All three actions were remarkable for one common feature: when it came down to a tactical contest in the fast-moving action of forest warfare, the Anglo-American forces were consistently outfought. In this we are provided with an almost inconceivable textbook example of a campaign fought between numerous troops, whose quality there is no reason to doubt, but who were basically unsuited for wilderness operations in North America, and the small but highly specialized French, Canadian and Indian forces. To date, no written manual of the Canadian tactical doctrine has been found, but there can be little doubt that it was an outstanding combination of Indian skulking warfare tactics mixed with European organization and discipline. American rangers tried to emulate this during the Seven Years’ War in North America, as witnessed by Major Rogers’ famous ranging rules (published in 1765). The Canadians, however, had been mooting this type of warfare since the 1690s and, as seen above, trained their officer cadets to master all aspects by years spent participating in wilderness raids and residing among Indian nations.
On the other hand, General Forbes showed what could be done with a superior force more suited for an 18th-century European linear battle than any engagement in the wilderness, which, every time it occurred, ended up being an Anglo-American fiasco. But Forbes, unlike Braddock and Abercromby, did not venture to waste his advantage in the type of overconfident movement that brought defeat to both of those generals. For instance, Grant’s disastrous raid would have never occurred had Forbes been at Fort Ligonier instead of Bouquet. General Forbes and his men were extremely lucky that the forces they had to face were so very much smaller than their own. Even as he lamented repeatedly on the shortcomings of his army when engaged against a far weaker enemy, he trusted in the power of his superior numbers and, most of all, of his limitless logistics to achieve his objective. In the case of securing the Ohio, his recipe was the correct one.