WI: British adopt Colonial tactics in Revolutionary War?

[amphibulous]

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.

Too which you can add the supposedly dull and definitely corrupt Hanoverians were smart enough to turn the odds on the French and the Netherlands - the French ended up bankrupted and London wolfed down more sugar islands and consolidated its lead in India. If Washington had done as well in Iraq, then Iran would be about to go bankrupt and Saudi Arabia would be a US possession. It's easy to think that because the modern world has science and technology that it does *everything* better than our ancestors did - but it's often not true.

 

[Wolfpaw]

Concord Skrimish or small unit action

Not a pitched battle; it was a skirmish in the woods. Americans were good at that. I never said that Americans didn't have victories, I said they only had two victories in pitched battle.

Trenton Skrimish or small unit

Nighttime raid that only succeeded as well as it did because the Germans had failed to post sentries that evening.

Battle of Bennington

Guerilla skirmish in the woods.

Saratoga

One of said pitched battle victories.

Cowpens

Guerrilla clash in the woods where Americans did not stand and fight so much as skirmish and harry.

Battle of Guilford Courthouse

Was a British victory.

Battle of Kings Mountain

Ambush.

Yorktown

Siege won by the French navy.

Charleston was a loss

Not in 1776 it wasn't. Though I suppose that would technically be the Battle of Sullivan's Island.

 

[Tripwire]

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.

This guy knows what he's talking about.

Really, I can't think of any war where one side lost due to "bad tactics." Generals just aren't that stupid. If the enemy is doing something successfully, the other side will very quickly follow suit if they have the resources. There was a similar thread where someone wondered how much better American Indians would have done if they adopted European battle tactics. The answer is none, because they couldn't. They didn't have the manpower or the political structure to organize their troops like Europeans. If they could have, they would have done it. Sorry, but the whole idea behind these sorts of threads is a myth.

 

[Elfwine]

This guy knows what he's talking about.

Really, I can't think of any war where one side lost due to "bad tactics." Generals just aren't that stupid. If the enemy is doing something successfully, the other side will very quickly follow suit if they have the resources. There was a similar thread where someone wondered how much better American Indians would have done if they adopted European battle tactics. The answer is none, because they couldn't. They didn't have the manpower or the political structure to organize their troops like Europeans. If they could have, they would have done it. Sorry, but the whole idea behind these sorts of threads is a myth.

I can think of a few examples where bad tactics were unduly costly and one sided, but it's a short list.

 

[Tripwire]

I can think of a few examples where bad tactics were unduly costly and one sided, but it's a short list.

Oh sure, in a particular battle that might have turned out to be costly in the war, no doubt. But not over long periods of time, in the long run, unless there were major political burdens somehow forcing a military to stick to inferior methods.

 

[Elfwine]

Oh sure, in a particular battle that might have turned out to be costly in the war, not doubt. But not over long periods of time, in the long run.

Not just a particular battle or two, that's easy.

But the Habsburg attempts to fight the Swiss seem to have fallen short tactically more than materially, for example.

And . . . just what exactly is your position?

I'm trying to see what we're disputing - that no wars were lost because of tactical ineptitude? That no side deliberately clung to bad tactics? That no side clung to bad tactics except due to political reasons?

Since I think we agree on the second, the first is more iffy, and the third I think we are largely in agreement on.

 

[Tripwire]

Not just a particular battle or two, that's easy.

But the Habsburg attempts to fight the Swiss seem to have fallen short tactically more than materially, for example.

And . . . just what exactly is your position?

I'm trying to see what we're disputing - that no wars were lost because of tactical ineptitude? That no side deliberately clung to bad tactics? That no side clung to bad tactics except due to political reasons?

Since I think we agree on the second, the first is more iffy, and the third I think we are largely in agreement on.

That the British would have switched to better tactics if the Americans were in fact using them.

The rest is just my argument that any country with the same freedom to do so, will, and losing tactics (as opposed to just incompetent leadership) aren't something that countries will stick to for no reason, as a general rule.

 

[Elfwine]

That the British would have switched to better tactics if the Americans were in fact using them.

The rest is just my argument that any country with the same freedom to do so, will, and losing tactics (as opposed to just incompetent leadership) aren't something that countries will stick to for no reason, as a general rule.

Gotcha. We're in agreement then.

One thing that comes to mind on the British fight in particular - I think the British did cling to certain traditional things, but that's more strategically - Howe thinking capturing Philadelphia would matter is very appropriate in the context of European war, but not so much when Philadelphia being the capital didn't mean very much - the rebels were that decentralized.

But that leads us back to "incompetent leadership". The British do not seem to have been at their best in the Revolution.

 

[Tripwire]

Gotcha. We're in agreement then.

One thing that comes to mind on the British fight in particular - I think the British did cling to certain traditional things, but that's more strategically - Howe thinking capturing Philadelphia would matter is very appropriate in the context of European war, but not so much when Philadelphia being the capital didn't mean very much - the rebels were that decentralized.

But that leads us back to "incompetent leadership". The British do not seem to have been at their best in the Revolution.

Philadelphia would have been important to capture if Howe had the troops to hang on to it. As it was, the British had to abandon any major city they took before they could take on another one. Moving your seat of government to still-controlled territory wasn't some brand new tactic, it's been done many times. The British didn't go in like they would have if they were trying to take a hostile European power. In that case it would have been evident that they didn't bring enough troops.

British political leadership was very incompetent (for the war) I don't know how I'd judge the generals.

 

[Elfwine]

Philadelphia would have been important to capture if Howe had the troops to hang on to it. As it was, the British had to abandon any major city they took before they could take on another one. Moving your seat of government to still-controlled territory wasn't some brand new tactic, it's been done many times. The British didn't go in like they would have if they were trying to take a hostile European power. In that case it would have been evident that they didn't bring enough troops.

British political leadership was very incompetent (for the war) I don't know how I'd judge the generals.

Well, they did hold both New York and Philadelphia, but most of the former rested in the navy.

And while it's not a new tactic, it's more disruptive to France to lose Paris than it was for the Americans to lose Philadelphia.

 

[amphibulous]

I can think of a few examples where bad tactics were unduly costly and one sided, but it's a short list.

The main examples I can think of are:

- The Spanish Armada (sending troop ships against "gun fighters")

- Athenian expedition to Syracuse (not enough cavalry to protect logistics)

- The fall of France in WW2 (didn't practice defending positions properly, didn't check Ardennes roads blocked)

 

[yulzari]

Certainly, by the end of the 2nd American Civil War, the loyalist forces had far more rifles (as opposed to muskets) than the republicans. Rifles (at that time) could inflict casulties but not take nor hold ground. After firing the contemporary rifleman was vulnerable to the bayonet and had to flee to reload. Hence Washinton's determination to erradicate rifles and equip with muskets for rate of fire and the bayonet.

This site can be OTT but it does raise issues about basic modern assumptions of the war www.redcoat.me.uk I do not agree with all it says, but it is useful to see things from a less typical perspective.

One thing that is missed out is the contemporary parliamentary view. To put it crudely, it was; why should britain pay for the costs of america when the americans will not do so themselves? A simple comparison between taxes on americans before the civil war and afterwards makes the point quite adequately.

The (in modern terms) Belizean solution was being advocated well before the civil war broke out. The main objection to that was the fear that France would move in and take over.
Without the civil war the states would have been left without british military support unless they agreed to foot the bill. They would have been forced to raise and pay their own legitimate militias to protect themselves from their own follies and a dominion style status would have followed as britain increasingly cut itself away from paying for a costly colony and gained a loyal ally on the eastern coast of america. We have Canada as a model.

To stick to the initial thread matter. Colonial tactics (a term one could apply to either side) were that the republicans moved towards a conventional army so that they could defeat their enemy in open battle whilst the loyalists increased their light infantry component especially in locally raised loyalist units and assorted german allies and ended up with far more than the republican army.

The biggest weakness on the republican side was their inability to manufacture gunpowder in meaningful terms so were dependent upon foreign imports exposed to naval interdiction. Had the supplies run out (as they almost did at times) then they would have been reduced to pikes. The most successful tactic for them was the increasing use of coercion and intimidation to silence the neutral and loyalist populations.

 

[Magneto]

British political leadership was very incompetent (for the war) I don't know how I'd judge the generals.

Burgoyne - a dandy pretending to be a general with a poor grasp of logistics but is still fairly harshly treated at times. Howe has as much to blame if not more for Saratoga.

Clinton - brilliant to start with (in Boston, NYC and Charleston) but the war seemed to grind him down, by the 1780s he just didn't care any more and was happy to sit around in NYC having affairs with Loyalist ladies rather than do anything.

Howe - tactically very good but too sympathetic to the rebels and made a horrible mistake at Brooklyn without which the war probably would have been won. Then messed around for months in 1778, didn't inform Burgoyne what was going on, sodded off to Philadelphia and holds as much blame for Saratoga as Burgoyne.

Cornwallis - Did pretty well in the South, had he caught Greene before the Dan or if the Loyalists had won the equivalent of a King's Mountain he could have held the South. Yorktown was a freak event really, it required the only major loss of the Royal Navy from around Beachy Head until WW2, Washington giving Clinton the slip and somehow marching hundreds of miles from outside NYC and Clinton sending Cornwallis confusing orders and then sitting around on his ass when Cornwallis needed saving, to give the Americans the win.

The less said about the politicians the better. If Pitt was still in charge, there would have been no war, let alone America breaking free.

 

[Malta]

If the British had concentrated where they were strongest, along the coasts and port cities, then they could have nearly waited out and drained the colonists.

 

[Wolfpaw]

The less said about the politicians the better. If Pitt was still in charge, there would have been no war, let alone America breaking free.

Let us remember that Pitt advocated stationing troops in the Colonies if they produced a single thing that the Navigation Acts said they could not. I believe his example was to immediately occupy Boston if they were to produce a single hobnail.

 

[deathscompanion1]

If the British had concentrated where they were strongest, along the coasts and port cities, then they could have nearly waited out and drained the colonists.

Yes but allowing the Patriots free reign to terrorise loyal subjects and avoiding battle while still having to pay for the troops would have been completely unacceptable to the British.

 

[Malta]

Yes but allowing the Patriots free reign to terrorise loyal subjects and avoiding battle while still having to pay for the troops would have been completely unacceptable to the British.

Arguable. Such a strategy would have turned the population against the Continentals as quickly as the coffers and never have materialized a Saratoga. Though if the British has gone about separating and destroying the Continental army piece by piece differently...

 

[Baphomet]

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?

They did. Rogers Rangers fought for the British and they employed irregular warfare.

 

[Magneto]

Let us remember that Pitt advocated stationing troops in the Colonies if they produced a single thing that the Navigation Acts said they could not. I believe his example was to immediately occupy Boston if they were to produce a single hobnail.

True but many Patriots were actually in support of that. They considered the navigation acts to be Britain's side of a mutual dual, Britain got to manufacture and export goods, America paid no direct taxes to parliament and got autonomy. Both sides benefited. I can't think of one founding father that made his money through manufacture, they were either agricultural (slave owning or not), merchants or various high ranking professionals like doctor or lawyer. A big chunk of Jefferson Democracy is based around the ideal of an independent republican farmer uncorrupted by industrial urban vices. Industrial America doesn't really begin until the 1820s and even then it's not until after the Civil War when it really booms. The last vestiges of the navigation acts in Britain were repealed in 1849. So it's possible to work a compromise.

Of course the navigation acts would not have held forever as America continued to grow but it's hard to over exaggerate how many of the founding fathers actively disliked industry and promoted agriculture above all, Jeffersonian followers especially.

If the British had concentrated where they were strongest, along the coasts and port cities, then they could have nearly waited out and drained the colonists.

No they wouldn't, the Americans would have just waited them out. The large majority of Americans lived in the countryside at this time. Out of a population of 2.5 million, the two biggest cities were Philadelphia with 40,000 and New York City with 25,000. For reference London at the time was about 800,000. You can't control the population when you control a tiny amount of them.

 

[Elfwine]

True but many Patriots were actually in support of that. They considered the navigation acts to be Britain's side of a mutual dual, Britain got to manufacture and export goods, America paid no direct taxes to parliament and got autonomy.

This explains the vociferous protest of lowering the rate but tightening enforcement of duties on say, rum.