How many gamers of the Wars of the Grand Alliance, the Silesian Wars, and the Napoleonic Wars use rules allowing a protective factor to cuirasssiers under musket fire? And what about canister and rifle?
None of those, but our BP WSS stats give Cuirassiers an advantage
They have a higher morale than normal heavy cavalry due to esprit due corpsand heavy cavalry bonus in the games we've played.
Still means they get shot down on the way in though!
Their horses didn't wear armour and are a much bigger percentage of the target.
Without the horse they are just a gadgie in a metal vest, with a sword. Okay and a carbine.
Thought so. Do some research, folks; you may find you want to put in a few rewrites. Duffy cites a French study in which they concluded that 1, 700 of their cavalry had been saved from musket fire in a single battle in the SYW.
Hi
Which battle was that?
I thought the cuirass was proofed?
My Napoleonic cuirassiers get a very small advantage against musketry, but a bigger advantage against other cavalry and no advantage against artillery.
Quote from: Bernie on 30 March 2014, 10:03:28 AM
Hi
Which battle was that?
Might have been Johannisberg. I'll check.
Quote from: fsn on 30 March 2014, 10:40:14 AM
I thought the cuirass was proofed?
Genuine question from old Mr Ignoramus.
By proofed, do you mean the cuirass had some sort of padding behind the armour ?
Or was it literally a plain, shaped piece of metal ?
Cheers - Phil.
This comes from an anecdote about the battle of Lauffeld/Laffeldt (1747). It is basically some guys guess at how good the cuirass was at this battle and is clearly, at bes,t an exaggeration. It was often cited at the time by those people who thought armour was important and mainly ignored by everyone else. It is hardly serious evidence, either way, and I am surprised Duffy thinks it is.
The reality was that cuirass were worn as little as possible in the field and abandoned completely by the French in 1767. That tells you all you need to know about the effectiveness of it as protection.
Personally I am with mad lemmey - the main effect of being a 'cuirassier' is morale.
Quote from: Techno on 30 March 2014, 11:06:06 AM
Genuine question from old Mr Ignoramus.
By proofed, do you mean the cuirass had some sort of padding behind the armour ?
Or was it literally a plain, shaped piece of metal ?
Cheers - Phil.
Phil,
proofing was process of testing armour by subjecting it to a strike by a weapon. It's where the expression bulletproof comes from.
Slightly better explanation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_%28armour%29
Mmm, but the French gave up a lot of things, and the result was an army that never once beat the English.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 30 March 2014, 11:19:32 AM
Mmm, but the French gave up a lot of things, and the result was an army that never once beat the English.
Oh yes they did - several times.
IanS
The proofing mark/dent from test ball could easily be made with a balpeen hammer.
I mean that they moved away from linear tactics and trained professional troops in the Napoleonic Wars. And an army that Frederick or Dessauer would have chosen repeatedly beat them.
Quote from: fsn on 30 March 2014, 10:40:14 AM
I thought the cuirass was proofed?
My Napoleonic cuirassiers get a very small advantage against musketry, but a bigger advantage against other cavalry and no advantage against artillery.
Wrong Napoleon; the cuirassiers of the second empire wore proofed cuirasses, excellent thread on TMP here where I post as Ramming - http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=262304
Thanks for that link, cameronian. An extremely interesting and informative thread.
Then, of course, there's Clint Eastwood's testimony on the subject....
Surely the real value of cuirasses is that you can't be run through the body by enemy horsemen. Perhaps in terms of games it should confer an advantage in melee, but be of little use against fire?
Duffy again: 18th century sword wounds in a cavalry melee were usually disabling cuts to the right forearm.
Quote from: Ithoriel on 30 March 2014, 11:16:19 AM
Phil,proofing was process of testing armour by subjecting it to a strike by a weapon. It's where the expression bulletproof comes from.
Thanks 'I'. :)
I'm never,
ever going to catch up......But it's fun trying....And learning all sorts of new 'stuff'. :)
Cheers - Phil.
In the Napoleonic period the Prussians abandoned the Cuirasseses'ses but still classified their heaviest cavalry as Curassiers, so for the 1806 army (the only part that Napoleon was worried about was the cavalry) in principles of war they are rated as high morale heavy cavalry, not as good as French Curassiers, but stil a threat!
It didn't help they were brigaded as support units for the infantry rather than being with the Dragoon divisions!
I had always presumed that most cavalry that were 'killed' in battle was due to the mounts being killed and injured as much as the riders themselves
Quote from: FierceKitty on 30 March 2014, 07:50:51 AM
Thought so. Do some research, folks; you may find you want to put in a few rewrites. Duffy cites a French study in which they concluded that 1, 700 of their cavalry had been saved from musket fire in a single battle in the SYW.
Hi FK!
Chris Duffy has written prolifically on the period, could you help with a reference, perhaps? I have most of his books.
Many thanks in advance,
Mollinary
Having consulted my library (yes, real books!) I see that I was sort of wrong. French cuirasses were not proof at short range. Private Morris said that they "the armour was not ball-proof and firing at 12 paces, the steady square repelled their repeated charges" (from The Art of Warfare in the Age of Napoleon, Gunther E Rosenberg, Batsford, London 1977).
Similarly Haythornthwaite (Napoleonic Sourcebook, Guild Publishing, 1990) asserts that the armour was "no longer proof against musketry at short range". He also notes that the weight was a great disadvantage. However, he says that at Eckmuhl, fully armoured French cuirassiers inflicted 13 deaths to one in melee against Austrian cuirassiers with chest plate only. In my opinion that may have as much to do with morale and training as a backplate, but I stick to my rule of a minor benefit vs infantry, bigger one against cavalry and no benefit against artillery.
I also apologise to the forum for using the term "proofing" without explanation. It was rude. :-[
I've always thought that it was far more important in cavalry v. cavalry combat to have a big, strong horse under you, rather than any sort of armour. Our rules have always classified shock cavalry as "heavy" regardless of whether or not they wore body-armour. Big men on big horses take a deal of stopping.
As for cuirasses being bulletproof, I would have thought the point was academic, since a hit by a musket-ball on the armour, even if it failed to penetrate, would almost certainly knock the rider out of the saddle.
HAving done mounted sword training as a lancer, one of your movements is to swipe backwards as if you have gone through an enemy line of cavalry, one of the defences is to swing your sabre over your right shoulder to your left buttock to prevent said slice being to your spine. This could account for the casualties as described by FSN? Just a thought.
Having charged British squares (and been charged whilst in one) it is pretty scary on both sides of that coin.
I agree with Hertsblue, the cuirassier was a big man on a big horse, they were the elite and they knew it, this conferred a feeling of superiority over the opponent. The advantage of the cuirass may well have been one of morale, the trooper felt safer (regardless of the truth of this) and therefore performed better. The Saxon Cuirassiers often fought without the Cuirass (I remember reading that the Zastrow Regt charged the Great Redoubt at Borodino without their armour) and were widely recognised as some of the finest heavy cavalry in Europe. There are accounts of French Infantry using abandoned cuirasses as soup pots!
As regards the French Cuirassiers beating the Austrian Cuirassiers 13:1 in casualties, this could be due to any number of factors....surprise, caught while changing formation etc. not necessarily down to the lack of a back plate, and quite possibly a little bit of Francophile hysteria.
Napoleon told Jerome not to raise a cuirassier Regt in Westphalia because of the cost and better value to be gained from other types of cavalry ( he was ignored!)
In most of the rules I use, Cuirassiers gain a benefit to charge (better Morale) but don't reduce casualties due to the cuirass.
Gosh! Aren't we're having a proper discussion?
Big men on big horses.
I've done a bit more digging and the consensus seems to be that the cuirass was too heavy and cumbersome. They were, however, useful protection in a cavalry melee.
As with all things, there must have been a compromise. I don't believe that the cuirass had no value, however it's protection must have come at a price in mobility.
Perhaps the question for Wargamers is "At what level does this matter?" Does it affect battle outcome, or only melee? Isn't it all a bit, micro-scale? Do better boots give infantry a move advantage? Does an extra inch on a bayonet give them a plus one in combat? Does a higher shako lead to more shots going over their heads? What we do know is these men were not invulnerable , and they were not unstoppable. What would we be trying to create,if we gave Cuirassiers more pluses? Resist the temptation to create supermen!
Mollinary
Quote from: mollinary on 30 March 2014, 09:58:41 PM
Perhaps the question for Wargamers is "At what level does this matter?" Does it affect battle outcome, or only melee? Isn't it all a bit, micro-scale? Do better boots give infantry a move advantage? Does an extra inch on a bayonet give them a plus one in combat? Does a higher shako lead to more shots going over their heads? What we do know is these men were not invulnerable , and they were not unstoppable. What would we be trying to create,if we gave Cuirassiers more pluses? Resist the temptation to create supermen!
Mollinary
Very wise
The Duffy book is The Military Experience in the Age of Reason; an absolute must-read for those interested in 18th century warfare in Europe. Though I'm amused to see the Napoleonics crowd hijacking the topic. "Hats off, gentlemen. If he were still alive, we should not be here."
Hijacking the topic? Surely not.
Ask any 18th century enthusiast, and you'll find a certain amount of irritation with the competition Napoleonics give us for players and headlines.
Or maybe some of us don't really do 18th Century, but do do Napoleonics and/or 19th century where the Curassiers were still used! ;)
Well, apart from AWI...
I game both Napoleonics and the Seven Years War. The question of the Cuirass is valid for both periods, British Heavy Horse didn't wear a Cuirass in either period, but, were not inferior to their opponents.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 31 March 2014, 03:45:24 AM
Ask any 18th century enthusiast, and you'll find a certain amount of irritation with the competition Napoleonics give us for players and headlines.
The original question asked about the Napoleonic Wars, which is why I've chipped in. That and becuase I have a fairly large number of books that I could consult for an informed view. I have a certain interest in the War of the Spanish Succession. I have read Duffy, and a number of other books on the C18, but find little of great interest, and surely that's OK? We all like what we like for whatever reasons we like it?
I don't know why an C18 would be irritated by the Napoleonic Wars. They flowed directly from the Revolutionary Wars of the ... C18. They are probably more popular becuase there is more material available, and because Airfix introduced their Waterloo range and not the Minden range. I certainly don't view C18 gamers (and let's be fair, that's quite a large reach) as superior, inferior or irritating. (Except the AWI. I hate the AWI. More myths than Bulfinch.)
I am puzzled by your comments Kitty.
Quote from: mollinary on 30 March 2014, 09:58:41 PM
Perhaps the question for Wargamers is "At what level does this matter?"
For me the question is, "if the cuirass had
no use why did they keep it?" There must have been sopme advantage to offset the disadvantages. Whether that effect is moral or physical is almost immaterial. Cuirassiers must have had some advantage, which I like to reflect in my rules. Similarly, I also give lancers a bonus against infantry, but punish them in a a cavalry melee.
However, I understand that not everyone likes that degree of fine tuning.
QuoteFor me the question is, "if the cuirass had no use why did they keep it?"
I think the point is they didn't. In the 18th century the use of them dwindled to almost nothing. While in later times many 'cuirassiers' didn't actually wear cuirasses and there was only limited conversion of units to 'cuirassiers'.
I think the real question should be 'if the cuirass was so useful why didn't they keep it'? Also perhaps 'why didn't they equip all/more units with it if it was so good'?
This is not to argue that 'cuirassiers' should not have combat advantages. Just that the vast bulk of the advantage these units had was because of higher morale, experience, esprit de corps, big/better men/horses.
I also game both SYW and Napoleonics (and WSS too, as it happens). Each has a different flavour, different personalities and different tactics. I don't see any conflict between them.
Did the cuirass have any battlefield utility? Well, Napoleon certainly thought so - he equipped all "cavelerie" regiments with them fairly early on in his reign. He also insisted that his two regiments of Carabiniers adopt back and breastplates in 1810, primarily to cut down casualties. Whether they actually did is possibly a matter of perception. It's interesting that the cuirass soldiered on in Europe right up until the end of the nineteenth century, although this is probably more attributable to military conservatism than protective efficiency.
Quote from: Last Hussar on 30 March 2014, 11:25:35 AM
The proofing mark/dent from test ball could easily be made with a balpeen hammer.
"Easily"? :o Remind me to get down my Second Empire cuirass to show you some time, you wouls really have to go some to touch it with a balpeen hammer.
If I may be allowed to add some Napoleonic observations without blunting my own 18th Century enthusiasm.
The French cuirass picked up from Waterloo by Sir Walter Scott and on display at his home, Abbotsford, is – if I recall correctly – shot through as if by a musket ball (or perhaps a piece of shrapnel).
The Eggmühl quote mentioned in the previous posts is from Marbot, as quoted on my 1809 Blog:
www.michaelscott.name/1809/1809blogpost103.htm (http://www.michaelscott.name/1809/1809blogpost103.htm)
As he says, the fight settled a question that had long been debated, as to the necessity of double cuirasses. 18th Century enthusiasts (like me, for example) can decide for themselves how far back that debate went.
The question that was settled was that heavy cavalry equipped with double cuirasses were at a definite advantage when in the thick of fighting (not facing a hail of bullets) over cavalry armed only with front plates (or no armour). This was when "courage, tenacity and strength were well matched" but "defensive arms were unequal". This would have allowed French cuirassiers in the future to get stuck in, knowing that their generals, at least, were convinced they had an advantage – despite any lack of training.
For me, the wargames question would be:
Should cuirassiers armed with double cuirasses be at an advantage over other heavy cavalry after a first round of melee?
QuoteShould cuirassiers armed with double cuirasses be at an advantage over other heavy cavalry after a first round of melee?
Given the time span involved in a typical wargames melee round, it's probably relevant immediately if it's relevant at all - cavalry formations would be "in the thick of it" immediately after contact, in seconds not minutes. Unless you've fine ground your rules to reflect seconds :D
(No great horse in the race, here! Although I subscribe more to the morale and elan boosting ability than the physical protection ability, I'm not totally convinced either way, for any of the period from the Sun King on up).
Quote from: toxicpixie on 31 March 2014, 12:40:41 PM
Given the time span involved in a typical wargames melee round, it's probably relevant immediately if it's relevant at all - cavalry formations would be "in the thick of it" immediately after contact, in seconds not minutes. Unless you've fine ground your rules to reflect seconds
For me, the advantage might come in a push back: Austrian cuirassiers (for example) being pushed back by French lose their heavy cavalry status.
Quote from: sunjester on 31 March 2014, 08:24:00 AM
"Easily"? :o Remind me to get down my Second Empire cuirass to show you some time, you wouls really have to go some to touch it with a balpeen hammer.
On a CHEAP cuirass you were trying to pass off as bulletproof....
To clarify I don't mean the force is coming from the balpeen - that just has the shape. There is a hairy arsed smith hittig it with a 8 pound lump hammer
Hi
Horses aren't proofed and a cuirassier with out a horse is up s**t creek.
The cuirassier came into his own due to the impetus of his charge .
His cuirass probably helped in a melee.
Napoleonic Austrian cuirassiers suffered a bit due to them having armour on the front only.
Jim
Wot Jim said.
My 2 penneth:
When cavalry charge and counter-charge each other the result is either: one side breaks and runs, both sides stop before they contact, or both sides slow and enter each others ranks in a general melee. This for a modern man is as near to understanding the reality of cavalry verses cavalry combat as I am ever likly to get. Armour in these situations is to help one side have the confidence to charge to contact and I am sure it tipped the balance in a lot of combats.
What we are guilty of as wargamers I often think is not allowing for the fact that the horse has a mind and a will of its own as well as the rider and in these circumstances could gallop away without its riders consent, a sort of involuntary flinch by the cavalry. On the other hand the horse could and did fight (examples Marbot at Eylau, sgt Ewart at Waterloo) and I would think the sort of large psychopathic horses like the Saxon heavy cavalry seemed to have were probably pretty scary to your average grass loving conscripted mount. So the big aggressive horse with a big armoured man is quite likly to affect the confidence of the cavalry coming the other way.
In my opinion the armour was bullet proof but did not save the man from musketry as his horse would be hit. It did give him a morale boost because he knew it was bullet proof and in mellee would certainly be pistol proof. Its chief utility though is during the charge, to give the cuirrasseur that bit of extra confidence.
Cheers Rob :)
Duffy again, though people seem determined to ignore his testimony: cavalry almost always interpenetrated each other down the files, since, as the previous poster and my learned colleague has just pointed out, horses are bright enough to try to avoid slamming into each other. Few rules seem to allow for this pretty obvious "contact plus ten seconds" situation.
Of course, the question everyone really wants an answer to is why on earth the lance didn't make a comeback for heavy cavalry combat. Grateful though I'd be for a bullet-proof breastplate, I'd rather be able to hit an enemy horseman at an extra three paces or so away, not to mention having a weapon which would have rewritten the drillbook for infantry defences against horse.
OK, that should provoke another twenty posts of so. :-\
Lack of horsemanship skill and time to train in use ?
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 April 2014, 11:22:26 AM
Duffy again, though people seem determined to ignore his testimony: cavalry almost always interpenetrated each other down the files, since, as the previous poster and my learned colleague has just pointed out, horses are bright enough to try to avoid slamming into each other. Few rules seem to allow for this pretty obvious "contact plus ten seconds" situation.
Duffy again (this time from
The Army of Maria Theresa: "There is ample evidence to show that rival forces of cavalry seldom met in head-on collision. In the Prince de Ligne's (a Walloon general serving in the Austrian army) experience the onrushing lines halted as if on the drill field, turned aside and trailed each other on parallel courses for a couple of minutes, then broke off contact altogether. Actual hand-to-hand combat occurred only when a fleeing force was overtaken by the enemy, in which case the victors and vanquished rode alongside exchanging blows, with the worst riders attracting most of the punishment."
Quote from: FierceKitty on 01 April 2014, 11:25:49 AM
Of course, the question everyone really wants an answer to is why on earth the lance didn't make a comeback for heavy cavalry combat. Grateful though I'd be for a bullet-proof breastplate, I'd rather be able to hit an enemy horseman at an extra three paces or so away, not to mention having a weapon which would have rewritten the drillbook for infantry defences against horse.
Are you talking about the heavy knightly lance, which was couched, or the light, eastern lance which was used "underhand" (and frequently thrown in combat)? For the former, the training required would have been too long to ensure proficiency in conscripts: for the latter, Napoleon and his contemporaries did introduce lancers, but unarmoured and mounted on light horses.
That's why I mentioned heavy cavalry. Surely what could be learned in 1525 or 1683 could also have been learned in 1756? It's not as if this was the age of low-quality mass conscript armies yet.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 02 April 2014, 09:24:26 AM
That's why I mentioned heavy cavalry. Surely what could be learned in 1525 or 1683 could also have been learned in 1756? It's not as if this was the age of low-quality mass conscript armies yet.
The heavy lancers of 1525 tended to be the nobility and thus armoured
cap à pied. Many of their horses were also armoured. They fared badly against pistoliers in the French Wars of Religion. By 1683 I would suggest that most western heavy cavalry were armed with pistols, as being easier to operate and having a longer reach than the lance. True, it can be argued that Vienna was relieved by Polish lances, but they were fighting against similarly armed troops. At Kliszow in 1702 the Polish lancer cavalry, having pushed back the Swedish cavalry mainly by weight of numbers, were halted and then driven back by the Swedish infantry. This was probably the swan-song of the heavy lancer.
I know. But I can't believe that sword-armed horse would have done any better.
Quote from: FierceKitty on 02 April 2014, 11:01:28 AM
sword-armed horse
Never seen a horse with arms.
Sorry. On a serious note the weapons on the man are secondary, it's the momentum of the horse that does the damage. Have faced 4 police horses in a controlled situation, cantering, and it's scary.
IanS
Quote from: ianrs54 on 02 April 2014, 11:20:17 AM
Sorry. On a serious note the weapons on the man are secondary, it's the momentum of the horse that does the damage. Have faced 4 police horses in a controlled situation, cantering, and it's scary.
IanS
Ah, it's all coming out now, Ian! :D
My worst experience in a bit of a free-for-all with riding crops was charging frontally into four riders abreast (ok, it was just a pony club game, not a real melee) and getting stirrups entangled. Who needs a lance or a sabre?
That Polo? Wasn't it supposed to be great practise for the cavalry melee!
I've never been a good enough rider for polo.
Given that I look like a sack of spuds, and have the grace of said sack, on any horse I couldn't comment :D
Sip (i) of the world, unite!