Why the Royal Navy needed more, smaller carriers

Was Britain's choice of smaller carriers a long-term mistake under treaty limits?

Not necessarily: global commitments made the ability to field carriers in many places more valuable than maximizing each hull's size.

The force-structure case for smaller fleet carriers under a fixed treaty tonnage. Britain needed aviation in the Far East, Mediterranean, North Atlantic, South Atlantic, and Indian Ocean at the same time. Even a trade route without an opposing carrier needed air reconnaissance to find raiders and exercise sea control. Building at about 22,500 tons could yield six carriers where the 27,000-ton maximum yielded five, making smaller hulls a rational compromise between individual air-group strength and worldwide presence.