Knowing the amount of water consumed by most nuclear powerplants, its hard to believe they could fit in enough water to operate the tanks powerplant (assuming it uses a turbine to generate electricity to power teh tank)

If they had somehow managed to get this working for less than half a billion dollars a tank, it would solve most of the logisitcal problems that currently limit armored warfare.

Nuclear powerplants consume water because they have access to large volumes of cheap water. A mobile plant would use a steam condenser and recover the steam, with water/air heat exchangers to reject the heat in the same way a diesel engine water cooling system works. You'll need a bit more airflow for cooling, but if you can run a gas turbine in a tank, a steam turbine shouldn't be a big problem.
 
A variation on the theme:
There was in fact another, different Army concept for nuclear power on land but used in “trains” – tanks. At one time the Army had a concept for cutting the diesel fuel use that resulted from tanks driving from rear areas all the way up to the front lines – a nuclear mobile power station that would drive along with the tanks. Each tank – of very conventional design – was to have included an electric drive motor on its transmission and a sturdy pole on the top rear of the tank. Cables would have strung together a dozen or more tanks with the nuclear unit in the middle; the whole line would then have moved along from the rear up to relatively near the combat zone (but out of danger) where the cables would have been taken down and the tanks dispatched on their own. The power unit would then return to ferry more tanks. Obviously, this concept was fraught with problems. For example, the extremely heavy tracked power unit would not have been able to go through terrain that tanks might well have been forced to cross – and even some bridges would have been too light for it. Not surprisingly, ferrying tanks simply under their own power was found to be much better and this non-solution was never applied.

 
A variation on the theme:
There was in fact another, different Army concept for nuclear power on land but used in “trains” – tanks. At one time the Army had a concept for cutting the diesel fuel use that resulted from tanks driving from rear areas all the way up to the front lines – a nuclear mobile power station that would drive along with the tanks. Each tank – of very conventional design – was to have included an electric drive motor on its transmission and a sturdy pole on the top rear of the tank. Cables would have strung together a dozen or more tanks with the nuclear unit in the middle; the whole line would then have moved along from the rear up to relatively near the combat zone (but out of danger) where the cables would have been taken down and the tanks dispatched on their own. The power unit would then return to ferry more tanks. Obviously, this concept was fraught with problems. For example, the extremely heavy tracked power unit would not have been able to go through terrain that tanks might well have been forced to cross – and even some bridges would have been too light for it. Not surprisingly, ferrying tanks simply under their own power was found to be much better and this non-solution was never applied.

1616284885755.png
 
One sneaky advantage of a nuclear powered tank is that with proper sealing you can make the entire thing just crawl along the bottom of a river.
 
Ask and you will be given - part 2.

Soviets built mobile nuclear powerplant called TES-Z (or object 27) on T-10 tank gear. However gear was longer compared to T-10 and had wider chains. It was manufactured in Kirovsk factory with help of "Laboratory V" or better to said Russian nuclear scientific center in Obninsk. Overal weignt was about 90 tons and output power 1,5 MW. One prototype was manufactured and from 1960 rarely used.

Thanx to one my friend, now we have also picture.
tes-z-jpg.6214
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDOVWWu6b1w
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom