The concluding argument is that major carrier navies had a broadly recognisable ideal by the mid-1930s. Designers began with the capabilities they wanted and then reduced or rearranged them to fit the tonnage legally or politically available. Britain preserved more protection by shrinking aircraft capacity, while the United States accepted less armour to retain a larger air group and enough hulls. Wartime evidence then gave both navies more confidence about which compromises had been costly and which characteristics were essential. This interpretation treats wartime carriers as revisions of mature pre-war thinking rather than wholly new inventions.
Notable Point · 48:24-49:49
War experience reveals pre-war carrier aims
The conclusion argues that carrier navies already understood much of what they wanted by the mid-1930s, while treaty tonnage forced compromises in air-group size and armour.