Impact of the American Revolution on the British Army

[Farnan]

What lessons did the British learn from the American Revolution and how did it impact their military?

I think I read it pushed the importance of Light Infantry and showed the rifle as not just a hunting implement, but I'm not sure.

[Poach]

The revolutionary war, in addition to the new tactics that emerged fighting France, were two key factors in the foundation of the Rifle Corps as far as I'm aware.

Edit: Not so much foundation, but they were reformed from line regiments into a skirmishing force equipped with Baker rifles.

[different_13]

Seems like mere continuation from the lessons started 20 years earlier in the 7 Years War (or French and Indian War, if you prefer).

However, I have heard mentioned that British use of the 2-man firing line rather than the standard 3-man line (which I believe they largely used at that time) was influenced by the Revolutionary War.

[TWoxy]

Mark Urban wrote "Fusiliers: How the British Army lost America but learned to fight" on this very subject. Its worth a look, quite well-written.

[Chuffy]

I was under the impression the British Army acquitted itself very well to fighting irregularly in North America. The image of the patriotic eagle-eyed marksman taking down the poncy soldiers standing in a line and not knowing what the hell is going on doesn't really have a wide basis in truth (Mel Gibson is not the truth). The US army on the other hand had a much harder time adapting to the kind of 'conventional' warfare as seen in Europe (which was why so many French and German officers traveled over there).

I mean there were influences and changes made based on the experiences of the army over there (above posts refer to such things) but I'm not sure there was any great revolution in military thinking for it.

[Irish King]

They learned to never underestimate an opponent. And I'm pretty sure that they started using rifleman as skirmishers more because of the American guerilla tactics in the South.

[Farnan]

I was under the impression the British Army acquitted itself very well to fighting irregularly in North America. The image of the patriotic eagle-eyed marksman taking down the poncy soldiers standing in a line and not knowing what the hell is going on doesn't really have a wide basis in truth (Mel Gibson is not the truth). The US army on the other hand had a much harder time adapting to the kind of 'conventional' warfare as seen in Europe (which was why so many French and German officers traveled over there).

I mean there were influences and changes made based on the experiences of the army over there (above posts refer to such things) but I'm not sure there was any great revolution in military thinking for it.

Actually you're wrong on both accounts...

The British were never good at irregular fighting. It lost them the Battle of Trenton (irregulars made it so their garrisons could not communicate), Saratoga (destroyed their supply and morale), the South (greatly weakened them there) and the West.

And the US Regulars by 1777-1778 was able to perform fairly well in conventional war, and even in 1775 and 1776 win some battles against the British. However though it wasn't till they adopted a formal drill devised by Von Steuben that they could go toe-to-toe with the British and win that doesn't mean they were useless in that kind of combat. Look at the Siege of Boston, Harlem Heights and Saratoga. And if it wasn't for a drunk officer and fog, Germantown.

[Blarni]

[QUOTE=Farnan;5883560]Actually you're wrong on both accounts...

The British were never good at irregular fighting. It lost them the Battle of Trenton (irregulars made it so their garrisons could not communicate), Saratoga (destroyed their supply and morale), the South (greatly weakened them there) and the West.

––––––––Actually the British usually had the upper hand in irregular fighting, their skills learned and honed in the French Indian War (and the importance of which -slapped back into them at Concorde and Lexington) - even without their own light infantry units, they had Hessian jægers, loyalists and native american forces - what they lacked was the numbers to win long-term in the guerilla, civil war situation in the South - and while Morgan's men did do an excellent job at Saratoga, the British forces were overwhelmed by a 3:1 numerical advantage, not sharpshooters. And Trenton was an all Hessian affair, lost more by Rall's gross complacency.

As for British officer casualties - they were initially heavier than the Rebels because British officers always led from the front - a command style the Rebels eventually adopted so the ratio evened out.
Essentially neither British irregular and light units - or rebel American regulars - deserve the misrepresentation the many myths of the revolution still give them.

[jackwei]

[QUOTE=Blarni;5886118]

Actually you're wrong on both accounts...

The British were never good at irregular fighting. It lost them the Battle of Trenton (irregulars made it so their garrisons could not communicate), Saratoga (destroyed their supply and morale), the South (greatly weakened them there) and the West.

––––––––Actually the British usually had the upper hand in irregular fighting, their skills learned and honed in the French Indian War (and the importance of which -slapped back into them at Concorde and Lexington) - even without their own light infantry units, they had Hessian jægers, loyalists and native american forces - what they lacked was the numbers to win long-term in the guerilla, civil war situation in the South - and while Morgan's men did do an excellent job at Saratoga, the British forces were overwhelmed by a 3:1 numerical advantage, not sharpshooters. And Trenton was an all Hessian affair, lost more by Rall's gross complacency.

As for British officer casualties - they were initially heavier than the Rebels because British officers always led from the front - a command style the Rebels eventually adopted so the ratio evened out.
Essentially neither British irregular and light units - or rebel American regulars - deserve the misrepresentation the many myths of the revolution still give them.

Appranetly some of the minutemen and milita of lexington and concord were Rogers Rangers veterans and other light infantry veterans from the French and Indian War lol no why the Redcoats had a hardtime. John Stark was an amazing leader and performed well at Bunker Hill and understood how the british fought maybe thats why he good record against them in the Revolution.

[Farnan]

––––––––Actually the British usually had the upper hand in irregular fighting, their skills learned and honed in the French Indian War (and the importance of which -slapped back into them at Concorde and Lexington) - even without their own light infantry units, they had Hessian jægers, loyalists and native american forces - what they lacked was the numbers to win long-term in the guerilla, civil war situation in the South - and while Morgan's men did do an excellent job at Saratoga, the British forces were overwhelmed by a 3:1 numerical advantage, not sharpshooters. And Trenton was an all Hessian affair, lost more by Rall's gross complacency.

As for British officer casualties - they were initially heavier than the Rebels because British officers always led from the front - a command style the Rebels eventually adopted so the ratio evened out.
Essentially neither British irregular and light units - or rebel American regulars - deserve the misrepresentation the many myths of the revolution still give them.

However, they lost the Forage War (look it up) and the War in the South and weren't able to fight the irregulars there. And at Saratoga, it was guerrillas that weakened your force and bought Gates the time to form his force.

[William the Bastard]

Mark Urban wrote "Fusiliers: How the British Army lost America but learned to fight" on this very subject.

Seconded. If you really want to see the war from the British perspective Farnan I would reccomend you get this book.

http://www.amazon.com/Fusiliers-Brit...1835404&sr=8-1

From what I remember of the book, most if not all line regiments became quasi-light infantry by engaging with a greater space between each man.

[Sphere]

I was under the impression that the colonials performed poorly until they improved their conventional forces, and brought in large contingents of French infantry and part of the French Navy. I mean the first few years was almost a perpetual rout of rebel forces, even under the vaunted Washington. Even in the end, the British army wasn't pushed off the continent, it was more a case of the British forces not being able to defeat the rebels, and an erosion of public support for the war back in Britian.

Mel Gibson is not the truth

My world view has been shattered...

[Farnan]

I was under the impression that the colonials performed poorly until they improved their conventional forces, and brought in large contingents of French infantry and part of the French Navy. I mean the first few years was almost a perpetual rout of rebel forces, even under the vaunted Washington. Even in the end, the British army wasn't pushed off the continent, it was more a case of the British forces not being able to defeat the rebels, and an erosion of public support for the war back in Britian.

The French Infantry and Navy were not around till Yorktown...

And in 1776 was the year of the perpetual rout. 1777 had its bad and good moments (bad losing Philadelphia, good capturing Burgoyne's Army). By 1778 we had stalemated the British in the North and the war shifted South. There it began with the British kicking American ass till Greene got there and fought Cornwallis and eventually forced him into Yorktown, where an Anglo-French force drove him out. The British did retain a large force in the North and the victory in the South did not end the stalemate there, and it was erosion of public support that ended the war. But to believe that the British kept routing Americans till the French came would be ignorance of history.

Before Steuben's reforms the Continentals performed well when well led, after the reforms they performed well. The British Redcoats performed well.

[jackwei]

How about Bunker Hill did give a lesson to william howe and the army, because of the pyhrric victory the British had over those brave American defenders on breeds hill(Bunker Hill) 1775??
Some can say it was one of those battles not to underestimate the colonists who almost managed to defeat the Redcoats in a pitched battle.

[MaximiIian]

Even in the end, the British army wasn't pushed off the continent, it was more a case of the British forces not being able to defeat the rebels, and an erosion of public support for the war back in Britain.

Even in my American history book, it admits that the British Army could have won the war and kept the colonies if they had more support back home, and if the three other naval powers hadn't all sided with the American rebels.
Really, we were just ridiculously lucky; the Continental military was fighting, and losing, an uphill battle from day one.

[Gelgoog]

Even in my American history book, it admits that the British Army could have won the war and kept the colonies if they had more support back home, and if the three other naval powers hadn't all sided with the American rebels.
Really, we were just ridiculously lucky; the Continental military was fighting, and losing, an uphill battle from day one.

actually historians will usually agree that it was quite impossible for the brits to win. The reason being was that literally had to occupy nearly all of America to put down the revolution. The fact that they controlled most of the major cities and had 1/3 support of the country (the tories greatly boosted their fighting strength- damn future canadians) shows that the revolutionaries did quite a good job. Washington learned during the war that he did not need to beat the british, he simply needed to outlast them and this was done by keeping his army intact. The longer the war went on, the more the brits dug themselves in a hole with abuses on the colonist. The whole winning the hearts and mind approach.

History often likes to make it look as though the british were greatly outnumbered, but in fact it was the rebels who were greatly hampered the entire conflict for lack of arms, powder, food, money and manpower.
They also only had support of 1/3 of the population. A betting man would have never bet on the colonists, but they were quite cunning.

As to the crap about the brits having learned how to fight against guerrilla tactics long before the revolution, then why did they preform so poorly again the french and indians who fought in that same style during the F&I war?

American military dead
Around 25,000 dead mostly due to disease and from being POW's about 4-7k dead from battles based on estimates
British Forces dead
At least 40,000+ mostly from deaths due to disease and being POW's, 8000 of the 9500 British forces that surrendured at Saratoga died in captivity. 27000 British seaman died to war and disease, roughly 8000 germans died to war and disease

those numbers seem sketchy. For one the americans had a difficult time keeping prisoners in the first place, there was not exactly alot of places to hold them, which means they were often just let go. Where as the brits held rebels on prison ships where they were malnourished and died in huge numbers of typhoid. I will have to look into this more but considering the amount of prisoners the brits caught in comparison to the rebels, one would think the number of POW deaths would be higher for the rebels.

[Gelgoog]

Well the brits learned the value of the riflemen and taking out targets of value on the battlefield demonstrated by the high loss their officer corp took during the revolution.

[Humphrey]

They learnt a couple of things about dealing with an insurgency. The British Army would use some very heavy handed measures in defeating the Irish Confederacy 20 years later. I'd wager that had they been more tough on the rebellious colonists; full scale Revolution would not have occurred. There were plenty of Loyalists and Neutral observers (Quakers and such) to balance things out.

In terms of the war itself, the British simply lacked man power; there were only about 15,000 Regulars on the continent at any one time, 75,000 were needed (was either Holmes or Buchino that said that, can't remember). In nearly every battle, the British Army was outnumbered.

I still think Battle Honours should be given to the British Regiments sent out there. They won more battles than they lost in difficult circumstances... namely nearly always having to assault a defended position whilst being outnumbered. Even at Saratoga, while outnumbered and surrounded 3 to 1, the British still attacked. Madness.

[vopohame]

Highest total of american forces at arms at one time
90,000

Highest total of Bristish arms in the colonies in 1879
60,000 that number includes
British regulars
Germans mercs
British colonial regulars
British colonial irregulars
may include indians not sure, of which 13,000 warriors served on the british side

American military dead
Around 25,000 dead mostly due to disease and from being POW's about 4-7k dead from battles based on estimates
British Forces dead
At least 40,000+ mostly from deaths due to disease and being POW's, 8000 of the 9500 British forces that surrendured at Saratoga died in captivity. 27000 British seaman died to war and disease, roughly 8000 germans died to war and disease

Civilian deaths unknown--Indian raids and disease killed at least 100,000 people but that figure is attributed mostly to small pox that hit the colonies during this time that killed around 130,000 people. No one knows how many people died from loyalist and colonial guerilla attacks, indian attacks etc... Two previous indian raids into the frontier in 1744 and 1763 killed 2000 and upwards of 10,000 respectively. Death tolls could easily be in those ranges over a period of 8 years of indian raids.

[Last Roman]

Highest total of american forces at arms at one time
90,000

Highest total of Bristish arms in the colonies in 1879
60,000 that number includes
British regulars
Germans mercs
British colonial regulars
British colonial irregulars
may include indians not sure, of which 13,000 warriors served on the british side

American military dead
Around 25,000 dead mostly due to disease and from being POW's about 4-7k dead from battles based on estimates
British Forces dead
At least 40,000+ mostly from deaths due to disease and being POW's, 8000 of the 9500 British forces that surrendured at Saratoga died in captivity. 27000 British seaman died to war and disease, roughly 8000 germans died to war and disease

Civilian deaths unknown--Indian raids and disease killed at least 100,000 people but that figure is attributed mostly to small pox that hit the colonies during this time that killed around 130,000 people. No one knows how many people died from loyalist and colonial guerilla attacks, indian attacks etc... Two previous indian raids into the frontier in 1744 and 1763 killed 2000 and upwards of 10,000 respectively. Death tolls could easily be in those ranges over a period of 8 years of indian raids.

Damn, I didn't know causalities were that high, especially among the civilians.