I do not understand your point. I was addressing specifically the firepower or weaponry each side had, not the strategy with which they were used.
If we are going to talk strategy, the Americans were foolish to repeatedly try for battlefield victory. Guerrilla warfare was more effective in their circumstances. However, the idea of guerrilla warfare wasn’t well developed yet, and patriot reliance on it might have demoralized their supporters so much they would have given in to the King.
Weaponry was almost identical. In fact, for the first couple years the biggest armament advantage the Brits had was their bayonets, which the colonists were slow to get. Also the colonists often had considerable difficulty with the quantity and quality of their gunpowder.
That the British won most of the battles throughout the war was a consequence of their generally greater skill and discipline, especially against militia, not of any weaponry advantage.
I’m not addressing the naval issue, where obviously the Royal Navy outclassed any possible American fleet by ridiculous amounts.
My point is that the Royal Navy was an instrument of mobility and massive firepower. The naval guns dominated any port city. Had the Royal Navy not been opposed by the French at Yorktown, then the war would not have ended with the surrender of Cornwallis and the Revolution might well have been unsuccessful.
Without the cannon from Ticonderoga, Boston might well have remained under occupation and Boston could have been reinforced rather than abandoned.