George Washington's Battles and his troops

[vtsaogames]

My first blog post of the new year is a rumination on George Washington's battles, how he moved to a more Fabian strategy and how to rate his troops using the Loose Files & American Scramble rules. This should be easy to apply to most AWI rules. https://corlearshookfencibles.blogspot.com/2021/01/george-washingtons-battles-and-rating.html

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

Very impressed by your classifications and would agree with most all of them, except to say that very few British or Continental line units saw much fighting.  Most of the battles were fought (on the Crown side at least) by the elite "Reserve" usually commanded by Cornwallis, and composed of the Grenadier and Light battalions, the 33rd Foot (commonly considered the best regiment in the Army, according to Roger Lamb) and the Highland brigade of the 42nd and 1/71st & 2/71st.  As such, it is difficult to assess how good most Continental - and British Regular - regiments actually were.

Another factor for the Crown was that it had to obtain replacements from 3,000 miles away.

I would dispute that Steuben did anything more than standardize the Continental army's drill, on a tactical level; to be honest, the genesis of its improved fighting ability was seen in the two Saratoga battles and at Germantown.  Steuben's real contribution (IMO) was in the area that had contributed most to the early defeats - poor lower level generalship and staff work.  That said, Washington still had a lot to learn; I am not surprised that US gamers still think that Monmouth was some kind of success, or at least a draw (which is somewhat more realistic - again, IMO).  However, look at the tactical objectives Washington and Clinton had on the day, and see who achieved them - hint: Washington actually fails to achieve any of his!  His support of Lee was woeful - he was still miles from the initial battlefield when Lee's troops began "bugging out" (largely of their own accord and/or under the orders of the two officers - Scott and Maxwell - who gave biased, and also perjured in Scott's case, testimony at Lee's Court Martial).

BvW

[vtsaogames]

Since I'm holed up in Maine for the winter,away from most of my books and soldiers, can you suggest some reading about Steuben? I always thought his main contribution was improving the drill of the Continental line units, and teaching them bayonets had uses other than roasting food.

On another tack, I have a book back home about Hubbardton. It includes a table of the 10 Continental regiments in the northern army at the time. It lists strengths and equipment. One regiment almost had enough bayonets for the rank and file. Many had half or less. They were short some muskets too, and very short of the tools to repair muskets, standard equipment for redcoats.

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

Since I'm holed up in Maine for the winter,away from most of my books and soldiers, can you suggest some reading about Steuben? I always thought his main contribution was improving the drill of the Continental line units, and teaching them bayonets had uses other than roasting food.

I think that this is one of those AWI myths that has a vestige of truth but isn't the whole/real story.  FWIW, I think the Continentals were already improving in 1777 and the campaigns of that year show that quite clearly.  By the second third of the war, what you had, essentially, was two "British" armies slugging it out and it is not surprising, given that fact, that many of the later battles of the war were either bloody draws or Pyrrhic victories. 

Several factors contributed to the defeat at Germantown, the most oft-quoted on being the weather, although clearer weather would have given both sides a better idea of who was where and with what.  However, troops wearing enemy colours out of bravado (having been ordered not to) resulting in friendly fire, and the C-in-C being persuaded by his artillery commander (who had "read a book") to halt and reduce the Chew House rather than isolate it and keep going, strikes me as the sort of amateurish mistake that few European commanders would have made.  IMO, Steuben made the Continental Army think about its generalship.

The Northern Army had enough vets in the ranks from the invasion of Canada to render them more than competent; equally, I don't think that Burgoyne's army had as much experience as it is usually credited with, and where that was greater was in the commanders.  The opposing sets of rank-and-file pretty much matched each other, it was the senior officers who made most of the difference.

On another tack, I have a book back home about Hubbardton. It includes a table of the 10 Continental regiments in the northern army at the time. It lists strengths and equipment. One regiment almost had enough bayonets for the rank and file. Many had half or less. They were short some muskets too, and very short of the tools to repair muskets, standard equipment for redcoats.

Yes, I know the book and have it on my own shelves.  I'm not sure where the shortage of bayonets among Rebel forces comes from, since a "stand of arms" comprised the musket, cartridge box and belt, and the bayonet and belt, so anyone supplied with a Brown Bess pre-war should have had the complete set.

Stay safe!

BvW

[Pan Marek]

Interesting discussion.
Can you provide the name/author of the book on Hubbarton?

thanks.

[DintheDin]

Thread bookmarked!
I'll be following with great interest! Cheers!

[brasidas19004]

As a sweeping generalization [easy to make since I'm in the process of writing AmRev rules] I would mostly rate American units as one grade lower as a whole than British. Being in the Army, I have a high opinion of discipline, training, and command structure, all of which was lacking in the American army.  So when I create a scenario at the moment, that is a "general" scenario rather than a specific detailed historical battle, if I have 2 Elite, 2 Select, and 2 line British Units, they will fight 2 Select, 2 Line and 2 2nd Class Line units.  If it is an historical battle, the Americans may be a bit worse or better.

As someone who has done drill...I don't think it is that hard. But the other 11 hours of the day are what make or break a Soldier. Is he doing his job, cleaning his weapon. making a safe and sanitary camp, etc? Or is he spending his meager pay on cheap booze and poxy gurls, showing up late for sentry duty, and stealing from other soldiers?

my 2 cents.

I make up for the qualitative difference with the victory conditions.

[vtsaogames]

Interesting discussion.
Can you provide the name/author of the book on Hubbarton?

thanks.

https://bennington.pastperfectonline.com/library/B95648A1-4188-47FA-A9E0-425410035020

[vtsaogames]

...As someone who has done drill...I don't think it is that hard. But the other 11 hours of the day are what make or break a Soldier. Is he doing his job, cleaning his weapon. making a safe and sanitary camp, etc? Or is he spending his meager pay on cheap booze and poxy gurls, showing up late for sentry duty, and stealing from other soldiers?...

Executing drill while under fire seems to have been more difficult. Agree with your other points. Disease was a serious problem, including STDs. I read somewhere that American units marched in single file until Steuben got them to use column of fours. It got the whole unit to the destination faster.

[Pan Marek]

vtsaogames-

Thanks.  What do you think of the more recent Venter book on Hubbarton?

[vtsaogames]

vtsaogames-

Thanks.  What do you think of the more recent Venter book on Hubbarton?

Didn't know of it. I'll have to check it out.

Edit: my interest in this battle was sparked by a 2002 visit to the battlefield.

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

Can you provide the name/author of the book on Hubbarton?

A visual guide to that book (having seen vtsao's reply, it is the same one I have):-

https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hubbardton-American-rebels-Stem/dp/B001B3TEV6

[Baron von Wreckedoften]

As a sweeping generalization [easy to make since I'm in the process of writing AmRev rules] I would mostly rate American units as one grade lower as a whole than British. Being in the Army, I have a high opinion of discipline, training, and command structure, all of which was lacking in the American army. 

For the first two years of the war (1775 and 1776), I would say that that is about right, although I would not over-endow the average British line battalion with any great qualities, as they were not combat-ready at the start of the war (in fact, the average Minuteman unit probably had more combat veterans, and generally more experienced leaders up to company level).  However, very few British line units saw much action after the Philadelphia battles, so what experience was gained was largely not made use of (or at least, not in N America - the units sent to the Caribbean in 1778 did very well against the French).

As someone who has done drill...I don't think it is that hard. But the other 11 hours of the day are what make or break a Soldier. Is he doing his job, cleaning his weapon. making a safe and sanitary camp, etc? Or is he spending his meager pay on cheap booze and poxy gurls, showing up late for sentry duty, and stealing from other soldiers?

This is a fair point vis-a-vis the modern soldier, but this was a different era, and levels of knowledge/understanding and sophistication of how/why men should be kept busy were nothing like what they are today.  The better officers understood that the devil made work for idle hands, but the money and willpower were not always there; plus, the nature of military service meant that the Continental Army tended to attract people whom we would nowadays regard as "bolshy".  Also worth bearing in mind that the Continental Army, in the initial stages at least, was often allowing men to appoint their own officers - frequently based on how lax the candidate was perceived as being towards essential chores and disciplining those who did not pull their weight.  Once this pernicious practice was rooted out, things did improve; as I said earlier, if you start looking at the Continentals from the 1777 campaign onwards, their performances improve considerably over 1775/1776.

[Sir_Theo]

Very interesting. I must say the AWI is not a subject I am too well versed in. Im familiar with the received narrative but I just also read Valiant Ambition (im a big fan of Nathaniel Philibrick) and was hoping people could point me in the direction of some other thought provoking reads on the subject. Both the history of the war itself and some more detailed commentary on the battles themselves. Sorry for going off topic!

[vtsaogames]

... I'm not sure where the shortage of bayonets among Rebel forces comes from, since a "stand of arms" comprised the musket, cartridge box and belt, and the bayonet and belt, so anyone supplied with a Brown Bess pre-war should have had the complete set.

Stay safe!

BvW

I think that supply of weapons for the Americans was like their supply of uniforms - haphazard much of the time. Philbrick's "Valiant Ambition" maintains that Washington's army had to retreat after the cloudburst that ended the brief "battle of the clouds" because hundreds of thousands of musket cartridges were ruined. So General Knox reported. The British didn't lose nearly as many because every soldier had a leather cartridge box. I assume many Americans carried cartridges in their their pockets or linen pouches that were not rain resistant. By the time of Eutaw Springs, some Continetals were reported as wearing crossbelts of braided vines. Small wonder they looted the British camp.

The British army was supported by a government that raised taxes, even if it had to ship everything 3,000 miles and deal with inefficiency and corruption. The American army was supported by a feeble government that could not levy taxes but instead pleaded with each state to contribute funds. The states got more miserly as the economy constricted and once the French entered the war, many thought it was over. Add in a good dollop of inefficiency and corruption...

You stay safe too, Baron.