> A captain is given wide latitude in how to run His ship. Sure. On the other hand, an admiral is technically allowed to micromanage the ships under his comman

> A captain is given wide latitude in how to run His ship. Sure. On the other hand, an admiral is technically allowed to micromanage the ships under his command. They seldom do because it can lean to needless conflicts, hurt egos, etc. Which tend to make the fleet less effective. On the other hand, this would be a situation where SECNAV would be putting pressure on the admiralty to get this system into operation. I don't think back in the day a captain going "I'm not going to have my men use these new-fangled anti-aircraft weapons" would have gone over very well. Well this is not technically all that different. I do agree that sentence is probably overstating things a fair bit. In practice the captains would likely get pressured into using it by the admiralty, rather than actually removed. And to get court martialed for not using it would realistically require ignoring an order to use the system.