The naval comparison distinguishes treaty allowances from the ships actually funded and available in 1939. Britain and the United States had nominal parity under the treaty system, yet the American fleet is assessed here as second in overall strength. The difference is attributed to congressional funding for cruisers, destroyers, and vessels below the capital-ship and carrier level. Japan consequently occupies third place in this comparison, with France and Italy jointly fourth, although their treaty position had assumed Anglo-American equality. Capital ships and carriers alone do not establish the strength of the whole fleet.
Notable Point · 11:11-14:22
Treaty allowances and funded fleets give different naval rankings
Treaty parity in major warships did not ensure equal strength in cruisers, destroyers, and supporting forces.