As someone mentioned earlier in the thread, the two submarines are very hard to compare because each was designed to meet specific needs of it's theatre.
Thus it's like comparing (vague comparison coming..) a crocodile to a dinosaure. Sure they're related, but both predators come to meet different criterias of their region and age.
One point that boggles me is that yes, the earlier Type VIIA and possibly the Type VIIBs cannot really be compared to subs like the Gato, Porpoise, etc. But once the U-Boat operations started running out into the Atlantic Gap (now strictly talking of VII operations, not IX which could actually be compared to Gatos) the operational framework starts to look similar to that of the Pacific. Find, Fix and Destroy convoys and targets of opportunity in the middle of the ocean.
Thus, how do such subs such as the VIIC, VIIC/41 and the planned VIIC/42 compare to the Gatos and their contemporary American cousins.
Secondly, I understand the great difference that Radar makes for the Americans, but I'm really amazed to see that such simple (well not really simple..) things such as diving depth (really a Type VIIA can dive deeper then a Balao..) are greatly different between the two.
Question for you naval types: With the fleet boats larger size, would it not then offer a better chance at diving deeper then the smaller Type VIIs? What is the difference maker here?
I am really interested in the differences between the two campaigns and how they affected the ships that fought them,
to this thread
Krauter