The war we almost did not win

[COL Jagdog]

A few thoughts to share about the Revolutionary War from the military perspective -- it was a near-run affair and most Americans today still do not realize how close we came to losing the entire war.

For those looking for a great and easy to read history of the War for Independence -- I would recommend John Ferling's
"Almost A Miracle" -- it covers all of the important battles,
Bunker Hill, Lexington, Trenton, Cowpens, King's Mountain, Saratoga, Yorktown as well as the major players, British generals Howe, Gage, Cornwallis, Col Tarleton; and American/French/German leaders; Washington, Nathaniel Greene (probably the best American strategist of the war), Horatio Gates, Louis Duportail (French military engineer and general of Continenetal Army engineering assets who designed and built the positions that trapped the British at Yorktown which led to the final victory), Henry Knox (the father of the US artillery corps), Lafayette, Steuben, and "Mad" Anthony Wayne. The book also covers the impact of the war on the civilian population.

You will find this is a compelling summer read -- the patriots who risked all to found the new republic.

 

[palmetto99]

The outcome of any war is never sure.

 

[COL Jagdog]

The outcome of any war is never sure.

Having studied practically every war in history by reading histories of various wars and my studies at the Command and General Staff College (Peloponnesian Wars, Punic Wars, Gallic Wars, the campaigns by the British in India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, the Moro Insurgency in the Philippines, the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, the War of the Roses, the various Cental and South American wars for independence,
the Napoleanic campaigns, the Ashanti wars, the Boer War,
the Falklands, ( and I use these just by way of illustration) and all of the "big" wars) -- I do not believe that view is supported -- there have been plenty of wars where the outcome is pre-ordained (i.e. on belligerent has such an advantage in arms, troops, tactics, geography, etc) that the outcome is not in doubt.

The War of Independence was in fact a very very close affair.

 

[A10]

"Our lives, our fortune, our sacred honor"......people today do not understand what this long used phrase really means (no doubt I am included in that group). These honored men risked everything , including the lives of their families, for freedom from the crown.

We will be reading the Declaration on the 4th this year.

 

[Az Rick]

Food for thought.
I have a Minor in U.S. History, but took it seriously.

I credit the tenacity of the Colonists with the outcome.

I also believe in the economics of war. If you can cause a country to bankrupt itself, you can win. I think as the war progressed they became weary of spending more with no guarantee of winning.

I also think that, given the time,...we disrespected conventional warfare to the point that they had a hard time coping. Yea Colonists!

I'll read the book.

Best, Rick

 

[semperfi71]

Are there parallels to Vietnam and our Revolutionary War?

Starting with the French at Dien Bien Phu (spelling?) versus Yorktown?

And as Az Rick posted, "I also believe in the economics of war. If you can cause a country to bankrupt itself, you can win. I think as the war progressed they became weary of spending more with no guarantee of winning."

Vietnam may not have bankrupted us but it sure convinced a lot of non-believers that we were "losing" (we weren't) and so a lot of folks wanted us out.

COL Jagdog I would be pleased to hear your comments. Or any other folks' comments as well.

 

[COL Jagdog]

Are there parallels to Vietnam and our Revolutionary War?

Starting with the French at Dien Bien Phu (spelling?) versus Yorktown?

And as Az Rick posted, "I also believe in the economics of war. If you can cause a country to bankrupt itself, you can win. I think as the war progressed they became weary of spending more with no guarantee of winning."

Vietnam may not have bankrupted us but it sure convinced a lot of non-believers that we were "losing" (we weren't) and so a lot of folks wanted us out.

COL Jagdog I would be pleased to hear your comments. Or any other folks' comments as well.

Actually, a very intuitive and brilliant take by you -- one of the papers I wrote in CGSC was to compare the synergy of battlefield effect created by the joint effort of the two main American armies commanded by Washington and Greene joined with multiple militia groups such as those commanded by Marion Fox who enjoyed considerable support from the colonists -- the comparison being the joint effort during the Vietnam War by the NVA (commanded by GEN Giap, who was an excellent strategist) as supplemented by many cadres of Vietcong who enjoyed support from various elements of the population.

AZ is right that the civilian population(colonists) provided much support to the the American effort, although there was also a support base for the British in the Tory families.
It is also true that the British committed much blood and treasure to the campaigns and that economics (including French/Prussian support for the Americans) and the drain on the fisc of the Crown were factors.

Dien Bien Phu is also another battle that I studied and wrote an extensive paper on -- it was an epic siege, the French fought bravely and effectively for the most part, particularly considering they were being re-supplied by air -- they were simply worn down as the Vietnamese slowly reduced their positions (which were a series of prepared positions, mini-forts
if you will, named after the French commander's mistresses,
"Beatrice", etc. -- there are some very good books out on this battle.

 

[GregG]

England could have won that war if it had decided to put more effort into it.

They were simply too spread out at the time, and preferred to concentrate on other parts of its empire.

 

[STCM(SW)]

My only question is if the U.S. really wanted to win in 'Nam, why not constant bombing with B52's over the North, mine the coast & harbors, and a Naval blockade, nothing in or out....
Then again, we supported a corrupt South Vietnam government.

 

[DeadAye]

Lucky thing we won the Revolution!
Otherwise we'd all be talking English and wearing funny clothes from Barnaby Street.

 

[lawandorder]

Thank you for the book reccomendation.

My 4th Great Grandfather fought at the battle of King's Mountain which many historians consider a pivotal point in the war.

God Bless the Americans who have picked up a rifle and used it to ensure our freedom though out all of our country's conflicts and those yet to come.

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

Lucky thing we won the Revolution!
Otherwise we'd all be talking English and wearing funny clothes from Barnaby Street.

Don't forget the bad teeth thing and drinking tea

 

[semperfi71]

Thank you COL JagDog for your comments to me and to the postings in general. I am a minor student of military history, mostly U.S.

Posted by STCM(SW):
"My only question is if the U.S. really wanted to win in 'Nam, why not constant bombing with B52's over the North, mine the coast & harbors, and a Naval blockade, nothing in or out...."

It is my impression this is how Nixon ended the war. When the North Vietnamese monkeyed around too much in the peace talks, Nixon ended them, bombed North Vietnam unrestricted for two weeks, destroyed their capability to wage any further war, and they returned to the peace talks and it was over.

I believe that the United States, for too long, thought we could win the Vietnam war by our "superior" technology. Just as later folks thought we could win in Iraq and Afghanistan through superior technology. As a thought of my own, our leaders actually were thinking this in WWII. Yet all of these conflicts still required troops on the ground.

Anyhow, I suspect, that we thought we could win Vietnam essentially with one hand tied behind our back. Whereas we should have entered the fray with both fists locked and loaded. When Nixon came to be, he did pursue the war as aggressivley as he could but it was still not enough and definitely too late. Our nation at home, with the assistance of a foolish press, was tired of it. So Nixon got us out.

I firmly believe that there is much about Vietnam that has not been properly reported and documented and now it never will be. There are many falsehoods about the war and its combatants that have been continually misrepresented by the left wing, the press, and even the History Channel. Unfortunately I suspect that our military, past and present, also has directly and indirectly reported on the actions of the Vietnam War.

However, I apologize for taking this discussion of the Revolutionary War into the Vietnam war. But I do know this, our brave men and women in both conflicts fought for that they thought was right.

 

[Texas Star]

Actually, a very intuitive and brilliant take by you -- one of the papers I wrote in CGSC was to compare the synergy of battlefield effect created by the joint effort of the two main American armies commanded by Washington and Greene joined with multiple militia groups such as those commanded by Marion Fox who enjoyed considerable support from the colonists -- the comparison being the joint effort during the Vietnam War by the NVA (commanded by GEN Giap, who was an excellent strategist) as supplemented by many cadres of Vietcong who enjoyed support from various elements of the population.

AZ is right that the civilian population(colonists) provided much support to the the American effort, although there was also a support base for the British in the Tory families.
It is also true that the British committed much blood and treasure to the campaigns and that economics (including French/Prussian support for the Americans) and the drain on the fisc of the Crown were factors.

Dien Bien Phu is also another battle that I studied and wrote an extensive paper on -- it was an epic siege, the French fought bravely and effectively for the most part, particularly considering they were being re-supplied by air -- they were simply worn down as the Vietnamese slowly reduced their positions (which were a series of prepared positions, mini-forts
if you will, named after the French commander's mistresses,
"Beatrice", etc. -- there are some very good books out on this battle.

Col.-


Do you mean Gen. Francis Marion, the so-called Swamp Fox? (See my bold italics in your quote above.) It looks here as if your computer (surely, not you ) confused Fox with his real last name.

As a kld, I was amused that he was played on TV by a Canadian, later a well known comedian. (Leslie Neilson.) I wonder if he laughed about playing a man who would have been his enemy, had he lived in Marion's time.

 

[COL Jagdog]

Texas Star, yes, I must have been in "brainlock" -- it was Francis Marion, the famed "Swamp Fox", who was the scourge of COL Tarleton's
British cavalry units.

 

[Skeptic 9c]

Having studied practically every war in history by reading histories of various wars and my studies at the Command and General Staff College

Let me see you say "Colonel Custer achieved his objective precisely, but his force ratio was slightly miscalculated," with a straight face!

Geoff
Who notes that was a long slow supply chain for the Brits.

 

[COL Jagdog]

Skeptic9c,

You are eminently correct -- COL Custer did in fact "outkick his coverage" -- given the standard 3:1 ratio that was used for offensive engagements for so long, he was sucking wind when he finally realized
how much bigger of a force he was facing and the result is that he sacrificed his command.

The British did have a long slow supply chain -- but they in fact enjoyed local support from large groups of Loyalists (Tories) who provided them forage for horses, food, shelter, and other services

 

[rayb]

Semperfi71
"Yet all of these conflicts still required troops on the ground."
[END QUOTE]

and there you have it.......

you can't win by remote control technology (including air delivered explosives) alone

rayb

 

[David LaPell]

Where I live and where I am from the Rev War, French & Indian War (Seven Years War for you purists) and the War of 1812 were all very important and all three were in doubt along the northern frontier. I live only a forty minute drive from Saratoga, not to mention there was the fight at Fort Ticonderoga as well. So my area is full of this history and yet every year its pretty much ignored these days. Heck if you ask anyone if this country was invaded they would say no, which is not the truth, the British marched from Canada to Plattsburgh, a good twenty miles plus before they defeated at the Battle of Plattsburgh and the Battle of Lake Champlain, both on September 11, 1814. I am proud to say my ancestors were part of the militia and army that was raised that chased them back across the border again. I wish people knew how close we came in the War of 1812 and the Rev War to saying God Save the King instead of God Bless America.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

From what I have read of Dien Bin Phu it was no more a "fortress" than Stalingrad-actually a very poor position, many of its strong points not mutually supporting, and Giap has his Viet Minh haul artillery (something the French though they couldn't do) up the hills overlooking it. They brought the airfield under fire, rendering it useless. In much the same way Stalingrad became a battle for the airfields.
The British never grasped the "hearts and minds" aspects of the struggle
and alienated many people through their high handed ways and contemptuous manner. For example the British refused to give Loyalist officers rank-parity and declared that a Loyalist colonel ranked below a Royal Army lieutenant. Before the Battle of King's Mountain Patrick Ferguson sent the Over the Mountain men a proclamation declaring that if they did not submit he would lay waste to their lands with "fire and sword". That battle was part of their attempt to "Americanize" the war by relying on Loyalists to fight it for them so they could deploy Crown Forces against the French and Spanish who had become our allies.

Here in New Jersey a Patriot was often a Loyalist who house had been looted by Hessians.
Some of the British commanders recognized the different nature of the conflict. It has been noted than many top British commanders, Howe and Clinton, particularly, were very cautious. Those who had fought at Bunker Hill were appalled by the stubborness and tenacity of the Rebels, Gage warned that a very large army would be necessary and they would probably have to hire foreign troops.