You probably just angered a lot of Britbongs.....
As to your question, I would say a lack of tea and crumpets
Several things:
1) Firstly, the UK has pretty much always been a second-class land power. Sorry, but if you look at history, it's very much the case. The English/British strategy for essentially every war since the Hundred Years War has been "find continental ally [or preferably allies] to provide the army." Even most famous British land victories (e.g. Waterloo) have usually been won by an army made up largely of non-Brits. Wars featuring Britain alone versus a peer power(s) have generally been rare; the most notable is probably the American Revolution (against France, Spain, the Netherlands and the US), and we all know how that turned out (and it was also notable for the British use of foreign mercenaries to supplement their army). So it's not like some sort of strange aberration.
2) This comes down to a related issue: the British generally haven't prioritized their armies in the same way as their continental rivals, both in terms of numbers and doctrine. You see this with WWI, where the initial BEF in 1914 was ~150,000 soldiers (significantly fewer than the Belgian Army managed to field, much less nations like France or Germany). Most of the soldiers who fought in the Somme and later battles were fresh recruits who didn't start training until after the war had already begun.
3) There are only so many Brits in the world, and they have only so much money. India offered plenty of manpower, but for political reasons the UK was obviously very reluctant to tap it to the same extent. Especially after WWI, the UK was nearly bankrupt, and couldn't afford to maintain both a first-class army and a first-class navy. As an island nation with a solid alliance with France (a nation with a large army) and colonial holdings all over the world, they chose the navy (and even then signed the Washington Treaty to force everyone to cut down their construction and save money).
None of this is to denigrate the average British person, or the British soldier, anymore than e.g. the Russian performance early in Barbarossa, or the American performance at Pearl Harbor says anything about the average Russian or American.
EDIT: I'd further add that most of these factors also apply to the US, which had a similar pre-WWII tradition of not emphasizing the army.
