"Cavalry firing whilst mounted." Topic

We have an ongoing debate about cavalry such as dragoons, who have carbines, firing on horseback. My own thoughts are that they would dismount to fire, other members of the club maintain that if they have carbines then they should be allowed to, though at a minus modifier. I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Dualer,

I was just reading an account of a cavalry battle that took place during the opening stages of the Battle of Wagram. The Saxon cavalry charged some Austrian Cuirassiers. The Austrian commander decided not to counter-charge, but had his carbine armed troopers fire from the saddle at the charging Saxons. This is not to say that cavalry (particularly light cavalry) would not dismount to fire, but it was not the rule.

Mark

18th 19th century?

fire would be so ineffective its not worth modelling from horseback.

As a footnote, can I ask the sage members of TMP whether carbines would normally be reloaded while mounted or was the practice to dismount for firing and/or loading?

I like to allow shooting and loading from the saddle for light types, but I don't know how realistic or practical this would have been.

Dave

Cavalie Mercer's "Journal of the Waterloo Campaign" includes his experience of being fired at by mounted skirmishers, somewhat inneffectively but with the capacity to un-nerve the gunners. Mercer could not afford to fire his battery as there were supports behind just waiting for the guns to become unloaded.

The impression I get is that cavalry (more particularly light cavalry) did fire (and load) from horseback – innefectively has Keraunos suggests – but they are unlikely ever to have dismounted to fire, except in exceptional circumstances. I suspect it was always done by skirmishers; however I have little real knowledge to support this assertion.

I am in Pennsylvania for the holidays, but have Parquin's book at home in Texas. I recall his regiment of Chasseurs a Cheval encountering Russian bow-armed irregulars (Bashkirs?), and engaging them effectively, while mounted, with carbines.

I recall that it was common for most chasseurs in the French service to do this. The hussars may have done this as well. I have 30mm flats of the late-war Garde d'Honeur (hussar-looking) mounted, loading and firing figures.

I believe that both types were known to dismount and assault what they suspected to be lightly-held farms, hamlets, small towns, etc, searching for information about the enemy.

GdeP

I recall that the Austrian cuirassiers in the example cited by Onamarchos, got slaughtered by the French cavalry. So it was not a good tactic.

Wouldn't it have scared the horses a little, having a carbine discharged in their right ear?

I would seriously doubt that many dragoons rode into battle with a loaded carbine (ie put it into their saddle, and then rode around a battlefield on the off-chance that they may get a chance to have a shot at an enemy).

To my mind, the carbine was there mainly for skirmish, forage and piquet duty.

I think if you read Nosworthy he discusses this and explains that it was a very valid often used tactic of the French in particular. He also explains that it often ended in flight for the firers but it did work and therefore was used again and again by the French over the years.

I have also read the same tactical doctrine of firing from the saddle in ranks in at least two or three other books of which the names escapes me right now. But I am sure others will highlight this better than I can right now.

Shane

I've read in the past about chassuers and Hussars sending skirmishers forward to engage enemy infantry or artillery while the main force took shelter in a fold of the ground.

Again, it would be more for the purposes of annoying or unnerving the enemy versus causing significant casualties.

I would like to declare an interest in this discussion.

I know Shane realises that I was a bit disturbed by the fact that my cuirassiers failed to charge home, and that I have possibly ed up our left flank etc.

But, if anyone would appreciate a set of rules that (to my mind) completely approximates the Napoleonic wars (with a few hundred books to back it up), then Shane's are it.

I also read the Parquin example that Garde de Paris mentions. The French chasseurs were being threatened by cossacks, and the French prepared an ambush, whereby one squadron remained halted, baiting the cossacks to charge. When they did they discharged their carbines at close range, disordering the cossacks who were the hit in flank by a second squadron that had been 'hiding' in some adjacent woods. At least that's what I can remember reading.

Another example I recall was a mounted charge by Nansouty's division, of combined Cuirassiers and Carabiners, during which the carabinier's discharged their firearms from the saddle just prior to contacting the enemy horsemen. Probably wasn't too effective, but might have given a bit of a shock to the enemy. If I remember correctly this was in 1809, so prior to the issue of the cuirassier style uniform to the carabiniers.

Light cavalry on outpost duties or during skirmishing would undoubtedly have used their carbines from the saddle.

npm

Nosworthy, pages 351-356 – It was an actual doctrine that was used by all types of French cavalry with great affect on many occasions. He clearly indicates that French cavalry in close order would present arms (carbines) and deliver a volley and immediately counter-charge. Take a read…

Shane

Last Napoleonic reenactment weekend I went to there was a demonstration of loading and firing from the saddle so definitely possible. British light cavalry on picket duty were trained to fire their carbines, both as a warning to their comrades and also to hopefully slow up the enemy approach. Mounted skirmishing was also practiced.

French dragoons carried a modified musket, not a carbine. They could, and were trained to, fire mounted.

Parquin remarks that the French light cavalry on the French left at Eylau fired mounted at Russian cavalry advancing against them and then charged.

The Grenadiers a Cheval met the last British cavalry charge when forming the French rear guard at Waterloo's ending first by firing their muskets mounted. They then dropped them and drew sabers and charged, stopping the British cavalry. The Grenadiers a Cheval were the last French unit to leave the field and they did it in perfect order.

Sincerely,
K

Was the cost of the muskets taken out of their pay?

If the Huns and others could fire bows from the saddle, why would one think that carbines could not be used from the saddle. Loading being a little more cumbersome than a bow, I could believe it was not done continuously during a battle. Let the infantry handle that type of fighting. I would visualize it being done as a skirmish tactic with carbines. Even let part of a regiment be fire as preparation for the rest of the regiment charging with cold steel (or hot steel depending on the weather).

There's also a picture of the 5th Chasseurs a Cheval, which was a showhorse outfit as well as an efficient one, skirmishing mounted with Cossacks (I think).

Sincerely,
K

Of course cavalry did fire mounted and also loaded their carabines, skirmishing was a usual task for cavalrymen of all nations of the time of 1792 – 1815

Here a contemporary picture

picture

Cavalry carbines and , by Napoleonic times, dragoons' and horse grenadiers' shortened muskets, were carried by a spring-loaded clip from their shoulder belt, wich hooked onto a metal rod running alongside the weapon's stock. This allowed to slide it down, muzzle up, for loading while keeping it attached to the rider at all times.

Thus when "dropping" their muskets, the grenadiers à cheval presumably let them dangle from the shoulder belts.

A bit nicer copy of the picture, dated 1805-1807, attributed to Maximilien Joseph de Schauenburg, 30.iv.1784 (Strasbourg) – 19.ix.1838 (Paris):

picture

Dragoons' and Grenadiers a Chevals' muskets were attached to the saddle, butt end down. They did not wear a cross belt to attach them to. They were not attached to the troopers' bodies. Dragoons sometimes did carry them by the sling strapped across their back.

Sincerely,
K

There is little question that mounted troops, especially French apparently, fired from the saddle, sometimes in conjunction with a charge or counter charge.

The question is, how do we represent this on a tabletop?

Wouldn't it have scared the horses a little, having a carbine discharged in their right ear?

Silly man! They used horses that were deaf in the right ear. And if they weren't initially….they sure were after someone fired a carbine an inch from their right ear!

Several rule sets handle this – I no longer play Valmy to Waterloo for a range of reasons but I recall it certainly allowed mounted cavalry to fire but the effectiveness of the fire was not great. Wouldn't have thought this a difficult thing to introduce into any rule set that has a reaction test for cavalry being charged.

In melee, it would be surpising if some troopers did not produce a horse pistol and discharge it at an enemy in close proximity.
To drop the empty weapon and grab their sabre attached to their wrists would have been a moment's work.
However, such pyrotechnic displays would be subsumed in normal gaming mechanisms for melees.

I will cite from Nosworthy to point out this tactic:

Page 351:

"During the Napoleonic wars French cavalry occasionally resorted to firearms when fighting a mounted opponent, rather than always attempting to defeat them with cold steel. When this did happen, the cavalry about to fire would come to a complete halt. The men would pull out their carbines, wait till the opposing horse was almost completely upon them, and then fire in the enemy's face. Immediately after the volley, if the enemy continued to advance and there was still an opportunity, the French cavalry would then attempt to move again to meet the enemy at a trot".

Some of the instances he explains about are here:

Eckmuhl, 1809 – "Carabiniers halt and fired on the Austrian horse who were less than 100yds away. They immediately recommenced their movement after the general discharge. (not in skirmish formation but in close order)"…."This was not an isolated incident…The use of firearms by French cavalry can be found in most campaigns of the period".

Friedland, 1807 – "Baron de la Ferriere realised his force (9th corps cavalry) were too fatigued to attempt to struggle with an enemy formation of cavalry preparing to charge them. Instead his cavalry awaited the enemy in some irregular terrain with carbines presented and their swords dangling from their wrists. The resulting volley proved to be sufficiently devastating that the enemy cavalry retired before completing their charge".

He goes on to say:

"The goal of this tactic was to inflict as many possible casualties among the first rank of the attackers. It was hoped that those in the following ranks would be checked by the falling horses and men who were hit by the small arms fire".

Eylau, 1807 – "20th Chasseurs a Cheval deployed in "line" Colonel Castex inquired if our carbines were load. On the affirmative he gave the order, carbines ready. The huge mass of Russian dragons advancing at the walk in the snow received a devastating volley at a mere 6 paces!! The effect was terrific – almost the entire front rank of Russians was mown down. But scarcely a moment did the enemy waver, for almost immediately the second line took the place of the dead and wounded and the conflict became general".

He goes on to say: "However, more often than not these tactics ended in defeat"

He also explains that the French cavalry would also await the enemy horse at the halt with pistols or even simply swords outstretched. The 7th French dragoons suffered defeat against the British 15th Hussars for this very reason.

He further explains that there were many difficulties to such tactics from which might reduce the effectiveness of using such a tactic, from firearm loading difficulties, smoke and skittish horses. He explains that in order for this tactic to work the men had to be in a tight ordered formation throughout, any confusion amongst the ranks and they would break. This could be extremely difficult when the enemy is bearing down on you at the gallop.

But the point is that it did happen, it was effective on several occasions and it was used by the French throughout the Napoleonic wars being re-introduced from an earlier period where it was very effective. Blenheim being a notable exception which proved it was also vulnerable to a determined enemy. I dare say this tactic was taken into the peninsula after its success in central Europe in 1805-07 and thought of as being a useful tactic against the British. I think that the British propensity to ignore casualties around them when their adrenalin had kicked in during a charge pretty much found this tactic wanting on occasions where it was used against them. But for use on lesser foes it proved very effective indeed.

In order for it to be effective you had to have a number of advantages in your favour, notably, Time to order the presenting of arms, confident cavalry troopers who had used it before effectively, trained horses used to the discharge, complete order in the ranks and the moral fibre of the men to await the enemy until the last second in order to discharge their firearms for maximum effect, for if this did not occur the formation would be over thrown every time.

Incidentally, yes I have this rule in my own system and it works, the outcomes are pretty much up in the air and you just do not know if it will work until you attempt it. More often than not it will fail but there have been occasions where it has worked resulting in the overthrowing of the enemy horse as it did in a battle we are playing right now, much to my own surprise.

Regards,
Shane

For the 20th chasseurs at Eylau see page 80 [use n122 for page number on-line] of the "Souvenirs de gloire et d'amour du lieutenant-colonel Parquin" 1845:

link

also

link

All light cavalry of the Napoleonic time was able to skirmish, furhteron it seemed to be a French tacitc, to recieve a cavalry charge by firing a volly from the saddle, not always without success.

If you look at some plates on Napoleon's Army in Russia by Albrecht Adam, you can see skirmishing cavalry as well.

One can always find anecdotal examples of soldiers to something strange or ineffective in combat….doesn't mean it worked routinely or at all. The reality is that dragoons of this period were trained to dismount to fire. On horseback they fought with the sabre.

You can fire from horseback, but other than noise, it won't be effective.

Antoher factor would be whether you were playing skirmish or higher levels. In skirmish you could certainly fire from horseback with appropriate negative modifiers.

In higher level games any horseback, skirmish-level fighting would be included in the normal skirmish rules.

Has got nothing to do with anecdotal examples, it has got all to do with historical fact. I really think you should read the evidence that suggests this was indeed a very valuable part of French doctrine which was performed throughout the period with some success.

Shane

The reality is that dragoons of this period were trained to dismount to fire. On horseback they fought with the sabre.

On what evidence and facts do you base your reality raylev3?

<<The reality is that dragoons of this period were trained to dismount to fire. On horseback they fought with the sabre.>>

In the 18th Century, dragoons were trained to fight both mounted and dismounted; the weapons used in each situation TENDED to be sabre, and firearm, respectively, but neither weapon was exclusive to a particular situation. Indeed, didn't many cavalrymen receive their first training in the use of sabres on foot?

<<You can fire from horseback, but other than noise, it won't be effective.>>

1) You say this with a certainty that suggests you have tried it.

2) Surely the noise alone would have some effect on an advancing enemy?

3) Why would mounted fire necessarily be ineffectual against a mass target such as enemy horse? Surely the density of the target (man and beast) would guarantee a reasonable proportion of hits?

Yes despite we of today may deem it ineffective, skirmishing, firing from horseback – was deemed effective by the conteporarians, they certainly did it for a reason

I seem to remember the Mongols getting off the odd arrow from horse back with a small amount of success. Why would you suppose the Europeans would be so much worse at it with firearms?

I have not shot very much off the back of a horse, but I have shot a lot of jackrabbbits from the back of a moving pickup. I do not believe I am s uperior shot, and dont see that a pickup bouncing cross country is any better platform than a horse. As they stopped, they probably had a much better fioreing rest.

Hi

Hmmm. I have done this from horseback. Unlike my truck, the horse when running is airborne a lot (camels are not) that means a very smooth moment in the stride when a snap shot from horseback is very like a similar shot from the ground. If you think back about your ride, you might subconsciously realize that the horse stride is a "bruup,,,,silence…bruup" sound as the hooves hit the ground.

As for "shooting past the ear". Actually, it takes very little time shooting around a horse where it becomes, to him, just another thing he doesn't understand that happens.

You are Overthinking the problems.

Rocky

John Wayne did it very well….hehe

Speaking of movies, there is a Civil War-era Errol Flynn movie in which he and a small detachment of Confederate cavalrymen travel incognito to the west for some basic skullduggery against the Union and end up fighting, and losing to, an Indian tribe in a mounted fight in the open. The interesting portion is that to initiate the fight the Confederates fire a volley mounted against the hostiles and then charge. It is very well done. I believe the name of the movie is Rocky Mountain.

Sincerely,
K

Re: "Rocky Mountain" (1950):

That scene, in the last part of the film called "The Glorious Eight", can be viewed at:

YouTube link

Billy's dog ‘Spot' steals the show!

I can see firing one volley would be quite feasable but actually entering into a firefight and reloading against charging cavalry seems very unlikely!!
One problem I have with using pistols in a melee is that while steel is reliable a pistol isn't!! I wouldn't want to try taking on a bluddy great Froggy cuirassier pull my pistol to be greated by a "click" rather than a "Bang"!!

It is not only about shoot to kill, but also about reconaissance, about skirishing, covering formations, like in modern army reconaissance units.

Hi

Or pull your sword out and "Swish" "I slipped".

All weapons have a failure rate.

R

You can always throw the pistol to buy enough time to reposition the sabre in your hand.

Possibly do more damage…..

At the beginning of the 18th century all horse was armed with pistols, and some had carbines or muskets. The pistol armed guys generally used them, not always to good ends, but fire they did generally before contact. Remember that except for the Dutch, English and Swedes who 'charged' with cold steel everyone trotted sedately into combat which would allow a discharge of pistols. Furthermore, the French horse had one(?) squadron of carabiniers, (armed with carbines) per regiment who would shoot at the enemy. These guys were eventually combined into full strength Carabinier regiments. I can only assume they used their carbines. The French dragoons I think more often foot on foot and used their muskets. When we get to the Napoleonic era, massed fire from horse becomes less common as after all, the horse was trained to charge at high speed to effect combat. Skirmishing from horseback became more common then. My two cents.

Oops! As for representing it on the table, it all depends on the scale and detail level of the game. Do you want to micro-manage the use of pistols by charging squadrons (or carbines for that matter) rolling to see if they kill any enemy and perhaps penalize them for that in melee. Or just blur your eyes and mumble that it's all factored into the melee. As for firing from horseback not prior to melee, how effective is the fire from a 150 man squadron of horse going to compare to the fire from a 600+ man battalion of foot in an age when firepower was only deadly at close range from massed troops?

Hi Dad

Actually, we do our stuff in this period NOT at a "divisional level". Which, as you suggest is the issue. My prefrence is to treat the famous big battles as a mini-campaign, played as a series of smaller engagments of about 10k or less on a side.

At that level, you can reflect the weapons difference.

I have always felt that if you are gaming, say Waterloo as a 2 hour game, then the units might as well be blocks with a combat value, and not actually get into the details of first volley, weapons differences and so on. Especially with turns that represent more than a minute!

My bias.

Rocky

Pistol packing cavaliers were the force that caused the end of the lance bearing fully armoured knight, aiming at the horse at short range rather than the rider I think. They were also quite effective in caracole against the pike mass.
They proved less effective later after the socket bayonet was invented, and also against faster moving sword wielding cavalry; though with the introduction of longer range carbines it provided a role as a screening force which didn't cause much in casualties but was a plague of flies otherwise.

Didn't work at Boragk (Saxony) on the 19th of September 1813. French Chasseurs were over run.

Only worthwhile when no other option!

No, I don't think so.

By the numerous accounts of the French this tactic of standing in close formation (line/column) halted and firing at the charging enemy before counter-charging was a very real and serious tactical doctrine that paid off on many occasions. It all rested on the enemy's reaction to the effectiveness of the fire. Many times it worked and many times it did not.

I think the peninsula is one area it did not work as well as thought because of the determination of several British and KGL units to close with the French. When they were not intimidated by this fire the French were found wanting and lost several encounters this way.

Shane