I want to bring the community’s attention to a major historical inaccuracy regarding the Type 10 and TKX damage models, and the frustrating experience of trying to report it using official documentation.
Currently, the Type 10 features a massive internal rotating turret basket in its X-Ray model. However, according to declassified primary sources from the JGSDF, this internal module physically does not exist.
The Evidence (JGSDF Manual GV-Y120001E):
The Interface Specification: The manual explicitly defines the connection between the hull and the turret. It lists only the slewing bearing and the slip ring. There is absolutely zero mention of an internal structural basket extending deep into the hull.
The Terminology: The official JGSDF manual proves that the term “Basket” (バスケット) refers exclusively to the external storage boxes mounted on the rear and sides of the turret exterior, not an internal floor.
The Physical Impossibility (The Escape Hatch): This is the definitive proof. The manual confirms there is an emergency escape hatch located directly on the hull floor under the crew. If a solid metal rotating basket existed inside the hull, it would completely block the crew from using this floor hatch. It is completely illogical for engineers to design an emergency escape route that is physically blocked by a rotating metal structure.
The Moderation Issue:
I submitted all these primary documents to the Bug Tracker. However, the report was instantly closed as “Not a bug”. The reason given was incredibly frustrating: the JGSDF manuals were dismissed with the justification that “Almost all tanks have a turret basket… All tanks have the same mechanics” and the pure speculation that “It can has its own hatch for example.”
Historical bug reports and primary sources should not be dismissed by personal speculation or by applying generic templates from other MBTs. The Type 10 is a highly unique vehicle and deserves an accurate internal damage model.
I am posting this here hoping the Japanese community can help shed some light on this, and hopefully, a Senior Technical Moderator can take a proper look at these documents without dismissing them based on guesses.
(Please see the attached JGSDF diagrams proving the hatch location and interface specs).
(Note: The full declassified JGSDF manual (hitomaru2.pdf) has already been privately provided to the Technical Moderators in my official bug report. For this public post, I am providing the relevant translated screenshots).
1.png:
Spoiler
1.2.png:
Spoiler
2.png:
Spoiler
3.png:
Spoiler
How should this issue with the Type 10 / TKX Damage Model be resolved?
Fix the X-Ray model. The Type 10 should accurately reflect the JGSDF primary sources
A Senior Technical Moderator or Developer needs to publicly clarify why official government manuals are being ignored in favor of speculation
I don’t play Japan, but the bug reporting rules (Primary Sources > Speculation) must be strictly followed for all nations
Unfortunately, like with many other baskets designs and functions (Merkava’s and Challenger’s) Gaijin is just making them up to an extent as a way to add them
I fear unless Gaijin get’s a huge amount of pushback nothing will change, or at best, they make ever so slight changes to their gameplay function.
Exactly! I can completely understand Gaijin “guessing” or standardizing internal modules when a tank is highly classified and there is zero public information available.
But in this specific case, we are not guessing. We have declassified primary sources showing the exact layout. Adding a fictional basket here doesn’t just “fill a blank space” — it actively contradicts the real design and physically blocks the confirmed escape hatch.
If they need to balance the tank, they should do it through Battle Ratings or reload rates, not by drawing fictional modules that ignore their own Bug Reporting rules. We definitely need more pushback on this!
Pushback for turret baskets—a feature the community themselves voted in favour? So you shoot your own foot and you are okay with that, this logic. The community was in discontent without the additional modules (or a way to “fix” lack of damage in ‘empty’ vehicles like the Schützenpanzer PUMA or 2S38); the first vehicles to recieve additional detailed modules as requested by the community.
The vote was before they added turret baskets, i.e. when only Puma and 2S38 had the modules.
I am very confident in saying that the results would be different if people were to vote on the basis of the current implementation.
Also doesnt help that they essentially ignore the entire “center mass shots should deal meaningful damage” part for some of the most popular mbts (I wonder which ones that could be) but rather implemented modules in a way that resulted in the exact opposite effect on them.
This was the exact image i was trying to find as ive seen it a few times already
I will say though for a tank with already weak armor the turret basket nerf on it seemed really excessive
T-series autloader stops them from reloading but not rotating, even if deformed piece of metal would be enough to stop the turret rotation entirely (that was gaijins explanation as to why pentrating non-electric non-hydraulic parts stops turret rotation on western MBTs).
i mean no being able to reload is still pretty crippled, especially when a lot of the time at top tier it feels like you arent reloaded most of the time
i do agree this should be changed, but also feel a lot of people make it out to be a much bigger issue than it really is (as in its not gonna singlehandedly kill top tier (cause top tier already sucks and that alone isnt gonna change anyones opinion))
I think the whole concept needs a bit of a rework IMO, even without detailed modeling of individual parts the baskets should at most put the turret onto manual traverse. unless of course the actual traverse gears and/or the manual hand cranks are destroyed. Also the amount of damage that will disable the basket/ autoloader is ridiculously low (I have a hard time believing that a single piece of spall to the stub extractor would disable the entire system any more than it would disable the whole turret traverse when hitting the basket, unless it cut a hydraulic line of course, in which case the autoloader has manual hand cranks just like the turret drives).
And now Japan and France do have both the autoloader and turret basket, the “having both is too much nerf” holds no water.
I personally think the Russian tanks should get the “basket effect” but it should be toned down for ALL tanks.
Dont forget too in the dev server the type 10 had more modules added that made it stupid easy to disable the power system
Thankfully gaijin hasnt added it yet
Honestly it’s not even being disabled by MBT rounds that bothers me, I doubt there are many cases of a 105+mm APFSDS penetrating a tank and the crew staying in it and continuing the fight, aside from the catastrophic damage, it would have to be terrifying beyond comprehension.
It’s the damn little autocannon cars (ironically the very thing these modules where introduced to nerf) that get one round to sneak through and your entire tank is disabled, and the Type 10 only has a 40mm LFP angled to maybe 70mm of practical protection, and IMO that was also the issue with the Abrams, little autocannon shots slipping through the turret neck and disabling the whole turret drive.
And if we are going for more realistic damage models, where is the Type 10s nanotwinned crystal steel armour?
Preferably the Type 10/TKX should be fixed and a senior mod/developer publicly explain why they are using speculation over official government documentation
