this post was submitted on 17 Jan 2026
4 points (83.3% liked)

AskHistorians

1205 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] setsneedtofeed@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This seems to be teetering on the idea that the British forces were completely befuddled by the idea of skirmish tactics. Roger's Rangers were an example of a well established and valued scout unit under the Crown's command through the French & Indian War and revived during the Revolution. The British were well aware of the capabilities.

Conventional line infantry played a completely different role than scout units, and for the time and tactics, camouflage was less valuable than clear uniformity. On a battlefield between standing armies using slow loading muskets, military units worked as a whole and camouflage didn't play a large role.

For the Americans, the short version is that while hit and run tactics played a part, the real turning point of the war for the military was the support of France, and for a specific example Baron von Steuben's training of US troops. The US military didn't win through irregular tactics overcoming the British military, but through transforming into a standing military that fought from a similar handbook as the British.