Tachanka tactics

[Mark Plant]

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.

[Ignatieff]

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

[former user]

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...

[argsilverson]

I think also that the regular WW1 army also used them, but painted in some russian green.

[former user]

Tachankas before the CW?
or sprung carriages for transport?


I thought they were "invented" after the war?

[former user]

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 

[argsilverson]

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.

[Mark Plant]

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.)

[former user]

@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:



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:


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:


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

a resin model

and the same in finished


this AA mount seems to be from 1920

and this version from 1919


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

[Ignatieff]

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!

[former user]

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]

@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.

[former user]

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

you will notice the massive pivot
also there is only a small wedge that can provide stability on mother earth

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

[Ignatieff]

Whatever 

[twrchtrwyth]

@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.