Q&A · 3:59:02-4:00:40

Why cruiser-carriers remain poor compromises

Treaties already permitted heavily armed carriers, yet navies largely rejected cruiser-carriers because combining roles weakened the ship's operational logic.

Question

How would treaty permission for cruiser-carriers change the naval battles around Guadalcanal in 1942?

Short answer

The effect is too design-dependent to predict, and the concept remains an inefficient compromise that navies could already have pursued but generally did not.

Notes

Cruiser-carriers could provide a degree of self-escort, but they would still hang back for carrier operations. Their influence on battles around Guadalcanal would depend on which navies built them, the designs chosen, and how later generations developed. Treaty rules already allowed carriers to carry guns up to 8 inches, so such a ship could come out of carrier tonnage. Lexington and Saratoga provide the named example of 8-inch carrier armament.