quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
You forgot to mention one of the greatest David vs Goliath epics. These little backwoods colonies that faced off against the greatest empire the world had seen, with the best army and navy in the world.

Read “Washington: A life” https://www.amazon.com/Washing...id=1623208800&sr=8-3

Good point, but without the French battle fleet, the US would not have defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown (which set in motion the endgame for the US Revolution). We may have won the war anyway, as the Brits did a LOT of stupid stuff (they hunkered down to a lavish and cozy life in New York City, treated the loyalists like garbage, under-estimated the rebels, etc).

As much as I dislike the French, they did save our bacon. Of course, it was in France's best interests to stick it to the English. This might also describe the conflict Washington had with the French. Washington wanted to defeat the Brits immediately, and he was utterly frustrated by the French fleet's unwillingness to work with the US closely. The French made quite a few decisions/mistakes that hindered this goal (whether on purpose or accidentally, I do not know). It was actually better for the French to tie down the Brits and let them bleed on American soil for years instead of defeating them outright in 1776/7, which MAY have been possible were the French more determined and cooperative. . .

"George Washington's Great Gamble: and the Sea Battle That Won the American Revolution," by James L. Nelson is a great book explaining this.

"The Struggle for Sea Power: A Naval History of the American Revolution," by Sam Willis is another great one (really, ALL of Willis' books are excellent).



It has been said that the US did not have an (effective) Navy in the Revolution. This is mostly true, as the Colonists were obsessed with building large warships (frigates and even ships of the line) like the Brits had (there are notable exceptions, such as Benedict Arnold's brilliant delaying tactics using relatively small craft in upstate New York on Lake Champlain). However, a great argument could have been made that a smaller 'insurgent' fleet of small gunboats would have been a MUCH better utilization of the limited US shipbuilding resources and manpower. A few US frigates could never wrest sea control from the overwhelming Royal Navy presence in the colonies. However, hordes of small gun-boats (50 feet long or so, each armed with a single large gun, with sails and oars) could have over-powered even the biggest ships the Brits had in areas like New York, Philadelphia, etc.

Despite lacking a good US Navy, sea power did play a decisive role in the US victory. The French fleet provided this sea power, which when concentrated at key locations against the far-flung Brit fleet units, could give the French local superiority. The Brits had the world's biggest fleet, yet they had to defend a wide area (the Caribbean, Gibraltar, trade routes, the British Isles (the Battle of Ushant was fought during the Revolution, in which the Brits defeated a combined French/Spanish fleet that threatened Britain with invasion) ). Britain could never concentrate all its military power in the Colonies, as they had an empire and home islands to defend. The French, being mostly on the offensive, could pick the time and location to mass its forces, so they could leverage their smaller fleet against even smaller concentrations of Royal Navy units.

I read through the thread quickly. I think one aspect that hasn't been mentioned is one of the worst adages of modern warfare strategy: the idea that it is possible to fight a war and "win hearts and minds."

We tried this in Vietnam, and in the Mideast. Over and over we fool ourselves into thinking that the indigenous people in those countries truly support the corrupt "friendly governments" that we prop up with our blood and treasure. And that these civilians caught in the middle of the fighting actually want to adopt our way of life.

Oh Jerusalem! comes to mind and the other one about India. Read it in french a lifetime ago: Cette nuit la liberte (tonight freedom) both by Lapierre and Collins. Explain how the undertog beat the Brit.

Both books are excellent reads

0-0

Malcolm Gladwell's book of the same title has an interesting take on it. In short, don't fight the way your opponent expects you to.

For those specific countries: Will.

They have the will to: 1) inflict the casualties, 2) do the hard work, pain, sacrifice of winning over other things, 3) try the innovative thing that's risky and/or unconventional and/or controversial and/or unprecedented, and 4) take the casulaties until they win.

And finally: against an enemy that's doesn't have the same will.

But you should know the "David vs. Goliath" story as told isn't what you think it is. Read Malcolm Galdwell's explaination of it: on video here

“ How did they do it?
What books are worth reading that explain it?
I'm interested in historical works as well as manuals.”

Everything you need is right here. Search the archives as well for small field team tactics, various army and marine manuals, hell, manuals for just about everything as well as comments on the news of the day.
Great insight, some of it may even be useful to you.

https://westernrifleshooters.us/