I know this forum is for Ironclads in the ACW, but as there are non of Submarines of that conflict, I decided to post this thread here.
Sorry for that.
I consider this article quite interesting.
"Contrary to the opinions of the popular press, the story of undersea warfare in the Civil War is not limited to nor initiated by the C.S.S. Hunley. That boat's only unique claim to fame is that it was the first submarine to engage and sink an enemy vessel. Other submarines had sortied on combat patrols almost two years previous and another Confederate boat may also have sunk a Union warship in Mobile Bay. All told, there is evidence for over a score of Northern and Southern submarines in the course of the war. Many of these boats had features not seen again until the 20th century, including airlocks, electric motors, air purification systems, and periscopes.
Information for this short overview came from Mark Ragan's 1999 book, "Union and Confederate Submarine Warfare in the Civil War" and a variety of online sources. In that work, Ragan cites the paucity of official records as the single greatest challenge to submarine research for this period. On the Southern side, many submarines operated under the aegis of the Secret Service rather than the Navy. Submarine warfare was considered almost illegal, the term "infernal machine" being used liberally in Northern reports. Because of this, records relating to submarines and underwater mines were intentionally destroyed toward the end of the war to keep the identities of those involved secret. Others might be pardoned upon taking the Oath of Allegiance, but anyone connected with building submarines couldn't be certain. The North, while publicly denouncing undersea warfare, engaged in its own building program and so had good reason to keep most references to such craft out of the Official Records. The few that survive repeatedly insist upon secrecy.
From the beginning, submarines played a different role on the two sides. Because the Confederacy was confronted by a large enemy fleet intent upon blockade, their vessels were intended for offensive work against ships. Being faced by obstructed harbors, the Northern Navy perceived of submarines as a means to clear underwater obstacles rather than as attack craft. Throughout the nation, the feasibility of designing, building, and successfully employing submarines was not doubted. The public perception of undersea warfare in 1860 is perhaps analogous to our own modern acceptance of "starships" (á la Star Trek), which, although beyond our current technological means, are largely accepted as something in the not-too-distant future. And, just as NASA's shuttles have made the once-extraordinary seem ordinary, seemingly fantastic underwater vessels had been demonstrated in everyday use prior to the Civil War.
In the early 1850s, Lodner Phillips designed and employed a submarine for salvage work on the Great Lakes. They continued successfully in this business for fully five years, 1851-55. Interestingly, their boat used an underwater cannon to blast obstructions. Seeing the military value of their vessel, Phillips and Peck offered it to the Navy, which responded by informing the inventors that "the ships of the Navy go upon the water, not under it." Brutus De Villeroi had demonstrated an even earlier boat in Nantes, France in 1832.
The perception of submarine warfare as a possibility is nowhere better evidenced than in a letter published on June 10, 1861 in the Columbia (Tennessee) Herald by Reverend Franklin Smith. A respected chemist and inventor, Smith owned "one of the finest laboratories in the South." Calling upon Southerners citizens to assist in the building of submarines to defend their shores, the Smith letter was reprinted in newspapers across the Confederacy. Although it cannot be known how many citizens responded to the Reverend's call, Smith himself did build at least one "submarine propeller." Operational by the fall of 1861, it was sabotaged and sunk while at dock, perhaps by a Union sympathizer.
Interest in submarines among the people of the North was similarly kindled as early as May 1861. On the 16th of that month, Philadelphia harbor police stopped and boarded a strange contraption they had spotted moving down the river. The thirty-foot vessel, "sharkish in appearance," had a crew of four – which included its designer, Brutus de Villeroi. Although the Frenchman claimed to have been heading to the Navy Yard for tests, officers there disavowed any knowledge of him; his voyage may have been only a publicity stunt – which worked very well. In the days following, de Villeroi gave an astonishing interview to reporters: his vessel (he claimed) could remain submerged for several hours, utilized an airlock that permitted a diver to exit and enter the boat while submerged, and employed an air purifying device that supplied air to the crew while underwater. Possibly under public pressure, Captain Samuel Du Pont, Commandant of the Philadelphia Navy Yard, ordered a thorough examination of the de Villeroi submarine. The resulting report of 7 July 1861 indicated that "the services of the distinguished French engineer would be very valuable to the government and that the possession of his invention would be of the greatest importance."
The summer of 1861 also witnessed the development of another new submarine, this one in the James River off Richmond, Virginia. Designed by underwater explosives engineer William Cheeney, this unnamed boat may possibly lay claim to the first underwater combat mission of the war. Given the fact that the well-known Hunley required a crew of eight men to move at its sluggish pace, it is interesting to note that Southern naval engineers designed this boat to be powered by only two men. No schematics or drawings of this boat survive – only a receipt from the Tredegar Iron Works for construction of a 46" propeller…"
Full article here.
link
And allow me to recomended this link too.
PDF link
Hope you enjoy!.
Amicalement
Armand
