Tank with a nuclear reactor. Tank for nuclear war. The most, the most, the most
The idea of creating an atomic tank driven by a nuclear power plant appeared in the middle of the 20th century, when humanity naively believed that it had found ideal source energy, safe, almost eternal and applicable even in everyday life.
In addition, some believe that the Object 279 is a Soviet nuclear tank, although it had a traditional diesel engine.
American developments
So, the concept of nuclear tanks began to develop in the United States at the Question Mark III conference in Detroit in June 1954. It was assumed that the nuclear reactor would make the power reserve practically unlimited and allow the equipment to be combat-ready even after long marches. Two options were developed, the first proposed special machine, which supplies power to others during long rides. The second option involved creating a tank with a nuclear reactor inside, protected on all sides by powerful armor.
TV-1 and TV-8
As a result of the development of the second result, the TV-1 project weighing 70 tons and frontal armor 350 mm appeared. The power plant consisted of a reactor and a turbine, and was capable of operating for more than 500 hours without refueling. The tank was armed with a 105 mm T140 cannon and several machine guns.
In August 1955, a conference was held under the number Question Mark IV, at which an improved and lightweight R32 project appeared, characterized by a weight reduced by 20 tons, 120 mm armor located at a high angle and a 90 mm T208 gun. The tank was protected at the level of contemporary medium tanks, but had a power reserve of more than 4,000 without refueling. As in the case of its predecessor, the matter was limited to the project.
It was planned to convert the M103 into a nuclear tank for various tests, but the vehicle was never built.
Also in the United States, they created an interesting nuclear tank, the Chrysler TV-8, which accommodates the crew and most of the mechanisms along with a nuclear reactor inside a huge tower mounted on a maximally reduced body with electric motors driving it inside. To be fair, it is worth noting that the first version of the tank was equipped with a 300-horsepower eight-cylinder diesel engine driving a generator. Besides the unusual appearance, TV-8 was supposed to float thanks to the displacement of the tower. It was armed with a 90 mm T208 cannon and 2 7.62 machine guns. A very progressive solution for its time was the installation of external cameras designed to save the crew’s eyes from flashes of explosions outside.
Work was also carried out in the USSR, although less actively. It is sometimes believed that a Soviet nuclear tank was created on the basis of the T-10, built in metal and tested, but this is not true. In 1961, TPP-3 was built and put into operation, which is a transportable nuclear power plant that moved on an extended heavy tank chassis and provided power to itself along with power to military and civilian facilities in the Far North and Siberia.
It is worth mentioning once again the so-called tank for nuclear war Object 279, in fact, is unlikely to be able to withstand an explosion and protect its crew.
Also sometimes I remember a certain tank with nuclear shells. Probably they could call it the T-64A, with a turret-mounted launcher, capable of firing both conventional TURS and tactical missiles With nuclear charge. This combat vehicle was called Taran, had a mass of 37 tons, a crew of 3 people and was intended to disable enemy forces from a distance beyond their reach.
Despite the abundance of projects, a nuclear tank was never created. Why? If only because the slightest damage in battle turned it into a small nuclear bomb, with a guarantee that it destroyed its crew and allies around. Even without damage, the crew had to be constantly changed to avoid excessive radiation exposure. Such shortcomings turned out to be critical and even in our time there is no way to overcome them.
In the fifties of the last century, humanity began to actively develop a new source of energy - the fission of atomic nuclei. Nuclear energy was then seen, if not as a panacea, then at least as a solution to a great many different problems. In an atmosphere of general approval and interest, nuclear power plants were built and reactors for submarines and ships were designed. Some dreamers even proposed making a nuclear reactor so compact and low-power that it could be used as a household energy source or as a power plant for cars, etc. The military also 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.
The history of atomic tanks began in 1954 and its appearance is associated with the Question Mark scientific conferences, at which promising areas of science and technology were discussed. At the third such conference, held in June 1954 in Detroit, American scientists discussed the proposed tank project with a nuclear reactor. According to the technical proposal, the TV1 (Track Vehicle 1) combat vehicle was supposed to have combat mass about 70 tons and carry a 105 mm rifled gun. Of particular interest was the layout of the armored hull of the proposed tank. So, behind armor up to 350 millimeters thick there should have been a small-sized nuclear reactor. A volume was provided for it in the front part of the armored hull. Behind the reactor and its protection, they placed workplace the driver was placed in the middle and rear parts of the hull fighting compartment, ammunition stowage, etc., as well as several power plant units.
Combat vehicle TV1 (Track Vehicle 1 - “Tracked Vehicle-1”)
The operating principle of the tank's power units is more than interesting. The fact is that the reactor for TV1 was planned to be made according to a scheme with an open gas coolant circuit. This means that the reactor had to be cooled atmospheric air, being driven next to him. Next, the heated air was supposed to be supplied to a power gas turbine, which was supposed to drive the transmission and drive wheels. According to calculations carried out directly 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 with nuclear fuel. However, the TV1 project was not recommended for continued development. Over 500 hours of operation, a reactor with an open cooling circuit could contaminate several tens or even hundreds of thousands of cubic meters of air. In addition, it was impossible 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 friendly troops than for the enemy.
For 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 was significantly different from TV1, primarily in its size. Development nuclear technology made it possible to reduce the dimensions of the machine and change its design accordingly. It was also proposed to equip the 50-ton tank with a reactor in the front part, but the armored hull with a frontal plate 120 mm thick 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 use new protection systems for a smaller reactor. Calculations have shown that the practically achievable range on one refueling with nuclear fuel will be approximately four thousand kilometers. Thus, at the cost of reducing operating time, it was planned to reduce the danger of the reactor for the crew.
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 had less radiation than its predecessor TV1, but even with the remaining level of radiation, the tank was not suitable for practical application. It would be necessary to regularly change crews and create a special infrastructure for separate maintenance of nuclear tanks.
After the R32 failed to meet the expectations of a potential customer, the American army, military interest in tanks with nuclear power plant began to gradually fade away. It must be admitted that for some time there were still attempts to create new project and even bring it to the testing stage. For example, in 1959 it was designed experimental machine on the base 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 converting the M103 into a test bench ended with the creation of a preliminary design and preparation for the assembly of the prototype.
R32. Another American nuclear tank project
Last American project A nuclear-powered tank that was able to advance beyond the technical proposal stage was completed by Chrysler during its participation in the ASTRON program. The Pentagon ordered a tank intended for the army of the next decades and Chrysler specialists 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 design, an engine or nuclear reactor was a typical tank body with a tracked undercarriage. However, it was proposed to install a tower of an original design on it.
The large unit with a complex, streamlined, faceted shape was supposed to be made slightly longer than the chassis. Inside such an original tower it was proposed to place the workplaces of all four crew members, all weapons, incl. 90 mm gun mounted on a rigid recoilless rifle suspension system, as well as ammunition. In addition, in later versions of the project it was supposed to place a diesel engine or a small-sized nuclear reactor in the rear of the tower. In this case, the reactor or engine would provide energy to operate a generator that powers running electric motors and other systems. According to some sources, until the very 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 installing all the units of the power plant 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 USA under the Astron program.
TV8 turned out to be the most successful of all American nuclear tanks. In the second half of the fifties, a prototype of a promising armored vehicle was even built at one of the Chrysler factories. But things didn’t go beyond the layout. The revolutionary new layout of the tank, combined with its technical complexity, did not provide any advantages over existing and developing 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 due to lack of prospects.
After TV8, not a single American nuclear tank project has 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 simple sentences. The main reasons for abandoning such ideas were two features of nuclear power plants. Firstly, a reactor suitable for mounting on a tank, by definition, cannot have sufficient protection. 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 probability of such a development of events is very high - becomes a real dirty bomb. The crew's chances of surviving the accident are too low, and the survivors will become victims of acute radiation sickness.
The relatively large range on one fuel fill and the overall promise of nuclear reactors in all areas, as it seemed in the fifties, could not overcome dangerous consequences their applications. As a result, nuclear-powered tanks remained an original technical idea that arose in the wake of general “nuclear euphoria”, but did not produce any practical results.
Based on materials from sites:
This tank can well be considered a symbol of a nuclear war that never began. Its design is optimally suited to counteract the shock wave, and the four-track chassis- for movement in conditions of a probable nuclear winter...
The heavy tank - “Object 279”, is one of a kind and, without any doubt, unique. Its hull had a cast curved shape with thin-sheet anti-cumulative shields, 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...
The beginning of the post may be somewhat pretentious and exaggerated, but let’s first rewind the events a little.
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. KB Kirov plant in Leningrad, the creation of a tank began, 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 a classic layout, its chassis consisted of eight road wheels and four support rollers on board, the suspension was 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 slabs 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 loader’s actions.
The armament consisted of a 130mm M-65 gun, stabilized in two planes using the Groza stabilizer, and a coaxial 14.5mm KPVT machine gun. Ammunition: 26 rounds of separate loading and 250 rounds of machine gun ammunition. The gunner had a TPD-2S stereoscopic rangefinder sight, and the tank was equipped with a full set of night vision devices. The power plant was a 12-cylinder V-shaped diesel M-850 with a power of 1050 hp. at 1850 rpm. The transmission is planetary, type “3K”, made in the form of a single unit of the mechanism for changing gears and turning. 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 turret. With a mass of 55 tons, the tank showed maximum speed 55 km/h.
Two copies of “Object 277” were produced, and soon after testing began, work on it was curtailed. The tank compared favorably with the T-10 more powerful weapons and a more advanced fire control system, including a range finder, but the ammunition load was small. In general, “Object 277” was created on the basis of well-proven units in the series and did not require lengthy development.
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 differed in both differentiated thickness and variable angle of inclination. A similar approach can be seen in the armoring of the front of the hull. The turret is also completely cast, with variable armor thickness, reaching up to 290mm in the frontal parts. The tank’s armament and control system are completely similar to the “Object 277″ - 130mm M-65 gun and coaxial 14.5mm KPVT machine gun, ammunition capacity of 26 rounds and 250 rounds.
Of interest is the tank's power unit, made on the basis of a 10-cylinder DTN-10 diesel engine, with a vertical arrangement of cylinder blocks, which was installed perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the tank. The engine power was 1000 hp. at 2500 rpm. The tank's transmission included a hydraulic converter and a planetary gearbox, the parallel operation of which made it possible to have one mechanical and two hydromechanical forward gears, and one mechanical reverse gear. The chassis included six road wheels large diameter on board, without support rollers. The suspension of the rollers is hydropneumatic. The tank was easy to control and had good dynamic characteristics.
Unique and one of a kind prototype 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 proposals by the Directorate of armored forces Soviet army in 1956, the tactical and technical requirements for a heavy tank. The tank was intended to break through prepared enemy defenses and operate in areas of terrain difficult for conventional tanks.
In defiance of the conservative “Object 277”, the machine was created completely anew, and not only in terms of the units used, but also in concept. Cast hulls with differentiated armor and elliptical shapes had been seen before, but in this vehicle the idea was taken to the absolute. Assembled from four cast parts, the body was covered along its 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 armor volume reduced to the limit, amounting to only 11.47 m 3, it was possible to achieve unprecedented values of armor thickness, both normal and reduced - the frontal armor of the hull reached 192 mm at large angles of inclination and tilt, side armor up to 182 mm, at smaller angles. The cast turret of a flattened hemispherical shape had 305mm circular armor, with the exception of the stern.
The armament consisted of the same 130mm M-65 gun and 14.5mm KPVT machine gun, with 24 rounds of ammunition in a mechanized ammunition rack with semi-automatic loading and 300 rounds of machine gun ammunition. The joint efforts of the loader and semi-automatic cassette loading ensured a combat rate of fire of 5-7 rounds per minute. The control system included a stereoscopic sight-rangefinder with independent stabilization of the field of view TPD-2S, a two-plane electro-hydraulic stabilizer "Groza" and a full set of night vision devices.
The tank's power plant was developed in two versions - diesel DG-1000 with a power of 950 hp. With. at 2500 rpm or 2DG-8M with a power of 1000 hp. With. at 2400 rpm. Both engines are 4-stroke, 16-cylinder, H-shaped with horizontal cylinders (to reduce body height). The tank's transmission 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 striking detail of the tank is certainly its chassis, whose peculiarity was the use of four tracked propulsion units!
The chassis was mounted on two longitudinal hollow beams, which served as fuel tanks. The design of the caterpillar propulsion system ensured high cross-country ability in deep snow and marshy areas. It prevented the tank from landing on the bottom when overcoming vertical obstacles (gouges, stumps, hedgehogs). The average ground pressure was only 0.6 kgf/cm², that is, it was close to a similar parameter light tank. It was a unique example of a heavy cross-country tank.
For one engine, the chassis consisted of six road wheels, three support rollers, a idler and a drive sprocket. The suspension is individual, hydropneumatic, adjustable. Thus, the concept of ground 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/m2, which made it possible to overcome deep snow and muddy areas. The disadvantages of the chosen chassis 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 internal pair of tracks.
A prototype of the tank was built in 1959 and began to undergo testing, but it immediately became clear that such an expensive vehicle had no chance of mass production. The successor to the T-10 was supposed to be one of two tanks, “seven hundred and seventy” or “two hundred and seventy-seven,” but none of the competitors was ever put into service.
The tank's crew consisted of four people, three of whom - the commander, gunner and loader - were located in the turret. The driver's seat was located in the front of the hull in the center, and there was also a hatch for getting into the car.
Of all the tanks developed simultaneously with it, Object 279 had the smallest armored volume - 11.47 m3, while having a very complex armored hull. The design of the chassis made it impossible to land the vehicle on the bottom and ensured high maneuverability in deep snow and marshy areas. At the same time, the chassis 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, the active introduction of energy sources based on nuclear reactions into everyday life began, ranging from projects of colossal nuclear power plants, 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 has contributed to the appearance in history of attempts to use the reactor in places where it is impossible to even imagine - for example, in a tank
The history of atomic tanks began (and also ended) 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 organized a populist brainstorming session, the purpose of which was to find new technical solutions to the needs of modern society, capable of turning his life around once and for all.
One of the most popular such conferences was called “Question Mark”. It was at one of these meetings in 1954 that the idea of creating a tank powered by atomic energy was first conceived. Such a combat vehicle could almost completely eliminate American army from oil dependence, which was especially important during times of silent anticipation of nuclear war. To have a full range 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”, English - “ Tracked vehicle-1").
The very first technical proposal for the nuclear tank project contained the following points: armor thickness - 350 mm, weight - no more than 70 tons, armament - 105 mm caliber gun.
The design of the tank was quite simple. The reactor was located in the front of the vehicle, and immediately behind it were the crew, combat 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 TV-1 would contaminate several hundred cubic meters of air! In addition, no clear 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 a second. In 1955, the modernized TV-1 was introduced, receiving the R32 marker. The main differences from its predecessor were smaller dimensions and weight, as well as more rational armor angles. The most important difference was in reducing the danger of the reactor. The air turbine was abandoned, as well as the size of the reactor itself was reduced, as well as the maximum power reserve of the vehicle. This increased the safety of the reactor for the crew, but still these protective measures were not enough for full operation of the tank.
This is the end of attempts to interest the army nuclear projects not finished. One of the most “colorful” developments was the project armored vehicle based on the M103 heavy tank. This project was launched by the famous 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. Hidden behind the TV-8 index is an experimental tank concept with an original turret - its size exceeded the length of the vehicle's hull! The turret housed all crew members, a 90 mm gun and ammunition. The tower was also supposed to house both a reactor and a diesel engine. As you might guess, the TV-8 (known as the “float tank”) had, to put it mildly, an original appearance.
The paradox is that 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 between the prospects and risks associated with the operation of the tank.
TV-8 can be considered one of the most unusual tanks in history in terms of design military equipment. Now it looks at least funny, and the layout principle seems extremely irrational - when it hit the turret, all the life-supporting systems of the tank were in the affected area - from the engine, weapons and crew to the nuclear reactor, damage to which seemed fatal not only to the tank itself, but also to the environment.
In addition, it was still not possible to automate the operation of a nuclear tank, since the ammunition and fuel and lubricants were limited in any case, and the crew members were exposed to constant radiation exposure, which jeopardized human lives. Coupled with the extremely high cost of such a machine, their mass production and operation even now looks like a very dubious undertaking. As a result, the atomic tank remained a product of the nuclear fever that gripped the world in the 50s of the 20th century.
In the 1950-1960s of the last twentieth century, all three main types of troops considered the possibility of using nuclear energy V power plants. So, the army planned to use nuclear installations for tanks. Some such projects involved the installation of small nuclear reactors on armored vehicles to generate electricity to power both the “nuclear” tank itself and an entire convoy of combat vehicles, saving organic fuel during forced marches. It was envisaged to create individual nuclear engines. First, let's say a few words for the USA...TV1 is one of the tank projects with nuclear power systems
At the Question Mark conferences, nuclear tanks were also discussed. One of them, armed with a modified 105 mm T140 cannon, was designated TV1. Its weight was estimated at 70 tons with an armor thickness of up to 350 mm. The nuclear power plant included a reactor with an open gas coolant circuit driven by a gas turbine, which provided 500 hours of continuous operation at full power. The designation TV-1 meant "tracked vehicle", and its creation was considered at the Question Mark III conference as a long-term prospect. By the time of the fourth conference in August 1955, progress in atomic technology had already indicated the possibility of creating a “nuclear” tank. Needless to say, the nuclear tank promised to be extremely expensive, and the level of radiation in it required permanent shift crews to prevent people from receiving high doses of radiation. Despite this, at the end of 1959, studies were carried out on the possibility of installing nuclear reactor on the chassis of the M103 tank, however, only for experimental purposes - the turret had to be removed.
In general, considering the projects of American heavy tanks of the 50s, it is easy to note that what was worked out in them technical solutions: smoothbore guns, combined multi-layer armor, controlled rocket weapons, were indeed reflected in promising tanks of the 60s... but in the Soviet Union! A definite explanation for this is the history of the design of the T110 tank, which showed that American designers are quite capable of creating tanks that meet modern requirements without the use of “crazy” layouts and “exotic” technical solutions.
A concrete implementation of this was the creation of the American main battle tank M 60, which, with a classic layout, a rifled gun, conventional armor through the use of advanced technologies, made it possible to achieve noticeable advantages not only over the then main Soviet tanks T-54/T55, but even over heavy Soviet tank T-10.
By the time of the next conference, Question Mark IV, held in August 1955, the development of nuclear reactors had made it possible to significantly reduce their size, and therefore the weight of the tank. The project presented at the conference under the designation R32 envisaged the creation of a 50-ton tank, armed with a 90-mm T208 smoothbore gun and protected in the frontal projection by 120-mm armor.
R32. Another American nuclear tank project
The armor was inclined at 60° to the vertical, which roughly corresponded to the level of protection of conventional medium tanks of that period. The reactor provided the tank with an estimated range of more than 4,000 miles. R32 was considered more promising than original version nuclear-powered tank, and was even considered as a possible replacement for the M48 tank, which 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, the R32 did not go beyond the preliminary design stage. Gradually, the army's interest in nuclear tanks faded, but work in this direction continued at least until 1959. None of the nuclear tank projects even reached the stage of building a prototype.
And for a snack, as they say. One of the variants of atomic monsters developed at one time in the USA under the Astron program.
I personally don’t know whether nuclear battle tanks were developed in the USSR. But sometimes called in various sources nuclear tank The TES-3 unit on a modified chassis of the T-10 heavy tank was a nuclear power plant transported on a tracked chassis (a complex of four self-propelled vehicles) for remote areas Soviet Far North. The chassis (“object 27”) was designed at the Kirov plant design bureau and, compared to the tank, had an elongated chassis with 10 road wheels on board and wider tracks. The electrical power of the installation is 1500 kW. Full mass about 90 tons. Developed at Laboratory “B” (now the Russian Scientific Nuclear Center “Physical Energy Institute”, Obninsk), TPP-3 entered trial operation in 1960.
One of the modules of the TES-3 mobile nuclear power plant based on the components of the T-10 heavy tank
The thermal power of a double-circuit heterogeneous pressurized water reactor installed on two self-propelled vehicles is 8.8 MW (electric, from generators - 1.5 MW). On the other two self-propelled units turbines, a generator and other equipment were located. In addition to using a tracked chassis, it was also possible to transport the power plant on railway platforms. TPP-3 entered trial operation in 1961. The program was subsequently discontinued. In the 80s further development the idea of transportable large-block nuclear power plants received small power in the form of TPP-7 and TPP-8.
Some of the sources are