A VISUAL GUIDE TO THE S-CLASS SUBMARINES
1918-1945
PART 1: THE PROTOTYPES
BY
DAVID L. JOHNSTON
© 2007

Throughout the rich history of the United States Navy Submarine Service, there are several submarines that have become iconic and are among the first mentioned in history texts. The Holland, Gato, Nautilus, and George Washington always receive top billing when discussing submarine history and deservedly so. They were technological pathfinders or the parent of large and important classes that won wars or kept the peace. But, in the 1920's, an entire class of submarines achieved that iconic status and came to represent the Silent Service in the minds of the public.

Designed during WWI when German U-boats were running amuck in the Atlantic, the S-class of submarines were to be our Navy's first true ocean going attack submarines. All previous classes had been designed for harbor defense or coastal patrols and were not suited for blue water operations. The S-class, while not a true Fleet Boat as the Navy defined that term, were to be longer ranged, faster, more heavily armed, and more habitable than any previous submarine class. They wound up being too late to see action in WWI, but they began to enter the fleet just as the Roaring 20's started. The 51 submarines of this class comprised the largest single class of submarine in the U.S. Navy until WWII, and it made up the bulk of our Navy's submarine force during the 1920's and 30's. Some of the S-boats served right up to the end of WWII, an unheard of longevity for the time.

One of the accepted definitions of the word class is "a number of things regarded as forming a group by reason of common attributes, characteristics, or qualities." In the Navy, a class of warships will meet this definition, but in addition the ships will also look and be outfitted in such a manner as to be nearly identical. The layman might be surprised to learn that the 51 S-class submarines were anything but a homogenous, identical group. For several reasons in fact, the S-class was made up of no less than six distinct designs and sub-groups that were built by four different manufacturers. The Navy calls the group a class because they were required to meet a certain set of performance and military specifications. These were approximately 800-1000 tons submerged displacement, length approximately 250 ft., surface speed 18-20 knots, submerged speed 14 knots for 1 hour and 10 knots for 3 hr, surface range radius of 5000 nautical miles, and 4 bow torpedo tubes (two reloads each).

Up until about 1916, the Electric Boat Company of Groton, CT. (EB) had been the defacto design agent for U.S. submarines and had enjoyed a near monopoly on construction. Several factors, though, had led their relationship with the Navy to become strained. The incorporation of patented features that stunted competition, poorly performing engines built by one of their subsidiaries, and what many officers felt was undue use of political influence led to a feeling of ill-will towards the company. The Navy's Bureau of Construction and Repair wanted to have its own in-house design capability and thus designated the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Portsmouth, N.H. as the lead submarine yard. Congress also felt strongly that some level of competition was needed. Thus, the General Board kept the characteristics as general as possible, to give the designers a free hand. Three prototypes were to be developed for the new 800 tonner, Portsmouth and EB submitted their designs, with a third coming from the Lake Torpedo Boat Company of Bridgeport, CT.

Electric Boat's model became the USS S-1 (SS-105). This design is sometimes referred to as the "Holland" S-boat, a reference to EB's founder John Holland.

Drawing by Jim Christley, courtesy of U.S. Submarines Through 1945, An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. Naval Institute Press.

It was a single hull design, with all ballast tanks internal to the pressure hull. The hull was a rounded spindle shape with a narrow superstructure atop it that ran ¾ of the way to the stern before the skeg tapered sharply down to the rudder. The rudder itself was placed at the very end of the hull, in line with the hull's axis and aft of the twin screws. She had four 21-inch torpedo tubes forward, a prominent hawse pipe at the far forward, upper end of the superstructure, and a single starboard side anchor. A squared off conning tower fairwater sat dead center on the superstructure, supporting the periscopes and radio aerials. As built, she sported a small 3-inch deck gun that partially retracted vertically into the superstructure forward of the fairwater. Her bow planes retracted aft into the superstructure, one of the earliest examples of this feature. She was, in effect, an enlarged version of the earlier EB R-class boats.

National Archives Photo.

EB did not at this time have the large construction yard in Groton and thus sub-contracted the S-1's construction to the Fore River Shipbuilding Co. of Quincy, Massachusetts. On her trial runs, a portion of the conning tower fairwater surrounding the bridge was not installed, a common construction technique of the time. Note also in the above photo the angular fairwaters for the bow plane pivots on the forward superstructure. This feature was repeated on some, but not all of the later EB S-boats. Overall, the S-1 had even, well-proportioned lines. This was mostly due to the fact that alone among the three prototypes, EB split the boat's main battery into two halves, with half forward of the control room, and half immediately aft. This was a favored feature of EB designs, which added a level of mechanical redundancy. A fairly successful boat, the S-1 was chosen in 1926 to conduct the Navy's first (and as it turned out, only) tests in carrying and launching an airplane from a submarine. For these experiments, she was fitted with a small, horizontally mounted cylindrical hanger aft of the fairwater. It held a single Martin MS-1 floatplane partially disassembled.

National Archives Photo.

She was also refitted with a larger, more powerful 4-inch 50 cal. deck gun.

From the Private Collection of Ric Hedman

The Lake Torpedo Boat Co. and its brilliant but eccentric owner Simon Lake were EB's only real competition in the years leading up to the S-boats. They were chosen to submit a design that became the USS S-2 (SS-106).

Drawing by Jim Christley, courtesy of U.S. Submarines Through 1945, An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. Naval Institute Press.

A modified double hull design with an unusual look, it was generally cylindrical in shape, but tapered sharply upward forward (which resulted in a vertically narrow bow) and aft, which ended in Lake's trademark horizontal "shovel" stern. Her rudder was mounted beneath the shovel, whose pivot structure also supported the stern planes. The superstructure ended short of the stern. She also had a starboard side anchor and retractable bow planes. Her battery was all situated forward of the control room, and that pushed the conning tower aft a little. Like the S-1, she also conducted her initial sea trials without the bridge fairwater installed.

National Archives Photo

Initially built without a gun, she was refitted with a 4-inch 50 cal. weapon similar to the one on S-1. Her deck around the gun mount had to be expanded outward to provide adequate space for the large gun.

National Archives Photo

Further tests after her commissioning showed that she tended to burrow into the waves while surfaced, due to a smaller than anticipated amount of reserve buoyancy in the bow. Accordingly, Simon Lake designed a fix for this problem: the addition of a bow buoyancy tank external to the superstructure.

From the Private Collection of Rick Larson
National Archives Photo

This gave the S-2 a unique look and it was reminiscent of several British designs.

The government's design for the S-boats (sometimes called the "Bureau" design, after the Bureau of Construction & Repair) was built at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard as the USS S-3 (SS-107).

Drawing by Jim Christley, courtesy of U.S. Submarines Through 1945, An Illustrated Design History by Norman Friedman. Naval Institute Press.

A full double hull boat, all of her main ballast tanks were contained exterior to the pressure hull. She was considerably longer (231 ft. vs. 207 ft. for S-2 and 219 ft. for S-1) and a little wider than the other two boats, giving her a long, sleek appearance. Similar to S-2, her battery was contained in one large compartment forward of the control room, which had the visual effect of pushing her conning tower well astern. Despite this, I think that the government design was the most visually striking of the three, with graceful lines that are more memorable than the boxy, squared off look of the EB design. The long hull had far less curve to it and it had a vertical "chisel" stern. The rudder was underneath the stern similar to S-2, but the stern planes were suspended on their own support post above the rudder. Her conning tower fairwater had a distinct shape.

National Archives Photo

The bridge fairwater bulged far forward and hung over a prominent ready-use ammunition trunk. The deadlights for the conning tower itself were easily visible directly between these two structures. The superstructure was quite narrow and ended far short of the stern. Also built without a deck gun, a standard 4-inch 50 cal. was added later, and this necessitated the widening of the deck forward of the conning tower.

From the Private Collection of Rick Larson

Like the other two prototypes, she had a starboard side anchor, but did not have the prominent hawse pipe at the bow like the S-1.

Simon Lake's S-2 had her share of problems and was not well liked by her crews. Forced to work around EB's patented features, Lake's solutions ended up having less than desirable results. She was a slow diver due to her partially watertight superstructure and poorly designed flooding and venting mechanisms for the main ballast tanks. Her flat top internal tanks (as opposed to EB's patented U-shaped tanks) required more bracing and greatly reduced internal available space, making her a very cramped boat. The piping arrangement leading to the ballast tanks was overly complicated and her forward and aft trim tanks were so large that they were prone to develop a free surface effect, which adversely affected underwater control. This was Lake's last internal design to be accepted by the Navy. No contract for any further boats of this type was awarded to Lake, although he did build S-boats of the government type under license (See part two of this series).

Both the S-1 and the S-3 types were picked up for production. The S-1 had better underwater maneuverability, were fairly fast divers, and their single hull construction made them easier to maintain. The S-3 had better engines and a longer range. In the end, the Navy felt that both types were nearly evenly matched, but EB ended up with the bulk of the construction, mostly due to the much larger construction capacity they enjoyed with her contractors Union Iron Works and Fore River Shipbuilding Co.

Part two of this series will concern the rest of the boats of the government type, and part three will cover the EB boats.