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.
Leopard 2 is about the same as the Challenger 2.Germany has more in quantity in this, but just this.
Amount of actual warplanes are basically the same.UK 856 > Germany 698
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'.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.
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.How does a lack of quality not negate the influence and hypothetical issues.
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.A willingness to use your strength also matters
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.Originally Posted by wiggin