When World War II came to US shores the
the operational tempo of the submarine force increased drastically.
Not only were the number of hours on each engine installed in
submarines by necessity ramped up but the requirement for a greater
reliability of the engines became more important than in the
peacetime force. If an engine failed and had to be repaired in port
it pulled a submarine of patrol thus real war strategy not just the
results of a peacetime exercise. Submarines had to perform 60 day
patrols with 21 to 28 days for refit and repair before starting
again. Failure rates had to be factored in and as the tempo
increased better usage data on engine reliability became available.
As the wartime operational tempo became
established planning for equipment operating hours, submarine
maintenance and overhaul schedules could be formulated with some
degree of accuracy. ComSubPac wanted six war patrols between yard
overhauls. With the number of submarines involved in the Pacific war
in late 1942 this meant that there would be at least fourteen
submarines in the yards at any one time and as more submarines came
on line the number of boats in overhaul would grow. Thus there
needed to be yard capacity and skilled workers available to perform
the work. West coast yards ramped up to take this increased load.
Bethlehem Steel San Francisco and Hunter's Point started to do
overhaul work as facilities and workers became available. By the end
of 1943 Mare Island handled nine submarines simultaneously while
Bethlehem had three and Hunters Point another twelve. Remember these
facilities also handled all the other types of ships from aircraft
carriers to destroyer escorts.
The data pointed to the unreliability
of the HOR engines and the Winton 201 engines. New submarines were
having HOR engines and GM 248 engines installed because they were in
the design pipeline. Thus the submarine force needed to decide what
engines to install in the new “Balao Class” submarines and what
to do with the engines already installed in earlier boats which were
now carrying the load in the Pacific war. The decision was made to
go with GM 16-278A engines in submarines of the “Balao Class” and
“Tench Class” boats being built in yards using the EB designs and
the FM 38D engine in boats using the Government design.
Now the issue was what to do with the
engines already in or being installed in boats from the V-1 to the
end of the “Gato Class”. This decision was not an easy one. The
simple solution was to replace the unreliable engines with those
being installed in new construction “Balao and Tench” classes.
Actual re-engining was a complex effort
which consumed a great many man-hours. These were not 'plug and
play' situations like we might be familiar with today. Consider if
you had a Ford pick-up truck. You wanted to (for some reason) change
the Ford engine to a Chevrolet engine with a little more power. The
Ford engine needs removed along with the piping, wiring, most likely
the radiator and battery support. The engine mounts must be torn out
and replaced with an arrangement that would fit the new engine. Now
imagine doing this while having to stand and sit in the engine
compartment. The situation is similar to engine replacement in a
submarine. Everything down to the pressure hull must be removed
including the engine and generator foundations and all supporting
auxiliary equipment and piping. Then new foundations had to be
fabricated not only for the engine block but for all the new lube oil
coolers, pumps, engine cooling water pumps and engine exhaust piping.
And remember this must be done four times (four engines). It would
take between 32,000 and 35,000 man-days of effort to replace the HOR
engines with GM 278A engines in the Gunnel series of Gato Class boats
with the Gunnel (SS-253) taking over 44,000 man-days as the first to
undergo the replacement.
7
So how many submarines are being
considered for replacement. The three big “V” boats, Argonaut,
Nautilus and Narwhal had MAN engines. [3 boats, 12 engines]
Maschinenfabrik-Augsburg-Nürnberg (MAN) was a German company thus
replacement parts would be difficult to obtain. Dolphin and Cachalot
also had MAN engines. [2 boats, 4 engines] Cuttlefish had NELSECO
engines (New London Ship and Engine Company) which were no longer
being manufactured. [1 boat, 2 engines] There were Winton 201
engines in Porpoise (SS-172) through Permit (SS-178) [7 boats, 28
engines]. There were 80 HOR engines in scattered through the Perch,
Sargo, Salmon, Seadragon, Tambor, Gar, and Gato Classes from Pompano
(SS-181) through Pargo (SS-264) [20 boats, 80 engines]. This gave a
total of 33 boats with 126 engines that needed engines replaced.
Note that Dolphin, Cachalot and Cuttlefish had two engines each with
the rest having four engines each.
The decision seems easy but requires
much study, planning, requisitions, scheduling and not the least of
which is approval of the entire Navy chain of command and the
acquisition of money to pay for new engines, parts, man-days of work.
New contracts and plans already in the pipeline called for HOR
engines to be installed in 12 new construction Gato Class boats.
Letters and their reviews and comments flew back and forth between
Bureau of Ships (BuShips), Bureau of Engineering (BuShips), the
Bureau of Inspection and Survey (InSurv) and the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO). The breaking point came when the InSurv Board did
not understand how the most unreliable of the engine types being used
in submarines was to be used in three times as many new construction
boats as the more reliable types. The letters back an forth reveal
that all thoughts of maintaining good relations with a particular
company went out the window and patience with their ability to
correct deficiencies was at and end as wartime considerations took
precedence. The arguments about which engines to use boiled down to
the issue of smoking in GM engines, cracking of cylinders in FM
engines and whether the issues with HOR engines (which smoked little)
could be corrected in future engines. GM shifted to iron pistons
and changed lube oil pumps to solve their smoking problem. FM worked
on redesign of cylinder liners and water jackets to eliminate the
cracking problem. In the end it was decided that all HOR engines
must be replaced along with Winton 201s and the MAN engines in the
boats which had them.
The option for replacement of the HOR
engines were to use GM278A engines, FM 9cylinder engines or FM 10
cylinder engines. The FM10s would be a very crowded arrangement. In
addition, the FM engines as replacements would mean that the engine
exhaust piping in the superstructure including the mufflers would
have to be rearranged. The FM engines were, however, easier to
obtain. The final decision was to use the GM engines.
The next issue was more difficult to
solve. Boats having HOR or GM201 engines were in patrol cycles which
were vital to the war effort in the Pacific. They could not be 'set
aside' for engine replacement until new construction boats came on
line. Therefore many of the boats with these 'deficient' engines had
to continue to make patrols. The good part of the problem was that
as the construction of new submarines ramped up and the various
Bureaus (Ships, Engineering, etc.), Type Commands (ComSubPac,
ComSubSoWesPac, etc) and the office of the Chief of Naval Operations
got a handle on scheduling it was possible to decide when to change
out the engines on those submarines that needed engine changes.
By late 1942 engine replacement for
existing submarine was well in hand at Mare Island. Five boats,
Porpose (SS-172), Pike (SS-173), Tarpon (SS-175), Pickerel (SS-177),
and Permit (SS-178) were in the yard having their GM Model 201A
engined replaced with GM Model 278A engines.
The Gunnel series SS-253 through SS-264
were re-engined starting in mid1943 and finishing in March 1944. The
older submarines with HOR engines had these engines replaced with GM
278A's starting in May 1944 and finishing in August 1944.
The HOR engines were gone from the
submarine force by the end of 1944. However for much of the war they
made one patrol after another with problems, corrections and
maintenance performed by ship's force, tenders and refit crews. The
GM engines were not without issues some of which restricted their
loading to 75% in an attempt to minimize crankshaft bearing problems.
FM engines had exhaust header problems, cylinder liner cracking and
their operators became very proficient at replacing liners.
Both GM and FM engines lasted until the
end of the last fleet boat in 1978. I served for a time on one boat
with GM engines (Dogfish SS-350) and a longer time on one with FM
engines (Sterlet SS-392). Not being an Engineman I didn't have to
actively work on either type but it was my observation that those who
worked on GM's (Jimmy's) thought they were the best and those working
on FM's thought their engines the best. It was similar to those Ford
pickup truck lovers who would never own a Chevrolet pickup and
vice-versa.
This list is the best
information I have to date. It is from various sources and includes the
extensive research of BuShips records at the National Archives by
Christopher Wright. My thanks to him and to the others who compiled
listings.
Hull Number |
NAME |
Number of Main Engine(s) |
Main Engine Manufacturer |
Main Engine Model Number |
166 |
Argonaut V-4 |
4 |
MAN |
|
|
V-4 Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
12-258 |
167 |
Narwhal V-5 |
4 |
MAN |
|
|
V-5 Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
12-278A |
168 |
Nautilus V-6 |
4 |
MAN |
|
|
V-6 Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-258 |
170 |
Cachalot V-8 |
2 |
MAN |
|
|
V-8 Re-engined |
2 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-258 |
171 |
Cuttlefish V-9 |
2 |
NELSECO |
M9VU 40/46 |
|
V-9 Re-engined |
2 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-258 |
172 |
Porpoise |
4 |
Winton |
201A |
|
Porpoise Re-engined |
|
Cleveland Diesel |
278A |
173 |
Pike |
4 |
Winton |
201A |
|
Pike Re-engined |
|
Cleveland Diesel |
278A |
174 |
Shark |
4 |
Winton |
201a |
175 |
Tarpon |
4 |
Winton |
201A |
|
Tarpon Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
278A |
176 |
Perch |
4 |
Winton |
201A |
177 |
Pickerel |
4 |
Winton |
201A |
|
Pickerel Re-engined |
|
Cleveland Diesel |
278A |
178 |
Permit |
4 |
Winton |
201A |
|
Permit Re-engined |
|
Cleveland Diesel |
278A |
179 |
Plunger |
4 |
Fairbanks Morse |
38D8 |
|
Plunger Re-engined |
4 |
Fairbanks Morse |
38D8 1/8 |
180 |
Pollack |
4 |
Fairbanks Morse |
38D8 |
|
Pollack Re-engined |
4 |
Fairbanks Morse |
38D8 1/8 |
181 |
Pompano |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Pompano Re-engined |
4 |
Fairbanks Morse |
38D8 1/8 |
182 |
Salmon |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Salmon Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
183 |
Seal |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Seal Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
184 |
Skipjack |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Skipjack Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
188 |
Sargo |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Sargo Re-engined* |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-258 |
189 |
Saury |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Saury Re-engined* |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-258 |
190 |
Spearfish |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Spearfish Re-engined* |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-258 |
194 |
Seadragon |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Seadragon Re-engined* |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
278A |
253 |
Gunnel |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Gunnel Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
254 |
Gurnard |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Gurnard Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
255 |
Haddo |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Haddo Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
256 |
Hake |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Hake Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
257 |
Harder |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Harder Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
258 |
Hoe |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Hoe Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
259 |
Jack |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Jack Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
260 |
Lapon |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Lapon Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
261 |
Mingo |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Mingo Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
262 |
Muskallunge |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
|
Muskallunge Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
263 |
Paddle |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
263 |
Paddle Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
264 |
Pargo |
4 |
HOR |
99DA |
264 |
Pargo Re-engined |
4 |
Cleveland Diesel |
16-278A |
|