Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
Not sure why we're comparing the size, quality matters much more than quantity. But go on.
Because, again, you used the word smaller.

As for quality, the Germany and Japan are just not that far behind the UK. Germany uses exactly the same aircraft that we do. Japan uses aircraft which are functionally equivalent to various American 4th generation fighters, i.e comparable to the typhoon.

Germany has more in quantity in this, but just this.
Leopard 2 is about the same as the Challenger 2.

UK 856 > Germany 698
Amount of actual warplanes are basically the same.

No I did not. Try pressing Ctrl+F and finding the post where I said that. I did say smaller which is an adjective that refers not just to size.
If you were trying say they were 'smaller powerful', 'smaller effective' or 'smaller capable', I suggest you go back to grammar school: the world you'd be looking for is 'less'.

How does a lack of quality not negate the influence and hypothetical issues.
Because the quality gap simply isn't that great. Some of the best kit the Royal Navy has outperforms the Japanese stuff and the British Army obviously has a hefty chunk of combat experience neither of the other two has, but otherwise they are basically the same.

A willingness to use your strength also matters
If we're playing that card, you should think about the UK willingness or even ability to use it's strength without US support - I am not convinced of UK ability to project it's power successfully against somewhere like Turkey or Egypt if it was acting entirely alone, without allies.

Quote Originally Posted by wiggin
I'm not actually convinced that size is really what lends prestige to a military. Yes, size is part of it, but sophistication and readiness is also a big chunk. The PLA is enormous but doesn't really command much prestige. Even more so for the DPRK forces. Etc.
But, as I said to Randblade, the gap just isn't that big. Germany and the UK even use a lot of the same equipment.