TV-8 - the nuclear-powered tank

ivanotter

All,

Always been impressed with the US fixation on nuclear propulsion.

This one is from the mid-50's: TV-8 was a Chrysler proposal and was to be a medium-tank, powered by nuclear power.

The technical challenges were massive and it was obvious why it got cancelled after all.

But..... What If?

How would NATO react to nuclear-powered tanks all over the country-side?
Accidents will happen. Now what?

Deployment of some of those to Vietnam is of course also possible. That should make everyone very happy.

Russian counter-strokes?
 

Arcavia

...what advantages will a nuclear tank have? It still can't carry enough food and ammo to make it have a major increase in fighting range the way a warship does with nuclear power, and seems like it'll be even more prone to breakdowns, many of which will incapacitate the (presumably) highly specialized crew.
 
Last edited:

Peebothuhlu

Uhm.... but isn't 'Road marching' still a tactical aspect?

You have a tank that can now traverse thousands of miles/KM's instead of measly hundreds.

Also..... would this not be kind of the ultimate expression of the 'Diesel/electric' drive system? Just replacing the diesel with the pile.

Any one know of the progress of Lockheed's 'Trailer' sized fusion plant, btw?
 
Not James Stockdale

Not James Stockdale

Peebothuhlu said:
Uhm.... but isn't 'Road marching' still a tactical aspect?

You have a tank that can now traverse thousands of miles/KM's instead of measly hundreds.

Also..... would this not be kind of the ultimate expression of the 'Diesel/electric' drive system? Just replacing the diesel with the pile.

Any one know of the progress of Lockheed's 'Trailer' sized fusion plant, btw?
Click to expand...
The limiting factor on the strategic mobility of a tracked vehicle is the tracks, not fuel. They wear out very quickly, especially on road.
 

Ramontxo

Donor
What not to love in this, several hundred self made dirty bombs with a protection good enough to survive a 20mm hit (if you are lucky enough where you are hit) roaming around your front.
 

Rufus Shinra

Peebothuhlu said:
Any one know of the progress of Lockheed's 'Trailer' sized fusion plant, btw?
Click to expand...
Everyone rightfully classified it as a bunch of PPT made by people who didn't know enough about fusion tech to realize the issues with their proposal. "Everyone" includes, since a couple of years, the same people who made the proposal and who finally faced the issues in question. There's a reason fusion power is a worldwide endeavour that spans decades to build a town-sized powerplant. Lockheed can't make a reliable plane these days, so a compact fusion plant is laughably out of question for them.
 

FBKampfer

Banned
The odd part is that the technical problems of a trailer-sized fusion plant should be relatively straightforward to solve.
 

kernals12

Banned
The basic problem with all forms of nuclear propulsion, besides marine, is the weight and bulk of the shielding. Such a tank would be absolutely enormous, it would be too heavy to go over bridges, it would tear up paved roads, it would sink into the dirt.
 

Rufus Shinra

Mad Bad Rabbit said:
They bog down in the swamp (or one of Charlie's pit traps) and we have to send a team to get the fuel rods back before the VC abscond with them.
Click to expand...
IMHO, the Soviet advisers would make it very, very clear that any such fuel rods would need to be secured, packaged and most likely handed back to the US with proper documentation. Fucking up with nuclear material is something that noone likes.
 

Alanith

Mad Bad Rabbit said:
They bog down in the swamp (or one of Charlie's pit traps) and we have to send a team to get the fuel rods back before the VC abscond with them.
Click to expand...

I think after the first band dies horrific deaths almost to the last man word will get out that scavenging the new American tanks is a bad idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top