Are submerged/periscope attacks too easy?

I got started thinking about this from another thread, where it was mentioned that the tonnage people sink seem unrealistically high when compared to actual wartime statistics. That got me thinking about how I conduct my attacks versus what (little it may be) I know about historical U-boat attacks.

Virtually any convoy attack I make, day or night, is a submerged one. It's only if I play very early in the war that I make night-time surface attacks on convoys. Singletons or doubletons I might still attack on the surface (at least until they start getting armed! :p ) but usually my periscope gets a workout.

However, from what I've read it seems that the majority of attacks, even against convoys, was conducted on the surface. I recall reading one account (from the Allies perspective; I wish I could remember where I read it at ) where they said that, over hours thru the night the individual subs of the attacking wolf pack would surface some distance out, then dive as an escort charged toward them, only to re-surface again and again trying to get in an attack.

I don't understand why they didn't remain submerged and try creeping in for an approach while submerged. Part of the explanation was the very slow speed the boats had while submerged, which made it difficult to adjust course and close the range. But I don't seem to have trouble doing that in-game, which is why I wonder if it's far easier to conduct a submerged attack in SHIII than it actually was. And, if that's true, if there's any way of making a submerged attack more historically accurate and reflect that difficulty.

[mookiemookie]

I was always under the impression that periscope attacks were difficult especially at night as the optics didn't allow for accurate targeteing. i.e. it was too dark to get accurate AOB, range and speed measurements.

There could be other reasons, but this is the one that I'm aware of.

[melnibonian]

I think the reason for the surface attacks is that they offer greater visibility and higher speeds. Don't forget that WWII U-Boats were not like modern submarines. They could not stay under water for too long and they were built to approach the enemy on the surface and dive just prior to the attack.

[Warmonger]

Just look at the various tonnage accounts on www.uboat.net and you can see that many subs never sank a ship even on numerous patrols. So if you'd make a game as hard as real life was almost noone would play it for long time.
It's always difficult to comparison real life and games, even with super sims like SH3.

Originally Posted by melnibonian

I think the reason for the surface attacks is that they offer greater visibility and higher speeds. Don't forget that WWII U-Boats were not like modern submarines. They could not stay under water for too long and they were built to approach the enemy on the surface and dive just prior to the attack.

I understand that. My question was posing if it is (or just appears to be) far easier to conduct successful submerged attacks in SHIII than they should be, historically compared.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Albrecht Von Hesse

I understand that. My question was posing if it is (or just appears to be) far easier to conduct successful submerged attacks in SHIII than they should be, historically compared.

Compared historically I would say yes. But again, this is a sim played in the comfort of your home so there are plenty of things that will be missing from the sim as a result.

[Sailor Steve]

As mookiemookie said, night attacks pretty much had to be done on the surface as periscopes don't allow enough light to be useful unless a full moon is out. Daylight attacks must be made submerged (or you're dead), which means risking staying surfaced long enough to do an end-around to get in front of the convoy and dive again.