The comparisons of Silent Victory to B-17: Queen of the Skies are apt, but I'm not enamored with either. Although SV has far more details in terms of weaponry, historical dates, machinery, and awards than does B-17, it requires even more rolls and more steps with only a little bit more decision making per turn.
The chances of your sub hitting the target are about average; the chances of the torpedo being a dud are about average; the chances of the escort that is accompanying the target(s) discovering you are about average. So Silent Victory is built with a lot of 50/50% chances--coin tosses essentially--that can be affected marginally by a player's actions (many modifiers are +1 or -1), and the end result is an average "game" in which the player basically connects various charts and presses his or her luck by flipping a (metaphoric) coin. Partway through my first game, I was tired of the multiple step bookkeeping used to determine the approximate boat size, the exact boat size, and the boat weight for each encounter...and writing statistics down for a board game in tiny boxes is never fun.
I like the idea of measuring submarine success by the tonnage of ships sunk, and there are some nice details (eg. the damage repair system), but I felt that B-17 better used the three boards--those all have thematic visuals that illustrate the battles and game world. The SV boards are two charts with chit boxes and a map that has no play value (but should have).
I understand (but do not share) the nostalgic B-17 fascination, and that game has some very compelling components and innovations working synergistically, but Silent Victory is a new solitaire "game" and doesn't have that quaint yellow musk. Compared to contemporary solitaire gems like Thunderbolt Apache Leader, D-Day at Omaha Beach, and Zulus on the Ramparts! and also the classic solo adventure, Ambush!, Silent Victory is a dry, chart-oriented simulation centered on an endless series of press your luck dice rolls.