Why Britain needed both armed merchant cruisers and merchant aircraft carriers

Would Britain have been better off converting its armed merchant cruisers into merchant aircraft carriers?

No; MACs added vital air cover, but armed merchant cruisers still performed patrol, deterrence, interception, and prize-taking duties that aircraft carriers could not.

The panel argues that torpedoes might have let Rawalpindi damage or sink Scharnhorst and Gneisenau at the very short ranges of her final action, even though the auxiliary cruiser would still be lost. Armed merchant cruisers remained useful as distant pickets, commerce-protection patrol ships, and platforms able to place prize crews aboard intercepted merchants. Merchant aircraft carriers offered valuable air cover but could not perform those policing and capture duties. Earlier MAC conversions would help convoys, yet they would supplement rather than replace the armed merchant cruiser force.