An age old debate. This argument is usually centric to uboat vs fleetboat. Its a flawed argument becuase not all subs were designed and built for the same purpose. A type7 uboat would fail miserably to accomplish a fleet boats objectives and vise verasa.
Submarine design, is highly influenced by doctrine. The Germans already had an idea of what they wanted to do based on lessons from WW1. The US had their own ideas and went off in another (flawed) direction, it just happened that while the doctrine was flawed, the submarine designed for that doctrine happened to fit what was needed in the pacific theater quite nicely.
What im getting at here is that different subs, were built for different purposes. Type 7's were basicaly picket boats that would from a line (aka wolfpack) for convoy attacks. This intent thrust upon the design, requirements in order to accomplish its mission. When things are designed, its always a case of give and take. Hence, while they had nice profiles and performance, they lacked the range and firepower of longer ranged subs. This lack of firepower in the indvidual sub was offset by the pack tactic.
Type 9 uboats, orginally designed as at sea wolfpack headquarters of sort, happened to be their most ideal long range boat. Performance and profile was sacraficed for firepower and range.
So if one was to ask, who had the best boat, you have to look at the role for which the subs your comparing were intended for. The US really had no direct equivlant of a Type7. All of their boats excepting the S class were basicaly long range submarines, primarly because of doctrine and their operational theater was the worlds largest ocean.
|