Origins and usage customs change as those who innovated die and give way to subsequent interpreters.

+Lysander thank you!

+MaxRavenclaw there were some way earlier, was pretty surprised too.

Military History Visualized Weren't they made of wood or something?

+MaxRavenclaw dunno, I only know that the mentioned boat from Nordenfelt was a steam submarine for the Turkish Navy

+Military History Visualized i know the union and confederates experimented with submarines in the american civil war. also, there was allegedly a submarine in the american revolution.

+MaxRavenclaw wasn't there a plot of rescuing Napoleon from exile with a sub?

Thank you!

isn't there... two hollands?

There's HMS Holland 1 and USS Holland (SS-1), USS Holland was laid down in 1896 at Elizabeth, New Jersey, While HMS Holland 1 was laid down in 1900 at the Vickers Maxim shipyard.

+Shivam mishra thank you. Planned, but will take a while, actually the video started because I wanted to do something on WW2 submarines, got a bit detracted.

Hahaha no problem mate!!! I can wait.

The USS Alligator was the first submarine in the navy. The Turtle was an army project.

The first submarine was made by the Dutch inventor Mr Drebbel. Somewhere in the 1630's. Not much other use than spying.

Nope. There was no USS Alligator. Just plain Alligator. The USS designation was not adopted until 1908.

PowerPoint 2013 you can see a showcase video on my powerpoint channel: kzfaq.info/love/pRuyypmcZCetQHittuPkFw

you are correct! however, USS Holland is the *first* submarine to be commissioned into the US Navy, while the previous ones like Turtle, Alligator, and Intelligent Whale(I'm serious, it's actually named that and it's also a museum ship now) are not commissioned officially, that is the briefest explanation i can give about it

There was no USS Alligator. It was just Alligator. The USS designation was not adopted until 1908.

Well I was not talking about the dreadfully slow type VII's and the like... When I said better underwater performance... I meant it... The WWI era R-class submarines of the Royal navy for example, armed with six 21" bow tubes and with an underwater speed of 14 knots, designed primarily to hunt the Kaiser's U-boats were exceedingly far ahead of their time, no submarine would have a better underwater performance till the Japanese No. 71, which only managed 21 knots of it's designed 25 underwater. The R-class's shortcomings notwithstanding... A submarine designed to hunt other submarines while submerged and predating the XXI and the even faster Japanese I-201's should earn the right as the first proper submarine... In the criteria that is, of having been designed to fight submerged to utilize it's higher submerged performance compared to what were common back then.

"What was the criteria that made the type XXI the "first" proper submarine? Because if it was just vessels with better underwater vs surface performance then there's definitely precursors to that..." No. It's not about the underwater performance - are you for real?? The explanation is simple. The German XXI actually could stay *submerged* almost throughout their operational use. Submarines prior to the XXI were actually spending most of their time on the surface like any other ship and only dove to evade being spotted (or sunk) by planes, to attack ship convoys and to escape destroyers. This made them highly vulnerable. Their operation time while submerged was measured in hours and they had to surface eventually to recharge the batteries on the surface. That meant that any ship tracking them could simply try to be in the vicinity and attack it once it surfaced. The sub can't just dive back in and is a sitting duck at this point. At core they were still mostly surface ships with the ability to dive for limited periods of time. Most of their operational time they spent on the surface. Understand?? "A submarine designed to hunt other submarines while submerged and predating the XXI and the even faster Japanese I-201's should earn the right as the first proper submarine.." Check up whether you qualify as falling into the Autistic spectrum disorder - it's unbelievable *how somebody could completely miss the mark and get stuck with details* . The German XXI submarines had large enough batteries to be able to stay submerged for days. On top of that they didn't have to resurface at all to charge their batteries by going with diesel power but could utilize their diesel power submerged via a snorkel. This meant that they could stay hidden even when recharging their batteries. Bad news for the allies. They can't spot them anymore. Prior to this the ever increasing number of long-range allied planes meant that the submarines (and the same applied to submarines of any other nation since they were mostly on the surface) had to look for planes in all directions at all times and constantly had to do emergency dives to avoid being sunk. This also seriously limited their operation use and range. The *biggest benefit* of a submarine is (drumroll) it's ability *to stay submerged* . It goes without saying that it's highly vulnerable on the surface, which in turn means that if it spends most of its time *on* the surface it's not going to be very efficient - not if there's a gazillion of planes and tons of destroyers escorting the ship convoys and remaining where they last spotted them to wait when they come up - which they must. It's lucky for the allies the XXI submarines arrived when the Battle of the Atlantic was already long won and there were very few of them ready for combat (6 of them). Had they arrived two years earlier and there'd be hundreds of them the allies would have been in big trouble. "What was the criteria that made the type XXI the "first" proper submarine?" Should be perfectly obvious. The ability to stay submerged almost entirely while in operation. As such it's a "proper submarine": That you fail to see this falls under the criteria of autism or just plain lack of wits and common sense. Hope you learn something from this. Don't ever jump to hasty conclusions and look for the sensible explanation not wild speculation with details and arbitrary definitions.

yep!

wait, not Turtle?

@@chiisan3776 Turtle was actually an army project. Work on it was carried out under Washington’s command. In fact, sometime after the war, Jefferson, who was always interested in any thing scientific, contacted Washington to get information on the Turtle, and Washington in turn passed his questions on to Bushnell. The letters between Washington, Jefferson, and Bushnell, have been preserved. So, while the Turtle was indeed the first military submarine used by the United States in combat, it was not a navy submarine. USS Alligator, on the other hand, was a navy project.

The Hunley was, as you point out, CSS. Not the US Navy.

i understand but i would say it falls under the "american" umbrella

Mike Hamza It also falls under the "world" umbrella. But the title is "The First US Navy Submarine".

alright then i admit i was wrong but my point about the USS Alligator and the Turtle ?

Mike Hamza I don't think the Turtle was ever commissioned by the Navy, but I think you're right about the Alligator. Sometimes even KZfaq videos are wrong! ;->

Brian Wyters by using their lungs lmfao

Well, he was going to sell to them, but there was a dispute over payment, and the Irish revolutionaries ended up stealing two of his submarines instead of buying them. Also, it was the Irish Republican Brotherhood, not the IRA.

@@megalodon7916 Actually, neither of these is quite right. The IRB funded the design and build of the first boats - that's why the most famous one was named the 'Fenian Ram'. Then two factions within the organisation fell out over the money it was costing. The IRB stole the two working subs rather than pay the inventor any more, accidentally sinking one in the process. The Fenian Ram was never used again, because Holland refused to help them operate the boat, so they couldn't sell it either. Richard Knowles Morris has written an excellent history of Holland's life.

@@oisinmcgann6315 Like I said, a disagreement over payment. It was Holland III that sank in the East River. It has not been recovered. Since no one could operate it and Holland refused to help, Fenian Ram was hauled into a shed on the Mills River. She did end up helping out with Ireland in a way, though. In 1916 she was exhibited in Madison Square Garden (the 1890 one, not the current one) to raise funds for victims of the Easter Rising.

No, the name of the designer was John Holland

After he developed the USS Holland for the US navy, he later sold a few based on that design to the Royal Navy

Before he ever designed submarines for the Americans or the British he designed the Fenian Ram for the IRA, who hoped to use it to defeat British sea power, and thereby end their occupation of Ireland. Other methods turned out to be quicker and more effective to that end, but it is arguable that the U Boat blockades (and U Boats and all modern submarines are derived from Holland's ideas) of the two world wars which destroyed the British Empire by diverting trade to American ports and considerably increasing the trade power of the US over the long run. The Fenians of the 19th Century would probably called that a result.

The Great Outdoors