Nuclear Powered Tank

glowjack

Banned
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.
 

nbcman

Donor
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

Banned
Why shield the core? Put the crew inside the shield keep the core outside. You can irradiate your enemy's homeland as you go!
 
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.
 
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.
 
Kind of like Project Pluto & SLAM, 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!!!
 
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
animated_annie.gif
 
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.
 
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
 
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"
 
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"
 
Top