This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Sure there was still a role for cavalry as mounted dragoons or scouts in WW1 and WW2 but real European doctrine was theorizing actual cavalry charges with lances and sabers.
I'm pretty sure the real European doctrine for cavalry units in WW2 was to use them as mounted infantry units that dismount and shoot guns during combat.
(The infamous failures of Polish cavalry charging at tanks supposedly didn't actually happen, though they did charge at some infantry formations a couple of times, to mixed results.)
To be more specific, IIRC aftermath of what was used in German propaganda was case of Polish cavalry demolishing German infantry with an actual charge and in turn being demolished by German tanks that arrived later.
BTW, Germany also had frontline cavalry units in WW II.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
WW1 on Eastern front and 1920 war between Poland and Russia had actual cavalry charges with lances and sabers (and guns).
(in the 1920 it worked so well that it contributed both sides to overvaluing cavalry, though neither was planning* to charge tanks with them by the time of WW II)
*or actually charging
More options
Context Copy link
Because that did still work in the previous wars where automatic weapons were bulky crew served emplacements. During the Franco-Prussian war heavy cavalry still did its intended saber charge role at times using smoke cover and violence of action to make movement and concealment nullify firepower.
The thinking was that the trend would continue with minor adjustments.
A potential analog today is the ever prophetized death of the tank and armored offensives. In the face of top easily available countermeasures. People said the prevalence of ATGMs would sunset the tank and it did not, so now we expect that the prevalence of drones won't, but maybe we are all insane and the future will regard armored offensives by Russia and Ukraine as doomed follies.
My point is, it's hard to judge the past decision makers honestly without tainting it with our knowledge of the outcome.
And sometimes what becomes the conventional wisdom also goes too far. Bayonet charges have in fact decided some battles in the Falklands despite expectations for instance. Despite both belligerents having access to vastly more sophisticated weapons than spears.
ATGMs have countermeasures, you can have active defences or redesign armour to resist them better. Drones have countermeasures, you can cover the tank in add-on armour like we see in Ukraine. Or redesign the tank to be more well-rounded in its armour rather than so frontally-focused. You can add ECM, some microwave widget, have defensive drones.
But you can't redesign heavy shock cavalry in the same way. You can add more armour but the horse biology and blade technology hasn't advanced significantly for ages.
During the Franco-Prussian war cavalry charges did occasionally work but at great cost. Since there were no further advances in cavalry but great advancements in rifles, artillery and machine-guns (and accompanying tactics, indirect fire and entrenchment) then traditional shock cavalry was foreseeably obsolete.
Likewise, if drones turn into autonomous AI death swarms with tandem warheads, doubled range and halved price while tanks remain fundamentally in the 1980s, then it would be all over for heavy armour. But that won't necessarily happen since we know the tank has all these opportunities to adapt that cavalry lack.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link