Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low tech warfare
Message-ID: <12702@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 2 Jan 90 02:48:11 GMT
References: <12539@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12572@cbnews.ATT.COM> <12603@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Oregon Graduate Institute (formerly OGC), Beaverton, OR
Lines: 38
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: terryr@ogicse.ogc.edu (Terry Rooker)
In article <12603@cbnews.ATT.COM> pyrite!peregrin@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu (News Feed) writes:
>
>>
>>What I find incredibly ironic about this tactics issue, is that
>>Americans fought their Revolutionary War based on guerilla tactics.
>>Even though outnumbered and outequipped by a highly regimented British
>>Army, the wanabee Americans managed to win.  
>>
>>
>Hmmm...My understanding was that the Revolutionary War in America was
>not as guerrilla war.  According to the limited reading I have done recently
>- Legends, Lies and Cherished Myths of American History, and various of
>John Keegan's books - the conduct of battles and strategic manuevering
>was quite traditional.  This is true of Bunker Hill and Monmouth, for
>example.  In addition, the British are reputed to have had much 
>experience fighting against guerrillas, and could have been expected to
>put down such a rebellion easily.

There is a problem with accepted usage.  Partisan, guerilla, and
irregular are all used somewhat interchangeably.  They have a common
element in that they all avoid main force actions.  When used to
describe this common element then interchanging is probably alright.
Each also implies some other things, and that is where the problem
starts.  In essence you are correct, none of them applies to the
American Revolution.  After the first defeats, Washington tried to
avoid engaging the main British force, and only fought isolated
detachments.  They abided by the guerilla principle of attack
weakness, but that is also included in other conventional military
doctrines.  For the most part, the operations of the Rev War were
conventional actions.  There is an interesting article to that affect
in the current Military History Quarterly.

-- 
Terry Rooker
terryr@cse.ogi.edu