Combat Strategy: The Revolutionary War in Four Minutes

[@johnweems5096]

1:25 only partly true. In the southern campaign battles like cowpens had sharpshooters in the front two lines while trained continentals Waited behind the hill with muskets. At kings mountain there may have been no muskets at all Great series. Well produced, thanks

[@chancewebster7953]

Another informative video. Thank you

[@jaysonp9426]

From my understanding the Patriots rarely had bayonets

[@truongtranthaiduy8959]

On the beginning stage of war, the patriots rarely had bayonets. They had to improvised with polearms to combat the British bayonets. At later stage in the war however, the French and Spain supplies increase, so bayonets was not a thing to be concerned for the patriots.

[@jaysonp9426]

@@truongtranthaiduy8959 ah, that makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up.

[@glenschumannGlensWorkshop]

Thanks.

[@pjstatenisland1575]

What about american sharpshooters? Didn't they have rifles?

[@aisthpaoitht]

Some did. So did the British. But reload rate was slower.

[@celston51]

@@aisthpaoitht The British contracted with some of the German principalities for troops. Jägerkorps light infantry equipped with rifles screened the battle line and performed recon. As noted by gumbo, it took more time to reload rifles which left the soldier vulnerable. The Pennsylvania rifle was the most common rifle available to colonial forces in limited numbers as American gunsmithing just couldn't crank out the numbers to supply most line infantry with rifles, even if they wanted to.

[@DTOStudios]

Some American rifleman had the famous Kentucky Long Rifle, but those troops were much rarer than line infantry. And while accurate, those troops were very vulnerable. They couldn't mount bayonets, and their reload rate meant they could fire maybe 1 shot a minute to British line infantry firing up to 3 shots. If the enemy ever got close, be that in open order battle or in a skirmish, those riflemen were at an incredible disadvantage. Even in battles where it was easier to pick targets, light infantry with muskets were often more useful. Able to fire faster, and accuracy not being as big a concern when firing at massed formations of troops and again being able to mount a bayonet, smoothbore muskets were just overall a much better option for almost all troops to use over cumbersome hunting rifles

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@DTOStudios As the war went on the Americans used riflemen as specialist troops such as scouts, flankers, and snipers. When used as a group they were backed up by line infantry with conventional muskets. By the 1790's the British Army had it's own specialist rifle regiments. Wonder where they got that idea from?

[@richardglady3009]

Very nice video. Thank you.

[@custerkiller7670]

Thank you!

[@Idahoguy10157]

The bayonet was the primary infantry weapon

[@josefarrington]

Great video to show to all the believers of the mythology of the citizen militia, and letting anyone have a gun.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

Not quite so. Very few battles during the Revolution were fought without milita assistance. Just how effective milita was depended on time and place. Used locally and to defend their own towns and homes militia could be effective. Used in fortifications such as the ones on Bunker (Breeds) Hill they could be devastating. (And again at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.) When made up of discharged veterans (and most enlistments could range from one to three years) militia could even perform in open-field combat well, the veterans showing others how it was done and steadying the inexperienced. Again, it all depended.

[@josefarrington]

​@@wayneantoniazzi2706 Citizen militia = random people with guns, with no government intervention. Militias of the Independece War era were government trained, supplied and commanded. And the narrator in this video is clearly explaining what it takes to be a soldier. In other words, militias were compromised of SOLDIERS. Not captain type-2 diabetes and his friends like most 'second amendment'/'citizen militia', apologists claim today.

[@josefarrington]

@@mementomori1022 Citizen militia = random people with guns, with no government intervention. Militias of the Independece War era were government trained, supplied and commanded. And the narrator in this video is clearly explaining what it takes to be a soldier. In other words, militias were compromised of SOLDIERS. Not captain type-2 diabetes and his friends like most 'second amendment'/'citizen militia', apologists claim today.

[@wayneantoniazzi2706]

@@josefarrington No they weren't. There WERE militias in 1775, two kinds, the Whig (patriot) kind organized without the imprimatur of Royal colonial governments and the official colonial militias who could expect support from the Royal govenors. Yes, there were stockpiles of weapons available for use by the official militias but only on an as-needed basis. Those official militas melted away quickly when hostilities began. However, provincial regiments loyal to the Crown were raised during the course of the war and THEY were armed, equipped, and uniformed by the British govenment. But they weren't militias and were never referred to as such. At any rate what everyone critical of the Second Amendment seems to miss is the fact that the Founders weren't afraid of an armed citizenry. Not in the least. And read my initial post again, I think you misunderstood. I never said militias were the be-all and end-all, they obviously weren't Continental Regulars and couldn't be expected to fight as Regulars but they did have their uses. The Regulars couldn't be everywhere at everytime and someone had to take up the slack. It was the armed citizen who had to do it.

[@ikematthews6866]

⁠@@mementomori1022them being first to see combat doesn’t mean much because in grand scheme of things, that’s not going to win the war. Sure people have a right to defend themselves against criminal but the idea that it’s possible to overthrow the state is ridiculous. (Not saying you believe in that)

[@FordFalcon54]

Oh really...the American long rifle was smaller caliber used less powder which led to ideally a faster rate of fire and was more accurate due to rifling. Lets not talk about that though because that's complicated. "Same weapons" Just like the AK is the same as an M-4. The way you summed this up makes it sound like the colonists were just the better soldiers. Same exact fighting styles and weapons. Which was not the case. I get a snipped of history but this is a disservice imo. A crack pot fighting force with some combat experienced officers were able to out maneuver and over power the greatest nation at the time. One who had just 13 years earlier smacked down the French and Indians on the same land. Yet they used the same tactics that the great army used and beat them at their own game...yeah no. Let me guess our "navy" also had the same equipment and used the same tactics as the British. We were just better sailors when we won skirmishes on the sea. I agree to the point that guerilla warfare wasn't the epitome of the war but it had its place for sure and the Americans utilized it much better than the British.

[@jordanmontgomery87]

Rifles were used in much smaller numbers and took longer to reload than smoothbores. It was harder to ram a ball past the rifling until the development of the Minié ball about 80 years later.

[@danielkohli1542]

It seems that you forgot that most of the people that Britain fought were using similar guerilla tactics as the Patriots. Another reason why they lost is the hesitation to overextend their millitary as the U.S. revolution appears to be a proxy war between England and France.

[@FordFalcon54]

@@danielkohli1542 Oh don't get me wrong...mistakes was a major reason of victory...like most conflicts. I said guerilla tactics weren't the end all be all. My point was the first year of the war...it was kept alive by rifles and militia men....without the superior range and accuracy of the American rifle...I doubt we see the revolution go passed 1776. It was farmers vs the most disciplined and decorated armed force at the time one who had smacked down France and the Indians a decade before.

[@lycaonpictus9662]

The militiamen were using muskets as well. Rifles were only used in small numbers throughout the war.

[@DTOStudios]

This is just so incredibly wrong on many accounts. If you actually study the history of the War and go beyond the myth most of what you just said is wrong. 1. Rifles fired faster. Dead wrong. Rifleman could fire maybe 1 round a minute, smoothbore muskets could fire 3-4, and could mount a bayonet, and were much lighter, and had a bigger bore meaning they did more damage. They were, overall, better weapons for the same reason today not every soldier has a sniper rifle because they just arent that useful for average infantry work. 2. They did basically use the same fighting styles. Accounts are chock full of both British and American troops fighting in both open order linear tactics and skirmishing tactics throughout the war. Imaging of the British only using line tactics are American popular myth. 3. The British were the strongest empire. False. The Spanish and French were both more powerful, and the French and Prussian armies were both better than the British army of the period. We just like to pretend the British were the strongest to say we beat the best. In reality when the French joined us against the British, the strongest nation in Europe has just joined our side of the War. While Britian has won the Seven Years War, the result of the war was a return to pre-war conditions, and all nations were left considerably weakened. A phyric victory for the British. 4. "Crack-pot fighting force" The Americans were in no way better troops than the British. British troops throughout the war displayed better training, discipline, and coordination. At the Battle of Germantown for instance, two American units ran each other off the field because they shot at each other and broke each other's morale, ruining Washington's plan and handing the British a victory. 5. The militia ever being useful While the Militas were useful very early like at Bunker Hill, they quickly proved extremely unreliable. They would break easily and abandon the army whenever they wanted. At the Battle of Camden for instance, 800 British troops advancing across open ground with bayonets completely rounded rounded 2,500 Virginian and North Carolinian militiamen in front of them. A bayonet charge across open ground attacking a force 3 times their size, and the British routed them, turned the American flank, inflicted over 2,000 casualties on the Americans while taking barely 300 losses. Washington, Hamilton, and even regular troops in the Continental Army such as Joseph Plumb Martin, make mention of how poor the militia performed and how unreliable they were. Martin especially says the myth of the militias being better than the Army was insluting and flat out wrong to anyone who knew better or ever saw the two fight side by side