If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   'Hold my beer: Confederate underwater edition'   (usatoday.com) divider line 41
    More: Fail, North Charleston  
•       •       •

10629 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Jan 2013 at 12:09 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-29 12:13:03 PM
First rule of explosives: Don't be too close when it explodes.
 
2013-01-29 12:14:35 PM
Shot it's load too soon?

/it's ok, everyone does that on their first go
 
2013-01-29 12:14:41 PM
Urrrrp!!! Werrr're goonnna get those damn Yankees!!

* booom*

Oh shiat, we're sinking fast!
 
2013-01-29 12:14:58 PM
How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?
 
2013-01-29 12:15:23 PM
I think the Hundley sank because of 8 sets of huge, clanking, brass balls.

/Not a expert.
 
2013-01-29 12:20:30 PM

davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?


It's even more incredible when you realize the thing had sank already on a test run and the corpses of the original 8 crewmen had to be cut apart with a saw in order to be removed from the hull.

Desperation and nationalism lead men to do crazy things.
 
2013-01-29 12:23:48 PM

davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?


FTFA: on Feb. 17, 1864

The Confederates were pretty damned desperate at that point. Enough that the Confederates were considering Emancipation them selves by 1865 (Granted, the first calls for Emancipation was by Patrick Cleburne in 1864, but he was silenced. Still shows that the Southern Generals at least recognized how farked they were if something drastic didn't happen.)
 
2013-01-29 12:29:12 PM

davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?

Considering the fact they had ironclads and a sub was even tried in the revolution I would say it was fairly good that navy men knew or would sign up. Also, not like they may have had a choice. Cowardice was viewed as worse than death. A coward could expect to at best be shunned. So either sign up for this crazy ass thing or take your place in the numerous other ways to die.

The civil war was a war that saw far too many casualties because the technology was advancing well beyond the understanding and tactics . Even stuff like "germ theory" was new. Never mind the leaps and bound made in weapons technologies. Really set the scene for world war I.
 
2013-01-29 12:31:35 PM
So it wasn't suffocation due to gumbo flatulence?

`Cletus, if you rip one more britches-snort I'm detonatin' this here torpedo!'
 
2013-01-29 12:34:04 PM
Is it too much to ask that instead of just saying "new evidence", they actually spend a short paragraph discussing the report that was published?

/typical A&M NAC - the press release is all conclusion and no methodology
 
2013-01-29 12:37:32 PM
Link

/NUMA brought it up
 
2013-01-29 12:43:01 PM
Good one, Subby. I grinned after seeing what you did, there.

/then went of in search of more source material
 
2013-01-29 12:45:48 PM
I swear, I thought it said "Confederate underwear edition" and I was very confused.
 
2013-01-29 12:45:50 PM
thebottlecapman.com
 
2013-01-29 01:17:14 PM
So it was damaged, but at least one person had to be awake to signal the shore. Hell if I was the last one awake you bet our sweet butt Id be off that damaged tub. Not like any navy men were aboard.
 
2013-01-29 01:19:41 PM
Booom!!

"It would appear, dear sir, that the length of a rod is still too close for safety."

/and thus, minimum safe distance was born....
 
2013-01-29 01:22:11 PM
The captain said, "OK, Boys. grab my crank" And the crew exploded. After all, there was no place to hide.
 
2013-01-29 01:27:46 PM
Yeah, they sank one ship. But there were others out there to pick up survivors. And nearly all the crew survived.
Strategies such as "We're willing to take double losses for inflicting half casualties" don't work when you're attacking a bigger foe. For other fine Southern examples of this check out Pickett's Charge, Malvern Hill, and, well, just about every battle where Hood was commanding.
 
2013-01-29 01:29:52 PM

davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?


More like 24. It killed at least two crews during testing
 
2013-01-29 01:30:38 PM

cynicalbastard: Yeah, they sank one ship. But there were others out there to pick up survivors. And nearly all the crew survived.
Strategies such as "We're willing to take double losses for inflicting half casualties" don't work when you're attacking a bigger foe. For other fine Southern examples of this check out Pickett's Charge, Malvern Hill, and, well, just about every battle where Hood was commanding.


Ah John Bell Hood. Sherman's favorite Confederate, because you knew exactly what he was going to do.
 
2013-01-29 01:34:01 PM

gunsmack: I swear, I thought it said "Confederate underwear edition" and I was very confused.


I did too, and was hoping to see more of this. PNSFW
/curses, foiled again
 
2013-01-29 01:37:33 PM

CheatCommando: cynicalbastard: Yeah, they sank one ship. But there were others out there to pick up survivors. And nearly all the crew survived.
Strategies such as "We're willing to take double losses for inflicting half casualties" don't work when you're attacking a bigger foe. For other fine Southern examples of this check out Pickett's Charge, Malvern Hill, and, well, just about every battle where Hood was commanding.

Ah John Bell Hood. Sherman's favorite Confederate, because you knew exactly what he was going to do.


People forget that Hood just about destroyed a Confederate army at Nashville, in the last months of the war, in a vindictive move because he thought they needed disciplining after Franklin.
 
2013-01-29 01:37:42 PM
You all are hating on them, but they did manage the first successful submarine attack in history. That at least deserves a little respect. Plus, compared to the horrors of the battlefields of this war, drowning doesn't seem so bad to me. Just sayin....
 
2013-01-29 01:52:03 PM

L_Yes: but they did manage the first successful submarine attack in history


To me, a "successful attack" includes "coming home." Considering that the Confederates had one sub, and the Union fleet a metric buttload of vessels, trading one for one in kamikaze style attacks is not a success. Particularly since the Hunley cost about as much as a small patrol vessel of the day, more in crew training. This is not the kind of asymmetry we see in the kamikazes, where cheap, often unarmed except for the bombs welded to them, aircraft are used to sink or disable large fleet units.
 
2013-01-29 01:58:17 PM

gunsmack: I swear, I thought it said "Confederate underwear edition" and I was very confused.


Me three. Though I was more intrigued than confused.
 
2013-01-29 02:10:50 PM

davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?


Meh, finding eight people to do something new and dangerous for glory is easy. The Hunley expedition is at about the same level of new, dangerous and glorious as the Gemini, Mercury, Apollo and first Shuttle missions or any trip to Mars.
 
2013-01-29 02:56:59 PM
www.guerrillaexplorer.com

You CSA whippersnappers get off my David Bushnell's lawn.
 
2013-01-29 03:21:26 PM
Sounds about right. "Phooey, what do them engineers know about 'minimum safe distance' anyway? Don't see none of them out here in this sub, and what they don't know can't hurt us."

/some things never change
//"So what if the generator is 24V and the battery says 'twelve volts only?' That just means it'll jump start the car twice as fast."
///and if the battery had exploded or even a single fuse burned out, he would have sued everyone in the state and repeatedly sworn under oath he used the correct voltage
 
2013-01-29 03:27:19 PM

UNC_Samurai: CheatCommando: cynicalbastard: Yeah, they sank one ship. But there were others out there to pick up survivors. And nearly all the crew survived.
Strategies such as "We're willing to take double losses for inflicting half casualties" don't work when you're attacking a bigger foe. For other fine Southern examples of this check out Pickett's Charge, Malvern Hill, and, well, just about every battle where Hood was commanding.

Ah John Bell Hood. Sherman's favorite Confederate, because you knew exactly what he was going to do.

People forget that Hood just about destroyed a Confederate army at Nashville, in the last months of the war, in a vindictive move because he thought they needed disciplining after Franklin.


Actually, it was at Frankin where he just about destroyed his army because he was mad at them for letting Schofield get away at Spring Hill. Hood didn't destroy his army at Nashville, he left George Thomas that honour. At Nashville, Hood just sorta gimped around scratching his head with his one good hand wondering what to do next, besides freeze and starve.
 
2013-01-29 03:38:04 PM

cynicalbastard: UNC_Samurai: CheatCommando: cynicalbastard: Yeah, they sank one ship. But there were others out there to pick up survivors. And nearly all the crew survived.
Strategies such as "We're willing to take double losses for inflicting half casualties" don't work when you're attacking a bigger foe. For other fine Southern examples of this check out Pickett's Charge, Malvern Hill, and, well, just about every battle where Hood was commanding.

Ah John Bell Hood. Sherman's favorite Confederate, because you knew exactly what he was going to do.

People forget that Hood just about destroyed a Confederate army at Nashville, in the last months of the war, in a vindictive move because he thought they needed disciplining after Franklin.

Actually, it was at Frankin where he just about destroyed his army because he was mad at them for letting Schofield get away at Spring Hill. Hood didn't destroy his army at Nashville, he left George Thomas that honour. At Nashville, Hood just sorta gimped around scratching his head with his one good hand wondering what to do next, besides freeze and starve.


Yeah well that is the problem with elitists and elitist culture. They think they are the best and brightest that humanity has to offer and can not conceive that their opponent will ever beat them.
 
2013-01-29 03:54:09 PM

davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?


One had already survived a close call. And by "close call" I mean "a coin saved him from a bullet at Shiloh." They found the coin on the wreck. Here it is, engraved and dated as a keepsake:

www.hunley.org
 
2013-01-29 04:23:42 PM

Slaves2Darkness:
Yeah well that is the problem with elitists and elitist culture. They think they are the best and brightest that humanity has to offer and can not conceive that their opponent will ever beat them.


Funny thing, tho- Hood wasn't all that bright and he shoulda known it- he needed help from fellow classmates all the time at the Point just to keep from failing. And Thomas was not only an upper-class Virginian, he was an instructor at West Point.
I think a lot of Hood's actions could be explained away by one thing- morphine. The man was in constant pain, and constantly using the stuff. Unlike in "House", don't expect brilliant decisions by someone who's have-stoned out of their gourd half the time, and completely stoned the rest of it.
 
2013-01-29 04:42:13 PM

CheatCommando: davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?

More like 24. It killed at least two crews during testing


Considering the way the Confederate Army was feeding men into the grinder on the battlefields this may have seemed like a better war to serve. The commander Lt. Dixon was at Shiloh and he knew what that was like.
 
2013-01-29 04:49:20 PM

cynicalbastard: I think a lot of Hood's actions could be explained away by one thing- morphine


I've not thought about this in this fashion before, but Hood before and at Gettysburg actually was an effective division commander. I've always just assumed that he was something like Burnside on the Union side: a man who got promoted beyond his abilities, but laudanum could certainly also explain his problems.
 
2013-01-29 07:05:28 PM

olddeegee: CheatCommando: davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?

More like 24. It killed at least two crews during testing

Considering the way the Confederate Army was feeding men into the grinder on the battlefields this may have seemed like a better war to serve. The commander Lt. Dixon was at Shiloh and he knew what that was like.



I've never understood those huge Civil War battles....How can 20,000 guys,with black powder weapons,even see their hand in front of their face after the first volley??
 
2013-01-29 07:53:04 PM

AcesFull: olddeegee: CheatCommando: davidphogan: How did they find eight people who thought that sub was a good idea?

More like 24. It killed at least two crews during testing

Considering the way the Confederate Army was feeding men into the grinder on the battlefields this may have seemed like a better war to serve. The commander Lt. Dixon was at Shiloh and he knew what that was like.


I've never understood those huge Civil War battles....How can 20,000 guys,with black powder weapons,even see their hand in front of their face after the first volley??


Often they couldn't. Regimental commanders basically were given orders to keep firing until orders from the brigade commander came down to do something else. Those orders were relayed from the commanding general on down through the use of orderlies on horseback, and you hoped that your superior officer was on higher ground somewhere close enough to tell what was happening, but far away enough that he could see where the smoke was and where it wasn't.
 
2013-01-29 08:46:57 PM
Agrarian hillbillies attempting to play at naval warfare, lol. Farking retards, bring shoes next time you want to murder decent people that you may keep your human farm equipment. To the descendants of the dead Confederate sailors - fark you, your people were traitors for whom drowning was too good.
 
2013-01-29 09:01:52 PM
...Keep in mind that these guys actually went out after the Union fleet on quite a few occasions, perhaps as many as 15 or 20 - but for one reason or another, they couldn't set up a good attack. Weather was a BIG factor, the drill was that they would only go out on moonless nights, and that usually meant iffy weather at best.

On top of that, these guys are half right - without question, the torpedo detonated far too close to the Hunley, but it wasn't command detonated under the hull. My conclusion - in my book on the Hunley, which will hopefully be out in a month or two - They hit the hull of the Housatonic - there are witnesses to this. (Not to mention eyewitness accounts of Hunley doing practice runs in Breech Inlet, ramming an empty spar into target ships) Housatonic was moving backwards, trying to get away, while Hunley struck her at a slight angle, pointing forward. The torpedo and spar were compressed (Hunley is moving forward at about 4 kts) with the torpedo's barb buried in the ship's hull. The spar twists and breaks just aft of the torpedo - the spar section on display at Charleston clearly shows a torsion break (take a paper towel tube and twist it till it breaks - same effect) and swings up on the spar pivot at the bow. It engages the lanyard that was attached to the torpedo, and as Hunley pulls back, the spar yanks on the firing lanyard.

Boom, with Hunley no more than about 25 feet away. Bad enough, but that boom sets off Housatonic's main powder magazine, which blows the ship in half. The shockwave snaps Hunley like a whip, and loosens rivets/seams in her ballast tanks. She slowly bleeds to death.

Dulce et decorum, Pro Patria Mori

/No claim to being an expert, just an enthusiastic amateur who had a hell of a lot of fun researching and writing. Will cheerfully admit to error...but I seriously doubt the Little Black Boat is ever going to give us a final, Q.E.D. solution.
 
2013-01-29 09:08:09 PM

CheatCommando: L_Yes: but they did manage the first successful submarine attack in history

To me, a "successful attack" includes "coming home." Considering that the Confederates had one sub, and the Union fleet a metric buttload of vessels, trading one for one in kamikaze style attacks is not a success. Particularly since the Hunley cost about as much as a small patrol vessel of the day, more in crew training. This is not the kind of asymmetry we see in the kamikazes, where cheap, often unarmed except for the bombs welded to them, aircraft are used to sink or disable large fleet units.


I'm not saying it was smart military tactics or strategery, I'm just saying it was a historic event: The first successful sinking of an enemy ship by a submersible.... In 1864 or whenever!!!

The tactic (of using submersibles) would go on to completely transform naval warfare fifty years later. Just sayin...
 
2013-01-30 12:39:06 AM
I find this fascinating. I've read about the Monitor and Merrimac, but I had never heard about this. Then again, most everything I know about the civil war comes from multiple rewatchings of Ken Burns Civil War documentary... So there's that.

The conflict really changed warfare forever, especially naval combat; but I had no idea there was a submersible involved.
 
2013-01-30 07:31:56 AM

L_Yes: The tactic (of using submersibles) would go on to completely transform naval warfare fifty years later. Just sayin...


Yes, when they worked. It would take the development of both the internal combustion engine and the self-propelled torpedo before anything even remotely resembling a successful submarine came into being. The Hunley was a failure.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report