Naval Historywith Dr. Alex

Q&A · 2:20:34-2:21:16

The Washington treaty allowed new carriers as well as conversions

Conversion was an option for using otherwise restricted capital-ship hulls, not a requirement that every carrier ton be built from an old ship.

Aircraft CarriersCarrier ConversionsImperial Japanese NavyRoyal NavyUS NavyWashington Naval Treaty
Watch at this timeFull video guide
Question

Did the Washington treaty require navies to convert ships into carriers rather than build new ones?

Short answer

No. Conversion was permitted, but navies could also build new carriers and Britain did not even use conversions to fill its entire carrier allowance.

Notes

The treaty powers remained free to construct purpose-built carriers within their tonnage allowances. Japan chose Akagi and an Amagi-class hull, while the United States converted Lexington and Saratoga because those large hulls were already available. Britain converted Courageous, Glorious, and Furious but did not use conversion to exhaust its full allowance. The pattern reflects national inventories and construction choices rather than a treaty rule that carriers had to come from capital ships.