Talk:H. L. Hunley (submarine)

message: I fixed the busted link in this sentence
"This cemetery was earlier part of the Citadel's Physical Education department; part of the cemetery was under their football field."
But I'm not sure it has any real relevance to the rest of the article.Thatcher131 20:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citadel? 

message: I visited the remains of the Hunley last year in Charleston and found out that since she sank before she was officially commissioned, she was never given the designation "CSS". Perhaps someone familiar with naval issues could research that for the article. Hal Jespersen 21:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that is correct, although my father would know for sure.  I can contact him in the real world, so to speak.  She was privately financed and built under terms of a law that paid inventors 50% of the value of any Union ship sunk by means of a new invention.  However after the first trials and deaths of the crews, the CS Navy took her over.  So the CSS designation may be appropriate in principle if not in specific. What does the Hunley excavation website have to say? Thatcher131 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't have any evidence that CSS was widely used by the Confederate Navy. Ship prefixes are a relatively modern thing (USS wasn't standard until Teddy Roosevelt made it law). 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Then why does the Wikipedia page for CSS Virginia refer to her as CSS? As well as cssvirginia.org and history.navy.mil and numerous other sources? Note also the Wikipedia pages for USS Monitor and USS Constitution (that's a whole lot earlier than Teddy Roosevelt's presidency). Please excuse me if I am VERY skeptical. Fnj2 (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS? 

message: The search for Hunley ended in 1995, 132 years later, when best-selling author Clive Cussler, and his team from the National Underwater and Marine Agency (NUMA) found the submarine where E. Lee Spence had discovered it in 1970.
Um, what?  It was found in 1995 after having been found in the same spot 25 years earlier?  This needs clarification.--4.254.114.225 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given that there was no GPS in 1970, plus the possibilty of the wreck shifting in storms or being covered over with silt, having to find it twice would not be unusual.  Agree it needs clarification. Thatcher131 03:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found twice? 

message: Apart from the commander of the submarine, Lieutenant George E. Dixon, the identities of the volunteer crewmembers of the Hunley remained a mystery
The article states that only Dixon is known of the crew, yet the premier Hunley restoration website lists the entire crew (and has for a long time) is there some reason this list was ignored? See here: http://www.hunley.org/main_index.asp?CONTENT=CREWB_PROFILES  Zurel Darrillian 17:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely needs a rewrite/update. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, good. I didn't want to just stick it in there in case there was some reason it was in dispute. If nobody else does it first I will in a few days. Zurel Darrillian 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for me the problem is that I can't just add in the names to the existing section, it needs a rewrite, and I don't have the energy to do it right now.  But there seems to be no reason no to do it. Thatcher131 (talk) 15:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, and I too have the same issue. :) Zurel Darrillian 15:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Perhaps Alexander's drawings were as the Hunley was intended, versus "as built"...either way, I believe the actual number of crewmen found aboard her when the sub was raised indicates the complement intended...Engr105th 04:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unknown Crew? 

message: This talk page has more cheesy useless vanity tags than it does actual talk content. The whole vanity tag thing has gone way too far. All of these WikiProjects seem hell-bent on slapping tags on as many pages as possible, and most of these tags have very little to do with the content of the page. This needs to stop. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 19:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much clutter 

message: The section on the ship's discovery is totally biased in favor of Dr. Spence. I don't know any details, but I know that this is a complicated issue and that someone should really try to resolve it. The problem is that Dr. Spence himself contributes to Wikipedia regularly (as HunleyFinder and anonymously) and has probably written that section of the article. I thought I had to put the POV tag on, given the circumstances. TysK 19:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dr. Spence wrote most of it.  I was watching but don't have the time at the moment to fix it (which would entail a lot of library work for me.)  We should treat Dr. Spence with some sensitivity, but ultimately the article should state no more than what reliable, independent sources will bear. Thatcher131 20:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but Spence writing the article conflicts with Wikipedia standards, and, as such, it should be rewritten.  I do not, unfortunately, know enough on the subject to undertake such a project myself.  -Icydesign 08:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery section 

message: Does anybody know the depth at which the Hunley was found? I vaguely remember reading it somewhere and I think it's an important thing to include in the article. Splamo 16:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to an article in the Confederate Verteran (Vol. 6, 1996) it was found in 28 feet of water (p. 38) Islandist 19:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Depth?

message: Should a section be included about the efforts to preserve the sub? It appears, from reading this  article, that the process may be delayed because of a U.S. Navy ruling that the sub must be soaked in a certain solution to remove sea salts. In addition, it states that the project was apparently taken over by Clemson University, with a deadline of having preservation processes complete by 2009, with a consequence of losing the research laboratory if efforts aren't completed. First time I heard about this, but it seems like it was a while back. Zchris87v 07:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation efforts 

message: I understand that there is controversy about the discovery of the Hunley.  But why remove all information on the original claimant and only have a glowing rendition of the NUMA discovery? This is supposed to be unbiased. I re-edited that section and added links to the documents. I personally don’t see why there is a dispute. The state thanked  Mr. Spence for gifting the wreck to them and the Federal Government acknowledged the discovery in the 1970’s.  Both sides of the story need to be told fairly and impartially.  I find it disturbing that someone feels the  need to purge the information on previous discovery claims when they are added. 
Rickdrew 20:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia has certain guidelines regarding original research, self-published information, and reliable sources.  Wikipedia is a tertiary source that reports the conclusions of others.  The goal here is not to either lionize or demonize either Cussler/NUMA or Spence, but to report the facts as others have already reported them.  This is definitely an area that requires care and study and I am sorry that I don't have the time to work on it right now, as it is an interesting topic and I have access to some good sources. Thatcher131 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovery Revisited 

message: I noticed that in two places it says the Hunley and Housatonic were sunk in Charleston Harbor. While the Hunley did sink twice in Charleston Harbor prior to its mission on Feb 17, 1864, the location of the attack on the Housatonic was four miles out to sea, off Sullivan's Island, near the entrance to Maffitt's Channel, not in the harbor. 66.188.73.143 17:51, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sunk in Charleston Harbor 

message: In the DANFS article for USS Housatonic, there is a photo of a report on the sinking here. The photo is not that readable but it is in the public domain and could be used in this article. --Brad (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hunley report photo 

message: I found the article confusing as to the number of Confederate sailors lost while operating the HL Hunley. I counted two sinkings during trials, with 3 survivors. Since the boat had a crew of 8, I would expect the number of lives lost to be 21 rather than 32.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.42 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  32 Confederate deaths? 

message: I have just had to make several major corrections to the opening section of this article.  While the rest of the article appears to be accurate, the opening section contained several significant misstatements that contradicted the correct information later in the article.  Since a student doing research for homework would read the opening summary first, and possibly read no further, this is an egregious example of Wikipedia's unreliability, and especially startling given that (according to this discussion page) Dr. Spence is a Wikipedia editor.  (See also the previous user's comment!) Gildir (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to comment that the egregious example of Wikipedia's unreliability is a good reason that editors seeking to correct articles, thus removing such unreliability, is important. Wikipedia is a continual work in progress and a spectacular example of the modern age of online information vehicles. This editor, although also a critic, needs to be awarded a "historical preservation" barnstar. Otr500 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major corrections to opening section 

message: I have added this article to others on my list of articles with high importance to research and expand. Otr500 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles of importance to expand 

message: I realize in broadly general terms the Hunley was the first combat "submarine", but by modern standards she would accurately be described as a semi-submersible, since that was the only role in which she ever showed any seaworthiness at all. 
Unless we count failed attempts at dives that killed the entire crew and necessitated her being dredged off the bottom of the ocean, she was no more a true submarine than the USS Monitor. Her snorkels and viewports needed to be above water so they could draw air and see where they were going; she was mostly controllable when floating under her own buoyancy just under the surface, but if we're being honest here, her diving gear was beyond rudimentary and simply didn't work. She wasn't technologically capable of handling a self-contained subsurface dive, as H.L Hunley and his second crew unfortunately found out while practicing precisely the kind of mock attack that required such a dive. And that was under controlled, organized conditions in broad daylight! It went "submarine" alright, it just never came back up... In fact, General Beauregard was so dismayed with losing Hunley that he ordered the (third) crew to scrap the whole concept of diving and simply attack clandestinely on the surface at night with the spar torpedo, which was angled downwards to accomodate her inability to dive.
Thus I ask, in what sense other than in service to the Lost Cause is Hunley fairly considered "the first submarine" vs. "the first attempt at a submarine"? Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 23:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair to call it a submarine? 

message: In the "Recovery of wreckage" section the article states, "in a specially designed tank of fresh water to await conservation.". This needs updating, and I did read where the words "fresh water" were used, but those words mean naturally occurring water and the Hunley was placed in specially prepared water using a Impressed current cathodic protection system (ICCP), to inhibit further corrosion, which is monitored continuously for pH, temperature, chlorides, conductivity, and oxygen. 
*There was comments concerning submarine verses submersible and a military history web page, in the opening paragraph, refers to the Hunley as a submersible.
*The article needs updating as most of the information is from circa 2000. Otr500 (talk) 08:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preservation 

message: In this YouTube clip, Dr. Mark Newell, when asked how the Hunley was found, states that they had to search "50 square miles" of ocean.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Por80M2_H40
If true, this would certainly refute the claim that Dr Newell had been supplied the location from a gentleman (that I won't name) claiming to have found the Hunley or that Dr Newells team only went out to "verify" the location.
Verifying a location should not require searching 50 square miles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dr. Mark Newell comments on finding Hunley 

message: There are some who are bitter that the Confederates lost. That's why they like to sneak the words enemy warship to this article.
Wikipedia is neutral. It doesn't call one side the enemy.
Is there any proof that any submarine sunk any ship earlier? No. Therefore, the Hunley  was the first submarine to sink a ship....end of story. It would be different if another submarine accidentally sank another ship in the same navy first.  If so, the neutral way would be to write that the Hunley was the first sub to sink a ship in combat.
Stephanie Bowman (talk) 21:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  use of word enemy is biased, wikipedia must be neutral 

message: I see this page contains nothing about the lawsuits NUMA and E. Lee Spence filed against each other regarding their separate claims about finding the Hunley.  Is this noteworthy for inclusion on Wikipedia's Hunley page?  If so, does it warrant a separate section or should it be included in the section about the discovery and recovery of the Hunley?TH1980 (talk) 20:22, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I saw the article length was closing on 40k. I would think some mention would be alright but not a section. Otr500 (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

text: Okay, I've gone and made a succinct, impartial entry about the litigation.TH1980 (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  NUMA vs. Spence Lawsuits: Noteworthy? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on H. L. Hunley (submarine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131015111426/http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20081017/Confederate.Submarine/ to http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-science/20081017/Confederate.Submarine/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Archive of link was also dead. Replaced it with a link to the same AP story in USA Today and its archive. Mojoworker (talk) 19:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The drawing of H. L. Hunley by R.G. Skerrett, featured in the infobox, is almost certainly not based on a photograph taken in 1863 by George S. Cook. Per the description, it is based on a painting then held by the Confederate Memorial Literary Society Museum, Richmond, Virginia. That painting is Conrad Wise Chapman's Submarine Torpedo Boat H.L. Hunley, Dec. 6, 1863 at the American Civil War Museum (see the history section re: the Confederate Memorial Literary Society). A photo of the Hunley by George S. Cook may exist, but there doesn't appear to be any record of it at the Library of Congress or the Naval History and Heritage Command, and Chapman makes no mention of it in his notes of the painting.
I am replacing the infobox image with Conrad Wise Chapman's original painting. MrFrosty2 (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.G. Skerrett's drawing of H. L. Hunley 

message: http://joeccombs2nd.com/2012/08/26/spence-vs-cussler-who-found-the-hunley/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.143.44 (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Excellent Article about finding of Hunley

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on H. L. Hunley (submarine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131213014735/http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/h8/housatonic-i.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/h8/housatonic-i.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071014220553/http://history.navy.mil:80/branches/org12-3.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-3.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071014220553/http://history.navy.mil:80/branches/org12-3.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org12-3.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced the failed deadlink archive attempts with a working link. Mojoworker (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The modern understanding of the word, "submarine", is a vessel that travels beneath the surface of the sea. I don't see that the Hunley did that. It appears to be a vessel that traveled mostly submerged. The crew appears to have relied on open hatches for air. Should this be clarified? It appears to me that the boat was a semi-submersible naval vessel. User:HopsonRoad 13:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: suggests that it would approach its target with the hull 3 in. beneath the surface, but with conning towers above, then dive under the vessel under attack with the hatches sealed, towing an explosive charge. This suggests that it was truly a submarine, diving planes and all. User:HopsonRoad 18:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was the ''H.L. Hunley'' a true submarine? 

message: I don't see:
* </ref><ref>
in the references or see also, it may be of interest.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent, possibly relevant article 

message: From what I have so far read and seen drawn, the Hunley's torpedo was not barbed at all but was percussion based.  See this very, very recent article (less than a week ago now) which includes a contemporary diagram of the torpedo showing no barbs, only the percussion fuse.  The article still describes the torpedo as barbed in several places— most spar torpedoes were barbed, but I can find no evidence that the one for the Hunley was designed thus and am instead finding evidence that it was un-barbed.  Anyone have any thoughts on that? Also, was the Housatonic an ironclad?  If so, barbs would have been pointless (as it were!).  KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 19:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I just found another news article that specifically indicates that the torpedo was un-barbed, and am going to adjust this article accordingly.  KDS4444 (talk) [Note: This user has admitted participating in paid editing,— trust but verify.] 03:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my understanding that the original torpedo mechanism used a barbed torpedo, which once attached to a target by ramming would stick to the target vessel. Then, when the Hunley backed away to a safe distance, the torpedo would be detonated via a line attached between the torpedo and the Hunley. But in it's final configuration, it was attached directly to the spar. I guess they should've kept the original system. Mojoworker (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is part of what mystifies me.  How could these men have thought, "Well, it's going to explode when we make contact, which will be only a few feet away, so hopefully we won't all be killed, but we probably will, right?"  I don't understand how the crew could have convinced themselves to believe that, but it is the only reasoning I can see.  This was not, as far as I know, supposed to be a suicide mission, but given the facts as we now know them...?  A non-barbed torpedo, designed to detonate on impact, only a few yards from the front of the ship...  means instant death.  How could they not have known this??  I have searched the Internet, and to date I have found no explanation for this.  SOoooo frustrating!!!  KDS4444 (talk) 14:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the impression from the article that no blast damage to the hull was found following raising of the Hunley in August 2000. If so, the crew would have been correct if they had thought the blast would not sink their craft. (Note the drawings show the Hunley was narrow and its bow, where the blast was directed, was tapered.) It would have been wise to test the torpedo when the Hunley was surfaced and unmanned, to see if the Hunley survived. If they had done that (though I see no indication they did), the Hunley would presumably have passed the test The 2017 article suggests the crew were killed by pulmonary blast trauma rather than damage to the Hunley. Maybe pulmonary blast trauma wasn't understood in the 1800s. From the page: "The short distance between the torpedo and the vessel, in addition to the signs that the crew died instantaneously and without a struggle to survive, led a team of blast trauma specialists from Duke University to theorize that the Hunley's crew was killed by the blast itself,[12] which could have transmitted pressure waves inside the vessel without damaging its hull." Housecarl (talk) 01:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Torpedo 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 13 external links on H. L. Hunley (submarine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shipwrecks.com/attachments.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://hunleyarchives.org/1SCAttorneyGen092095.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110715121343/http://www.prolamsausa.com/pdf/casestudies/HunleyCS.pdf to http://www.prolamsausa.com/pdf/casestudies/HunleyCS.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.titansalvage.com/jackupbarges/jackupspecs.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shipwrecks.com/mapHunleySitefield1979.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105072135/http://www.historynet.com/judge-dismisses-counterclaim-in-hunley-lawsuit.htm to http://www.historynet.com/judge-dismisses-counterclaim-in-hunley-lawsuit.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030727190020/http://www.hunley.org/main_index.asp?CONTENT=press&ID=100 to http://www.hunley.org/main_index.asp?CONTENT=press&ID=100
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20020811025755/http://www.hunley.org/main_index.asp?CONTENT=GOLDCOIN to http://www.hunley.org/main_index.asp?CONTENT=GOLDCOIN
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716022959/http://www.scscv.com/publications/JROTCHunleyAward.pdf to http://www.scscv.com/publications/JROTCHunleyAward.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031225182147/http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=5916 to http://www.news.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=5916
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.shipwrecks.com/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hunleyarchives.org/listofdocuments.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014043545/http://hnsa.org/ships/hunley.htm to http://www.hnsa.org/ships/hunley.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: http://www.trendnet.me/hunley-submarine-human-remains.html
to this site a photograph of a dead body shows as if it is half burned, how this?
was the compartment of the crew flooded or not flooded?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.65.26.168 (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  a notice 

message: This article says (verbatim)
The Hunley was shipped by rail in 1863 to Charlestown, SC, where, in an attempt to sink the Union frigate New Ironsides, it was swamped by a wave from a passing paddle wheeler; only the commander Lieutenant John Payne escaped
In early october 1863, in a new try at the New Ironsides, the Hunley capsized near Fort Sumter; Payne and one seaman escaped.
Raised by Hunley, the submarine went to the bottom again on october 15th during a practice dive, with loss of her crew.
i.e. the vessel was sunk three times before the final action, not two as in the text. Moreover this text seems at odd with the date of service and the statement that did a single action. 
Another question: how may be unconfirmed the length of a recovered vessel (see infobox)? I suppose that this refers to the to total length inclusive of a broken spar torpedo. I feel that the body length might be a more meaningful datum.
pietro151.29.189.70 (talk) 12:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The hunley.org official website makes no mention of a sinking in early October 1863. Mojoworker (talk) 06:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  encyclopedia britannica 1993 (vol 6 page 156) 

message: I believe this article is overstating the knowledge of why the sub sank. We visited the Hunley Museum in October 2022, and the museum personnel repeatedly stated "We don't know why the Hunley sank." The proximity to the Housatonic was among the possible reasons given, but others were given as well. 2601:283:4001:A3C0:8CD7:A4CF:28FA:DC8E (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for sinking 

message: — Assignment last updated by Wordnerd104 (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: ENG 21011 Research Writing

message: Can anyone find a source backing the claim that the Hunley and her cargo are valued at $40 Million? I cannot locate any credible information at all that places a monetary value on her. CrowJohnston205 (talk) 21:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't find a source for that either. It's possible someone may have conflated it with the $40 million cost of the museum that was built to house and display the Hunley. It's been over three years since it was tagged as needing a citation, so I think it's safe to go ahead and remove it. Mojoworker (talk) 00:54, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  $40 million value  

message: I noticed a lack of explanation on what Hunley, McClintock, and Watson's motivations might be for building the boats. I intend to mention that both nationalism and financial gain were likely strong motivators. 
I fail to see the relevance of mentioning The Bayou St. John Confederate submarine in this section. If a source proposed that the Bayou St. John somehow influenced the creation of Hunley and her predecessors, then I would understand. As it stands, though, its mention feels like an unnecessary fun fact. I intend to remove it. 
I intend to reference McClintock's own opinions on the Pioneer, as I feel his perspective as its inventor is a valuable one. This would also help show how one of Hunley's predecessors ended up influencing it in a meaningful way. Here is the sentence I would add: "McClintock noted the significance that a boat capable of moving in any direction at any depth could be made, but ultimately decided that such a vessel could be improved.[Wills, 2017]" This would also help make the transition into American Diver smoother. 
The first sentence relating to American Diver reads, "McClintock moved to Mobile to develop a second submarine, American Diver with the collaboration of two others." First of all, both Hunley and Watson went to Mobile with McClintock to construct American Diver. Secondly, I think the "two others" mentioned might be Thomas Park and Thomas Lyons of the Park & Lyons machine shops, who the group collaborated with on the production of American Diver. I intend to add Hunley and Watson next to McClintock's mention and replace "two others" with Thomas Park and Thomas Lyons. 
In this section, the details regarding American Diver's electromagnetic features are a little fuzzy. I intend to more clearly explain what the electromagnetic engine did (self-propulsion), as well as explain why the builders ended up shafting the idea (too expensive and time-consuming to be worth it). 
The term, "heavy chop," is a bit unfamiliar to a general audience. I intend to replace this term with "rough waters." 
Here is the source I will use to add new information:
Wills, R. (2017, July 28). The H. L. Hunley in Historical Context. Naval History and Heritage Command. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/sites-and-projects/ship-wrecksites/hl-hunley/the-h-l-hunley-in-historical-context.html#anchor377559 
It is an official US Navy website so I'm pretty sure it is credible. 
Please let me know if I'm out of my depth with anything here. My goal is simply to improve this article. 
--TheLawFra (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to the "Predecessors" section 

message: This section doesn't specifically mention that Housatonic was a Screw sloop-of-war. I intend to add the word "screw." 
This section implies that Hunley was specifically sent out to take down the Housatonic. I believe it would be more accurate to say that Hunley was out on patrol and decided to attack Housatonic after noticing it. I intend to change the context to match this. 
This section does not mention the fact that Housatonic returned fire. I intend to add this information. 
My source (Wills, 2017) says that Housatonic sank in approximately 3 minutes, while this article claims it was 5 minutes. I intend to change the time, but if you think my source is incorrect, feel free to tell me. 
The final blurb that describes the recovery of Hunley is vague and uncited. I have to ask if this part is even necessary, considering that there is a LENGTHY section regarding the recovery of the vessel within this very article. I also think its placement before the "Disappearance" section is a strange choice. The train of thought as the article stands goes like this: Attack on Housatonic > Recovery of Hunley > disappearance of Hunley. I think this blurb would make much more sense at the end of "Disappearance." I intend to move the blurb to the end of the "Disappearance" section, reworded accordingly. 
My source for any new information I intend to add:
Wills, R. (2017, July 28). The H. L. Hunley in Historical Context. Naval History and Heritage Command. https://www.history.navy.mil/research/underwater-archaeology/sites-and-projects/ship-wrecksites/hl-hunley/the-h-l-hunley-in-historical-context.html#anchor377559 
Please let me know if you have any objections regarding my proposed changes. 
Thanks 
--TheLawFra (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed changes to "Attack on Housatonic"