Talk:Platoon

message: How is this article organised?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  structure 

message: There is no mention of how many vehicles an armored platoon consists of (seems to be a common problem with the "military organization" themed articles on Wikipedia). 
Anyway, I always understood a platoon to be about four tanks. I'm not sure if this is universally true or varied from country to country. Someone who knows, please respond so we can include that in the article. 71.32.252.114 (talk) 05:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armored units 

message: Sorry, but can someone please come along and remove the shoddy work done in the australian section?
It is not only incorrect, but very poorly written. the wording makes little sense and is outdated in many forms.
Im not a registered user and dont have the fully correct information, so I cant and wont edit myself, but attention should be draw to these errors  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.26.190.4 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australian platoon organisation 

message: platoon squad ≠ Zugtrupp. A "Trupp" is aequivalent to a fireteam not to a Squad.--WerWil (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany

message: "In Bangladesh Army infantry regiments, platoons are commanded by a major or a captain, assisted by two to four lieutenants (or combination of lieutenants and Junior Commissioned Officers) and at least two sergeants." 
Too many chiefs, and too few indians. Is this correct? 193.11.50.23 (talk) 14:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bangladesh 

message: I have reverted the incorrect edits to this section. Here are the salient points:
1) This section is written to directly compare and contrast the USMC rifle platoon with the similar US Army rifle platoon described in the section above. Generic platoons are addressed in the introduction section of the article. Thus the descriptor "rifle" platoon is correct.
2) The section is structured to parallel the description of the US Army rifle platoon by stating that the platoon is led by a "platoon commander" ("commander" vice "leader", is the correct style of the officer's title in the USMC) and that he is assisted by a platoon sergeant (staff sergeant, E-6).
3) Headquarters is plural (i.e., it has an 's' on the end). "Headquarter" singular (i.e., without the 's' is not standard or correct English usage in any US Armed Service.
4) The additional sergeant (E-5) in the platoon headquarters is officially titled "platoon guide", and he is the "assistant platoon sergeant."
5) The correct USMC abbreviation for the rank of Private is "Pvt" not "PVT"; that is why, in the rank description for the platoon messenger, I wrote it that way. (The Table of Organization calls for a private, however, it would not be unusual to have a PFC in this billet).
 
6) Rifle platoons "are" consist of three rifle squads is, of course, incorrect grammar, so I deleted your "are" and just restored it to simply say "consist" (deleting my original "usually.") [I originally had "usually" in a couple of places to acknowledge that there are indeed exceptions to the norm, however the Table of Organization for a USMC rifle platoon specifies three squads, as well as the ranks as posted herein for the platoon sergeant and platoon guide.]
7) Since I had already stated that the platoon headquarters (again, "headquarters" is plural) also includes a platoon guide and a messenger, and by definition would include the platoon commander and platoon sergeant, I did not reiterate it either when stating the composition of the platoon or at the end of the section, since again, in paralleling the description of the US Army platoon, I only listed the organic squads of the platoon. CobraDragoon (talk) 03:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  USMC Platoon 

message: Between company & batallion, kindly place:
contingency deployment (ambassadoral etal) 225?, and lower one infantry company to 120.
A contingency deployment consists of:
One infantry company                                    120
Mechanized infantry mechanical support (Carpool etal)     ??
Helicopter extraction & support                            3
Combat aircraft to support extraction                      2
Water landing & extraction craft                          ??
Intelligence personel                                     ??
Other maintainance personel                               ??
Cimic-support personel                                    ??
Civilian-support                                          ??
A Complete contingency takes into account extraction of all the above, but solely on the ambassadoral premisses, all other instances elsewhere having to be coped with distincly.
80 ambassadoral stations, therefore imply somewhere around a theatre.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.204.18.169 (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contingency deployment. 

message: Instead of using the awkward construct of "'S/he' is usually assisted by...", be clear and less awkward (& less senselessly PC) by starting the sentence with it's true subject... "The platoon leader", or something similar, OR combine the sentences. If an encyclopedia is anything like a contract, in general one doesn't want to pepper it's articles willy-nilly with pronouns, awkward or otherwise. I didn't read the entire article -- perhaps there are similar jarring pronouns elsewhere. Gloryroad (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platoon leader - S/he 

message: '...six Riflemen divided into two four-man fireteams' - this extract makes no sense, arithmetically; I assume it is meant to include the NCOs, but it's not very clear.
The entire article could do with a thorough overhaul.
Any takers?
RASAM (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  British organization 

message: The friendly infantry symbol is depicted incorrectly.  Only the rectangle itself should be blue. All other elements should be black.
source: B-GL-331-003/FP-001 p.1
131.137.245.206 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infantry Symbol wrong 

message: I propose merging Platoon (United States Army) into Platoon#United States.  There seems to be a lot of duplication and I believe the the additional information can be consolidated here.  Alternatively, we could move the details from here to the there and leave a summary: this might be a better way to avoid undue weight to the United States.  Either way, I'm going to start the discussion here as this is the more established and watched article. Crazynas t 09:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Reorganize rather than merge; agree to the suggestion of having a summary remain, but moving some of the material to the US-specific page. template:copied and its friends can be used. Klbrain (talk) 10:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

text: Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger Proposal