Talk:Salients, re-entrants and pockets

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met This article is not currently associated with a task force. To tag it for one or more task forces, please add the task force codes from the template instructions to the template call.

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

[edit] Merge of motti

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)