Кончепт 3 | War Thunder

Story / background (historical concept)

The video frames War Thunder’s “Concept 3” as a South African armored vehicle concept stemming from post–WWII / Cold War needs:

• 1920s South Africa: the main armored vehicle is described as the Eland 90, a licensed French Panhard AML 90, used in an APC-like role.
• Late 1960s: South Africa sought a more universal wheeled vehicle that could both:
  • transport infantry, and
  • provide fire support.
• The Ratel is introduced as an earlier step:
  • built on a Man truck chassis
  • with modular combat configurations
  • including a gun concept in the same “caliber family” direction as the AML 90’s approach.
• Angola (1975): the conflict is used to explain why older South African vehicles struggled against more modern armored threats.
• Enemy tank progression (e.g., T-55 → T-64/T-72) led to a “New Generation Armored Car” effort aimed at:
  • a wheeled platform suitable for South African conditions,
  • a turret capable of mounting the most powerful gun practical for the design,
  • a transport role (APC-like capability).

What “Concept 3” is in-game (vehicle identity)

The video claims the in-game vehicle appears under the laconic name “Copt Sri”, later tied in testing to the name “Chita” (cheetah) and an “official name” such as Concept 3 CL TOB.

Initial design intent

• The developers supposedly wanted the British L7 105 mm–class cannon (used on late Centurion / early Abrams, per the speaker).
• Due to availability constraints, they instead used a South African 17-pounder stub (the speaker compares it to a flawed fit/design on the British Comet).

Core punchline

• The speaker argues that the final gun implementation/variant in War Thunder is terribly disappointing compared to expectations.

Gameplay highlights and what the reviewer experiences

Overall theme

The reviewer expected a fast/light tank-like vehicle with a strong gun, but says Concept 3:

• is not fast,
• has an ineffective gun,
• and performs poorly in fights.

Mobility

• Claimed top speed in ideal conditions: ~83 km/h
• In practice:
  • it’s rarely achievable,
  • it accelerates extremely slowly,
  • it performs very poorly on rough terrain (the reviewer is surprised a wheeled platform can feel this bad).

Survivability / armor behavior

• The vehicle is described as having 152 mm of armor penetration dealt to it, but it repeatedly shows:
  • armor/weak-spot results that don’t match expectations,
  • unfavorable outcomes versus multiple enemies (including “Japanese Wonder M” in the clip).
• The reviewer focuses heavily on:
  • turret/gun mantle interactions
  • hull interactions
  • including volumetric-shot quirks, such as:
    • shots passing through thin cracks between hull and turret with little/no damage,
    • gun mantlets behaving unexpectedly, sometimes offering better resistance than expected from frontal angles.

Firepower feel (core complaint)

Even when shots appear to connect—or when the reviewer expects weak points to matter—the results are inconsistent. The gun is portrayed as underperforming in:

• punch-through
• damage consistency
• and overall effectiveness per engagement

Reloading / combat rhythm

• Reload is described as very long (the reviewer even says “half an hour”).
• Handling issues include:
  • slow turret traverse
  • monstrous rocking when braking and after shots
• The reviewer says it only works under narrow circumstances:
  • the enemy has high penetration capability
  • you have high rate of fire
  • and you can stay under fire long enough to continue fighting

Strategies / key tips implied

The reviewer’s practical guidance boils down to the conditions where it can work:

• Avoid treating it like a “fun LT-style ride.”
• Instead, treat it as a fragile/inefficient platform that only shines when:
  • you have enough penetration
  • you can maintain fire pressure without dying quickly
  • you have teammate protection

Teamplay matters

• They describe a rare successful duel where allied coverage saved them.
• They warn that this kind of luck/cover is not common.

Recommended comparisons used by the reviewer

To explain why Concept 3 feels worse, the reviewer compares its experience to:

• Panther (including a “barn-like” silhouette comparison)
• Sherman / 34-series situations:
  • where hits would normally one-shot elsewhere
  • but here the vehicle still doesn’t perform reliably (even if it sometimes doesn’t outright fail in the same way)
• Churchill 3 / Churchill VII:
  • presented as partial examples where the armor/gun tradeoffs differ
• The conclusion:
  • Concept 3’s only advantage is its armor penetration on paper,
  • but in practice the overall vehicle underperforms.

Ending / real-world vehicle note

• The reviewer says the real vehicle prototypes (Concept 1 and Concept 3) are displayed in a museum in Bloemfontein (South Africa).
• They note that resemblance between concepts can be confusing, but differences include:
  • axle grouping in Concept 1 vs evenly spaced axles in Concept 3
  • small changes in body and tail hatch placement
• Final verdict tone: the reviewer believes these variants would mainly “cause pain and suffering” (in-game).

Gamers / sources featured

• No specific other gamers or external sources are named in the subtitles.
• The only explicit references are to War Thunder and generalized enemy vehicle names (e.g., Panther, Sherman, Churchill, BTSh, T-series, etc.).