But you keep missing the main point. France did not get involved until 1778, after the war had been going on for 3 years. For Spain it was 4 years. By that point any kind of reconcilliation (not that one was ever offered) was frankly impossible. By the time of French involvement, the Rebels had already won several major victories, and were not shrinking in popularity but growing. And even more important, they were unified. They were not fighting as 13 independent nations but as a single nation. By the time France got involved, the conflict was already far enough along that it could not have been put down. As Albert said, even if the British somehow won that war, the repression and punishments delt out afterwards would simply have guaranteed yet another one. And with the speed of growth of the Colonies (both from the birth rate and immigration), they could not have held them down forever.
Look at the performance of the British against George Rogers Clark in the Northwest Territory. The British couldn't have succeeded against perpetual insurrection. Besides, the British needed to be defeated by the Americans in order to make the changes to the Royal Army that permitted it to sustain and ultimately win the Napoleonic Wars on the European mainland. Look at the Battle of New Orleans during the part of the Napoleonic Wars Americans call the War of 1812. The British regulars were cut down despite their victory in Europe. No offense, but that is simply false. As the Revolutionary War dragged on Americans became radicalized. You could never have made peace with them. Look at the treatment of the Royalists after the Revolutionary War ended. Fifty thousand of them were forced to flee and ended up in Lower Canada. The British had to make a choice between the Indians and the Americans. The British chose the Indians. The British chose poorly.
Yes I agree the British weren't ready for that type of war, but they would have learned and got better as the war went on, as they did. I agree the lessons learn from the US war of independence and changes that were made helped Britain win the Napoleonic wars, however it was mainly the Royal Navy that benefitted from it. The army failed for a large amount of the war against the French in Europe. The war of 1812 was a bunch of small raids against US cities after the US tryed to invade Canada. Troops no matter how experienced can still be killed. Still the British were able to take the pressure off Canada and burning Washington. Really though the war wasn't very important to what was happening in Europe and India at the time. At the start of the war most people supported staying with Britain, rather than independence. Really they chose the Indians. - - - Updated - - - France had been supporting the 13 colonies since 1776 with economic and material aid.
France did not provide aid to Americans in their revolution until after the British defeat at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777. Only then was Benjamin Franklin able to persuade the advisers of Louis XVI to risk renewed war with Britain.
While France was involved in the war earlier, prior to 1778 that was pretty much restricted to selling them gunpowder. But the Colonies were already making their own gunpowder, as well as acquiring it from the British themselves. For example, in 1776 the Navy and Marines waged several battles on Nassau to capture gunpowder and weapons, as well as other locations in and around North America. And by 1777 the Colonies had started to produce large quantities of powder themselves. http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Journals/AHR/30/2/Supply_of_Gunpowder_in_1776.html
Do you remember early in the war Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys taking Fort Ticonderoga in order to seize their cannons and powder?
Yes, I do remember that also, and Benedict Arnold was also a major hero from that campaign. That could be said to have multiple purposes, which is why I used the New Providence raid as my example. They navy and Marines made no attempt to hold these forts after taking them, it was solely done to acquire cannons and gunpowder. But while there was a shortage of gunpowder early on, this did not last long because the Continental Congress ordered hundreds of manufacturing facilities opened up to provide it. By the time France got involved a lot of these shortfalls had already been made up domestically. So while of assistance, it was not a major game changer in how the war was fought. By the end of 1777, the colonies had gone from almost no gunpowder manufacturing to almost 1.5 million pounds a year (and that amount only went up as the war progressed).
I have some really bad news for you, the Kiwis will not allow any of your ships to make a call o port in N.Z. They have a fear of the word "nuclear."
wow this is breaking news that I know nothing about. If you haven't read all the other posts by me, I have changed from building large nuclear power carriers and escorts, to smaller conventional powered carriers and conventional powered escorts. I even want 20 conventional powered submarines. When I say allies, I really mean I want the system like in WW1 where these nations had the own navies but we under British protection. I would try and do this with a number of countries.
My US Navy will have 25 aircraft carriers, 200 submarines, 200 destroyers, 200 frigates, 50 cruisers, 25 arsenal ships, and 200 tankers, transports, amphibious and support ships. My US Marine Corps will have eight Marine Divisions and eight Marine Air Wings.
UGH. 8 Marine Divisions? WTF? The most we have ever had is 6, and that was only at the tail end of WWII for the invasion of Okinawa. I would rather have the 4 well trained and disciplines Divisions that we have now, then over that many of dubious quality. Not to mention just the purely logistical matter of where we are going to put them. 1st Division is at Pendleton, 2nd is at Lejeune, 3rd is in Okinawa, and 4th is the Reserve. Where are we going to base another 3-4 Divisions of Marines?
The USMC will remain a well disciplined and well trained force. The Army I envision to go along with that would have 200 divisions and an additional 800 independent brigades, regiments and groups. The air force I envision would have 10,000 combat aircraft and thousands of tankers and transports. The National Guard and Reserve force would number tens of millions of citizen-soldiers. And this would be accomplished through a program of universal military training and mandatory national service in addition to the American Freedom Legion program which I will outline in another thread. To answer your question about where we would have based them all. We would have reopened a few closed military bases like Fort Chafee in Arkansas. We would have built new military bases in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North and South Dakota, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and West Texas. We would have maintained a million troops in Iraq on permanent military bases as well as a million troops in Afghanistan in permanent military bases. We would have opened new bases in Africa, Eastern Europe, and the Caribbean.
My dream Royal Marine would be 30 divisions of 10,000 troops each. 300,000 in total. I would have 12 LHA's based on the hull of the QE class carrier, with an airwing of 40 aircraft and able to carry 3,000 troops. 18 30,000 ton LHD's, airwing 24 helicopters and able to carry 1,200 troops. 24 Albion class LPD's. 4 mobile artillary ships for shore bombardment. Royal Navy 12 QE class carriers, 24 cruisers, 172 destroyers and 180 frigates.
