Talk:Turtle (submersible)

This article has been cited as a source by a media organisation. See the 2005 press source article for details.

Size in metric units?

What is the size of this submarine in the metric system?

Not "American"

Technically, Turtle (submarine) is not of the USA. The United States had not been created at the time of the turtle. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:44, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

• Technically, it was in service AFTER July 4 1776, and therefore is USA. 132.205.95.43 01:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Except, "technically", there was no United States of America until the Contitution was ratified in 1787 or so. Don't mind me... just being evil. --Lord Voldemort ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:00, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Except it's retroactively USA, because July 4th 1776 is recognized as the day of birth of the USA, even if it's actually when Great Britain deigned to recognize the colonies independant. 132.205.44.131 00:31, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Propellors

In an article in Archaeology Magazine about the Turtle, it stated the screw propellors were anachronistic; the sketch is incorrect. If the author could provide a citation for the use of those propellors, that'd be great; otherwise the reference should really be deleted. Greyscale 03:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting. About.com has a copy of the picture we are using here and a different picture with a different kind of propellor here See also this page which has pictures of both versions on the same page. Gzuckier 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The helical screw propellers were an anachronism. They were drawn for a lecture by Lieut. F.M. Barber in 1875, and the artist drew a propeller as he understood it. The Bachellor rendition is correct - there were opposing blades. Ezra Lee made two attacks in the American Turtle, and he wrote his recollections in a letter to David Humphreys in 1815. He described the propeller as looking like a windmill. (Yale Manuscripts and Archives) Joseph Leary (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia articles on submarines and on the history of submarines list the Turtle as "the first to use screws for propulsion," but here the article says "It incorrectly depicts the propeller as a screw blade" in the Development section. This apparent contradiction should be resolved. Ahendrickson2 (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Developing story

on CNN as of 12:46 eastern coast time there is a reactor with a working replica of the turtle being aressted Arrested on suspicion of terror for the craft was near several cruise ships in New York harbor, more info as the story develops. Celt88 16:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The news source given doesn't say they were arrested, it says they were detained for questioning, which I don't think is the same thing. But I'm not a lawyer so I have not changed the text. Rees11 13:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As an owner of a submersible roughly the same size as Turtle, I can say with confidence that the reason Ezra Lee could not penetrate the Eagle's hull was due to the fact that the Turtle would have been nuetrally bouyant. Without any upward force applied to the screw it would not penetrate- just bounce. If he had tried to increase bouyancy the sub would simply pivot to the side and then float to the surface. Also the illustration used is wrong in many ways and we should try to find one that is more accurate.Just-unsigned (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a Discovery Channel special on 'The Turtle'. They rebuilt one and tested it, it worked well. In the wiki article it was stated that the vertical prop wouldn't work, it worked perfectly in the recreation. The drill also worked to anchor the mine to a wooden boat. The buoyancy wasn't an issue because the bit only needed to touch the wood. Then like a normal drill bit, pulled itself into the wood, rather than being jammed in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkonert (talk • contribs) 02:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Replica's

I don't know if I'm the only one who noticed this, but logically a "recreation" of the craft could not have been constructed BEFORE the Turtle's destruction. Suggest you check your facts or at least rephrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.17.33 (talk) 02:53, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Spear Sack?

Is "spear sack" slang, or is it the proper name? I can find no reference to such a component on Wikipedia or the wider Internet - other than mirrors of this article. It would be useful if someone with more technical knowledge explains the principle to Luddites such as myself. Rje (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turtle (submarine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this looks interesting -- will have a read and leave comments over the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Made a few minor copyedits to mix up the prose a bit and fix a typo or two so just let me know if I inadvertently altered the meaning of anything...

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

Only suggestions (not affecting pass/fail) are: 1) you could alternate the image placement nicely by moving the second image to the left; 2) you might consider swapping the image of Ezra Lee with the following image of the guy in the cutaway, reason being that Ezra Lee is not mentioned in the prose until the following section (also I was confused because the section where Lee's image appears now mentions Bushnell's brother Ezra, and I thought the picture referred to him, even with a different surname)!

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I really can't fault anything, it looks well-written/sourced/illustrated so happy to pass -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review it. I hear your point on the Ezra confusion... Magic♪piano 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Not happy together

Since when is there any confusion with a DSV? I have never, ever, seen this craft called American Turtle. Neither do I see any risk of confusion with a much less well-known DSV (which page is titled DSV Turtle anyhow...). So what possible rationale could there have been to move the page? With no discussion? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a known name - but a far less common one. I've moved the page back, hatnoted it - which is how you disambiguate, not by moving a page - on the far better known vessel with the name, to boot - to a rare form of the name. If any move is to be done here it needs to be through the Requested Move process. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

When this move came to my attention, I did a bit of Google Book searching (not that this is definitive). The usage "American Turtle" is more common than you might think, especially in modern historiography. "American Turtle" (with quotes) yields over 3,800 hits, some of which have to do with the animal; adding "Bushnell" as a term reduces it to 1,700 and focuses the results. "Turtle" -American Bushnell yields 4,100. A number of sources will initially refer to it as "American Turtle", with subsequent references as "Turtle". The results returned in the first few pages of these searches are pretty much all relevant. Based on the sources I've seen (some of which were used here, of course), "Turtle" certainly seems to be more common. Magic♪piano 14:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

If it's become more common, I'll admit not reading anything on it in quite a few years, since I had no idea. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

The source is from the Orlando Sentinel, October 21, 2005.

All of the cited sources for this article reference a printed source - a children's book called "Bushnell's Submarine" by Arthur Lefkowitz. I have been looking for original documents regarding the turtle for half my life and there are none - just stories retold by other people telling stories. There are only a few drawings and one letter to support that this was actually a real ship - and anyone who has explored the Hudson River can tell you there is no reason to believe that the turtle travelled between New Rochelle and the Hudson ever at any time. New Rochelle and most of White Plains to the north was considered nuetral territory by both the British and the American revolutionaries at the time when the Turtle supposedly sailed and failed. This article needs attention from an expert historian. 75.134.23.64 (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I find the assertion that this article is based on a book published in 2006 to be strange. All of the print sources that actually appear in the citations predate 2006, and the Lefkowitz book is not among them. Perhaps some historian has actually formally cataloged in a reliable source what actual evidence exists of the Turtle's use; if the anonymous writer knows of such sources s/he should list them.

The anonymous writer is also wrong about the military of the New Rochelle/Hudson territory. In August 1776, when the alleged sea trials took place, the British had not yet landed on Long Island. In early September the British were consolidating control of western Long Island after the August 27 battle, and they were preparing for the September 11 Staten Island Peace Conference. Westchester County was entirely under American control, barring the activities of Loyalists, although maneuvering on the Sound might have been problematic. When in this period the Turtle would have been moved to the Hudson does not appear to be documented in detail.

I think the existence of working replicas made from the extant plans and descriptions is adequate evidence that the vessel existed; the only real question is how reliable the accounts of the attack are. Magic♪piano 21:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: sourcing, there are many secondary and primary sources regarding the American Turtle. Many of these are kept between two museums in Connecticut, and are available for perusal if you know who to ask. The reliability of the accounts of the attacks is questionable, as different contemporary sources describe them slightly differently. Charles Griswold wrote a litter in 1820 wherein he recounts Ezra Lee's description of the attack on the Eagle (and more); while second-hand (I have never found anything from Ezra Lee himself in writing), there is no reason to doubt its validity.

Other sources include: letters from Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Dr. Benjamin Gale, and David Bushnell; Thacher's military journal; Governor Tryon's intelligence report (1775); lectures by Phineas Pratt and F.M. Barber; etc. Between them all, there should be little doubt as to the Turtle's existence and use in the war. (Washington and Jefferson are hardly anonymous sources.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Galalic (talk • contribs) 13:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Building location?

This is unsourced and seems to be bouncing between Old Saybrook, Connecticut and Westbrook, Connecticut. It seems that both Bushnell and Turtle were in Saybrook at the time, but at a location that later became Westbrook.

Can anyone clarify and source this? Just where is the boundary? Is there a "Bushnell house" for which a location can be identified? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I've not seen any reliable source giving any sort of indication where she was built. There are a number of places (houses, farms, etc) in the southern Connecticut River valley bearing the Bushnell name (I believe it's an old Connecticut family), but I've never seen any of those associated definitively with the inventor either. There's a reason why the location assertion is tagged... Magic♪piano 18:04, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Turtle (submarine)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this looks interesting -- will have a read and leave comments over the next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• It is reasonably well written.

  a (prose): b (MoS):

Made a few minor copyedits to mix up the prose a bit and fix a typo or two so just let me know if I inadvertently altered the meaning of anything...

• It is factually accurate and verifiable.

  a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• It is broad in its coverage.

  a (major aspects): b (focused):

• It follows the neutral point of view policy.

  a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

• It is stable.

  No edit wars etc.:

• It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

  a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

Only suggestions (not affecting pass/fail) are: 1) you could alternate the image placement nicely by moving the second image to the left; 2) you might consider swapping the image of Ezra Lee with the following image of the guy in the cutaway, reason being that Ezra Lee is not mentioned in the prose until the following section (also I was confused because the section where Lee's image appears now mentions Bushnell's brother Ezra, and I thought the picture referred to him, even with a different surname)!

• Overall:

  a Pass/Fail:

I really can't fault anything, it looks well-written/sourced/illustrated so happy to pass -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review it. I hear your point on the Ezra confusion... Magic♪piano 12:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Category

[I]t is believed... the Turtle was destroyed to prevent her from falling into enemy hands.

Not sure how this qualifies as ‘Shipwrecks of the New York (state) coast’. Valetude (talk) 13:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

aftermath sources update

Aftermath section needs a serious citation/source update. it reads like propaganda and has no citations for multiple paragraphs 2600:6C47:A03F:C443:CCBB:3044:F145:712B (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Serious restructuring needed

Setting aside the issue of some citations being from a children’s book as others have mentioned, this article has several issues ranging from organization to objectivity and everything in between. For one, the circumstances surrounding the fate of the vessel are mentioned twice in different sections, including before the “Aftermath” section, which goes into detail about another mission the vessel was sent on before ultimately being lost. Additionally, a large part of the “Aftermath” section as a whole is almost hagiographic, comparing Bushnell to Eli Whitney (which the section points out Bushnell is not widely known), and an entire paragraph summarizing the key developments in submarine warfare in the 20^th century, including detailing the strategic purpose of a naval blockade. If Bushnell was such a pioneer, why is it that we don’t see an expansion of submarine warfare until almost 90 years later? These lionizing accounts of individuals, especially folk heroes, do not serve a purpose here.

This article needs much trimming down and restructuring in order to maintain objectivity, including perhaps even splitting the “Aftermath” section in two as it is quite long-winded in its current state. Conrads519 (talk) 21:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)