Talk:Platoon

structure

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

Armored units

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)

Western tank platoons consist of 4 tanks, and armies based on the soviet model tend to have 3 tanks in a platoon.Montizzle (talk) 16:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the mid-1980s, US Army tank platoons have consisted of 4 tanks with four crew members each. Tank platoons in the US Army, since this structure was implemented, are 16 soldiers including a single officer (a 2nd Lieutenant, usually, though sometimes a 1st Lieutenant) as Platoon Leader and 15 enlisted soldiers. Of the 15 enlisted platoon members, there is (doctrinally) one E-7 (Sergeant First Class) Platoon Sergeant, two E-6 (Staff Sergeant) tank commanders, four E-5 (Sergeant) tank Gunners, and eight E-1 through E-4 (PVT through SPC) occupying loader & driver slots on the four tanks. Aramis1250 (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Australian platoon organisation

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 the wording makes little sense and is outdated in many forms.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)

Germany

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

Bangladesh

"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)

USMC Platoon

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)

Contingency deployment.

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)

Platoon leader - S/he

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)

Agreed; and I have changed it to read "The officer" vice "S/he." (Fellow editors: enough of the vacuous PC editing, please. When specifying sex does not add to an article, nor detract from it when sex is not specified, perhaps we can agree to understand that it usually includes both male and female persons.) CobraDragoon (talk) 22:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

British organization

'...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)

Infantry Symbol wrong

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) soldier learning all this at Camp Aldershot

Size of a platoon

The article's introduction states that "typically a platoon consists of around 40 to 50 soldiers," while the table of the right lists the typical size of a platoon to be 15–30, quite a big difference! Which one is correct?

–Tommiie (talk) 21:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are several inconsistencies in Wikipedia among various articles re the size of specific military units. However, I have edited this article to say, "U.S. infantry" regarding the "40 to 50" number. The problem here (and elsewhere) is that as a platoon is usually a sub unit of a company-level unit, the number of members varies widely based on many factors. Those factors include (in addition to period, e.g., U.S. Civil War, World War I, modern era, etc.): the (1) nation, e.g., British Commonwealth, French, U.S., etc., (2) service, e.g., British Army, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps, etc., (3) arm or branch, e.g., infantry, tank/armor, cavalry, artillery, etc., (4) specific type of unit, e.g., U.S. Army light infantry, airborne/air assault infantry, mechanized infantry, Stryker infantry, Ranger infantry, or Marine infantry. Each of those factors must be considered before one can arrive at the correct answer for the numbers of members, as well as for internal organization, weapons/vehicles, for each specific type of platoon.

While most people are probably more interested in the number of members in an infantry platoon, one must understand that there are many different types of platoons, including several different iterations of infantry platoons (e.g., rifle, mortar, heavy machine gun, etc.), and each one will have a discrete size and internal organization. For example, a modern British Army rifle platoon consists of 28 soldiers organized into a platoon headquarters and three rifle sections of eight men each, while a U.S. Marine Corps rifle platoon consists of 43 Marines organized into a platoon headquarters and three rifle squads of 13 men each. Some platoons in U.S. Army use have as few as nine soldiers (i.e., communication platoon in the headquarters and headquarters company (HHC) of an airborne/air assault infantry or light infantry battalion), while the maintenance platoon in the HHC of combined arms (e.g., tank and mechanized infantry) battalion contains 102 soldiers.

The table at Military organization#Modern hierarchy generally provides more accurate numbers than does the table entitled "Military organization" posted on the right side of the article. (That table appears to me to be British/Commonwealth/European-centric as U.S. organizations, particularly in the U.S. Marine Corps, tend to be somewhat larger on average, than those posted.) CobraDragoon (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the very thorough explanation! Given the vastly different numbers (e.g. nine vs 102) what determines the platoon? Clearly it is not the size of the unit. Is it then the rank of the leader, i.e. when an NCO is the commander, it's called a squad or section (regardless of size, 8-14) but then the commander is an officer, it's called a platoon (even if the same size as a squad)? –Tommiie (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Tommie, I can only speak with authority on U.S. use in this matter as other nation's militaries may have different requirements for determining whether a particular unit is a platoon. However, with that caveat, yes, one determinant factor is the rank of the senior member. The platoon is the first-order sub unit of a company, battery, or troop (again, in U.S. use) and is charged with performing a major function of its parent company-level unit. For example, in a rifle company, the primary mission is to employ infantry weapons (primarily rifles) in combat, so it's four first-level sub units are three rifle platoons and one weapons (i.e., crew-served weapons) platoon, and each platoon is commanded by an officer, usually a second or first lieutenant.

In the example of the 102-man maintenance platoon--that platoon is in the HHC of a combined arms battalion. The HHC, in addition to containing the battalion headquarters, provide various support functions to the entire battalion. In addition to the aforementioned maintenance platoon, there are a support platoon (i.e., supply, motor transport, armory, and dining facility), a communications platoon, a medical platoon, a scout platoon, and a mortar platoon. So, those sub units are all lead by an officer as they are first-order sub units of the company and charged with performing one of the primary functions of that company. Similarly, the nine-man communications platoon in the HHC of a light infantry battalion, while very small, is a first-level sub unit, performing a primary function, and is commanded by an officer.

Now, the officer in charge of a platoon is not always a lieutenant. A platoon, depending upon size and function, may be commanded by a captain (with a lieutenant as the assistant platoon commander), or, especially in the case of highly specialized maintenance (e.g., electronic equipment repair) and technical units (e.g., radar or cyber operations), the platoon may be led by a warrant officer. (Note that U.S. warrant officers, unlike every other nation of which I am aware, are a separate class of officers, ranking below "traditional" officers, viz., lieutenants and above, and are not senior enlisted members, nor are they included in the "Other Ranks", or the NATO "OR" category, as are, for example British Commonwealth warrant officers.)

In conclusion, to be a platoon, three factors must be considered: (1) is the unit a first-level sub unit of a company-level unit, (2) charged with performing a major function of the parent company/battery/troop, and if so, (3) that sub unit will be designated as a platoon and have an officer as its commander. CobraDragoon (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

what date???

This article seems to be all over the place in regard to dating... starts from 1700 and jumps to 1980 for some country and 1913 for another... what meaning can possibly have to compare things so separate in time???

I suggest to split it at the very least into three segments: prior to WWI, WWI to WWII (included), post war to present.

As it is, it is just confused and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baueda wargames (talk • contribs) 13:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Time and place (country etc) both make a huge amount of difference. Putting the two variables together, I’d say a swamp beckons! - with the whole article becoming a soggy vague mess of a matrix. To avoid that, I’d tentatively suggest using the word itself, platoon, and its history, as the organising principle? (As a more-or-less linear organising thread, I mean: I’m not suggesting converting the article into a treatise of etymology - or a dictionary entry!) Presumably the term started off as French - most military terms in English did - and then entered (British) English . . and then US English? or did it enter US English direct, in, say, the Revolutionary period? The Brits will have applied it to the British Indian Army too, of course; and since then the word no doubt appears as a translation of various foreign-language terms . . that might be the easiest way to organise it all. Otherwise, it seems likely different cultures’ differing conceptions will overwhelm the reader with apparent contradictions. (Example: the US concept seems to be about function, where the Brits are more into the rank of the commander (who would have guessed?!  ;-) )

Of course the other important thing to consider is sources! - how do *they* organise the topic??

– SquisherDa (talk) 18:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Platoon (United States Army) into Platoon#United States for duplication, short text and context. Klbrain (talk) 08:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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)

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)

• Support. There's absolutely no need for a separate article. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

UTC)

• Support merging the US platoon page into the generic one. The reverse wouldn't be appropriate, this isn't the US WP. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 23 October 2023 (UTC)