Thank you so much. For the scholars out there: what rpm would have been maintained at the crank and the screw? Was it 1:1 or was it geared to increase the rpm of the screw? I am trying to work out how far the Hunley had to travel and how long it took to reach the Housatonic.
I've seen details about the crank and its a 1:1 rpm, it maintained about 4.6 MPH (while on the surface) so it must have been even slower under the water.
If I were them, I would have tried to modernize the Turtle submarine back then, since they knew how to chemically create more oxygen back then, and I imagine new advances in technology would make it much more effective at placing limpet mines. At the very least, it would be cheap to make, and it technically did work design wise. Maybe as a short range defense to wreak havoc on any ships that dared get close to ports. It would also have been more effective back then because of how ironclads tended to be very low in the water, and were designed to protect their tops, but not their bottoms
The original means of propulsion envisioned by Horace Hunley was an 'Electro-magnetic' engine capable of yielding a much greater speed than 5 knots. He and James McClintock built one out of 'war-available' inferior materials designed to fit in the limited-space (small) engine room of the American Diver but it didn't produce the necessary power. Jules Vergne took this idea and created the Nautilus for "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". If you watch the movie staring James Mason and Kirk Douglas, you'll get an idea (slower ... but still) of what the Housatonic crew saw and thought ... ^v^
I was a kid, about 50 years ago and watched a film about the Hunley. It seemed to sink over and over with all aboard dying but I sure remember the same guys cranking the propeller shaft. I'm glad it was found! Where I was stationed in Norfolk I would have had a ringside seat of the battle of the U.S. S. Monitor and the C.S.S. Virginia.
It was during the siege of Charleston on February 18, 1864 after the victory of sinking The USS Housatonic, the CSS H.L Hunley will sink too. The crew of CSS H.L. Hunley was Leutnant George E. Dixon, Frank Collins, Joseph F. Ridgaway, James A Wick, Arnold Becker, C.F. Carlsen, C. Lumpkin & Augustus Miller.
I have so many questions... One how was the H. L. Hunley built? Did they have blacksmiths who shaped the metal to build it? Was it built in some kind of early factory? Seeing it was made of all metal it must have been extremely grueling and time intensive to build. Next question: How did the crew even see? Did they have some kind of Lantern which they took on board with them? If so wouldn't it fill up quickly with carbon monoxide? Third: How did the crew see outside the Sub?
Thanks for watching. If you are interested in learning more, we'd recommend The H. L. Hunley: The Secret Hope of the Confederacy by Tom Chafflin. Construction of the Hunley was well within the technological capabilities of the time - you can imagine that the parts that it required would be very similar to those used to build a steam boiler, a locomotive, or plates for the side of an ironclad. Although I do not recall the details, I suspect it was cast not forged. There was a small viewport for the Captain to look out of, but you can imagine that it would be quite hard to see anything, especially operating at night. Inside they burned a single candle, which would have provided a very dim light. The air inside the Hunley was certainly a big weakness. They had no external oxygen storage, so underwater they only could stay down as long as their air supply remained safe. Some have theorized that it finally sunk because the crew succumbed carbon dioxide poisoning. Perhaps carbon monoxide from the candle played a role as well.
John 3:16 New International Version 16 For God so loved(A) the world that he gave(B) his one and only Son,(C) that whoever believes(D) in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(E) 🙏
@@reclusiarchgrimaldus1269 Kind of spiteful that he only saves his creations which believe he exist isn't it? If you were god and you did all that they say why does it matter if your creations know your identity and if they don't do they deserve to burn eternally? I suppose I am not god so I can't say but burning eternally for not guessing a sky mans correct name and history sounds pretty extreme for a "loving creator"
It must have been forty decades ago I watched a movie about this very sub. I don't recall what the title was. It was an interesting interpretation of its sinking.
I think they passed either from pressure of the blast, which could have pushed then Sub deeper then what it was intended for or CO2 build up. Just my opinion.
Since brass air canisters had existed since at least the 1700s I’m surprised they didn’t have some excess pressurized air to pump in & displace the CO2 saturated air for emergencies
She may not have sunk immediately... If she had, She would be in very close proximity to the remnants of the husitanic. If I had to guess, which we do... I would say the combination of the torpedo with the magazine, Was a much larger explosion than anticipated. Concussion kills.
Does killing its crews twice, sinking on its return and costing more to produce than the damage it caused the Union fleet count as "successful"? Only 5 men died on the Housatonic when it sunk, all the others survived. Most modern historians and researchers claim that the Hunley was probably sunk by the blast from its own torpedo as it hadn't distanced itself far enough when it went off.
TheIronDuke W.. Yes it does. The Hunley was a forty foot steam fitters boiler with eight men and a crank. The Union navy was close in so they could joyfully bombard downtown Charleston every day. Dixon was able to pilot the sub under the fleets security screen and lookouts and sink a full warship of the line. This took out dozens of siege cannon and also caused the fleet commander to pull his vessels further from shore out of the fear of losing more ships this easily. At their greater distance the effectiveness of the siege was reduced and required invasion plans to change and be severely postponed. Many many more amphibious Union casualties happened in the attempts to take the shore batteries around Charleston for a land assault (see 54th Mass Inf), as Sherman's Army was tied down at Atlanta in the summer of 64 and couldn't make it to the sea. So yes, tactically this was a great military success. There's more to counting than simply counting bodies. If the CS did not lose the two engineers of this effort in 64, they may have started producing more as Mobile, her railroads and the iron mills of Alabama would not fall until the very end of the war. However, lucky for the Union Navy, both Dixon and Hunley died.
That's a question that gets a different answer, every time you ask it. And the Hunley, killed it's crew 3 times. twice while it was still in testing, and it's final mission. Did it successfully sink a Union ship? Yes it did, but like you, I question if it can be called a submarine. A submarine is suppose to be able to surface also, as well as travel beneath the waves. Something the Hunley could not do.
zettle 234. Powered/controlled/sustained flight killed many more people in testing than it lifted by 1903, yet powered flight was a success. Yeah a couple of guys tried steam engine planes. In fact all these naval experiments by the Confederacy did, on their own merits, neuter the US Navy's invasion support in 64/65 in the ports of Charleston and Savannah and spread their blockade patrols wider, allowing in more runners. The US Navy was not able to steam into Savannah or Charleston before the Nov 64 elections as Lincoln had wished, because of batteries, floating ironclad gunrafts, and the fear of insidious secret weapons. The loss of the Housatanic was etched in their minds. They had to wait till the US Army broke through Atlanta and marched to the sea. If Mobile had built two more subs and kept them at Point Mobile then Farragut would not have made it into the Bay. Even at that it took almost a year to remove enough Raine's and Singer torpedo/mines to make his way up the bay toward Mobile (only 28 miles). That city fell two days after Appomattox CH surrender. Yes it was a sub. Ballast tanks, air pumps, diving planes, hydronamics and it did have the ability to dive and resurface, otherwise every test crew would have had a single trip. The test runs included sitting on the bottom for endurance and resurfacing.
I'm just going to say this. It was successful at sinking that ship, however. It was NOT successful at bring'ing its crew back from combat. That was a failure! That's just my opinion, it still a very interesting piece of history.
The machine was designed to deliver a weapon capable of sinking a warship. It was successful in its intended design. When a SAM takes out an aircraft ... is it a failure because it doesn't 'return home'? Was the aircraft lost to the SAM a failure because it also didn't 'return home'? Successful weapons don't always 'come back from combat'. That's not a 'failure' of the weapon system. ^v^
If a ship kills more than twice the amount of its own crew then the enemy... it is a failure. A missile or a torpedo doesn't fail when it doesn't return because it isn't *designed* to return. This wasn't a torpedo, it was a manned submarine.
Of course every naval historian knows that it was John Philip Holland's submarine that was the first modern, combat-effective submersible. The Hunley was primitive, couldn't even stay submerged for any considerable length of time. Which is why the US Navy never commissioned them after the war, and they never built another one.
colin martin. No, militarily it was a success. It took out a full ship of the line, not a little gunboat, and it required the Federal forces to completely rethink the capture of Charleston as the siege navy pulled away to deeper anchorage and out of effective bombarding range . That new plan killed thousands of Union troops in the amphibious assaults on the shore forts.
Successful 'pioneering invention' is often achieved in blood. Especially a military weapon of war. Should we not pursue technological advancement because we might get hurt or killed? ^v^
@@STho205 "No, militarily it was a success." You clearly know little about military history. Any submersible that can't stay submerged for a considerable length of time and can't bring a crew back safely is a failure. Which is why the US Navy never commissioned this design after the war - it'd be a waste of money. It was John Philip Holland who designed the first modern, combat-effective submersible that was commissioned by both the US and Royal Navy. Every naval historian is aware of this. The success of military technology is not entirely a matter of whether or not a weapon hits its target. If the tech is not safe to use, has a limited lifespan (the Hunley couldn't stay submerged for a considerable length of time), and is too costly to reproduce then it's a failure. A very simple test to determine the success of naval technology: Was it commissioned by the navy? No? Then it wasn't successful..
Dutch man Cornelius Drebbel made the first submarine 1620 The first submarine with engine was invented by a French man 1863 ;) The first air independent and combustion powered submarine was the Ictineo II, designed by the Spanish artist and engineer Narcís Monturiol 1864 ;D
+alec cooks There are a lot of firsts in the world. I'm proud to say we Southerners designed, built and piloted the first submarine to sink an enemy ship in battle.
The Turtle was the first submarine to ever actually fight, and the first to use a torpedo. Although it was more like a limpet mine, but called a torpedo
Why United States is wise than other countries??? They invented every technology first, rest of countries follow them. Technology made by United States:- 1) 1st Navy Submarine 2) 1st Navy destroyer 3) 1st Bulletproof vest 4) 1st Homing missile launcher 5) 1st Navy aircraft carrier & supercarrier 6) 1st Nuclear reactor 7) 1st Nuclear bomb 8) 1st BVR missile 9) 1st Stealth fighter aircraft 10) 1st Stealth bomber 11) 1st Stealth attack drone 12) 1st Pimp action shotgun 13) 1st Military armored vehicle 14) 1st Aeroplane 15) 1st Helicopter 16) 1st Revolver Thats why they are real superpower.
This was not "the first successful combat submarine". If that were true then the US Navy would've commissioned this design (after the war, of course), which they did not because it was primitive and ineffectual in combat - it couldn't even stay submerged for a considerable length of time. It was Holland's design that was the first effective, modern combat submarine.
That's not a submarine it's a submersible, a submarine can move under it's own power a submersible can not. All these examples need humans to move. The worlds first practical submarine was invented and built by John Philip Holland and was called the Fenian Ram.
Stupidly on your part the success was measured by the sinking of a 1260 ton new sloop of war which forced the Union to rethink their whole plans and they made history
The defenders of the ship must have fired on the hunley with all kind of weapons they had and must have created water seepage into the sub and diving to its death 💀!
Nope they only fired their rifle as their cannons were able to shoot it since it's underwater and the crew died because of the shock waves from the explosion
Thank you so much. For the scholars out there: what rpm would have been maintained at the crank and the screw?
Was it 1:1 or was it geared to increase the rpm of the screw? I am trying to work out how far the Hunley had to travel and how long it took to reach the Housatonic.
I've seen details about the crank and its a 1:1 rpm, it maintained about 4.6 MPH (while on the surface) so it must have been even slower under the water.
I’m going down to Charleston next week to see it! Civil war relic show takes place then as well!
@@samuelljackson3021 Yes, and it was a saturday, and they werent open that day to see it. Oh well.
"Five men had been killed, and the rest survived." Thank you for clarifying.
Those that survived were the men who had not been killed.
I believe the were 150 men and only 5 men died
Stupid comment.
@@ElBoxeo1 So those who indeed had been killed were not among the men who survived?
If I were them, I would have tried to modernize the Turtle submarine back then, since they knew how to chemically create more oxygen back then, and I imagine new advances in technology would make it much more effective at placing limpet mines.
At the very least, it would be cheap to make, and it technically did work design wise. Maybe as a short range defense to wreak havoc on any ships that dared get close to ports. It would also have been more effective back then because of how ironclads tended to be very low in the water, and were designed to protect their tops, but not their bottoms
Hard to imagine what the crew of the Housatonic thought when they saw that ripple of water and the object beneath the surface heading towards them.
Porpoise
The original means of propulsion envisioned by Horace Hunley was an 'Electro-magnetic' engine capable of yielding a much greater speed than 5 knots. He and James McClintock built one out of 'war-available' inferior materials designed to fit in the limited-space (small) engine room of the American Diver but it didn't produce the necessary power. Jules Vergne took this idea and created the Nautilus for "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea". If you watch the movie staring James Mason and Kirk Douglas, you'll get an idea (slower ... but still) of what the Housatonic crew saw and thought ... ^v^
I was a kid, about 50 years ago and watched a film about the Hunley. It seemed to sink over and over with all aboard dying but I sure remember the same guys cranking the propeller shaft. I'm glad it was found! Where I was stationed in Norfolk I would have had a ringside seat of the battle of the U.S. S. Monitor and the C.S.S. Virginia.
It was during the siege of Charleston on February 18, 1864 after the victory of sinking The USS Housatonic, the CSS H.L Hunley will sink too. The crew of CSS H.L. Hunley was Leutnant George E. Dixon, Frank Collins, Joseph F. Ridgaway, James A Wick, Arnold Becker, C.F. Carlsen, C. Lumpkin & Augustus Miller.
Private vessel not commissioned...H.L. Hunley is correct name.
I have so many questions... One how was the H. L. Hunley built? Did they have blacksmiths who shaped the metal to build it? Was it built in some kind of early factory? Seeing it was made of all metal it must have been extremely grueling and time intensive to build.
Next question: How did the crew even see? Did they have some kind of Lantern which they took on board with them? If so wouldn't it fill up quickly with carbon monoxide?
Third: How did the crew see outside the Sub?
Thanks for watching. If you are interested in learning more, we'd recommend The H. L. Hunley: The Secret Hope of the Confederacy by Tom Chafflin. Construction of the Hunley was well within the technological capabilities of the time - you can imagine that the parts that it required would be very similar to those used to build a steam boiler, a locomotive, or plates for the side of an ironclad. Although I do not recall the details, I suspect it was cast not forged. There was a small viewport for the Captain to look out of, but you can imagine that it would be quite hard to see anything, especially operating at night. Inside they burned a single candle, which would have provided a very dim light. The air inside the Hunley was certainly a big weakness. They had no external oxygen storage, so underwater they only could stay down as long as their air supply remained safe. Some have theorized that it finally sunk because the crew succumbed carbon dioxide poisoning. Perhaps carbon monoxide from the candle played a role as well.
John 3:16
New International Version
16 For God so loved(A) the world that he gave(B) his one and only Son,(C) that whoever believes(D) in him shall not perish but have eternal life.(E) 🙏
@@reclusiarchgrimaldus1269 Kind of spiteful that he only saves his creations which believe he exist isn't it? If you were god and you did all that they say why does it matter if your creations know your identity and if they don't do they deserve to burn eternally? I suppose I am not god so I can't say but burning eternally for not guessing a sky mans correct name and history sounds pretty extreme for a "loving creator"
Is 0:49 and 0:53 references to the Pacific Railroad?
Hey do he in bridge of Brunswick Georgia?? Awesome
It must have been forty decades ago I watched a movie about this very sub. I don't recall what the title was. It was an interesting interpretation of its sinking.
There was a series called, "American Heritage". The Hunley story was one of their episodes. ^v^
Forty decades?
Uhhhhh...Forty decades would be 400 years. Don't think you or the Hunley was around then.
He either means 'Forty' as a joke or made a typo of Four.
Hurrr durrr he said forty instead of four and I call him out on it.
Idiots.
I think they passed either from pressure of the blast, which could have pushed then Sub deeper then what it was intended for or CO2 build up. Just my opinion.
All submariners today serve on the shoulders of these men that showed them the way
Since brass air canisters had existed since at least the 1700s I’m surprised they didn’t have some excess pressurized air to pump in & displace the CO2 saturated air for emergencies
I was wondering if that’s what killed them, CO buildup.
Is that a shark?
Is that a whale?
No, it is the yellow submarine.
we all live in the yellow submarine yellow submarine 🎵🎶🎵🎶
Great vid , thanks
She may not have sunk immediately... If she had, She would be in very close proximity to the remnants of the husitanic.
If I had to guess, which we do... I would say the combination of the torpedo with the magazine, Was a much larger explosion than anticipated. Concussion kills.
Does killing its crews twice, sinking on its return and costing more to produce than the damage it caused the Union fleet count as "successful"? Only 5 men died on the Housatonic when it sunk, all the others survived. Most modern historians and researchers claim that the Hunley was probably sunk by the blast from its own torpedo as it hadn't distanced itself far enough when it went off.
TheIronDuke W.. Yes it does. The Hunley was a forty foot steam fitters boiler with eight men and a crank. The Union navy was close in so they could joyfully bombard downtown Charleston every day. Dixon was able to pilot the sub under the fleets security screen and lookouts and sink a full warship of the line. This took out dozens of siege cannon and also caused the fleet commander to pull his vessels further from shore out of the fear of losing more ships this easily. At their greater distance the effectiveness of the siege was reduced and required invasion plans to change and be severely postponed. Many many more amphibious Union casualties happened in the attempts to take the shore batteries around Charleston for a land assault (see 54th Mass Inf), as Sherman's Army was tied down at Atlanta in the summer of 64 and couldn't make it to the sea.
So yes, tactically this was a great military success. There's more to counting than simply counting bodies. If the CS did not lose the two engineers of this effort in 64, they may have started producing more as Mobile, her railroads and the iron mills of Alabama would not fall until the very end of the war. However, lucky for the Union Navy, both Dixon and Hunley died.
That's a question that gets a different answer, every time you ask it. And the Hunley, killed it's crew 3 times. twice while it was still in testing, and it's final mission. Did it successfully sink a Union ship? Yes it did, but like you, I question if it can be called a submarine. A submarine is suppose to be able to surface also, as well as travel beneath the waves. Something the Hunley could not do.
zettle 234. Powered/controlled/sustained flight killed many more people in testing than it lifted by 1903, yet powered flight was a success. Yeah a couple of guys tried steam engine planes.
In fact all these naval experiments by the Confederacy did, on their own merits, neuter the US Navy's invasion support in 64/65 in the ports of Charleston and Savannah and spread their blockade patrols wider, allowing in more runners. The US Navy was not able to steam into Savannah or Charleston before the Nov 64 elections as Lincoln had wished, because of batteries, floating ironclad gunrafts, and the fear of insidious secret weapons. The loss of the Housatanic was etched in their minds. They had to wait till the US Army broke through Atlanta and marched to the sea.
If Mobile had built two more subs and kept them at Point Mobile then Farragut would not have made it into the Bay. Even at that it took almost a year to remove enough Raine's and Singer torpedo/mines to make his way up the bay toward Mobile (only 28 miles). That city fell two days after Appomattox CH surrender.
Yes it was a sub. Ballast tanks, air pumps, diving planes, hydronamics and it did have the ability to dive and resurface, otherwise every test crew would have had a single trip. The test runs included sitting on the bottom for endurance and resurfacing.
@@STho205 Exactly
@@zettle2345 What?!?!? LMMFAO!
The Housatonic was the first enemy warship to sunk by a submarine attack.
best right
Why did the boat not have sat nav,radar,etc,,
I cant tell if you are joking or serious XD
They were so stupid back in those days
@@Xennialgirl thank you Capitan obvious
Dont be silly man!
I'm just going to say this. It was successful at sinking that ship, however. It was NOT successful at bring'ing its crew back from combat. That was a failure!
That's just my opinion, it still a very interesting piece of history.
The machine was designed to deliver a weapon capable of sinking a warship. It was successful in its intended design. When a SAM takes out an aircraft ... is it a failure because it doesn't 'return home'? Was the aircraft lost to the SAM a failure because it also didn't 'return home'? Successful weapons don't always 'come back from combat'. That's not a 'failure' of the weapon system. ^v^
If a ship kills more than twice the amount of its own crew then the enemy... it is a failure. A missile or a torpedo doesn't fail when it doesn't return because it isn't *designed* to return. This wasn't a torpedo, it was a manned submarine.
@@taproom113 that was a horrible comparison. A freaking SAM to the lives of those in a Submarine 😫.
@@memphis6694 lol right. What a psychopath. No regard for human life.. scary.
Of course every naval historian knows that it was John Philip Holland's submarine that was the first modern, combat-effective submersible. The Hunley was primitive, couldn't even stay submerged for any considerable length of time. Which is why the US Navy never commissioned them after the war, and they never built another one.
yep, shame it killed two training crews and the actual mission crew as well... that's not a success, that's a disaster !!
colin martin. No, militarily it was a success. It took out a full ship of the line, not a little gunboat, and it required the Federal forces to completely rethink the capture of Charleston as the siege navy pulled away to deeper anchorage and out of effective bombarding range . That new plan killed thousands of Union troops in the amphibious assaults on the shore forts.
It was a costly success, one that may have been avoided if they knew the crew would die
Successful 'pioneering invention' is often achieved in blood. Especially a military weapon of war. Should we not pursue technological advancement because we might get hurt or killed? ^v^
@@STho205 "No, militarily it was a success."
You clearly know little about military history.
Any submersible that can't stay submerged for a considerable length of time and can't bring a crew back safely is a failure. Which is why the US Navy never commissioned this design after the war - it'd be a waste of money.
It was John Philip Holland who designed the first modern, combat-effective submersible that was commissioned by both the US and Royal Navy. Every naval historian is aware of this.
The success of military technology is not entirely a matter of whether or not a weapon hits its target. If the tech is not safe to use, has a limited lifespan (the Hunley couldn't stay submerged for a considerable length of time), and is too costly to reproduce then it's a failure.
A very simple test to determine the success of naval technology: Was it commissioned by the navy? No? Then it wasn't successful..
Seems like a cursed ship after it sunk TWICE before it was successfully used
Dutch man Cornelius Drebbel made the first submarine 1620
The first submarine with engine was invented by a French man 1863 ;)
The first air independent and combustion powered submarine was the Ictineo II, designed by the Spanish artist and engineer Narcís Monturiol 1864 ;D
+alec cooks The first submarine to actually sink a ship in battle was the CSS Hunley.
+alec cooks There are a lot of firsts in the world. I'm proud to say we Southerners designed, built and piloted the first submarine to sink an enemy ship in battle.
Given that "you southerners" were fighting FOR maintaining slavery, there is little for you to be proud of.
The Hunley was the first combat-used sub in history
The Turtle was the first submarine to ever actually fight, and the first to use a torpedo. Although it was more like a limpet mine, but called a torpedo
The real 20,000 leagues under the sea
Exactly. Jules was obviously influenced by the Hunley's story. ^v^
cool
Since it sank, this submarine isn't successful, but a horrendous failure.
Why United States is wise than other countries??? They invented every technology first, rest of countries follow them.
Technology made by United States:-
1) 1st Navy Submarine
2) 1st Navy destroyer
3) 1st Bulletproof vest
4) 1st Homing missile launcher
5) 1st Navy aircraft carrier & supercarrier
6) 1st Nuclear reactor
7) 1st Nuclear bomb
8) 1st BVR missile
9) 1st Stealth fighter aircraft
10) 1st Stealth bomber
11) 1st Stealth attack drone
12) 1st Pimp action shotgun
13) 1st Military armored vehicle
14) 1st Aeroplane
15) 1st Helicopter
16) 1st Revolver
Thats why they are real superpower.
The United States before ww2.
England go brrrr
This was not "the first successful combat submarine". If that were true then the US Navy would've commissioned this design (after the war, of course), which they did not because it was primitive and ineffectual in combat - it couldn't even stay submerged for a considerable length of time. It was Holland's design that was the first effective, modern combat submarine.
Ah yes
The family of the doomed sailors wouldn't call the Hunley successful.
Why not attack a ship of the line?
What's your definition of a ship-of-the-line?
That's not a submarine it's a submersible, a submarine can move under it's own power a submersible can not. All these examples need humans to move. The worlds first practical submarine was invented and built by John Philip Holland and was called the Fenian Ram.
@@be.prepared.to.do.that. Of course how could I forget!
Well, when you count all failed attempts, money spent to rebuild henleys and people killed I would not necessarily call it successful.🤷♀️
"Successful"
It wasn't successful though all crew members died
That gold coin couldn't do it twice huh? Shame.
5 Federal sailors killed vs. 21 Confederate, seems a rather qualified" success at best.
Stupidly on your part the success was measured by the sinking of a 1260 ton new sloop of war which forced the Union to rethink their whole plans and they made history
The defenders of the ship must have fired on the hunley with all kind of weapons they had and must have created water seepage into the sub and diving to its death 💀!
Nope they only fired their rifle as their cannons were able to shoot it since it's underwater and the crew died because of the shock waves from the explosion
Hi my name Is Nesler Hunley
terrible accent of the speaker
Mostrichkugel Sounds like a normal American accent to me