed from 30 to 15 seconds.
The number of anti tank guided missiles has been limited to 10 missiles.

 

In reference to the Kampfpanzer/Main Battle Tank (MBT) 70.

The reload was changed from 10 round per minute to 6 rounds.

Source: Rolf Hilmes - Kampfpanzer, Die Entwicklungen der Nachkriegzeit. R.P. Hunnicutt - Abrams, The history of the American MBT, Volume 2.

Ouiche explained how the mechanism worked and why the reload was 6 round per minute instead of the planned 10 rounds per minute.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually after 30 sec reload nerf last update can be consider a buff if only stock HEAT would be more reliable (I can live with poor damage but that bouncing...)

 

I hope they will add some dedicated carrier with high pen ATGM like M113 with TOW

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M551 can by any standards, reload a rocket in 30 seconds by an average crew.   I know, I drove them at one time during the Vietnam War.   Additionally, the bouncing around is pure bull.   This is a very stable platform.   Whoever, used an obscure Army report to position this last rebuild was just looking for something to reduce the effectiveness of this vehicle.     

  • Upvote 4
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is one suppose to play this tank at 9.0 when all you face is Russian T64's which are 100% protected by the Shillelagh missiles. adding to that fact this is a light tank and any MG fire kills, yet you have the Swingfire at the same BR with the capabilities of being able to penetrate its opponents (T64) . Im sorry but the Sheridan needs to be dropped to 8.0 or give this thing better reloading to counter that fact that nearly every tiered up game I play its always T64's unable to pen unless i get them on the sides (rarely) 

_Catweazle_63 (Posted )

merged with the existing Sheridan thread
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep M551 and M60A2 should be 8.0 (long reload and have to grind for ATGM ) :good:

Also M551 got a nerf in Turret rotation rate too (i call it nerf.  Because it got change from correct ) . I hope my bug report will get it fix next patch .:(

 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, CodeNameColdWar said:

Yep M551 and M60A2 should be 8.0 (long reload and have to grind for ATGM ) :good:

Also M551 got a nerf in Turret rotation rate too (i call it nerf.  Because it got change from correct ) . I hope my bug report will get it fix next patch .:(

 

Yep 8.0 to me seems reasonable because when at 8.3 nearly every game I play its always 9.0 Im facing and consistently T64s with no chance of penning them frontally (or marginally side on cz tracks love eating rockets) I know people may be unhappy with it being 8.0 because 'ATGM' spam but they need to try this out for themselves (especially stock with only HEAT) the grind is ridiculous. 

Edited by TheCloop123
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25.2.2018 at 11:03 PM, CodeNameColdWar said:

Yep M551 and M60A2 should be 8.0 (long reload and have to grind for ATGM ) :good:

Also M551 got a nerf in Turret rotation rate too (i call it nerf.  Because it got change from correct ) . I hope my bug report will get it fix next patch .:(

 

It seems that they forgot your thread

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the MGM-51C missiles (and the other variants) , were they really as bad as depicted when it comes to flight path? I can be sitting still for a minute and have the missile fly off at a 30 degree angle and try to compensate back to the target. Or, on the other extreme, fire off the missile while bouncing off a berm, doing a barrel roll, and having it go straight through a T64. The fact that I need to use this missile as the primary weapon in the MBT-70 and KPZ before unlocking the sabot rounds makes 9.0 "not so much fun"

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shillelagh velocity is completely off from what the stat card says. It says 323m/s yet when I tested the velocity in test mode against the ss.11 and rb.52, the shillelagh was only 0.2 seconds faster at reaching the same target. The shillelagh made it to the maus in 5.1 seconds while the ss.11 did it in 5.3 seconds. So its velocity has basically been cut in half. Tested with rkjpz 2, m551 and mbt 70. Im to lazy to make a bug report, since their requirements are so stupid.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, KonvictEpic said:

Shillelagh velocity is completely off from what the stat card says. It says 323m/s yet when I tested the velocity in test mode against the ss.11 and rb.52, the shillelagh was only 0.2 seconds faster at reaching the same target. The shillelagh made it to the maus in 5.1 seconds while the ss.11 did it in 5.3 seconds. So its velocity has basically been cut in half. Tested with rkjpz 2, m551 and mbt 70. Im to lazy to make a bug report, since their requirements are so stupid.

they given it ~75m/s starting velocity then over few seconds it accelerate to that 323m/s

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Sheridan needs to be dropped down to 7.7 at least.  It's survivability, mobility and weaponry are not able to compete at it's current tier.  ATGM's are not effective weapon systems at or above 8.3 as the mobility of enemy tanks completely negate their use.  The heat round is ok if you can get it on target (and that's a big IF), but it's also ineffective against anything with composite armour and with such a slow reload, if you don't disable the enemies gun you are effectively dead.  After having my driver in my M551 killed by a BT-5 from the front, I realised that a single Sheridan would be lucky to win a battle against, say, 3-4 BT-5s or M22's or even less.   

Edited by *Stormwatchnz
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/25/2018 at 14:03, CodeNameColdWar said:

Yep M551 and M60A2 should be 8.0 (long reload and have to grind for ATGM ) :good:

Also M551 got a nerf in Turret rotation rate too (i call it nerf.  Because it got change from correct ) . I hope my bug report will get it fix next patch .:(

 

This tank would be a pyle even at 3.0. The problem is the tank itself. It is innately bad. The HEAT is garbage and the MGM-51 is restricted to very limited numbers. The reload time is also too long.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/28/2017 at 16:05, S_E_R_E said:

 I know, I drove them at one time during the Vietnam War.   

No you didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It lacks the main advantage of a light tank, fast reload. Because I spade everything I play this tank. I use it to head for the cap points at the beginning of the match and in 90% I'm dead in 1-2 min, because of reload speed. Sometimes I flank but it's useless against 9.0 so I prefer to jump in a better medium tank. Object 906 is a lot better and has lower BR, I can't understand why it has this BR.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2017 at 13:05, S_E_R_E said:

The M551 can by any standards, reload a rocket in 30 seconds by an average crew.   I know, I drove them at one time during the Vietnam War.   Additionally, the bouncing around is pure bull.   This is a very stable platform.   Whoever, used an obscure Army report to position this last rebuild was just looking for something to reduce the effectiveness of this vehicle.     

 

As you drove them. Was the armour as vulnerable to smaller arms fire as they say it was? 

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

is the M551 that much better than the BMP2 and warrior?

can someone explain why?

Edited by P0rcup1ne
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, P0rcup1ne said:

is the M551 that much better than the BMP2 and warrior?

can someone explain why?

Nope. It's garbo. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, P0rcup1ne said:

is the M551 that much better than the BMP2 and warrior?

can someone explain why?

tall, slow reload, cramped, slightly fast, even slower ATGM reload, hard to use HEAT, weak ATGM, pretty much it doesn't deserve it's current BR.

Edited by EXTOR_9
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28/11/2017 at 16:05, S_E_R_E said:

The M551 can by any standards, reload a rocket in 30 seconds by an average crew.   I know, I drove them at one time during the Vietnam War.   Additionally, the bouncing around is pure bull.   This is a very stable platform.   Whoever, used an obscure Army report to position this last rebuild was just looking for something to reduce the effectiveness of this vehicle.     

If you still have the crew manual, technical manual, or any other documentation regarding vehicle operation/maintenance that has no classification, post it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  the very idea that the BMP2 is 7.7 and warrior is 8.0, then comparing the two and other light vehicles to M551. either the warrior and BMP2 are seriously under BR or the M551 needs a BR reduction immediately. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

has Gaigin forgotten the M551, with the br of other ATGM vehicles with better penn at lower br. now the addition of the M3 and italian M113 TOW, the br of ATGM vehicles need adjusting.

  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.