Nuclear Powered Tank

[SunilTanna]

Inspired by the thread about the Abram's Achilles heel being fuel consumption...

What about a nuclear powered tank? A nuclear powered tank solves the refueling problem.

Don't dismiss it out of hand! Ford proposed a nuclear powered car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon

Now the obvious problems with a nuclear powered car:

1. It's too big and heavy (all that shielding)

2. What happens to all the radioactive material in it if it crashes, etc.

3. What about the security of the nuclear material on board.


All three problems are however not an issue for a tank!

1. It's too big and heavy (all that shielding)

Answer: It's tank, who cares!

2. What happens to all the radioactive material in it if it crashes, etc.

Answer: It's deployed by NATO (or by the Warsaw Pact if you prefer) in Europe, for use in a possible nuclear war environment. Who cares if when hit it spreads radioactivity around - there are probably a-bombs going off all over the place anyway. Besides which, when 1 tank is destroyed, your crews in other tanks and APCs are safe, since their tanks/APCs are designed for a nuclear war environment.

3. What about the security of the nuclear material on board.

Answer: It's kept on a base anyway. Civilians don't have access to tanks. You have a crew of armed soldiers guarding it. And if actually used in combat, there are probably a-bombs going off all over the place anyway.

[SunilTanna]

BTW I found this link in Google - http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=673.0

[MrP]

Achilles' Heel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achilles%27_heel), not hill, old boy. :)

[Bill Cameron]

And Abrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Abrams[/i) not Abraham.

Clue in Dure while you're at it too. He's been making the same sneering "mistake" repeatedly in another thread (http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=133606).

[Dure]

Bill,Bill, Bill,

Such joy in such sad acts of pedantry.

They are talking about a nuclear tank for god sake and you are getting all shirty about splonge!

[MrP]

Bill,Bill, Bill,

Such joy in such sad acts of pedantry.

They are talking about a nuclear tank for god sake and you are getting all shirty about splonge!

I'm afraid Bill is just that sort of chap. He was very angry with me the other week because I used the pairing "old boy" without a hint of sarcasm. Too much red meat, too little beer, I suspect. ;)

[JMIII]

Don't dismiss it out of hand! Ford proposed a nuclear powered car: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Nucleon.

HOLY SHIT! Fallout! Well, thats one thing that was obviously built in the Fallout TL.:p

[The Kiat]

Nuclear powered car... oh real good idea :rolleyes:. And Ford wonders why they are going under. Funny thing about cars; the people behind the wheel don't always pay attention (or assume the other guy is). Have you any idea how much a mess being rear-ended by an atom powered car would create?

As for tanks. Funny thing about tanks. They are in the habit of exploding....

[catboy637]

Yeah, the whole idea of nucelar war startiong from one soilder with a RPG is a bit of a turn off for weaponry...

[Argosh]

The first thing I think of when I hear "Nuclear Powered Tank", is "Chernobyl on tracks". I picture a great Bolo-like tank with a nuclear reactor (or four) tacked on. :D

[superkuf]

Inspired by the thread about the Abram's Achilles heel being fuel consumption...

What about a nuclear powered tank? A nuclear powered tank solves the refueling problem.
...



Incredibly overkill. The solution would create far more problems than the original problem. As far as I know even the smallest reactor would be far too powerful for a tanks use. The only use for a reactor-equipped tank is if you want a moving fortress, like John Ringos SheVa (a "tank" armed with a 38 cm spaceship-killer cannon, designed to fight The Evil Invading Aliens). Even the first Bolos had fossile fuel enginges or (high tech) batteries.

[SunilTanna]

Nuclear powered car... oh real good idea :rolleyes:. And Ford wonders why they are going under. Funny thing about cars; the people behind the wheel don't always pay attention (or assume the other guy is). Have you any idea how much a mess being rear-ended by an atom powered car would create?

The accident possibility, along with numerous technical and regulatory problems, were obviously one of the reasons it wasn't made.

But I wouldn't dismiss Ford as a bunch of morons though. This concept was developed when they were at the height of their success. I don't think it was ever intended to truly be built - instead it was a concept car, given as an idea of what the future might look like.

But put that aside, let's go back to tanks...



As for tanks. Funny thing about tanks. They are in the habit of exploding....


Yeah, the whole idea of nucelar war startiong from one soilder with a RPG is a bit of a turn off for weaponry...

First of all, tanks don't explode unless hit with something.

Secondly, if they do explode, they'll scatter radioactive material all over the place, not go off like an a-bomb. Scattering radioactive material, especially in the 1950s, was not regarded as equivalent to exploding a-bombs on your enemies (nuclear war).

Thirdly, the 1950s NATO doctrine was tripwire. Any Soviet conventional attack in Europe would be met with a massive nuclear response. If that is the case, deploying nuclear tanks (from their barracks) in W. Germany, might actually be one of the things that are tripped (we want to hold territory _and_ send out bombers to atomize Moscow!). The destruction of a tank by an enemy soldier with an RPG isn't the start of nuclear war - by that point nuclear war has already started.


The solution would create far more problems than the original problem. As far as I know even the smallest reactor would be far too powerful for a tanks use.

Too much power isn't a problem. You don't need to use all the power you generate.

I also think you may be underestimating the amount of power needed, or over-estimating the size of the reactor. I was thinking of something comparable to Topaz-II (google for it) which was used in the Russian space program, and weighed about 1 ton - I don't think think it may be enough though.

In any case you might actually need lots of power - if you decide to equip your nuclear tank with suitable 1950s style weaponry - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_Atomic_Cannon

[Mr_ Bondoc]

The problem is that there is such a thing as "anti-tank weapons". Ever since World War I there have been "anti-tank rifles" (c.1916). There are also "anti-tank shells" (c.1916), anti-tank mines, grenades, and ever since 1939, there is the danger of aircraft. As such, while it is difficult tanks do explode, and quite often. Just remember that many of the vehicles seen on the "Highway of Death" during the First Gulf War (c.1991), were tanks that were sitting ducks for American fighter jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare

The problem with the exploding atomic tank is that it immediately creates a "dirty bomb". As seen by the 2002 case of José Padilla (a.k.a. Abdulla al-Muhajir), even a small amount of radioactive material could do serious damage, either intentionally or unintentionally. Also, you have the added danger of killing your own soldiers..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb

[superkuf]

...
Too much power isn't a problem. You don't need to use all the power you generate.

I also think you may be underestimating the amount of power needed, or over-estimating the size of the reactor. I was thinking of something comparable to Topaz-II (google for it) which was used in the Russian space program, and weighed about 1 ton - I don't think think it may be enough though.

...


Too much power means more than nessecary cooling and added weight.

a)Is 5kW enough to propel the weight of a MBT + reactor + armour for the reactor + shielding for the crew?

b) Liquid metal cooling means that the reactor never can be turned off, since the metal then would turn solid and be difficult/impossible to get liquid again. Four Soviet Alfa submarines were decomissioned due to this. Every tank base would have a lot of energy on it's hands ...

[Douglas]

Maybe a better (albeit still unlikely) route would be to go with some sort of nuclear self-propelled artillery.

While a tank has to be heavily armored, and is likely to have some Cossack pop up behind it and drill an RPG into its rear panels, self-propelled artillery could be kept further back from danger, while still remaining full of :cool:.

Load a nuclear-powered mobile artillery piece up with some 100km-ish nuclear missiles and/or nuclear artillery and you've got yourself an expensive, unnecessary vehicle that satisfies the Rule of Cool. :p

[SunilTanna]

The problem is that there is such a thing as "anti-tank weapons". Ever since World War I there have been "anti-tank rifles" (c.1916). There are also "anti-tank shells" (c.1916), anti-tank mines, grenades, and ever since 1939, there is the danger of aircraft. As such, while it is difficult tanks do explode, and quite often. Just remember that many of the vehicles seen on the "Highway of Death" during the First Gulf War (c.1991), were tanks that were sitting ducks for American fighter jets.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-tank_warfare

The problem with the exploding atomic tank is that it immediately creates a "dirty bomb". As seen by the 2002 case of José Padilla (a.k.a. Abdulla al-Muhajir), even a small amount of radioactive material could do serious damage, either intentionally or unintentionally. Also, you have the added danger of killing your own soldiers..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb

Yes tanks are vulnerable, and taken to the logical conclusion, why waste resources on building any?

Dirty bomb? Ha

1. In 2002, radioactivity is considered seriously bad (plus we are a lot more risk averse). In the 1950s however, it was considered as much less of an issue.

2. Even if troops are exposed to a bit of radioactivity from their tanks, it's a minor issue, when you consider the fact the tank is only intended for use in a nuclear war environment.

[nbcman]

The issue of size/weight and cost would be the more important issue rather than the radioactivity.

What bridge would be strong enough to support a reactor with treads? Also the tank would probably be too large to be driven on most roads and could not enter any towns/cities since it would probably be too wide for most roads.

Finally, how many conventional tanks could be produced for the cost of a single nuclear tank? So it would not be an economical use of limited military assets to procure a tank that may as well be a pillbox.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Too much power means more than nessecary cooling and added weight.

a)Is 5kW enough to propel the weight of a MBT + reactor + armour for the reactor + shielding for the crew?

b) Liquid metal cooling means that the reactor never can be turned off, since the metal then would turn solid and be difficult/impossible to get liquid again. Four Soviet Alfa submarines were decomissioned due to this. Every tank base would have a lot of energy on it's hands ...
7 HP? somehow I doubt that a tank (any tank) would do very well with a 7 HP engine.

[LordVorKon]

Too much power isn't a problem. You don't need to use all the power you generate.

Too much power.... a tank with too -much- power... Well, that's a hell of an idea. Nah, the answer to 'too much power' is 'add more armor'.

[Earling]

Yes tanks are vulnerable, and taken to the logical conclusion, why waste resources on building any?

Because the resources are better spent on tanks than on anything else.
But really there is question of cost. If the choice is 1 nuclear powered tank or 3 conventional tanks, which do you think would be better? With things like Aircraft carriers I see it making sense because you hope the Carrier will have a long life-span. The life span of a tank in a WW3 type situation would be very low and so the theoretical "saving" of the nuclear power wouldn't really come into play.

There is also the consideration of export orders. How many powers would you want getting their hands on Nuclear powered tanks?

[glowjack]

The main problem is not fuel supply, its the fact that if you can get enough fuel most tanks are only meant to go 500km on their own. (before breakdowns)
And there is the security factor, the thing preventing most nations from acquiring nuclear weapons is not that they can't build the bomb itself its mostly that they can't refine the nuclear material and giving every tank nuclear material is not a good way to prevent nuclear profiliation.
The amount of radiation released on the battlefield would make sure that tank battles can only be fought once in a place, troops don't like the idea of radiation and as of yet there hasn't been adequate protection for troops outside of tanks .Tanks without infantry are pratically blind to enemy infantry.
Furthermore tanks can only weigh so much before the terran itself cannot sustain them, the added cooling and sheilding requires would do very little to help.
There's the stealth factor, its very hard to start a nuclear reactor so it must be on at all times in combat zones creating alot of noises.
And there's the maintaince factor, not only do we need tankers to be qualified nuclear technicians (which is hard enough with a competing civilian economy and the fact that soldiers usually only serve 3-4 years) we also need the support crews for nuclear engines and the fact that more people are familiar with petrol autos than nuclear autos.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Incredibly overkill. The solution would create far more problems than the original problem. As far as I know even the smallest reactor would be far too powerful for a tanks use.

Yes, 7 horsepower is WAY too much for a tank:):confused:

[nbcman]

Just for reference, the M1 Abrams has a 1500 HP engine = 1120 kW. With all of the extra armor/shielding, the NucTank (registered trademark of ASB Motors) would need a 0.5-1 MW power plant.

[Dure]

Why shield the core? Put the crew inside the shield keep the core outside. You can irradiate your enemy's homeland as you go!

[bekosh]

Why shield the core? Put the crew inside the shield keep the core outside. You can irradiate your enemy's homeland as you go!

Kind of like Project Pluto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto) & SLAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile), the nuclear powered cruise missile, but slower.

[Mr_ Bondoc]

Yes tanks are vulnerable, and taken to the logical conclusion, why waste resources on building any?

Dirty bomb? Ha

1. In 2002, radioactivity is considered seriously bad (plus we are a lot more risk averse). In the 1950s however, it was considered as much less of an issue.

2. Even if troops are exposed to a bit of radioactivity from their tanks, it's a minor issue, when you consider the fact the tank is only intended for use in a nuclear war environment.

There are several problems:

A) While the military brass was certainly not as enlightened about medical care as today, they also knew that radiation killed combat-effectiveness. If a person is bleeding and passing out due to radiation sickness, it is highly unlikely he will be able to fight for long periods of time...

B) As General George Patton said, "The object of warfare isn't to die for one's country, it's for the other guys to die for their country..." The military brass wouldn't want a weapon that kills just as many U.S. troops due to exposure as it does enemy troops.

[DuQuense]

The first thing I think of when I hear "Nuclear Powered Tank", is "Chernobyl on tracks". I picture a great Bolo-like tank with a nuclear reactor (or four) tacked on.In the AH novel "Day of the Thunderbird" The Heroes are sent back in time due to their Nuke powered Tank being hit point zero with a Nuke Warhead.

Their Tank had a Gallery, Showers, Bunk Room, More like a Land Ship than Tank.

[Dan Reilly The Great]

Kind of like Project Pluto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto) & SLAM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supersonic_Low_Altitude_Missile), the nuclear powered cruise missile, but slower.

Although a nuclear powered tank isn't very practical, that combined with pluto and SLAM would make for some really cool RTS units. Maybe if EA decided to make a realistic remake of Red Alert and decided to give the Soviets and Allies an arsenal of every crazy and suped up weapon thought up during the real cold war. Who needs a mammoth tank when you have a nuclear powered atomic annie toting supertank? That would be Frikin Sweet!!!

[bekosh]

Although a nuclear powered tank isn't very practical, that combined with pluto and SLAM would make for some really cool RTS units. Maybe if EA decided to make a realistic remake of Red Alert and decided to give the Soviets and Allies an arsenal of every crazy and suped up weapon thought up during the real cold war. Who needs a mammoth tank when you have a nuclear powered atomic annie toting supertank? That would be Frikin Sweet!!!

Ka-BOOM!:D
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v456/bekosh/Smilies/animated_annie.gif

[SunilTanna]

Too much power.... a tank with too -much- power... Well, that's a hell of an idea. Nah, the answer to 'too much power' is 'add more armor'.
Exactly. You missed the earlier part of the debate.

I'm not worried about too much power, the anti-nuke-tank faction is... as far as I'm concerned just make the tank bigger and heavier.

[SunilTanna]

And there is the security factor, the thing preventing most nations from acquiring nuclear weapons is not that they can't build the bomb itself its mostly that they can't refine the nuclear material and giving every tank nuclear material is not a good way to prevent nuclear profiliation.


Nuclear tanks are only for NATO, probably only in W. Germany. Not sold to every nation around the world. Given that NATO deployed nukes all over the place, this isn't much of a proliferation problem. And besides, proliteration in the 50s was viewed differently from today.


Furthermore tanks can only weigh so much before the terran itself cannot sustain them, the added cooling and sheilding requires would do very little to help.


If we have to concrete over large parts of W. Germany to make it defensible, it's a price worth paying! Alternatively, maybe the tank is deployed in urban areas which are already concreted over - there are plenty of those in W. Germany

[SunilTanna]

Why shield the core? Put the crew inside the shield keep the core outside. You can irradiate your enemy's homeland as you go!
Now that's the kind of creative thinking I like!

[Michel Van]

next to Orion, PLUTO/SLAM, Nuclear power Bomber
there were REAL proposal for nuclear power tanks
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,673.0.html

allready in 1952 US Army started its own Army Nuclear Power Program !

in 1963 the concept had evolved in two directions:
large special purpose vehicles with a nuclear reaxctor on-board, and
nuclear powered mobile generators for extract hydrogen from water by electorolysis or pyrolysis to fuel LH tanks and trucks

a very good book on this
"The Nuclear Powered Field Army of the 1970's"
in 1963 Army Information Digest by Major General James B. Lampert

while in US the Program died, the Sovjet union build a
nuclear powered mobile generators the TES-Z aka object 27
a 1,5 MW nuclear reaktor on T-10 tank gear. :eek:
http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/2008/08/pamir-nuclear-power-goes-on-road.html

back to Nuclear power battle tanks
Chrysler Corporation presented several proposal
the TV-8 aka R-31 from 1956
the R-32 a ugly monster tank
all use using "a vapor cycle power plant with nuclear fuel"

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

The US TV-8 was a 'concept' that was originally going to be powered by a V8 engine. Yes, there's mention of a nuke plant, but it looks 'handwavium' to me.

The only nuclear vehicle actually produced was the Russian tracked power plant, as far as I can see. 90 tonnes, without armour or gun or ....
1.5MW, is ~2000HP (?I think), which would be way more than enough for a 90 tonne tank - but about right for the size of a beast like this if you added armour and gun, etc. No?


next to Orion, PLUTO/SLAM, Nuclear power Bomber
there were REAL proposal for nuclear power tanks
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,673.0.html

allready in 1952 US Army started its own Army Nuclear Power Program !

in 1963 the concept had evolved in two directions:
large special purpose vehicles with a nuclear reaxctor on-board, and
nuclear powered mobile generators for extract hydrogen from water by electorolysis or pyrolysis to fuel LH tanks and trucks

a very good book on this
"The Nuclear Powered Field Army of the 1970's"
in 1963 Army Information Digest by Major General James B. Lampert

while in US the Program died, the Sovjet union build a
nuclear powered mobile generators the TES-Z aka object 27
a 1,5 MW nuclear reaktor on T-10 tank gear. :eek:
http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/2008/08/pamir-nuclear-power-goes-on-road.html

back to Nuclear power battle tanks
Chrysler Corporation presented several proposal
the TV-8 aka R-31 from 1956
the R-32 a ugly monster tank
all use using "a vapor cycle power plant with nuclear fuel"