Talk:Salient (military)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Orienteering (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Orienteering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Orienteering articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. You can also take a look at articles that needs improvements.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

2005[edit]

Any particular reason why this belongs in military tactics? I thought a salient et al was a feature of battlefield geography. Geoff/Gsl 07:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, a salient isn't a tactic per se, but this is a topic in the subject of tactics, just like encirclement, enfilade and defilade, and flank. I think the second and third paragraphs of the article explain why. A salient isn't a geographic feature like a hill or a defile. It's a shape in the front lines. It is created by and affects the tactical situation, and informs the two sides' commanders' tactics. Michael Z. 2005-03-15 14:49 Z
I don't agree... but then I don't disagree enough to argue. Geoff/Gsl 00:26, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay, but please explain what you disagree with. I'd like to convince you, or update the article so we're all happy with it.
That a salient is not a geographic feature? WWI trench warfare was so static that sometimes a salient could become a persistent map feature, especially if it corresponded with defensible terrain. Michael Z. 2005-03-17 15:57 Z

Merge of motti[edit]

An separate page exists, describing a Motti, which appears (and purports) to be exactly the same thing as a pocket. Motti appears to be a borrowed foreign word (In exactly the same way as 'Kessel' is, which is dealt with here). Any objection to merging motti in, to treat it in the same way? Dybeck 13:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, Support, keeping all the signifigant terms for pocket in the same place will give the term better visability and reduce linkages.--Dryzen 14:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I've done it. Any post-merge objections, please post them here! Dybeck 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Open ground attacks[edit]

My understanding of the term motti (quite recent and from an American documentary) was that it was a tactic used to entrap an enemy column of tanks and other vehicles travelling though forest roads. But the article refers also to "enemy restricted to open terrain". This last point I do not understand. I can understand how armoured vehicles can be trapped on a forest road, but not how it is done in open terrain. Surely that is much more difficult. How for example was this done in the conflicts of 60 years ago?--Hauskalainen (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Motti has key differences and should have its own entry.[edit]

I can appreciate the idea of combining like military tactics or maneuvers into one discussion. However, while the motti has some points in common to this discussion, I think it has some key distinctions from this discussion as a whole. The terrain and circumstances was different; as I understand it, like much of the Finnish defense in the Winter War, was not a conventional warfare tactic but at least often was more of a guerilla tactic for the vastly outnumbered Finns,e.g., for the Finnish light ski troops on the Raate road. I hope some Finnish historians who really know this stuff see my remarks and respond with an opinion. I would be willing to re-establish this as its own article, although I think a cross-reference and link between the two articles would be welcome. Paavo273 (talk) 02:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) Paavo273 (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Hegdehog defence[edit]

Isn't a hedgehog position like Demyansk during the winter 1941-42 a sort of pocket, or a motti? And wasn't the U.S. defence of Bastogne during the German Ardennes offensive a hedgehog defence? Pål Jensen (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Awkward article title – Fixed[edit]

This is essentially a title made of three article names. The policy outlined at WP:COMMONNAME literally spent paragraphs trying to set out how editors should pick one name for an article that should have multiple names. Moreover, the last name in the tile of this article, "pocket", is not even directly related with the other two. Pockets don't always form from salients and reentrants. Many times, units get overrun so quickly that a defined salient is yet to materialize by the time they get fully encircled. And then what about bulge? It isn't even mentioned anywhere in the lede, or in the title (since we are already in the business of mentioning everything that is relevant to salient). I suggest a simple title change to Salient (military). EyeTruth (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've moved "pocket" into its own article. EyeTruth (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The move has been implemented. "Salients, re-entrants and pockets" moved to "Salient (military)". EyeTruth (talk) 03:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)