Nuclear tank? Is that possible?

The first nuclear reactor was launched in 1942 in the USA. In the 1950s, scientists actively searched for options practical application nuclear energy. On June 27, 1954, the world's first nuclear power plant was put into operation in the USSR. And in the United States, scientists began to develop the concept of an atomic tank.

It was an incredible idea for those times. After all, all this was still a curiosity and nuclear tanks, and nuclear ships, and nuclear submarines. There were ideas about nuclear trains and airplanes. But back to tanks.

First project - TV-1


The first project of the American nuclear tank received the designation TV-1. He assumed that the tank would weigh 70 tons, be armed with a 105 mm T140 gun and 350 mm frontal armor. The nuclear reactor on board could operate for 500 hours without changing the fuel.

Second project - R32


Atomic science did not stand still, and a year later, in 1955, it became possible to significantly reduce the size of the reactor. And to replace the huge TV-1 was developed new project– R32. It was a project of a 50-ton nuclear tank with a 90-mm T208 smoothbore gun and 120-mm frontal armor. The design range of the R32 was over 4,000 miles.

Just imagine: 6500 kilometers without refueling. But the problem was that this did not mean that the tank could go on an autonomous campaign for such a distance. Anyway, he would need to periodically change the lubricant in various units and assemblies, and most importantly, the crew would have to be changed periodically so as not to expose the tankers to long-term radiation. Plus to this: if such a tank was blown up, the entire area in the area would be infected.

As a result, the Americans abandoned the projects of the atomic tank. Not even a single prototype was produced.

Nuclear tank in the USSR


In the USSR, such projects were not developed. But he still had his own “atomic tank”. So in the press they called TES-3 - a transportable nuclear power plant, which moved itself on four self-propelled tracked chassis, created on the basis of the T-10 heavy tank. And this “tank”, unlike the American ones, really existed!

In the fifties of the last century, mankind began to actively develop a new source of energy - the fission of atomic nuclei. Nuclear power was then seen, if not as a panacea, then at least as a solution to a great many different problems. In an atmosphere of universal approval and interest, nuclear power plants and designed reactors for submarines and ships. Some dreamers even proposed making the nuclear reactor so compact and low-power that it could be used as household source energy or as a power plant for cars, etc. The military became interested in similar things. In the United States, options for creating a full-fledged tank with a nuclear power plant were seriously considered. Unfortunately or fortunately, they all remained at the level of technical proposals and drawings.

Nuclear tanks began in 1954 and its appearance is associated with scientific conferences Question Mark, which discussed promising directions science and technology. At the third such conference, held in June 1954 in Detroit, American scientists discussed the project of a tank with a nuclear reactor submitted for consideration. According to the technical proposal, fighting machine TV1 (Track Vehicle 1 - "Tracked Vehicle-1") was supposed to have a combat weight of about 70 tons and carry a 105-mm rifled gun. Special interest represented the layout of the armored hull of the proposed tank. So, behind armor up to 350 millimeters thick, a small-sized nuclear reactor should have been located. For him, a volume was provided in the front of the armored hull. Behind the reactor and its protection, located workplace driver, middle and back parts the corps placed a fighting compartment, ammunition stowage, etc., as well as several power plant units.

Fighting vehicle TV1 (Track Vehicle 1 - "Tracked vehicle-1")

The principle of operation of the power units of the tank is more than interesting. The fact is that the reactor for TV1 was planned to be made according to the scheme with an open gas coolant circuit. This means that the reactor had to be cooled by atmospheric air flowing next to it. Further, the heated air was supposed to be supplied to the power gas turbine, which was supposed to drive the transmission and drive wheels. According to the calculations carried out right at the conference, with the given dimensions, it would be possible to ensure the operation of the reactor for up to 500 hours on one refueling of nuclear fuel. However, the TV1 project was not recommended for further development. For 500 hours of operation, a reactor with an open cooling circuit could infect several tens or even hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of air. In addition, it was not possible to fit sufficient reactor protection into the internal volumes of the tank. In general, the TV1 combat vehicle turned out to be much more dangerous for its troops than for the enemy.

By the next Question Mark IV conference, held in 1955, the TV1 project was finalized in accordance with current capabilities and new technologies. The new nuclear tank was named R32. It differed significantly from TV1, primarily in its size. The development of nuclear technology has made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the machine and accordingly change its design. The 50-ton tank was also proposed to be equipped with a reactor in the front, but the armored hull with a 120 mm thick front plate and the turret with a 90-mm gun in the project had completely different contours and layout. In addition, it was proposed to abandon the use of a gas turbine driven by superheated atmospheric air and to apply new protection systems for a smaller reactor. Calculations have shown that the practically achievable power reserve on one refueling of nuclear fuel will be approximately four thousand kilometers. Thus, at the cost of reducing the operating time, it was planned to reduce the danger of the reactor for the crew.

And yet, the measures taken to protect the crew, technical personnel and troops interacting with the tank were insufficient. According to the theoretical calculations of American scientists, the R32 "fonil" is less than its predecessor TV1, but even with the remaining level of radiation, the tank was not suitable for practical use. It would be necessary to regularly change crews and create special infrastructure for separate service nuclear tanks.

After the R32 failed to meet the expectations of a potential customer in the face of the American army, the military's interest in tanks with a nuclear power plant began to gradually fade. It is worth recognizing that for some time there have been attempts to create a new project and even bring it to the testing stage. For example, in 1959 an experimental machine based on heavy tank M103. It was supposed to be used in future tests of a tank chassis with a nuclear reactor. Work on this project began very late, when the customer stopped seeing nuclear tanks as promising equipment for the army. Work on the conversion of the M103 into a test bench was completed with the creation of a draft design and preparation for the assembly of the layout.

R32. Another project of the American atomic tank

The last American project of a nuclear-powered tank, which was able to move beyond the technical proposal stage, was carried out by Chrysler during its participation in the ASTRON program. The Pentagon has ordered a tank designed for the army of the next decades, and Chrysler apparently decided to give the tank reactor another try. Besides, new tank TV8 was supposed to represent a new layout concept. The armored chassis with electric motors and, in some versions of the project, an engine or a nuclear reactor was a typical tank hull with a caterpillar undercarriage. However, it was proposed to install a tower of the original design on it.

The large-sized unit of a complex streamlined faceted shape was supposed to be made a little longer than the chassis. Inside such an original tower, it was proposed to place the jobs of all four crew members, all weapons, incl. 90 mm gun on a rigid recoilless suspension system, as well as ammunition. In addition, in later versions of the project it was supposed to be placed in the rear of the tower diesel engine or a small nuclear reactor. In this case, the reactor or engine would provide energy for the operation of the generator that feeds the propulsion electric motors and other systems. According to some sources, until the closure of the TV8 project, there were disputes about the most convenient placement of the reactor: in the chassis or in the tower. Both options had their pros and cons, but the installation of all power plant units in the chassis was more profitable, although technically more difficult.

Tank TV8

One of the variants of atomic monsters developed at one time in the United States under the Astron program.

The TV8 proved to be the luckiest of all American nuclear tanks. In the second half of the fifties, a model of a promising armored vehicle was even built at one of the Chrysler factories. But things did not go beyond the layout. The revolutionary new layout of the tank, combined with its technical complexity, did not give any advantages over existing and developed armored vehicles. The ratio of novelty, technical risks and practical returns was considered insufficient, especially in the case of using a nuclear power plant. As a result, the TV8 project was closed for lack of prospects.

After TV8, not a single American atomic tank project left the technical proposal stage. As for other countries, they also considered the theoretical possibility of replacing diesel with a nuclear reactor. But outside the United States, these ideas remained only in the form of ideas and ideas. simple sentences. The main reasons for the rejection of such ideas were two features of nuclear power plants. First, a tank-mountable reactor cannot, by definition, be adequately shielded. As a result, the crew and surrounding people or objects will be exposed to radiation. Secondly, a nuclear tank, in the event of damage to the power plant - and the likelihood of such a development of events is very high - becomes a real dirty bomb. The chances of the crew surviving the moment of the accident are too small, and the survivors will become victims of acute radiation sickness.

The relatively large power reserve on one refueling and the general, as it seemed in the fifties, the prospects of nuclear reactors in all areas could not overpower dangerous consequences their applications. As a result, nuclear-powered tanks remained an original technical idea that arose in the wake of the general "nuclear euphoria", but did not give any practical results.

According to the websites:
http://shushpanzer-ru.livejournal.com/
http://raigap.livejournal.com/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://secretprojects.co.uk/

Otherwise, it may be questioned and removed.
You can edit this article to include links to .
This mark is set April 16, 2018.

Model of tank TV-1 presented at the conference Question Mark III

By the time of the next conference, Question Mark IV, held in August 1955, the development of nuclear reactors made it possible to significantly reduce their size, and hence the mass of the tank. The project presented at the conference under the designation R32 assumed the creation of a 50-ton tank armed with a 90-mm smoothbore gun T208 and protected in the frontal projection by 120-mm armor, located at an inclination of 60 ° to the vertical. The reactor provided the tank with an estimated cruising range of more than 4,000 miles. R32 was considered more promising than the original version of the atomic tank, and was even considered as a possible replacement for the M48 tank that was in production, despite obvious disadvantages, such as the extremely high cost of the vehicle and the need for regular replacement of crews to prevent them from receiving a dangerous dose of radiation exposure . However, R32 did not go beyond the design stage. Gradually, the army's interest in nuclear tanks faded, but work in this direction continued at least until 1959. None of the projects of atomic tanks even reached the stage of building a prototype, just as the project of converting the M103 heavy tank into an experimental vehicle for testing a nuclear reactor on a tank chassis remained on paper.

USSR

General Concept Problems

The main problem with the concept of a tank with a nuclear engine was that a large power reserve did not mean a high autonomy of the vehicle. The limiting factor was the supply of ammunition, lubricants for mechanical parts, the resource of caterpillar tracks. As a result, as such, elimination from the composition tank units refueling vehicles and the simplification of the supply of atomic tanks with combustible materials in practice did not lead to any significant increase in autonomy. At the same time, the cost of nuclear-powered tanks would be much higher than conventional ones. Their maintenance and repair would require specially trained personnel and special repair machines and equipment. In addition, damage to the tank with a significant probability would lead to

This tank can be considered a symbol nuclear war which never started. Its design is optimally suited to resist the shock wave, and the four-track chassis- for movement in conditions of a probable nuclear winter ...

Heavy tank - "Object 279", the only one of its kind and, without any doubt, the most unique. Its hull had a cast curvilinear shape with thin-sheet anti-cumulative screens, complementing its contours to an elongated ellipsoid. This hull shape was supposed to prevent the tank from being overturned by the blast wave of a nuclear explosion.

Let's take a closer look at this project...

Maybe the beginning of the post is somewhat pretentious and exaggerated, but first let's rewind the events a bit.

In 1956, the GBTU of the Red Army developed tactical and technical requirements for a heavy tank, which was supposed to replace the T-10. The design bureau of the Kirov Plant in Leningrad began to create a tank, with extensive use of ideas and individual components from the IS-7 and T-10 tanks. Received the index "Object 277", the new tank was created according to the classical layout, its undercarriage consisted of eight road wheels and four support rollers on board, suspension on beam torsion bars, with hydraulic shock absorbers on the first, second and eighth rollers. The hull was assembled from both rolled and cast parts - the sides were made from bent plates of rolled armor, while the bow was a single casting. The tower was also made of a cast, hemispherical shape. The developed niche accommodated a mechanized ammunition rack to facilitate the actions of the loader.

The armament consisted of a 130mm M-65 gun, stabilized in two planes with the Thunderstorm stabilizer, and a coaxial 14.5mm KPVT machine gun. Ammunition 26 shots of separate loading and 250 cartridges for a machine gun. The gunner had a TPD-2S stereoscopic rangefinder sight, the tank was equipped with a full set of night vision devices. Power point was a 12-cylinder V-shaped diesel engine M-850, with an HP 1050 power. at 1850 rpm. The transmission is planetary, type "3K", made in the form of a single block of the mechanism for changing gears and turns. Unlike the transmission of the T-10 tank, the band brakes of the planetary turning mechanism were replaced with disc brakes. The crew consisted of 4 people, three of whom (commander, gunner and loader) were in the tower. With a mass of 55 tons, the tank showed top speed 55 km/h.

Two copies of the "Object 277" were produced, and shortly after the start of testing, work on it was curtailed. The tank favorably differed from the T-10 with more powerful weapons and a more advanced FCS, including a rangefinder, but the ammunition load was small. In general, the "Object 277" was created on the basis of well-developed units in the series and did not require long-term refinement.

The second competitor was the tank of the Chelyabinsk Tractor Plant - "Object 770". Unlike the "Object 277", it was decided to design the tank "from scratch", relying only on advanced solutions and using new units. characteristic feature The tank became a completely cast hull, the sides of which were distinguished by both a differentiated thickness and a variable angle of inclination. A similar approach can be traced in the booking of the forehead of the hull. The turret is also completely cast, with variable armor thickness, reaching up to 290mm in the frontal parts. The armament and control system of the tank are completely similar to the "Object 277" - a 130mm M-65 gun and a coaxial 14.5mm KPVT machine gun, 26 rounds of ammunition and 250 rounds of ammunition.

Of interest is the power unit of the tank, made on the basis of a 10-cylinder diesel engine DTN-10, with a vertical arrangement of cylinder blocks, which was installed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tank. Engine power was 1000 hp. at 2500 rpm. The transmission of the tank included a torque converter and a planetary gearbox, the parallel inclusion of which made it possible to have one mechanical and two hydromechanical forward gears, and one mechanical reverse gear. The undercarriage included six large-diameter road wheels per side, without supporting rollers. The roller suspension is hydropneumatic. The tank was distinguished by ease of operation and good dynamic characteristics.

The most unique and one of a kind prototype of a heavy tank - object 279 - was developed in 1957 by a team of designers from the Leningrad Kirov Plant under the leadership of L.S. Troyanov according to the proposals of the Office of the Chief of the Armored Forces Soviet army in 1956 tactical and technical requirements for a heavy tank. The tank was intended to break through the prepared enemy defenses and operate in difficult terrain for conventional tanks.

In defiance of the conservative "Object 277", the car was created completely anew, and not only in terms of the units used, but also in concept. Cast hulls with differentiated armor, elliptical shapes have been seen before, but in this car the idea was brought to the absolute. Assembled from four cast parts, the body was covered along the entire perimeter with an anti-cumulative screen, which complemented its contours to an elliptical shape (not only in plan, but also in vertical section). Thanks to the armored volume reduced to the limit, which amounted to only 11.47 m 3, it was possible to achieve unprecedented values ​​​​of armor thickness both normal and given - the frontal armor of the hull reached 192 mm at large angles of inclination and underturn, side armor up to 182 mm, at smaller angles. The cast tower of a flattened hemispherical shape had a circular armor of 305 mm, with the exception of the stern.

Armament was the same 130mm M-65 gun and 14.5mm KPVT machine gun, with 24 rounds of ammunition in a mechanized ammo rack with semi-automatic loading and 300 machine gun rounds. The combined efforts of the loader and semi-automatic cassette loader ensured a combat rate of fire of 5-7 rounds per minute. The SLA included a stereoscopic rangefinder sight with independent stabilization of the field of view TPD-2S, a two-plane electro-hydraulic stabilizer "Groza" and a complete set of night vision devices.

The power plant of the tank was developed in two versions - a DG-1000 diesel engine with a capacity of 950 liters. With. at 2500 rpm or 2DG-8M with a capacity of 1000 liters. With. at 2400 rpm. Both engines are 4-stroke, 16-cylinder, H-shaped with a horizontal arrangement of cylinders (to reduce the height of the body). The transmission of the tank was also distinguished by its unusual and innovative approach - a hydromechanical and planetary 3-speed gearbox, and switching between the two highest gears was automated.

But the most conspicuous detail of the tank is certainly its undercarriage, whose feature was the use of four caterpillar propellers!

The undercarriage was mounted on two longitudinal hollow beams, which served as fuel tanks. The design of the caterpillar mover provided high cross-country ability in deep snow and wetlands. It excluded the landing of the tank on the bottom when overcoming vertical obstacles (hollows, stumps, hedgehogs). The average pressure on the soil was only 0.6 kgf / cm², that is, it approached the same parameter light tank. It was a unique example of a heavy cross-country tank.

For one propulsion unit, the undercarriage consisted of six road wheels, three support rollers, a sloth and a drive sprocket. The suspension is individual, hydropneumatic, adjustable. Thus, the concept of clearance became only a formality, and the tank could overcome vertical obstacles without the threat of landing on them.

The specific pressure was also very low - only 0.6 kg / m 2, which made it possible to overcome deep snow and marshy areas. The disadvantages of the selected undercarriage were poor maneuverability and increased resistance to movement, especially on heavy soils. Maintainability left much to be desired, due to the high complexity of the design and the inaccessibility of the inner pair of tracks.

A prototype tank was built in 1959 and began to be tested, but it immediately became clear that such an expensive car had no chance of mass production. The successor to the T-10 was supposed to be one of the two tanks "seven hundred and seventy" or "two hundred and seventy seven", but none of the contestants was put into service.

The crew of the tank consisted of four people, three of whom - the commander, gunner and loader - were located in the tower. The driver's seat was in the front of the hull in the center, there was also a hatch for getting into the car.

Of all the tanks developed simultaneously with it, object 279 was distinguished by the smallest booked volume - 11.47 m3, while having a very complex armored hull. The design of the undercarriage made it impossible to land on the bottom of the car, provided high cross-country ability in deep snow and wetlands. At the same time, the undercarriage was very complex in design and operation, and did not make it possible to reduce the height of the tank.

At the end of 1959, a prototype was built, the assembly of two more tanks was not completed.

Object 279 is located in the Museum of armored weapons and equipment in Kubinka.

In the middle of the last century, active implementation began in everyday life energy sources based on nuclear reaction, ranging from colossal nuclear power plant projects, fantastic icebreakers and submarines to consumer household needs and nuclear cars. Unfortunately, most of these ideas have not yet been implemented. The desire of mankind to simultaneously minimize and globalize contributed to the emergence in history of attempts to use the reactor where it is impossible to even imagine it - for example, in a tank

The history of atomic tanks began (and ended too) in the United States of America. IN post-war years conferences bringing together amateurs and professional figures science under one roof. The luminaries of scientific thought staged a populist brainstorm whose purpose was to find new technical solutions for the needs modern society capable of turning his life around once and for all.

One of the most popular of these conferences was called "Question Mark" (English "Question Mark"). It was at one of these meetings in 1954 that the idea of ​​creating a tank powered by atomic energy was first born. Such a combat vehicle could almost completely save American army from oil dependence, which was especially important in times of silent expectation of a nuclear war. To have a full power reserve after a forced march, and, accordingly, the ability to engage in battle “on the move”, without the necessary maintenance, was the main hope placed on the project, called TV-1 (“TrackVehicle-1”, eng. - “ Tracked vehicle-1").

The very first technical proposal for an atomic tank project contained the following items: armor thickness - 350 mm, weight - no more than 70 tons, armament - a 105 mm caliber gun.

The design of the tank was quite simple. The reactor was located in front of the vehicle, and immediately behind it were the crew, fighting and engine rooms. The reactor for the tank was planned to be made with forced air cooling - hot air after the heat exchange process was supposed to drive the engine turbine.

It was assumed that nuclear fuel will be enough for 500 hours of continuous operation, however, according to theoretical calculations, during this time the TV-1 would infect several hundred cubic meters of air! In addition, no unambiguous decision was made on reliable emergency protection of the reactor itself. This made the tank more dangerous for friendly troops than for the enemy.

The first project was followed by the second. In 1955, an upgraded TV-1 was introduced, given the R32 marker. The main differences from its predecessor were smaller dimensions and weight, as well as more rational armor slope angles. The most important difference was in reducing the danger of the reactor. They abandoned the air turbine, as well as reduced the size of the reactor itself, as well as the maximum cruising range of the machine. Thus, the safety of the reactor for the crew increased, but all the same, these protection measures were not enough for the full operation of the tank.

On this attempt to interest the army nuclear projects have not ended. One of the most "colorful" developments was the project of an armored vehicle based on the M103 heavy tank. This project was made by the well-known American company Chrysler, which developed a tank with a nuclear reactor as part of the ASTRON program.

The result of the development was to be an effective combat vehicle capable of surpassing enemy armored vehicles for many decades to come. An experimental tank concept with an original turret was hidden behind the TV-8 index - its size exceeded the length of the vehicle's hull! The turret contained all the crew members, a 90 mm gun and ammunition. The tower was also supposed to accommodate both the reactor and the diesel engine. As you might guess, the TV-8 (known as the "float tank") had, to put it mildly, an original appearance.

The paradox lies in the fact that the TV-8 was the most successful project of a tank with a nuclear reactor and the only one brought by the developers to the prototyping stage. Unfortunately or fortunately, the project was later closed due to an unreasonable balance of prospects and risks associated with the operation of the tank.

TV-8 can be attributed to one of the most unusual design tanks in history military equipment. Now it looks at least ridiculous, and the layout principle seems to be extremely irrational - when it hit the turret, all the life-supporting systems of the tank turned out to be in the affected area - from the engine, weapons and crew to the nuclear reactor, the damage of which seemed fatal not only in relation to the tank itself, but also to the environment.

In addition, the autonomy of the operation of a nuclear tank still did not seem possible, since the ammunition and fuel and lubricants were in any case limited, and the crew members were subjected to constant radiation exposure, which jeopardized human lives. Together with the extremely high cost of such a machine, their mass production and operation even now look like a very dubious enterprise. As a result, the atomic tank remained the product of the nuclear fever that swept the world in the 50s of the XX century.