Revolutionary War and arrows

[Urbanredneck]

Not a bow but crossbows made a good silent weapon.

[TriPolar]

@XT

Myself, I always used to wonder why the colonists didn’t adopt skirmisher tactics and fight the British in hit and run type running battles, instead of try and fight them in set piece battles where the British had essentially all the advantages, having a regular army while we didn’t really, especially at the start. The consensus of military types I was discussing this with is that skirmisher forces were really vulnerable to cavalry, and even though the English didn’t have a lot of cavalry during the war they had enough to have really cut us up had we tried to go that route more than we did. I’m not sure I’m convinced completely, but seems sounds reasoning. I think the assumption is that a lot of the generals back then were just stupid and hide bound, but that they actually did have good, solid reasons for things like massed infantry formations, even though it seems clear that doing so you are going to be very vulnerable to artillery, aside from the fact that you had to get right up on each other to hit anything, insuring a huge slaughter when you clashed.

They did try at times. The Paoli Massacre(Battle of Paoli) followed the disastrous Battle of the Clouds. Washington left Mad Anthony Wayne to harass the British while he went back to hold the line at Philadelphia. However, they were not fighting in the wilderness, the British held their families and their property hostage. The British forced a local blacksmith to lead them to Wayne’s men. The British had a larger force and were losing fewer men than we were in the Battles. So it’s not just the cavalry, it’s the threat of having them come after small fighting groups with a superior force and no place to hide.

I think also Washington may have reasoned out that he needed a surrender from British forces or the war could go on forever. It takes a long time to harass an opposing army to the point of giving up.