??I thought Britain used to have its own mounted Lifeguards and Hussars........no?:inquisitive:
Printable View
??I thought Britain used to have its own mounted Lifeguards and Hussars........no?:inquisitive:
I think this actually just underlines:
1 The Russian guns were very poorly served
2 The Cossacks reputation was (and still is) vastly overblown. Maybe because even then there was a large number of people ready to assign super human powers to "cool" sounding units - something that haunts every TW board going. Faced with regular cavalry rather than poor benighted moujiks they fled. The largely forgotten (but more successful) Charge of the Heavy fits in with this as well.
3 Support was not provided because, no sane Allied commander, even amongst those mentalist Victorians, could have predicted that anyone would be stupid enough to attempt it, even less succeed.
The whole point of the charge was the fact that it did succeed, even if in a very limited way. The shock being the success of cavalry in this situation.
It was one of the worst military engagements ever. The only outstanding thing about it was the fortitutde and endurance of the men so badly led. Cavalry should never have done what it did, and had it succeed in driving off the Russian infantry, which of course they didn't being cavalry, they would've had no way to hold on to the guns. Typical Victorian nincompoops.
British Hussars don't exist until 1806. When the 7th, 10th, 15th and 18th light dragoon regiments were restyled into Hussars. And the household cavalry regiments (1st and 2nd lifeguards and the royal horse guards) wouldn't have been much differently equipped than the 7 dragoon guard and 6 dragoon regiments. Now days they wear metal breast plates but that's cause they defeated the French carabiners and curiassurs at Waterloo.