LMFAO seriously? USA is how many times lager than Britain? 3-8x er something?! (USA HAD WAY MORE LAND TIMBER AND SPACE TO OCCUPY) Tho tbh yea Britain COULD have actually kept the war going and possibly won; If you do some research you find out that Britain kinda just stopped the war and its not even clear why they did so.

Britians army was bigger, better trained and better equipped. Had colonies that supplied them with resources around the world. Had a stronger navy. More money. Using your logic they should've won within days

Heres the counter that USA had vs Britain than made it a challenge: 1) better communication (thanx to the pony express post service, the Boston news could make it as far south as south Carolina before the British even heard wind of the news) 2) instant supply chain (we didnt have to wait for ships from a crossed the atlantic to get resupplied) 3) unconventional warfare (we stole and destroyed many of the British's supplies before they were able to use them) 4) 2000+ miles of coastline (2k miles is just how thong the appilacian trail is; thats a ton of land to fight a war on all at once) 5) many British ships were actually built from timber from new england (the north east coast of USA) and we still had plenty left) the NATURAL resources USA had at their disposal far exceeded what Britain had access to.

1. The Pony Express wasn't in service till April 3, 1860 The British had a pretty large stockpile of supplies The British ended up fighting like us later in the war We didn't have Florida to fight in cutting coast line down by a lot

2000 miles is Maine to Georgia not Florida Idk on pony express then but there was a post system and news traveled down and through the colonies far quicker than intel got back to Britain an yea British had lots of supplies, and good trade routes. USA still had access to more natural resources than Britain and did not have to wait 2.5-4 months to be resupplied.

I'm just saying that Britain should've won based off pure military power alone