Would merged treaty tonnage favour carriers?

If the Washington Treaty had treated aircraft carriers and capital ships as one tonnage category, would navies have built more carriers?

Not necessarily. Because carrier utility was still uncertain, naval leaders might have spent the combined allowance on battleships instead.

The proposal would combine carrier and capital-ship tonnage, giving the Royal Navy, United States Navy, and Japan more latitude to convert or build carriers. Its main obstacle is institutional: admirals in the 1920s did not yet regard aircraft as proven enough to surrender battleship tonnage voluntarily. A combined allowance could therefore reduce the number of carriers. Even attractive conversion candidates such as the Splendid Cats would compete with naval leaders' preference for new battleships and their uncertain understanding of carrier speed and employment.