"Wargame Cuirassiers" Topic

Something I've been wondering. Wargame Cuirassiers always get bonuses over similar heavy strike cavalry in wargames rules. Did the breastplate really make much of a difference, or were the likes of the Heavy Brigade or the Saxon Garde-du-Corps just as effective?

I appreciate Dragoons were differently mounted and trained, what I'm talking about is troops that were mounted on the biggest horses and trained specifically as strike cavalry.

Wargame Cuirassiers always get bonuses over similar heavy strike cavalry

Not always ;)

I don't think they do in any of the sets I play with.

Yes in Black Powder you can allocate up to +3 combat points for heavy cavalry as you see fit. French horseflesh was so dire in the latter part of the Empire that I don't bother for Dragoons, and Cuirassiers/Carbiniers get a plus 1, c.f. +3 for Guard Heavies, and excellently mounted British Heavies.

Don't know enough about Russian, Prussian or Austrian horses though…

So I'm behind the times slightly with rules sets. No surprise there :).

The question remains. Did the breastplate actually make much difference, or were horses and training the key feature of strike cavalry?

Grenadiers a Cheval v Spanish Cuirassiers anyone?

Purely subjectively, I would prefer to go into battle wearing one than not, assuming my mount could cope with the weight.

Then again, I would have liked to be issued with a well designed and balanced sword, which if I had joined a British Heavy Regiment, I would not have got..

I have read somewhere that in a stoush with Austrian Cuirassiers, who only had their front armoured, the French Cuirassiers made a killing…which would suggest they count for something…

"My Lord Wellington, did the French Cuirassiers not come up well at Waterloo?"
"Yes, and they went down very well too".

Alt Egloffsheim is a myth created by Pelet and Marbot – chesney as far back as his Waterloo lectures knew this. In particular, the unarmoured French carabinier took the shock of the Austrian attack and were not apparently decimated. There would be some advantage, especially against light cavalry (the Austrians used double plates against the Turks), but the French success was much more about bigger horses and sheer numbers.

Wasn't a lot of the difference between cavalry types in the mount, training, purpose and manner of use? And French dragoons were the default heavies in Spain, operating without breastplates. The real use for heavy cavalry was for the pursuit, and to fight off other cavalry in a pinch, wasn't it? Certainly not for taking on formed infantry, like at Asper-Essling.

One mechanic that I'd like to see in games is one that allows a player to automatically "release" his local cavalry to attack units that are fleeing (in the case of a single battalion or regiment," or else launch sweeping cavalry charges with his reserve cavalry in the case of broken brigades, divisions or wings. The result of this could be the total destruction/route of said unit. Technically this could happen already in most games, but I feel like there are very few games that encourage the use of cavalry in a historically correct manner. Some of them make a good effort at doing it on the tactical level, like BP, but not at the operational level. Of course, one other problem here is that cavalry can operate over distances that often become problematic when confronted with a normal gaming table. And then again, by the time the game gets to the point where the pursuit would be launched one player would probably be rather bored with it all…

From the data available my opinion is; that yes the breastplates had a defensive value, but I would say morale would be higher because you have some protection to your front and rear.

The point Dave Hollins makes baout the horses is yet another very valuable point, I have seen big horses knock smaller horses aside with quite some ease.

Which helped the heavy brigades success at Waterloo they just bowled over the infantry of d'Erlons Corps when the walked into them.

The cuirasses helped, but were not an end all. Most rules either ignore them or treat them as an end all. This is why we are confused. As holds for the helmet, it does deflect sword and bayonet blows, and does deflect glancing musket balls. But based on the French cuirass in the Borodino Museum in Moscow, does not stop cannon balls ar all. They do deserve a plus in cavalry combat.

The question I would ask myself is, what would I rather have? A British horse or a French breastplate?

The Cheesemongers stuffed a French cavalry brigade pretty well at Waterloo. While there might be an advantage to a cuirass in some circumstances it would likely bring offsetting disadvantages in others.

There are recorded instances of Austrian Cuirassier (single breastplate front), in Melee with French Cuirassier (Back & Front) suffering most when they hand to turn thir horse in the ebb and flow of combat, and were unprotected at rear. The French suffered far less from this disadvantage. In hand to hand combat, one would expect it to be worse (and casualties to increase)for the defeated party that lacked protection in this vulnerable area…(only if they were in contact while witdrawing)..I seem to recall British troopers discussing having more difficulty giving their points to the Frenchmen in cuirass in a memoir I read somewhere also..not sure where..

Perhaps a good balance between playability and history would be this mechanic: in cavalry vs cavalry fights, let units with either a breastplate or full cuirass ignore a certain number of casualties in the first round of combat, and units with full cuirasses continue to ignore a certain number of casualties in any subsequent melee, if it occurs. Unarmored cavalry never ignore any casualties, and no cavalry (regardless of armor) may ignore casualties due to fire.

Depends on the rule mechanic of course… one could also suggest assessing additional casualties to half armored Cav of equal weight only in the event of a withdraw from actual contact/combat. I would suggest no additional modifiers in the case of artillery and musket fire for armored cavalry as there are so many other considerations I doubt it was statisticly important. Being a bigger target, etc. The poor horses, of course had no protection, and their injury would render a trooper hors de combat just as often… perhaps you might get a handful more back straggling back at the end of the day…

and then, there is the psych value…I'm sure it mattered to the elan of the armored man,but how much and in what ways? and how much did the hot sun or severe cold matter to a mettaled man, come to think of it.. how it translates into morale, fatigue and casualties within your rules system is always an argueable choice.One thing we can say for sure is they tire faster than a lighter man on a lighter horse!

Does anyone have any period discussions of the 'why's of the breast plate? Obviously there was a perceived benefit because the breastplates were very expensive.

I know that I have read that in a melee, the Breastplate wearer could actually use the plate to take a hit from an enemy sword, which then exposed the enemy horseman to a counterstrike.

Also, the heavies tended to go in point first with straight swords while light cavalry carried a slashing curved saber, so would a cuirass really help against light cavalry?

Bill

I know that I have read that in a melee, the Breastplate wearer could actually use the plate to take a hit from an enemy sword, which then exposed the enemy horseman to a counterstrike.

'Use' is a strong word, it implies that a cuirass wearer deliberately left himself open to a sword cut in order to counterstike. That would suggest an almost supernatural ability to predict where the cut would land (i.e. not on an arm or the neck/face) or the utmost sang froid.

Human nature being what it is, neither of those seem viable hypotheses.

Did they bother with the expense of making them and the burden of wearing them if they had no benefit?

Did they bother with the expense of making them and the burden of wearing them if they had no benefit?

Why did 'they' bother with the expense of making brightly coloured uniforms and tall hats and wearing them if they had no benefit?

"The morale is to the physical as three is to one", as someone famous once said

I'm more convinced that they must have had a huge psychological benefit-worth the expense-sort of as a bearskin would have been-both a benefit to the wearer, and an intimidation to the unscientifc soldier- after all, isn't the reality that elan, steadiness and ferocity were far more a factor in winning victory in a Melee than anything else?

"but I feel like there are very few games that encourage the use of cavalry in a historically correct manner. Some of them make a good effort at doing it on the tactical level, like BP, but not at the operational level"

Computer games like Carnage & Glory allow the player to adjust unit strengths and preset fatigue levels for Cav (and all others) to account for the rigours of campaign, from weeks, to a mornings hard ride to the battle. C & G in particular punishes the non historical use of cav on the battlefield. As in history, they become a resource to husband and use carefully, as they become an unviable force all to quickly for the reasons we all know about..

I'm more convinced that they must have had a huge psychological benefit-worth the expense-sort of as a bearskin would have been-both a benefit to the wearer, and an intimidation to the unscientifc soldier-

That was sort of, like, what I was implying above. Thanks for making it plain for the harder of thinking.

wouldn't have bothered if I had seen your post before posting. The quote says it-succinct is better!

I agree that morale played an important part in the use of breasplates by the heavies. However, I believe that it was even more important the prestige factor. To have cuirassiers was both a declaration of intent (hey! I have cuirassiers! I can play with the big boys!) and of status (my dad has more money than yours! and my toys are nicer and more shiny than your toys!).

In line with Femeng2, is there no more evidence that the breastplate could deflect musket balls ? They were sloped or the French one's were I think. Probably not pointblank range, but what about normal range ? The other thing is horses could probably take a number of hits before they went down depending on the size and health of the horse and barring a head shot. I remember reading… and I think it was discussed on the ACW boards somewhere-- a firsthand account by an ACW soldier on how many bullets it took to kill an artillery horse. He said about 7. The first few they acted like they were getting bit by flies and then around 7th they'd just rear up and drop.

@ Clay

Did they bother with the expense of making them and the burden of wearing them if they had no benefit?

One can turn this question its head. If they brought a benefit why did most cavalry not wear them and why did only 3 nations armour their cavalry (and only a small part at that)?

Elting writes that when French breastplates were re-introduced, the original proofing test was to fire three bullets at 50 yards' range and the breastplate was rejected if any penetrated.

The result was that every breastplate was rejected because none would stop a bullet at that range. The test was changed to one bullet from further away, i.e. they lowered the bar rather than raising the performance.

Based on that datum point, I cannot see any grounds for penalising small arms fire against armoured cavalry versus any other kind. A cuirass would not keep out a bullet at any range from which the wearer was likely to be hit by one.

In melee I'm also a bit ambivalent. Would a cuirass really stop the thrust of three feet of steel? Why wouldn't the steel just punch through? The impact of a sword lunge with a 2,000lb horse and rider combo behind it, concentrated into the area of a sword's point, cannot have had AP ability much less than that of a large soft lead bullet at 50 yards. Even if it did, surely all that happens is the cuirassier falls off his horse, hits the ground harder and can't get up as easily?

Captain Nolan suggests the reason cavalry were armoured was because they weren't well mounted enough in the first place. Adding the armour burdened the horse still further. This suggests an advantage in melee, offset by a penalty in movement.

I think if a dragoon unit has a melee factor of 4 plus a charge bonus of 3, then maybe cuirassiers would have a melee factor of 5 and a charge bonus of 2. In static melee the cuirassiers have the edge, but it disappears in a charge.

IIRC the Household Cavalry adopted cuirasses after Waterloo not because they were useful but because they had beaten cuirassiers.

It still sounds like a viable line of inquiry. What do the French sources say ?

And what if Col. Elting was in fact citing a study done by the British military using the standard British musket and British powder ? Stands to reason the Brits had an interest in finding out at what range the breastplate could be penetrated.

And what if Col. Elting was in fact citing a study done by the British military using the standard British musket and British powder ?

I've bolded the relevant bit, you can reread the rest in context.

Elting writes that when French breastplates were re-introduced, the original proofing test was to fire three bullets at 50 yards' range and the breastplate was rejected if any penetrated.

I don't think Napoleon would have been asking the British Quartermaster General (or whomever) to carry out proofing tests on French breastplates. It just seems…unlikely.

So, where's the original proofing test conducted by the French ? Or is Elting citing a proofing test conducted by the British ? And yes, it seems unlikely the British would've informed Napoleon about the results of their proofing test or vice versa for that matter.

The fact that proofing tests were done at all sustains the line of inquiry.

Conard Sage wrote:

"Why did 'they' bother with the expense of making brightly coloured uniforms and tall hats and wearing them if they had no benefit? "The morale is to the physical as three is to one", as someone famous once said"

Perhaps the benefit was it allowed officers to more easily identify different parts and components of their line and determining which lines were their own, especially if they were shrouded in heavy smoke… in addition to being a shnazzy morale boost.

I. Give. Up.

Offer elucidation and someone WILL begin another "ah, but…" argument. Without even bothering to look for any context, even if advised to.

CONTEXT

Elting writes that when French breastplates were re-introduced, the original proofing test was to fire three bullets at 50 yards' range and the breastplate was rejected if any penetrated.

The result was that every breastplate was rejected because none would stop a bullet at that range. The test was changed to one bullet from further away, i.e. they lowered the bar rather than raising the performance.

Yeah, the British proof tested the French breastplates. The British rejected the French breastplates. Elting reported it. I misread the above. You win. I'm a ing idiot who should go play fantasy games.

Thanks for the discussion guys. What I got from this is that all other things being equal, the breastplate made a small difference in cavalry versus cavalry battles, but virtually no difference when attacking infantry.

Does that sum it up?

Again, the fact that proofing tests were done sustains the line of inquiry.

Perhaps someone can quote the passage from Col. Elting himself and show his citations/sources ?

You guys appear to be hanging a lot of historical interpretation on one peg that was 150 years removed and arguing "oh, no sloped breastplastes never reliably deflected musket balls or sword thrusts… and they really wore them cause it made them feel tough."

'Use' is a strong word, it implies that a cuirass wearer deliberately left himself open to a sword cut in order to counterstike. That would suggest an almost supernatural ability to predict where the cut would land (i.e. not on an arm or the neck/face) or the utmost sang froid.

Human nature being what it is, neither of those seem viable hypotheses.

CS:
:-) I meant it as a strong word. And I wasn't implying it. The cuirass deliberately left himself open OR deflected the enemy blade into the cuirass.

And if that strikes you as super human or an impressive sang froid, I can't respond to that, but I can tell you that anyone who has fenced with even a semi-serious intent learns that leaving 'openings' for the enemy to take to exploit is a fairly basic tactic.

As for the cuirass making a physical difference in a battle, [I do agree it could well be a psychological advantage], I am sure it could protect the trooper. The British heavies at Balaclava complained about the Russian Dragoons' heavy overcoat with high collars and metal helmets blunting strikes and catching swords.

However, 'quantifying' that advantage is the tough part, both physical and psychological, as to whether it made 'enough' difference to include in a game system.

Bill

The French Army didn't conquer nearly all of Europe b/c they were good showmen, and because they excelled at motivating their soldiers with flashy uniforms and shiny breastplates.

Why were proofing tests conducted ?

When were they conducted ? How were they conducted… meaning what firearms were used ? French model firearms with French powder specs ?

Why might the breastplates have been REINTRODUCED despite having failed their proofing test ? And arguing because the French thought it made their troopers tougher, doesn't really explain why they were removed in the first place.

And if that strikes you as super human or an impressive sang froid, I can't respond to that, but I can tell you that anyone who has fenced with even a semi-serious intent learns that leaving 'openings' for the enemy to take to exploit is a fairly basic tactic.

Done a bit of kendo…

The same sort of thinking persists among paintballers.

The difference between fencing and kendo (and paintball) and real life is you don't end up dead or maimed if you get it wrong. I'd take a cut to men if I could get a riposte to do in, and often did. But with live blades? Probably not.

… and maybe they weren't being "reintroduced" at all, but upgraded. And the proofing tests were to identify how effective that upgrade was. Despite not meeting the higher expectations, perhaps the breastplates still performed BETTER at certain distances, therefore, they were still issued.

In the absence of further information, that seems more plausible than some of the arguments given above, i.e. they weren't effective and never had been, the French just used them for their showmanship…

Maybe the weight of carrying troopers along with double-breastplates wore the horses down faster ?

I don't argue for arguments sake and the original line of inquiry has been valid throughout.

Respectfully,

Jim

According to Sharpe, cuirasses made fine frying pans for horse meat the day after the battle. With a little bit of limber axle grease too.

Why were the fronts sloped and not the back piece, if they were only meant to deflect sword thrusts ?

I'd give them a protective bonus against volley fire, excepting vs. British Infantry at close/normal range… something along those lines.

I'd also give them a protective bonus in melee except maybe lowering it when fighting against cavalry that was better mounted… like the British b/c they weren't wearing breastplates. Which is to say, it may have been a question of better protection against bullets and sword thrusts versus wearing one's horses down with additional weight.

My copy of Elting is at work, but I read the relevant passage just yesterday.

Cuirasses were reintroduced into the French cavalry in 1803/4 (one regiment had previously remained armoured, but contrary to its colonel's expectation, was numbered 8 rather than 1 among the newly-cuirassed regiments).

The initial challenge was finding armourers able to make enough cuirasses. Once that was solved and they had a supply of people able to provide 12,000 cuirasses, they then carried out proofing tests on an initial run. All – or almost all – failed, so they changed the test to one that the cuirasses could pass, and made that the standard. The standard did not include being bullet-proof at any plausible range. Having failed to keep out 3 bullets at 50 yards, the test was dumbed down to keeping one out at somewhat longer range than that.

I can't imagine why this test would have been carried out by the British or using British kit. This was the French army trying to figure out specs for French kit.

As for why you'd armour cavalry when it didn't necessarily always provide a benefit, well, probably for the same reason you gave people rifles despite the lower rate of fire; or muskets, despite the poor accuracy. You did it because you expected to contrive for yourself the tactical circumstances that maximised the advantages and reduced the drawbacks.

Why was the back not sloped? Because the human back isn't. Seen side-on the arms are at the back of the torso and the chest protrudes. If the cuirass encircles the arms then clearly the back will be flat and the front will be rounded.

Nolan's argument was that cuirasses were only ever given to cavalry to offset some general deficiency or shortcoming.In this context this would almost always mean your guys had crummy horses.

If you had the choice of an 18-hand British horse and no cuirass, versus a 16-hand French horse and a cuirass, which you've got because your horse is a bit weedy, which would you pick? Me, I'd pick the big horse and plan to blat the other guy out of contention with my horseflesh advantage.

Of course post 1815 the British solution was to put guys in cuirasses on 18 hand horses, but AFAIK nobody got this option in 1792-1815 – at least not a divisional scale.

Wellington did not like them – which mattered as he had the only field army!

The Austrians claim to have picked up 3000 pieces of French cuirass after Aspern, which shows that they were pretty useless against steady infantry.

@4th Cuirassiers
The only thing you've convinced me of is that the trick to defeating cuirassiers was to have infantry with the nerve, the discipline and the training to withhold their fire until very close range and the accuracy to knock the horses down (head shots) at the latest at 50 yards. After all, according to John Keegan, against a steady line of infantry it was dead horses turned missile which broke squares… and I'd be willing to bet good money that not every British square held firm during the Waterloo campaign.

@Dave Hollins
Why did Wellington not like them?

.The difference between fencing and kendo (and paintball) and real life is you don't end up dead or maimed if you get it wrong.

Gosh, really? I never would have made that connection… ;-j

I'd take a cut to men if I could get a riposte to do in, and often did. But with live blades? Probably not.

As I said the first time…it was a comment made by a Napoleonic cavalryman, not me. You know, somebody talking about 'real life', not kendo or paintball or probably or maybe or even plausibles. When you doubted that the comment made sense, I simply noted that it is a well-known tactic in fencing too, not some bizarre notion.

Bill

In melee I'm also a bit ambivalent. Would a cuirass really stop the thrust of three feet of steel? Why wouldn't the steel just punch through?

Because the cuirass was curved and would deflect the point--the same reason that armor on a tank is slanted and curved.

The impact of a sword lunge with a 2,000lb horse and rider combo behind it, concentrated into the area of a sword's point, cannot have had AP ability much less than that of a large soft lead bullet at 50 yards.

That might be true of the original charge with the point forward, but not during the subsequent melee. Such a sudden contact at 20 mph+ would be very hard on the cavalryman's arm, no matter how straight he held it.

Of course, if the cuirass was actually penetrated, at speed, the poor cavalryman's going to have that sword is not going to come free, but instend it will be wrenched right out of his hand, and the wrist sling will probably yank the poom fellow off his horse.

Reasons NOT to race at the enemy point forward. Many nation's had their heavies trot only. The French for one.
There was an on-going debate among cavalrymen whether the slashing saber or straight sword was the better weapon. The straight sword was generally more lethal with body trusts, but the saber didn't get stuck in the enemy's body. There are a couple of cavalry memiors that discuss this.

Bill

I wonder if the confusions over the Napoleonic Wars prompted gov't's to have regular AAR's ?

For what it's worth, wRG say cuirassier get one extra advantage point in initial hand to hand, thereafter no advantage; same basic move as HC but shorter final charge (which means a crafty opponent will generally have the option of charging first or moving to a safe distance), same initial + final charge as irregular basic move (so in order to charge irregulars have to move within their basic move distance, so can be forced to face a charge halted); and I think also a small reaction benefit when being shot at, but the same vulnerability as other mounted.