"Cuirass and movement" Topic

Throughout the 18th and early 19th century I see quite a bit of oscillation of heavy cavalry adopting, then discarding, and adopting the cuirass again and again. It appears that people could not make up their mind as to whether the extra protection of a breastplate was worth the cost and encumbrance. Does anyone have information about this issue. Just how useful was it in the 18th and 19th centuries? How much did it restrict or slow down an individual horseman?

Hi there

You've almost answered your own question. The fact that it went in and out of favor suggests the value of the protection (and confidence the real or imagined protection gave)compared with its downsides was a finely balanced one for the military minds of the age.

I guess there's a secondary consideration, you want some of your cavalry optimised for shock work, some optimised for scouting / skirmishing / dash and some to be able to do a bit of both – but what proportion of each?

Regards

David F Brown

There was an analysis of an action between Russian and French cuirassiers where the Russians came off significantly worse due to only having a partial cuirass (front breastplate only). So it certainly seems to have made a difference.
However, I don't know if it took into account numbers involved, tactical situation, training etc. I'm sure someone will be along with a link.

Much discussion here only last month on the subject. I learnt much from this;

TMP link

The conversion of the French heavy cavalry arm to cuirassiers after Napoleon's becoming First Consul greatly improved the French heavy cavalry which had myriad problems during the Wars of the French Revolution.

The two regiments of carabiniers were not armored until 1810 after suffering heavy casualties in the 1809 campaign.

The French cuirass of both breast and back plates was shown to be superior to the Austrian use of only breastplates at the large heavy cavalry action at Eckmuhl in April 1809 where the Austrian heavy cavalry suffered heavy casualties, some of it attributed to not having backplates.

B

Cyclops,

It was the Austrians that you are thinking about, and I think Kevin gives the most discussed example, Eckmuhl. However, deciding how much importance to attribute to the difference in cuirasses is not trivial.

The Russians used the "front plate only" style before the wars with Napoleon. They had no cuirasses from 1801-1811. From 1812, they used front and back style as did the French (actually, a unit of converted dragoons used captured French armor), and wore it always.

- Sasha

Given their weapon of choice, how could it NOT have been worth it for melees with opposing heavy cavalry? It's worked for centuries.

Seems to me, its value versus ranged attackers would be the only question. Or whether its worth it cost-wise- but since heavy cav were already quite expensive, I'd think, in for a penny, in for a pound.

Its value versus ranged attackers seems to have been approximately nil – a French cuirass was tested by having three pistol bullets fired at it, but it wouldn't keep one out at any likely actual combat range.

It must have been better than nothing against a glancing pistol or sabre impact, but whether it was also better than no cuirass and no encumbrance seems to have been much disagreed on.

Napoleon thought they were worth having, and it's hard to disagree with him.

Thing is these discussions always seem to forget the cavalry wearing the cuirass could cover effective musket range very quickly, it's main job was to protect the wearer from close combat blows and this it did well. The other thing us wargamers always forget is the effect on enemy morale of seeing steel clad heavy cavalry on big horses thundering towards you that impact is just as important if not more so to the battlefield effectiveness of heavy cavalry in my opinion :)

Napoleon had a strong sense of symbolism and psychology. If he wanted to transform the quality of French heavy cavalry then the psychological impact of this kind of change would be incalculable. It says to those officers and troopers "Napoleon thinks you are so important that he's going to spend all this money on you". Better justify his confidence.

The interesting thing is that neither Carabineers (initially) nor the Guard heavy cavalry were issued with the cuirass. Since these units already had reliable morale, it suggests that it was the moral value that was foremost in Napoleon's mind.

And the status of the Carabineers is interesting. They fought alongside their armoured companions. They were even part of that famous Eckmuhl combat. Is there any suggestion that their performance or casualties were any worse?

And the heavy casualties they suffered in 1809, the reason for their getting the new cuirasses – I thought this was more from musketry and artillery than hand to hand combat? Against which the armour was nearly useless. I don't think any Austrian cavalry unit managed to maul them. No doubt we are back to the moral again – the prospect of the two regiments being swamped with new recruits who would not be up tot the same standard.