INTRODUCTION

The popular understanding of the American Revolutionary War is often times over-simplified or distorted. For instance, many Americans believe that British Regulars nievely maintained their attachment to bright red uniforms and disciplined linear formations, while American forces used wily guerrilla tactics to harass their opponents and avoid danger. The hidden message behind this myth is that Americans were clever and that the British simply did what was traditional. The reality of the war, however, was much different. The Americans and the British fought with similar tactics and weapons. Indeed, many American leaders had fought alongside British Regulars as militia during the French and Indian War. Far from scorning British tactics, several American leaders had aspired to become officers in the King's forces. Washington is just one outstanding example. Both sides used similar tactics and the reason that Americans eventually won the war is that the British were rarely able to hold territory without the constant presence of troops. The expected Loyalists never appeared in large enough numbers to turn the tide of the war for the British. As W.J. Wood writes, the appearance of large numbers of Loyalists in conquered areas “…was the typical illusion that British forces held throughout the war, an illusion that was constantly frustrated.” [1]

One example of the way that British soldiers of the Revolutionary period are viewed by the public can be seen in the 1992 movie, “Last of the Mohicans” based on the novel by James Fennimore Cooper. In the film, the British soldiers are easily defeated by bands of Indians who are invisible until the moment of attack. The British soldiers fumble into formation and small bands are only able to get off one volley before the clash breaks down in to hand to hand fighting. While the movie takes place during the French and Indian War, the tactics displayed are quite similar to those shown in any film that takes place between the invention of firearms and the Civil War. Linear tactics are not very prominent; the soldiers are soon involved in chaotic hand to hand fighting.

One of the many things that is mistaken about this image of warfare is that only an incompetent leader would have allowed himself to be taken on the flanks in the manner shown time and again in the movie. One such instance of this incompetence was when General Nicholas Herkimer, a militia leader, failed to put out flank guards and was taken by surprise. Thus it did happen but it is akin to a pilot crashing his plane; not the usual course of events. To deal with another myth, g iven the limited range of firearms at the time the famous red coats were probably a useful device for overawing opponents and gaining an advantage before the battle even began. Also, as can be seen in three of the images below Continentals who were properly outfitted wore uniforms that were just as flashy as those worn by the British. Many American troops, however, especially militia, had to dress in whatever came to hand. They could not have look very professional. Indeed, in many descriptions they sound like a gang of hobos with muskets. In contrast, British troops in their red jackets and white trousers looked like soldiers. Their attire, combined with their disciplined formations must have had a tremendous psychological advantage. It seems very likely that the weapons of the time were so inaccurate that by the time a soldier was within range it did not matter how he was dressed. That is to say with today's weapons that can easily hit a target at ranges of several hundred yards camouflage is important. At the time of the Revolutionary War, it was not. In light of the widely held myth of American partisan fighters defeating rigid British generals and their unthinking obedient troops, it seems worthwhile to examine the tactics and weapons, which went a long way in determining tactics, used during the American Revolution. This website will examine the weapons and tactics used by armies at the time of the Revolutionary war.

1. Wood, W.J.; Battles of the Revolutionary War 1775-1781, p. 138.