"why use cuirasses if not bulletproof?" Topic

in each pistol bullit proof? saw one i at musee de armee

Well, they would stop a sword, or a lance, and I am guessing musket balls at a greater distance. Some armor is better than no armor in close quarters? Just my guesses.

Yes, it was primarily an anti-edged weapon item. As far as I can make out they were relatively pistol-proof at medium and long range and musket proof at very long range. However, in the latter case as the horse was still horribly vulnerable it did not make that much difference.

Because they looked pretty!

However, I would wager -- based on a few surviving examples-- that they would not stop a cannon ball ?

Russ Dunaway

morale boost, they were used long enough to be of use or they would have been dumped years ago !

They were re-adopted in the napoleonic period by many nations (including French). French policy was big heavy strong armoured men on very big horses aiming to intimidate and plough through wavering infantry.
Basically a morale/reputation thing: they were exceptionally fearsome. After Baylen, cuirrasses with holes from musketry were paraded to yry and fent the reputation for invulnerability.
Marbot (I think it was him) did however say Russian (or Austrian – cant remember) cuirrassiers were at a disadvantage to French in a melee as they had no backplate, which does suggest they were in fact usefull in combat. But Marbot is famously inventive and unreliable

Yes, it was Marbot and they were Austrian cuirassier at the cavalry battle before Regensburg, 1809.

"Courage, tenacity and strength were well matched, but the defensive arms were unequal, for the Austrian cuirasses only covered them in front, and gave no protection to the back in a crowd. In this way, the French troopers who, having double cuirasses and no fear of being wounded from behind had only to think of thrusting, were able to give point to the enemy's backs, and slew a great many of them with small loss to themselves… This fight settled a question which had long been debated, as to the necessity of double cuirasses, for the proportion of Austrians wounded and killed amounted respectively to eight and thirteen for one Frenchman."

Marbot, Volume I

I think. in this respect, there is no reason to doubt him.

Actually, if I had a choice between a breastplate or a backplate, I might well choose the backplate.

You have your sword to protect you from frontal blows, but if someone swipes at your back, you're defenceless.

I'm not sure I buy something because Marbot said it – wasn't he sort of a First-Empire Sven Hassel figure? Did Marbot ever comment on how cuirassiers made out against dragoons? They didn't have back plates either so presumably that was always a massacre too?

In my experience, it would also be justified by the fact that round shot fired from a smoothbore musket glances off a hard, curved surface much, much more easily with minie balls /rifles.

Somehow there were two but now 1, anyway I speculate even a musket at 100 yards if not less wouldn't have penetrated a curass but would love to know what gauge steel it was and have a few rounds at a replica..

after eylau russian collected French cuirses to form the russianes ful with them?

After Waterloo the Dutch collected French cuirasses too. However, their 4 karabinier divisions (=regiments) were armed with cuirasses based on one made for the Prince of Orange by a French Manufacturer.
The Dutch gave a number of the collected cuiraasses to the British though.

- from Abbotsford, from the field of Waterloo.

IIRC a French cuirass would keep out a pistol bullet at 30 yards' range. It had been intended that it would keep these out at longer range than that but it couldn't be achieved at an acceptable weight for the cuirass. The proving test was to fire a musket at the cuirass from 30 yards. If you got a dent it had passed. If you got a hole it had failed.

A glancing musket round that would have broken bones hitting an unarmoured man might well be deflected away by the cuirass. If a bullet hit square-on at pretty much any range, it would go clean through, I would think.

The carabiniers at Waterloo attacked the squares of the rifles and light infantry, and suffered proportionately the heaviest officer casualties of the heavy cavalry in doing so. This says to me that their cuirasses didn't help them. A marksman would shoot at the rider not the horse and these marksmen's bullets clearly unhorsed armoured riders without difficulty.

In 1815/16 the Dutch War Department wanted to put the cuirasses contracted for to the bullet test too.
The two manufacturers (Beghein and Dechange) refused that: the pattern (made by a French manufaturer) was not strong or heavy enough to pass that test. One was adamant that the French never used that test either.
One should realise that Beghein did not actually made the cuirasses himself; he bought them from the French munufacturer Zuderell.

Once again I'd point out the frustration of 'Waterloo'~ La Haie ridge- it was a ridiculously tight battlefield.
Having been there and walked it- I'd defy anyone (now) to stand opposite a 80 gun battery @ 750 yards and not wet themselves!

Of course every shot hit. Something. Bringing cavalrymen down by shooting horses was just as effective as killing the rider.

Horses by nature are very nervous animals- they become awkward when confronted with an obstacle, expecially a living one. They also become distraught and uncontrollable when another large animal is in pain or suffering. (You don't leave them near when slaughtering cattle frinstance).

Cuirasses are like hard-hats- a cosmetic approach to a logical question- will a falling steel beam or hot bolts/ timber stave be deflected and not kill me?
dw

I remember a quote a once red:

The main function of armour is not to protect the wearer, but to make him think he is protected!

The main field can indeed be walked, in a diamond shape, in less than an hour.

It is the "standing" thing that still gets me. I know that stationary units, in line or square, did sometimes lie prone. But I do wonder why not universally until required to move or fire.

Was it regarded as worse for morale than having roundshot plough through you, or did it not provide much protection from such, or did it require more training to make sure they would stand when needed?

I do like the photo above, which is new to me. The Polish Lancer's Czapka with a cuirass would not have been a good look.

did it require more training to make sure they would stand when needed?

I've read that it was this, but I have forgotten where…

That Czapka at Abbotsford looks in suspiciously good condition. I suspect it is like Trigger's broom, 17 new heads and 14 new handles!

Someone should educate 'those people' in museums!

Anyway, another example of why- cannister result. Actual example from Wagram purchased by one of the Brunons on a visit there.

[

‌IMG_4779_Pierced cuirass from Wagram_ ©Uniformes_#46 Nov-1979

by DaveW on Flickr.

I have a few others in my private slide collection of museum exhbits, yet to be fully unearthed or catalogued.
regards davw

I suppose the obvious of information required, which might not be available, is what percentage of cavalry casualties arose from melee versus small-arms and artillery fire.

If 75% of your average dragoon regiment's losses were to melee and 25% to fire, it's useful in that it may protect the wearer from the most frequent type of injury. This argument is a lot harder to sustain if the ratio is the other way around.

Never seen that cuirasse before. Everyone knows the Carabinier one with a much bigger hole front and back, but there was a suggestion on this forum that the wound might have been survivable….hmmm. This poor chap seems to have been hit with a large fragment of something in his left upper abdomen and a midline mediastinal smaller impact that would go through all the great vessels to and from the heart.

I can hear the cry "Medic! Medic" in French, but I think either wound would be a little hoper even now.

Never seen that cuirasse before. Everyone knows the Carabinier one with a much bigger hole front and back, but there was a suggestion on this forum that the wound might have been survivable….hmmm. This poor chap seems to have been hit with a large fragment of something in his left upper abdomen and a midline mediastinal smaller impact that would go through all the great vessels to and from the heart.

I can hear the cry "Medic! Medic" in French, but I think either wound would be a little hoper even now. Which of course is why his cuirasses was found and is now in a museum.

Someone mentioned Turenne:-

‌IMG_4807_©Colln de Musee d'Armee by DaveW, on Flickr

cheers
d

And another from the Uniformes article, ball not cannister, and perhaps more familiar but different to the well known carabinier injury:-

‌IMG_4809_Pierced cuirass from Wagram_ ©Uniformes_#46 Nov-1979 by DaveW, on Flickr

The Punch Line
With regard to losses, the articles summation; the 3e Division de Cuirassiers (les 1er, 2e, 4e, 5e, 6e, 7e, 8e, 9e et 12e regiments) killed and wounded was
- at Essling 304 and 341
- at Wagram 121 and 175 respectively.

regards
davew

The original 'standard' for cuirasses was that they be 'proofed' 'by three musket shots at thirty paces.'

The number of cuirasses rejected on this standard 'brought howls of protest from the patriotic businessmen and from their friends in the War Ministry.'

What was decided that the proofing would consist of would be one musket shot 'at long range.'

The cuirass was not 'an effective defense' against short range musket fire, but it was much better against pistol shots and was 'secure against lance, saber, and bayonet.'

The cuirass was certainly not proof against artillery fire, round shot or canister.

The Cuirassier Divisons in 1809:

16 April 1809:

1st Heavy Cavalry Division (Nansouty):

1st Carabiniers
2d Carabiniers
2d Cuirassiers
9th Cuirassiers
3d Cuirassiers
12th Cuirassiers

5013 all ranks plus 348 artillerymen in two horse artillery companies.

2d Heavy Cavalry Division (Saint Sulpice):

1st Cuirassiers
5th Cuirassiers
10th Cuirassiers
11th Cuirassiers

3259 all ranks plus 168 artillerymen in one horse artillery company.

3d Heavy Cavalry Division (d'Espagne):

4th Cuirassiers
6th Cuirassiers
7th Cuirassiers
8th Cuirassiers

2914 all ranks plus 212 artillerymen in two horse artillery companies.

21-22 May 1809:

1st Heavy Cavalry Division (Nansouty):

Same regimental makeup composed of 3522 all ranks.

2d Heavy Cavalry Division (St Sulpice):

Same regimental makeup composed of 2305 all ranks.

3d Heavy Cavalry Division (d'Espagne):

Same regimental makeup composed of 2595 all ranks.

5-6 July 1809:

All three heavy cavalry divisions retained the same regiments. Arrighi now commanded the 3d Heavy Cavalry Division as d'Espagne was killed in action at Essling.

Strengths:

1st Heavy Cavalry Division:4063 all ranks.

2d Heavy Cavalry Division:2010 all ranks.

3d Heavy Cavalry Division:2218 all ranks.

Aggregate strengths of the three heavy cavalry divisions:

16 April 1809 (Eckmuhl):11,186 all ranks.

21-22 May 1809 (Essling):8422 all ranks.

5-6 July 1809 (Wagram):8291 all ranks.

rumur says napoleon had one of his own when wearing it he looked like a turtle

'…considering the cuirassiers' prestige, [Napoleon] never added a cuirassier regiment in the Imperial Guard…According to one contemporary yarn, the Emperor did consider doing so and turned the job of designing itss uniform over to the famous artist Jacques-Louis David. Having duly pondered the matter, David paraded several grenadiers a cheval dressed in his new creation, which combined the worst aspects of the Middle Ages and ancient Greece and Rome. Even Murat was shocked, and the project was dropped.'-John Elting, Swords Around a Throne, 234.

Here the source (in French) for the project of cuirassiers de la garde impériale:

link

It doesn't mention Murat though.

Apparently, both Napoleon and Berthier had cuirasses and helmets designed and made for them. They were also a little over the top and were not adopted.

If I recall correctly, there is a picture of them in one of the older La Sabretache books.

Updater__ There are two threads same title, not replies:

Other: TMP link
Same from 2005; TMP link

More___ still bigger than a pistol [effect]…

Throw this in to pot:
ageofrevolution.org/200-object/antoine-fauveau-cuirass/

The 'Berthier' cuirass is exhibited somewhere else, Musée de Paris perhaps (from memory)? Well lit case so I have a great pic [slide] of it. Ceremonial black with not a lot of gilding- no more ostenatious than similar Austrian ones.

And everyone looks like a turtle in them [eg Household troop]; so insulting the Emperor just because you don't like him/ his legacy means nothing… schrapnel off a Carabiniers casquet!
regards chers lecteurs

And this thread seems to have a few clues as well…plus side view of the above cuirass.

history.stackexchange.com/questions/7270/was-the-napoleonic-era-cavalry-armour-effective-against-firearms/39008

If you want a whole passel of them just: google.co.uk/search?q=cuirass+hit+by+cannon+ball&tbm=isch&tbo=

I've saved article and will transcribe if I have to___
d &^%$!