Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Turtle (submersible) was one of the Warfare good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been cited as a source by a media organisation. See the 2005 press source article for details. |
What is the size of this submarine in the metric system?
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
[I]t is believed... the Turtle was destroyed to prevent her from falling into enemy hands.
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)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.