true, although the British regular Army managed to keep the edge in skill, tactics and discipline throughout much of the war.

Unlike the popular myth, the regular British Army in the Revolutionary War was quite a flexible organization. After the intial fumbles at Lexington and Bunker Hill, they adopted new lightweight uniforms more suitable to a light infantry role and the North American climate. They changed their tactics adopting a 2 line formation instead of 3, widening the distance between each man to make it easier to maneuver on rough terrain and used much more skirmish line/light infantry tactics where small group of men would use the terrain as cover while firing at the enemy.

This was different from the Hessian Regiments which stayed with their heavy European uniforms and inflexible tactics and were less effective.

A good example of British tactical prowess was at the battle of Camden, 1780, where a British Army force of 2,100, including 1,500 regulars routed a Rebel Army of 3,700, including 1,500 Continental Army regulars.

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

British tactical prowess was indeed considerable, especially with a commander like Cornwallis in charge, but I think Camden was really more about a failure of American leadership (Horatio Gates) than it was about British expertise.

That presumes that everyone in the Colonies was against British rule which is one of the myth which grew up afterwards, much like the myth that everyone in France in WW2 was active in the Resistance..;).

A closer look would show that the mass of the population was indifferent and only a small proportion were active Rebel or Tory supporters. The Rebels spent as much time trying to convince the silent majority to join them as they did in intimitading/suppressing active Tory supporters. This ranged from harassment, destruction of property all the way to murdering Tory supporters.

Part of the reason why the British switched to a Southern strategy in 78-79 was because there were much more Tory supporters in the Southern colonies.

I admit to knowing little about the American Revolution and my comment was purely tongue in cheek.

It is an interesting conflict and would have created an interesting world had the British not been forced to cede the colonies and give them independence.

At least no one here has recommended watching The Patriot. I caught some of that on TV last night and thought it was an appaling movie, not just the acting but the whole way it portrayed the Brits. Kind of like his other film about William Wallace.

During the Revolution that was true, and that is what the thread is about. The quotes I cited were related to the War of 1812, which I admit was not the subject of the thread but much more in line with the Vietnam comparison. And as was pointed out in the old thread, the British government never fully recognized the loss until after 1815.

Look at the brightside, you still have Canada.:woot:

I am also no expert on the British take on the Revolutionary war. All of my observations are derived from "Fusiliers" by Mark Urban, a recent military history on the British Army in the Revolution written by a British historian with (obviously) a British view point. I have seen some criticisms that his book was too heavily biased in favour of the British, but I found it a refreshing new look at this entire period.

One of the parts that fascinates me the most I knew nothing about until I read all those biographies a couple years ago. The treaty of 1783 - all the wrangling among the US delegates, the concessions made on both sides and how they led to political agruments between the two nations years later. Lots of fun stuff.

Granted Steve, but may I remind some what this (thread is really about), to find the views of the (British take) on the revolution. :yep: I would like to have seen the (American take) thread but this just about covers it indirectly with US members postings. Some good reads and intresting points. What intrigues me most, thus far, order is maintained, without bias. Keep it going men :salute:

We would still have killed them.

The native Americans learned an important lesson. It is never good to find yourself between an expansionist country and a coastline. :nope: It is not going to turn out well.

I don't think it necessarily had to work out like that but definitely the tone for Colonist/Indian relations was irrevocably set by around the turn of the 18th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Philip%27s_War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...eek_%281711%29

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

Have you ever seen the movie Joan of Arc? There is a scene, where some British redcoats do a most appalling act with her older sister, which I confess does not please me. Though I can not rule out my conduct being any different during said times. In war we are all capable of any instances. :hmmm:

And may many threads arise, that is worth topic and debate. *sighs* :yawn:

hmmm, I've had the opportunity to travel to a vast number of seaside ports in the U.S. Some of which still have colonial era pubs open for business. I thought it odd at the time but no matter what town we were in, pub or not. All had some sort of sign posted claiming George Washington stopped in for a drink and to strategize.

Of course whether it really happened or not it's good for business to post such things too. :)



.