• Stanard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    That is a fair point. I only skimmed a page of search results and a couple of articles, but I didn’t see any mention of weight measurements. That really could be a better way to measure “size” though. Assuming extra weight means more/better armaments, thicker hulls, more munitions, more sailors (and all of the supplies that go with them), etc. Not to mention how much weight a top-tier Air Force would add to a Navy’s weight. It’s quite staggering to think about and I’m sure I’m still not fully able to comprehend the sheer scale of it all.

    I suppose a few trillion dollars per year will do that though 😅

    • Womble@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yep tonnage is a far better metric than number of hulls (while still not perfect obviously) If one country has 10 speedboats with machine-guns on the front and the other has an aircraft carrier it is slightly misleading to say the first countries navy is ten times larger.

    • flying_monkies@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Don’t think that value includes “items in the ship” (like aircraft) as part of the weight. This article seems to lay out what some of the differences are. Seems to boil down to “not evey Navy counts every canoe that they own”.

      I suppose a few trillion dollars per year will do that though

      Yep, American Un-Healthcare at its finest 😁