This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles

Shipwrecks Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shipwrecks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of shipwreck-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShipwrecksWikipedia:WikiProject ShipwrecksTemplate:WikiProject ShipwrecksShipwreck articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shipwreck-related priority open tasks:

To Do

Lady Elizabeth (1879)
- Clean up typos Currently working on it-----Completed!
- Improve grammar
- Add any additions if needed Still adding more information
- Discuss desired additions -None

Military history: Maritime / North America / United States / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force
	World War II task force

Update

Untitled

Updated the page with new info regarding the finding of the USS Grunion. 3D Design 00:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, ton

The page says "1526 tons". How sure are you it's long tons? I'd guess displacement tons. Also, I added "(two 126-cell Exide main storage batteries)"; any comment on including this on every wartime U.S. sub's page? Trekphiler 09:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, ship displacement is measured in long tons; more recently, metric tons are used. WeeWillieWiki (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Web site" not clear

Reading this for the first time, it sounds like the DOD and the surviving sons' search is based on some web site information, which is otherwise unobtainable. The wartime records of the Japanese Navy were surely in allied hands following the occupation of Japan...? The sons, the DOD, etc. never talked to this Japanese man who published the information on his web site? I really don't follow what is going on here and I think it could use a little cleaning up. Afabbro 07:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having stated that a Japanese researcher knew what happened, the story tails off. There is no succinct explanation of what the Japanese actually knew. The description of what happened to the submarine is speculation, possibly based on an analysis of the wreck.203.184.41.226 (talk) 21:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At What Depth?

It would be nice to clear this up. I've found sources for both 1000 feet and 1000 meters. Nothing in the New York Times, one of the few newspapers that still employs fact checkers. There are more google hits on "1000 feet" but they all seem to originate from a single AP story by Jeanette J. Lee. Older stories by the same author, from the initial sighting in 2006, use the 1000 meter figure.

The "Search For The Grunion" blog at ussgrunion.com uses the 1000 meter figure, so I'm inclined to believe that. I'm going to add these source and revert the article to meters but I would welcome more discussion. Rees11 18:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Great-uncle went down on this ship. I actually asked this question, and was told that the information was being withheld to prevent scavenging of the remains. Lynn (SLW) (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Two possible explanations"

The article says there are two possible explanations for the sinking, but later on only one is given. 68.156.95.34 (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This review of the cited book questions the author's conclusion that the sub was sunk by a circling torpedo http://www.navyhistory.org/2013/07/book-review-fatal-dive-solving-world-war-ii-mystery-uss-grunion/. Not my area, but if this is reasonable criticism, I think it would be more helpful to include more than one interpretation. Brennalhughes (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]