Would the US Navy lose fewer carriers with armoured Midway-style carriers instead of Essexes?
Short answerThey would be harder to damage from above, but production would be slower and torpedo hits would still be dangerous; the trade-off is protection against numbers.
NotesThe answer sees Midway-style construction as a more powerful but slower-production alternative to mass Essex output. An armoured flight deck would make the carrier harder to disable through bomb or kamikaze hits from above. The larger and more protected design would take longer to build, reducing how quickly the US Navy could put hulls and air groups into service. Protection would also leave the underwater threat unresolved because torpedo hits could still cripple or sink an armoured carrier. The choice is therefore between greater individual resilience and the operational flexibility supplied by larger numbers. Armour is not immunity; it shifts which damage the ship can absorb and which risks commanders must still manage.