Talk:USS Sealion (SS-315)

Why did this page get moved from USS Sealion (SS-315)?
 * Because its official navy designation was SEALION II. My godmothers father was its first commanding officer, I have plenty of memorabilia from it showing "Sealion II" not "Sealion".  ALKIVAR &trade; 17:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Talk:Eli Thomas Reich:
Also, while there's a little confusion about whether the ship's name is Sealion or Sea Lion, e.g., there's no source I'm aware of that gives her name as Sealion II. Indeed, off the top of my head, I can't think of any USN ship with an ordinal number. The only such are things like HMS King George V, where the number is part of the namesake's name. &mdash;wwoods 17:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The ashtray sitting currently on top of my monitor shows "USS Sealion II" clearly. I can find you a few sources that refer to it as the Sealion II if you'd like, (see top of page),  (21 November 1944: The KONGO and the URAKAZE are sunk by LtCdr (later Vice Admiral) Eli Reich's USS SEALION II (SS-315).),  ... thats 3 do I need to provide you more?   ALKIVAR &trade; 18:13, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * How odd. Okay, make that "I can't think of any [other] USN ship with an ordinal number."


 * There certainly isn't any concensus in favor of Sealion II. The Naval Vessel Register, DANFS, the (a?) website for the ship, subnet.com, navsource.com, and fleetsubmarine.com all call her Sealion, though the last has a " (2)" to indicate she's the second of that name. I suggest that while some people called her Sealion II--presumably because Captain Reich was a veteran of the first Sealion--and that name made its way into some accounts and reports, that doesn't make it the correct, official name.
 * &mdash;wwoods 19:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well the first link I posted as 'proof' if you will is from the navy.mil domain. I guess we should just agree to disagree then.  ALKIVAR &trade; 22:11, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd think the NVR trumps the Keyport museum. I'd rather put the page back and add something like "..., also called USS Sealion II, ..." to the introduction. However...

Amusingly, while googling, I found the Navy is acquiring an indisputable SEALION II, as part of its "WOLFPAC Initiative": High-Speed SEALION is Slated For Transformational Experiments


 * I guess if you want to move it back I wont make any objections, as long as it specifies in the intro its also known as the Sealion II.  ALKIVAR &trade; 02:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

SST?
It would be nice if it gave any info as to why they thought a sub would be a useful troop transport. Unless they were intended to sneak companies of SEALs past enemy patrols to raid islands, or maybe as an unlikely last-ditch way to transport a handful of troops to Europe in case the Soviets cut the sea tracks, I can't imagine any reason that a cramped ship holding only 123 men would make any sense as a transport. It'd probably take 1/2 as much fuel to travel 1,000 miles as a ship carrying ten or twenty times the troops on board. Also, a little while later it says 'it was redesignated a Sub, Transport', and then another paragraph down 'it was re-designated a transport submarine', It seems to suggest these are two separate events, but confirmation and/or explanation would be nice. If it is just saying the same ting twice, it needs to be cleaned up.

70.20.53.170 (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)