"The Importance of Sea Power in the American Revolution" Topic

The path to victory in the War for Independence gave rise to historian Dudley Knox's observation that "the American Revolution is revealed as much more of a naval than a military war."

USNI: link

Much more? Hogwash.

The only significant naval factor before Yorktown was Arnold delaying the invasion from Canada by half a year by building a fleet on Lake Champlain.

Burgoyne's surrender was the key event, and he was surrounded in the middle of the woods.

This article seems to be making a strange case that American seapower was influential in the AWI. I'm not buying it. I notice the disaster at Penobscot Bay wasn't even mentioned…

OTOH, the global maritime war that resulted from European maritime powers combining against Britain after her biggest colonies revolted was most assuredly the primary reason the Revolution was a success.

Some of the naval contests had a direct bearing on the course of the Revolution:

The Battle of the Virginia Capes is mentioned in the article. Graves' failure to intercept DeGrasse before he delivered French troops, artillery and supplies to the siege lines at Yorktown, and then his subsequent failure to beat DeGrasse in the Battle of the Virginia Capes and relieve Cornwallis, was basically the event that won the war for the rebels.

The British and French fought a protracted island-hopping war for colonies in the Caribbean from 1779-1783, which is where a lot of the reinforcements for North America were diverted.

French fleets actively delivering troops across the Atlantic also caused Britain to increase garrisons in Canada, diverting more troops that could have helped put down the rebellion.

The crisis of 1779 (a Franco-Spanish invasion fleet with 68 SOLs assembled to deliver an army onto English shores) tied down and recalled a lot of troops and ships meant for the North American theater.

Other events tied down British troops and ships: the huge and historic siege of Gibraltar, the (mostly naval) campaign for India between Suffren and Hughes, the severe threat of the Dutch navy right across the Channel, Dutch and French privateers and cruisers attacking British trade, etc.

The global war during the Revolution is actually one of the best sources of naval battle scenarios under sail in the entire history of the world.

- Ix

Ah, playing Devil's Advocate, consider the advantage that naval power gave the British that they squandered. Just off the top of my head:

Dunmore was able to hang out off the coast of Virginia after the Rebels took control of everything. He did this because of naval superiority.

If contrary winds hadn't held up Howe he might have been able to capture Philadelphia and send troops back to NY in time to pull Burgoyne's chestnuts out of the fire.

Clinton was able to redirect the war to the south at will because of naval superiority.

The British were able to evacuate Boston with ease. The capture of that army could have ended the war right there.

Washington had to defend every approach to New York and the Howe brothers could attack at a time and place of their choosing because of the British Navy.

I'm sure we could come up with other examples if we tried.

That's not the Devil's advocacy, it's just a bunch of facts.

The Royal Navy had complete control of the seas until the French navy showed up. Even with French warships in the war, the Royal Navy operated with a lot of impunity – just in smaller numbers, because so much of the navy had to go elsewhere to protect British interests.

Well…Yellow Admiral

I do agree that the AWI fleet actions are much more fun to game than Napoleonic despite the latters greater popularity.

However, I still find the 17th century naval wars more interesting. Considering ditching my 18th century fleets for 17th century ones.

I think the 17th C. is a fascinating period of naval history and ship development, but the major fleet engagements are essentially ungameable with miniatures. Leghorn 1653 and the 1676 campaign around Sicily (France vs. Spain + Dutch) are reasonable, and research could turn up a few more, but I despair of ever finding a way to play my favorite battles of the 2nd and 3rd ADWs, the Battle of the Downs 1639 (and the battle before that off Dunkirk), the battles of the Venetian/Ottoman wars, and so on. Even the smaller Swedish vs. Danish melees in the Baltic seem oversized for miniatures gaming.

Battles got smaller in the 18th C., as the ships got larger.

- Ix

"much more of a naval than a military war"

I always thought navies were part of the military :)

Once upon a time 'military' referred principally to the army, from miles the Latin for 'a soldier' while 'naval' referred to, well, the navy.

Less so now.

How direct does the impact have to be before we consider it? For example in early 1779 a British combined force hit Virginia seizing shipping and supplies. The direct effect was that the Continentals Scott was forming were deployed against the raiders for a couple of weeks. Indirectly the destruction of supplies delayed substantially the deployment of Scott's command to aid Lincoln. It also substantially impacted the credit available to Virginia for purchase of additional supplies. Did it also result in use of overland routes by American forces and supplies heading south, taxing the limited teamster resources of Virginia, rather than going by sea down the Chesapeake? Hard to say, but cannot be ruled out.

For the British, it was supplying an army from Britain. A massive undertaking. John Dillon's "All At Sea" gives an account of the extraordinary difficulties faced by the RN and the British Merchant Marine.

link

IMHO, American sea power was at best only a nuisance.

Yellow Admiral…agree about the large Anglo Dutch actions. However, there are a ton of smaller actions no one ever looks at.

the three decks website lists a ton. threedecks.org/index.php