Absolutely, but that's not what this subthread is about. It started with zerr saying:

> With all due respect, this is coming from a Win32 API C programmer who happens to save the code in files with .cpp extension. In other words, not familiar with modern C++.

Edit: Ah, you said "know enough about modern C++", so yes, I agree and was arguing in the wrong bit of the thread.

If you're commanding officer orders a bayonet charge in the late 19th century it is safe to say they don't understand the change rifles have brought to the fight. Reference Picket's charge.

I was saying a commanders accuracy with a rifle isn’t relevant to their ability to decide tactics or strategy.

Nothing you’ve said contradicts what I said.

But the commander hasn't tried a machine gun and thinks that a bayonet charge will still work like it did before.

Don't you have that the wrong way round? In this tweet, Russinovich is arguing for the newer thing, not the older thing. The comparison would be the commander saying use a machine gun and consider bayonets obsolete, and the commenters who haven't used a machine gun are saying "he hasn't enough experience with modern bayonetting to say that, modern bayonettes wielded by sufficiently competent bayonetters are as good as any machine gun".

And then other critics saying "Russinovich hasn't demonstrated skill with a machine gun so how can he say bayonettes are obsolete?"

Or, the commander thinks that in an age of drones and cruise missles, bayonet charges don't make sense even if the bayonet is now attached to a machine gun.

And then the commander goes all in on that strategy, enemies knock out communication networks / find a drone counter measure, and now enemies have a decided advantages because they kept bayonets on their machine guns.

Aren't soldiers typically issued submachine guns? (That's what SMG is short for, isn't it?)

I think they might have been going for the ludicrous image of sticking a bayonette onto the front of a fixed gun emplacement.

It’s relevant. It’s harder to accept and follow a leader that can’t aim and shoot.

>He doesn’t need to be fluent in every language to set technical direction as a CTO.

No, but he does need to "know enough about modern C++ to make the statement that we’re discussing".

>You don’t question a general’s war strategy simply because they aren’t accurate with a rifle.

Thing is in this case their advice regards the rifle.

Right. So the general says we should use a different weapon. That’s fine. It’s also fine to question if that strategy makes sense.

It is nonsensical to say “the general can’t hit a moving target with the old rifle, so he should say nothing at all about weapons”. Which is what the person I replied to said.

The point the person you replied to was making was that him being CTO didn't add much credibility to his claim as you seem to assume by bringing it up, not that it necessarily removed credibility.

You should if the general came up during the flintlock era and now everybody is using machine guns. Plenty of people in World War 1 would have benefited anyways.

I could throw a bunch of examples further. For instance how the changes made to rifles because of what Generals thought their engagement ranges would be hampered the western forces who had to fight in Afghanistan.

You should also be skeptical of a General who suggests we go all in on Drone Warfare and not worry about rifles at all.

TLDR, person in a strategic role is rarely the best to assess tactical tools, and will often attribute strategic failures on their tactical tools.