"Wargame Cuirassiers" Topic

Bosworth,

From Wellington's description of "turned turtles", it sounds as though they were heavy and burdensome, When mounted, they must have been heavy and burdensome to the horses.

I believe a French cuirass weighed in the region of 30lbs, although heavy that's not overly burdensome, (afterall most combat webbing these days weighs at least 25-30lbs when bombed up.). So this would not prevent them from moving around on foot or on horse unduly.

However what I think Wellington refers to is the effect of having been thrown from a horse encased in 30lbs of armour plus kit – the "turned turtles" expression probably stems from the stunned nature of the cuirassier immediately after his rather uncomfortable fall.

DB

DB,

I guess that wouldn't be unduly heavy, but certainly heavy enough to make it a relief to take off. I can imagine they would've hit the ground pretty hard and would've been even more stunned if the second line is crashing over them as well. If I were to play cuirassiers in GdB, I'd give them some bonuses against infantry fire, excepting perhaps against veteran, maybe even also 1st Line, G.B. infantry. One of these days maybe I'll get a game in.

Bosworth

Bosworth:
Also remember that we don't know how many of those poor troopers were wounded too. It is one of those gross generalization/impressions made years after a battle that start to fray when you start asking questions about the event.

Bill

Bosworth,

Re:

would've been even more stunned if the second line is crashing over them as well

Ouch! Definitely a little stunned!

I did consider a GdeB cuirassier modifier of ignoring any half casualties against infantry fire and/or ignoring the first casualty in melee, but in the end these extras succumbed to my "simplicity" rule!

Hope you get a game in soon.

DB

4th Cuirassier wrote:

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.

Most armies probably would've liked to have had the cuirass for their strike cavalry, but they were very expensive and offensive/defensive doctrine may have played a role. However, three out of the five major powers during the Napoleonic Wars had them and by 1814 even the Prussians had begun to equip their cuirassiers with breast plates, though apparently none of those regiments were in the field at Waterloo. But it is interesting to note that apparently they used French or French-styled breast plates.. see below.

link

Excerpted from the above link on Prussian cuirassiers:

"Weapons of Cuirassiers
The cuirassiers were armed with the pallash, a straight-bladed sword. The scabbard was iron. Additionally they carried 2 pistols each. The Prussian cuirassiers were lighter than the French heavies. They had not worn the heavy breastplates since 1790. Andreas Hetzert of Germany wrote me "A few weeks ago I bought a reprint-text from "Die Elberfelder Bilderhandschrift" (author: Peter Schuchardt) from a painter, Johann Carl Hackenberg, who painted in color all troops from 1813 – 1816, which came through his town Elberfeld. On 02 Feb 1815 he saw the Brandenburger Kürassiere with yellow (former French) cuirasses and on 06 Feb 1815 the Ostpreussisches Kürassierregiment with white (former French) cuirasses. Then I found in the reprint of the book "Geschichte der Bekleidung und Ausrüstung der Königlich Preussischen Armee in den Jahren 1808 bis 1878" (Berlin, 1878, Mila) – History of clothing and equipment of the Kings Prussian Army in the years of 1808 until 1878, on page 166 § 978 " … at the end of March 1814 they got the French cuirasses, yellow for the Garde du Corpse and the Brandenbuger Kürassiere and white for the rest …." And I found in a reprint from 1840 "Die Uniformen der Preußischen Garden" / The uniforms of the prussian Guards, a picture of the Garde du Corps 1806 without a cuirasse and 1814 with a yellow cuirasse, then 1815 a Cuirassier with a black cuirasse and an officer 1815 with a yellow cuirasse."

By the time of Waterloo then 4 out of the 5 major powers had accepted the usefulness of the cuirass, but not all were able to field large numbers of these. On the British side I would only speculate that the home gov't wouldn't supply them b/c of their cost and b/c in the Peninsula there were few French cuirassiers. Moreover, the idea of having strike cavalry when the mission was defined by the strategic defensive probably factored in. In addition, and this may be more pure speculation on my part, the British heavy cavalry was in large part made up of high riding young aristocrats who may have shunned the notion of wearing 30 additional pounds of armour when they didn't think it was necessary. In short, the British heavy cavalry may not of been sufficiently professionalized to be made to wear them. They were probably uncomfortable, after all, and some other here have pointed out that it wasn't uncommon even for some of the French troopers to look to conveniently dump them on the march.

The fresh Household heavies against Dubois' heavies at 1-2 should've been a rout, but it doesn't sound like it was.

Bosworth

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.

Well, that argument also applies to rifled muskets, or British Linear tactics, or Lancers or twelve pound cannon, or…

Remember the cuirass had been a staple piece of equipment for the cavalry since Ancient Greece. They used them in the Thirty Years War, they used them through the Seven Years War, and had them throughout the twenty years of the Napoleonic Wars.

To reverse your argument:

If they didn't have incontestable benefits, they wouldn't have been seen on the battlefield for so long, particularly after the invention of gunpowder.

Bill

Are their any accounts of any non armoured cavalry clashing with cuirassier in melee? How did they fare?

Especially are they any accounts of cuirassier being charged by lights, lancers or dragoons?

4th Cuirassier

Some very interesting points.

From a wargames rules design point, it is always difficult to know what is worth including in the rules – should a unit armed with a Mk-III weapon have a distinct advantage over their comrades with the Mk-II etc. A lot of this becomes stylised, I suppose and each designer will tend to focus on what he considers important.

I've never written Napoleonic rules, but if I were to, I imagine I would give a unit of cavalry who raison d'etre was to smash other units in melee (and was specifically equipped so to do) an advantage over one which has a slightly different role. But each to their own, of course.

Whether it is a big enough factor to include in a wargame is obviously debateable, but that wearing armour is advantageous in a melee is pretty incontestable I would suggest – if one looks at the only modern-day units who's primary role is to engage in hand-to-hand fighting (ie. riot police) they are invariably armoured – and invariably give their unarmoured (and usually unwashed) opponents a good kicking.

Whether the riot police's biggest advantage is that they are armoured, or that they are more highly trained / motivated / better lead is debateable, but – like the cuirassier – I would say the sum of all these parts warrants a bonus over other units.

@ Bulldog

I reckon the two major factors in cavalry melee, once you were actually in one, were probably

1/ your horse
2/ were you a big SOB
2/ did you have a cuirass.

I've no idea how to weight them though. All I am really doing is thought-experimenting by considering the extremes and guessing my way back to the average.

Did a cuirass stop musket bullets? No, and even if it did it's trivial because the aspect of a rider that's armoured is trivial. Most of the target is unarmoured.

Did it deflect some blows in melee? Definitely.

In a melee, does a bloke on a 19-hand horse beat the guy on a 14-hand Cossack pony? Definitely, he can just barge the little runt out of the way. What about when it's a 16-hand horse versus 15 hands? Hmmm…

Did it help to be a big nasty SOB? Yes. Shaw at Waterloo reputedly decked 9 cuirassiers, 5 of which were done using his sword hilt as a knuckleduster after the blade broke. So could a good big guy beat a small armoured guy? Yes. How many Shaws were there in the Life Guards and gow many weeds were there in the cuirassiers? Not many.

Riot police are an interesting analogy but here there is the fact that modern armour is a lighter and it is also cheaper to armour police than to pay the compensation when they get injured. This must affect the dynamics.

@ McLaddie: Well, that argument also applies to rifled muskets, or British Linear tactics, or Lancers or twelve pound cannon, or…

Yes, and after the Napoleonics they were all universally adopted, along with single-block gun trails, etc…as noted previously, the reason some lights had rifles was that you expected to contrive the tactical situation where they were more useful than smoothbores.

Bosworth – interesting points. I wonder if the answer is staring us in the face? The French used cuirasses and won a lot, so everyone copied them. Except the British, whose heavies routinely beat such French heavies as they encountered and thus never thought about them.

4th Cuirassier

Yes – all good points. There are obviously loads of factors involved, of which the cuirass is but one. Is it worth including this in wargames rules – I'd say yes, but equally one could give a similar bonus to other cavalry units which enjoyed a similarly fearsome reputation in melee. ie. the bonus is given to represent a variety of factors, not just the wearing of a breast-plate.

As an aside, does any one know if there was ever any thought given to equipping Cuirassiers with shields?

none at all, why would they – you were supposed to win at a charge, not by fencing

4th Cuirassier, routinely? Other than the Household Brigade momentarily forcing the withdrawal of a brigade of cuirassiers 2 or 3 times their inferior in number, when did these beatings occur?

Here's Jac Weller on the charge of the British heavies at Waterloo:

"They were now completely out of hand; all order and formation were lost…Uxbridge himself, as gallant and dashing a man as ever lived, led the Household Brigade, but lost all control of it. Ponsonby led his own with equal bravery and even less knowledge of his job.

"Napoleon immediately appreciated his rare opportunity and took full advantage of it…

"Total casualties appear to have been only about 50 percent, but those who survived were so disorganized that the brigades lost far more than half their efficiency."

"British horsemen had often done the same thing on a small scale in the Peninsula. There was no appreciation of the professional duty of an officer in cavalry regiments; they insisted on thinking of combat as a kind of glorious foxhunt. The be-all and end-all of their existence was to be in the forefront of a magnificent spectacle and to demonstrate their personal intrepidity at the expense of the real interests of their units and their army."

----J. Weller, Wellington at Waterloo

Was getting slaughtered part of the routine in beating French Cavalry ?

Bosworth

PS I thought the French copied the Austrians !

The Household brigade at Waterloo was 3 regiments numbering perhaps 1,000 sabres. They trashed Travers' and Dubois brigades also numbering about 1,000 sabres each, despite – in the Cheesemongers' case – no combat experience since the 1790s. Big men, really big horses.

Not sure Weller's up to date as a source. Other accounts have the Household brigade in action throughout the rest of the day, countercharging blown cuirassiers in the intervals between the squares.

It's not at issue what British cavalry did after they'd routed the enemy. Since Prince Rupert and probably before, they whooped and went after them. What's unclear is whether they'd have been even better with cuirasses…

"How beautifully those cavalry form ! Look at those grey horses ! Who are those fine horsemen ? These are fine troops, but in half an hour I shall cut them to pieces."
--Napoleon at Waterloo

Could they have been made to wear the cuirass ? I'm not sure the Duke of Wellington had the patience, let alone the authority. But there's no question, he did a masterful job with the tools at his disposal.

Yes, my library is out-of-date. So, to a certain extent, I have to concede.

Folks,

On the protection of the cuirass from firearms, this from an article called 'Military science in western Europe in the 16th Century' may be of interest.

"Period muskets and pistols from Graz, Austria were tested in 1988-1989 for their accuracy and penetration power. Among the findings were that the period pieces had a muzzle velocity quite comparable to modern firearms, short only of assault rifles. Of course, the drag of the ball causes a rapid loss of momentum with distance. A smoothbore musket and a rifled musket were tested for the ability to hit a target 167 cm high by 30 cm wide (i.e. about human size) at 100 meters, and two pistols similarly tested at 30 meters. The guns were completely immobilized, so skill of the operator was irrelevant. Under these circumstances, the rifled musket would hit somewhere on the target 83% of the time, the smoothbore 50%, and the pistols 99% and 83%. In the reality of war, however, it must be borne in mind that the average musketeer is not going to take leisurely aim with a perfectly steady hand at a stationary target."

"The weapons were also tested for armor piercing capacity. Shot from a variety of weapons penetrated mild steel an average 2.7 mm (about 11 gauge) at 30 meters, or 2 mm (12.5 gauge) at 100 meters. One of the pistols was fired at a distance of 8.5 meters at a breastplate made in Augsburg around 1570, made of coldworked steel 2.8-3mm thick, or about 8.5 gauge. The breastplate was mounted on a sandbag covered in 2 layers of linen, to simulate an undershirt. Surprisingly, the bullet pierced the breastplate, but not the linen! The bullet dissipated its force piercing the plate, and didn't even generate metal splinters. However, a modern 3 mm steel plate lined with linen didn't fare so well. It appears that the metal working skill of the armorer was critical."

"This was recognized in period as well. In 1590 Sir Henry Lee tested German and English breastplates with a pistol. He reported that the German ones were barely dented, while the English were pierced "clean through". Lee concluded looks weren't everything: "yt is better to have an armore of evill shape and good metell than of goode shape and evill metell". It became common practice, as is well known, to "proof test" armor by firing at it with a musket at the breastplate and sometimes with a pistol at the backplate. The dents were a sign that the metal was of the best quality."

Bill

Didn't the Household Brigade at Waterloo number about 700 all-up?
Isn't that the paper strength of a French heavy cavalry regiment?

@ SR

Most of the orbats I've seen suggest a typical campaign regimental strength of about 300 to 350 for British heavies, across three squadrons.

The Household Brigade, being two regiments of Life Guards and one of Cheesemongers, should therefore have arrived in Belgium about 1,000 strong.

What they were at after covering the retreat on the 17th is unclear, but 700 seems a plausible lower bound.

The paper strength of a French cuirassier regiment was north of 1,000, but about half that seems to be nearer the mark on campaign.

In my reading of events, d'Erlon advanced with Wathier's 13th Division – Travers' and Dubois' cuirassier brigades comprising the 1st, 4th, 7th, and 12th Cuirassiers – covering his exposed left (i.e. where it sat in the air north of La Haye Sainte).

His infantry divisions, from left to right, were Allix (embroiled against LHS), Donzelot, Marcognet / Quiot, and Durutte, the latter almost wholly embroiled in Papelotte.

The Union Brigade hit d'Eron from the front, and mostly struck Donzelot and Marcognet / Quiot. The Household Brigade rode through Wathier's division and broke either two or four regiments of cuirassiers, before setting about both Donzelot and Allix on both sides of LHS. They came to a stop at the bottom of the slope below LHS when they met troops in square – not d'Erlon's, but those of the adjoining Corps.

The point, though, is that if they ended up on both sides of LHS, they divided around it at some point. Thus it is actually conceivable that a part of the Household Brigade scattered a whole division of cuirassiers.

At the other extreme of possibility, one brigade scattered one brigade. It depends how much of the Household Brigade and of Wathier's Division one thinks should be included in the encounter.

There was certainly a melee, because we have "ear witness" accounts of the clang of sword on cuirass. The cuirassiers were certainly scattered, because we have an eye-witness Rifle officer who stopped retreating and watched with delight and relief as Household cavalrymen rode among his enemies and scattered them. Barbero mentions him conceding that actually, OK, these guys are real soldiers after all.

What I have not read clear accounts of is whether as few as one Household regiment scattered four French cuirassier regiments, or whether in fact all three of them scattered two. The difference is unfavourable numerical odds of 6:1 in the first instance, versus at best 1:1 – but maybe 2:3 unfavourable – in the latter.

Putting even the most charitable complexion in it, though, it seems that if you were obliquely struck by similar numbers of really well-mounted cavalry, your cuirass wasn't going to help you. I haven't read anything that makes me think the other British heavies were any less effectively mounted.

French accounts are silent, AFAIK, on whether Wathier's men were completely wrecked by this encounter. Most focus on the fact that by the end of the day all the French heavies were wrecked, having attacked unbroken squares. So knowing whether any were wrecked earlier in the day would require a source who took stock at the time. As far as I know, there's no such account.

It is thus unclear whether the guys the Household brigade swept away suffered a lot of losses. Maybe they did, maybe not, but either way it seems likely they were able to regroup sufficiently to join in the cavalry attacks later.

The latter point is the main one that confuses the issue of cuirass effectiveness in one of the very few comparative analyses we can make. The Union Brigade got stuffed because they went out of control and blew their horses charging across the valley, squandering their horseflesh advantage.

The Household Brigade got stuffed because of the odds they then faced later in the day. At the time the great cavalry attacks started, the French still had at least ten intact regiments of armoured cavalry; maybe fourteen if we include Wathier. Plus they had the Guard heavy division, Guard lancers, and the line dragoons and lancers.

In other words, they had a 10:1 or maybe even 15:1 numerical advantage over the surviving British (Household) heavies. This, to my mind, makes it very hard to infer anything about relative effectiveness. Against those sort of odds, the British heavies would have been used up if their opponents had been mere chasseurs a cheval.

In a way I'm glad I don't have British troops any more. I'd want to give the heavies an advantage against any other cavalry, based on the horseflesh, but this would be based on a sample of combats too small to be really reliable.

I think one goes with one's prejudices :-)

Oops – forgetting the KDG were brigaded with the RHG and were a strong regt at 500-odd.

Didn't the Household Brigade at Waterloo number about 700 all-up?
Isn't that the paper strength of a French heavy cavalry regiment?

If you believe Adkin's figures (and they seem fairly reliable). At Waterloo:

1st (Household Cavalry) Brigade

1st Life Guards 255
2nd Life Guards 235
Royal Horse Guards 246
1st Dragoon Guards 255

991 all ranks.

Watier, 13th Cavalry Division

1st Brigade, Dubois
1st Cuirassiers 465
4th Cuiraissiers 314

2nd Brigade, Travers
7th Cuiraissiers 180
12th Cuiraissiers 258

1217 all ranks.

IF it was the full division. I'd be willing to bet big horses, big men and seemingly overwhelming numbers didn't scare veteran cuirassiers worth a damn. All the easier to cut them down.

That must be why the cuirassiers cut their way through the allies lines, only to be shot down by boyes anti tank besses.

And would that have been a portion or a majority, unlike the Briish heavy cav ?
Very exerienced troopers probably knew instanteously when they had been bested… on any given day… and didn't press the issue once that had been ascertained.

Following Adkin, the scrap went something like this:

1) Only Dubois' brigade was part of the advance (1st and 4th Cuirassiers, approx 800 men). They were on the west side of La Haye Sainte and charged past it to cut up the hanoverian light battalion.

2) To get to the Cuirassiers, Somerset had to cross the sunken lane. Because of this, only two of his regiments actually took part in the initial charge – 1st Life Guards (c250) and the 1st Dragoon Guards (c600). The 2nd LG and Royal Horse Guards (both c250) formed a second line.

3) After being defeated, the French Cuirassiers split into two groups – part of them fled back past the west side of LHS, others headed for the road and went down the east side.

4) The Household Brigade also split to pursue – the 1LG, RHG and some of 1st DG followed the Cuirassiers on the west side until they were turned back by infantry squares of II Corps. The 2LG and most of 1DG went east of LHS and got involved with the retreating cuirassiers, French infantry and the grand battery. They were eventually routed by counter-attacks from other cuirassiers – certainly Travers and possibly part of Farine's brigade.

5) The casualties of the HH brigade are quite revealing for the wisdom of going east vs west (albeit these are for the full battle) -

Stayed on the west side of LHS:

1LG – 65 casualties (c25%)
RHG – 98 casulaties (c40%)

Crossed to the east of LHS:

2LG – 155 casualties (c60%)
1DG – 275 casualties (c50%)

There are any number of reasons why the British could have driven off a superior number of cuirassiers, many of which have little to do with big horses or armor.

And once the actual causes are known, the second question is whether or not that says anything meaningful about any stand-up advantages enjoyed by cuirassiers vs British Heavies or vice versa.

Bill

All we seem to have establshed is that troops scattered all over the shop after action, successful or otherwise, are vulnerable to counterattack.