I think they should keep them because they look really good on x ray and i like seeing the detailed interiores, but they should not effect performance. have them behave like radiators before they added the funicatialty of them into the game
I’d do a full rework suggestion on these added modules but I am lazy and don’t have much time in the first place so it would take a long time.
I’m not against detailed modules at all, they do look really good, but turret rings as they are now should only have the actual turret drive components as the module hitbox, with the rest being modeled as internal armor that (while probably not the most effective) could catch some spall every now and then.
1 Like
“If you can’t apply it universally, and fairly, then don’t just add it to me.”
2 Likes
Add the T90 Hydraulic pump back gaijin since u care about realism so much
1 Like
at least lower the BR on the tanks that get this stupid nerf. OR make it so when the basket is shot it doesn’t remove 99% of the tanks ability to fight and instead make stuff slower? like make the turret traverse slower instead of in capable of movement… or make it so it looses the gun stabilizer or something instead of catering to the people that don’t know where to aim to kill any tank…
Like a simple google of what turret baskest do comes up with this for me:
Turret baskets are rotating platforms suspended from the turret into the hull, allowing the crew to rotate with the gun while keeping them and their equipment in a fixed, safe position. They serve as a floor, preventing the crew from being crushed by the hull during rotation and organizing ammunition storage, though they can trap objects.
Key Functions and Purpose
- Crew Protection: They prevent the “turret monster” effect, where rotating turrets (in older or specialized tanks) could crush limbs or snag equipment on the hull floor.
- Rotational Platform: The basket is attached directly to the turret, so the loader and crew move with the gun, improving efficiency.
- Organization and Storage: They often house ammunition, equipment, and electronics, keeping the immediate workspace clear.
- Structural Support: In some designs, they help hold ammunition ready for loading such as in the M1 Abrams or Leopard 2
Advantages and Disadvantages
- Pros: Improved safety for the crew, easier access to ammo, and better operational efficiency.
- Cons: Reduced space under the basket, potential for equipment to get caught during rotation, and susceptibility to becoming trapped if damaged (though they often don’t jam the turret drive).
1 Like
That’s actually a great idea. I could picture hits to the turret drive and ring still taking out traverse completely, but in the turret basket, slows it down to ~20% speed. Physically it makes sense, can be explained by a deformed turret basket creating significant friction against any static element in the tank (using inertial frame of reference).
2 Likes
you know what Turret baskets being add?
Just to target and weaken NATO tanks
3 Likes
People demanded the Russian autoloaders be modeled 1st, the turret baskets where added after to balance that:
Russian auto loaders added June 19 2025
Turret basket added to M1/ Leo2 18 March 2025:
No I don’t like how turret baskets where implemented, but it was people demanding nerfs to Russian tanks because apparently missing the ammo by so much even the spall missed it was “unfair” and a miss needed to result in a 40sec max/expert repair that started this.
After 11 months of Russian tanks either exploding or being reduced to 1 shot before a near minute repair, obviously NATO tanks also got a corresponding nerf, yes it was too much of a nerf, but you get what you get.
1 Like
They still aren’t by the way.
Just give the modelling to Russia.
I remember on the Dev server when detailed modelling came, the Russian tanks actually had more modules.
They had stuff like FCS, driver controls, battery, etc. But they actually removed that and just kept it on NATO tanks. I think people forget that alot
2 Likes
T-80s carousels rotation drive motor is mounted in the turret next to the commander:
(edited to clarify which motor I am referring to)
the lifting arm and rammer are suspended under the gun breech:
you will also not that the diagram for the MZs hydraulics shows all those system connected together with rigid piping so the entire system must contained within the turret and rotates with it.
as side from the rammer (that seems to be merged with the stub extractor as part of the breech) and that hydraulic control panel that should be under the commanders seat.
it seems pretty well modeled.
As a side not you will also see in several parts of these diagrams references to the throttles for increasing the autoloaders speed.
So claiming that they “are not modeled yet” is entirely disingenuous, they are missing few parts at worst.
And I will also point out that many of the Japanese, French, USA and German autoloaders/ mechanized ammo racks are completely missing ALL their drive motors, rammers etc.
Notice how I mentioned the Cassette, how is it rotated independently of the Hull & Turret? It’s not on the module in game. and if it was only a bearing there would be no need to key the shaft since it could just be a race bearing
Yeah, conveniently missing select components that let shells sail right though the gap between the base of the autoloader and the hull floor doing no damage, since the arbitrarily keyed shaft(for absolutely no reason) that should be there isn’t included in the module.
Just ask around how often “Driver, Engine” shots happen.
Please don’t muddy the waters using Vehicles that have yet to see revised modules to bring them up to spec. and so still use older models. The issue is in effect that some components have been arbitrarily omitted post modeling revisions for unspecified reasons.
Also All M1’s still somehow kept the Hydraulic reservoir through the process even though it’s known to be erroneous even though the report has been around for far longer than the detailed modules proposal was put forward.
1 Like
This is a good idea and seems logical to me; a damaged turret basket increases friction, which slightly reduces the speed. The reduced speed would need to be greater than the turret’s rotation speed with a depleted battery.
that would be the motor with the big red circle around it in the screen shot I posted (I should have specified carousel drive motor in the post sorry about that, I’ll go back and fix it)
also here is a picture of the top of the MZ carousel where you can see the drive gear for it.
because it is not part of the autoloader, I believe it is an electrical power junction that supplies the turret, that while yes, it would force the crew to operate on manual systems it is not part of the autoloader, it is part of the electrical systems.
you can see when they are working on a detached turret they seem to be feeding power into it where that connector would sit, there is also nothing that would connect it to the MZs carosel.
many of those where added after the T-series autoloaders, I don’t see how those are not valid comparisons.
you can find plenty of threads on here where I am all for fixing bugs with the Abrams and other tanks, including enabling the use of the manual controls when the electrical/ hydraulics are out, so please don’t assume I am only trying to get fixes one type/nations tank and screw over others.
So? It is keyed and must rotate with the Cassette to enable it to independently rotate. Thus if Jammed would prevent the autoloader from cycling the Cassette and so prevent reloading from taking place.
And even if it was solely for electrical or data transfer it would not be dissimilar to the reason given for including Turret Baskets in the first place.
"We want to note that important elements such as electrics and hydraulics are all located in and around the basket area and all provide some power to the drives and turret in different ways. These and other elements fill almost the entirety of a tank’s interior outside of the crew operating areas. The floor of the turret basket is not just a metal sheet to walk on, but instead houses all kinds of electrics and hydraulics with means to connect them to the hull.
In addition to the point above about why baskets affect turret rotation, damage to the basket can physically deform its elements and prevent normal functioning of the turret drives"
In short it should qualify.
The implementation timeline doesn’t necessarily reflect the model’s chronological progression, nor instructions given to the contractor responsible for the model, and besides without specific examples it’s hard to point to any of the particular vehicles in question.
I’m not, just pointing out that seemingly questionable omissions have been made for some modules that are otherwise inconsistent with Gaijin’s publicly stated reasoning.
that is true, but we where talking about the autoloader module, not the power system, which currently the Leopard 2 is the only MBT that has its electrical systems modeled (as far as I know). As it is any penetrating hit has an extremely high chance to disable the autoloader and unlike NATO tanks you have little chance of getting back into cover to repair, honestly even now we are getting to the point with all vehicles where you are better off just J-ing out and pulling a new tank than trying to repair given how long it takes to fix all the modules.
which happens anyway because spall hits the loading trays and disables the autoloader, would it disable the turret rotation? maybe, at the very least it would but the crew onto manual controls, same as what should happen if the hydraulic/ electrical systems are destroyed in the Abrams/ Leo (and I have advocated for repeatedly).
Yeah, Gaijin has a hard time finding balance, they always go complete overkill and nerf things too far in the other direction, in my opinion the Russian autoloaders, as they where added, where too much of a nerf to have without something added to other tanks to offset it somewhat, however the turret baskets where far too much of a nerf in the other direction, something like the hydraulic/ electrical systems WITH the manual backups would have been more appropriate, so hits to those systems would slow the traverse, not stop it entirely. Same deal with the autoloaders, model the hydraulic and power systems and if they are damaged put it onto the manual ratchet system, if the actual lift structure is damaged disable it completely. That way with both systems you have a higher chance to slow them and put them at a disadvantage but a lower chance of leaving them completely helpless.
And they really need to fix that Abrams turret ring, that combined with the basket is horrible.
My personal opinion is that they should work on refining and balancing the modules they have already added before adding more, but we currently have vocal groups of both the Russian mains and the NATO mains both trying to see who can be the first to lobby Gaijin into making the others MBTs completely unplayable, which ultimately will just make the game miserable for everybody.
Even if you managed to get back into cover whomever shot you has anywhere from 32~60 seconds to freely push you while you repair the Turret basket to take as many shots as you like. Assuming that they didn’t also take out a track, the driver, engine or start a fire. Managing to successfully recover (and replace the loader as needed) in their entirety is incredibly rare in a 1 on 1, and mostly comes down to if anyone else is involved and prevents them from pushing angles.
Not always if you hit low enough on the LFP, the penetrator can slip below the autoloader and only result in taking out the Driver & Engine (most likely due to assorted autoloader protection layers eats secondary spall so avoids detonating ammo, like it should) leaving the T-series tank free to shoot back.
They were implemented previously on the Damage Model, but not as separate modules that could be damaged, and disabled so would just eat spalling.
You mean like a Crewman, with the loader Role? Is this not exactly what you are describing?
The problem with this would be the issue that even with a Penetrating, semi-well aimed shot; unless RNG blesses you with rolls in you favor. You are now likely exposed, and your opponent now has a “right of reply” while you reload the main gun. This would subsequently put you in a worse spot since a similarly damaging repair that you are now behind on.
I think Gaijin may want to avoid introducing a mechanic where the player that acted first and hit their target is potentially worse off in the aftermath due to things happening beyond their control.
As long as it had some sort of start up delay (or was slower) in order to be scaled to be on par with replacing a dead loader(s), I’d be ok with it(if it also disabled some ancillary commander / gunner facilities due to the management of the loader as well would need to be studied).
WW2 tanks BR here we go
yeah, same deal with the autoloader, just you usually have to run forward to cover so are easier to push.
I have not really noticed that TBH, but you often don’t see exactly where you are hit in the middle of a fight.
do you mean before they would show in x-ray mode? I was not aware of that.
to some degree, but it’s FAR faster to swap out a loader than to fix the autoloader, I mean is replacing the gunner before you can rotate the turret again is far less of an issue as repairing the basket.
they do seem to be going for having people fully disabled from a single hit, but having tanks fully disabled from a single shot so all you can do is sit there and wait for them to finish you off isn’t exactly fun gameplay, at least not for the person being shot.
it would be both, the manual loading system requires the commander to release the carousel break, manually rotate the required round into place, hand crank the lifting arm up with a ratchet lever, push the round in with what is basically a stick and close the breech. you would probably be looking at a set up time of a few seconds, like switching to commander fire control after losing the gunner, followed by a significantly lower RoF, currently in game without power the T-80BVMs reload increase to about 16/17 sec with 3BM60 15/16 sec with the other rounds, and the T-90M to 18/19 sec
Anyway, this is just my thoughts on the issue, I don’t pretend I have a perfect solution to the issue and I’m sure plenty of people will disagree no mater what nations they play.
With the addition of the post match analysis tool it becomes fairly obvious. But I have noticed a tendency to shoot slightly low due to the way the NERA array & ERA project downwards slightly and biasing shots to avoid them due to lacking performance of M735, M774 and M456.
Yes, there are a fair number of hidden plates that exist on DMs that correspond to yet to be implemented modules.
Well it’s often not the only step, you first need to put out the fire, stay in place while swap the loader fix the Breach & potentially the erroneously placed “pump”, then finish loading the shell.
Is getting shot fun for anyone?
Don’t worry Gaijn has one, and it’s only going to make things worse, somehow.