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.
 
Last edited:

Dure

Banned
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

MrP

Banned
Dure said:
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!
Click to expand...

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. ;)
 
The Kiat

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

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

SunilTanna said:
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.
...
Click to expand...

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

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

SunilTanna said:
...
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.

...
Click to expand...

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
 
Last edited:

SunilTanna

Mr_ Bondoc said:
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
Click to expand...

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

Donor
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

superkuf said:
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 ...
Click to expand...
7 HP? somehow I doubt that a tank (any tank) would do very well with a 7 HP engine.
 

Earling

SunilTanna said:
Yes tanks are vulnerable, and taken to the logical conclusion, why waste resources on building any?
Click to expand...

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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top