And again, I’m not going to try to change anyone’s opinion.
I do have an observation, however:
When was USN leadership ever perfectly competent?
In the Billy Mitchell days? Loss of dirigibles? Acquisition of Brewster Buffaloes? Planning Tarawa? Loss of the Indianapolis? Fires on carriers in the Vietnam War? Submarines surfacing under research boats? Main battery explosions on battleships that weren’t needed to go into battle?
When was the golden age of a perfectly competent captains and admirals? Or, are we grading on a curve?
The US Navy operates something over 400 ships, no clue how many aircraft, another pile ashore, and the premier special forces units in the world. And they do most of this with a workforce that started no experience and in their early 20’s.
I am fully aware of what you were saying but you have to spell it out for the general readership.
RNZN matelots may be the exemption to the rule here with many having a background in hunting.
Except that the USN is not a law unto itself. The people pay via their taxes to support a vast organisation which they want to both see and know is doing its job professionally. The USN relies on the confidence of the people so the people ultimately will take a view prompted by the media reports. The USN doesn’t send its message well if it tells the public “we just changed our minds” without saying why.
The sort of all-encompassing reason for his removal ie “loss of confidence” is the sort of expression used when they want to cover something up. It is used in every such sacking but all the ones I’ve read about explain why.
Have to disagree with the number, which includes MSC vessels, not just commissioned ACTIVE DUTY. That number is closer to 251, according to Military dot com. [excludes logistic & support vessels]
Fires on carriers, subs, and main battery explosions are hardly under “NAVAL LEADERSHIP” at the higher levels being discussed. The sub captain was informed by his sonar man “no surface contacts”, and the BB gun explosion was because the “rammer” used the high-speed projectile setting to ram the powder causing the explosion. Fires on carriers? Happened pretty frequently in WW2 & Korea too. High intensity combat operations - shit happens. [Not trying to change your opinion, either]
Some gunners mate mounted the scope. . No doubt razzing the old-man. [I’d wager the sailor, his LPO, his CPO, his DIVOFF, and DEPT Head are all butt-sore about this. . . Unless the CO was a total …
In all honesty, the first time I looked through an LPVO it was also through the wrong end too…
Habit of using standard hunting scopes, I guess.
But you would think someone trained in the use of “weapons of war” would know better than an untrained civilian, he has the training and looks well seasoned…can’t be his first time shouldering a rifle…
What also bothers me (probably irrationally) but honestly just as much, is how far back that Foregrip is mounted, what’s the point?
If it weren’t 5.56 he would probably have nice bruise from the corner of that stock digging into his shoulder, thank God for buffer tubes.
I’m no pro by any means and have never served, but even I can see this guy is poorly trained in the use of a very much standard M4.
However the article doesn’t say this was the reason he was relieved specifically. I can imagine a culmination of other issues of poor leadership.
…