Lead Adventure Forum
Miniatures Adventure => Back of Beyond => Topic started by: Ignatieff on September 27, 2009, 11:05:43 AM
-
Can someone explain to me how these were actually used in battle: static MG platforms or firing on the move?
???
-
Both.
The main use of them is to follow the speed of the cavalry!
-
I don't know about the historical use
I shall leave that to people who do and I will listen
I use mine as mounted artillery - quick deployment to secure objectives, quick escape, to accompany cavalry - basically SP modern artillery
I guess it depends on the ruleset
-
Do you give the LMG or HMG capabilities?
-
Almost all MGs in the RCW were carried on carts. The infantry tended to leave theirs behind the front lines, and the carts were simple affairs of no great speed.
The tachanka was a sprung carriage capable more or less of keeping up with the cavalry. Virtually every cavalry unit in the southern and Polish campaigns had them. Horse artillery had them too.
They could only be fired to the rear. Thus in an advance they were always fired from stationary, because the cart had to be wheeled round.
In a retreat they might be fired on the move to slow down pursuers. This would be only for effect though. Even standing up in a moving vehicle across countryside is a challenge. Hitting anything would be a major miracle.
I would therefore suggest, and I always play, that tachankas should not move and fire.
Tom Hillman, who is better informed about me on these things, has suggested on the RCW Yahoo forum that most tachanka crews not only stopped but dismounted whenever possible. I can see the sense in that: a man standing on a cart in the open steppes is a pretty obvious target. Much better to dismount and move the cart back a bit, unless the enemy is threateningly close obviously.
-
Do you give the LMG or HMG capabilities?
it depends, but it is basically more to the heavy side, and it is not a historical context anyway
I use them to back up my cavalry, since I like cavalry armies
imagine regular human cavalry on raptors supported by irregular lizardmen cavalry on raptors, together with lizardmen tachankas, pulled by raptors.
in addition, field and heavy human artillery pulled by bigger sauropods, complete with staff unit including field kitchen
possibly some armoured component with heavy armoured cars
this project is not completed, and I only tried the tactics out twice to improve tactical organization and decide on how to complete the force ;)
so if You want to play RCW on Mars or Venus with assault rifles and lizardmen, I may be Your man end of next year
now it is trains for me ;)
-
...on raptors supported by irregular lizardmen cavalry on raptors, together with lizardmen tachankas, pulled by raptors.
in addition, field and heavy human artillery pulled by bigger sauropods, complete with staff unit including field kitchen
Holy carp! What a combo-breaker, two favorite subjects meshed?! Of course you realize I'm adding this to my list of ideas now.
-
I can send You pictures of the human cavalry if You want to see (pics are too ba for this forum, sorry)
the lizardmen cavalry is finished, yet not photographed
and the other stuff is in playtest improvised version, since I have other things to do right now and apart from that, took a creative break from the project cause I lacked ideas of how to continue
think I was fed up with building armoured vehicles....
anyway, back to topic
so tachankas as mobile MG platforms, basically for rapid deployment
so mounted artillery after all
there was this picture of a soviet cavalry squadron in another thread, suggesting that the T&O was 3:1 cavalry to MG - would that be correct?
-
Guys
Great insight (particularly the point of shooting from the rear, and not being able to move and fire), and as for the Lizardmen........give me time! lol lol
Thanks!!!
-
Can someone explain to me how these were actually used in battle: static MG platforms or firing on the move?
???
May I ask where you get your tchankas? Eureka?
-
btw, why tchanka? Actually, it should be called tachanka (rus. - тачанка)
-
thank Prof.
i always wondered myself but accepted it as the "common spelling"
@ignatieff - how appropriate that I will need a lot of time to complete the project myself ;)
so , how to use them then in games?
rules seem problematic
-
i always wondered myself but accepted it as the "common spelling"
Maybe where you live...
-
actually not, but in english speaking forums and english text ;)
-
there was this picture of a soviet cavalry squadron in another thread, suggesting that the T&O was 3:1 cavalry to MG - would that be correct?
If I have this right, the book strength in 1921 for a cavalry regiment of an infantry division was changed to have a mounted-machine-gun squadron (20 "Maxims" machine-gun on Tchankas) and 5 squadrons (instead of 4), each with 176 men and 193 horse.
A cavalry regiment of a cavalry division would have 5 squadrons and 5 sections of HMGs, each of 2 Maxims (so half as much) but the division would have three MG squadrons in an MG Regiment, thereby making up the difference.
My quick look suggests that this is a bit optimistic as an average for the Reds in the Civil War. While hardly an exhaustive search, I found ratios of 1 HMG per 25 up to 1 HMG to 120 men, with most being around 1 HMG per 50-60 sabres.
The Latvian Division integral cavalry regiment had mostly Lewises. Not sure why.
-
If I have this right, the book strength in 1921 for a cavalry regiment of an infantry division was changed to have a mounted-machine-gun squadron (20 Maxims) and 5 squadrons (instead of 4), each of 176 men.
A cavalry regiment of a cavalry division would have 5 squadrons and 5 sections of HMGs, each of 2 Maxims (so half as much) but the division would have three MG squadrons in an MG Regiment, thereby making up the difference.
My quick look suggests that this is a bit optimistic as an average for the Reds in the Civil War. While hardly an exhaustive search, I found ratios of 1 HMG per 25 up to 1 HMG to 120 men, with most being around 1 HMG per 50-60 sabres.
The Latvian Division integral cavalry regiment had mostly Lewises. Not sure why.
-
Anybody know about paint schemes for these??? I presume they are mostly Red, with the Machnovists doing their bit. Any records of Whites using them ??? ???
-
I guess it would be hard to judge from BW pictures, but if these were mostly former civilan vehicles, I would hardly see a reason to bother to repaint them...
-
I think also that the regular WW1 army also used them, but painted in some russian green.
-
Tachankas before the CW?
or sprung carriages for transport?
I thought they were "invented" after the war?
-
I see
so at some point someone said:
"damn, why don't we screw the MG to the cart? we won't have to unload it and fix it to the Tripod all the time!
Yeah, You're right man! And even more, when we have to run, the darn thing is in the cart already, and we can shoot on the run!"
and so the Tachanka was invented ;)
-
have you read the deleted message?
I could not write it in understandable english.
But:I see
so at some point someone said:
"damn, why don't we screw the MG to the cart? we won't have to unload it and fix it to the Tripod all the time!
Yeah, You're right man! And even more, when we have to run, the darn thing is in the cart already, and we can shoot on the run!"
and so the Tachanka was invented ;)
That was my point.
-
MGs were carried by the Russian Army in WWI on what look like artillery limbers. I doubt tachankas were needed, as the front was not hugely suited to long range cavalry raids. But perhaps some people were tinkering.
I'm pretty sure all RCW tachankas were ex-civilian. That's pretty much what Isaac Babel says in his discussion on them. The MGs were not screwed on, but always loose.
Any records of Whites using them?
Absolutely, in huge numbers in the south. Any detailed orbat will show about the same ratio of MGs:cavalry as for the Reds.
Mamontov's horse artillery battery had two.
The Poles also used them in large numbers, only changing the spelling to Polish gives taczanka . (A Google search shows that after the war they started to purpose build them.)
-
@Argsilverson
Yes, I noticed a message of Yours to which I had been relating was missing
at least I understood what You meant, enough to answer
@Mark Plant
the screwing was a joke, cause I tried answer in a humorous way to a post now missing.
I know that screws cannot hold firing MG
now - the MG were NOT fixed ??
technically I do not understand how they would be able to fire from the cart and on the move then
and in addition, making a difference between MG transported in carts and tachankas becomes even more obsolete
this is also obvious from the intial mount on artillery limbers
btw, here is a pic of a Tachanka, but I don't know if the painting is authentic.
it is called "Machno's wagon" in Guliai Pole Museum:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Makhno%27s_Wagon.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Tachanka_in_Huliaipole_Museum.jpg)
btw, тачанка and Taczanka are a difference only in writing, the pronunciation is virtually the same
(as in color/colour or armor/armour)
there is a not well refenced article in Wikipedia, longer in german, that
states that:
the name may come from нетичанка in Russian, нэ тыкалысь in Ukrainian and netytschanka in Polish - all three denoting a light sprung carriage.
it has been already used in WWI, showing a picture of captured ones in Berlin:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/Taczanka.jpg)
it was standard built by 1930 USSR and Poland), quoting an anecdote that quality control for the "new type tachanka" would have involved dropping it from the third floor of the „Tschesternaya“ factory, which procedure it was meant to survive without damage
at least for these versions, the suggestion that they were painted dark green would seem correct
and that it has been used in WWII still, by USSR, Poland and Germany! (with a twin AA mount), referenced by this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Battle_of_moscow12.jpg)
and that the MG were fixed (at least for the later versioins I would second that, maybe with a on/off fixing - I know very well how badly the modern versions of a german MG kicks, even more on the AA mount)
some russian literature is quoted, and there is a link to the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, but this is as far as I can go without Russian
here also a picture of a bronze artistic depiction
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/f/f3/Tatschanka_skulptur.JPG)
a resin model
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/e/e4/Tatschanka_modell_01.jpg)
and the same in finished
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/c/c3/Tatschanka_modell_06.jpg)
this AA mount seems to be from 1920
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/b/b1/248402401.jpg)
and this version from 1919
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ru/2/29/017.jpg)
at least we can see what a variety this simple name can mean
when it comes to modelling, we can assume that everything was used that was at hand in large numbers, from horse artillery limbers to rural transport to hackney coaches, as long as it was sprung
(here we can take a philosophical detour about the symbolism of the bourgeois hackney coach or the rural transport of the Kulak being used for the revolution ;))
and tactics, well, one can see russian WWI versions in Jeeps or the US jeep with.50 cal center mount
and some LRDG vehicles should have followed the same principles:
quick and mobile support weapon for mobile unarmoured cavalry/mounted infantry tactics - be it motorized or not
-
Great stuff!
So, another question: is there any evidence of the HMG's being dismounted to fire? My thinking is that even if the tachanka was stationary, firing mounted would not allow the range and weight of fire that a ground mounted and properly sighted same gun would achieve. The pics shown (which are excellent) suggest that it was a cart with a standard HMG wedged in, thus suggesting they could be dismounted easily. The question is were they ever dismounted to fire and did this ever form part of tactical doctrine??
Sorry to be pedantic on this one, I am trying to get proper rules written for this unique little beast!
-
I wouldn't expect anything but turret mounted cannon to be permanently fixed to vehicles
judging from the pictures where You can see the Maxim mount on the cart, this surely would be available to dismount.
where mounts are not to be seen, the mount could have been carried separately
I cannot imagine that soldiers would refuse to dismount the MG in case a fortification would be needed to be armed
as with everything military, I would go with the tactical role of the unit_
- cavalry is accompanied 5:1 by tachankas and is meant to quickly produce and exploit breakthroughs. It would be only logical that the MG would need to be able to fire from the cart, thus requiring some fixing.
At the same time, war always needs improvisation, so in case the MG would need dismounting, it could be done - but it wouldn't be it's main role. Upon closely looking on the Maxim mount, one can clearly see the actual MG mount, with elevation and pivot etc, that is fixed on the frame with the wheels. fixing the actual mount to a wooden carriage would be complicated, since the vibrations would transfer to the fixing in the wood (even the AA mount is complete with carriage). So what easier than to provide everything complete with the wheel carriage and thus enabling the dismounting ? I really don't know, this is just an educated guess
- mounted infantry (horse alone or carts) could be employed in both roles, thus also having MG able to quickly redeploy and being fixed on the cart and being dismounted (although I do not know of horse mounted Infantry in RCW - but the cavalry soldier would of course be able to perform the same role too)
- infantry would be used in a more slower or static role, therefore not needing MG being able to be redeployed very quick, but being carried in carts together with ammo - thus infantry would not need sprung carriages, these being only required to follow the foot soldier
and that's it
so the strict definition of Tachanka should be a sprung carriage providing a stable firing platform (4 wheels, notice the "standardized" 1941 pictures) with fixed MG, but allowing the dismount
everything else is a MG transported in a vehicle
if we call every horsecart with MG "Tachanka", the definition becomes pointless
or not?
@Ignatieff, why would a cart fixed MG not have the same performance as a dismounted one?
I can't follow here ? the trade of for me here would be superior field of fire vs less protection
-
@Ignatieff, why would a cart fixed MG not have the same performance as a dismounted one?
I can't follow here ? the trade of for me here would be superior field of fire vs less protection
[/quote]
Fixed MG's on mother earth have a more stable platform than on any semi-permanent platform, wood especially (the vibaration is enormous - think why we make musical instruments out of wood). That's (partly) why stabilisers for tank guns were introduced in the 1930's. The more stable the gun the better the range and more accurate. Best example I can recall off the top of mind for machine guns is the MG34/42 on a bi-pod vs a tripod. Miles better performance. An MG on a wooden sprung cart, even if the wheels were anchored (which I suspect they were), would still cause massive bullet spreads over anything less than close-in ranges. Being 3-4 feet off the ground would not give you the superior field of fire you think, even in pan-handle flat terrain.
-
Ok, now please don't be upset, but I have to elaborate on that ;)
You can not compare the Maxim with the MG 42
The Maxim on the Sokolov mount weighs 66kg, whereas the MG 42 weighs 12 kg
My personal experience with firing the MG 3, the german army's follow up is that the only reason why the bipod might be more stable is that the gunner presses the whole body weight against the shaft.
I don't know what tripod you are relating to, but if it is the field mount, this was especially designed for use as a heavy MG to extend the precision range by providing a more stable firing platform. The AA field mount is indeed a tripod and a little bit shaky.
I never fired a Maxim however, but:
If You now take a close look at the sokolov mount
(http://www.thetankmaster.com/images/afv/MAXIM/MAXIM_005.jpg)
you will notice the massive pivot
also there is only a small wedge that can provide stability on mother earth
(http://www.thetankmaster.com/images/afv/MAXIM/PM1910_02.jpg)
the rest are wheels, also the gunner does not use his body weight
meaning that the stability comes from the weight and the pivot alone
now lets assume from the pictures I posted before that at least the standardized versions: on artillery limber - tsarist army; sprung cart - soviet army; were somehow fixed (as it would appear from the pictures)
unless someone who has fired a Maxim/Vickers on a Sokolov mount tells me that it is indeed more unstable than the MG 42, I would always prefer the former in terms of firing stability.
As for the MG 42 field mount, I would always prefer it in terms of accuracy over the bipod.
please notice how stable the Maxim is, allthough the gunner merely sits behind the trigger
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdU2erseKSc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIpQ3JvcbV8
-
Whatever ;)
-
@former user:I think you may have misunderstood Ignatieff. He was comparing a bipod mounted MG43 to a tripod mounted MG43. He wasn't comparing a Maxim to a MG43.
-
Yes indeed, I got that.
The comparison was about MG on the ground on bipod being stabler than on tripod (given the example with MG 42) as a principle.
So I quoted my own experience, and extrapolated to the Maxim, which I never fired myself (I'm not a hobby gunner, I was just in the Army).
Then returned to the topic question, Maxims mounted on Tachankas and stable firing platforms being essential for the tactics. Which is a true point.
btw, if You follow the Youtube link there are also clips of firing MG 34 and 42, on the field mount (which actually has 3 legs, but is a little more complex then a simple tripod)
You can also very well see in another clip how the bipod Lewis gun kicks compared to the Maxim.
The interesting thing is that there apparantly were all kinds of machineguns on Tachankas, thus making @Ignatieffs argument about stability a very good question.
But here I cannot carry on, since I have no knowldege or experience of the many MG used and their mounts - so @Mark Plant, where are You when we need You?? ;)
or whoever knows, cause I'm curious myself
-
here, I found a clip from the 1934 movie "Chapaev"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eG4y9WQrCvM
at about 3:00, you can see a Tachanka in action
it's only a movie though
and also a strange clip about machno's Black Army with authentic footage including cavalry charge with tachankas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcsYtHggelg
-
Thank you for those videos! I've added them to my youtube favorites for further use.
-
Great stuff all, especially the clips. Thanks everyone. I think the really interesting comparison is between the Maxim and the Vickers HMG. You Tube clips show how stable the Vickers is when firing versus the Maxim, which really jumps all over the place (though as you say, not as much as the Lewis gun)
-
You can't drag me into this former user, what I know about firing and mounting MGs is .... nothing.
I'm fascintated with that clip from Chapaev though. They are fighting Czechs? Did they really leave the bells on the horses of tachankas? Quite a few of the men appear to be wearing officer fur hats with a cross or coloured bands on their furazhkas (caps) too.
-
;)
then we'll have to rely on common sense and educated guesses
The Chapaev movie is propaganda - since it is from 1934, Tachanka depiction should be rather accurate, but I wouldn't give a damn for any costumes
if You check some other clips of the movie, there is a scene where Whites attack like on parade ground
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGPy9BIhgBM&feature=related
I doubt these uniforms are correct
I haven't seen the bells, I only hear the sound when it moves - I guess it is dubbed in and stands for folklore...
As for the Machno clip, well all chaos, but whenever a Tachanka is closer, the MG does not bump around...
-
I think that the label on the top of that clip former user says "Mentally unwell attack". There is no way on earth anyone would attack like that in 1919. I know I sometimes say that the RCW was a reversion back to 1914 or so, but that is ridiculous.
The Whites did dress like this in the South (not Chapaev's territory) and the uniform seems to be largely that of the Kornilovs (with white hats to show up on the b/w screen). So Russian viewers of the time would not necessarily see these uniforms as a howling mistake. In reality of course only some officers managed to look that swish - most rankers fought in normal khaki.