
The Atomic Tank? (2018) - ZeljkoS
https://mydailykona.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-atomic-tank.html
======
acidburnNSA
I spent a month earlier this year writing up the history of nuclear power
development in the USA [1]. If you like this it might be right up your alley.
Things that actually were built include a truck-mounted nuclear reactor
(ML-1), nuclear reactors in space (SNAP-10A), a nuclear-powered merchant ship
(NS Savannah), an ice-base powered by a nuclear reactor under Greenland (Camp
Century), dozens of highly exotic power reactor prototypes, and (of course)
the modern nuclear power plants.

[1]
[https://whatisnuclear.com/reactor_history.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/reactor_history.html)

I didn't cover tanks but did touch on nuclear-powered aircraft, which we spent
about $1B (1950s) dollars on before ICBM progress obsoleted the concept (for
urgent military needs at least). The work led to the molten salt reactor
concept, which is much loved today in the internet nuclear circles with
civilian power production in mind.

~~~
krisoft
> "[...] before ICBM progress obsoleted the concept."

I'm afraid that anti-ICBM defenses and the availability of reliable auto-pilot
technology made the concept of a nuclear powered planes relevant again:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9M730_Burevestnik)

~~~
imglorp
First of all that's a very important article people should be aware of: around
the ABM treaty, nuclear _powered_ cruise missiles, and maybe some deaths
developing that tech. This is just last year, Putin driven.

Second of all, it's not clear why it needs to be nuclear powered. Our 1970's
subsonic cruise missiles are terrain-following for 2500km at 30m AGL. You can
throw them from trucks or ships or planes and go well into someone's
territory. A fair assumption is that everyones' are better now in all axes.
The point is you don't need the price/risk of unlimited range, unless your
goal is to terrorize and poison everything on the way to your target.

~~~
acidburnNSA
We had some nuclear scramjets in the Project Pluto era. I think one nice thing
about them in the military sense is that they can go REALLY fast for a pretty
long time.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto)

~~~
sandworm101
They were doomed. The issue was heat. At supersonic speeds air friction heats
the missile. Without fuel being burnt there is no way to _dump_ the heat off
the missile. Regardless of heat from the engine, after a few hours air
friction would see the entire thing glowing red, the "thermal thicket".

------
Shivetya
The good old days were probably better known as the crazy old days. Think
about the technological jump that came from WW2, suddenly all aspects of
society are impacted by what had been developed in relatively short order.

So the next generation is presented with all these new concepts and
technologies with no world war to get in the way of exploiting them. Yes a lot
of the ideas were war related but so much also went into civilian use that
transformed the world.

------
dwighttk
It talks about a V-8 engine and an electric generator. Is “electric generator”
a different way of saying “nuclear reactor”?

Edit: I missed the paragraph about later considerations for other systems to
power the tank...

The NB-36H was an interesting plane.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker#Expe...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_B-36_Peacemaker#Experiments)

------
chiph
All I can think is "top heavy" and "going to tip over"

10 tons for the chassis, 15 tons for the huge turret.

------
jacobush
“U.S. Army Gulf War Veteran, former Ford Autoworker and presently working in
the aviation field as a Chemtrail Technician”

Cracked me up

------
throwanem
Like something out of _If This Goes On—_

------
acvny
A truly stupid idea. As if tanks need long range or long time autonomy. That's
where nuclear energy is useful. A tank is a disposable unit. It can be easily
destroyed and it doesn't carry lots of troops or vehicles.

------
jabl
I imagine if someone were to design a new tank today, the crew would be placed
in the hull, with the turret remote controlled. And an array of sensors,
including cameras, to provide visibility for the crew.

~~~
KineticLensman
> the crew would be placed in the hull, with the turret remote controlled

Already done: the T-14 mentioned by nradov, and also the Remote Weapon
Station, used on lots of platforms [0]. Historically, the Swedish Stridsvagn
103 [1] was fully turretless. Conversely, if you like turrets, then how about
the T-35, which has five [2]

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_controlled_weapon_stati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_controlled_weapon_station)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stridsvagn_103)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35)

------
nickthemagicman
What's stopping remote controlled unmanned tanks?

Tanks are a huge bullseye target on the battlefield and everyone inside seems
pretty vulnerable from anything but small arms fire.

~~~
vkou
> Tanks are a huge bullseye target on the battlefield and everyone inside
> seems pretty vulnerable from anything but small arms fire.

Tanks operate supported by infantry, and tanks really do not like infantry
pointing anti-tank weapons at them. You may get one surprise shot at a tank,
but unless you're truly suicidal, you're probably not going to stick around
for a second.

~~~
paganel
Tanks were really vulnerable in Syria against Kornet-like [1] weapons, I think
only the Russians providing T-90s to the Syrian Army helped made things a
little better for them, but by that point the Government-supported army had
already lost dozens (probably more than 100 even) of tanks.

Also judging by what happened in Syria, tanks are not that efficient in
densily built urban environments. The Syrian Army tanks had almost free reign
in the Damascus neighborhood called Jobar but with not that much showing for
it. Similar thing happened in East Aleppo, but at a smaller scale. What helped
tip the balance in favor of Assad’s army were the Russian air bombardments (a
quick search for “Syria cluster bombs” will help clear things up).

[1]
[https://wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/9M133_Kornet)

------
jdkee
Inspiration for [http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/](http://www.sjgames.com/ogre/) ?

------
rangibaby
There’s also the Object 279 tank, which wasn’t nuclear powered but was
designed for the nuclear age

