Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: lasala@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Steve LaSala)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII Submarine Navigation and Attack Terminology
Message-ID: <1990Sep28.014452.13995@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 28 Sep 90 01:44:52 GMT
References: <1990Sep24.002015.24721@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: Cornell Univ. CS Dept, Ithaca NY
Lines: 16
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: lasala@svax.cs.cornell.edu (Steve LaSala)
In article <1990Sep24.002015.24721@cbnews.att.com> r_anderson@flyppr.enet.dec.com writes:
>
>1.  When a target's bearing is "marked" through the periscope,
>is the angle relative to submarine (0 degrees being the bow, 180
>degrees being the stern), or relative to the "true" geographic
>course?

	Early in the war, targets were described by relative bearing to the
observing ship.  This caused confusion in some of the battles in the
Solomons, when sightings giving relative bearings were radioed to ships not
facing the same way as the one doing the observing.  Subsequently, all
bearings were given relative to the earth, though whether magnetic or
geographic I don't know.  Did they have gyro-compasses yet?