Steam Power for Tanks

[NARSES2]

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?

Yup I'd be interested as well

[raafif]

sorry, can't find the url now, it may have been thru Doug Self's site
http://www.aqpl43.dsl.pipex.com/MUSEUM/museum.htm

Warning -- this is a seriously weird site -- your sanity WILL be tested !

Interestingly several yrs ago, I visited the big railway musesum in Queensland Australia & they had an apprentice "boiler maker" who just obtained a 2yr course in loco restoration in Germany.

[Hobbes]

I've started digging, and there's a whole lot of information out there. Do a search for 'modern steam locomotive' to start with.

this is an overview page.

[dy031101]

I realize the suggestion of the opening article in that steam engines wouldn't be too bad in terms of size, but to be more-clear: how tall of a hull would a 500~600hp steam engine dictate?

Could it have been kept within, say, about the engine compartment height of the T-44 or the T-54?

(The idea I'm going for right now: T-54/55 as a basis to represent simplicity, but with a Western-style torsion bar suspension...... the turret will receive bustle and a 90mm gun as soon as I figure out how to make the whole picture look good......)

[rickshaw]

If you go back to the original article, you'll find that modern steam engines can be very compact.  The only difference I'd suggest would be a large exhaust - to like on a classic steam train but something like the recently posted gas turbine Panzer had.  That would allow excess heat to be dumped, along with any steam and/or smoke.  The actual engine compartment need not be substantially enlarged IMHO.

[dy031101]

The only difference I'd suggest would be a large exhaust - to like on a classic steam train but something like the recently posted gas turbine Panzer had.

Bigger than the exhaust shroud at the back of the Tiger tank?  Or could I have just messed with the side-mounted exhaust of the original T-54/55 to get the desirable effect?

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

The 90mm gun as used by M48 Patton...... is the gun barrel really not all that long or did I place it wrong?

(Thinking of both a steam-engined M48 as well as a late-40s/early-50s intermediate between M4/T-34/Strv-m42 and M-84/T-72-120, the below mental picture is my attempt at striking a balance.  )

[rickshaw]

The only difference I'd suggest would be a large exhaust - to like on a classic steam train but something like the recently posted gas turbine Panzer had.

Bigger than the exhaust shroud at the back of the Tiger tank?  Or could I have just messed with the side-mounted exhaust of the original T-54/55 to get the desirable effect?

About the size of the exhaust shroud on a Tiger I would be fine, IMHO.

Personally, I'm not sure why you're messing around with changing the hull and turret around.  An M48 turret on a bog standard T55 hull, with modified exhaust at the rear would more than likely be just fine.  While the M48 turret had better FCS than a T55, the gun is actually worse.  The US 90mm was nothing great for most of its career (until about the late 1970s when you start to see improved ammunition for it).  The 100mm on the T55 was a pretty good gun.  The Jugoslavs who carried out comparative tests plumbed for the T55 over the M48, while the British, after examining the T55 that unfortunately took a wrong turning and ended up in their Embassy courtyard in 1956 in Budapest, were very impressed with the T55's hull and turret armour and quickly introduced the 105mm L7 to try and counter it (and the 20 Pdr was always considered the superior gun to the 90mm anyway).  Your drawing looks excessively tall.  Have a look at the Romanian upgraded T55s with their torsion bar suspension.  They weren't much taller than a standard T55.

The 90mm gun as used by M48 Patton...... is the gun barrel really not all that long or did I place it wrong?

The 90mm always looked short compared to the turret on the M48 so I don't think you've done too badly.

[dy031101]

Admittedly when I did the preliminary mental picture, I started off according to my asthetics taste: egg-shaped turret with bustle, gun with T-shaped muzzle brake, and etc.; of course in a what-if land one can always come up with an excuse to outfit a 20-pounder or Russian 100mm with that muzzle brake?  

And once I tried a straight turret swap on the drawing, I felt that the T-54 hull did end up making the M48 turret itself look a bit too big, so I butchered the Panzer 68 turret drawing afterward......

(Yeah, now that I think about it, Ramses II has about the right proportion IMHO- all it needs for my asthetics taste is a turret bustle   .  In terms of absolute height, I wonder how low is too low, but despite fitting my idea of "looking the part" in a way, M48 is indeed a bit tall for me.  I thought the current mental picture is about as tall as the Swiss Panzer 61 though.)

Comments and suggestions are welcomed.



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



Speaking of height and the question "how low is too low", there are claims that the interior of the T-54/55 is very cramped to the point of hindering the use of equipment and controls, and that it isn't considered a problem in the Soviet army only because they had a height limit for the tank crew in the first place.  Is it that big of a problem really?

[rickshaw]

Speaking of height and the question "how low is too low", there are claims that the interior of the T-54/55 is very cramped to the point of hindering the use of equipment and controls, and that it isn't considered a problem in the Soviet army only because they had a height limit for the tank crew in the first place.  Is it that big of a problem really?

The T54/55 is cramped, particularly for the loader, no doubt about it.  However, that could be remedied if you used an M48 Turret (Personally, I've always preferred the M47 Turret over the M48's because I feel it has a better ballistic shape but that is another story).  Interestingly, the US Army's T95 experimental tank essentially combined (in one of its test variants) a low hull, like a T55's with an M48 Turret.  They were intending to use an oscillating turret (like the AMX13's) originally but realised the sealing problem would prevent its use on a NBC battlefield so they went looking for alternatives.



That might be closer to your ideal.   They tested several turrets on that hull BTW.



They even got as far as building a CEV version - the T118:



You'll note that in order to accommodate the M48 turret, they essentially created a turret ring "riser" on the hull, to bring it up higher to allow the loader to stand.  In the T54/55, the loader kneels/crouches and there is no turret basket, so he is forced to shuffle around when the turret traverses.  The US T95, like the M48, had a turret basket.

The T96 mounted a 105mm gun, instead of the M48's 90mm.

[dy031101]

You're right, it is closer to my ideal.  

This one is even closer, the turret ring riser being made less obvious.  The M48 turret didn't look too bad in this case, and I'd say that a picture can be more reliable than a line drawing......

Thanks for pointing me to the T95.

[dy031101]

One last question regarding the T95 as a basis: does anyone know its weight?

(Particularlly the 90mm-gun-armed E2 and 105mm-gun-armed E3 variants, though I intend to put smaller roadwheels and return rollers like the Ramses II modification of the T-54/55; some say it's going to add a bit of weight.)

The opening article suggested that a steam engine can eliminate the need for a transmission, and I'd reckon that perhaps by extension would also remove the associated unreliability due to the tank's weight from the equation......?


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


What if in the vague backstory I'm thinking of for this steam-engine tank, a number would for any reason be subjected to a radical upgrade going so far as a turret swap?  Since the T95 as a basis has allowed me to sit well with using a M48 for its original configuration, at least the turret ring size wouldn't be too much of a problem......

My asthetics consideration for this topic has made me resist anything too "angular" (like this or this)......

Leopard 1A5 turret with MEXAS armour on the other hand doesn't seem too bad, nor does M60A1/A3 turret with Super pack...... at worst I suppose I can keep the M48 turret and outfit it with Russian/Ukrainian ERAs instead.

Which one would you think is the best of the three?  Would anyone have any better choice in mind?

[rickshaw]

One last question regarding the T95 as a basis: does anyone know its weight?

(Particularlly the 90mm-gun-armed E2 and 105mm-gun-armed E3 variants, though I intend to put smaller roadwheels and return rollers like the Ramses II modification of the T-54/55; some say it's going to add a bit of weight.)

Best guestestimate is <50 tons, based on what is said was its intended weight in "Camp Colt to Desert Storm: the history of U.S. armored forces"  By George F. Hofmann, Donn Albert Starry

[GTX]

The basic T95 (with 90mm main gun) weighed 83,471lbs
The T95E1 (Different gun mount) weighed 84,741lbs
The T95E2 (this had the turret from the M48A2) weighed 81,400lbs

Regards,

Greg

[dy031101]

Later, it was learned that Henschel in Germany actually had been making layouts for a steam power installation in a Tiger tank at almost the same time. They found that existing boilers and condensers occupied too much space, and since the OKH was disinterested, the project was dropped.

After remembering having a look at this thread...... a steam-powered Porsche Tiger II?

Maybe it's my eyes playing tricks on me, but the Porsche pattern seems to have a bigger powerpack compartment than the Henschel pattern?

[rallymodeller]

There are two major problems with steam-powered combat vehicles, and they are complementary/interrelated:

1: Steam power is, for the most part, inherently less efficient than internal combustion (both thermally and mechanically), at least for combat vehicle purposes. Trains/locomotives operate under a different kind of duty cycle that takes advantage of steam's efficiencies while minimizing the inefficiencies; however the exact opposite is true when it comes to automotive applications (and combat vehicles come under that category).  The same can be said for turbine engines. Say what you will about the Lycoming engine in the M1, the MTU diesel in the Leopard II makes more power and uses less fuel.

2. The designs for lightweight, thermally efficient steam engines that do exist (cf Doble steam engine) are extremely high-pressure/temperature designs. I don't know about you, but being in combat basically in the same box as a 750psi @ 750°F (52Bar @ 400°C) pressure cooker doesn't sound that good of an idea.

Steam power is an idea that is lofted once in a while, but dies quickly when it is realized that any of steam's perceived advantages are overwhelmingly outweighed by its disadvantages and the conveniences of the alternatives.