The M-1A1 Abrams is armed with a 120mm gun with an effective range of 3,000 meters or so. I don’t know how effective the anti-tank rounds would be, but their anti-personnel rounds, which turns their main gun into a giant shotgun, have an effective range of 600 meters and can breach walls and reinforce concreted within 100 meters. Then there’s the secondary armament which includes a .50 caliber machinegun along with two 7.62mm machine guns. Best of all is that the Abrams can just attack in the middle of the night and remain effective thanks to night vision.
I don’t know if there’s any staying out of the way for the Redcoats. If we’re positing a scenario pitting Redcoats against a modern tank what’s the mission of each side? Because if the Redcoats can just %#A! off and leave the field of battle why doesn’t the tank have the same option?
Sure! How far can it leave the field before it runs out of fuel and the crew have to abandon it? Using rough terrain to evade a superior enemy is a time honored tactic. The point is that without support, the tank quickly loses effectiveness. I don’t think that’s controversial.
An Abrams can go 250 miles on a single tank and can do that in a single day. It can travel a lot further than infantry. The fastest foot troops in history could maybe do 40 miles a day, so they can be chased down six times over. Yes, if there is completely impassable terrain (which means very rough indeed), and they scatter over it, infantry can potentially get away.
However, that’s basically giving up, not victory. This is a bizarre situation you’ve constructed to try and wring some kind of “win” where the infantry have impassible terrain they flee over, largely erasing the point of the scenario anyway. You can use that kind of thinking to construct a victory for anyone.