Comments by "calvingreene90" (@calvingreene90) on "'Armoured' and 'Unarmoured' Carriers - Survivability vs Strike Power" video.

  1. The Panama Canal was just too convenient at times leading to design compromises that cost more than having to sail around South America.
    2
  2.  @Phatman2167  The Washington and London navel treaties on the balance did more good than harm. First they saved everybody vast amounts of money, then eliminated tension that most historians who specialize in that era believe would have led to a war between the USofA and UK. The USofA Navy preoccupation with using the Panama Canal led them to compromising combat capabilities and efficiency in daily operations to save 2 weeks transit time when transferring from one coast to the other.
    2
  3.  @loyalpiper  Because you're very suggestible.
    1
  4. I think that given the treaty limitations if the operational environment allow it (the Pacific) the unarmored deck was better but the British carriers would not survived European operations without the armored deck so both were as close to right as possible at the time.
    1