The Turtle submarine did it exist?

[geni]

The Turtle is normally credited as the world's first submarine used in battle.

For those who don't remember the standard account see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_%28submarine%29

Some versions of the account we know are false. The drill could not have been defeated by copper coating of the hull because the ship was not given a copper covering until a latter date. The version that has the british ships retreating is also a fabrication. British logs contain no mention of such a withdrawal which given the number of ships involved would have been a major operation and the logs recorded pretty much everything (we know for example that on the night of the supposed attack a seaman was flogged for drunkenness). They also fail to mention a mysterious explosion or indeed an explosion of any type.

Further problems appear when we consider the problems that other one man midget subs have had. Although technology had advanced considerably the Welman and the Biber were not a success. Anyone attempting to power the thing either by hand crank or by peddling would have discovered that their half an hour of air would have lasted rather less than that.

Still none of this precludes some form of submarine being built but building it and testing it would have been a considerable challenge for say a small shipyard and supposedly those who built it didn’t have access to even that. So given that most of the reports we have mostly come from years after the supposed events (the exception being letters that were sent via a post-office that was well know for sending information to the british attempted disinformation perhaps?) and conflict with what we know about how submarines behave was there ever a submarine at all?

[Gravy]

What versions are you referring to, geni? I've never heard them. Contemporary documents show that the submarine did exist and was used. General Israel Putnam supervised its use. Ben Franklin and Aaron Burr saw it. Washington was aware of it, as was (eventually) Jefferson.

The claim by the operator and Bushnell is not that the screw struck copper plating, but that it hit iron fixtures for the rudder. The current was too strong to make another attempt. The copper bottom assumption was made later, by others. The oxygen supply would only have been an issue when the vessel was fully submerged, which was not continuously (it only submerged when it got to Howe's ship). The operator wasn't the man who had trained for the job (Bushnell's brother), which would seem to have made a devilishly tricky job nearly impossible. The idea of a British "withdrawal" strikes me as highly unlikely, unless a simple repositioning of a few ships is meant.

ETA: that reminds me: I've seen a full-scale reproduction of the Turtle at a museum in Connecticut. It supposedly worked as advertised underwater.

[geni]

What versions are you referring to, geni? I've never heard them. Contemporary documents show that the submarine did exist and was used.

No contemporary drawings exist.


General Israel Putnam supervised its use.


Putnam's involvement suposedly includes noteing the explosion of the mine. No such explosion took place.


Ben Franklin and Aaron Burr saw it.


Franklinn left no reports of seeing the thing (although others claimed he had). Not run across any contempory reports of Aaron Burr seeing the thing.


Washington was aware of it, as was (eventually) Jefferson.


The britsh had seen the same description but that could well have been a properganda attempt.


The claim by the operator and Bushnell is not that the screw struck copper plating, but that it hit iron fixtures for the rudder. The current was too strong to make another attempt. The copper bottom assumption was made later, by others.

The metal fixture claim was also made some years later (in practice it would have been near imposible to drill through the wodern part of the hull under those conditions).


The oxygen supply would only have been an issue when the vessel was fully submerged, which was not continuously (it only submerged when it got to Howe's ship).

Submerging is another problem. The design was not capable of sustaining neutral buoyancy (it would have leaked) and even atchiveing it in the first place would have been extreamly difficult.


The operator wasn't the man who had trained for the job (Bushnell's brother), which would seem to have made a devilishly tricky job nearly impossible.

The boat was aparently built between may 1775 (start of yale vaccation) and was in the water by november of that year. 7 months probably not full time for a new type of boat with at most the facilities of a small shipyard.


ETA: that reminds me: I've seen a full-scale reproduction of the Turtle at a museum in Connecticut. It supposedly worked as advertised underwater.

Any source for this?

[Gravy]

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm
http://www.ctrivermuseum.org/content/collections.aspx?sid=2_1

geni, I think you put too much stock in unsourced Wikipedia entries.

[dudalb]

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm
http://www.ctrivermuseum.org/content/collections.aspx?sid=2_1

geni, I think you put too much stock in unsourced Wikipedia entries.

Wikipedia needs to be taken with a ton of salt.

[NobbyNobbs]

ETA: that reminds me: I've seen a full-scale reproduction of the Turtle at a museum in Connecticut. It supposedly worked as advertised underwater.

It's at a maritime museum in Essex, Ct. My wife's cousin lives a few blocks from there, and we've been there many times.

http://www.ctrivermuseum.org/content/exhibits.aspx?sid=2

The model on exhibit was actually tested and found to work.

[geni]

http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm


That washington quote is slightly selctive.


http://www.ctrivermuseum.org/content/collections.aspx?sid=2_1


We have no idea how close to the original design what they built actualy is.


geni, I think you put too much stock in unsourced Wikipedia entries.

Ummm the relivant section is sourced to the Submarine Pioneers by Richard Compton-Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtle_%28submarine%29#cite_note-Compton-Hall-1). Which is my source (well that and a book on minature submarines which found the claims of manouvering around the ship non credible). Compton-Hall is impressively sceptical about most early submarine performace claims (for example he thinks that Resurgam couldn't really dive. May well have a point).

[Gravy]

Sorry, geni, but you're nitpicking. The 1976 boat was built to conform with Bushnell's detailed descriptions. It successfully performed a mock attack on a moored ship in the Connecticut River. There are copious contemporary documents that attest to the conception, testing, transportation, and tactical use (three times, not once) of The Turtle. A bit of Googling will give you an idea of what's out there, but you may have to hit libraries or an online bookseller to go in depth. A call to the CT River Museum may prove fruitful.

The alternative is a large conspiracy to fake these events, in which, for some unfathomable reason, the prominent participants, including several Founding Fathers, created an incredibly complex web of lies that they told each other, continuing long after the war, and which involved military honors being handed out, financing issues being taken up by legislatures, and no witnesses or participants of any rank or station ever claiming that something was amiss.

[Gravy]

That washington quote is slightly selctive.Huh? Did you take the time to read all the historical documents?

[bruto]

The alternative is a large conspiracy to fake these events,....
AHA! Typical denialist! You reject evidence that the gummint has been at it for centuries!

[geni]

Sorry, geni, but you're nitpicking. The 1976 boat was built to conform with Bushnell's detailed descriptions.

Impressive since they don't exist. The closest would be either benjamin gale's description or James Thacher's which Bushnell latter largely reused when asked to provide a description. It isn't that detailed.


It successfully performed a mock attack on a moored ship in the Connecticut River. There are copious contemporary documents that attest to the conception, testing, transportation, and tactical use (three times, not once) of The Turtle. A bit of Googling will give you an idea of what's out there, but you may have to hit libraries or an online bookseller to go in depth. A call to the CT River Museum may prove fruitful.

[quote]
The alternative is a large conspiracy to fake these events, in which, for some unfathomable reason, the prominent participants, including several Founding Fathers, created an incredibly complex web of lies that they told each other, continuing long after the war, and which involved military honors being handed out, financing issues being taken up by legislatures, and no witnesses or participants of any rank or station ever claiming that something was amiss.

Well there are a number of reasons. The most straighforward is a propergander story that got out of control. The alturnative is that the US had traded supposed submarine secrets with the french as part of a campain to gain french support.

Not as many people as you would think. Bushnell, his brother and gale. Yes. Ezra Lee dito. Presumebly Israel Putnam, Phineas Pratt and James Thacher but after that we run out of solid claims of haveing seen the thing.

Which is odd since it would have required a fair number of men to move the thing around and you would have expected the second submarine in existance to have resulted in more comment.

Of those Bushnell's brother died. Israel Putnam and Ezra Lee could both presumeably keep a secret and Bushnell dissapears for a few years (may have gone to france but I've seen no evidence he did) before reppearing as David Bush.

Funding well they got value for money out of the floating mines even if they didn't managed to kill very many people.


The problem is if we try and put together a sequence of events that looks realistic we rapaidly start running into conflicts with the various accounts. So if it did exist did it ever attack and what did it attack?

[geni]

Huh? Did you take the time to read all the historical documents?

The washington one yes.

[geni]

AHA! Typical denialist! You reject evidence that the gummint has been at it for centuries!

Would it count as a goverment at that point though?

[geni]

Okey so if the craft was built and worked as close to as advertised as posible what actualy happened.

One thing to consider is there were a large number of british transports in the area which would have made finding a target less of a problem (even if not the target aimed for). So it is posible that Ezra Lee managed some form of a controled collision with some ship or other. Was already low enough in the water to have an attempt at drilling but was unable to bore into the hull for whatever reason. Then made off. The chase and explosion run into the problem of lack british records. However Ezra Lee's version of events does include a chase so we have a problem.

[WildCat]

Still none of this precludes some form of submarine being built but building it and testing it would have been a considerable challenge for say a small shipyard and supposedly those who built it didn’t have access to even that.
What would have been so difficult? It was basically just a barrel with a few attachments. People had been building barrels for centuries, and they certainly didn't build them in shipyards.

[geni]

What would have been so difficult? It was basically just a barrel with a few attachments. People had been building barrels for centuries, and they certainly didn't build them in shipyards.

Barrel building is a highly skilled craft that would be tricky to teach oneself in a few months while probably still supporting a farm.

On top of that you have the copper and glasswork around the top and the axels which have to go through the hull without leaking too much. The various linkages for the pedels take up further time. Then there is the lead mounting to sort out and the pumps. 7 months to do all that would be problematical for a couple of people working part time.

[WildCat]

Barrel building is a highly skilled craft that would be tricky to teach oneself in a few months while probably still supporting a farm.

On top of that you have the copper and glasswork around the top and the axels which have to go through the hull without leaking too much. The various linkages for the pedels take up further time. Then there is the lead mounting to sort out and the pumps. 7 months to do all that would be problematical for a couple of people working part time.
What makes you think it was built by a farmer? Why wouldn't Bushnell have solicited others to actually build the craft? Bushnell was an engineer, btw.

[geni]

What makes you think it was built by a farmer?

Ezra Bushnell was a farmer (so was David originaly but he sold his half of the farm to his brother) and they were liveing together at the time.


Why wouldn't Bushnell have solicited others to actually build the craft?


Because he doesn't claim to have done so. Nor do any of the other reports talk about anyone else being involved in it's constuction.


Bushnell was an engineer, btw.

He turned his hand to a number of trades over the years but there doesn't appear to be any other boat building (probably had some skills from farming but at yale had mostly been interested in underwater explosions). Closest would be his floating mines which didn't require quite the same skillset.

[bruto]

Geni, I was of course joking in my response to Gravy's remark about a conspiracy, since Gravy is often involved in conspiracy theory threads.

With regard to the Turtle itself, I haven't read up on it thoroughly yet, but the fact that details vary about exactly what the auger hit and what effect it had on the fleet does not seem to me to disqualify the basic story from being credible: that Bushnell seems to have made the thing, that it worked in a limited fashion, and that it never actually succeeded in its basic task of drilling into a ship. The replica suggests that Bushnell's design was at least capable of working.

I also have not researched much on Colonial era boat building and cooperage in the context of this thread, but I think you might find that skills of the sort required for the Turtle would not have been so unexpected of a well equipped farmer of the time, especially one from the Connecticut shore, and more so if he was planning such a venture for some time and preparing for it. Cooperage is indeed a skill that must be learned and practiced, but it is not particularly esoteric, and the tools are simple and fairly common. Similarly for boat building, which many people also did for themselves, and which during Colonial times was done on a larger scale with astonishing speed and efficiency with minimal resources (Check out the building of Benedict Arnold's fleet, for example). I also don't think it would have been particularly out of the ordinary in that time for the work to be attributed to Bushnell even if he relied on anonymous hired hands to do much of the actual craft work. But whether Bushnell did the mechanical work alone or with help, it doesn't seem like a particular sticking point.

[WildCat]

Ezra Bushnell was a farmer (so was David originaly but he sold his half of the farm to his brother) and they were liveing together at the time.
So was George Washington, Thiomas Jefferson, and just about everyone else at the time.

Because he doesn't claim to have done so. Nor do any of the other reports talk about anyone else being involved in it's constuction.
Does he claim to have built it 100% with his own hands?

He turned his hand to a number of trades over the years but there doesn't appear to be any other boat building (probably had some skills from farming but at yale had mostly been interested in underwater explosions). Closest would be his floating mines which didn't require quite the same skillset.
So? His submarine wasn't exactly wildly successful.

[Gravy]

Huh? Did you take the time to read all the historical documents?The washington one yes.Impressive since they don't exist. The closest would be either benjamin gale's description or James Thacher's which Bushnell latter largely reused when asked to provide a description. It isn't that detailed.
geni, why are you behaving this way? I gave you the link to Bushnell's detailed description to Thomas Jefferson, along with second-hand descriptions, and asked again if you'd read them. You claim to be interested in this issue but can't be bothered to read a few pages of text? I don't appreciate that.

Well there are a number of reasons. The most straighforward is a propergander story that got out of control. The alturnative is that the US had traded supposed submarine secrets with the french as part of a campain to gain french support.Can you explain in a straightforward way why the Americans involved would have been lying to each other long after the war? (Also, it's "propaganda," "straightforward," "alternative, and "campaign.")

The problem is if we try and put together a sequence of events that looks realistic we rapaidly start running into conflicts with the various accounts. So if it did exist did it ever attack and what did it attack?Sorry, but the only problem here is your refusal to learn.

[Gravy]

Ezra Bushnell was a farmer (so was David originaly but he sold his half of the farm to his brother) and they were liveing together at the time.The boat was designed by David, not Ezra. David was a mathematician, inventor, military officer, and eventually a respected physician and headmaster of a prestigious school. Not exactly a country hick.

I suggest you look into the history of American inventions for many other examples of ingenuity, "Yankee" and otherwise.

Benjamin Franklin was a printer.
Samuel Colt was a farmer, textile worker, and sailor.
Eli Whitney was a farmer and blacksmith.
Robert Fulton was a painter.
Samuel Morse was an art teacher.
Elias Howe was an infirm former textile worker.
Christopher Sholes was an editor and tax collector.
Charles Goodyear was a farmer, button maker, and hardware store owner.
Joseph Glidden was a farmer.
Richard Gatling ran a dry goods store.
George Eastman was an office worker.
Clarence Birdseye was a field naturalist.
The Wright brothers were bicycle builders and salesmen.

[geni]

geni, why are you behaving this way? I gave you the link to Bushnell's detailed description to Thomas Jefferson,

Doesn't contain a single length. Not detailed. Even the most bastic descriptions of watercraft have historicaly tended to include size measurements.

Humphrey's is fractionaly better but written years after the events.



Can you explain in a straightforward way why the Americans involved would have been lying to each other long after the war? (Also, it's "propaganda," "straightforward," "alternative, and "campaign.")

Long after the war? The only primary report dated long after the war is Ezra Lee's and he would hardly be the first war vetern not to wish to play down his part int he confllct. The conrispondence with Jefferson was while Jefferson was in france and at that point the security of diplomatic mail was questionable.

[geni]

So was George Washington, Thiomas Jefferson, and just about everyone else at the time.

While you can leave someone else to manage a large farm on smaller farms you can't really stop working them.


Does he claim to have built it 100% with his own hands?


No there is his brother's involvement.


So? His submarine wasn't exactly wildly successful.

Could archive neutral buoyancy, had a fairly high degree of manoverability and stamina (aparently better stamina than the 3 man Brandtaucher) and didn't sink anywhere near as often as H.L. Hunley. Speed wise wasn't instantly caught by a rowing boat which is fairly impressive for a one man device which is low enough in the water to generate some significant drag.

[Gravy]

Doesn't contain a single length. Not detailed.Right. Only detailed enough to build one that works as described. :rolleyes: And you're forgetting that they had Ezra Lee's descriptions to go by: "its extreme leangth was not more than 7. feet." More below.

Even the most bastic descriptions of watercraft have historicaly tended to include size measurements.Evidence?

Even if there were no measurements to go by, the rough dimensions of The Turtle can be deduced by:

1) The fact that the operator has to be able to work all the controls while seated.

2) The stated air capacity.

3) This portion of Bushnell's description: "The internal shape of the Vessel, in every possible section of it, verged towards an ellipsis, as near as the design would allow, but every horizontal section, although elliptical, as near a circle, as could be admitted."

4) This description by its operator, Ezra Lee: "it was high enough to stand in or sit as you had occasion"

5) The weight of the ballast necessary to achieve just above neutral buoyancy. Lee again: "Seven hundred pounds of lead were fixed on the bottom for ballast, and two hundred weight of it was so contrived, as to let it go in case the pumps choaked, so that you could rise at the surface of the water"

I hate to use the phrase, but this ain't rocket science.

Long after the war? The only primary report dated long after the war is Ezra Lee's and he would hardly be the first war vetern not to wish to play down his part int he confllct. The conrispondence with Jefferson was while Jefferson and at that point the security of diplomatic mail was questionable.1) Please read that passage to yourself and see if it makes sense to you.

2) The war ended in 1783.
8) Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 17 July 1785. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item8)
9) George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 16 September 1785. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item9)
10) David Bushnell to Ezra Stiles, 16 October 1787. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item10)
11) David Bushnell to Thomas Jefferson, 13 October 1787, with enclosures. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item11)
12) Ezra Lee to David Humphreys, 20 February 1815, with explanatory notes apparently added by Humphreys. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item12)

You have no evidence that these correspondences are fake, nor do you have any explanation of why all these people would be lying to each other about past events. I ask you again: why are you behaving this way?

[geni]

The boat was designed by David, not Ezra. David was a mathematician, inventor, military officer, and eventually a respected physician and headmaster of a prestigious school. Not exactly a country hick.



I never suggested he was a "country hick" just considering how much time he would have had to build the thing.

He could certianly of designed it since he aparently worked on the design for years and his work with underwater explosions would have given him at least some knowage of the area.

[Gravy]

I never suggested he was a "country hick" just considering how much time he would have had to build the thing.

He could certianly of designed it since he aparently worked on the design for years and his work with underwater explosions would have given him at least some knowage of the area.You called him a farmer. He was far more than that. Since you have no idea how many people worked on the construction or what the complications were, you have no way to tell how long that "should" have taken.

I'm done here. The subject of the Turtle is an interesting one. I hope you'll endeavor to learn more about it.

Oh, and will you use a spelling checker, for crying out loud? Your posts are painful to read.

[geni]

Right. Only detailed enough to build one that works as described. :rolleyes: And you're forgetting that they had Ezra Lee's descriptions to go by: "its extreme leangth was not more than 7. feet." More below.[quote]

To the end of the rudder or too the end of the boat?

[quote]
Evidence?



Navy lists at the time amoung other things.



Even if there were no measurements to go by, the rough dimensions of The Turtle can be deduced by:

1) The fact that the operator has to be able to work all the controls while seated.

2) The stated air capacity.

3) This portion of Bushnell's description: "The internal shape of the Vessel, in every possible section of it, verged towards an ellipsis, as near as the design would allow, but every horizontal section, although elliptical, as near a circle, as could be admitted."


That gives a lot of varance.


4) This description by its operator, Ezra Lee: "it was high enough to stand in or sit as you had occasion"

Gale thinks it is no more than 6 feet tall and with a bench across the center standing would have been tricky.


5) The weight of the ballast necessary to achieve just above neutral buoyancy. Lee again: "Seven hundred pounds of lead were fixed on the bottom for ballast, and two hundred weight of it was so contrived, as to let it go in case the pumps choaked, so that you could rise at the surface of the water"

I hate to use the phrase, but this ain't rocket science.

Okey 700 Pounds of water is about .31 cubic meters. If we model open area as a cylinder we end up with an area about a 44 cm across or about 17 inchs. Now we can get around that by takeing into account the weight of the boat but that give us a lot to play with. Remeber the Aerodrome flew.




2) The war ended in 1783.
8) Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 17 July 1785. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item8)
9) George Washington to Thomas Jefferson, 16 September 1785. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item9)
10) David Bushnell to Ezra Stiles, 16 October 1787. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item10)
11) David Bushnell to Thomas Jefferson, 13 October 1787, with enclosures. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item11)


Two years is not long and the stuff sent to stiles is a duplicate.


12) Ezra Lee to David Humphreys, 20 February 1815, with explanatory notes apparently added by Humphreys. (http://www.history.navy.mil/library/online/sub_turtle.htm#item12)

You have no evidence that these correspondences are fake, nor do you have any explanation of why all these people would be lying to each other about past events.

I have provided posible explanations. The jefferson stuff wasn't that far post war (and could well have been intercepted) and Ezra Lee would hardly be the first person to talk up their role in a conflict.


I ask you again: why are you behaving this way?

That isn't relivant to logical debate.

[geni]

You called him a farmer. He was far more than that.


No. I said is brother was a farmer and originaly David was too.


Since you have no idea how many people worked on the construction or what the complications were, you have no way to tell how long that "should" have taken.

If you wish to propose more people working on it where are their accounts? In adition asside from some sub-contracting on the pumps where are the accounts of extra workers?

[bruto]

No. I said is brother was a farmer and originaly David was too.



If you wish to propose more people working on it where are their accounts? In adition asside from some sub-contracting on the pumps where are the accounts of extra workers?Why would there be accounts of "extra workers," if craftsmen were working under Bushnell's supervision? Was it customary in that time, or any time for that matter, to credit the laborers in a project of this sort? Who was Franklin's iron founder, Samuel colt's filer, Fulton's caulker, Ehrlenmeyer's glassblower?

[Gravy]

That isn't relivant to logical debate.Yes it is. Your posts here tell me that you do not understand what "logical" means. You can't understand why there isn't complete documentation in triplicate of a project from 230 years ago, but the documentation that does exist you claim may be fake, despite the fact that no respected historians make this claim and no evidence or logic supports it. I have already suggested that you look into the copious documentation that exists. Will you?

And why do you refuse to use spell/grammar check? I've seen others comment on this, by the way. Is it your goal to not communicate clearly?

[NoZed Avenger]

I am not 100% sure, but I am willing to state that this thread has provisionally convinced me that the Wright Brothers could never have built or flew an airplane.

[geni]

I am not 100% sure, but I am willing to state that this thread has provisionally convinced me that the Wright Brothers could never have built or flew an airplane.

Well they employed Charlie Taylor to build their engine (which they would have had rather a hard time building themselves) and had been experimenting and building full scale gliders for some years.

[geni]

Yes it is. Your posts here tell me that you do not understand what "logical" means. You can't understand why there isn't complete documentation in triplicate of a project from 230 years ago, but the documentation that does exist you claim may be fake,

No not fake we have no reason to belive it was written by anyone other than those who signed it (well the text in David Bushnell's description is rather close to James Thacher's in wording but there are various explanations for that).


despite the fact that no respected historians make this claim and no evidence or logic supports it.


Richard Compton-Hall Submarine Pioneers chapter 6. Britanica thinks he's legit:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/570813/submarine/57482/Additional-Reading


I have already suggested that you look into the copious documentation that exists. Will you?

I've read what you linked to.