Why did British Revolutionary war soldiers wear red? Isn't that a bright color and makes an easy target? Also did they wear any armor?

Obligatory 'I'm on mobile' disclaimer:

Armor had fallen out of favor amongst infantry about a century prior to the revolution. The last foot soldiers to wear armor were pikemen, and by the end of the 17th century, these soldiers were becoming increasingly obsolete. To 'proof' armor against gunpowder weapons, such as muskets, required thickening the plate, and, in so doing, making the cuirass cumbersome and limiting a soldier's mobility. As such they were highly unpopular, and the course of the 17th century saw the diminishing of pike man's kit to the point where his dress differed but little from that of the musketeers.

I made a post a while back covering the use of body armor in the Americas during the revolution here: http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24qxi4/when_did_soldiers_stop_wearing_helmets/ch9uqlb But, essentially, the fact that armor was long since tactically obsolete by the 1770's meant it was never used by infantry in the American revolution. There were exceptions, however, amongst the light dragoons employed by both the Rebels and the British, which I describe in greater detail in the linked answer.

The other part of your question, relating the scarlet and madder red worn by British troops, appears to stem from a mistaken understanding of the actual fighting in the American Revolution. A common myth, perpetuated both in text books and in popular media, is that Americans won the war by 'sniping' (to use an anachronistic term) British soldiers idiotically marching in line or column. This is a complete inaccuracy. While there are isolated instances occur of American militia using houses or buildings as cover, mostly during the during the British advance from Lexington to Concord during the opening stages of the war, most of the major battles during the revolution were fought using the fairly conventional, linear tactics of 18th century warfare. A few adaptations were employed, mostly to deal with the rugged terrain encountered in North America meant British troops would often shed excess equipment, such as their cumbersome knapsacks (the final assault which took Breed's Hill early in the War saw British troops shed their knapsacks) or modify their uniforms to suit harsh environmental conditions (mostly unbearable heat). Furthermore, though linear tactics were the norm, looser formations were employed and increased emphasis placed on both conventional Light Infantry and experimental combined arms 'Legions'. If you're interested, Answers in the Frequently Asked Questions page of the AH wiki delve into greater detail than I can at the moment.

Returning to the question if red coats, it makes sense to wear a garment easily recognizable on a smoke-shrouded battlefield. Uniformity told in an instant friend from foe. Lack of uniformity was a pervasive issue amongst the Americans, due to the vagaries of production and supply. Furthermore, some British troops did indeed wear green uniforms, which may be seen as a form of rudimentary camouflage. Simcoe's and Tarleton's legions both wore green uniforms and a variety of unconventional headgear. Interestingly, when ordered to operate with the latter during the campaign in the Carolinas and Virginia, the British 17th Light Dragoons refused to wear green, preferring to retain their red uniforms. Thus, the uniform can be seen as both a tactical convenience, as well as an object of pride in the regiment.

I hope that somewhat answers your question. Please ask if you'd like any elaboration.