HARRY'S NOTE - Let me apologize that it took so long for this to appear in our KTB Magazine; space constraints were to blame.

CHARLIE writes: "I would like to reply to MR. GEORGE LOGUE (1879-1991) on my article 'DIESEL ENGINES FOR US NAVY SUBMARINES'. I wish to thank MR. LOGUE for his comments on some of the operational aspects of the V-7 (USS DOLPHIN). Obviously the phrase 'a very successful boat' was a rather poor choice of words on my part.

Upon further investigation, I must agree that V-7 was a 'First-Class DOG' operationally because: a) it made only three unspecatacular war patrols (followed by long overhaul periods); b) its generally poor material condition, and c) the fact that it was yanked out of active service in the middle of the war for use as a trainer because modernization was not cost effective.

MR. LOGUE correctly states that a major design goal for the V-7 was to build a submarine of substantially smaller hull size (like half the displacement) of the previous V-5 or V-6, yet retain their performance characteristics. This goal was pushed for several reasons. Besides the economic reasons mentioned by MR. LOGUE there was a general outcry by senior submarine officers on 1926/27 against the large V-CLASS boats. Also, at this time, disarmament was in style which further tightened funds.

So, MR. LOGUE, you are correct; you get what you pay for when you try to cram 10 pounds into a 5 pound bag.

NOTE - a similar, congressionally mandated, cost and weight reduction effort was applied to the two battleships of the MISSISSIPPI (BB 23) class with similar results. Another pair of 'dogs'. Is history scheduled to repeat itself again with the follow-on design to the LONEWOLF (Oops, I mean SEAWOLF)? Will the new CENTURIAN design be another example of those that ignore history being doomed to repeat it?

In the paper, I limited my discussion to the development of diesel engines for our submarines and did not cover any operational details. If I could offer some rationale for using the term 'successful,' I would point out these few items:

1. The V-7 seemed to be the only submarine of that period to actually retain, throughout the boat's entire life, the engines originally installed in the boat. From a diesel engine perspective one could say that V-7 was 'successful' just because it kept its engines; whereas most of the boats just proceeding and immediately following the V-7 had serious problems with their diesels and had to have them totally replaced or completely rebuilt. I did find one source which stated that the Bu-MAN engines in the V-7 were fairly reliable, but under-powered - able to generate only 17 knots (not quite 'fleet submarine speed').

2. V-7 successfully acted as a test bed for the Diesel Electric Drive (DED) concept, although the DED plant was an auxiliary system used for cruising. The DED concept became standard for all subsequent non-nuclear powered submarines (except for the original plants in V-8 and V-9).

3. The overall design concept and integral arrangement turned out to be the forerunner of World War II fleet boats and set the standard.

4. To some extent the V-7 did meet the general design goal for a submarine of half the displacement of the previous type. It matched the V-5 and V-6 in speed and torpedo armament (6 tubes) and in a design that was more maneuverable and faster diving.

However, even this degree of 'success' has to be highly qualified. In CDR John Alden's book, 'The Fleet Submarine in the US Navy', the author (while commenting over the lack of progress made in US Submarine development over the previous 17 years) states '.....the superior qualities of the V-7 had yet to be generally recognized.....'"

Thanks for the insight, CHARLIE. --HC