Whenever one thinks of the American revolution popular history, it tends to focus on the stereotype that British generals only ever employed Line infantry and marched forward against militia troops and lost miserably.
How realistic was this? I can't imagine a military as experienced and well trained as Britain would really act so inept, so I assumed there have to be other factors, such as logistically transporting things from Britain to America was difficult, but what else went into such a dramatic loss?
One could make a reverse argument, that Washington's attempts to use the Continentals as he would British Regulars, before they were truly ready to be, came closer to losing the war.
His attempts to defend New York with a half trained army, and again during the Philadelphia Campaign were major defeats.
Especially New York, he took the largest force he would ever command and was methodically driven from first Brooklyn and then up Manhattan and of course across New Jersey. His force was under equipped, under trained, and under prepared mentally to stand toe to toe with Howe's troops. But the importance of New York required some sort of defense following the evacuation of Boston. It was simply that the US had no answer to the overwhelming power of the Royal Navy that allowed much great mobility to land first on Staten Island to prepare, then in Brooklyn, then at Kips Bay on Manhattan to nearly cut off much of the Rebel army.
Washington was no fan of the militia, believing them to be of dubious military value. But his gambling and mistakes while trying to fight a conventional war came as close as at any point during the war to the simple disintegration of his army.