Talk:Beachhead

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

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 not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Maritime warfare task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

I think we should merge the beachhead, bridgehead, and airhead articles into lodgement, since all are basically the same thing, just different subtypes differed by how they're conquered. Night Gyr 02:54, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are not the same thing and the tactics and methods of fighting them are different. For example see the difference between the use of airheads by the Chindits and the French at Dien Bien Phu. This is very different from the use of an airhead in Operation Market Garden, which was of course a bridehead. --Philip Baird Shearer 23:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward number[edit]

Two famous examples in which the attackers failed to expand their beachheads before the defending side could bring up reinforcements ...

Probably the attackers should be singular here, to match the singular defenders (or is the attack always plural, for reasons of morale?).

To my eye the plurality here resides exclusively in more than one example being given, unless the engagement itself has a plurality of attackers or a plurality of defenders (but isn't that nuance too complicated to express in rolled up form?) — MaxEnt 15:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]