A Different 1777 Campaign

Essentially, if you've forced the enemy to quit the field despite their best efforts, you are now in the pursuit phase of the campaign - the period when the cavalry are used to harry the retreating enemy. This phase continues until the cavalry is called back or the enemy rallies and reforms - something which often needs getting to either friendly territory or advantageous terrain, as it's at this point the retreating force can restore their morale as they feel "safe".

With 3,500 cavalry, I'm not sure why Howe in our timeline failed to wipe Washington. MANY times he put Washington on retreat in 1777, and at least three times he got a rout (which meant the cavalry was essentially running down people who didn't resist) and perused until nightfall. Maybe it's because the British Cavalry in the Revolutionary War were all green fresh out of training. You said something about the British Army in the revolutionary war and the English Gallop, I'm going to see how I can work that in.

In this case, however, the important question is where Washington's army is and how they're getting supplies. Any army needs to either keep moving (to use forage) or to have a steady supply line. This is one of your lines of retreat, ideally not your only one. Howe will want to create a situation where Washington's best choice is to retreat from New York colony, and where his other options involve either a pitched battle at a disadvantage - or having his supply line cut.

Washington usually had a camp with a week's worth of supplies or so, so I guess after his retreats they just went to camp, packed up, and left. Longer term, I think he was reliant on provisioning off the locals (Congress never game him enough stuff), while the British could not do the same. Well, I take that back. In the New York and Saratoga Campaign, they tried to provision off the locals and paid with pounds. Burgoyne's men sometimes got shot in response, but in New York the reception to that was better.

An example of how this worked in OTL during the American Civil War was when McClellan's supply line was cut at the start of the Seven Days. McClellan being no fool, he had a retreat path to the James worked out and executed it - which forced him away from Richmond.
If he'd stayed and fought for much longer he'd have potentially been cut off - if he'd attacked Richmond at that point he'd certainly have been cut off

OTL? "Our timeline"? I really think McClellan should have advanced on Richmond AFTER Malvern Hill. Lee could no longer threaten his supply line. However McClellan believed his spies that he was outnumbered 3 to 1, so he decided to leg it. I think his spies reversed the odds.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I really think McClellan should have advanced on Richmond AFTER Malvern Hill.
Sadly you would have lost the Army of the Potomac. Malvern Hill is a seductive trap - it has no safe landing for supplies there, the safe landing is some way further back. Lee was already hooking around the eastern side of the hill with intent to surround McClellan on it and cut him off - if McClellan hadn't retreated off Malvern Hill he would have lost his entire army.

However McClellan believed his spies that he was outnumbered 3 to 1, so he decided to leg it. I think his spies reversed the odds.
The best evidence I've seen suggests that McClellan was slightly outnumbered - not 3:1, but he never believed that anyway. For example, by the same measure (Effectives) the Confederates started the Seven Days with 80,000 and the Federals had 70,000; by the Present For Duty measure the Army of Northern Virginia had 112,000 and the Army of the Potomac had about 100,000.

But that's not really relevant - the point is the strategic geography of the situation and how it relates to how you defeat an enemy. Another example would be how Fabian pinned Hannibal in a valley by posting guards on all the exits, and how Hannibal escaped by drawing off the guards at one exit.


OTL? "Our timeline"?
Yes, Our Time Line or Original Time Line.


Washington usually had a camp with a week's worth of supplies or so, so I guess after his retreats they just went to camp, packed up, and left. Longer term, I think he was reliant on provisioning off the locals (Congress never game him enough stuff), while the British could not do the same.
Right, so he does have to keep moving. That means the best way to get at him would arguably be to make him retreat back across an area he's already passed through, since he'll already have taken what there is to be had.
 
Sadly you would have lost the Army of the Potomac. Malvern Hill is a seductive trap - it has no safe landing for supplies there, the safe landing is some way further back. Lee was already hooking around the eastern side of the hill with intent to surround McClellan on it and cut him off - if McClellan hadn't retreated off Malvern Hill he would have lost his entire army.


The best evidence I've seen suggests that McClellan was slightly outnumbered - not 3:1, but he never believed that anyway. For example, by the same measure (Effectives) the Confederates started the Seven Days with 80,000 and the Federals had 70,000; by the Present For Duty measure the Army of Northern Virginia had 112,000 and the Army of the Potomac had about 100,000.

Damn, Wikipedia you're a liar. According to it (at least 3 years ago, I remember well) it claimed that Lee lost too much cohesion to do just that. It also said that his spies made him believe he was that much outnumbered. I don't remember what it said about the actual numbers, so maybe they got that one right.

Right, so he does have to keep moving. That means the best way to get at him would arguably be to make him retreat back across an area he's already passed through, since he'll already have taken what there is to be had.

Hm, OK.

Now need to figure out France. Do they think Hannover is a nice juicy target, or should they concentrate on GB? They declared war on the British, which usually means that Hannover declares back, but in this timeline George III hasn't made up his mind yet.

I wonder if Cornwall or Ireland has civil unrest after that whole thing. The Royal Navy's failure to stop the invasion is very visible, the success at making the French starve is not very visible. I'm not sure the average farmer in Cornwall would see the connection of victory at sea, French army in Cornwall gives up.



Timeline Update

Howe submits his plan to London. He would have a smaller contingent of 3K mobile light infantry go into Northern New York and try to recruit loyalists as well as stamp out patriot militia. His main army would try to force Washington into a battle.

Burgoyne submits his plan, which is "well, I'm already in Albany and as I said last year, I'm going to choke off the Hudson. I have 7 forts between me and Clinton and I have 7 mobile forces that will patrol and block shipments. I'm entrenched with the main army and ready for an attack. Can someone take these prisoners? I don't like guarding 3,000 prisoners and only London, Howe, and Henry Clinton have the authority to pardon anyone so I'm stuck with them"

Henry Clinton gets a working British administration in New York City.

The Charleston commander sends his plan to London. He is getting resupply but no new troops and 3K isn't enough to make many further offensives. He'll stick around and wait for rebel movements. He might try to attack if he sees an opportunity, but he's not going to fight any fortified rebel position.

In March, London approves all the plans its field commanders sent.

George III tries to persuade parliament to send troops to Hannover, but they refuse, citing that France isn't at war with Hannover and George III should only make Hannover declare war on France when it would be favorable for GB to get into a continental war. Obviously, that's not now.

I'm not seeing France mount an expeditionary force to the Americas after the Cornwall fiasco. The smuggling continues. Would France replace its lost ships 1 to 1 or replace them with cheaper frigates or galleys? SInce they have some first rates, they didn't lose their whole fleet, I'm going to go with the latter unless someone can persuade me otherwise.

The rebels are the interesting bit. Washington wants a field victory, but he's too smart to attack New York City. Maybe he'll try to stop Howe in New York.

I wonder if the Patriots in the Carolinas realize the Charleston garrison is weak.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
I wonder if Cornwall or Ireland has civil unrest after that whole thing. The Royal Navy's failure to stop the invasion is very visible, the success at making the French starve is not very visible. I'm not sure the average farmer in Cornwall would see the connection of victory at sea, French army in Cornwall gives up.
I think anyone who's got enough awareness to know about that kind of thing would see the connection - an army surrendering is pretty major stuff.


Would France replace its lost ships 1 to 1 or replace them with cheaper frigates or galleys? SInce they have some first rates, they didn't lose their whole fleet, I'm going to go with the latter unless someone can persuade me otherwise.
Oh, god no, they'd definitely rebuild their line of battle. Having a line of battle in those days was equivalent to having a fleet of aircraft carriers these days - it showed you were on the top rank, and more to the point you need a battle-line to fight a battle-line.
They'd have to replace their line, and it would be very expensive indeed - coming on top of the costs of supporting the Patriots, it might cause their economy some serious problems. Arguably earlier than OTL.

To give some idea of the scale, the third rate Mars cost about £50,000 to build (but not fit) or about 1.14 million livres tournais, with first rates costing twice as much - the French need to rebuild approx fifty ships of the line to reconstruct their navy, which is an expense of huge scale on the order of, at a rough estimate, 60 million livres just for the hulls assuming they can build them as cheaply as the British (fat chance) and they also need to arm them because they've lost roughly 4,000 cannon. Effectively this all goes directly to adding to the national debt (as, indeed, does retraining replacements for approx. 30,000 sailors lost or captured)
 
I think anyone who's got enough awareness to know about that kind of thing would see the connection - an army surrendering is pretty major stuff.

Oh, god no, they'd definitely rebuild their line of battle. Having a line of battle in those days was equivalent to having a fleet of aircraft carriers these days - it showed you were on the top rank, and more to the point you need a battle-line to fight a battle-line.
They'd have to replace their line, and it would be very expensive indeed - coming on top of the costs of supporting the Patriots, it might cause their economy some serious problems. Arguably earlier than OTL.

To give some idea of the scale, the third rate Mars cost about £50,000 to build (but not fit) or about 1.14 million livres tournais, with first rates costing twice as much - the French need to rebuild approx fifty ships of the line to reconstruct their navy, which is an expense of huge scale on the order of, at a rough estimate, 60 million livres just for the hulls assuming they can build them as cheaply as the British (fat chance) and they also need to arm them because they've lost roughly 4,000 cannon. Effectively this all goes directly to adding to the national debt (as, indeed, does retraining replacements for approx. 30,000 sailors lost or captured)

OK, so no civil unrest. Cool.

Yeah, I can see the French coming into financial troubles early. but their day of reckoning hasn't come (yet).

Well, it's not their whole fleet. 75% of the non Mediterranean fleet (in the Mediterranean sea, the ships were built differently. A normal ship there has less maneuverability while a ship designed for there in open sea has trouble in storms). But, that's still going to be huge loss.

Ok, so the French starts to rebuild their navy almost one to one, but replaces seven of the first rates with third rates and most of their destroyed second rates with third rates to save some cash. They're still going to rebuild the other first rates and they have their other ships that survived the battles of the English Channel.

I'm going to say the French don't try to involve Hannover because they didn't in real life and now it looks less appetizing after the Cornwall fiasco.

George III would normally have Hannover declare war on all of GB's enemies, but here, he's going to hold that off because he really doesn't want Hannover invaded while most of the high quality troops are in the Americas.

He was pretty pissed off at the French in real life. Do you think he's even more angry here? The landed an army on his home soil... at least I think he might think it's his soil. Sometimes, looking at the reigns of Stephen, John, Henry IV, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Mary,I William III, and George II, I get the feeling that British Monarchs forget Cornwall exists. I would think George III views it as his home soil. If he's like the other guys, maybe he thinks of it as "a piece of land that I happen to control that happens to be geographically connected to my homeland"
 

Saphroneth

Banned
75% of the non Mediterranean fleet (in the Mediterranean sea, the ships were built differently. A normal ship there has less maneuverability while a ship designed for there in open sea has trouble in storms).
Pretty sure that by the time of the mid-late 18th century ships of the line, frigates and sloops were fungible (i.e. no meaningful difference).

He was pretty pissed off at the French in real life. Do you think he's even more angry here? The landed an army on his home soil... at least I think he might think it's his soil. Sometimes, looking at the reigns of Stephen, John, Henry IV, Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Mary,I William III, and George II, I get the feeling that British Monarchs forget Cornwall exists. I would think George III views it as his home soil. If he's like the other guys, maybe he thinks of it as "a piece of land that I happen to control that happens to be geographically connected to my homeland"
I take it you're Cornish?

Really the reason Cornwall doesn't get involved much (beyond the ports like Plymouth) is the bad transport links and so on. It's not the destination to anywhere else and there's nothing there of any great note in strategic terms.
 
Pretty sure that by the time of the mid-late 18th century ships of the line, frigates and sloops were fungible (i.e. no meaningful difference).


I take it you're Cornish?

Really the reason Cornwall doesn't get involved much (beyond the ports like Plymouth) is the bad transport links and so on. It's not the destination to anywhere else and there's nothing there of any great note in strategic terms.

The ships were not quite fungible, but one could be used for the other purpose. The British actually used only regular pattern first rates in the Mediterranean (no special one) and built less of the special other ships. Storms there aren't as bad, so you can save on some material, I'm not a shipwright so I don't know the details. If some of the fleet needed to be relocated, it was better they be general purpose ones.

I'm not Cornish personally.

I chose Cornwall for the invasion because I looked at a map and determined at this time there were only 3 modern forts at that time and none of them are on the only used transportation road. Of course, if you lose your siege train, even medieval castles become a problem. Unless someone thinks musketballs can penetrate stone, in which case I should revise their defeat to take more time.

And as for the British Monarchs forgetting about Cornwall, I just get that impression when my friend tells me about the local history there and... nothing in European history textbooks or books about the monarchs disputes that impression.

I'll say Howe's contingent goes to Oneida Lake and gets some loyalist provincial militia. How many? 300 sound unrealistic?

Actually, I never found real life Howe's plan to secure the loyalists in the rural areas all that impressive. Rural areas are lower value than urban ones.
 
Just a couple of comments:

I would think that the Hudson Valley after a British victory would not sustain a large number of troops. It was impossible to supply from Canada with any regularity and I'm not convinced that ships would not be vulnerable to random fire sailing up the Hudson. I'm not familiar enough with the geography of the area to say that they could cut off New England but doubt that Burgoyne would be happy with the result.

One thing that puzzled me: Why did Charleston fall without a fight to only 3000 men?

The initial invasion was repulsed easily enough in OTL 1777 due to the fortifications and the garrison was quite sizable that they could at least put up a fight. Worst case scenario, the rebels get pushed back from the city into a siege situation. As more and more British die of disease or have to garrison the city, the British would not be able to dispatch much in the way of expeditions inland beyond the immediate environs of Charleston.

Also, the details of the French invasion were very hazy but I would question how quickly the French could even put this together. Invading with 30,000 men, even just across the channel, would be a logistical effort requiring huge foresight and planning. I'm not sure they would or could try it within months of declaring war. However, you version of the stranded French army in Cornwall sounds similar to some of my TL's. Without a clear vision of what to do, armies tend to stagnate. It would have been wise to simply march inland, giving up their ports the moment they realized that supplies won't be forthcoming. At the very, very least, it would utterly panic all of Britain even if the army surrenders within a few weeks or months. They could feed off the land for a while but would eventually run out of ammunition.
 
Just a couple of comments:

I would think that the Hudson Valley after a British victory would not sustain a large number of troops. It was impossible to supply from Canada with any regularity and I'm not convinced that ships would not be vulnerable to random fire sailing up the Hudson. I'm not familiar enough with the geography of the area to say that they could cut off New England but doubt that Burgoyne would be happy with the result.

One thing that puzzled me: Why did Charleston fall without a fight to only 3000 men?

The initial invasion was repulsed easily enough in OTL 1777 due to the fortifications and the garrison was quite sizable that they could at least put up a fight. Worst case scenario, the rebels get pushed back from the city into a siege situation. As more and more British die of disease or have to garrison the city, the British would not be able to dispatch much in the way of expeditions inland beyond the immediate environs of Charleston.

Also, the details of the French invasion were very hazy but I would question how quickly the French could even put this together. Invading with 30,000 men, even just across the channel, would be a logistical effort requiring huge foresight and planning. I'm not sure they would or could try it within months of declaring war. However, you version of the stranded French army in Cornwall sounds similar to some of my TL's. Without a clear vision of what to do, armies tend to stagnate. It would have been wise to simply march inland, giving up their ports the moment they realized that supplies won't be forthcoming. At the very, very least, it would utterly panic all of Britain even if the army surrenders within a few weeks or months. They could feed off the land for a while but would eventually run out of ammunition.

Thank you for replying.

The ships would sail from New York to Albany. In our time line, Henry Clinton opened up the Hudson by capturing some forts and the others were deserted, but he was unable to help Burygone because he was afraid Washington would attack New York.

Here, both Howe and Clinton hears Burgoyne's cries for help. Clinton moves with everything, knowing that Howe kept Washington occupied. Although he wasn't able to contribute to Saratoga directly, his movement and Howe's presence in New Jersey kept Gates from getting militia from New Jersey. Burgoyne wins his pitched battle.

I thought Charleston wasn't fortified until 1778? Well, then I'll make a modification. The rebels thought that the British would attack Virginia and move continental army and South Carolina regiments there. A loyalist lets the British know that Charleston is mostly full of fake cannons, a few token guards, and some fortifications where the guns were removed.

You said required foresight and planning. Does it even look like the invasion was done half properly? Without cannons, the Army can't even take on a medieval fortification. There are so many castles that would be impenetrable to them.

@Saphroneth What do you think an army with no supply line that can't even take on a mediaeval castle can do?

What do you think the major players' plans will be each?
 
Actually now that I think about it, I'm not sure Burgoyne is as safe as he is. I'm looking at a map of Albany's old fortifications. On a wall to wall basis, it isn't too shabby and not to dissimilar from a normal fort. On the overview, there are plenty of weaknesses. It isn't a star fort. There are three salients. The fort occupies three hills and the areas between the hills, but it doesn't encompass the new areas of the settlement. The Patriots could approach from the south through woods and the town itself and find themselves 100 meters from the fort. They couldn't bring cannons from THAT direction, but that's damn close for an infancy rush. The good news is that there is no new for a Bunker's Hill scenario as any place the rebels would put artillery the British could see easily and counter fire.
 
Hmmm, France's next move will be an interesting one. The manpower loss they suffered isn't that big compared to their multiple large armies they fielded in the War of Austrian Succession. However, the loss of the navy will be expensive to replace. If they can't exert a credible naval threat for some time, I guess the British Blockade become more efficient. Maybe Washington would dispatch a Sullivan Expedition just as in real life. I don't know if that will work with the British in control of the Hudson. None of the "between fort" garrisons can sortie and destroy the raiders, but the offer strongpoints for Loyalists to hide behind and intelligence gathering points.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
The Patriots could approach from the south through woods and the town itself and find themselves 100 meters from the fort. They couldn't bring cannons from THAT direction, but that's damn close for an infancy rush.
Problem is, that gets them to the base of the walls - what then? They're not going to be able to sneak up carrying twenty foot ladders...

Of course, the likelihood is that a commander who's moderately on the ball would put pickets around the town so the alarm would be raised in good time.

You said required foresight and planning. Does it even look like the invasion was done half properly? Without cannons, the Army can't even take on a medieval fortification. There are so many castles that would be impenetrable to them.

@Saphroneth What do you think an army with no supply line that can't even take on a mediaeval castle can do?
So basically, the realistic problem with the French invasion is that they suffer a pretty massive loss because of a stupid mistake. Battering trains were very substantial and would be spread over multiple ships - at the Crimea for example the battering train was landed on Sydney, Star of the South, Gertrude, Australian, Resolute and Medora. Six ships, for the battering train of a British contingent about 30,000 strong. It's possible that they'd be sailing in company and be lost for that reason, though - the ships I named all landed at the same time in the same area of the beach.
(A force of 30,000 would be about 1/8 of the French Army of the time, AFAICT.)
But the other bit is how they dramatically overcommitted their navy to support it and suffered severe penalties as a result - those three battles are probably going to go down in history as some of the most decisive naval battles ever.


Anyway. If you have a force of 30,000 who've landed with no siege train, they probably still have field guns (because the army has too many of those to lose the lot in an accident unless someone was rolling some very unlucky dice for them) which means 6 pounders and 12 pounders. Their real problem, though, is that Cornish roads in this time period are frankly merde. (Excuse my French.) So they're not really capable of moving very fast at all, and it wouldn't take very long for them to be starved out. (An army of 30,000 plus transport - wagons for supplies and so on - would be eating perhaps a hundred and fifty tons a day of food, when you count the animal fodder that makes up the majority of it. Monthly supply would mean delivering 7,500 tons of food in one go, which is unlikely - functionally you'd need a supply ship arriving every few days, and not a small one either. (The British in the Crimea managed at least partly because of steam.)
They could probably go around most forts - the British at the time did not have many land fortifications - but they would have trouble with the militia, which would mobilize in response to this and form an army around the nucleus of the troops present in the country

I think honestly the real problem is that a force that size is far more likely to be intercepted at sea. It's going to be very clumsy and may take as much as a week to finish unloading and getting organized, and it's going to be nigh impossible to prepare in secret!
 
So basically, the realistic problem with the French invasion is that they suffer a pretty massive loss because of a stupid mistake. Battering trains were very substantial and would be spread over multiple ships - at the Crimea for example the battering train was landed on Sydney, Star of the South, Gertrude, Australian, Resolute and Medora. Six ships, for the battering train of a British contingent about 30,000 strong. It's possible that they'd be sailing in company and be lost for that reason, though - the ships I named all landed at the same time in the same area of the beach.
(A force of 30,000 would be about 1/8 of the French Army of the time, AFAICT.)
But the other bit is how they dramatically overcommitted their navy to support it and suffered severe penalties as a result - those three battles are probably going to go down in history as some of the most decisive naval battles ever.


Anyway. If you have a force of 30,000 who've landed with no siege train, they probably still have field guns (because the army has too many of those to lose the lot in an accident unless someone was rolling some very unlucky dice for them) which means 6 pounders and 12 pounders. Their real problem, though, is that Cornish roads in this time period are frankly merde. (Excuse my French.) So they're not really capable of moving very fast at all, and it wouldn't take very long for them to be starved out. (An army of 30,000 plus transport - wagons for supplies and so on - would be eating perhaps a hundred and fifty tons a day of food, when you count the animal fodder that makes up the majority of it. Monthly supply would mean delivering 7,500 tons of food in one go, which is unlikely - functionally you'd need a supply ship arriving every few days, and not a small one either. (The British in the Crimea managed at least partly because of steam.)
They could probably go around most forts - the British at the time did not have many land fortifications - but they would have trouble with the militia, which would mobilize in response to this and form an army around the nucleus of the troops present in the country

I think honestly the real problem is that a force that size is far more likely to be intercepted at sea. It's going to be very clumsy and may take as much as a week to finish unloading and getting organized, and it's going to be nigh impossible to prepare in secret!

Hmmm... This is going to be troublesome. I'm not going to try to completely undo all that in the original post. OK, let's say they do the overcommitting step. Where did 2K guys go, did they just vanish?

Before the Battle Anguilla in the War of Austrian Succession, the siege train that was originally planned to go with them also had the field guns. In the end, the siege train didn't get approved, but if it had, this meant the landing force might have been infantry only. The French force in the Revolution had the same thing when they came over.

Given that in the beginning of the war the French smuggled stuff through and didn't exert a credible naval threat (because firing on the blockage would be an act of war) I assumed this would be nothing more than a very expensive setback, but now that you mention they are probably going to be decisive, I'm going to have to make up some story for that.

OK, so they aren't 100% as helpless as I thought once their navy is toast, but the invasion force is still doomed. Militia and regulars would quickly pin down the army that can't eat.

I'm going to have to figure out how they landed. Maybe the Royal Navy rolled a 1 the first time and missed the French Fleet? Maybe the French sailed through an "impossible" storm which separated the fleet and most of them miraculously found each other? Maybe the French had a head start?

France tries to cut its losses.
French ambassador "Can we have peace?"
George III's representative "NO"

George III is angry after Cornwall and won't accept peace until the French win something (in which case, France wouldn't want peace).

I'll try to figure out something for the details of the naval battles later.

OK, France has a few options since GB said no to peace. They could involve Hannover, which as I mentioned I don't think they will do because they didn't in our time line and after the Cornwall fiasco looks less appetizing. They could send a NA contingent. They could try to make light attacks with fast ships. In the War of Austrian Succession, the French sometimes fought in the Caribbean an other British posts despite their main fleets losing to the British, or running away. I'm going to say the last one is probably their best warplan.

Problem is, that gets them to the base of the walls - what then? They're not going to be able to sneak up carrying twenty foot ladders...

Of course, the likelihood is that a commander who's moderately on the ball would put pickets around the town so the alarm would be raised in good time.

Oh yeah, Burgoyne is not going to be like the commander at Trenton or General Carleton. In fact after Trenton, I bet the British made sure everyone can pack up and move behind some defenses before an attack materializes. OK, the Continental Army will not attack Albany.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Hmmm... This is going to be troublesome. I'm not going to try to completely undo all that in the original post. OK, let's say they do the overcommitting step. Where did 2K guys go, did they just vanish?
I'm rounding to the nearest ten thousand.

Given that in the beginning of the war the French smuggled stuff through and didn't exert a credible naval threat (because firing on the blockage would be an act of war) I assumed this would be nothing more than a very expensive setback, but now that you mention they are probably going to be decisive, I'm going to have to make up some story for that.
Blockade running works because of neutrality. If the French are no longer neutral they're less efficient as blockade runners.
 
OK, let's see how this is going to work.

By the way, what do you think about real life Howe's plan to secure rural areas to keep the Loyalists safe? His army is larger than the enemy's standing army, but smaller than the total enemy, so it seems to me that large areas with multiple environs is not going to work without local support. And rural areas are inherently less valuable than urban settlements.


Timeline Update
Washington sends a contingent on a retributive mission against the Iroquois and New York Loyalists.

Howe sends a contingent to the lake. I think picking up 350 or so loyalists along the way isn't unreasonable.

His main army zeros in on Washington at, let's say the Mullica River of New Jersey. Howe's goal is to put himself between Washington and Washington's supply line in Pennsylvania. His spies can't figure out which place his supplies are coming from, but it's from Pennsylvania to New Jersey.

Washington hopes he can ambush something with his large army, or failing that, produce a victory in the retributive mission.

In March, the commander at Charleston takes some 900 men and enter Georgia. He starts recruiting locals and thanks to plenty of Loyalists in Georgia, his reception is warm. However, he doesn't get as many recruits as he wants because the Loyalists express worry the Patriots would be back... further fears evolve when the commander reports he can only stay for a week. He gets 300 loyalsits to follow him while the rest assure him they will keep their eyes and ears open to friends of the King. His way back appears to be blocked by Patriots occupying a hill. Apparently they want to replicate Bunker Hill (this was a real life obsession of the Patriots, but it only works when there is a position the enemy MUST have and can't just ignore you) Seeing an opportunity, the commander splits 300 men to the side and waits a few hours. He sends his main line in and they fire 4 volleys into the militia who fire back. Then the side force gives a single volley, and an English Gallop later, they rout the Patriots. The British lose 42 men, inflicted 150 casualties, and capture 12, while others flee. The British commander learns where there are a few "militia nest." He seeks out and burn 3 camps. The 4th one has primitive fortifications and when Patriot reinforcements arrive, the commander sounds the retreat and they make their way to Charleston safety, but the speedy retreat is turned into a Patriot Propaganda Victory.

The French make preparations for light raids.

In March, Howe see Washington on the other side of the river. There is only once place low enough to ford, so he has boats and pontoon bridges prepared. A showdown is inevitable.
 
Damn, I think I messed up. Washington would not have abandoned New York without a reason.

Maybe the reason is that his spies told him Howe was going to NJ? That would give him a reason because Washington always was hoping for a chance to beat Howe in a pitched battle (fat chance...), to snap off one party that breaks away from Howe (this is doable), or get Howe into another Bunker Hill situation.

The only reason Bunker Hill worked because the British absolutely needed that piece of land. In OTL, Gate's attempt to do that to Burgoyne nearly got the Americans outflanked until Benedict Arnold liberally interpreted the loose wordings of his orders and forced the battle of something farm, which was tactically inconclusive, but if Burgoyne won he'd be in a perfect position to hammer and anvil. In OTL, Washington's attempts to do that to Howe failed repeatedly as Howe just simply went around the strongpoint. Washington lost many battles against Howe, but was always able to slip away. Usually it was in good order, and three times it was a rout where the limited number of British cavalry just chased them until the night. What Howe could not do was decisively beat Washington in a way he couldn't run away to fight another day.
 
Well, I don't have much else to say but....

Would France even enter the war with a Revolution that hasn't won a Saratoga right after TTL Saratoga? I find this very unlikely, seeing as France, and especially her navy, got screwed up pretty badly in 1754-1763. Besides, the Quebecois people had been pacified by the Brits. That gives another reason for them to stAy out. They didn't even rebel AFTER their true overlords, the Catholic and French-speaking Frenchmen intervened on the war on the American side. Were Arnold's Quebec campaign and the Quebec Act really that solidifying for the pro-British camp in Quebec?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
@Alex Zetsu - your facility at describing the tactics of the time is greater than mine, so I have no suggestions on how the next Washington & Howe battle works.

But, leaving all the details out, I'd suspect the result is Howe wins but Washington and much of his forces escape, so the Patriots don't get delegitimized. If you somehow have Washington win a miracle defeat or stand toe-to-toe with Howe where the Continentals give as good as they get, that could be good enough to get the French to escalate, and for the Spanish to possibly join them. The Patriots somehow retaking Charleston would do even more. But those are all unlikely.

Fast attacks by French light ships seem to make sense. Sending troops to North America, even if its more of an infiltration, on smaller, faster ships is likely because the British are not making peace and the French would probably think they could help give an edge to the Patriots and feel like a Cornwall style disaster is unlikely because the troops can forage and base anywhere across the wide swath of patriot held territory. They sure won't check in at Newport, RI like they did in OTL though, with the strong British forces on the Hudson. The French would likely try to land further south. The Chesapeake or Delaware Bay, especially the latter since Howe did not do a seaborne operation against Philadelphia IIRC.

Austria's attitude will not only be condition by prior experiences with the British and French, a lot will depend on the powers' reaction to their initiatives in the contemporaneous war of Bavarian Succession. I don't think *any* of the great powers was helpful to the Austrian side in that one, so they probably still have no reason to be grateful to anyone.

I see the French leaving Hanover alone because they don't want to unnecessarily irritate the Prussians or Dutch.

I don't think the Russians would be willing to risk it, but possibly the combination of the French disaster at Cornwall, and the Pats not doing as well is the Russians might be more amenable to renting troops to the British especially as the British will be searching hither and thither for mercenaries. More likely, they just decline to get involved with a de factor anti-British League of Armed Neutrality.
 
Top