There is a significant conceptual difference between being built to support a battle line and being expected to line up in that battle line. In the 20's and 30's, when the major navies were still controlled by the "gun club", all carriers were to support the battle lines. They would usually be somewhere behind the disengaged side providing gunfire spotting and fighter cover to defend their own spotters and eliminate those of the opponent. They could also do some scouting and possibly damage or slow the enemy's battle line enough to give your own an advantage.
Some forward thinkers in the aviation communities saw far more potential in the carriers. However, the Royal Navy expected to be conducting operations in some pretty confined waters. They did not expect the carrier by itself to be able to carry enough fighters to fully defend the ship, especially in pre-radar times, hence the armored deck.
: I recall that at least one British carrier was
: hit by Kamikazes or bombs in the Pacific and
: received minimal damage due to the armored
: flight decks. The new carriers of the
: Illustrious class were designed to form up
: in the battle line thus the armored decks.
: Carrier policy of the RN was about the
: opposite of that of the USN & IJN.
: --Previous Message--
: I've read that Britsh aircraft carriers had
: armored flight decks, which prevented them
: from being overly wrecked by bombs and
: Kamikazes. I have never heard of any
: Bristish carriers in the Pacfic or anywhere
: else testing this said armored deck. Was
: there any British carriers fighting the
: Japanese as much as we we're in the Pacific?