Hi Murvihill,
The same argument has been presented in regard to the Kriegsmarine's K-verband. Until the advent of the Seehund, the losses appeared in the high percentile. But in terms of raw numbers, were minuscule to the losses inflicted on the enemy.
It's true that both Housatonic and Hunley lost a comparable number of men in the engagement. But the US Navy lost a steam sloop and in exchange for what the US Navy would have considered a boiler. Unfortunately for the CSN, the shortage of iron made Hunley a near strategic loss.
Still, no matter how it is analyzed, the attack caused a change in Union naval tactics and revolutionized naval warfare.
In keeping with the realm of submarine loss to victory, the US Navy lost approximately 1 fleet submarine for every month of the US's involvement in WWII, but accounted for a disproportionately high loss rate in the Japanese merchant marine and Nihon Kaigun in exchange for a relatively small loss.
The peacetime losses of submarines up to contemporary times demonstrates the near infancy of undersea warfare. Squalus, although raised, the Thresher, the Scorpion, and the soviet losses just prove it doesn't take a naval engagement to lose a submersible torpedo boat. Yet, like losses in space, we humans progress.
