WI: British adopt Colonial tactics in Revolutionary War?

During the American Revolution, the Colonists won in large part due to the disparity between the tactics used by the two armies. The Colonists essentially conducted a guerrilla campaign, and did not like taking the British on face to face. The British considered such tactics "dishonorable", and had a tendency to march in straight lines and get mowed down.

The British later learned from the Colonists and put snipers to use during the Napoleonic Wars, but suppose they adopted them early on, during the Revolution when they saw how useful it was?

What it basically means is that now, the British deploy their own ambush teams and snipers, abandon their tendency to march forward in straight lines, and maybe even adopt camouflage clothing?
 
During the American Revolution, the Colonists won in large part due to the disparity between the tactics used by the two armies. The Colonists essentially conducted a guerrilla campaign, and did not like taking the British on face to face. The British considered such tactics "dishonorable", and had a tendency to march in straight lines and get mowed down.

The British later learned from the Colonists and put snipers to use during the Napoleonic Wars, but suppose they adopted them early on, during the Revolution when they saw how useful it was?

What it basically means is that now, the British deploy their own ambush teams and snipers, abandon their tendency to march forward in straight lines, and maybe even adopt camouflage clothing?

What would happen if the British used Rangers and Ranger tactics as they did in otl? Its the french who defeated the British, not colonial militia/regulars.
 
During the American Revolution, the Colonists won in large part due to the disparity between the tactics used by the two armies. The Colonists essentially conducted a guerrilla campaign, and did not like taking the British on face to face. The British considered such tactics "dishonorable", and had a tendency to march in straight lines and get mowed down.

The British later learned from the Colonists and put snipers to use during the Napoleonic Wars, but suppose they adopted them early on, during the Revolution when they saw how useful it was?

What it basically means is that now, the British deploy their own ambush teams and snipers, abandon their tendency to march forward in straight lines, and maybe even adopt camouflage clothing?

Actually, this is incorrect. While some Americans did use rifled guns effectively, the vast majority of damage done on the American battlefields was done the way it was done in Europe--massed muskets, and cannon, and properly-built earthworks. Muskets were so inaccurate that there was no real way to use them besides straight lines.

Camouflage is really quite useless, even harmful, until the advent of repeating guns in the late 19th century--in the thick clouds of smoke produced by flintlocks and percussion-cap guns, you want to be able to tell your friends from your foes, especially at the close ranges that infantry fought at (due to the aforementioned uselessness of muskets at long range). It also does a lot more for morale if the bright red coats of English infantry are seen marching as a solid block against the enemy. That's also why officers in the old days decorated their hats in feathers and their clothes in gold and jewels.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
Why would the Brits want to copy the Americans when the latter won only two pitched battles the whole war (the overwhelming majority of American "wins" being ambushes, raids, or sieges)?
 
The main thing that might make a difference is more light infantry - in the sense the term was used at the time - but that's more a matter of more mobile forces, not different tactics.

Wolfpaw: What battles are you counting as "pitched"?

Trying to think, oddly enough, where George Rogers Clark fits - it's a little more than a raid but his most significant win might be a siege for a given definition of.
 

Kaptin Kurk

Banned
Well, British Regulars may not have used guerilla tactics, but Loyalists aligned militias did, so I'm not so sure that you can really say the 'British' in so much as you might mean 'Crown Forces' didn't use Colonial tactics.
 

mowque

Banned
A very powerful rich force doesn't have to hide in the woods and freeze in Valley Forge.
 
There were various irregular/light infantry units fighting against the Revolutionaries, made up both of Loyalists and professional British soldiers.

For example, units like:

Butler's Rangers
Queen's Rangers
British Legion (Who quite hilariously had a uniform that was copied nearly completely by Lee's Legion, who fought for the Revolutionaries)

Furthermore, having taken a quick look through a couple of books on the subject, it would seem that the Light Infantry of the Continental Army were clad either in hunting shirts or standard style uniforms of the day (with modifications). The closest either side comes to using camouflage is the hunting shirts of some American riflemen or the green uniforms used by units such as Butler's Rangers or the British Legion. In fact it would seem that Green was used by several Loyalist Regiments, such as the Newfoundland Regiment and the Regiment of New York (Before their 1778 change of coat to Red with Blue facing and name change to King's Royal Regiment of New York).

I would also point out that various native peoples fought against the Revolutionaries.
 
The British army that fought most of the battles was ridiculously tiny, plus it tended to be only a few certain units ie the Guards, the 23rd Fusilieers, 33rd Foot known as the Pattern as they were reckoned one of the best line units in the whole army, plus some of the Highland units such as 71st. Added to these few the LI battalions formed by grouping several different line regiments light companies together, the Grenadiers formed the same way, remember also that there was only usually just ONE regular light dragoon regiment deployed. By the way the 33rd by the time of Guildford Courthouse would look more like your eponymous reb riflemen than your 1768 regulation starched martinet. Their tricorn has been unfastened and is now a slouch hat, the coat has been reduced to a jacket, the hair is certainly not powdered and slaved over. Mosquito trousers are worn rather than starched breeches, all quite a difference, oh and the musket barrels are probably browned rather than bright polished. The bayonets however are razor sharp, the powder pans clean and ready...

Major Patrick fergusson had developed a breech loading rifle and he had been given permission to recruit a force of 100 sharpshooters to use this rifle. The volunteers were predominately regular soldiers, they wore cut down jackets, added leather pockets to them, they generally would look just like you have suggested. They were quite a success but too few in number and he ended along with his unit totally outnumbered and wiped out at the Battle of Kings Mountain. (Many ARW battles are really just skirmishes).
 
KillerT: For the underinformed and very curious, what's the basis for the 33rd's, in a word, conversion?

As in, where did you read about that?

I've read far too little on the British Army in the American Revolution, and live on the wrong side of the ocean to expect to find books on it in the local bookstore.
 
During the American Revolution, the Colonists won in large part due to the disparity between the tactics used by the two armies. The Colonists essentially conducted a guerrilla campaign, and did not like taking the British on face to face. The British considered such tactics "dishonorable", and had a tendency to march in straight lines and get mowed down.

This is a common (and gross) misapprehension.

The British could not fight solely as "guerrillas", because Britain was the legal sovereign government. Not having any "regular" troops would mean giving up control of all major cities and not offering any protection to colonists loyal to Britain. That would be politically impossible.

Nor could the Patriots do so, for the same reasons.

In the American Revolutionary War, both sides deployed "regular armies", wearing uniforms, marching and fighting in ranks. The Patriots had the "Continental Army". Its main body was commanded by George Washington. There were additional Continental forces, such as the force commanded by Horatio Gates (but actually led by Benedict Arnold). That army defeated the British army under Burgoyne at Saratoga and forced its surrender.

Fighting between the regular armies decided control of the major cities. After the British defeated Washington's army at Harlem Heights, Brandywine, and Monmouth, they occupied New York and Philadelphia.

Both sides also deployed "irregulars". The British had Tory Rangers (see the career of Banastre Tarleton), and Indian allies.

The British lost the war because in an era of sailing ships, it was not possible for them to deploy and maintain sufficient force in America. Their forces in America won some battles, but suffered continual attrition. When France joined the war, they sent "regular" troops as reinforcements. This allowed Washington to win the battle of Yorktown and capture an entire British army - after which the British government gave up.
 
KillerT: For the underinformed and very curious, what's the basis for the 33rd's, in a word, conversion?

As in, where did you read about that?

I've read far too little on the British Army in the American Revolution, and live on the wrong side of the ocean to expect to find books on it in the local bookstore.

The 60th, later renamed as King's Royal Rifle Corps, also dressed and fought in a similar manner. This conversion happened under Howe (the older brother) during the French and Indian war. Osprey has several volumes on the loyalist during the conflict. Not great but decent enough as an introduction.
 
The 60th, later renamed as King's Royal Rifle Corps, also dressed and fought in a similar manner. This conversion happened under Howe (the older brother) during the French and Indian war. Osprey has several volumes on the loyalist during the conflict. Not great but decent enough as an introduction.

Thanks.

I have to think that if such regiments were more common, Britain would have had a better chance of effectively applying its strengths to the situation - but that's in a specific context that wasn't necessarily generally useful (and thus its hard to fault the powers that be for not doing it).
 
Saratoga was one of the two pitched battle victories. The other was Charleston, IIRC.
A few American victories
Concord Skrimish or small unit action
Trenton Skrimish or small unit action
Battle of Bennington Hessians
Saratoga
Cowpens
Battle of Guilford Courthouse
Battle of Kings Mountain Loyalists
Yorktown

Charleston was a loss
 
Basically what others including Killer T, DoomBunny and RichRostrom have said.

Very few Americans used rifles, as has already been said in this thread the old stereotype of bumbling redcoats getting picked off from the undergrowth by rifle using guerilla Americans is a myth. It was true at Monongahela against the French but from then on the British developed a very efficient form of North American warfare.

In many cases the British light infantry was just as good if not better than the Colonials. The British battered the Continental Army in nearly every major engagement save Saratoga and Yorktown. Even at battles like Guilford Courthouse where they were outnumbered more than 2 to 1, had been marching for weeks, were deep in enemy territory with little prospect of escape and the Americans held impressive defence positions in three lines, the British still won the battle. Also the Loyalists (especially in concert with Natives) were incredibly efficient irregular forces on the Mohawk and in the South, just as effective as the Patriot militia etc etc.

It wasn't military tactics or genius that won the Americans the war. Indeed Washington often remained committed to the idea of fighting the British in pitched battles and nearly lost his army on a number of occasions because of it. The war was won by politics and Washington's amazing ability to hold together the American Army no matter how many times the British battered it.

The British lost the war because it was incredibly unpopular at home and thus continuing it was hard at the best of times and impossible after Yorktown, because there was no central position of power to capture (which they learned after taking Philadelphia), they lost it because Howe was too lenient on the colonials and let Washington escape numerous times, because in an age when water based transport was the only quick transport the British couldn't be everywhere and they certainly couldn't hold every city given the amount of men they had and the huge size of America (remember without good roads, trains etc Eastern America was relatively speaking much larger in the colonial period and it's still pretty damn huge today). They lost it because their generals didn't co-operate with each other or the politicians at home leading to Saratoga and loads more bungling, because the French bankrolled the Americans, because they were at risk of invasion from the French and had to hold a large amount of the Royal Navy back in Europe which lead to the loss at the Chesapeake and then Yorktown. They lost it because against all the odds and despite constant defeats and political bickering Washington somehow managed to put an army into the field every spring. They lost it for all these reasons and more.

They didn't lose the war because of any kind of unique or superior American tactics. As late as the year of Yorktown, Washington was writing about how the war was nearly lost and how he couldn't keep it together much longer. America won the war through a whole lot of luck and insane resilience and willingness to continue fighting even when things looked bleak. So in essence the tactics didn't win the war for the Americans and the British did adopt colonial tactics (and were using them in the French and Indian War) but it's irrelevant because it was never a large factor in their loss.

Random fact but I did my undergraduate dissertation on the role of Loyalists from NYC in the Revolutionary War and they were very effective in battle and ended up throughout the Carribean, South and Northern colonies and man for man were more than a match for the Patriot militias.
 
Last edited:

amphibulous

Banned
The British lost the war because it was incredibly unpopular at home and thus continuing it was hard at the best of times and impossible after Yorktown, because there was no central position of power to capture (which they learned after taking Philadelphia), they lost it because Howe was too lenient on the colonials and let Washington escape numerous times, because in an age when water based transport was the only quick transport the British couldn't be everywhere and they certainly couldn't hold every city given the amount of men they had and the huge size of America (remember without good roads, trains etc Eastern America was relatively speaking much larger in the colonial period and it's still pretty damn huge today). They lost it because their generals didn't co-operate with each other or the politicians at home leading to Saratoga and loads more bungling, because the French bankrolled the Americans

Excellent post - comprehensive and concise.

But also the British lost because the French committed to a large scale conventional naval war and other huge spending - and the prize simply wasn't worth it. Quitting became the smart thing to do.
 
Excellent post - comprehensive and concise.

But also the British lost because the French committed to a large scale conventional naval war and other huge spending - and the prize simply wasn't worth it. Quitting became the smart thing to do.

Indeed. Not to mention the commitment of the French land forces, they did most of the besieging of Yorktown as the American forces had little experience at conducting European style sieges at the time. With the Battle of the Chesapeake (French win) leaving the door open to trap Cornwallis, similar numbers of French regulars as Continental regulars and Rochambeau's central role in directing the siege, Yorktown was really more of a French victory than an American one. Of course that wouldn't fit the creation myth of the United States, so it's promptly ignored for the romanticised version.

Simply put the same thing happened to the British in America as the Americans in Vietnam. Both won the vast majority of their battles, both had issues with geography and getting enough of the local population on their side, both were up against tenacious opponents (Ho Chi Minh idolised Washington incidentally) both could have fought on longer but the wars became too long, too costly, too unpopular and with too little left to gain to make it worthwhile continuing.
 
Last edited:
Top