Talk:Chrysler TV-8

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

ASTRON

What is that? BP OMowe (talk) 21:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC) A deeply obscure project name for a tank development program in the 60's. Rather than give the designers a set of weights, engine power, and gun sizes, they let them come up with anything they wanted. The resulting suggestions were as insane as you might expect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmackaerospace (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Nuclear BS

This tank, in prototype form, had diesel engines. It was intended to have a gas turbine engine when they became available.

It was also the 1950's, and people were nuclear power crazy. So someone wrote a memo claiming that when a suitable nuclear reactor became available, they could then upgrade to said mythical reactor. None of that, in any way shape or form, makes nuclear reactors the intended power plant.

Misquote of hunnicutts Abrams book.

Given that hunnicutts book is the main and possibly only source for this article I must point out that the Abrams book DOES NOT say that the TV-8 nuclear engine proposal used nuclear fission all it and most other sources say is "nuclear fuel" this, does not imply, the fuel would be fissile additionally from all the information available online it seems this proposal as someone else has already mentioned was not very serious. It would have been impossible to build a nuclear reactor small enough till the 1970s at the earliest, if the proposal was serious it would have most likely relied on boiling water using heat generated from radioactive decay rather than nuclear fission. Unless anyone else has a source that proves it was fissile nuclear material in a miniature reactor being proposed I suggest the article be changed to state nuclear fuel as hunnicutt did. The real rasputin (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]