Would Frech Cuirassier type units found any success in the American Civil War?

[Mitchell Hundred]

These were the mounted shock troops used up to and through the Napoleonic wars. They were armored on both their chest and head and carried a long blade.

The armor was apparently sufficient enough to deflect most pistol shots as well as shrapnel and apparently glancing musket balls as well.

If either side adopted this could it have been used to any success in the time-frame of the ACW?

 

[BlondieBC]

Yes, if you somehow get them trained to French standards.

 

[highwayhoss]

These were the mounted shock troops used up to and through the Napoleonic wars. They were armored on both their chest and head and carried a long blade.

The armor was apparently sufficient enough to deflect most pistol shots as well as shrapnel and apparently glancing musket balls as well.

If either side adopted this could it have been used to any success in the time-frame of the ACW?

Frankly, I doubt it. Most Cavalry in the ACW fought as Dragoons; they would fight either mounted or on foot. Armor would not only increase costs significantly, but also hinder mobility.

 

[SwampTiger]

Pretty to watch, but not likely. Both sides had difficulty acquiring sufficient numbers of riding and draft horses. Cuirassiers require large, strong horses to operate. Better use of these mounts is to haul supplies and artillery. Few infantrymen are going to fire pistols at these large targets. Lots of large caliber rifles will kill and maim your armored cavalry and their valuable horses.

 

[highwayhoss]

Cailed upon to characterize the nature of Civil War cavalry combat, William F. Fox, in his seminal Regimental Losses, was forced to conclude that in most cases rough terrain prevented the use of effective cavalry charges and forced troopers to dismount and rely on their carbines. Horses often were used simply as a means of quick conveyance, rather than a means of attack. To be effective, a charge had to be delivered by a tight, ordered cavalry line traveling at speed, and, of course, movement over broken ground made this impossible. In such cases it was much more practical to dismount and have some of the men guard the horses, while the main body of the cavalry force fought on foot.

Brent Nosworthy. The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War (Kindle Locations 5588-5592). Kindle Edition.

In this regard, French Cuirassiers would not be useful. As noted in the book I quoted, Sabers were difficult to use in Forests or broken ground; in this regard, revolvers were more useful and handy.

 

[highwayhoss]

One interesting aspect, according to The Bloody Crucible of Courage was the fact that throughout the war, there was intense debate over how cavalry should be armed. Some were pro-saber while others reviled it. Some parties argued for revolvers while some like N.B. Forrest argued for shotguns. In the latter part of the war, many Confederate officers bemoaned the fact that their cavalry was often bested by Union horsemen armed with sabers conducting successful charges.

 

[Captain Jack]

Yes, if you somehow get them trained to French standards.

I think this is the crux of it. Sticking existing cavalry units into cuirassier equipment wouldn’t do anything. But training the soldiers to the French standard and, I think critically, training the commanders in how to properly handle this type of cavalry would create a unit that would see success. This issue is how to develop the necessary skills and competence during a war in an army that had essentially no experience with heavy cavalry.

 

[BlondieBC]

I think this is the crux of it. Sticking existing cavalry units into cuirassier equipment wouldn’t do anything. But training the soldiers to the French standard and, I think critically, training the commanders in how to properly handle this type of cavalry would create a unit that would see success. This issue is how to develop the necessary skills and competence during a war in an army that had essentially no experience with heavy cavalry.

So to the next question, if we assume the South has a couple regiments of these troops, where would they make the most difference? What is the actual doctrine to use these troops?

 

[wtw]

So to the next question, if we assume the South has a couple regiments of these troops, where would they make the most difference? What is the actual doctrine to use these troops?

Probably not after the first few battles troops would know how to handle them with Rifle and Cannon.

 

[wtw]

These were the mounted shock troops used up to and through the Napoleonic wars. They were armored on both their chest and head and carried a long blade.

The armor was apparently sufficient enough to deflect most pistol shots as well as shrapnel and apparently glancing musket balls as well.

If either side adopted this could it have been used to any success in the time-frame of the ACW?

by the way it was later than that, the French were using these troops into world war one

 

[Captain Jack]

So to the next question, if we assume the South has a couple regiments of these troops, where would they make the most difference? What is the actual doctrine to use these troops?

My understanding, subject to correction by anyone who knows more obviously, is that cuirassiers were best employed in an anti-cavalry role. It was noted that saber armed cavalry were best suited for the melee engagements whereas lancers were suited for the charge. So cuirassiers were ideally used to engage and defeat enemy dragons and lancers where they held the advantage. Lancers, at least in their nineteenth century revival, were used in an anti-infantry role where the lance enhanced the impact of the charge against dense infantry formations. Honestly, the real advantage of these ACW cuirassiers would probably be proper training as heavy cavalry and the knowledge of how to use them combined with a lack of knowledge by the opponent on how to respond to heavy cavalry. The equipment itself would just be an enhancement if that- other nations started to drop the cuirasses from their cuirassiers by the next decade anyway. Lancers kept their lances much longer, and even seem to have made effective use of them into World War 1. For more detailed suggestions on how to use cuirassiers we’d probably want to look at near contemporary European conflicts. Franco-Prussian War, Third Carlist War, Austro-Prussian War, Crimean War, etc.

 

[highwayhoss]

The fundamental problem is that there is no heavy cavalry tradition in the US like in Europe. Early in the war, Union recruiters actually rejected volunteer cavalry units. It was not until First Bull Run and the experience with the Virginia Black Horse would the Union recruit Cavalry units; even then they were used in penny packets.
One impediment to forming heavy cavalry was the early war bias against the saber; most commentators thought the revolver and or carbine would be more useful. Also the US put more emphasis on light cavalry and dragoons. During the mid-war phase, Union cavalry gained experience and confidence along with a renewed appreciation of the saber; as a result, they became much more proficient. However cuirasses would not be seriously considered; as I noted earlier, it adds weight and cost and impairs mobility. Lancers? No way. The emphasis would be on flexibility and proficiency on both foot and saddle.

 

[VictorLaszlo]

My understanding, subject to correction by anyone who knows more obviously, is that cuirassiers were best employed in an anti-cavalry role. It was noted that saber armed cavalry were best suited for the melee engagements whereas lancers were suited for the charge. So cuirassiers were ideally used to engage and defeat enemy dragons and lancers where they held the advantage. Lancers, at least in their nineteenth century revival, were used in an anti-infantry role where the lance enhanced the impact of the charge against dense infantry formations. Honestly, the real advantage of these ACW cuirassiers would probably be proper training as heavy cavalry and the knowledge of how to use them combined with a lack of knowledge by the opponent on how to respond to heavy cavalry. The equipment itself would just be an enhancement if that- other nations started to drop the cuirasses from their cuirassiers by the next decade anyway. Lancers kept their lances much longer, and even seem to have made effective use of them into World War 1. For more detailed suggestions on how to use cuirassiers we’d probably want to look at near contemporary European conflicts. Franco-Prussian War, Third Carlist War, Austro-Prussian War, Crimean War, etc.

The French employed both lancers and cuirassiers during their invasion of Mexico in the time of the American Civil War, though I don't know how successful they were in doing so.

 

[Dave Howery]

If you're going to spend a lot of time and money on ACW-era cavalry, wouldn't the north have done better to have set up more regular cavalry units armed with Spencer rifles? AIUI, these units were pretty effective, but there were never enough of them...

 

[Mitchell Hundred]

If you're going to spend a lot of time and money on ACW-era cavalry, wouldn't the north have done better to have set up more regular cavalry units armed with Spencer rifles? AIUI, these units were pretty effective, but there were never enough of them...

For a similar reason I would think this would be more a tempting thing for the south precisely due to their lack of industrial capabilities vs the north.

Some southern general actually contemplated bringing back pike-men due to the inability to supply all men with rifles.

Not to mention the average southerner was apparently more proficient on horseback than the more urbanized northerners.

 

[edgeworthy]

It is interesting to speculate about the usefulness of a Heavy Cavalry Charge on a Civil War Battlefield. Even if we only get something like Von Bredow's Death Ride, or comments on how resources should have been allocated elsewhere.

Its probably possible to come up with at least one occasion where a Cuirassier Regiment would have been useful, if only as an immediate counter-attack, such as in the aftermath of Pickett's Charge. Hitting already disordered and retreating infantry could have been catastrophic, just as long as they had the sense to rally along the Emmitsburg road.

 

[highwayhoss]

If you're going to spend a lot of time and money on ACW-era cavalry, wouldn't the north have done better to have set up more regular cavalry units armed with Spencer rifles? AIUI, these units were pretty effective, but there were never enough of them...

Late war US Cavalry proved very flexible and capable; armed with breechloading carbines, revolvers and sabers, they were very effective at both dismounted and mounted combat.

 

[highwayhoss]

For a similar reason I would think this would be more a tempting thing for the south precisely due to their lack of industrial capabilities vs the north.

Some southern general actually contemplated bringing back pike-men due to the inability to supply all men with rifles.

Not to mention the average southerner was apparently more proficient on horseback than the more urbanized northerners.

Nosworthy said it best:

The newly raised cavalry regiments in the South did not experience the same degree of teething problems. Their recruits had grown up riding horses. Though certainly not lacking in horsemanship and natural talent, Confederate cavalry regiments possessed a tendency that would make itself felt several years later. A captain of hussars in the Imperial Austrian Service, Fitzgerald Ross had been sent to closely examine every aspect of the Southern troops. He characterized the Confederate cavalry as really a type of mounted infantry; though there was no standardization of weapons. Some showed up with sabers, others with pistols; almost all the recruits brought muskets, in the use of which they had been trained from earliest youth. There was little or no time for regular cavalry drill and the saber, which Ross believed was the "true arm of real cavalry." Ross's remarks appear to be neutral observations, more a type of taxonomical reflection than an attempt to malign Confederate cavalrymen. In fact, Ross concluded that the Confederate authorities "act judiciously in taking their men as they found them, and not trying to establish the European system." The broken and wooded nature of most of the terrain, as well as the frequent fences, was not conducive to classical cavalry doctrine and precluded large-scale charges.

Brent Nosworthy. The Bloody Crucible of Courage: Fighting Methods and Combat Experience of the Civil War (Kindle Locations 3441-3448). Kindle Edition.

This was the problem, the terrain on many battlefields precluded the use of massed heavy cavalry.

It is interesting to speculate about the usefulness of a Heavy Cavalry Charge on a Civil War Battlefield. Even if we only get something like Von Bredow's Death Ride, or comments on how resources should have been allocated elsewhere.

Its probably possible to come up with at least one occasion where a Cuirassier Regiment would have been useful, if only as an immediate counter-attack, such as in the aftermath of Pickett's Charge. Hitting already disordered and retreating infantry could have been catastrophic, just as long as they had the sense to rally along the Emmitsburg road.

True, a proper counterattack by saber wielding Union Cavalry would have shattered the retreating Confederates.
In fact there was a cavalry attack made after the charge but it was badly bungled:

Following Pickett’s Charge, Kilpatrick directed Farnsworth to attack the extreme right of Rebel line. This was ordered, ostensibly, to exert such pressure on that vital defense point that the Confederates would be thrown back and their line opened up to a crushing assault by divisions of Union infantry. But it is also clear that Kilpatrick ordered the charge in frustration at having been kept out most of the day’s fighting. He realized that only an energetic officer who committed his troops to battle would win glory on this field.

But he asked the impossible of Farnsworth. The brigade commander was required to attack strongly positioned infantry over rough, boulder-strewn ground, despite being outnumbered. In point of fact, Farnsworth had tried that very thing a short while before and had failed signally. Naturally, he was stunned by the order. General, do you mean it? he asked. Shall I throw my handful of men over rough ground, through timber, against a brigade of infantry? The 1st Vermont has already been fought half to peices; these are too good men to kill!

Kilpatrick was enraged that Farnsworth should question his command. Do you refuse to obey my orders? If you are afraid to lead this charge, I will lead it.

A witness to the confrontation later recalled the General Farnsworth rose in his stirrups–he looked magnificent in his passion, and cried, ‘Take that back!’ Kilpatrick hesistated a moment and backed down, but would not withdraw his order. For some seconds there was silence between them, until Farnsworth said quietly, General, if you order the charge, I will lead it, but you must take the responsibility.

His troopers made the charge, were as successful as the Light Brigade at Balaklava, and the responsibility indeed rested on Kilpatrick’s shoulders. In his official report of the battle, however, he tried to cover up his mistake with bombastic words about the infantry’s failure to exploit the confusion into which Farnsworth had thrown the Rebel right.

From this article.

 

[Richard V]

Cavalry was effective in the Paraguayan War. So I imagine it would work in the ACW. But given the scale of the conflict I think heavy cavalry would be attritioned out of existence pretty quickly.

 

[Xgentis]

by the way it was later than that, the French were using these troops into world war one

So did the german at the start of WWI to disastrous result I might add. And French cuirassiers also had lance as well.