In the fifties, against the background of the rapid development of science and technology, the most daring ideas were proposed. So, in the United States, several projects of promising tanks with a power plant based on a nuclear reactor were proposed and worked out at the theoretical level. Not a single such proposal progressed further than the concept, and the original idea was abandoned - not without reason.
A bold proposal
In 1953, the US Army launched the ASTRON program, the goal of which was to create a fundamentally new tank using the most modern and promising technologies. Leading scientific organizations and industrial enterprises began work, and soon a number of interesting projects appeared.
In May 1954, a regular conference on the topic ASTRON was held. At it, Chrysler presented its concept of a lightweight tank with powerful armor and weapons called the TV-1. The vehicle with a combat weight of 70 tons was supposed to have a body of a characteristic shape, the nose of which was given under the reactor. The task of the latter was to heat atmospheric air for supply to the turbine generator. Exhaust air was discharged outside. A tank of this kind, at the suggestion of the engineers, carried a turret with a 105-mm cannon and several machine guns.
At the same conference, materials on the TV-8 project were shown. This tank was divided into two units: a large turret and a modest hull. A streamlined turret with a mass of 15 tons accommodated the fighting compartment, engine compartment, crew seats, weapons with ammunition, etc. Traction motors were placed in a 10-ton hull with tracks. Armament included a rigidly mounted 90mm T208 cannon and several machine guns.
For high mobility, a 25-ton tank needed an engine with a capacity of at least 300 hp. with electric transmission. Initially, an internal combustion engine was considered, then the possibility of using a gas turbine engine and other systems was studied. Finally, we came to the elaboration of the use of a compact nuclear reactor with a steam turbine unit and an electric generator.
Both projects did not progress beyond the construction of models. The army became interested in original ideas, but did not approve of the continuation of work and the construction of experimental equipment. However, the development of the atomic direction continued.
Atomic brother
Another atomic tank project was presented in August 1955. The Ordnance Tank Automotive Command (OTAC) showed a whole family of projects called Rex. Along with other concepts, it included the "atomic" R-32.
The 50-ton R-32 was similar in layout to the TV-1. It was supposed to have a front-engined hull layout and a "regular" turret. In the bow of the machine, it was proposed to place a compact reactor and a steam turbine with a generator. According to calculations, such a tank could cover at least 4 thousand miles of track at one refueling with nuclear fuel. At the same time, he needed advanced biological protection, as well as replacement crews - so as not to expose tankers to excessive risks.
Projects of the OTAC ASTRON Rex line did not receive development, although some of their decisions influenced the further development of American tank building. The atomic tank R-32, which remained at the concept level, went to the archive together with its brothers in the family.
Limited pros
The TV-1, TV-8 and R-32 projects considered the issue of a nuclear installation for a tank at the level of a general concept, but even so they were able to show its real potential. Despite significant design differences, these tanks had a common list of pros and cons of the power plant. Therefore, from this point of view, they can be considered together.
The main reason for the emergence of two concepts was the development of nuclear technology. The fifties are characterized by increased attention to the latest achievements of science and technology, incl. and in the context of their implementation in different areas. So, it was proposed to use nuclear reactors on airplanes, trains, cars, and in addition, on tanks. The very fact of using the latest technologies was conducive to optimism and made it possible to count on a great future.
A nuclear power plant for a tank could have several advantages. First of all, with similar dimensions, it could be much more powerful than the usual diesel engine. A more compact and simpler in layout electric transmission became a plus.
The nuclear reactor was distinguished by extremely high fuel efficiency. At one refueling with a relatively small amount of fuel, a tank could travel thousands of miles, performing assigned combat missions. Also, the nuclear installation provided a serious reserve of power for further modernization of equipment. The high efficiency also made it possible to rebuild the army logistics, reducing the number of tank trucks required for the supply of fuel. Thus, the advantages over traditional engines were obvious.
Many disadvantages
The development of projects quickly showed that benefits come at the cost of many problems. In combination with the tank's own design flaws, this made new projects unsuitable for further development and virtually useless.
First of all, any atomic tank was distinguished by its excessive complexity and high cost. In terms of manufacturability, ease of use and the cost of the life cycle, any armored vehicle with a reactor was inferior to the technique of its usual appearance. This has been clearly demonstrated in different versions of projects from Chrysler and OTAC.
Already at the stage of preliminary development of the concepts, it became clear that to ensure the safety of the crew, the tank needs advanced biological protection. She, in turn, needed considerable volumes inside the engine compartment and next to it. This led to restrictions of various kinds and seriously hampered the design of the tank as a whole. In particular, with an increase in the power and radiation from the reactor, a larger and heavier protection was required, which led to an increase in the mass of the structure and to the need for a new increase in power.
Serious problems were to be expected during operation. A nuclear tank could do without a fuel tanker for the delivery of fuel, but its fuel required special equipment and special safety measures. Almost any tank repair turned into a complex procedure in a specially prepared site. In addition, the reactor did not in any way solve the problem of delivering lubricants, ammunition or provisions for the crew.
In a battlefield, an atomic tank is not only a highly effective combat vehicle, but also an additional dangerous factor. The reactor vehicle actually becomes a self-propelled dirty bomb. Its defeat with damage to the structure of the reactor leads to the release of hazardous materials into the environment with understandable risks for their own and others' soldiers.
Chrysler's TV-1 project stands out against this background. It envisaged the use of an open-cycle power plant with exhaust air discharge to the outside. Thus, contamination of the terrain became a regular feature of the tank's operation. This fact alone put an end to future exploitation.
The massive construction of atomic tanks with the desired characteristics required too large expenditures of various kinds - both on the equipment itself and on the infrastructure for its operation. At the same time, the costs would remain high, even taking into account the possible savings on a large series.
The obvious outcome
Already at the stage of preliminary study of concepts, it became clear that a tank with a nuclear power plant had no real prospects. Such a machine may show advantages in certain technical and operational characteristics, but otherwise it turns out to be a big problem and is especially dangerous throughout its entire life cycle.
Army specialists considered the projects Chrysler TV-1 and TV-8, as well as OTAC Rex R-32 and did not approve their further development. However, the concept itself was not immediately abandoned. In the late fifties, the question of installing the reactor on the chassis of a serial tank was being worked out, but it did not come to experiments. Moreover, after that, the military prudently abandoned the very concept of an atomic tank. They decided to make real combat vehicles suitable for operation in the troops and in war with more familiar power plants.
