"Wargame Cuirassiers" Topic

On their own the numbers mean nothing.

Indeed. Throughout all this nobody has asked a simple question: if you were to take either a sword thrust or cut to the body, would you rather be wearing a cuirass or not?

Depends what else you have by way of protection. A rolled cloak over one shoulder or for hussars a second layer (pelisse and dolman).

Nolan gets a mention earlier in this thread, he was in favour of an armoured bridle gauntlet to protect the hands carrying the reins. This was based on seeing the damage done to lower arms following combat with irregular cavalry in India who had sharp curved swords.

Does wearing a cuirass make you feel safer, the answer is probably yes.

The problem is the cuirass didn't make the horses' heads feel any safer, especially from well-aimed musket balls at 50 yards. I think Keegan mentioned each horse could potentially have 4 or 5 infantrymen aiming at it. Regardless, the historical example of Waterloo gives an idea of the accuracy of most smoothbore muskets at the time. Only the British were surefire shots at 50 yards with smoothbores would be my guess.

Madison

At 50 yards smoothbore muskets in any hands start getting serious. That's 60 paces, I wouldnt like to have a Marie Louise letting fly at me at that range, particularly if I am perched on a horse wearing a 19th century camp oven.

Grizzlymc,

I'd prefer my chances, though not my horse's, with the camp oven on.

An interesting observation by Baron Marbot in his "Memoirs":

Lines 258 to 292

258. General Rogniat falls into one error, the largest, when he says that it is necessary to reform back-cuirass worn by the heavy cavalry carries, and claims that it is a useless weight which serves but to protect the coward who turns his back; refutation of this opinion, and demonstration that the cuirass-back is a weight useful to the rider's balance….

Of the utility of the back-cuirass in engagements; proof that the mechanism of hand-to-hand combat often forces the bravest riders to turn their back; striking analogy that there is between the charges of modern cavalry and those made formerly by Roman infantry; reflexions on this subject….

Combat between the French cuirassiers and Austrians on the evening of the battle of Eckmühl, quoted as an example of the immense advantage which the riders with front-and-back cuirasses have against those who have it only in front….

Where it is shown that not only can a rider turn his back without deserving for that to be treated as a coward, but that these are even the bravest riders whose back is most exposed…. 292

Just my 2p worth;

I dont have the reference to hand, but I recall reading a quote from the period that Lancers broke the tips of their lances against the breastplates and were thus at a disadvantage in the melee.

I think it was the same source that stated that Russian Cuirassiers having no back plate suffered more heavily as they broke off the combat.

Finally, at Quatre Bras one of Kellermans regiments had no cuirasses (was it the 11th?) but still performed very well.

And if you visit the museum in Waterloo you will see how ineffective the cuirass was against any musket ball or artillery projectile.

As was said earlier, an excellent horse propelling a street fighter into an enemy body was the key thing,

( cue Mr Callan…….. )

Just a thought, is there anyone with modern experience of body armour and the real or imagined security this provides.

I understand that UK police regularly wear stab proof vests when on foot patrol and the forces. Does the wearer feel more confident in routine situations or is this really for the extreme and unexpected?

Likewise in Iraq and Afghanistan body armour appears to be used extensively. It would be useful to know how the wearers feel about this. To what extent does wearing of armour really change behaviour?

( cue Mr Callan… )

"I hit 'im…and 'e died of it."

I am not sure why folks are still discussing the cuirass as protection the rider from musket balls [and entirely inadequate protection against cannon fire!]

I have never read where that was the purpose of the cavalry cuirass--from Medieval times to WWI. However, I have read any number of references to them being designed to protect the cavalrymen from enemy swords in hand-to-hand combat, as Mabot says.

Not to improve morale, not as proof against bullets, but as protection against enemy cavalrymen. [Such protection *might* provide a good helping of improved morale or scaring the enemy, but not much protection against a musket ball or rifle bullet.]

How the cuirass might have affected behavior on the battlefiled is a matter of searching the accounts. There isn't much point in guessing about it.

Bill

The cuirass made the Cuirassier more brave because they were proofed against bullets except probably at pointblank range. Look at the Waterloo campaign, there are a few examples of lone, "maverick" Cuirasiers trotting up individually to squares of infantry, insulting and challenging them to "Take a shot a me". Plate armour appears to have offered protection against firearms.

Bosworth:

Having lone cuirassiers challenging infantry squares to shoot at them doesn't mean ipso facto that the riders thought the armour offered protection, or that it did.

Other non-armored cavalry did the same type of taunting at verious times.

I suppose it could have under the right conditions, but I haven't read anywhere that it did, or that protection against fire was a reason for the armor. Obviously Wellington didn't think it made much difference against infantry volleys.

Bill

Bill,

Of course not, because they could still be shot in the face or their horse could be shot.

I'd be interested to hear your examples of non-armoured cavalry taunting infantry at close range.

Wellington probably didn't have a choice, and even if he did fighting on the periphery against 2nd and 3rd teamers probably meant he could make do without.

Bosworth

A horseman facing a line of infantry is largely protected by the horse. Turning side-on to execute dramatic and apprpriately taunting flourishes would increase the size of the target, i.e. the horse. Cuirassier taunts infantry; horse gets shot; cuirassier limps back to own lines muttering Gallic imprecations.

Or Cuirassier limps back to own lines muttering a status report on the enemy square.

Why is Wellington supposed to have been fighting on a periphery against 2nd or 3rd Teamers? Whatever that is supposed to mean.

Probably because the British Parliament was involved in funding a 20 year World War. The Royal Navy may have had different priorities. Come'on, "Tea" think, lad, think.

Status – Armed.

Bosworth:

There are several examples from Fuentes del Orono and the British Squares. It was one of several tactics to pull the fire from infantry squares. During the Revolutionary wars, Blucher had the 'trick' of running a troop or less of cavalry at a corner, swipping at them in hopes of drawing their fire.

I can pull up the narratives if you want, but it isn't something I can do tonight.

Bill

A horseman facing a line of infantry is largely protected by the horse. Turning side-on to execute dramatic and apprpriately taunting flourishes would increase the size of the target, i.e. the horse. Cuirassier taunts infantry; horse gets shot; cuirassier limps back to own lines muttering Gallic imprecations.

Yeah, I would think, but then again, cavalry troopers still did it from time to time. Counting kue or getting shot.

Bill

Was just re-reading Chandler's 'Warfare in the Age of Marlborough' today – there's a snippet where Chandler mentions how de Saxe had a redesigned cuirass issued to the French heavy cavalry for the WAS and was insistant on its use.

According to Chandler, de Saxe's reasoning was that the cuirass would tempt opposing cavalry into trying to combat the armoured horse with mounted fire rather than entering a melee, thus placing them at a disadvantage to the French cavalry, who were solely trained to charge home with the sword.

Bill,

That would be interesting if you could post some excerpts.

I don't have a lot source material on the evolution of the cuirass, but according to wikipedia there is a debate as to armor's ability to deflect musket balls.

There appears to be some evidence that the French during the Napoleonic Wars were actively trying to improve the protective capability of the cuirass against musket balls and there appears to be some evidence that they did just that.

Also, Wellington and the British did take on the 1st team at Waterloo and at Quatre Bras… and at Quatre Bras a brigade of Cuirassiers went through the center of the British line like a hot knife through butter… the 42nd and the 44th though ALREADY in square appear to have been broken.

Boz

Never heard about the 44th being broken. Or the 42nd. Though I heard a handful of unlucky cavalry were caught up inside the Highlanders square. If broken the cavalry who did must have been very poor as every time British infantry have been rundown by cavalry the cavalry usualy try for a colour or two, ala the 69th anhour or two later. Ad I beleive the 44th and 42nd were still formed and fighting at the end of the day. unlike the 69th which being ACTUALLY broken was finished for the day.

Also confused by this first team talk. By all accounts the troops at Waterloo were not a patch on the troops Napoleon had in Russia, Spain, Germany or Italy. Bare in mind Wellingtons army also wasnt exactly his "1st team" most of it never being in combat before.

Wasnt aware Napoleon had a 1st/2nd and 3rd team.
I suspect its some defence measure to try and belittle the British, though mostly insulting to the French soldiers who fought.

the 1st, 5th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 22nd, 24th, 27th, 28th, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 36th, 39th, 42nd, 43rd, 44th, 45th, 47th, 50th, 51st, 54th, 58th, 59th, 62nd, 63rd, 64th, 65th, 66th, 69th, 75th, 76th, 86th, 94th, 95th, 96th, 100th, 101st, 103rd regiments f the line all did service in Spain and as far as I know were not considered inferior regiments.

2nd Hussars, Vistula Lancers? would like telling them to their face that they are the "3rd team" of the French army behind such immortals as the 142nd Ligne (only service was in Europe with the 1st team)

The 9th Leger (Neys favourites) are 3rd team troops? but the 36th raised in 1812 are with the 1st team?

Looks to me if many of Frances best troops fought in Spain at one point or another. Her only really naff troops were quickly raised and thrown into action in continental meatgrinders.

"At this time several Squadrons of French Lancers had got through between the squares of the right Brigade, and having no reserve to support us, they advanced in regular order at full canter in our rear. We from their appearance supposed them to be Belgians, from their uniform, and having been but a short time in the action, were still keeping the French Army at bay with the bayonet, when the 2nd Battalion 44th Regiment were attacked in the rear by the Lancers, who were slaughtering our supernumeraries and our rear rank men. This was a critical moment, you may be sure, but with the usual cool and characteristic bravery of the 2nd Battalion 44th Regiment, the rear rank right faced about and repulsed them with great loss. So well directed was the fire that few escaped from our rear".

Lt. Riddick of the 44th; Waterloo Letters 167

"these brave French Lancers wheeled short around, and to the astonishment of Sir Denis Pack and myself, they were close in our rear immeditely, and through our centre, cutting down several men, as described by Lieutenant Riddock, before there was a conviction on the minds of any but the Brave old soldiers who first fired on them that they were French".

Maj. O'Malley of the 44th; Waterloo Letters 166

link

No mention of Cuirassiers.

Apologies. The 42nd and 44th were "severly mauled" and some sources say the 42nd was "broken" and the 44th "disordered". W.Wollen's painting of the 42nd certainly appears to be depicting a broken square. Others say both battalions were pushed back. (P.Hofschroer) And yes, apparently French lancers attacked them before the charge of the Cuiraisser Brigade. And I don't mean to disparage either regiment, but merely to point out that determined infantry even in square could be "severly mauled" and/or checked by cavalry.

As to the charge of the Cuirassiers:

"Ney, despairing of d'Erlon's arrival…ordered General Kellerman to lead a hell-for-leather cuirassier charge towards the elusive cross-roads. Despite the odds inovled, this attack by a single brigade of French 'heavies' almost succeeded…and the French cuirassiers reined in actually upon the contested cross-roads." D. Chander, Waterloo: The Hundred Days.

Kellerman's cuiraissiers caught Halkett's 5th Brigade at the crossroads.

The 42nd and 44th were in Pack's 9th Brigade which drove off the cuirassiers with musket and artillery fire.

"Guiton's brigade [the 8th and 11th]…charged into Halkett. The 69th held its fire until these armoured horsemen were only 30 paces away, but this volley did not halt their monmentum It [the 69th] was ridden down, losing its King's colour. The 33rd was scattered, but the 30th and 73rd held firm. Guiton moved on to attack Pack and Kempt, but their steady fire forced him back.. The Luneburg Militia battalion held their fire until the French cavalry was only 30 paces away, this volley doing the trick. By 6:45pm, Ney's last assault had ground to a halt"

Hofschroer "Waterloo 1815: Quatre Bras and Ligny" pp69-70

I can't match libraries with you guys, nor do I have the comprehensive knowledge of years of study, but what I can say is it seems the way to defeat cuirassiers was to aim for and shoot the horses, rather than aiming for and shooting the riders. And it seems British infantry was unmatched for accuracy in doing this at 30 paces. I wonder what the dynamics were when a volley was mistimed or inaccurate… what happened when the cuirassiers were able to get close to a formed body of infantry that had decided to stand its ground ? Lancers could do severe damage, e.g. the 42nd, but what about Cuirassiers ? How would they proceed with an assault on a square when they weren't obliterated by the initial volley and the infantry remained to stand their ground ? Very few examples of this that I can see from the Waterloo campaign. Its sounds as though perhaps the 69th ran or did they ? I see more questions than answers.

Can't cite any quotes. I believe the 69th ran. Two companies were caught and cut up really badly and lost their colour. Casualties were heavy in those companies but the battalion was mostly intact. It was broken though and unable to reform for the day. It was still an effective unit at Waterloo. I had read that the 33rd and 73rd also fled but were not caught and so rallied. The 30th being furthest away, had time to form square.

Vs infantry I'm not convinced light or heavy really matters. Hussars are equally as destructive as cuirassier or both easily seen off. It matters most in cav bs cav encounters.

I get the sense that there is far less known, than unknown about how Napoleonic battles were fought… and perhaps they were a good deal more tactically nuanced than most would suspect.

What I think people are forgetting is that overall the powder quality of most nations was rather inferior and that it's concievable that at excess range these Cuiraisses would deflect bullets.

McLaddie is right here – the point of the cuirass was for cavalry charges vs other cavalry, its relevance to musketry is minimal.

the cuirassier were not kept in the front line where the infantry could shoot at them, they were well out of the fight only to be brought in at the point when the charge could (or should) break the enemy (or salvage the battle) – this was central to Napoleon's way of fighting on a battlefield.

the 'celebrated' examples of them vs infantry squares are more a list of cockups in planning – Ney mistaking a tactical withdrawl for a full retreat at Waterloo being the most notable and familiar.

so the only real question is how did the cuirass help against other cavalry.

and I think the knowledge that when you charge in to fight those other chaps, they can only kill you if the strike to your face, whilst you have the whole man to get at – and indeed need only parry and then slash his back as you step past – would make a much braver charger than otherwise.

and that was the point of the charge – make them flinch, and they will run. if you keep formation, keep boots together and maintain a uniform speed (not a top speed), then you cannot lose, as all 18th and early 19th century heavy cavalry knew.

I get the sense that there is far less known, than unknown about how Napoleonic battles were fought… and perhaps they were a good deal more tactically nuanced than most would suspect.

Bosworth:

Yes, that's been my experience. Too often historians, intent on producing a general narrative through-line, substitute "They swept them from the field" or "The cavalry proved completely incapable of piercing the steel-ringed squares", for the actual series of events, providing outcomes with a literary flurish rather than describing any of the tactical engagements in a meaningful way.

That is why it can be somewhat of a shock to read actual accounts and discover many historians didn't do the event justice, or the combatants. Some just get it wrong in their effort to write a good story overall.

Bill

The issue that doesn't seem to have been resolved, either then or now, is of whether the advantages of a cuirass in melee offset its disadvantages.

The disadvantages would have been the fact that they restricted movement by being both heavy and confining; probably didn't fit the wearer any better than any other item of gear; required maintenance and repair; and burdened the horse, meaning you wore the animal out quicker, or you needed a bigger one to begin with.

The contemporary arguments against them, as one might expect, came from people whose armies didn't have them, or who bested them in cavalry-to-cavalry combat, and who were thus persuaded to the "net, not useful" point of view.

Given the fact that the Napoleonic wars were pretty much the last hurrah of the armoured cavalryman, I tend to think that on balance, they were not sufficiently useful. If they were that effective, they'd have been more widely-used and / or persisted longer.

This is not to say that they weren't handy to have on you in a melee; more that, on balance, you'd rather have four cavalrymen without a cuirass than two with.

I'm not sure the fact that the Household Cavalry adopted them after Waterloo means a lot. IIRC, they were free, for one thing.

Bill,

I also think its a question of time and energy. It takes a lot of additional work to dig deeper than others have and therefore, broad brush strokes are resorted to which in and of themselves aren't necessarily wrong or inaccurate. The problem is when those broad brush strokes that describe a particular battle between particular combatants are then universally applied to the entire conflict. Of course, the broad brush stroke that the cuirass was useless against musket balls at normal range is not only wrong and inaccurate, but universally applied to the entire conflict making it something of a double historicism.

Bosworth

4th Cuirassier,

If they were not sufficiently useful, why did the French have 10 regiments of breast plated cuirassiers in 1914 ? Or why did the British officially adopt them for their heavy cavalry following the end of the Napoleonic Wars ? Wellington's claim that they weren't necessary, may have been true in part b/c he was fighting primarily defensive battles and justification in part for the fact that he wasn't going to receive them.

Bosworth

4th C:

I am sure that it wasn't resolved. I think it is obvious that the cuirass provided protection in a melee. The protection against musket fire is far more 'iffy'. Note that most of the doubts, like Wellington, center on their ability to withstand infantry volleys, not cavalry to cavalry contests.

The question of benefit in a melee isn't the issue, it was obvious. The cuirass was far too expensive to keep if they weren't. Most all discussions of cavalry sword play mention their benefits. The question, as always with wargames, is 'how much' benefit? There are certainly examples of cuirassiers being beaten by unarmored cavalry under a number circumstances. But even if cuirassiers won ALL of their melees [And who would believe that?] And then, how do you turn that benefit into a quantifiable game factor.

There are ways of doing that, but tossing around discrete antidotes isn't the way to do it, though it is fascinating.

Bill

Bosworth wrote:

I also think its a question of time and energy. It takes a lot of additional work to dig deeper than others have and therefore, broad brush strokes are resorted to which in and of themselves aren't necessarily wrong or inaccurate. The problem is when those broad brush strokes that describe a particular battle between particular combatants are then universally applied to the entire conflict. Of course, the broad brush stroke that the cuirass was useless against musket balls at normal range is not only wrong and inaccurate, but universally applied to the entire conflict making it something of a double historicism.

Bosworth:

I agree, though most historians work very hard in research. Another reason is that many historians in the past and present authors aren't interested in the same issues wargamers are, so they don't focus on the details we would want…and many times they don't pay attention to rather important tactical issues because of it.

Then there are the historians that recycle other historians' conclusions until they are repeated by everyone, only to find that they are to some extent wrong. There are any number of authors writing popular 'history' by repeating past conclusions. it is changing.

Bill

Bill,

I agree. That's why I said "additional" work b/c just mastering the work that is current and already out there is a tremendous amount of work in and of itself.

Digging to find a relatively equal clash regarding numbers and training betweeen cuirassiers and non-amored, but "heavy" cavalry would be interesting.

I am unaware of the role, if any, the Household or Union Brigades played in repulsing the massed French cavalry attacks. However, prior to those attacks there seems to be a clear example of British unarmored heavies taking on DuBois' cuirassiers, who were on D'Erlon's left flank, and repulsing them with ease. However, DuBois' two regiments according to the numbers fielded approximately 3-4 squadrons altogehter against the Household's 9 squadrons. Moreover, DuBois' squadrons had just been busily engaged in defeating supporting infantry around La Haie Sainte. So, that might not make a good case study, but it is interesting to note that from all appearances the cuirassiers willingly accepted the challenge at 1 to 2 odds and no military historian claims they were "destroyed" or "routed". I read that as actual cuirass protection providing confidence/bravery to highly professional, deeply experienced troopers, so much so that they welcomed 1 to 2 odds against un-armored heavies and then withdrew at their leisure.

Bosworth

Are there similar debates on whether wearing armour was an advantage in melee in (eg) medieval or ancient times? Seems a bit of a no-brainer to me, though how much is obviously harder to define.

What level of protection a breast-plate offers against firearms is another issue of course, but interesting to note that armour has been steadily making a come back since the First World War.

@ Bulldog

It seems clear that a cuirass must offer some protection against a sword thrust and very little against a bullet strike. The former point is obvious, and we know the latter from the fact that the French set up, but then gerrymandered, proving tests for cuirasses against bullets.

Contemporary or near-contemporary arguments against the cuirass were not along the lines of "they don't work at all", more along the lines of "they don't work that well considering…". In Nolan's case, considering the incremental burden on the horse; and in Ewart's case, considering the adverse effect on swordsmanship of being clamped into a steel waistcoat.

So the question boils down to whether the benefits of cuirasses were worth the drawbacks. And drawbacks there must have been otherwise everybody would have had them.

In the middle ages the question did not arise in this form since, unless you were facing longbows or crossbows at short range, you didn't really need to worry about projectiles. The main killer was blades and points and those were what you were armoured against; armour fell out of vogue from the 17th century onwards exactly because it didn't keep out bullets unless you made it too heavy to wear.

As for why the British cavalry went for cuirasses after Waterloo, it was the same reason the Guards became grenadier guards and wore bearskins.

I reckon you'd get a bit hot and bothered in one of those tin suits. After a morning sitting in the sun you might find yourself a tad weary.

Does the Household Cavalry example have any indication of the numbers actually involved, or the degree of leisureliness with which they retired?

I don't think the Household Cavalry ever actually wore their cuirasses in action post 1815.

4th Cuirassier

All good points, but I am not sure about the line of 'if they were so good, everyone would have had them'. That would be a bit like saying: 'the Tiger was not the best German tank of WW2 – if it was, all their tanks would have been Tigers'.
There are lots of other reasons why there were other types of cavalry – role and cost being two that spring to mind.
The point I was making about medieval armour was that the cuirassier was – for all intents and purposes – there to do the same role as a medieval knight: shatter units through melee. In this role, I would suggest it made sense for them to be armoured. Obviously, against firearms they would suffer as much as a knight did against long-bows.
Wearing a cuirass in hand-to-hand combat has to give some sort of advantage – I guess the point is how much hand-to-hand combat could a cavalry regiment hope to see against well drilled infantry?

@ Bulldog

Points taken. What I mean is that if the benefits of the cuirass were incontestable, then all armies would have had cuirassiers, and / or all their strike cavalry would have been so equipped.

If you look at who did use them, it's French and Austrian line cavalry being given a boost; and if you look at who didn't, it's Britain and Prussia, whose horses were very good (where the French hadn't nicked them all of course).

The exceptions are Russia (good horses plus cuirasses) and post-1808 Prussia (poorer horse quality which they did not attempt to offset by armouring them).

Whatever the bonus of the cuirass was, it obviously wasn't ubiquitous or without cost, otherwise I assume the elites of cuirassed nations would have used them too. That they did not suggests that they were good enough as was, and ditto for those cavalry of other nations that didn't bother.

I suspect opportunities for cavalry to melee infantry were few. Cuirassiers wiped out a couple of Anglo-allied battalions at Waterloo and likewise the heavies wiped out a couple of French divisions. If I were an infantryman caught by cavalry I don't think I'd melee them…

I'd actually be tempted to make it a campaign effect rather than a tactical one. That is, you count them as similar but when you're counting how many of your casualties recover to fight another day, give the cuirassiers much better survival rates to reflect the lower incidence of fatal strikes to the body.

Guiton's Brigade at Quatre Bras had approximately 750 troopers in it or around 6 squadrons and according to all accounts they did a good deal of damage. Smashing 4 battalions of British infantry totalling 2,500 men probably among other kinds of damage done to different units.

"For the first time in his military career, he [Wellington] found an entire British Brigade broken by French cavalry." J. Weller

They were finally checked when after reaching the crossroads a KGL battery with "some telling volleys from neighbouring British regiments brought men and horses crashing down…" (Chandler) I read in this the suggestion that shooting the horses was more effective at stopping the cuirassier than shooting the rider.

Weller further notes that Quatre Bras was the first time a British Army under Wellington took heavier casualties than their opponents. One can only surmise what role a mere 750 elite horsemen in armour contributed to that distinction.

From Wellington's description of "turned turtles", it sounds as though they were heavy and burdensome, especially when trying to move around on foot. When mounted, they must have been heavy and burdensome to the horses. To add to the disadvantages, they were expensive.

One of my questions would be how difficult were they to unbuckle ? If a cuirassier were on the ground, could he unbuckle the cuirass quickly to make a more rapid escape to his own lines ? Perhaps carrying it like a shield ? Or would he try and remain in the cuirass ? I ask b/c accounts of opponents gathering cuirasses after a battle may derive from the fact that the wearers, once unhorsed, discarded them to retreat/escape.

All that said, I wouldn't imagine they would be entirely "bullet proof", especially at point blank range. But if a body of cuirassiers were at point blank range with infantry, the risks may have been worth the rewards. Still a commander would want to uses these effective, yet expensive troopers with due consideration.

Without having dug too deeply, it would appear the cuirassier could take on double their numbers without the destruction of the unit and often destroying or routing the enemy unit. Against infantry they were susceptible to having their horses shot out from under them and against highly effective and accurate British infantry fire this was a real problem in that the entire frontline might go down, obiliterating the momentum attack with one volley.

I believe Wellington moved Acton's extremely experienced Peninsula brigade of 3 battalions into the frontline just before the first French cavalry attacks against the British center. They were probably in oblongs to increase the firepower to the front and I would guess they contributed heavily to smashing the very first cuirassier attacks.

Anyway, just some further thoughts.

Bosworth,
Most accounts do talk of the unhorsed cuirassier quickly removing their cuirasses to enable them to retire more quickly. If they ultimately lost the battle then that was problematic, but the French cuirassier probably had no expectation of defeat – so would assume that he could relocate his discarded armor later in the day.
At Quatre Bras the 11th Cuirassier went into battle without the cuirass, so were essentially the equivalent of dragoons. Of course that didn't alter their combat effectiveness – they were still essentially big men on big horses [at least compared to the lighter equipped dragoon, and chasseur regiments].

npm

Ligniere, thanks for the additional information. Big men on big horse many of whom were also very experienced and disciplined.