I mean what do you want as a reply, a potted history of the torpedo boat, because submarines were regarded as a kind of submersible torpedo boat? I am not sure if the issue here is lack of reading comprehension or blindness due to confirmation bias but at least twice above we have examples of you citing references which repeat and confirm what I have said or been arguing just more long windedly.
Just to repeat the answer which you clearly do not like, submarines are a threat but they are not likely to buck the trends of OTL and become the decisive weapon by themselves in the period in question.
If I'm guessing right, a better question might be WI: Submarines were viewed as submersible
(battle)cruisers rather than submersible
torpedo boats. Up until the interbellum years, capital ships usually incorporated torpedoes as part of their armament scheme, so there isn't anything intrinsically special about torps.
Now, if we take
Surcouf as an example, and this is a much later boat, it has several disadvantages over a heavy cruiser, its single turret notwithstanding:
-Because it sits so much lower, it's hard to sight the gun turret; reducing its range to about 60% of a cruiser installation
-Its guns rely on magazines that need to be reloaded after every 14 shots
-After surfacing, it takes 3-5 minutes to be ready to fire straight ahead, longer if the turret needs traversing- and traversing is limited.
-The guns can only be fired when the sub is at the trough of a roll, reducing rate of fire.
For a 1909-1914 sub, these disadvantages would only be worse. The tech isn't there yet. Gunnery is still quite immature as well in the era in question, with a lot of dead reckoning still used.
The technology for the kind of sub OP wants simply isn't mature enough. Diesels are too immature, torpedoes are too immature, putting steam engines on sprinting subs doesn't work, "wolf pack" doctrine doesn't exist yet and radio communication still is too immature to be fully effective. You also lose the psychological weapon/ fleet-in-being factor that battleships have.
For the raid described, best case scenario, at the cost of heavy losses to weather, collisions and mechanical breakdown, along with an astronomical abort/failure to reach target rate, you
might sink a couple protected cruisers and pre-dreads while the Grand Fleet is unaware. Minor tactical victory at best, Pyrrhic victory likeliest, major tactical loss at worst.
Even with an earlier POD, like Tirpitz decided Dreadnought needed to be dealt with a different way, it just wouldn't work.
If you played with a later POD, and had a different Washington, you might be able to work up something like a cruiser sub for WWII, but that;s still a longshot.