SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    What Sank the CSS Hunley*
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
What Sank the CSS Hunley* Login/Join 
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted
Ok, I just finished reading the excellent book "Sea of Darkness: Unraveling the Mysteries of the H.L. Hunley " by Brian Hicks. It was really good, but did not really end with a definitive answer as to what actually sank the submarine.

The restoration uncovered a lot of intriguing evidence. In the book, they stated that the crew compartment seemed to have been dry for an extended time after the sinking, as 'stalactites' from dripping water formed in the interior of the sub (from condensation or small pinpoint leaks). There were external hull breaches, but they seemed to have been caused after the sinking (the author implied she may have been snagged on the bottom by an anchor). The bodies did not seem to have been molested by sea life, and were more or less intact.

Then, I read that later evidence supports the notion that the crew was killed outright by the explosion that sank the Housatonic. This makes sense, as 150 or so lbs of powder exploding less than 20 feet away would have transferred a huge shock wave to the boat and crew. Scientists now claim this concussion ruptured the blood vessels in their lungs and brains, killing them instantly.

There seemed to have been no evidence the crew tried to surface the boat (by releasing ballast blocks) or take any other emergency action. They were all found at their respective stations (no crowding towards the exit hatches), indicating no panic to escape. They simply appear as if they all fell asleep at their posts, consistent with dying instantly.

So far, I can understand and agree with this theory. BUT, if they were killed instantly, why was the sub found further out to see from Housatonic? Most searches focused on the area between the Housatonic and shore. None of the articles I read indicated a possible reason for this. The tide was going out to sea, so perhaps the boat floated out past Housatonic and foundered later? An eye-witness said he saw a light out to sea, directly in the path of another Union ship rushing to assist the sinking Housatonic. Historians claim this was the sub crew signaling to shore to light a beacon fire to guide them home, indicating the crew would have been alive well after the attack. Rebels on shore saw this light and did build a signal fire. Speculation runs that a responding Union ship ran over Hunley, as the crew waited for the tides to return them to the beach (they could not have been able to fight the tide into their harbor under arm power alone, and may have been waiting for the tide to turn when they were struck suddenly without warning). But, then, this would not explain why they made no apparent effort to surface.

An external ballast pipe was found forced out of position that could have flooded the boat, but then why didn't the crew try to pump the bilges or release the ballast, if they had propelled themselves away from the wreck waiting to return with the tide?

The only thing I can figure is the crew was killed instantly, but then the sub drifted out to sea and sank due to this pipe leaking. But, if so, why was there evidence that the crew compartment remained dry? Maybe a ballast tank was breached by the concussion (possible, as the ballast tanks were at the extreme front and back ends), causing her to sink after drifting away while leaving the crew compartment dry (an earlier accident that killed her crew was the result of improper filling of the fore ballast tank, with the crew drowning before they could recover the boat). But then, why was the rudder found detached underneath the wreck?

This supports the theory that the sub was struck by a Union ship and sank as a result (part of the propeller shroud is missing, and there were also marks on the hull implying propeller strikes, which could only happen if she were struck by another ship while still on the surface. . .). This could have knocked the rudder off with the sub setting atop it. If Hunley was struck on the stern, this could have flooded the stern ballast tanks causing her to sink.

There are just too many unanswered questions from what I can see. I know there are a lot of history buffs here, so I thought maybe somebody here knows more about the sinking than I do and might have better info.



*Yes, I realize the Hunley was not officially a part of the Confederate Navy at the time of her sinking, but this is the name by which most people know her. . .



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21993 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of Shaql
posted Hide Post
quote:
H.L. Hunley


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sc...solved-accidentally/





Hedley Lamarr: Wait, wait, wait. I'm unarmed.
Bart: Alright, we'll settle this like men, with our fists.
Hedley Lamarr: Sorry, I just remembered . . . I am armed.
 
Posts: 6928 | Location: Atlanta | Registered: April 23, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Peace through
superior firepower
Picture of parabellum
posted Hide Post
Water
 
Posts: 110535 | Registered: January 20, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Step by step walk the thousand mile road
Picture of Sig2340
posted Hide Post
Insufficient bouyancy sank the Hunley.





Nice is overrated

"It's every freedom-loving individual's duty to lie to the government."
Airsoftguy, June 29, 2018
 
Posts: 32592 | Location: Loudoun County, Virginia | Registered: May 17, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
After reading more about the Hunley after its discovery, I came to think that the tide pushed them further out to sea after the attack and lack of air killed the crew. It then sank.
Submarine question: Doesn't a sub need to have have forward motion (especially one as crude as Hunley) as well as buoyancy in order to remain at depth?


End of Earth: 2 Miles
Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles
 
Posts: 16669 | Location: Marquette MI | Registered: July 08, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Went to the CSS Hunley museum when I was in SC. Pretty cool.

From books and the museum, that thing was not the easiest to propel and 7 full grown men would burn a lot of oxygen moving that sub. CO2 poisoning (Hypercapnia) is somewhat insidious in that you dont really feel it coming, its just "lights out" but before that happens you really lose the ability to act. So if the explosion didnt kill them, there is a good chance they all just passed out.

Either way, if you get a chance go see the museum.
 
Posts: 2044 | Registered: September 19, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get my pies
outta the oven!

Picture of PASig
posted Hide Post
An interesting write-up here about the "blue light" that was reportedly seen by several witnesses before the Hunley sank. The writer is of the opinion that "blue light" was NOT a lantern with a blue lens as widely believed, but rather was a 19th century term for a bright white naval signal flare:

quote:

The Myth of the H.L. Hunley's Blue Lantern

POSTED 10/8/2012 BY Christopher D. Rucker, MD
The Civil War Monitor

When the Confederate H.L. Hunley engaged the USS Housatonic on February 17, 1864, she made history as the first submarine to sink an enemy vessel. She also sparked one of the greatest mysteries of the Civil War when she failed to return to port, spending the next 136 years buried near the remains of her quarry in the sandy sea floor off Charleston, South Carolina. Recovered in 2000, the Hunley resides in a laboratory in North Charleston, where researchers are revealing the details of her construction, contents and crew. The circumstances of her sinking remain the greatest unsolved mystery, and her iconic “blue light” has played a central role in modern discussions of her fate.

A “blue light” signal purportedly from the Hunley’s crew has been cited by modern historians as proof that she survived the explosion of her own torpedo, only to suffer some other calamity as she left the sunken Housatonic on her return to shore. Official Confederate correspondence from her shore base states that prearranged signals from the sub were observed, and that an answering signal was displayed to guide her home. A postwar published account stated that these signals were two blue lights. An African-American sailor clinging to the rigging of the sunken Housatonic testified that he “saw a blue light on the water” just ahead of the Federal vessel coming to his crew’s aid. These three historical items are the basis for the claims of modern authors that a blue lantern was used by the Hunley to signal her success before she was herself lost.1

The blue lantern, however, is a modern myth, born of ignorance of a lost technology. The myth existed at least 30 years ago, when Clive Cussler’s 1980 team mistakenly conducted an unsuccessful search for the sub within a half-mile from shore, reasoning that a blue lantern could not have been seen by the Hunley’s shore base at distances much over a mile. Cussler’s team found the Hunley 15 years later close to her last recorded position near the Housatonic, four miles offshore from her base. The blue lantern myth has been cemented in the public consciousness by 30 years of repetition in published histories, movies, television, modern facsimiles, the claims of internet auctioneers, and the fervent arguments of its faithful devotees. Unsubstantiated by historical evidence, the blue lantern myth has recently been discredited by a new avenue of research.2

While previous researchers performed due diligence by mining the historical record for its mention of signals and “blue lights,” they failed to consider that the latter could mean anything other than an oil-burning lantern fitted with a blue glass lens. They erred by ignoring period dictionaries, scientific texts, military manuals, newspaper accounts and popular literature which are replete with the then-current definition of “blue light.” In 1864, “blue light” was widely known as a pyrotechnic composition used for night-time signaling and general illumination. It was a hand-held flare, similar to what we use today for roadside emergencies.3

Pyrotechnic blue light had been around for generations before the Civil War, a required item on U.S. Navy warships, and commonly used in the civilian world to illuminate tourist attractions such as caverns and other natural wonders. Some of the early recipes for the manufacture of pyrotechnic lights included ingredients meant to impart color, hence the name “blue light.” By 1864, however, the U.S. and C.S. military manuals’ specifications for “blue light” had dropped any such coloring agent, and the composition was meant to burn with a brilliant white flame. The military continued to use the time-honored moniker of “blue light” despite its white color, and this has confused modern researchers trying to identify a Hunley signal with a blue hue.4

By the 20th century, pyrotechnic blue light was obsolete and unfamiliar to Hunley researchers, who unfortunately failed to realize its 19th century meaning in historical accounts. Thus, authors imagined “blue lantern” when they read “blue light,” blinded by their modern context and their failure to consider the evolution of technology and language.

The final nail in the coffin of the blue lantern myth is the recently conserved lantern from the Hunley, which has a clear glass lens. The artifact is an example of the nineteenth century’s commonplace “dark lantern,” so-called because of an internal sliding shade used to display or hide the light at will. Neither designed as a signal device nor well-suited to the task, such dark lanterns were the Civil War’s equivalent of our modern flashlight, and the Hunley’s would have been used to illuminate the crew’s path to and from the submarine.5

The 1864 recipes for pyrotechnic blue light have been used to reproduce the signal, which has been tested under conditions similar to those the night that the Hunley sank the Housatonic. Online videos of this blue light provide striking evidence of its visibility, and confirm that it is effective over the four mile distance cited in the historical record.6

Rhetorical debate continues over whether the Hunley deserves to be called “successful,” if indeed she sank ignominiously from the effects of her own torpedo. Her defenders point to the blue light signals as proof that she survived the explosion, and that her crew perished from some other cause after accomplishing her mission. The mythic blue lantern is invoked by Hunley detractors, confident that such a dim light would be invisible from the Housatonic to shore, thus casting doubt on the veracity of the report of signals seen from land. By discrediting the blue lantern myth in favor of the highly visible pyrotechnic blue light, there is no longer any reason to doubt the historical accounts of signals, and it would seem that the H.L. Hunley deserves her proud label as history’s first successful combat submarine.



Christopher D. Rucker, MD, is an Otolaryngologist in Spartanburg, SC. He has over 15 years of experience serving replica field artillery pieces of the 18th and 19th centuries, and has a particular research interest in period pyrotechnic technologies.


Link


 
Posts: 35431 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: November 12, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Shaql:
quote:
H.L. Hunley


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/sc...solved-accidentally/



I read that article. This is the basis for my statement in my OP that I believe the crew died upon detonation of the torpedo (in this context, a ‘torpedo’ was what we would call a mine today – in the Hunley’s case, a large explosive placed on the end of a 20 foot spar).

My questions revolve around a series of contradictory clues based on eyewitness accounts and evidence from the recovered submarine.
a) If they died instantly, as I suspect, how did the Hunley get on the other side of the Housatonic? She struck from the land side, but her wreck was found to seaward.
b) Evidence suggests the Hunley crew compartment was airtight for weeks or months after the sinking, but if so, why did she sink?
c) If the crew died instantly, why did a lookout on the Housatonic state he saw lights to seaward, directly in the path of an approaching Union rescue ship? It was this evidence that compelled the search crew to search to seaward, instead of shoreward, like practically every other search team did. This is where the sub was found, right where the eyewitness saw the lights.
d) There was a pipe that was damaged, which could have allowed water to flood into the sub. We don’t know if this leak occurred as the result of the explosion, or if it happened hours/days/years later. I suppose this relatively slow leak could have sunk the sub after it drifted with the tides to seaward, after the entire crew had died. Why, then, is there damage suggesting a collision with a ship (specifically, the propeller shroud was partially missing, the rudder was found underneath the sub, and there were marks on the hull suggesting a ships propeller struck the sub)?

At present, it seems the most likely scenario is the crew was killed instantly, the detonation caused either the pipe leak noted in the wreckage or smaller leaks to occur. As the boat drifted past Housatonic out to sea with the tides, she gradually filled with water and sank. There is still supposedly contradictory evidence, such as the rudder being found under the sub and what appear to be collision marks near the stern. Or, the eyewitness account of a light out to sea.

Naturally, we may never know the answer, but that doesn’t stop one from wondering and speculating. . .



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21993 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by YooperSigs:

Submarine question: Doesn't a sub need to have have forward motion (especially one as crude as Hunley) as well as buoyancy in order to remain at depth?


From the book, it seems the Hunley had to pump water in and out to make any real changes in depth. She had diving planes, but they weren't very effective. Since she relied on human power for propulsion, she really creeped along (4 knots was her ideal top speed, and that is on the surface undisturbed water).

By WWI and WWII, subs would dive and adjust water in their ballast tanks to achieve 'neutral buoyancy' (where they could, with little forward effort, maintain their depth) and change depth using dive planes. But, of course, they had much more powerful engines. Even so, they still pumped in water to dive and pumped out water to surface, just like Hunley.



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21993 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PASig:
An interesting write-up here about the "blue light" that was reportedly seen by several witnesses before the Hunley sank. The writer is of the opinion that "blue light" was NOT a lantern with a blue lens as widely believed, but rather was a 19th century term for a bright white naval signal flare:

[QUOTE]
The Myth of the H.L. Hunley's Blue Lantern
***SNIP***


It appears the 'blue light' is a myth that has been conclusively debunked. They found Hunley's lantern, and it had a clear, not blue, lens. Also, it was a weak lamp of the sort they probably used to walk to and from the pier in darkness. It would not have been visible over 4 miles out at sea. That doesn't explain the eyewitness account of a light on the water near where the sub was eventually found. As I said before, some mysteries are never solved. . .



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21993 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Run Silent
Run Deep

Picture of Patriot
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by YooperSigs:
Doesn't a sub need to have have forward motion (especially one as crude as Hunley) as well as buoyancy in order to remain at depth?



Modern submarines use both internal and external ballast tanks.

Externals are initially used to dive the boat and the internals are used to trim the boat.

As you drive at certain depths, the planes will indicate if the boat is too negative/positive. That is, you are using the planes to maintain depth. This will show as slight positive/negative angle off true. The crew will then trim the boat using the internal ballast tanks to get the boat back to neutral and planes true.

There are also boats that have hover mode. That is the ability to hover at a prescribed depth very precisely without changing position.


_____________________________
Pledge allegiance or pack your bag!
The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
Spread my work ethic, not my wealth
 
Posts: 7133 | Location: South East, Pa | Registered: July 04, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Thanks for answering my question. Based on some of the things others have posted, I believe the crew ran out of air (CO2 poisoning) and the boat did not have enough buoyancy to surface, so it went to the bottom.


End of Earth: 2 Miles
Upper Peninsula: 4 Miles
 
Posts: 16669 | Location: Marquette MI | Registered: July 08, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Not really from Vienna
Picture of arfmel
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
Water


Succinct.
 
Posts: 27315 | Location: SW of Hovey, Texas | Registered: January 30, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Get my pies
outta the oven!

Picture of PASig
posted Hide Post
Reading about the history of that thing, it seems like it was cursed or something. The first time it sank at a dock and everyone but one aboard drowned. Then the INVENTOR insists on getting it back up and going on another demonstration of it and it promptly sinks with him and crew on board and they don't find it for like 2 weeks. None of them got out.

What is strange about this if the third crew was in a sinking sub with water pouring in they'd all be piled up at the hatches trying to get out, but their remains were still in place like they never moved.

They were some brave, tough men back then especially since they knew the first two tries killed everyone on it.


 
Posts: 35431 | Location: Pennsylvania | Registered: November 12, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by PASig:
Reading about the history of that thing, it seems like it was cursed or something. The first time it sank at a dock and everyone but one aboard drowned. Then the INVENTOR insists on getting it back up and going on another demonstration of it and it promptly sinks with him and crew on board and they don't find it for like 2 weeks. None of them got out.


The first sinking was because a passing boat created a wave that swamped the boat (she was very low on the water and the hatches did not protrude above the surface very far). IIRC, 5 died and 3 got out. The second time, Hunley himself tried to captain the sub on a public demonstration of the sub's capabilities (he was apparently on a quest to "become a Great Man" and was very concerned about his legacy). He was also apparently inept at operating the sub, which directly led to the deaths of all 8 crew. He flubbed a dive and couldn't recover before they all drowned. It wasn't the boat's fault; it was Hunley's (operator error).

For the successful mission, the skipper (Lt Dixon) was a true professional who practiced and drilled the crew to a high level of competence.



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21993 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Non-Miscreant
posted Hide Post
Hey, why don't we ask the Ruskies? They seem to be experts at Sub operations, with more experience at sinking than just about anyone. Smile


Unhappy ammo seeker
 
Posts: 18394 | Location: Kentucky, USA | Registered: February 25, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
As to high CO2, it causes a desire to breathe but does not cause incompacitation. Low O2 will cause inability to move, or even death. Low O2 does not cause a desire to breathe.

They could have run out of oxygen/energy and did not have buoyancy to surface. They "died trying". Or they were trying to evade the incoming ship, were low on oxygen, and then the sub was hit. They may not have had the ability to surface due to negative buoyancy.


-c1steve
 
Posts: 4165 | Location: West coast | Registered: March 31, 2012Reply With QuoteReport This Post
32nd degree
Picture of roarindan
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by parabellum:
Water


gravity


___________________



"the world doesn't end til yer dead, 'til then there's more beatin's in store, stand it like a man, and give some back"
Al Swearengen
 
Posts: 4608 | Location: East Overshoe, second buckle from the top. | Registered: January 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Never miss an
opportunity to STFU
posted Hide Post
What I don’t understand is why all the writers and “journalists” avoid mentioning that the Hunley was not found by the Navy or any university, or any other governmental agency,
but by a private citizen using his own funds and hired personnel. Clyde Cussler, an author, spent several seasons searching for this sub, eventually found its resting place. After it was raised , it went to the university for conservation and study.

He has a theory that the torpedo/mine was supposed to be triggered by a lanyard to set off the detonator after the sub had backed away to a safe distance, but somehow the explosion was premature.




Never be more than one step away from your sword-Old Greek Wisdom
 
Posts: 2295 | Location: SE Mich-- USA | Registered: September 10, 2002Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted Hide Post
Clive Cussler is credited with discovering the Hunley, but he wasn't present when it was found. A crew, paid for by him, found it while he was in Colorado.

Cussler has a bad reputation, somehow. It seems many people have accused him of scavenging wrecks (when he says the ONLY artifact he kept from a wreck is a water spigot from the first wreck he found), to being a 'treasure hunter,' and a variety of other things. I don't know if he has deserved this reputation, as the only books I read about him were told from his perspective. I don't know if his detractors are jealous, want the 'fame of discovery' for themselves, or if there is really something to it. . .

It's funny that somebody claimed to have found Hunley in 1970 or so, but they never offered any proof. They claimed Hunley was found 50 feet from where they supposedly 'found the wreck,' but Cussler dismissed this in the book I just read as "What good is a claim if you cannot prove it?" Again, I don't know if the guy really found the sub or not.

Hunley was thought to have a lanyard to set off the explosive from a distance, and this was emphasized in the sub's lore by an eyewitness account claiming Hunley was backing away when the torpedo exploded. However, evidence strongly concludes the torpedo was physically attacked to the 20-foot spar.



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21993 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    What Sank the CSS Hunley*

© SIGforum 2024