An attack on carriers at Ulithi offered less lasting disruption than a successful strike on the Panama Canal might have caused. Carrier losses could be repaired or replaced within the enormous British and American building programs, whereas rerouting merchant ships, landing craft, and supplies around the world would complicate timing, weather, and deployment. The Allies could cope, but canal damage might still have been more disruptive than a dramatic tactical strike. Landing ships in particular would face route and weather constraints, while stockpiled supplies could end up on the wrong side of the disrupted transport network.
Notable Point · 1:03:20-1:06:38
Canal disruption versus attacking carriers
Blocking the canal might have imposed a more durable logistical cost than damaging a handful of late-war carriers.