Talk:Tachanka

Tachanka tactics

 * "The tactics of tachanka are similar to that of the technical. It could approach the target pretending to be a civilian vehicle and then open up with well-aimed fire, or it could spray a target area while moving at high speed."

Can anyone actually provide evidence of a tachanka ever being used in this way? Pretending to be a farmer is rather difficult given the size of the water-cooled Maxim machine gun and the supporting riflemen needed for an isolated carriage to sneak up to an enemy (multiple unfamiliar farmers approaching in several carts at once obviously ruins whatever element of surprise this sneaking up affords, and a single machine gun would not be enough to overwhelm any sizeable enemy force before they had a chance to disperse and return fire). Also, given that most horse-drawn carriages have a minimal, if any, suspension, "spraying" while moving would provide almost no results. From what I have read, the tachanka was mainly used as a rapid form of transportation for machine guns, the speed of which would take the enemy by surprise (remember they were used before the automobile or the tank was introduced to the battlefield), that is, the cart itself would mostly remain stationary after getting in firing position, and as a way to provide suppressive fire onto pursuing cavalry after raids. Moonshiner 04:36, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I have strong doubts about the tactics used by Nestor Makhno as claimed in the article. While I can't imagine that this tactic was actually ever used. Move in at the enemy, turn the tachankas around and fire at point-blank at the same spot? This idea is simply ridiculous. A single machine gun of the enemy would be enough to make a mess of horses and men. And why use a machine gun? To eliminate are point target at point blank range they use hand grenades ... The tachanka provided mobility and it was certainly good at that. But MGs are used for supression and cover, not for direct assaults. The description given in this article is simply propaganda. 141.13.8.14 09:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read that Makhnovian army used tachankas mainly against enemy cavalry. Tachankas approached enemy cavalry hiding after Makhnovian cavalry, which imitated the charge then spread to the sides. Tachankas then turned and fired at enemy attacking cavalry causing great losses. Makhnovians used tachankas not only in the battle, but also to transport infantry, that improved mobility of the army (about 100km each day). But sources are in Russian. I'm also doubt that it was Makhno himself who invented tachanka tactics (sources?). It is only known that Makhnovian army was first who used it. --Igor &quot;the Otter&quot; 19:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

After the russian poem there was a passage that read "Ironically this implies that the Tachanka was not very effective at actually killing the foe". I understand the author's reasoning but I think it is incorrect and he got the wrong impression.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 08:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

WPMILHIST Assessment
Please cite sources. LordAmeth 20:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Makhno invention?
The first photo shows WWI tachankas captured by the Germans and on display in Berlin. The German soldiers on the photo obviously wear Worl War I uniforms. This photograph dates from before the bolsheviks took power. How then could Makhno have invented the tachanka? Completely impossible, and there is no source for the claim (also repeated in Makhno's article). If no reference is added within a week, I am deleting this claim. If a good source can be found putting the claim, the Berlin photo will ahve to go down the article. You cannot make a claim and immediately on the side put a picture that the claim is wrong.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the claim of invention should be removed if there is no supporting citation. But we also don't have any idea when the photo was taken. —Michael Z. 2008-11-24 00:27 z 


 * I've seen the Makhno claim repeated a lot, which I've been skeptical of (it's not like he submitted the idea to his local Anarchist patent office), especially with the Enemy-of-my-Enemy bias in many Anglo-American histories that causes Makhno whitewashing of various degrees. However, I can't find a reliable source for that photo either, nor do I know enough about German uniforms (and uniform changes) of the period to tell the date of the photo from that. Therefore, I would suggest another possibility could be that those tachankas could have been captured by Freikorps, the Baltische Landswehre, or other similar Germanic paramilitaries involved in the Russian Civil War. Hopefully someone will be able to provide some reliable info on that photo as it certainly is intriguing. --Goodpoints (talk) 01:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

According to someone on the File Talk for this photo https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Taczanka.jpg It’s not a tachanka in the picture at all but a Maschinengewehrwagen or M.G.W. which seems to be a different type of horse-drawn machine-gun transport of German origin pre-Ukrainian civil war, apparently a M.G.W. consists of two sections, one for the driver, with a separate section for the gun attached. As the person at the File Talk for the photo points out you can see both sections in the photo, the gun section is in the foreground. The Ukrainian tachanka is apparently one horse-drawn wagon which would make the second photo from the Huliaipole Museum an actual tachanka. If this is the case then that explains WW1 German soldiers in the photo and the discrepancy, someone mistook one type of earlier gun transport with a slightly later one. I’m no expert so hopefully this is accurate and helpful.

Significant how?
how is this significant, other than as a term? it's really no diffrent that mounting the same guns on, say, a Nepolonic-War era feild artillery chassis. The differance is only the gun, not the purpose, nor for that matter the constrction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.5.249.85 (talk) 04:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultra-mobile multi-purpose artillery installation during the "Armiya 2021" exhibition – relevant how?
The modern photos of wheeled IFVs from 2021 seem totally irrelevant to the article on Tachanka. I suggest their deletion, as they have nothing to do with the mainly historical topic here, or at least a proper photo box caption stating that the term is still used for modern technicals there, if that's indeed the case. Technicality nitpicker (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)