In many ways, the U.S. Revolution was the first and maybe the prototype for later "wars of national liberation."

What started as a military conflict between often poorly trained rebel militia aka guerrillas, morphed into a well trained and equipped (then) modern Army.

For much of the War, the rebels could dominate the countryside, while the British dominated the ports and cities.

For reasons of their own, the French chose to help equip the US rebels with up to date arms and ammo.

European military "advisors" appeared to help train and lead the rebels: e.g. Von Steuben (the first Inspector General) helped train Washington's Army in European tactics and helped adapt them to the local Environment; Kościuszko is often credited with being the "father" of the US Army Engineers. There were others.

At Yorktown, there were about 8000 French troops on the ground; without them, (and their 29 ships offshore keeping the Royal Navy away), a rebel victory would have been in doubt.

The take away is that guerrillas can deny a conventional army "victory", but can only achieve victory if it can 1) develop or obtain sufficient conventional force to defeat the enemy at their own game or 2) frustrate and demoralize the enemy for a sufficient period of time that they "give up."

Reportedly, both Mao and Giap studied the American Revolution's military history....

Sorry for the hijack of the thread. . .