Carrier armour, air groups and treaty tonnage

One panellist argues that American and Japanese exercises placed too much emphasis on open-ocean operations. The competing explanation assigns treaty tonnage a more decisive role: enough allowance would permit large carriers with both armour and large air groups. A hypothetical allowance for ten 27,000-ton carriers illustrates that freedom, compared with only five for Britain or America and three for Japan under the restricted totals. Those smaller numbers were insufficient, forcing compromises between carrier numbers and individual capability. Pacific planners valued aircraft capacity, while British planners expected Mediterranean and South China Sea operations within land-based air range. In that interpretation, accepting a smaller air group made room for protection intended to keep the ship and its aircraft available beyond the first day's attacks.