Steam Power for Tanks

[dy031101]

Could this be another way to go about the "AFVs for home guards" scenario?  Seeing army formations being raised faster than your normal contractors can produce/refurbish equipments, consortiums of steam engine builders and other engineering firms started proposing/creating steam-powered tanks to fill the ranks?

I didn't see much of an externally-distinguishing feature of steam-powered vehicles...... is there a "guideline" to illustrate, say, the engine deck of a steam-powered AFV?

[rickshaw]

Could this be another way to go about the "AFVs for home guards" scenario?  Seeing army formations being raised faster than your normal contractors can produce/refurbish equipments, consortiums of steam engine builders and other engineering firms started proposing/creating steam-powered tanks to fill the ranks?

I didn't see much of an externally-distinguishing feature of steam-powered vehicles...... is there a "guideline" to illustrate, say, the engine deck of a steam-powered AFV?

Not that I'm aware of.  I think you'd need more ventilation and perhaps make it forced via fans, to cool things a bit better but apart from that it would look, under armour basically the same as an internal combustion engine does.  Oh, and you'd need some fairly large exhausts I expect but from my understanding there'd be little of the smoke belching train engine about it.

[puddingwrestler]

I seem to recall the US making a steam tank during WW1 which looked basically the same as a british MkIV.

[dy031101]

Could the counter-arguments outlined near the end of the article against the (preceived?) disadvantages of steam engines for tanks be easily replicated by countries outside of those mentioned in the article?  And if advisory from countries with the expertise is required to make it happen, could such technical assistance have been more easily obtained (at least more than that for internal combustion engines)?



==========================================================================

I seem to recall the US making a steam tank during WW1 which looked basically the same as a british MkIV.

The article did mention the Steam Tank project, which is likely what you are speaking of, too.

[Hobbes]

Could the counter-arguments outlined near the end of the article against the (preceived?) disadvantages of steam engines for tanks be easily replicated by countries outside of those mentioned in the article?  And if advisory from countries with the expertise is required to make it happen, could such technical assistance have been more easily obtained (at least more than that for internal combustion engines)?

I think so; all it takes is some ingenuity and some decent engineers. Steam was well understood by the 20th century.

[dy031101]

I was wondering about the turbine part...... although despite frequently mentioning examples that feature the word "turbine", Col. (Ret.) Icks in a couple of places focused on the term "steam engine" as the subject.  Example:

A steam engine would provide everything that a gas turbine can and more. Not the least of the advantages of the steam engine is that it does not have the characteristic, self-revealing whine of either the gas turbine or the steam turbine.

So he wasn't talking about steam turbine as I thought he was at the first glance.  Is the engine he talked about of the same kind as those used in, say, Doble Steam Cars?  Whether or not it is, would someone educate me with a brief description on how it works?  Thanks in advance.  



=============================================================================

It probably is true that the accessory load, sometimes called the 'hotel load', would require some form of auxiliary power. In a tank, this load is considerable. However; a small supplementary engine or turbine driving a generator was proved by Doble to be a practical accessory.

Would that be similar/identical in concept as having the tank's engine powering, for example, the turret drive?



=============================================================================

In 1964, Victor Millman, then with Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation, proposed a closed circuit steam system for a 42-ton tank and built a three-foot working scale model. The design called for a pair of steam turbines in a full scale tank, each turbine delivering 250-horsepower at 24,000 r.p.m. Including a three-to-one reduction gear, these turbines in full size were expected to be no more than 9-inches by 18-inches in size.

Does anyone happen to have a picture of this scale model?

[frank2056]

In 1964, Victor Millman, then with Convair Division of General Dynamics Corporation, proposed a closed circuit steam system for a 42-ton tank and built a three-foot working scale model. The design called for a pair of steam turbines in a full scale tank, each turbine delivering 250-horsepower at 24,000 r.p.m. Including a three-to-one reduction gear, these turbines in full size were expected to be no more than 9-inches by 18-inches in size.

Does anyone happen to have a picture of this scale model?

I think the model picture is in this Popular Mechanics article Scroll down to page 112.

[dy031101]

Does anyone know any post-WWII tank known for having an unreliable (and preferably gasoline-burning) engine?

The only one I can remember with such a reputation is the early model of M48 Patton.

I was still thinking of scenarioes for steam powered tanks to be created- perhaps as a result or an outgrowth/offshoot of a tank upgrade project.

[rickshaw]

Does anyone know any post-WWII tank known for having an unreliable (and preferably gasoline-burning) engine?

The only one I can remember with such a reputation is the early model of M48 Patton.

I was still thinking of scenarioes for steam powered tanks to be created- perhaps as a result or an outgrowth/offshoot of a tank upgrade project.

Early M48, early Chieftain both had notoriously unreliable petrol fueled engines.  M103 was another - hence the US Marines decision to change to diesel.  The Meteor on the Centurion was reliable if rather thirsty.  If you're looking for something suitable to be changed to Steam virtually any of the post-war tanks would be a candidate.  All were very thirsty petrol engined vehicles - M46/47/48/103, Centurion/Conqueror/Chieftain.  Russian vehicles were all diesel. Ditto for French/German post-war vehicles.

[dy031101]

Sounds like early M48 would be my best candidate: unreliable engine, gasoline and hydralics fire-hazard, short-range.

(It'd also go well with a backstory similar to that of the Brazilian Tamoyo tank project, which I couldn't seem to get off my mind, either.  )

Centurion and Chieftain would be my second-place choices.  Chieftain probably needs only powertrain work, being armed with a 120mm rifled gun right from the start and exported (suitable for non-British or even what-if countries  ).

Other European and US diesel-powered tanks...... maybe when aftersale support got cutoff due to politics or aquisition of diesel fuel ran into difficulties.

(EDIT: joncarrfarrelly pointed out that fuel shouldn't really be a problem with diesel engines...... fair enough)

Is there a particular environment where steam engines can potentially work better than diesel?  Just for backstory purposes......

(Nevermind: I'll just invoke technical reasons for backstory......)

[jcf]

1) Diesel = light fuel oil so its not 'rare' and diesel engines can be set to run on numerous fuels (kerosene, cooking oil etc.)

2) It most likely aint' gonna be coal-powered (query stoker, ash grate, ash removal etc in steam power to see why), or any other solid-fuel
for the same reasons. Well I suppose it could be Sterno powered.

3) In order to be even somewhat efficient you'll need a condenser system, which increases weight, complexity and cost.
Otherwise you'll probably be replenishing the water tanks every 100 ~ 200Km. The vast majority of steam locomotives were
non-condensing and had water tanks that required constant replenishment. The tender you see behind the locos weren't just for fuel.
Condenser locomotives were built, but they were extremely expensive and the diesel-electric drive made them moot anyhow.

So is it possible? Yes, but it wouldn't be a cheap or low-tech alternative to an internal combustion engine.

Doble Uni-Flow:
http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/unifloroad/unifloroad.htm

Go to Doug Self's Home page and wander through the Museum of RetroTechnology for more steam stuff:
http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm

[dy031101]

Question: how would a steam-powered tank have behaved when being placed in reserve (like some country did with their M4 or T-34 tanks when the likes of M47/48 or T-54/55 were introduced)?  What factor(s) contributed to it being easier or more-difficult to bring them back into service in time of need?

[raafif]

Pretty much the same processes as old steam locomotives & traction-engines being operated at museums & fairs today.  You need to drain water tanks & boiler, cover smoke-stack to keep leaves etc out.  As with your car, it helps to actually keep the machinery moving occasionally so low-level use by a reserve home-guard would help until it's needed by a  front-line unit.

For storage you'd need to steam-clean the fuel tanks (oil-fired), empty the water tanks & boiler.
For re-commissioning (depending on time in storage) you'd need to de-scale & pressure-test the boiler along with re-greasing eveything like wheel bearings.

With new technology, Germany is now building a few small steam-trains again as they are now more efficient & therefore cost-effective compared to short-distance diesels.

[dy031101]

I see- thanks! 

I take it that it's safe to assume the process to have remained so for the past 60 years?

(As my past posts have indicated, I'm thinking of something analogous to M36 Jackson, M47/T-54, or even M48/T-55.)

[Hobbes]

With new technology, Germany is now building a few small steam-trains again as they are now more efficient & therefore cost-effective compared to short-distance diesels.

Interesting. Do you have any specifics?