Thanks Gardner:
maybe you should start a post on how Japan might have done better, within her means, if she had gone back to learning from the Royal Navy and lessons already being learnt in the Atlantic even Mediterranean Uboat wars?

It always amazed me how, apologies, 'dense and arrogant' some nations can be in refusing to learn lessons from others. In particular, even if you say the RN Victory at Taranto was at least the main surge of a reputedly already existing plan by the Japanese for Pearl...why not then also learn and adapt and change production in even 1940 to learn lessons from the Battle of the Atlantic?

Also, I just saw Korean video on Utube where in English subtitles they indicate that the post-war super-tankers and giant cargo ships were in fact based on dreadnought and large carrier hull works in Japan, Korea and Formosa(Taiwan). I have to find the link again. But it claimed in English translation(I can't read Korean, have trouble with english lol) that the reason the Japanese chose to build smaller ships from 43 on was the greater chance of 1 ship of 5,000 tons getting through of 2 ships as opposed to 1 ship of 10,000 tons being sunk or damaged and laid up for so long. If you find that, please link me back, thanks.

Someone paged me an interesting question too.
And i think it is related to your point?

If this increased production ability were realized, would it be wiser to build larger or smaller warships?