> Kevin Elliott[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > At 10:37 -0700 on 11/19/02, Mike Diehl wrote: > >> Unfortunately, terrorism is probably a predictable response by people > >> who want to be able to control their own destinies, select their own > >> leaders and forms of goivernment and so on. > > > >Yes, it's just a "new" form of warfare. During the Revolutionary War, we > >also deviced a new form af warfare. If you recall, the English had this > >habbit of marching and fighing in formation. We were able to pick them > off > >from the hills as they marched. The wouldn't leave formation, and we > >slaughtered them, quite un-gentlemanlike, btw. > > Correction in the interest of historical accuracy. The idea that we > succeeded in the revolutionary war by "inventing a new form of > warfare". The reality is that the british were marching in formation > for very, very good reasons. Their tactics were an early form of > Napoleanic tactics (the techniques perfected by Bonaparte and used to > SMASH most of the rest of Europe). They evolved from several factors > notably: [snip] > Actually, they were marching for quite another reason - they were in retreat back to Boston, via Lexington. The redcoats had very light casualties up to the point when Gage decided to pull back.
A retreat through hostile territory, under fire, is not the best situation to be in. Untrained at small-unit tactics (and tired - they had been on the move all the previous night marching from Boston), they marched along a road flanked by ridges, stone walls, and farmhouses - great cover for the well-rested militia who had no particular place to get to, friendly civilians, and great local knowledge. The British set out flankers to guard the line where they could, but topography sometimes made them useless. On the retreat, the Gage's men suffered 20% casualties. Peter Trei
