You will need to recalculate all the significant parameters and assign the other "non data" categories.
History loss summary approx numbers for an appreciation of what sank what:
US naval combatant ship losses 16% attack by ships, 20% to submarines, 37% to air
US submarine losses 42% attack by ships, 37% to attack by air
Japanese combatant ship losses 60% to air, 36% to submarines
Japanese subs?
German combatant ship losses 37% attack by ships, 12% to submarines, 37% to air
German submarines 40% to attack by ships, 40% to attack by air
UK combatant ship losses 20% attack by ships, 34% to submarines, 28% to air
UK submarine losses 36% to attack by ships, 03% to submarines, 14% to air. Lots to mines, lots of "failed to return"
Observations for bigger game picture:
Air has to be able to sink ships and subs.
Huge upgrade to UK and especially US ships anti-air defenses after 1941.
Japanese torpedo very effective. US torpedo not so good until late 43.
Proximity fuse further increased UK/US anti-air effectiveness 4x in late 1942. By 1944, most attacking aircraft were shot down by CAP and ships.
Ultra in Europe and breaking Japanese Naval code were critical.
Japan started out way ahead but was not industrially or organizationally capable of replacing losses of material or of trained technical skills rapidly even before their industries were attacked. Was unable to make up for losses of aircraft/pilots, ships/engineers.
Japanese carrier forces could launch strikes at 300 miles, US carriers could launch strikes at 200 miles.
By 1943, US aircraft were far better than Japanese aircraft and produced in far greater numbers. US pilot training was even better. Ship production was accelerating rapidly.
Search radar made successful surface night ops possible [42-43] Radar fire control made long range naval gunnery accurate [41-42], made anti-aircraft fire much more accurate [43-44].
The hardest thing about war at sea is finding your target. Surveillance is everything.
About fighter aircraft:
Modifications and upgrades pretty much balanced / counterbalanced European fighter capabilities. Not a great deal of difference between Spitfire, FW-190, P-47, P-51. Actually, not that much difference between ME-109 and FW-190. Properly flown, they were all capable of holding their own except for range. Shouldn't be any significant difference in the game except for range. P-47 was a bit of an exception ... incredibly rugged aircraft.
Pacific theater, A-6M had an advantage until F-4F was replaced for USN and P-40 replaced for US Army. Spitfire MK IX arrived for UK. F-6F, P-38, F-4U for US/UK - all better than IJN and JArmy a/c if flown properly.