New Hunley Sinking Theory

[cmort666]

There's a new theory that the C.S.S. Hunley was sunk, not by crew asphyxiation or being holed by shot from the U.S.S. Housatonic, but by the pressure wave from her own spar torpedo exploding upon impact with the target.

I suppose it makes sense, since in essence they were intentionally setting off a depth charge only a short distance from their own vessel. There's a reason why nobody (I wouldn't rule out ISIS) has used spar torpedoes for a VERY long time.

New Hunley Theory

 

[shouldazagged]

Fascinating and highly plausible.

 

[vigil617]

Fascinating and highly plausible.

I agree, and thanks to cmort for posting the article link. No way the folks back then could have known about the effect of a blast wave underwater. For their sakes, I hope the theory is true, and that they died very quickly instead of being slowly asphyxiated in the sheet metal tube death-chamber that was the Hunley.

 

[cmort666]

I agree, and thanks to cmort for posting the article link. No way the folks back then could have known about the effect of a blast wave underwater. For their sakes, I hope the theory is true, and that they died very quickly instead of being slowly asphyxiated in the sheet metal tube death-chamber that was the Hunley.

Sometimes when you get to be the first, you also get to be the last.

Conceptually, this is similar to the "compressibility" related crashes of P-38s during WWII. These were caused by control reversals brought on by the phenomenon. As I recall, in most cases, there were no survivors. They were ended by the addition of speed brakes. The fundamental difference was that there were a number of P-38 crashes, at least one survivor of a near crash, and the U.S. government and the aircraft industry looking for a solution.

The odds are, EVERY similar attack would have failed similarly. There was only one Hunley. There were only the C.S.A Navy, and the marginal at best Southern scientific and industrial base to figure out what happened.

The South never got to that point, throwing in the towel after one. A doomed "country" on the ropes militarily and economically isn't going to devote non-existent resources to solving a moot problem.

The only objection I have to the theory is the discussion of the hole in the conning tower. As I recall from previous stories, it wasn't a "bullet" hole, it was more like the hole you'd get from a small caliber cannon or swivel gun of some sort. That would let in enough water to sink the Hunley. On the other hand, the asserted lack of evidence of panic by the crew, if true, would bring that into doubt.

 

[Jessie]

That's odd that it's being claimed as a new theory.
I read about it being a possibility, if not probability at least 10 or 15 years ago.
( And that's just when I first read about it)

 

[Gamecock]

I just hope the skipper said, "Hey y'all, watch this!"

 

[JSR III]

and without help from the Hunley Project, a team of researchers and scientists at Clemson University in South Carolina that has been on the case full time for the past 17 years.

Not for nothing but is this the best that we can do with funds for 17 years???

How about feeding some homeless or building homes for wounded veterans. Just sayin.....

 

[cmort666]

Not for nothing but is this the best that we can do with funds for 17 years???

How about feeding some homeless or building homes for wounded veterans. Just sayin.....

Clemson U. can spend its money as it sees fit.

Over the last eight years, a LOT of money has been spent on things of a LOT less worth. And I say this as someone with profound contempt for the Confederate States of America.

History is never wasted.

My grandmother taught me that nobody ever wants you to be ignorant for YOUR benefit.

 

[Rule3]

Clemson U. can spend its money as it sees fit.

Over the last eight years, a LOT of money has been spent on things of a LOT less worth. And I say this as someone with profound contempt for the Confederate States of America.

History is never wasted.

My grandmother taught me that nobody ever wants you to be ignorant for YOUR benefit.

Just think, if they had only spent that time and money perfecting the USPS and AMAZON shipping!

 

[loknload]

Being a big Hunley addict, that is a very plausible way for them to have met their fate.
They have looked at every angle possible as to what happened to that crew that night, but that is looking like the most feasible explanation!

Hopefully if all goes well I will be down in Charlestown the end of October to visit the Hunley.

The Final Mission

 

[cmort666]

Just think, if they had only spent that time and money perfecting the USPS and AMAZON shipping!

If the U.S.P.S. had been in charge of the Hunley, it would have blown up the C.S.S. Virginia...

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

I have read the crew survived long enough to send the blue light signal for "Mission Accomplished". I would like to see some sort of computer or model simulation.
First generation technology, "Where No Man Has Gone Before.." Very little R&D. Did they even experiment with lanyard lengths ? When William Barclay Cushing and his crew sank the Albemarle the blast knocked him and his crew out of their cutter. Of course they had to ride over the booms protecting the Albemarle.

 

[Absalom]

That's odd that it's being claimed as a new theory.
I read about it being a possibility, if not probability at least 10 or 15 years ago.
( And that's just when I first read about it)

The "New Theory" title of the link is actually misleading. If you look at the article itself, you see that the point is not the idea itself, which has been around and been explored and dismissed before, but the fact that she appears to have come up with actual physical evidence supporting it. That's why it's a big deal.

It's amusing to read the somewhat miffed and put-off sounding comments from the official Hunley Project. Since they are largely financed through private research grants and public donations to the "Friends of the Hunley", they'd no doubt prefer it if they made the discoveries and got the all-important publicity themselves. "Amateurs" from outside tend to mess things up.

The same thing happened with the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 A.D. in what later became Germany. You may have heard of it. Three Roman legions wiped out. For centuries, since the 1600s, German historians looked to locate the battlefield, and in 1875 the Imperial government even built an imposing monument in the generally agreed likely location. Only one historian disagreed in the 1880s, and he was largely ignored.

Then, in the 1980s, an off-duty British Army major stationed in Germany went out in his spare time with a metal detector and did what generations of professional historians hadn't managed: he found the battlefield, 80 miles or so away from the monument. Very embarrassing.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The Battle of Bunker Hill was actually fought on Breed's Hill.

 

[cmort666]

I have read the crew survived long enough to send the blue light signal for "Mission Accomplished". I would like to see some sort of computer or model simulation.

If you read the article, you'll see that the author of the new theory did both computer and scale modeling of the explosion effects.

I'm not an expert on depth charge design and employment, but it seems to me that the distance from the end of the spar to the bow of the Hunley is pretty optimal distance for a "can" type depth charge. If the Hunley had been a U-Boat (or I-Boat) and the Housatonic a DD or DE, if the latter had dropped a depth charge that detonated at that distance from the Hunley, she would have been sunk. And German and Japanese submarines were a LOT better designed and built than the Hunley.

 

[Gamecock]

The Battle of Bunker Hill was actually fought on Breed's Hill.

And the Battle of Kursk didn't get within 40 miles of Kursk.

 

[DWalt]

And they still haven't figured out where the Garden of Eden was located. Nor the Hanging Gardens of Babylon (except that they weren't in Babylon).

I don't know what type of explosive was used in the Hunley torpedo. Probably BP, as little else was available back then (but the explosive properties of nitrocellulose were certainly known by the time of the Civil War). I'd think it would be easily possible to simulate the blast and come up with a pretty good estimate of the shock the Hunley experienced and determine mathematically if that was the cause of its demise. It's not really clear exactly what they did from reading the article as there is little detail.

 

[Absalom]

The Battle of Bunker Hill was actually fought on Breed's Hill.

And the Battle of Kursk didn't get within 40 miles of Kursk.

I think those cases are a bit different, though, since there never was any mystery or dispute as to the physical location where the battle actually occurred; just the name that got stuck to the battle was less than precise.

 

[cmort666]

I think those cases are a bit different, though, since there never was any mystery or dispute as to the physical location where the battle actually occurred; just the name that got stuck to the battle was less than precise.

The only real "controversy" over Kursk is just how well the Soviets ACTUALLY did, versus the typically dubious official interpretations.

They undoubtedly stopped the Germans, but there's a real question as to the relative loss to lethality ratios. I've read that Prokhorovka was actually a debacle for the Soviet armor which ended up blundering into their own defensive works.

At the time of Kursk, the Soviets were still recovering from their own self-induced massacre of their officer corps in 1938, and the resultant slaughter of the disorganized and poorly led forces which faced the Germans in 1941. This is especially true of the VVS, which was still poorly trained (many new pilots had little or no formation or night flying training) and led.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

In 1914 Hindenburg insisted his defeat of the Russian Second Army be called the Battle of Tannenberg, rather than Allentstein where the main action was, to erase the stigma of the battle in 1410, a major defeat for the Teutonic Knights.