When war erupted in the American colonies in 1775 at Lexington and Concord, the British Empire was logistically unprepared. Neither the army nor the supporting administration in Great Britain could comprehend the nature of their opponent or the duration of the conflict. British generals eventually came to the conclusion that the system of resupply to the forces in the colonies would have to be reengineered. However, the ability of the British military leadership to convince the entrenched civilian bureaucracy that conditions in the colonies were deteriorating was never truly effective. As a result, British commanders almost always felt constrained by the lack of sufficient supplies and they continue to carry a reputation of having been over-cautious and indecisive. This study examines the logistical and administrative system that was established to support the army of the British Empire in the American colonies. Furthermore, it explores the impact that strategic deficiencies in that system had upon British military operations in the American Revolution. The Saratoga Campaign, in particular, provides and illuminating example of how weaknesses in the British supply system led to the defeat of the Empire. The U.S. military currently operates in a rapidly changing security environment and is expected to perform non-traditional roles in addition to its conventional warfighting focus. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military increasingly employs a strategy of force projection that is similar in many respects to the circumstances faced by the British in the 18th Century. Although improvements in technology have made the modern battlefield literally unrecognizable when compared to that of 1775, there are logistical tenets and lessons from the American Revolution that are still applicable to strategists and logisticians.

When war erupted in the American colonies in 1775 at Lexington and Concord, the British Empire was logistically unprepared. Neither the army nor the supporting administration in Great Britain could comprehend the nature of their opponent or the duration of the conflict. British generals eventually came to the conclusion that the system of resupply to the forces in the colonies would have to be reengineered. However, the ability of the British military leadership to convince the entrenched civilian bureaucracy that conditions in the colonies were deteriorating was never truly effective. As a result, British commanders almost always felt constrained by the lack of sufficient supplies and they continue to carry a reputation of having been over-cautious and indecisive. This study examines the logistical and administrative system that was established to support the army of the British Empire in the American colonies. Furthermore, it explores the impact that strategic deficiencies in that system had upon British military operations in the American Revolution. The Saratoga Campaign, in particular, provides and illuminating example of how weaknesses in the British supply system led to the defeat of the Empire. The U.S. military currently operates in a rapidly changing security environment and is expected to perform non-traditional roles in addition to its conventional warfighting focus. Since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. military increasingly employs a strategy of force projection that is similar in many respects to the circumstances faced by the British in the 18th Century. Although improvements in technology have made the modern battlefield literally unrecognizable when compared to that of 1775, there are logistical tenets and lessons from the American Revolution that are still applicable to strategists and logisticians.

The American Revolutionary War pitched the newly formed Continental Army against the professional British Redcoats – a highly trained organization manned by long-serving and experienced infantrymen with a formidable reputation forged on European battlefields during the Seven Years' War. So, how were the poorly trained, poorly supplied Continental infantry able to hold their own and shape the outcome of the Revolutionary War and establish the future of their young nation? David Bonk answers this question in a highly illustrated book that looks at the challenges facing both armies, weighing up how each side was able to cope with the day-to-day experiences of the war and using extensive first-hand accounts to allow a modern audience to experience what life was like for soldiers on and off the battlefield during the war.

In a world rife with conflict and tension, how does a great power prosecute an irregular war at a great distance within the context of a regional struggle, all within a global competitive environment? The question, so pertinent today, was confronted by the British nearly 250 years ago during the American War for Independence. And the answer, as this book makes plain, is: not the way the British, under Lieutenant General Charles, Earl Cornwallis, went about it in the American South in the years 1778–81. Southern Gambit presents a closely observed, comprehensive account of this failed strategy. Approaching the campaign from the British perspective, this book restores a critical but little-studied chapter to the narrative of the Revolutionary War—and in doing so, it adds detail and depth to our picture of Cornwallis, an outsize figure in the history of the British Empire. Distinguished scholar of military strategy Stanley D. M. Carpenter outlines the British strategic and operational objectives, devoting particular attention to the strategy of employing Southern Loyalists to help defeat Patriot forces, reestablish royal authority, and tamp down resurgent Patriot activity. Focusing on Cornwallis’s operations in the Carolinas and Virginia leading to the surrender at Yorktown in October 1781, Carpenter reveals the flaws in this approach, most notably a fatal misunderstanding of the nature of the war in the South and of the Loyalists’ support. Compounding this was the strategic incoherence of seeking a conventional war against a brilliant, unconventional opponent, and doing so amidst a breakdown in the unity of command. Ultimately, strategic incoherence, ineffective command and control, and a misreading of the situation contributed to the series of cascading failures of the British effort. Carpenter’s analysis of how and why this happened expands our understanding of British decision-making and operations in the Southern Campaign and their fateful consequences in the War for Independence.

The War of American Independence, 1763–1783: Falling Dominoes addresses the military, maritime and naval, economic, key personalities, key societal groups, political, imperial rivalry, and diplomatic dynamics and events from the post-Seven Years’ War era in Great Britain’s North American colonies through the end of the War of American Independence. Beginning in 1763 and moving through the war chronologically, the authors argue that British political and strategic leaders failed to develop an effective strategy to quell the discontent and subsequent revolt in the North American colonies and thus failed to restore allegiance to the Crown. This book describes and analyzes events and the outcomes of central players’ decisions—the British North American colonies, Great Britain, France, Spain, and the Dutch Republic—and the resultant actions. It examines events through the thematic lens of strategy, political and military leadership, public attitudes, economics, international rivalries and relations, and the role of traditionally less-considered groups: women, slaves, and Native American peoples. This book is an enlightening and essential read for all history students, from high school through to those on postgraduate courses, as well as those with an interest in the American Revolution.

History has tended to measure war's winners and losers in terms of its major engagements, battles in which the result was so clear-cut that they could be considered "decisive." Cannae, Konigsberg, Austerlitz, Midway, Agincourt-all resonate in the literature of war and in our imaginations as tide-turning. But these legendary battles may or may not have determined the final outcome of the wars in which they were fought. Nor has the "genius" of the so-called Great Captains - from Alexander the Great to Frederick the Great and Napoleon - play a major role. Wars are decided in other ways. Cathal J. Nolan's The Allure of Battle systematically and engrossingly examines the great battles, tracing what he calls "short-war thinking," the hope that victory might be swift and wars brief. As he proves persuasively, however, such has almost never been the case. Even the major engagements have mainly contributed to victory or defeat by accelerating the erosion of the other side's defences. Massive conflicts, the so-called "people's wars," beginning with Napoleon and continuing until 1945, have consisted of and been determined by prolonged stalemate and attrition, industrial wars in which the determining factor has been not military but matériel. Nolan's masterful book places battles squarely and mercilessly within the context of the wider conflict in which they took place. In the process it help corrects a distorted view of battle's role in war, replacing popular images of the "battles of annihilation" with somber appreciation of the commitments and human sacrifices made throughout centuries of war particularly among the Great Powers. Accessible, provocative, exhaustive, and illuminating, The Allure of Battle will spark fresh debate about the history and conduct of warfare.