Visual damage is completely unreliable, and U-boat crewmembers were not trained in metallurgy. The fact is, a commander could not tell how badly damaged his boat was until he returned to base. If commanders got badly depth charged, they didn't mess around testing the hull integrity in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. What they did was return to base. In reality, no commander was stupid enough to carry on a patrol with a damaged boat.

Any player can tell if he has received significant damage. You don't need a hull integrity meter for that.

It is absolutely the player's choice to have a hull integrity meter or not. Players ALWAYS have that choice. It's not as if (as some folks here seem to be suggesting) I'm taking away a player's choice by removing the hull integrity meter from a mod. In fact, the act of removing it GIVES the player the choice, because if there were no mods that removed the hull integrity meter, players would be forced to use it, whether they liked it or not.

When I make a mod such as the Newsmod in SH3 Commander, I make it based on what I like. The Newsmod has no hull integrity meter because it is based on RUb, and RUb is focused squarely on realism. When I have strong feelings on an issue I don't compromise. This reluctance to compromise gives a mod singularity of purpose. It also can make the mods I make controversial. But the choice to remove or adjust the mod always exists. However, it is not my job to appeal to every player's taste. If I tried to do that, RUb (for example) would be a very unpopular mod indeed, because it would have no underlying vision or purpose. In trying to appeal to everyone, it would succeed in challenging no one, and it would be boring and predictable. I believe mods are best when they challenge a player, and that's what the lack of hull integrity meter is all about. More realism in this case is more challenging.