How America Almost Built the Scariest of Weapons: A Nuclear-Powered Tank

[Marlin]

How America Almost Built the Scariest of Weapons: A Nuclear-Powered Tank


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-america-almost-built-the-scariest-weapons-nuclear-18918

[GLW]

How America Almost Built the Scariest of Weapons: A Nuclear-Powered Tank


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-america-almost-built-the-scariest-weapons-nuclear-18918

when I was a kid, I read about these all the time:

Bolo, The Night of the Trolls, The Frozen Planet, The Last Command, A Relic of War, Combat Unit, Field Test, For the Honor of the Regiment, The Dinochrome Brigade

they were some of my favorites,...

I also liked The Dirdir by Jake Vance, which by the way is not at all related,...

I also liked Retief of the CDT,... again, not at all related,....

[Marlin]

when I was a kid, I read about these all the time:

Bolo, The Night of the Trolls, The Frozen Planet, The Last Command, A Relic of War, Combat Unit, Field Test, For the Honor of the Regiment, The Dinochrome Brigade

they were some of my favorites,...

I also liked The Dirdir by Jake Vance, which by the way is not at all related,...

I also liked Retief of the CDT,... again, not at all related,....

[Ksheed]

How America Almost Built the Scariest of Weapons: A Nuclear-Powered Tank


http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/how-america-almost-built-the-scariest-weapons-nuclear-18918

No link to the schematics for this baby? I was hoping for some pictures or conceptual drawings at least.

[GLW]

when I was a kid, I read about these all the time:

Bolo, The Night of the Trolls, The Frozen Planet, The Last Command, A Relic of War, Combat Unit, Field Test, For the Honor of the Regiment, The Dinochrome Brigade

they were some of my favorites,...

I also liked The Dirdir by Jake Vance, which by the way is not at all related,...

I also liked Retief of the CDT,... again, not at all related,....

[Marlin]

Still not sure what is has to do with the OP but OK.

[SloGlo]

"In the end, tanks wouldn't have been the only mutants."

this cood be linked to the hormesis thread. bee a hole knew topic for evolutionists.

[hamsamich]

maybe he is saying the tank is far fetched like science fiction, but it could have been made though impractical probably.  so not really science fiction

[Marlin]

No link to the schematics for this baby? I was hoping for some pictures or conceptual drawings at least.

Could not find schematics but a few pictures.

[Marlin]

maybe he is saying the tank is far fetched like science fiction, but it could have been made though impractical probably.  so not really science fiction

This was the 50s think nuclear airplane and nuclear cars. It is from a different age. The test stand for the nuclear airplane shielding is still standing just down the road from me at Oak Ridge National Labs. But I get your point.

[hamsamich]

cool pics!

[GLW]

Still not sure what is has to do with the OP but OK.

Keith Laumer "originated" the notion of fusion or fission powered (with ionic battery backup)  "smart tanks" in 1960 in the SciFi short story "Combat Unit".

Previously, Laumer spent a couple of stints as a US of A Air Force Officer in R&D work.

During that same timeframe when the service branches were developing and building nuclear powered bombers, submarines, tanks plus static and mobile power stations.

And there was considerable sharing and overlap between the services.

The technically and tactically inappropriate US Army tank was known to Laumer.

In the SciFi genre he was free to fix all the real world technology limitations and present a nuclear powered super tank which was self aware.

He designated them BOLOS.

Art imitating life, then improving on the real world shortcomings.

Did not they teach you to read up there in Chicago?!?!?!?!?!?!

 
 

[GLW]

Could not find schematics but a few pictures.

All info sourced from: ABRAMS: A History of the American Main Battle Tank: Volume 2 by Richard Pearce Hunnicutt

Stats:

Crew 4
 
Weight 25t
 
Length 6.9m (with gun 8.9m)
 
Width 3.4m
 
Height 2.16m
 
Ground clearance 0.37m
 
Engine  Vapor cycle power plant with nuclear fuel  (e.g. POTASSIUM-STEAM BINARY VAPOR CYCLE as developed at ORNL)

Engine Power 800 - 1000hp
 
Power/weight 30.7+
 
Speed Limit 67 km/h
 
Water Speed  Unknown
 
Hull Armor 12/12/12
 
Turret Armor 50/50/30 + 15 spaced
 
Roof Armor 15 + 15 spaces
 
Ammo 40
 
Turret Slope 70° front 47° side
 
Armament 90mm T208 smooth bore gun
 
Rate of fire 7-8rpm
 
Depression/elevation -6/+12

The TV-8 was armed with the 90mm gun T208 rigidly mounted in the turret and fitted with an hydraulic ramming device. The 90mm ammunition stowage was in the rear of the turret separated from the crew by a steel bulkhead.
Secondary armament consisted of two coaxial .30 caliber machine guns and one remote controlled .50 caliber machine gun on the turret top operated by the tank commander. Closed circuit television was provided to protect the crew from the flash of tactical nuclear weapons and
to increase the field of vision. The heavily armored inner turret was surrounded by a light outer shell that gave the turret
its pod like appearance. This shell and the hull was watertight creating sufficient displacement to allow the TV-8 to float and be amphibious. Propulsion
in the water was by means of a water jet-pump installed in the bottom rear of the turret.

TV-8 had a big brother (heavy tank) which recycled a late WW2 design uprated and powered by a nuclear fission / steam turbine  detachable power plant:

[GLW]

This was the 50s think nuclear airplane and nuclear cars. It is from a different age. The test stand for the nuclear airplane shielding is still standing just down the road from me at Oak Ridge National Labs. But I get your point.

to elaborate (just a little)

nuclear submarines versus "conventional" submarines - PHENOMENAL performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

nuclear bomber versus "conventional" bomber - minimal to nil performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

nuclear tank versus "conventional" tank -  minimal to nil performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

nuke subs score a big win and go forward,...

nuke tanks and nuke bombers?!?,....

not so much,....

[Ksheed]

So an amphibious assault vehicle with a cannon on it? Sounds more like the Marines cup of tea rather than the Army. It would be pretty cool to be able to storm the beach with heavy artillery to support the personal carriers.

[Marlin]

to elaborate (just a little)

nuclear submarines versus "conventional" submarines - PHENOMENAL performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

nuclear bomber versus "conventional" bomber - minimal to nil performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

nuclear tank versus "conventional" tank -  minimal to nil performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

nuke subs score a big win and go forward,...

nuke tanks and nuke bombers?!?,....

not so much,....

Safety not performance was the deciding factor the idea of a plane that could stay aloft for an extended period of time was very attractive to the military, the idea of a crash in populated areas was not. An amphibious tank with an extended operation without refueling would have been attractive in some operational situations, the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge who abandoned many tanks for lack of fuel and resupply logistics would agree.

   Again this was the 1950s not today. So in perspective

[SloGlo]

So an amphibious assault vehicle with a cannon on it? Sounds more like the Marines cup of tea rather than the Army. It would be pretty cool to be able to storm the beach with heavy artillery to support the personal carriers.

knot shore hitting the beech, aka ground zero, wood bed considered cool bye vary many during planing phases.

[SloGlo]

 elaborate (just a little)

nuclear missiles versus "conventional" missiles - PHENOMENAL performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

wit a tip of my hat to glw...

[Ksheed]

knot shore hitting the beech, aka ground zero, wood bed considered cool bye vary many during planing phases.

A beach landing with 90mm firepower on your side would be "cool" for the 'trackers and grunts floating in the AAV's armed with a 50 cal, a 40mm, smoke, and a prayer.


At ~ 8mph in the water, we always called them floating coffins...

[Marlin]

elaborate (just a little)

nuclear missiles versus "conventional" missiles - PHENOMENAL performance improvements and war fighting platform gains versus the added cost and complexity

wit a tip of my hat to glw...

   But then most of our missiles are not nuclear, only those with specific purposes and there is not that big a risk of accidental spread of contamination. What is an amphibious tank other than a submarine with wheels (tracks).

 


 

[GLW]

Safety not performance was the deciding factor.......

nope,...

....It was an ingenious and farsighted scheme, yet it failed. What turned out to be the straw that broke the CAMAL proposal was the exceptional performance of the then new Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, which made the great risk and expense of a nuclear plane much less attractive. Adding weight to those doubts was the result of remarkable advances in missile technology such as the 9,000-mile range of the then newly developed Atlas missile, which reduced the need for a flying launcher in the first place. Conversely if such an in-flight launcher was really deemed necessary the Defense Department calculated that for the cost to date of the ANP program 1,200 B-52s could be procured immediately not after more years of reactor and shield tests....

http://www.456fis.org/NB-36H.htm

...... An amphibious tank with an extended operation without refueling would have been attractive in some operational situations, the Germans at the Battle of the Bulge who abandoned many tanks for lack of fuel and resupply logistics would agree.....

nope,...

lots of inexpensive but capable tanks with air superiority trump a few expensive top of the class tanks every time,...

Kursk, Goodwood, Raseiniai, Brody were all won by bigger numbers of technically inferior tanks supported by the close air support of those who owned the skies,...

spend your money on more decent tanks and air superiority,...

the Germans ran out of fuel at the Bulge because they lost air superiority and could not defend their refineries, their oil fields, or their supply lines,...

and, when the fog lifted, they could not defend their Tiger IIs, Panthers, Jagdpanzer Vs or Jagdpanzer IVs,...

all of which could kick the living hell out of 85% of Western Allies deployed armor 1:1, 1:2, 1:3,...


American GIs inspect an overturned German tank, after it toppled into a crater made by a bomb dropped right in front of it by an Allied plane, December 1944A Panther V tank flipped upside down after being caught in the open by an Allied bombing run, with American troops checking to see if any if the crew were still alive.

almost forgot,...

ETD!!!!

[GLW]

A beach landing with 90mm firepower on your side would be "cool" for the 'trackers and grunts floating in the AAV's armed with a 50 cal, a 40mm, smoke, and a prayer.

or one of these in your back pocket eh?!?!?!?

[Rennhack]

lots of inexpensive but capable tanks with air superiority trump a few expensive top of the class tanks every time,...

You said Trump..... heheheheh

[hamsamich]

yeah i gotta say, nuclear gives submarines a huge advantage.  when it comes to planes or tanks it doesn't matter as much.  you can just build a bunch of airplanes, or tanks.  but the sub needs that nuclear because of the type of energy production.  doesn't deplete oxygen, lasts forever and the sub needs that stealth by staying under.  you can always throw more planes or tanks at a situation, subs not so much.

not that nuclear tanks or planes wouldn't give an edge, but like GLW says not such a huge edge. 

now that being said there was a really cool article about a certain type of sub being built that can stay under longer without nuclear.  I'm sure you've all heard of it.  makes nuclear sub look a little less attractive as far as dollar for dollar.  they can build them bigger too so if the tech keeps advancing maybe it will get even better.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotland-class_submarine

[Marlin]

nope,...

....It was an ingenious and farsighted scheme, yet it failed. What turned out to be the straw that broke the CAMAL proposal was the exceptional performance of the then new Boeing B-52 Stratofortress, which made the great risk and expense of a nuclear plane much less attractive. Adding weight to those doubts was the result of remarkable advances in missile technology such as the 9,000-mile range of the then newly developed Atlas missile, which reduced the need for a flying launcher in the first place. Conversely if such an in-flight launcher was really deemed necessary the Defense Department calculated that for the cost to date of the ANP program 1,200 B-52s could be procured immediately not after more years of reactor and shield tests....

Well there is this:

Vexing, too, was the fact that Maj. Gen. Donald Keirn, Admiral Rickover's counterpart at the AMP project, did not have the same sweeping powers to get things done. Infighting and empire building among the Air Force, the AEC and the main contractors were needless irritations added to the already formidable technical problems. (incidentally it was Keirn, then a colonel, who had been one of the original Air Force planners of nuclear flight back in 1944.)

It was too expensive and risky because they did not have a Rickover 


As for the tank a cross between the NR-1 and a tank could have done it after all the NR-1 did have wheels to ride on the bottom. 


We are talking about an amphibious tank not the 80,000 Russian T-34s that would make it a quasi submarine.




You can argue all you like but any of these could have been done with political will and good engineering, and making them safe was the reason for cost overruns. Potato/Potatoe