Navy commander relieved of duty after photo showed him firing rifle with scope backward

Whiskey_iicarus , 2 hours ago

Is anyone replying in this thread a US military armorer? I’d love to know who gave him the weapon with the sight installed backwards. I was never allowed to touch an installed optic other than to sight it in. I was never in the US Navy, but in all my training I never got a class on anything but an iron sight for the M16, M4, and M9. How would someone who isn’t a master at arms and probably qualifies on a weapon once, maybe twice a year going to know that someone else installed the sight on his weapon backwards? You don’t even know that it was his issued weapon and not someone else’s who also shot with it backwards.

asmoranomar , 1 hour ago

All valid concerns, but the fact is if you accept the weapon and anything happens, you are at fault.

We’ve had people get issued, and immediately, check and clear their weapon in the presence of an armorer in the bucket, and get in trouble for it misfiring, despite the fact that it should have been checked and cleared prior to change of hands and in addition to the fact that you hadn’t been issued ammo yet. It’s dumb, but people die over this, so they are very strict, even when it sometimes seems unnecessary.

Whiskey_iicarus , 1 hour ago

Nothing happened, and nothing could have happened other than him missing a practice target by a mile. It doesn’t even show him aiming at something in particular, just looking down the barrel. Ammo can kill you, not having a working optic is not a safety issue no matter what direction it’s installed. Did he check the chamber to see if there was a round? Did he flag any other sailors? Did he keep his weapon pointed down range? Every single person around him let him shoot the weapon like that, they obviously didn’t feel too unsafe to be around him. None of them even seemed to noticed it was on backwards either. How can you tell it’s backwards from this picture of him?

DrBob , 2 hours ago

I’m not a marksman by any means, but shouldn’t the buttstock be in the pocket of his shoulder? It looks like the recoil from the next shot will send that thing flying backwards

Badabinski , 2 hours ago (edited 2 hours ago)

If he were shooting something bigger than 5.56, then you'd want to try to seat it more firmly in your shoulder. An AR-15/M16 generates pretty negligible recoil, so it's fine. I used to compete in across-the-course service rifle when I was much younger (before I grew up enough to realize I hated the culture in that community), and I'd have the butt even higher up in my shooting coat's shoulder if I needed to do so in order to get a good cheek weld. At a glance, his technique looks okay. I've no experience with the front grips like that (my AR-15 had no rails for mounting shit), but the rest of his stance seeeeems okay.

I'm guessing that he was a dipshit in other ways and this bad publicity brought the other badness to light.

Death_Equity , 1 hour ago

You can shoot an AR-15 pattern rifle, including the military versions, with the stock up against your nuts and it won’t hurt. The recoil is very low because the power is very low and the system of operation absorbs a lot of the energy, combined with the weight of the rifle means it is soft shooting. The stock doesn’t need to touch your shoulder for you to be accurate with effect out to 50 yards or more so long as you do your part.

Honestly, just having it pulled against any part of your body with a decent view of the sight is enough to ring steel or put holes in paper.

mosiacmango , 3 hours ago

What a wildly stupid reason to remove someone from a command post. This is something that should have been met by a jokey meme, not relieving him from duty.

shoulderoforion , 3 hours ago

you command one of the most destructive forces ever devised by man, if you're dumb enough to make the mistake of accepting a lethal weapon without inspecting it, it can be assumed you do that with all things. this is just not embarrassing, it goes to show what this man is able to miss, and naval command doesn't want someone like that at the helm of one of their destroyers. it's an easy call.

mosiacmango , 3 hours ago

You think they shoot rifles off that thing? Not even a little bit.

He’s not in a role that would ever wield a rifle in a realistic scenario. It’s not part of the Navys standard training for sailors or officers either. If you ever have to fire a gun in the Navy, you’re already deeply fucked. You tend to shoot things with lot more range off a ship, and most aren’t something you can sling over your shoulder.

It’s no different than a marine commander standing at the helm backwards or a high ranking army officer having a life jacket on backwards. Its a simple error borne from inexperience, not incompetence.

tal , 2 hours ago (edited 2 hours ago)

If you ever have to fire a gun in the Navy, you’re already deeply fucked.

I mean, I don’t disagree with the broad point that it’s unusual, but…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Buckley

On 22 April 1944, she joined hunter-killer Task Group 21.11 (TG 21.11) for a sweep of the North Atlantic and Mediterranean convoy routes. The ship was west of Africa near the Cape Verde Islands in May.[1] In the early morning of 6 May, aircraft from the escort carrier Block Island (CVE-21) reported an enemy submarine approximately 20 miles from Buckley. The ship steamed toward the U-boat at full speed. Meanwhile, U-66 had exhausted supplies and surfaced to recharge batteries and waited for a supply ship. At 0308, believing the approaching ship was German, U-66 launched three flares. The distance between the two vessels was 4,000 yards when the U-boat realized the actual identity of the ship approaching them.[1]

U-66 fired a torpedo, which Buckley dodged. The sub fired machine guns at the destroyer escort which returned fire with three-inch guns hitting the submarine’s forecastle. Buckley then unleashed all its weapons on their target, repeatedly striking the conning tower as the sub backed away and fired another torpedo, which the Buckley avoided.[1] At 0328 Buckley rammed the German submarine U-66 and the two vessels were briefly locked together. Some members of the German crew exited their burning boat, and hand-to-hand combat ensued using small arms and whatever weapons were at hand (such as coffee mugs and shell casings). The Buckley backed off, but the submarine pursued, striking the Buckley on the starboard side at the engine room. The collision also broke the ship’s starboard propeller shaft.[1] The U-66 disengaged and slowly backed away, but not before hand grenades were thrown into the gaping hole in the flaming conning tower.[1] The submarine sank at 0341 in 17°17′N 32°24′W.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Borie_(DD-215)

During her fourth patrol, Borie got a radar contact on U-256 shortly after 1943 hours, 31 October and closed in. The U-boat promptly crash-dived. Two depth charge attacks forced her back to the surface, but she again submerged; after a third attack, a large oil slick was observed. Though U-256 made it home badly damaged, Hutchins believed the target to be sunk, and signalled Card: “Scratch one pig boat; am searching for more.”

Borie then got another radar contact about 26 miles (42 km) from the first, at 0153 hours on 1 November 1943, range 8,000 yards (7,300 m) and charged in to engage.[5] At 2,800 yards (2,600 m) radar contact was lost, but sonar picked up the enemy sub at about the same time. Borie engaged U-405 (a Type VIIC U-boat) hours before dawn, at 49°00’ N., 31°14’ W.[5] There were 15-foot (4.6 m) seas, with high winds and poor visibility. The destroyer initially launched depth charges, after which the submarine came (or was probably forced) to the surface. Borie then came about for another attack, engaging with 4-inch and 20 mm gunfire at a range of 400 yards (370 m).[5]

The sub’s six 20mm autocannons scored hits in the forward engine room and several scattered and harmless hits near the bridge, and her deck gun crew traversed their 88 mm (3.5 in) gun and took aim for their first shot at Borie’s waterline; but Borie’s 20 mm gunfire killed every exposed member of the sub’s crew topside, and a salvo of three 4-inch shells then blew off the sub’s deck gun before it fired a round.[5] Borie then closed in and rammed U-405, but at the last moment, the submarine turned hard to port and a huge wave lifted the Borie’s bow onto the foredeck of the U-boat.[4]

After the ramming, Borie was high-centered on top of U-405, and until they separated, exchanges of small arms fire took place. This was a unique battle: unlike most other modern naval battles, it was decided by ramming and small arms fire at close range. Borie’s 24-inch spotlight kept the submarine illuminated throughout the following battle, except for brief periods when it was turned off for tactical reasons.

The two ships were initially almost perpendicular to one another; as the battle progressed, wave action and the efforts of both crews to dislodge from the enemy ship resulted in the two vessels becoming locked in a “V” for an extended fight, with the U-boat along Borie’s port side. The two ships were locked together only 25–30° from parallel. The action of the seas began to open seams in Borie’s hull forward and flood her forward engine room.[5] The submarine’s hull, made of thicker steel and sturdier beams to withstand deep diving, was better able to handle the stress. Hutchins reported later, “We were impressed by the ruggedness and toughness of these boats.”[6]

Normally, in a surface engagement, the superior armament, speed and reserve buoyancy of the destroyer would have been decisive. But in this unusual case, the destroyer was unable to depress her 4-inch and 3-inch deck guns enough to hit the sub, while all of the submarine’s machine guns could be brought to bear. One or two 4-inch gun crews attempted to fire, but their shells passed harmlessly over the target. Borie’s crew had a limited number of small arms, however, and the German deck mounts were completely open and had no protection. The executive officer had presented a virtually identical situation during drills on 27 October – a theoretical ramming by a U-boat on the port side – and as a result, after the ramming, Borie’s crew took immediate action without orders.

In the extended and bitter fighting that ensued, several German sailors were killed in desperate attempts to man the submarine’s deck weapons. As each man emerged from the hatch and ran toward the guns, he was illuminated by Borie’s spotlight and met by a hail of gunfire. Borie’s crew engaged the enemy with whatever was at hand: Tommy guns, rifles, pistols, shotguns intended for riot control, and even a Very pistol.[5] Borie’s executive officer and a signalman fired from the bridge throughout the fight. One German sailor was hit in the chest with a Very flare. One of the Oerlikon 20 mm cannon was also able to fire.[5]

Borie’s crewmen could clearly see a polar bear insignia painted on the conning tower and the three numerals of the submarine. The bow of the sub had been badly damaged by the depth charges and she was unable to submerge. U-405’s deck armament was extensive: in addition to the 88 mm gun, she also had six Flak 38 autocannons, in one quadruple and four single mounts. These weapons would have been devastating to Borie’s exposed crew if they had been continuously manned. Occasionally, a German crewman would reach one of the Flak mounts, and open fire briefly before he was killed. Other German sailors kept up a sporadic small arms fire of their own from open hatchways.[4]

There are also cases where Navy personnel have had to fight on land, like at Wake Island:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Wake_Island

Also present on the island were 68 U.S. Navy personnel.

Not the US Navy, but one important battle the US fought in the War of 1812 that I can think of off the top of my head had British forces at the Battle of New Orleans. This had a a significant set of unusual combatants on each side; the Americans had a bunch of militia and volunteers from the town who showed up, as well as a pirate and his forces, and the British made use of some Royal Navy sailors:

en.wikipedia.org/…/New_Orleans_British_order_of_b…

Naval Brigade of 100 sailors from the fleet, in combat, commanded by Rowland Money of HMS Trave,[31] who participated in the attack on the west bank of the Mississippi.[14][32][15] Casualties 8 January: Royal Navy casualties were two dead, Captain Rowland Money and 18 seamen wounded.[4]

mosiacmango , 2 hours ago

Nothing wrong with the history lesson, but to be clear most of that was 80+ years ago, or in some examples 200+ years ago. Y’all talking about uboats and the war of 1812.

Modern naval war is fought at the 10 to 100s of miles range, if not thousands in the case of some terrible, terrible armaments in some of the boomers. Hand gun battles are just not realistic instances in the modern world of naval warfare.

It’s a bit akin to why the Navy also barely teaches you how to swim. You get one 30 min class in boot camp, and literally no refresher courses or further training ever. If you have to swim in the modern Navy, you are already dead.

givesomefucks , 2 hours ago (edited 2 hours ago)

You think they shoot rifles off that thing? Not even a little bit.

It happens.

Big ships will set up ranges where the backstop is the ocean, little ones throw buoy targets off the side and shoot them.

Like, it’s not a daily thing, but if you’re out to sea long enough it’ll happen

givesomefucks , 3 hours ago

It’s never one thing.

The picture brought attention to him, and most Captain’s have done some shit. When they’re out to sea they’re pretty much the final authority. Like no one is ever going to hear about what they do from UCMJ cases.

Until something like this. Then you have an investigation and they look thru everything and talk to everyone.

That’s what gets them kicked out.

hddsx , 3 hours ago

Firearms are a responsibility not a joke.

mosiacmango , 3 hours ago

He didn’t point it at anyone, or act irresponsibly. He had the scope on backwards and didn’t realize it. He wasn’t joking around or mocking weapon safety.

If anyone is, it’s the Marines and other detractors making fun at his expense that are treating firearm safety as a joke. Should they be relieved of duty?

asmoranomar , 3 hours ago

It was also a relief of command, not a court martial, not non-judicial punishment, not a demotion or and not a punitive action. It happened because it affected the image of the force, but not necessarily anything that is terribly bad. Relieving someone of command can be a precaution or a temporary measure, not always leading up to anything drastic. He will probably get additional training and a small mark on his record that will go away in a short time as long as the trend doesn’t continue. He may even still get to keep his command or just move somewhere else to command.

mosiacmango , 3 hours ago

No, it is not as severe as NJP or court martial, but being relieved of your command during a deployment overseas is a very serious reprimand for someone at an O-5/O-6 level. Its a statement that the wider command does not trust in your ability to lead during combat maneuvers, which is your entire role at that level in your career.

It is likely that this ends his career, not that he’s just allowed back. I would expect “voluntary” retirement at a minimum.

asmoranomar , 2 hours ago

We’ve had similar incidents with weapon safety (and other things) in the past that were more serious than what was going on in that picture. It all depends on the circumstances, and I’ve seen it go both ways. The point I was making is if there was anything more substantial, it would not just be ‘relieved of command’. No mention of an actual reprimand, which is more serious. I’m not saying it couldn’t ultimately lead up to that, but we don’t know that yet.

snooggums , 1 hour ago

The Navy said Yaste was relieved of duty “due to a loss of confidence in his ability to command the guided-missile destroyer” that’s currently deployed in the Gulf of Oman. The statement didn’t elaborate about why Yaste was replaced.

I expect it was something other than the picture due to the four month gap, but the pic could be part of an overall pattern of incompetence.

mosiacmango , 1 hour ago

See, that’s an interesting take. This guy might have been a fuck up in some other way and this gave the Navy an easy exit for him.

Just being sidelined for a gun scope being incorrectly configured in a picture? That would be a wild over reaction.