[xzins]

That is a training and assignments issue. The reports of an undermanned Navy are being used as an explanation for these destroyers hitting tankers.

However, if it was fully manned, then manning was not the issue.

FWIW, I know some extremely bright motor pool NCOs, and the logistical side of the army is the most important. Can’t fight if you’re out of bullets.

But even an 18 year old flunky on watch can see an approaching tanker.

I’m thinking there was no physical watch.

[TXnMA]

My experience was in the USAF, where "motor pool" is a low-grade support, function -- historically manned by the very bottom of the AFQT score distribution. However, the origin was incidental; the academic performance of the NCOs was demonstrably abysmal -- even when "carried along" by the "whiz kids". The huge error was placing both groups in the same class: the "whiz kids" knew that their future "leaders" had all flunked the 4X accelerated electronics course -- but were "given a pass" "to attain full manning" (i.e. "body count"). [Classification concerns preclude further discussion...]

Re the USN incidents: we completely agree on our shared concern that there apparently were no (or, insufficient -- or, worse, ignored) "Mark One eyeball-brain sensor systems" in action!