We've always poked fun at British troops and their rigid tactics and flashy uniforms, but to be fair, in the way in which they were used to fight, it made perfectly good sense. The Brits were trained the way all European armies were, to march in large formations which could be easily commanded and maneuvered in flat European battlefields. And it's not that they bull-headedly refused to change their tactics, it just isn't that easy to do in the middle of a war. That's a bitter lesson we've had to learn too.

Military doctrine at the time was based on the high inaccuracy of musket fire, and the consequent need to concentrate that fire in rapid repetitive volleys. The troops were also constantly drilled in reloading and fire discipline, and were able to disperse quickly to avoid cannon fire, and reassemble quickly to repel cavalry attacks. When facing similarly equipped armies, the way to win was to be able to deliver more rounds per minute than your opponent, and to do it in such a way that you would never be caught with a rank of empty muskets when the bayonet charge was ordered by either side, which was inevitable. The bright colors were simply for identification of formations in the smoke and confusion of the 18th century battlefield. These tactics certainly worked aganst the Americans when the latter chose to fight Brit-style. They whupped us in almost every single conventional battle, just as we today can demolish any conventional army which opposes us with conventional tactics.

In the New World, the British had to deal with forested terrain and broken country, militias which had been trained to fight in the hit-and-run Indian-style, and with highly accurate rifle fire. They could not easily adapt because their troops had not been trained to maneuver independently in small units. They also had to be kept together because their command and control was set up that way and their men were in unfamiliar country.

The Brits also did not like to use rifles, not only could they not be fitted with bayonets (rifles were a hunter's weapon), the rate of fire was too slow for volley fire, they were extremely expensive, and it required a great deal of training for the troops to employ them effectively. There was also a moral distate for rifles, for them, to pick out a man at a distance who didn't even know you were there was dishonorable and cowardly, they felt about it the same way we feel about booby traps, human shields, firing from civilian centers, etc. When the Brits trained their own rifle teams in American style tactics, they proved to be extremely effective, but their own comrades looked down on them and they were never large enough to be decisive.

The British could not win in this environment, but neither could the rebels. You could harass a large army, but to defeat it it had to be done the old-fashioned way. In almost every conventional head to head encounter the British prevailed, except in places where the patriots had the advantage of surprise or terrain. When Cornwallis finally surrendered it was to a combined American and French army, deployed in conventional manner, but his back was to the sea and the Royal Navy had been forced to withdraw. His time, and space, had run out.

The Brits were not the first, or the last, disciplined fighting force to be worn down by irregulars who didn't march in straight lines or wear red coats, and who fired from cover. History is full of examples.

.