Talk:Pontoon bridge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bridges (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bridges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of bridges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Seattle area[edit]

Someone may want to mention why there are so many floating bridges in the Seattle area (and the one on Hood Canal). From what I understand, the only problem with floating bridges is that they aren't good in turbulent water. Lake Washington is unique in that it is relatively calm, extremely deep, very long but relatively narrow, and that two major cities lie at opposite sides of it's narrow axis. This makes it a perfect fit for floating bridges. The hood canal bridge is similar, though I would think the tides would affect it.--drew1718 13:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also part of the Lacey V. Murrow bridge and the Hood canal bridge have sunk in the past.--drew1718 13:53, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why not be that someone, drew1718? :) --Lukobe 17:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Tides are no more disruptive to the Hood Canal bridge than changes in lake level are to the Lake Washington bridges. Note that hood canal tides are not particularly large and that being a deep and relatively narrow glacial gouge that winds do not raise large waves as they do in more shallow inland waters such as in some of the Great Lakes. The most likely destructive scenario would be due to tsunamis generated by earthquakes, but these would be more likely to affect locations near Olympia, at the shallow ends of both Hood Canal and Puget Sound. Leonard G. 23:31, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I might take you up on that Lukobe, I've doing a lot of research on it, but it's more specific to the floating bridges in Washington state. Thanks Leonard, I had thought that the lake bridges and the Hood Canal bridge where engineered in a similar way. But, I now know that the Hood Canal bridge is actually supported by columns on top of the pontoons. However, the most likely destructive scenario (naturally occuring at least) is a large storm, as they've sunk two of the floating bridges already. --drew1718 20:19, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)


not sure if all floating bridges are pontoon bridges, otherwise I would post my photo of the Eastbank Esplanade in Portland, Oregon. Cacophony 00:12, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pontoon bridge?

Looks like a pontoon bridge, Cacophony. --drew1718 12:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Pontoon bridgeFloating bridge – Not all floating bridges are pontoon bridges, but floating bridge redirects to pontoon bridges. There probably is not enough material to have a separate article, so I suggest that the name be changed to floating bridge and that content about other types of floating bridges be added. Pontoon bridge will redirect to floating bridge. See this for a previous discussion. -- Kjkolb 02:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • Oppose. I might be looking at this as Churchill said of Chamberlain view of foreign policy "through the wrong end of a municipal drain", but an article on pontoon bridges is useful for military articles. I would suggest that you break the floating bridge sections out of this article into a new one and keep the article pontoon bridge less the sections on floating bridges if you think that there is enough material for a floating bridge article. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

I forgot to check back here before the discussion was already closed. It seemed to be closed pretty rapidly, too, about 4 days. I did not want to mess with the "closed" section above, so I am putting my response here.

I think that I should explain better (it is perfectly reasonable to disagree with my position, but I think I may not have explained it very well). Pontoon bridges are a subtype of floating bridges, but almost all floating bridges are pontoon bridges. There is a section in the article called "floating bridges", but it is just examples of bridges and all of them are probably of the pontoon type. The way that Wikipedia defines "pontoon" means even things like log bridges might be classified as pontoon bridges. The only floating bridges that are definitely not pontoon bridges that we could come up with are bridges supported by hulls - kind of like lining up a bunch of boats and constructing a roadway over it. I don't think that we could make an article bigger than a substub about floating bridges if pontoon bridges are not included. Therefore, I suggest that the name of this article be changed to floating bridges. Except for the introduction, the rest of the article would be the same, except a small section for non-pontoon floating bridges would be made. Pontoon bridge would then redirect to floating bridge. Here is an example edit to show how the article would be changed. It was just a rough edit and I forgot to put in that most floating bridges are pontoon bridges, but hopefully you can get the idea.

An article on floating bridges could be beefed up if we limited what is defined as a pontoon. Other sources don't seem to have the same definition that we do. They seem to only include completely enclosed, watertight compartments, particularly rigid ones. Wikipedia includes "solid lightweight materials", so basically anything that floats becomes a pontoon, like styrofoam and wood (which are sometimes used for bridges). There is also the question of whether watertight compartments that are not rigid, like rubber and plastic bladders, should be called pontoons (I don't know if they have ever been used for bridges, though). -- Kjkolb 12:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

First Pontoon Bridge in Combat: Dispute[edit]

The information in the 'Military Bridges' section stating that the first pontoon bridge to be built in combat was in Iraq is not correct. The reference cited for this is a photo journal of soldiers present in Iraq which actually states that it was the first time an Assault Float Ribbon Bridge was installed in combat. There are at least two references I found on the web referring to pontoon bridges built under fire over the Rhine River in World War II where engineers were killed. One reference is a summary of a published book, one is somebodies recollections. The latter mentions the former. See First Across the Rhine:The 291st Engineer Combat Battalion in France, Belgium, and Germany and William F. Tompkins, Jr. Bridge respectively. There are also mentions in various sources of the Germans in the advance through the Netherlands and Belgium during the beginning of the war, and of the Russians crossing the Volga river during a major battle. Considering the long history of this bridge type, the claim that the first time one was constructed during combat was in the 21rst century is pretty much just that. No doubt it was made by someone who is justifiably proud of their accomplishments. However given the evidence, it would indicate that the Assault Float Ribbon Bridge is the first time this 'type' of pontoon bridge was built in combat. This should be clarified and if someone thought it worth the effort, it should be moved to a different section.

Actually, this wasn't even the first in combat. I'm not sure if this is the first, but the pontoon bridge built over the Rappahannock River during the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862. This was a pontoon bridge built while those building it were under fire. I think that would mean it was a "Pontoon Bridge in Combat" at the very least. Leobold1 (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


I justa added more info about China.--PericlesofAthens 16:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet/Russian PMP[edit]

I've thrown up a few referenced facts about the PMP pontoon bridge at talk:Tank#Water operationsMichael Z. 2008-05-28 15:13 z

Battering Ram[edit]

Battering Ram

The Battering Ram was a weapon used by Edward the First's army. He used it to fight againest Scotland in the Scottish Wars of Independence. It was about 1296 when it happened —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

The first sentence of the article reads:

A pontoon bridge or floating bridge is a bridge that floats on water, supported by barge- or boat-like pontoons to support the bridge deck and its dynamic loads.

The word supported and support are repetitive. I think a proper re-write would be:

A pontoon bridge or floating bridge is a bridge that floats on water and in which barge- or boat-like pontoons support the bridge deck and its dynamic loads.

If nobody objects to such construction I will make the change in a couple of days. --LE (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[edit]

For the image of the bridge of boats from the Akbarnama see the whitelist talk (talk) 22:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Additional image information[edit]

On Infobox image:

  • [[File:US Army crossing the Rhine on treadway bridge at Worms, March, 1945.png]]

Bridge was built by the 85th Engineer Heavy Combat Battalion on March 26, 1945, 200-feet downstream from the demolished Ernst Ludwig highway bridge. It was named the Alexander Patch Bridge after the Seventh Army commander, General Alexander Patch. A stone tower of the former bridge is visible on the opposite bank.<ref>Beck, Alfred M., et al, ''The Corps of Engineers: The War Against Germany''‎, Center of Military History (U S Army), 1985 []</ref>

M4 Floating Bridge information[edit]

Here: Bridge floating M4 Wikiuser100 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pontoon bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Invention or innovation?[edit]

Two Dutch inventors from Leyden, Samuel van Musschenbroek (1640-1681) and Willem Meester (1643-1701) are known as inventors of iron pontoons. Imho they were innovators, although they got their product patented. They both aren't mentioned at all. (talk) 02:57, 15 October 2016 (UTC)