Comments by "Vikki McDonough" (@vikkimcdonough6153) on "USS Wolverine and USS Sable - Paddle Carriers of the Icy North" video.

"And so the hunt began for a suitable victim - I, I mean volunteer." "Which, these days, I suppose, would correspond to a dozen F350s, three Dodge Rams, and a Hummer."
39
One of the major disadvantages of a battlecarrier, as you've stated on numerous occasions, is that the avgas and aircraft are a massive ship-endangering fire hazard if hit. However, almost all interwar/WWII-era capital ships, and even cruisers, still had scouting aircraft and the associated facilities, complete with avgas, thus making this fire hazard still present even with non-flight-deck-equipped ships (as would be spectacularly demonstrated at 1st Savo Island when shell-hit-induced aircraft/avgas fires did crippling or even fatal damage to three American cruisers). So why didn't navies of the era offload the scouting-aircraft role from their capital ships and cruisers entirely and instead equip some destroyers (which are basically disposable firecrackers anyway) with aircraft catapults (as the U.S. did eventually try during WWII) or develop small, light dedicated carriers (with an air wing of maybe 10 aircraft in a mix of scouts and fighters) to sail with the battlefleet and the cruiser squadrons and do aerial scouting for them? (Closely related to one of the questions answered in drydock 287, but my question proposes different kinds of scouting-aircraft-carrying ships - destroyers and light CVs rather than seaplane carriers - and asks specifically why essentially no one did that rather than whether it could've been done.)
5