Tachanka speed

[Orel]

Why is the tachanka so slow? It makes it simply pointless to add to cavalry because of its speed.

[Durk]

While the tachanka was more mobile than other large guns, it was cart born. Faster than infantry, but bogged down by wheels.

[Orel]

Horse artillery and armored cars also have wheels. Yet that doesn't make them as slow as infantry.

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

Tachankas in this game, and horse arty in AACW need to be sped up. Both should be faster than infantry.

[Durk]

Horse artillery moves at the same pace as 'foot' artillery, with the exception it carries a bit less ammunition. The minute horses are harnessed to wagons or caissons, there movement is not that of a mounted horse.
To compare horse artillery to armored cars needs this interpretation. Horse drawn artillery typically is powered by two to four horsepower. Armored cars have 100 or more horsepower.
Most studies of celerity would allow for any artillery to advance at just under the pace of marching foot soldiers. In battle, horse artillery was a bit more dynamic, but just a bit.

[ERISS]

Tatchanka were mounted infantry, with machine-gun. They were used as half-tracks in WW2: to strategically speed infantry to key positions and/or to tacticaly ambush with great fire-power. So, they must be slower than cavalry, but faster than infantry (I'll say half speed between both).
A makhnovist tactic against Whites, was even to faint a cavalry charge to attract daring white cavalry, and at the last moment to withdraw and let the tatchankas machine-guns behind makhnovist cavalry be at point-blank range against White sabers... Makhnovist bastards

[Orel]

Horse artillery moves at the same pace as 'foot' artillery, with the exception it carries a bit less ammunition. The minute horses are harnessed to wagons or caissons, there movement is not that of a mounted horse.
To compare horse artillery to armored cars needs this interpretation. Horse drawn artillery typically is powered by two to four horsepower. Armored cars have 100 or more horsepower.
Most studies of celerity would allow for any artillery to advance at just under the pace of marching foot soldiers. In battle, horse artillery was a bit more dynamic, but just a bit.

I must make the remark that I have serious doubts that the armored cars of the time ever had a 50hp engine, not even speaking of a 100hp engine. The Harford-Putilov Russian probably heaviest and most armed(76mm cannon + 2 machine guns) had only a 30 hp engine. Plus i wouldn't compare horse artillery and especially tachankas with armored cars in terms of mobility according to horsepower. After all, yes the armored cars had far more powerful engines yet they carried a quite heavy load of armor.

And towards artillery being comparable to infantry in terms of speed, I would trust Colonel Wewern when he said that his battery had been slowed down by marching infantry quite significantly.

[Hohenlohe]

Why is the tachanka so slow? It makes it simply pointless to add to cavalry because of its speed.

Just imagine a tachanka crossing the country with bushes limiting their advance the cavalry jumps over them but not the tachankas,thus they are merely streetwise on their way...

but it needs another point cavalry w/ supplywagons will loose cohesion,thus it makes no manner to do no combination of cavalry,horse artillery and tachankas and supplywagons....

greetings

Hohenlohe

[ERISS]

a tachanka crossing the country with bushes limiting their advance the cavalry jumps over them

but the tachankas pass them beside.
Hey that's Ukrainia, not Normandy! (don't be owned by my halftrack story)

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

They're still going to be faster than infantry. Change the movement to wheeled if you want to simulate mobility issues, but speed should be around 130.

[Orel]

Must agree with Cleburne and Eriss. From my perspective, it is pointless to make the speed more than 130 simply because that doesn't make things different to divisions I form( 6 cavalry + 2 horse artillery + something else usually armored cars).

[caranorn]

What an odd notion to think foot artillery would be able to move at the same speed as horse artillery. Foot Artillery at the best times moves at the rate of infantry, simply because most of it's crew is walking, at the worst times (in rough terrain) it's much slower as it has a limited numbers of horses to draw a relatively large number of guns and caissons. Horse artillery on the other hand moves at the rate of cavalry under ideal conditions as tyhe entire crew is either mounted or riding the guns and limbers, if they run into troublesome terrain they will still be noticeably faster than foot artillery simply because they have a better rate of horses to guns and limbers (foot artillery had much heavier combinations of limber and gun with relatively speaking fewer horses). Should artillery slow down infantry and cavalry in game terms? Yes it should, but simply put foot artillery should be somewhat slower than infantry and horse artillery somewhat slower than cavalry (but still faster than light infantry)...

Now to tachankas. I doubt that a large cavalry force would go and jump hedges. You shouldn't imagine cavalrymen as good riders, you should consider them men cabale to sit their horse and soldier as expected of them. Yes of course there were also some excellent riders among them, even some formations composed of only good riders (cossacks come to mind), but those are the exceptions. A cavalry formation will ride around obstacles, or navigate through them at slow speed, not crash through them at a galop (most movement will be at the walk anyhow with the occasional trot between). So tachankas, very light carts, will be able to follow cavalry even better than horse artillery, though again they will slow a force down marginally (because they will have to make larger detours, or have accompagnying cavalry dismount and clear a route)...

[DarkGarry]

Tachanka = supply cart with a machine gun. So probably speed should be like supply cart, may be a bit faster.
It should be faster than foot soldiers for sure.

Re: artillery - only small caliber gun can be towed by soldiers(on defense in static positions). It is almost always towed by several horses, even in WW2(or by truck). It is faster than foot soldiers, a bit slower than cavalerie.

Armored cars and tanks at the time of WW1 were extremely slow and they were good ONLY at flat terrain. Also they were travelling ONLY by railroad(it was discussed somewhere on this forum).
There are were no major difference between armored cars and tanks.

From Wikipedia: The tanks were capable of 6 km/h (4 mph), matching the speed of marching infantry with whom they were to be integrated to aid in the destruction of enemy machine guns.

[Orel]

Tachanka = supply cart with a machine gun. So probably speed should be like supply cart, may be a bit faster.
It should be faster than foot soldiers for sure.

Re: artillery - only small caliber gun can be towed by soldiers(on defense in static positions). It is almost always towed by several horses, even in WW2(or by truck). It is faster than foot soldiers, a bit slower than cavalerie.

Armored cars and tanks at the time of WW1 were extremely slow and they were good ONLY at flat terrain. Also they were travelling ONLY by railroad(it was discussed somewhere on this forum).
There are were no major difference between armored cars and tanks.

From Wikipedia: The tanks were capable of 6 km/h (4 mph), matching the speed of marching infantry with whom they were to be integrated to aid in the destruction of enemy machine guns.

Tanks? Unable to travel on non-flat terrain? Highly doubtful. They were initially meant to OVERRUN barbed wire and go over trenches. They would definitely be able to travel on a rigid surface. Otherwise, there would simply be no need for them, armored cars would be better and faster.

The other statement: that tanks could travel only by railroad is also a very questionable statement. Then armored trains would be far better.

Yet what is true: tanks generally were units for a single attack(the early ones) and were to brought by railroad as close as possible to the point from which the attack starts. The late ones, Wippet especially, I would think would differ greatly.

But this doesn't mean that tanks are unable to travel at all other than by railroad. This just means that generally they had a narrow objective: to overrun enemy barbed wire and aid the infantry with fire support. Yet this did not make them unable at all to travel on tracks.

[DarkGarry]

Tanks? Unable to travel on non-flat terrain? Highly doubtful.

Well - if their speed is 6 km/h what speed do you think they will move toward little hill on the surface with some incline? (-1) km/h?
In WWII there was a joke - how to call tank Matilda II on top of the hill - MIRACLE! It is 20 years later!

This just means that generally they had a narrow objective: to overrun enemy barbed wire and aid the infantry with fire support. Yet this did not make them unable at all to travel on tracks.

Exactly - completely agree. Delivered by rail, do the job, and back to train station...

[Orel]

Well - if their speed is 6 km/h what speed do you think they will move toward little hill on the surface with some incline? (-1) km/h?
In WWII there was a joke - how to call tank Matilda II on top of the hill - MIRACLE! It is 20 years later!


Exactly - completely agree. Delivered by rail, do the job, and back to train station...

Have a slight confusion on what you've meant. No matter how slow something goes, it still actually goes, while an armored car despite a far greater speed may not be able to do the same thing.

Though we've fallen a bit off topic, we should start a different thread on tanks.

[ERISS]

Tachanka = supply cart with a machine gun. So probably speed should be like supply cart, may be a bit faster.
It should be faster than foot soldiers for sure.

It may be strategically used as supply cart, but tactically I imagine it should then being unload removing non-combat features before the fight to be the more able to follow the cavalry and/or to rush the machine-gun at point-blank range and/or to flee after a mow-down MG ambush and/or to transport soldiers to a key position.

[DarkGarry]

I actually wrote about comparative speed of tachanka ONLY, not about its tactical use.

Well, of course in real life it can help transporting supplies, ammo, infantry or tow artillery... but in game implementation of such features is tricky I guess.

[Orel]

Carts are different too. There are such that are on 4 wheels, with low maneuverability, while there are others that have only two enormous ones(tachanka). The tachanka is extremely maneuverable both on the field and on the march. It has barely anything to do with supply carts that we see.

This is how a cart like that in the Russian empire would look like(before WWI):





There is little comparison with a supply carts, but a great similarity to carts that were attached to artillery pieces. So again, the tachanka is at least comparable with horse artillery in terms of speed, probably faster and more maneuverable. Yet that is not what is seen in the game.

[caranorn]

You really can't compare a heavily ladden supply cart and a tachanka. The worse the terrain the more the supply cart will be slowed/bogged down, of course the tachanka will suffer likewise, but not at the same rate...

Also the "driver" of a supply cart will have an entirely different mind on how to proceed than the "driver" of a tachanka. An obstacle an empty cart "driver" would try to drive around would not even make the "driver" of the tachanka hesitate, simply because one is essentially a non combattant and the other is just another form of cavalryman...

P.S.: What Orel refers to as "carts that were attached to artillery pieces" would be a limber or caisson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbers_and_caissons . And yes, a limber should have similar driving properties to a tachanka, though the limber would of course be heavier...

[Old Fenrir]

1. Regarding the tactical use of horse artillery and tachankas. They had to not simply move slightly faster than foot artillery from place to place and operate from an ambush. They (tachankas as well as horse artillery) had to at the time, when the cavalry deployed for the attack, to go ahead of the cavalry front at the gallop and had to ensure attack with their fire. Regarding the operational and strategic use, tachanka is more light than cannon or limber of horse artillery and not slow cavalry on the march more than horse artillery.

2. Tachanka is not supply cart with machine gun. As well as tachanka is not two-wheel machine gun cart, which has been used in European armies in the early 20th century.
Tachanka, originally, - it is light and durable passenger cart with steel springs, sort of chaise, intended to ride on the bad rural roads.
Good modern analogy for tachanka - it is not pantechnicon van, but off-road jeep with mounted heavy machine gun, or recoilless gun, and so on.

Non-military ancestors of tachanka:





Civil War tachanka:







Polish and Soviet interwar and WWII tachankas:











And, let us remember the ACW, - Confederate tachanka:





3. On the basis of the above, I believe that the speed of tachankas for the non-anarchist factions in the game definitely must be raised to the speed of the horse artillery.

[Orel]

1. Regarding the tactical use of horse artillery and tachankas. They had to not simply move slightly faster than foot artillery from place to place and operate from an ambush. They (tachankas as well as horse artillery) had to at the time, when the cavalry deployed for the attack, to go ahead of the cavalry front at the gallop and had to ensure attack with their fire. Regarding the operational and strategic use, tachanka is more light than cannon or limber of horse artillery and not slow cavalry on the march more than horse artillery.

2. Tachanka is not supply cart with machine gun. As well as tachanka is not two-wheel machine gun cart, which has been used in European armies in the early 20th century.
Tachanka, originally, - it is light and durable passenger cart with steel springs, sort of chaise, intended to ride on the bad rural roads.
Good modern analogy for tachanka - it is not pantechnicon van, but off-road jeep with mounted heavy machine gun, or recoilless gun, and so on.

Non-military ancestors of tachanka:





Civil War tachanka:







Polish and Soviet interwar and WWII tachankas:











And, let us remember the ACW, - Confederate tachanka:





3. On the basis of the above, I believe that the speed of tachankas for the non-anarchist factions in the game definitely must be raised to the speed of the horse artillery.

I supposed that the tachanka evolved from two wheeled carts carrying a machine gun and that its' common appearance on a 4-wheel "cab" type was a necessity of the civil war, when there weren't enough 2-wheeled carts.

I came across this photo on wikipedia(I know it is not a very reliable source yet...):
http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A4%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%BB:Taczanka.jpg

At the same time, I have a book at my hand right now in Russian "Machine guns of the Russian Army in battle." There it mentions that tachankas were used in WWI too, though not as widespread. And I could hardly imagine the Russian army using civil carts as mounts for machine guns, when they have a military type two-wheeled cart commonly used in the whole army.

[Old Fenrir]

I have not encountered the information, what are the Russian tachankas of WWI was and how they are used. I talking about what tachankas during the Civil War was.
Yes, first were two-wheeled machine gun carts (пулеметные двуколкl) and sledges, on which machine guns were transported during the winter. And yes, tachankas might be as well requisitioned civil carts (Civil War) and specially manufactured (Russian Imperial(?) and Soviet armies).

Speech is about that the tachanka (light four-wheeled cart) and two-wheeled machine gun cart (пулеметная двуколка - are two different things. Tachanka - a four-wheeled cart, by definition. On the photo from wiki - it is hard to see, but looks like a cluster of various Kaiser's army two-and four-wheeled carts, on the one of which (two-wheeled) machine gun mounted is.

upd
What pictured on the photo from wiki - it is standard regular two-wheeled machine gun cart (пулеметная двуколка . I dont know, native German or captured Russian. But not tachanka.
Regular two wheeled machine gun cart of Russian Imperial army of Sokolov system (pre-WWI period):

Seems, exactly the same.

Yes, from dvukolka (two-wheeled cart), as well as from tachanka, it was possible to firing without taking off machine gun from cart. But I doubt, that switching of the cavalry from two-wheeled machine gun carts to tachankas during the Civil War was caused only by lack of regular two-wheeled machine gun carts. Apparently, the tachankas were given a significant tactical advantage when interacting with the cavalry, in comparison with regular two-wheeled machine gun carts . That is why they are firmly established in the cavalry of the Soviet and Polish armies after the Civil War.

[Orel]

I have not encountered the information, what are the Russian tachankas of WWI was and how they are used. I talking about what tachankas during the Civil War was.
Yes, first were two-wheeled machine gun carts (пулеметные двуколкl) and sledges, on which machine guns were transported during the winter. And yes, tachankas might be as well requisitioned civil carts (Civil War) and specially manufactured (Russian Imperial(?) and Soviet armies).

Speech is about that the tachanka (light four-wheeled cart) and two-wheeled machine gun cart (пулеметная двуколка - are two different things. Tachanka - a four-wheeled cart, by definition. On the photo from wiki - it is hard to see, but looks like a cluster of various Kaiser's army two-and four-wheeled carts, on the one of which (two-wheeled) machine gun mounted is.

upd
What pictured on the photo from wiki - it is standard regular two-wheeled machine gun cart (пулеметная двуколка . I dont know, native German or captured Russian. But not tachanka.
Regular two wheeled machine gun cart of Russian Imperial army of Sokolov system (pre-WWI period):

Seems, exactly the same.

Yes, from dvukolka (two-wheeled cart), as well as from tachanka, it was possible to firing without taking off machine gun from cart. But I doubt, that switching of the cavalry from two-wheeled machine gun carts to tachankas during the Civil War was caused only by lack of regular two-wheeled machine gun carts. Apparently, the tachankas were given a significant tactical advantage when interacting with the cavalry, in comparison with regular two-wheeled machine gun carts . That is why they are firmly established in the cavalry of the Soviet and Polish armies after the Civil War.

The photo from wikipedia has some writing underneath that says it is a Russian army tachanka captured by the troops of the Kaiser.

So far, I will have to agree with you. I haven't found any evidence that two-wheeled carts of WWI were used as tachankas.

[ERISS]

I supposed that the tachanka evolved from two wheeled carts carrying a machine gun and that its' common appearance on a 4-wheel "cab" type was a necessity of the civil war, when there weren't enough 2-wheeled carts.

Ukrainian tatchankas come from paesant wagons, which have 4 wheels to carry workers, tools, food and products (2-wheeled are mainly for the lazy aristocrats).
In the civil war these were not only used as mobile MG (with added servant if one is wounded), they too could carry infantry (with MG as defense).