Revolutionary War discussion

[Mass_SkinsFan]

We wore earth toned clothes that blended with the trees. They wore Red which made it easy for us to pick em off when they marched from one area to the next.

idiots.:laugh:

Ellis, you'll find this even more hillarious....

The choice of RED for the coats and uniforms of the British military was done SCIENTIFICALLY. The took tailor's dummies and put coats in Blue, Green, Red, White, and I believe Black on them. Then they put the dummies in a field and had several companies of soldiers shoot at each of them. The RED coat had the least hits so they "determined" that marksmen had a tougher time aiming at the red uniform and went with it.

[rincewind]

Ellis, you'll find this even more hillarious....

The choice of RED for the coats and uniforms of the British military was done SCIENTIFICALLY. The took tailor's dummies and put coats in Blue, Green, Red, White, and I believe Black on them. Then they put the dummies in a field and had several companies of soldiers shoot at each of them. The RED coat had the least hits so they "determined" that marksmen had a tougher time aiming at the red uniform and went with it.

:laugh: :laugh:

Daniel Morgan thanks them.

[ForSkins]

# 1 Reason: The Alamo

Nuff said...

[DCSaints_fan]

# 1 Reason: The Alamo

Nuff said...

:laugh: Wrong war, my friend.

[ForSkins]

Davy Crockett?

[Mr. S]

are the "guerilla" style tactics really that important? You all make it sound like every battle was fought with the British in the wide open and colonists picking them off from behind a tree.

Some things to consider (and Mass or someone else, correct me where I'm wrong)

1. Rifling was not commonplace yet, so the majority of guns were muskets. Accuracy was really off as a result and that is why soldiers had to line up so close to the enemy. Otherwise there was less of a chance the bullet would hit, range and accuracy wise.

2. We didn't have as many pitched battles mainly cause we didn't have the troops or resources to do so. I know in later battles there were some big pitched ones, Cowpens comes to mind. This is when we had some sort of logistical system in place to support a larger army.

I'm thinking the majority of the guerilla fighting was done by militia, which I can easily concede. We used lots of militia and minutemen early on to gain some kind of edge against the British supply trains and their earlier logistical superiority. They were definitely proud in writing off these groups of soldiers, and that did contribute to their downfall.

They did follow the rules of battle mroe closely overall. They didn't have militia, and they never did seem to get the order to go for the striking blow. Also, once the French got in, it definitely helped to turn the tide.

As mentioned, it basically turned into cutting costs for the British. When they try to make money off of the colonies, the colonists complain. Despite all the taxes they tried to levy, the income was nowhere near worth the expense. Almost all of the acts were overridden in some way, either by smugglers or by pure non-compliance.

[JMS]

(1) The biggest mistake the British made was not finishing off Washington having had several opprotunities to do so. They kept letting him slip away and survive.

Washington lost more battles than he ever won, but Washington knew that he didn't have to win battles to win the war. All he had to do is survive and keep his army in the field.

After the Battle of New York the British had defeated Washington and if they could have finished him off, the war would have been over... But Washington escapped. And that was in 1776 early in the war.

(2) The battle of Trenton was the most costly mistake the British made and it wasn't even a British decision. Mercenaries of the finest and most feared infantry in the world had been hired by Britain, the Hessians; and their commander Colonel Rahl had such little respect for Washington that he didn't even build defensive works, or post sentries. When Washington crossed the Delaware river on Christmas day he caught the Hessians sleeping and easily overcame them. That victory is what convinced the French to come in on the American side of the conflict.

If the French fleet hadn't boxed in Cornwalis at Yorktown he wouldn't have had to surrender and We never would have won the war. The British had mobility with their fleet, and the French took that away.

[JMS]

are the "guerilla" style tactics really that important? You all make it sound like every battle was fought with the British in the wide open and colonists picking them off from behind a tree.

Some things to consider (and Mass or someone else, correct me where I'm wrong)

1. Rifling was not commonplace yet, so the majority of guns were muskets. Accuracy was really off as a result and that is why soldiers had to line up so close to the enemy. Otherwise there was less of a chance the bullet would hit, range and accuracy wise.

Both the British and Americans used the rifle called the Brown Bess. which remained in British service until the Crimean war of 1840's when it was replaced by the enfield. You are right, the reason why they lined up was because one soldier firing by himself couldn't hit much at range.

2. We didn't have as many pitched battles mainly cause we didn't have the troops or resources to do so. I know in later battles there were some big pitched ones, Cowpens comes to mind. This is when we had some sort of logistical system in place to support a larger army.

There were quite a few major battles during the revolutionary war.

1. Siege of Boston (w) Washington
   
2. Battle of New York (L) Washington
   
3. Battle of New Jersey(L) Washington
   
4. Battle of Valcour bay (draw)
   
5. Battle of Trenton (w) Washington
   
6. Battle of Princeton(w) Washington
   
7. Battle of Brandiwine(L)
   
8. Battle of Germantown(L) Washington
   
9. Battle of Orinsky(draw)
   
10. Battle of Bennington(W)
    
11. Battle of Saratoga(W)
    
12. Battle of Monmouth(w) Washington
    
13. Siege of Charlston(L)
    
14. Battle of Camdon(L)
    
15. Battle of Hobkirk hill(L)
    
16. Battle of Eutah springs(L)
    
17. Kings Mountan(W)
    
18. Battle of Yorktown (W) Washington
    

I'm thinking the majority of the guerilla fighting was done by militia, which I can easily concede. We used lots of militia and minutemen early on to gain some kind of edge against the British supply trains and their earlier logistical superiority. They were definitely proud in writing off these groups of soldiers, and that did contribute to their downfall.

Right, Guerilla fighting was done a lot in the South after Gates was defeated at the Battle of Camdon.

They did follow the rules of battle mroe closely overall. They didn't have militia, and they never did seem to get the order to go for the striking blow. Also, once the French got in, it definitely helped to turn the tide.

Yep we never would have won without the French. Even as it was we lost most of the larger battles.

[Zguy28]

Just don't mess with Mel Gibson if your British.

[Corcaigh]

Just don't mess with Mel Gibson if you're Jewish.

QFT

[PeterMP]

They made essentially the same mistake that every country that has lost what had to be an offensive war has made. They weren't aggressive, violent, or destructive enough.

There was no equivalent to Sherman's march to Atlanta, the allied bombings in Germany, or the atomic bombs on Japan.

Taking firmly held land sucessfully essentially always requires such actions. The British didn't do it.

[PeterMP]

Here's a different take on it, their biggest mistake goes back before the Revolutionary War, when the let Americans serve as officers in the French and Indian war, and then let them leave the military and stay in America.

[Zguy28]

QFT

That's messed up.

[JMS]

They made essentially the same mistake that every country that has lost what had to be an offensive war has made. They weren't aggressive, violent, or destructive enough.

I don't really think that's true. I believe only about a third of the colonies were in rebelion and aiding Washington. Another third was helping the British, and a third really didn't care eather way.

If the british had been more destructive it likely would have backfired and helped make the rebelion even more popular...

As it was the British were selectively destructive. They were relatively easy up in new England where they were more popular, and committed a number of atraucities down south (Tarlton) where the rebels had more support.

[JMS]

Here's a different take on it, their biggest mistake goes back before the Revolutionary War, when the let Americans serve as officers in the French and Indian war, and then let them leave the military and stay in America.

Actually during the french and Indian war the British screwed up. They needed colonial militia to help them fight, but they passed a law that no colonial officer no matter the rank could outrank a regular British officer. This had the effect of making colonial generals answerable to British junior officers; and was very unpopular.

Originally the British tried to say they wouldn't take any Colonial officers, problem there was no Colonial officers, no colonial militia. That's why they ended up allowing Colonial officers.

You are right though that the cream of American officers like Washington had fought with and were trained in combat by the British in the French and Indian war.

George Washington was actually blamed for starting the French and Indian war long before the American Revolution by the British press. Thus his name was known in Britain before the Declaration of Independence.

[JMS]

They made essentially the same mistake that every country that has lost what had to be an offensive war has made. They weren't aggressive, violent, or destructive enough.

There was no equivalent to Sherman's march to Atlanta, the allied bombings in Germany, or the atomic bombs on Japan.

Taking firmly held land sucessfully essentially always requires such actions. The British didn't do it.

Tarlton "the butcher" had a number of atrocities during the Revolutionary war.

Buford Massacre or the Waxhaw Massacre.

"Tarleton's quarter" was the responce when the British tried to surrender at Kings Mountain.

at one plantation of a deceased Patriot officer, Tarlton had the man's body dug up, then required the widow to serve him a meal, before he burned the house to the ground. One of Marion's men later wrote of the incident:

On one expedition (Nelson's Ferry - Nov. 1780), Tarleton burnt the house, out houses, corn and fodder, and a great part of the cattle, hogs and poultry, of the estate of Gen. Richardson. The general had been active with the Americans, but was now dead; and the British leader, in civilised times, made his widow and children suffer for the deeds of the husband and parent, after the manner of the East, and coast of Barbary. What added to the cruel nature of the act, was that he had first dined in the house, and helped himself to the abundant good cheer it afforded. But we have seen before the manner in which he requited hospitality. It was generally observed of Tarleton and his corps, that they not only exercised more acts of cruelty than any one in the British army, but also carried further the spirit of depredation.

After the surrender at Yorktown, all of the British commissioned officers were invited to dine with their American counterparts, except for one — Banastre Tarleton.

[PleaseBlitz]

Dont **** with the Mountain Men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overmountain_Men

The Overmountain Men were American colonial militiamen in the American Revolutionary War from west of the Great Smoky Mountains (part of the Appalachians), what is now West Virginia, northeastern Tennessee, western North Carolina, and southwestern Virginia. They played an important role at the Battle of Kings Mountain, and also fought at the Battle of Cowpens and elsewhere.

After marching over the mountains, they met the British at the Battle of Kings Mountain. The Overmountain Men formed about half of the colonial forces at Kings Mountain. The total forces numbered about 1000 men on each side with the British having the strategic hilltop position. Due to "Indian" style guerilla fighting tactics versus assembled, synchronized firing lines, and the use of more accurate (though slower-to-load) rifles than muskets, the battle was a resounding victory for the colonials. One hundred and eighty British men were killed while 28 Overmountain men were killed. The remaining British surrendered and the British commander was killed while attempting to escape through the battle lines.

In The Winning of the West, Theodore Roosevelt wrote of Kings Mountain, "This brilliant victory marked the turning point of the American Revolution."

Davy Crockett?

His father, John Crokett, fought in the Battle of Kings Mountain.

[PleaseBlitz]

Also, great thread idea rince. Im a huge 20th century history buff, my background on the Revolutionary War is relatively thin.

[JMS]

Dont **** with the Mountain Men.

The people of that region weren't really patriots or siding with the revolutionaries as much as they hated the British and all authority. You see by the treaty which ended the French and Indian war the Ohio valley was off limits to colonials. The British enforced this treaty by blocking westward expansion and even hunting parties into this untamed wilderness. These hunting parties were how folks in that region made their living. As the easter teritories became more settled this policy became very unpopular and even repressive to the folks of this region.

These men ( Mountan Men) made their living hunting; and were impoverished by the terms of this treaty which they believed unfairly targetted their livelyhood. The Colonial Army recruited from this population just on the promise they would get to shoot British soldiers.

At Kings Mountain they gave no quarter to the British. "Tarleton's Quarter"...

The real shame of the victory at Kings Mountain was British Major Patrick Ferguson was killed there. A famous marksman who invented the breach loaded riffle. He was one of the more famous British officers of the Revolution and is often compared with Tarleton who he confronted on several occations. While Tarleton had the reputation and nickname Butcher... Ferguson was a real soldiers solder. Very well respected accomplished officer who ended up paying the price for Tarleton's attrocieties which he himself had complained about to Cornwalis and had tried to stop.

[PeterMP]

I don't really think that's true. I believe only about a third of the colonies were in rebelion and aiding Washington. Another third was helping the British, and a third really didn't care eather way.

If the british had been more destructive it likely would have backfired and helped make the rebelion even more popular...

As it was the British were selectively destructive. They were relatively easy up in new England where they were more popular, and committed a number of atraucities down south (Tarlton) where the rebels had more support.

You point to a few atrocities by a guy that wasn't even a General. Wanton destruction and violence was Sherman's (and Grant's) open and regular policy.

The British had the weapons (i.e. Navy) and economic superiority to wage a "total war" as the Grant and Sherman did. Originally the North in the Civil war tried a partial war policy (you may have heard of the Anconda plan). That didn't work. What did work was the total war policy pursued later.

Even with the total war and destruction of most of the south (and maybe because of it), they were able to put the country back together (maybe not in the ideal manner).

There was no way after the revolution started that the America-British relationship was going to be the same, but for the British to actually win the war (and recreate something even resembeling a colonial situation) would have required a willingness to burn and destroy large amounts of property, including the large population centers.

The British should have started by sitting out in the sea and bombarding every costal city and town.

[PleaseBlitz]

You point to a few atrocities by a guy that wasn't even a General. Wanton destruction and violence was Sherman's (and Grant's) open and regular policy.

The British had the weapons (i.e. Navy) and economic superiority to wage a "total war" as the Grant and Sherman did. Originally the North in the Civil war tried a partial war policy (you may have heard of the Anconda plan). That didn't work. What did work was the total war policy pursued later.

Even with the total war and destruction of most of the south (and maybe because of it), they were able to put the country back together (maybe not in the ideal manner).

There was no way after the revolution started that the America-British relationship was going to be the same, but for the British to actually win the war (and recreate something even resembeling a colonial situation) would have required a willingness to burn and destroy large amounts of property, including the large population centers.

The British should have started by sitting out in the sea and bombarding every costal city and town.

I agree and it just goes to show how badly the Brits underestimated the US. They thought they could win easily and didnt want to destroy that property which they believed was their own even though it was the tactical thing to do.

[JMS]

You point to a few atrocities by a guy that wasn't even a General. Wanton destruction and violence was Sherman's (and Grant's) open and regular policy.

The British had the weapons (i.e. Navy) and economic superiority to wage a "total war" as the Grant and Sherman did. Originally the North in the Civil war tried a partial war policy (you may have heard of the Anconda plan). That didn't work. What did work was the total war policy pursued later.

Even with the total war and destruction of most of the south (and maybe because of it), they were able to put the country back together (maybe not in the ideal manner).

There was no way after the revolution started that the America-British relationship was going to be the same, but for the British to actually win the war (and recreate something even resembeling a colonial situation) would have required a willingness to burn and destroy large amounts of property, including the large population centers.

The British should have started by sitting out in the sea and bombarding every costal city and town.

You might be right. But the British controled most of the Coastal cities. And those they didn't control they could easily re-take. Like New York, and Charlston....

My point wasn't that the British were destructive and committed attrocieities... They did. But they were selective about it. They didn't want to risk alienating their supporters or popularaizing the rebels. As I said, only about a third of the colonies favored rebelion.

Also I don't think it's reasonable to compare the revolutionary war, pre industrial revolution; with the civil war post industrial revolution. The Civil war was one of the bloodiest wars in human history up til that point. The German generals studied the Civil war in the US before WWII cause it's leasons were still being learned. The Revolutionary war was by comparison a much smaller affair. The Brits never had the troops or ability to emulate Grant or Sherman almost 100 years latter.

Civil war Casualites.. 600,000 men died of battle and disease in the civil war (both North and South).

The United States suffered 25,000 dead in all of the Revolutionary War. We suffered more casualties just in Gettysburg. Hell Meade and Lee both had twice the forces in their command during Gettysburg than regular troops who fought in the entire revolutionary war on both sides, DOUBLED!!

The British only had 12,000 regulars in the US at any one time during the revolutonary war. Meade had 80,000 soldiers in his command just at the Battle of Gettysburg. There just isn't any comparison between these two wars.

The civil war strategies weren't applicable and wouldn't have been even helpful if they were in the Revolutionary war.

The Brits in the Revolution never had the forces to destroy the colonies. The fact that two thirds of the colonies weren't in rebelion made the entire concept of destroying the colonies kind of self defeating.

[zoony]

His father, John Crokett, fought in the Battle of Kings Mountain.

They've got Davy Crockett's rifle on display in downtown Knoxville. "Betsy"

/useless trivia.

Anyways, Mountain Men kicked Brit ass again in the War of 1812 when Andrew Jackson marched his group of 'Volunteers' down to New Orleans and saved the city, because people in Louisiana are well known sisies.

[The 12th Commandment]

What's really amazing is that they got Benedict to give them the most damaging intell that they could get and they even blew that one. BA wasn't really the clear cut traitor we've made him out to be, he was an outstanding field commander, he was just seriously disgruntled and slammed (very publically) for graft when he wasn't anymore guilty of it than the other generals. The ruling class was the same back then as it is now.

Anyway my point is that the britts had the intell to take West Point (then known as Fort Arnold) and got it from the man who created the installation and was the commander at that time and still failed. If they would've had Andre keep the papers in code or something we would've never known about it until it was too late. Luckily they didn't, George found out about it and BA ran off like a little beotch with his tail between his legs. That was HUGE mistake.

Of course if you're a righty the real mistake was the re-naming Ft. Arnold...Ft. Clinton. :poke:

[JMS]

They've got Davy Crockett's rifle on display in downtown Knoxville. "Betsy"

Did they recover it from Mexico?

His father, John Crokett, fought in the Battle of Kings Mountain.

Davy Crocket died in the Alamo in 1836 age 50.. Battle of Kings Mountain was 1780 almost sixty years earlier.

I guess that's an argument for not limiting the majority of our soldiers to the age of 18-22 years.