They didn't do well because their organizations were inefficient, their designs were inferior, and/or their countries put too much funding into the army (in general resources were put towards the wrong areas).How did Tirpitz, Raeder, Doenitz, and Gorshkov do again? If you do not understand seapower, your investment into a "botched" navy, because you got Mahan wrong, is flushing irreplaceable marks and rubles down the loo.
Pretty much in accordance with my comment; they did well under friendly air superiority, and always failed against enemy air power. Their surface ship strength was almost irrelevant in those cases (and therefore unnecessary).That depends. How did the USN do off Guadalcanal and later Okinawa? How did the RN running convoys to Malta and later do off the Falklands? How did the Indian Navy do off Karachi? Air superiority is "squishy". Surface combatants are still kind of important.