# Redcoat dress uniforms



## nbk (26 Dec 2003)

I recall seeing some troops that were wearing extravagant looking red uniforms with black pants, and I was wondering who gets these? All the other times I have seen troops in dress uniforms, they have been those black ones, which are alright, but not nearly as slick.

I believe they may have been from 2RCR, but I am probably mistaken.

Are different regiments issued these sexy reds and if so, when are they issued out (after which training)?

Are any Combat Engineer regiments issued these?


----------



## patt (26 Dec 2003)

the red coat and black pants are the mess kit. They can wear them to mess dinners insted of the other uniform they have!


----------



## Garry (26 Dec 2003)

and they‘re issued to anyone that has 500$


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2003)

He is not talking about Mess Dress, he means the scarlet Full Dress uniform.

Any infantry regiment that can afford it can wear it, conceivably.  I‘ve seen Regular Force guards wearing them, especially for Royal visits.  The Camerons of Ottawa also have scarlets.

Interestingly, when the PPCLI guarded Buckingham Palace a few years ago, they did so in standard CF uniforms - aside from the band and the Corps of Drums, I‘ve never seen PPCLI in scarlet uniforms.

Some units wear the green doublets, which became standard in the British Army when scarlets became unobtainable except for Guards regiments.

Those commands and units that descend from the old Corps and Services would conceivably wear dark blue Full Dress but I don‘t think any of them bother.

Armoured regiments also wear blue Full Dress; I‘ve only ever seen the band of the Royal Tank Regiment(British Army) and the band of the King‘s Own Calgary Regiment (RCAC) wearing this uniform, with chain mail on the shoulders.

Again, it‘s a matter of money.

It used to be that Infantry of the line were identifiable by the scarlet jacket, which was worn for all occasions, including combat.  Hence the traditional use as a full dress uniform.  Aside from the Camerons of Ottawa, and perhaps one or two other wealthy regiment, probably the most commonly worn scarlet tunics would be drummers in Highland pipe bands.

Rifle regiments, of course, would wear dark (rifle) green as opposed to scarlet.


----------



## pvandoremalen (26 Dec 2003)

Short cut red tunics with black paints are an officers mess dress for formal functions. Also the Royal Regiment of Canadas band is outfitted with a similar and uniform and the 48th Highlanders have a scarlet tunic for Regimental dress. Those are just the ones that I know of off the top of my head. So if you want to wear jammy uniform like that your going to have to be the officer type.   :mg:


----------



## muskrat89 (26 Dec 2003)

It‘s been awhile, but I think RNBR has them.


----------



## GGHG_Cadet (26 Dec 2003)

I know the Horse Guards have the full dress uniform but it‘s mainly dark blue not scarlet. My RSM (cadet) will occasionaly wear a set that our corp acquired some time ago.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2003)

Martin, only the INFANTRY  wear scarlet, so it does not surprise me that the armoured regiment you discuss wears dark blue.

No matter what colour it is, it is referred to as FULL DRESS or CEREMONIAL DRESS.  It is not the same thing as Mess Dress, for those who are still confused.


----------



## luck881 (27 Dec 2003)

You‘re right muskrat89, atleast 1RNBR wears the scarlets (with white pith helmet and blue ribbon) as part of summer guard in F‘town... I‘m not sure about 2nd Bn, but I‘m sure they have it, or maybe even some of them come down the river for summer guard.  And I think I‘ve seen the RCD‘s wear scarlets too, if I‘m wrong someone correct me please


----------



## luck881 (27 Dec 2003)

Crap! now that I think of it, the Signals traditonal uniform is the scalets too!  Thanks to Mr. Bruce Carruthers and his cavalry heritage.  All topped off with the black bucket, I forget the real name, maybe Padraid Ocinnead could help me out here...


----------



## pvandoremalen (27 Dec 2003)

Are you reffering to your head dress, is that along the same lines as the RMC head dress not the pith helmet but the cepet. Something like that, its some ridiculous French word.   :soldier:


----------



## luck881 (27 Dec 2003)

it came to me in a dream... I‘m a light sleeper I guess, the "Busby" is what i was thinking of, a ridiculous looking hat, literally shaped like a furry bucket.  It‘s different from the winter RMC hat, that would be the furry wallet, and their dress uniform headdress you‘re thinking of is alot smaller than the busby is but I guess it‘s similar.


----------



## axeman (27 Dec 2003)

The Strathcona mounted platoon  wears scarlets also. 
 :fifty:


----------



## luck881 (27 Dec 2003)

Maybe they‘re (the Strats) who was thinking of instead of the RCD‘s.


----------



## Slim (27 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> [qb] Martin, only the INFANTRY  wear scarlet, so it does not surprise me that the armoured regiment you discuss wears dark blue.
> [/qb]


Mike I‘m gonna call you on that point...The Lord Strathcona‘s Horse ( Royal Canadians), the western reg force armoured regt. has a ceremonial mounted troop that dress in scarlets.
They are decended from the RCMP. When they were raised by Donald Smith ( Lord Strathcona) the majority of the men came from the NWMP, including the unit‘s first C.O. major Sam Steel.
It‘s no surprise that they wear the scarlet uniform. Almost identicle to the RCMP except for the hats.( the Strats wear pointy helmets). 

Check out their web page.
 http://www.strathconas.ca/History/history.html


----------



## Soldier of Fortune (27 Dec 2003)

Is everybody talking about the red uniforms with the big bear fur type hat or the little RMC type hat? From what I‘ve seen the Pioneers wear the dress with the big bear hats and the red tunics but I‘ve also seen the R 22 at the citadel (in Quebec City) wearing the same thing. And I know RMC wear red tunics also with the little dink hats.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Dec 2003)

RCDs also wear scarlets as well if not then I was colour blind when I wore them lol and Slim we wore the same "pointy hats"


----------



## Recce41 (27 Dec 2003)

Heres the low down. ALL units have Scarlets, Blues, Greens. IE, RCD, LDSH wear Scarlets, Hussars Blues Cape style. QORs Green although they are look Blue. Rifle Regts are to wear green. Wind R, BCD etc wear Patrols. They are the Chain Mail type. Highland unit wear any type. I wore them with both the Hussars and RCD. Also pickup "uniforms of Commonwealth Regts" it covers all older type unit dress. The dress is the same worn upto the 1890s. Watch the movie ZULU, Charge of the LT Bge,etc. Head dress also depends on unit. They can be made of Cotton/Poly blend or Doe Skin. Doe Skin go for about 1500$ plain. The Brass helmets are 500-800$.
 The RCMP ride came from the RCD/GGHGs. NOT the LDSH. It was handed over to them in 39. These were the two Royal Cav Regts back in 1939, they were the escort to the King and Queen. 
 The stort jackets IE Mess Dress. Are not just for Officers. NCOs wear them also. But they cost from 1200$ for cotton Poly blend to 2400$ for Doe Skin. Mine cost me 1800$ for Doe Skin in Cyprus. My Father worn two typs. The Patrols and Red Prince Charles type. I was offered 2000$ for his Patrols. Due they are Doe shin handed down from my Grand Father.


----------



## Slim (27 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] The RCMP ride came from the RCD/GGHGs. NOT the LDSH. It was handed over to them in 39. These were the two Royal Cav Regts back in 1939, it escort the King and Queen.
> [/qb]


I don‘t recall saying anything about where the musical ride came from. If you had taken the trouble to look at the link that I put up, you will see that the LDSH came from members of the RCMP. The first commanding officer of the Strats was a guy named Sam Steel who was also a member of the NWMP when he went to Africa with the regt to fight in the Boer war.
Hence our similer dress.
As to the RCD wearing similer hats, sorry I wasn‘t aware of it having never seen the RCD on parade.
Clear it up for you there Recce 41?


----------



## Recce41 (27 Dec 2003)

Slim
 Just slow down. No link came up? As you being in for 7 yrs Reg. You should have known about the Brass helmets. There are many posters running around of both Regts. If you read my profile. I‘m not a new guy, there is a few here that know me. You can ask ARG, RG, BZZ, etc


----------



## Slim (27 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] Slim
> Just slow down. No link came up? As you being in for 7 yrs Reg. You should have known about the Brass helmets. There are many posters running around of both Regts. If you read my profile. I‘m not a new guy, there is a few here that know me. You can ask ARG, RG, BZZ, etc [/qb]


I don‘t doubt what your experience is...I‘ll send you an e-mail privately so we can clear this up and move on.
Stand by!


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Slim:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


No need to check out the web page; I‘ve been to many functions where the Mounted Troop of the Stratchcona‘s were in attendance, as well as the the Regimental Museum many times.  You are, of course, correct.  I was thinking of the uniform of the Royal Tank Regiment and other armoured units that wear the chain mail and dark blue/black uniform - forgot completely about the mounted police and Canadian horse units!

Obviously, a complex subject.  Good catch.


----------



## Slim (27 Dec 2003)

Thanks Mike
Hopefully you‘ll keep me "honest" when I need it!
Slim

Someone can call me on this but I seem to recall the 8 CH wearing a dark blue uniform for their cerimonial dress...I know it‘s been said...Don‘t everyone yell at once.       :blotto:


----------



## Recce41 (27 Dec 2003)

Slim
 The Hussars wear Blue Cape and Buzby. I wore the **** things, back in my Hussar days.  :evil:    :tank:


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2003)

I think I‘ve seen reference to the "pillbox" hat here (the one they wear at RMC) - I believe that is the commonly used name for it - no idea what the proper designation is...


----------



## Recce41 (27 Dec 2003)

It called a Buzby. But the Hussar one has a Hungerian name. I will find it out and post it..


----------



## Slim (27 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> [qb] I think I‘ve seen reference to the "pillbox" hat here (the one they wear at RMC) - I believe that is the commonly used name for it - no idea what the proper designation is... [/qb]


I‘ve dug around some and can‘t come up with another name for it anywhere. If I do I‘ll let you know.


----------



## luck881 (27 Dec 2003)

I think Light Infantry Soldier had it right but maybe it‘s the "Kepis" like in the civil war... The Busby is completely different, if you all don‘t mind ‘till after block leave I‘ll get a digital pic and post it, it‘s not the same hat as RMC wears, they might call it the busby, but it‘s not the same hat...


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2003)

the black and yellow ones are what I call a "pillbox".  This is definitely not a busby.






This is a busby.


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Dec 2003)

Well let‘s throw a another wrench into to work‘s.

As Mike stated due to lack of money.

 Engineer‘s would still being wearing the Scarlet with Pill Box Cap‘s,Dark Blue Breach‘s
(with calvery stripe on the side of the leg) with Spur‘s.F‘n smart kit if you have the money!!!


Mess dress for Of.and Snr.N.C.O.‘s is Scarlet Tunic with dark Blue Breach‘s and boot‘s with Spur‘s!


----------



## Spr.Earl (28 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
> [qb]
> 
> 
> ...


Mike I belive what is called a Busby is what is worn by the G.G.G. and the Regiment of Guard‘s in the U.K. made form Canadian Black Bear Skin.

What you have shown is a Hussar or Cavelry Chapaue?Which is not a Busby as I know it.

Coerrect me if I‘m wrong.


----------



## nbk (28 Dec 2003)

Wow thank you for answering my query with such straightforward and non conflicting replies.

First of all that picture of the chaps with the swords that Mr. Dorosh posted is what *I* was referring to. They are lovely, no?

Let me see if I can get all this information squared away:

As an NCM I may, or may not be able to buy one, as my regiment is likely too poor to issue them to me (if I as an NCM are to be issued them at all).

If I am allowed to buy a set, they will cost me between $500 and $2400.

I may get yelled at if I ever wore it because I could be seen as impersonating an officer.

They may be made of poly/cotton, doe skin or kryptonite.

Poor me I just wanted to looks spiffy if I ever went on Letterman...


----------



## nbk (28 Dec 2003)

Ohh and those white Pickelhaube‘s are real nice looking as well.


----------



## meni0n (28 Dec 2003)

Emm? My regiment haven‘t issued me DEUs yet. Too sad.


----------



## luck881 (28 Dec 2003)

Mike, you got it, that‘s the busby(2nd pic)I think the RMC hat is the Kepis (pillbox)... Btw, don‘t the RCR‘s wear the same helmet as you show in that pic?


----------



## Recce41 (28 Dec 2003)

Spr Earl
 You found the name for me. Thanks. We in the Hussars called the helmet a busby. The British Hussars call it that. The RCRs wear the British Boer War expedition Helmet. I have just started to colect WW1 and earlier uniforms. Right now I collect WW2. They are cheaper.


----------



## axeman (28 Dec 2003)

Kepis are like the pillbox except with a small brim . the FFL. wear them  used to be able to see them with a cloth on the back to protect the nape.
  :fifty:


----------



## Recce41 (28 Dec 2003)

I have the most of complete rundown. 
Chapnue : Earl we were both wrong. This is the French word for the helmet. Worn by early Carabiners/Lancers. 
Vlanta/ Attila: short Hussar Tunic.
"Busby": British Hussar Helmet
Kaskett: east Europe Hussars Helmet
Pelisse: Hussar Cloak
Tarleton: Dragoon/Lancer tall brass or leather Helmet.
Dolmon: Hussar long heavy jacket
Great coat: well we all know this.
Tunic: British Jacket worn by all.
Kempy Southern French wording: the helmet or hat worn at RMC, can be with or without neck cover or peak. (Pill box) given by the British, these were issued to soldier when they were in the pill box. Due the tall hemlets could not be worn.
Wolseley: the first version is as RMC picture (white). Second version is what the RCR scarlets wear. These were designed by Gen Wolseley in India. The first were issued with or without spike. 
 There are more but this covers in away Regts of Canada. This is from Uniforms of Great Armies of the World (Gallery Books). The dates I cover are 1780s-1890s. This covers British armys. The book is from the 1500s to modern day. There are West and East European names for kit. If anyone needs more just E mail me. Like I said, I am starting to collect earlier kit. If anyone collects early kit. Give me a mail. Mike I know you collect WW2. I am looking for another WW1/1880 tunic. 
 There is a WO that collects Germain 1880-1919 kit. But I‘m looking for British. 

    :evil:        :tank:


----------



## Meridian (30 Dec 2003)

As for Scarlets....

RMC wears them, the Governor General‘s Foot Guards wear em (they are a staple on parliament hill during the summer) and they are an ARMY officer‘s mess dress (tuxedo style).


----------



## Rick Goebel (31 Dec 2003)

I just noticed a site with very detailed info on "what the unit would wear if the unit had full-dress".  For almost any unit I have personal knowledge of, the information seems to be correct.  The main exception is the Royal Highland Fusiliers which are shown with blue facings rather than the crimson and buff we wore when I was in.  They weren‘t, however, Royal then and they are now.  Perhaps blue is the correct colour now.  As far as blue "dress" uniforms go, most units had an "undress" or "patrol" (slightly lower) order of dress that was generally dark blue (or in the case of most Highland Regiments, dark green).  I think that this site is worth a look for anyone actually interested in this topic:  http://www.telusplanet.net/public/dctiegs/2002/regiment.html


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] I have the most of complete rundown.
> Chapnue : Earl we were both wrong. This is the French word for the helmet. Worn by early Carabiners/Lancers.
> Vlanta/ Attila: short Hussar Tunic.
> ...


Recce41 you forgot the Cardigan!


----------



## Recce41 (31 Dec 2003)

Cardigan, is not listed as issued dress. I have gone through most my books of uniforms. Only Cardigan that is listed is Sir Cardigan. The Charge of the LT Bge,Cardigan.


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Dec 2003)

On the right track.    
I posted it as you listed part‘s of old Uniform‘s around the World.


----------



## Recce41 (31 Dec 2003)

I checked it because some commanders dressed their own troops. Smart A55. IE Wellington, had all his staff officers wear a low boot. Called of course by the name Wellies. And we all miss things.


----------



## Recce41 (31 Dec 2003)

As for the picture, is that a lil hottie in the middle? HAHA.


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] I checked it because some commanders dressed their own troops. Smart A55. IE Wellington, had all his staff officers wear a low boot. Called of course by the name Wellies. And we all miss things. [/qb]


Yes your right,Lord Cardigan dressed the Light Brigade.
The Cardigan was the waist jacket worn ever the left shoulder in Light Cavelry Reg.‘s.

In the U.K. a button up sweater is still called a cardigan.

As for Blondie I‘ll hold comment as I‘ll get in trouble    But Numm Nummm Numm


----------



## Recce41 (31 Dec 2003)

Earl
 The cloak/jacket was called or may have been called a Pelisse or a Vlanta/ Attila also.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Dec 2003)

Great link, Colonel Goebel....!!!


----------



## Spr.Earl (31 Dec 2003)

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] Earl
> The cloak/jacket was called or may have been called a Pelisse or a Vlanta/ Attila also. [/qb]


Yes with other Countries.

But with in the Brit.Light Cavelry it was and is known as a Cardigan.

As far as I know.
Correct me if I‘m wrong.


----------



## Recce41 (31 Dec 2003)

Thats why I posted was or may! These names came from the British pages.


----------



## Spr.Earl (1 Jan 2004)

> Originally posted by Recce41:
> [qb] Thats why I posted was or may! These names came from the British pages. [/qb]


Ooop‘s I reread your post.
Forgive my presumption     .

I have a friend who has collected old Military Post Card‘s of all the old Regiment‘s in full parade dress and I was over at his place to night and I‘m trying to convince him to post them here as they will settle many argument‘s that we have and are having.


He and I argued about the Busby also.
Big mistake!! He pull‘s out his book‘s and his collection of post card‘s and goes your wrong but right!LOL


Some of his Post Card‘s go back to 1901 with stamp‘s and the message‘s on the back‘s!


----------



## Recce41 (1 Jan 2004)

These are the books I looked through.
1. Uniforms of great Armys of the World. Galley Books
2. Uniforms of the British Empire 1700-present (1980s)Brook Books
3. Uniforms of Europian Armies. a lil old Royal Books
4. History of the British Army. Britainy Books


----------



## W. Hall (25 Jan 2004)

I think I know what you are referring to - re: Red tunic, black vest and pants and I‘ve uploaded a picture (of two of us) so attired here:

 http://www.paradesquare.ca/bpcrr/messkit.jpg 

This is a "customary" Officers‘ Mess Kit c.2003 and is not issued to the CF, rather the member must order it made according to CF Specs. ($500 - $1000). Fortuitous for many, the standard walking-out dress with white shirt, bow tie and decorations, are always acceptable at formal mess functions.


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Jan 2004)

Mess kit/dress is the military equivalent to "black tie" (or even "white tie", which is pretty uncommon).  It is the most ostentatious and formal order of dress, normally worn for evening events.  Usually, only officers attend these sorts of events, and so it is uncommon to find NCM‘s wearing it.  But it does occur, I‘m sure.

A regiment‘s ‘scarlets‘ or Full Dress is the equivalent of "Morning Dress" or "Formal Day Dress", and is normally worn for day-time events such as a formal church parade, Remembrance Day ceremony, etc.  This is the next most-formal style of dress, and I am sure that some regiments don‘t have them because of budgetary reasons.

DEU‘s are like wearing a business suit, and are suitable for the majority of occasions and events.

And we all know and love our everyday working dress... combats.

I know, I know, there used to be all sorts of variations and orders of dress, but this is the best I can summarize our current orders of dress as they are right now.

And, I didn‘t even bother including navy/air force, as I know nothing about either.  I have seen navy reservists dressed up formally only once, and they appeared to have some sort of double-breasted black coat with shiny brass buttons, but have no idea if that‘s as formal as it gets for them.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Jan 2004)

No one does uniforms better than the United States Marine Corps...here is a good chart explaining the complexities of dress states pretty similar to ours.

USMC Dress Regs


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Jan 2004)

Portiscully Guy, Senior NCO‘s can were Mess Dress, I have seen the RSM and Mac wearing it at some point.  We also have the Patrol Dress (Dress Blues) it is rarely seen anymore, you have to get it at your own expense. You will sometimes see an officer wearing at Rememberance day (The Honourary Colonel wears it). But junior ranks wear it too. Last time was the 110th anniversay.


----------



## portcullisguy (27 Jan 2004)

Hey nice to see you on here Falcon... err... Cpl... 

Apparently, I‘ve been told, that mess dress is authorized for jr‘s as well, but good luck ever needing to.  I haven‘t yet seen anyone wearing the Dress Blues, and I would imagine they cost a load.  Is it still with the kilt?


----------



## The_Falcon (27 Jan 2004)

Yup everything is with the kilt, as for the cost of the dress blues, i have no clue. All I know is you can get them at Richardsons. Probably 500-2000.  And no need to use rank here


----------



## zortag (28 Jan 2004)

I get the distinct impression that I‘m walking into the lion‘s den here but I‘ll throw down my 2c anyways.

The original confusion seems to have come from the distinction between Mess Dress and Full Dress.  

Mess dress is always worn open with a shirt + bowtie and the jacket has tails on it.

Full Dress is buttoned up short jacket without tails.

Also earlier, someone was referring to the pillbox as a Kepi.  As far as I know, Kepi is french for wedge.  Just thought I‘d add to the confusion.

Also a quick question.  For those of us too poor to own mess kit, at mess dinners we wear #1 dress with a white shirt and a bowtie.  Can you wear a wingtip shirt or does it have to be a normal collar?


----------



## Michael OLeary (28 Jan 2004)

Yup, it‘s a lion‘s den.   ;-)

Current standard pattern Army mess dress does not have tails on either the red doeskin or the white linen (optional summer variation)jackets. The red is worn with waistcoat, the white with regimental cummerbund. 

Full dress, to simplify the description, is the replica dress of the british army‘s ‘redcoat‘, standard soldier attire well into the 19th Century. Length approximately to the hips, full buttoned with regimental buttons, high closed collar.

My French-English dictionary actually translayes "kepi" as a "peaked cap." This would be, then, a forage cap with fairly rigid body and a visor, of which we can find many variations on the actual design.

And the issue of wingtip versus full collar with Mess Kit or service dress - that is usually in accordance with regimental custom. Some regiments have detailed one or the other in their Regimental Standing orders to ensure some degree of conformity.


Mike


----------



## nbk (29 Jan 2004)

> Full dress, to simplify the description, is the replica dress of the british army‘s ‘redcoat‘, standard soldier attire well into the 19th Century. Length approximately to the hips, full buttoned with regimental buttons, high closed collar.


That is more or less what I was referring to in the very very very first place...and just to get it straight up, can NCM‘s go and buy a "Full Dress" (with his own money) and use it on formal occasions on or off base? And if so how much does it cost the NCM?


----------



## DaveK (22 Dec 2004)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Spr Earl
> You found the name for me. Thanks. We in the Hussars called the helmet a busby. The British Hussars call it that. The RCRs wear the British Boer War expedition Helmet. I have just started to colect WW1 and earlier uniforms. Right now I collect WW2. They are cheaper.



The white helmet is a type of pith helmet used by the British army in the middle to late 19th century and was standard tropical/operational wear.  I am not sure what the one in the picture is called but the one used by the RCR and PPCLI is called a Wolseley helmet and is named after Garnet Joseph Wolseley.  A busby is a sort of truncated bearskin, it also has a flap over one side and the bearskin does not.  Hussars, the Artillery, Signals, Engineers and a host of other regiments and corps wear the busby.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Dec 2004)

. said:
			
		

> > Full dress, to simplify the description, is the replica dress of the british army's 'redcoat', standard soldier attire well into the 19th Century. Length approximately to the hips, full buttoned with regimental buttons, high closed collar.
> 
> 
> That is more or less what I was referring to in the very very very first place...and just to get it straight up, can NCM's go and buy a "Full Dress" (with his own money) and use it on formal occasions on or off base? And if so how much does it cost the NCM?



Depends on what the auth. full dress is.  Our regiment has green coatees rather than red doublets, but only the Colour Party has worn them for the last couple of decades.  The only occasion a private purchase one might be seen as appropriate would be New Year's Levee (if your area has an all-ranks Levee), perhaps a wedding.


----------



## DaveK (22 Dec 2004)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Well let's throw a another wrench into to work's.
> 
> As Mike stated due to lack of money.
> 
> ...



Engineers, Signals as well as many others wear *black* trousers/overalls with a scarlet   stripe (1", the thickness matters and these vary).   The original overalls were worn with both the mess dress jacket (not tunic) or the scarlet tunic (not jacket).   Cavalry stripes are yellow or special regimental colours.   The midnight blue trousers are usually found in infantry units.

Breeches are worn by cavalry units that have the pants tucked into the boot.   What your are referring to are called overalls as the pant covers the boot and is traditionally held down with a strap (leather with a buckle in the UK, but you will more than likely find them made out of elastic material now in Canada)
Spurs (box type) have fallen out of use in Canada.   In the UK spurs can be found on most mess dress and full dress that has overalls.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (22 Dec 2004)

Only on army.ca will you find so many men talking about clothes.  ;D

Sorry just had to say it somewhere.


----------



## Steel Badger (22 Dec 2004)

For a good idea of  Kepi's : see any pics of the US Forces during the civil war  or bikers at the blue oyster 
..... the Kepi was adopted from the french....

The pill box hat was introduced to the British Army during yet another period of imitating prussia. It was called a pillbox because it resembled a pill pox.(for medicinal pills, not fortifications)

As for the helmet worn by RMC...it is modeled after the foriegn service pattern sun helmet worn by the British and Canadian Armies in the 1870's+ (As worn by B Coy 2/24th Foot at Rourke's Drift......


----------



## SHARP WO (23 Dec 2004)

I would rather see something is hockey armour like the stuff used in strange brew.

SHARP WO


----------



## Art Johnson (25 Dec 2004)

DaveK said:
			
		

> The white helmet is a type of pith helmet used by the British army in the middle to late 19th century and was standard tropical/operational wear.   I am not sure what the one in the picture is called but the one used by the RCR and PPCLI is called a Wolseley helmet and is named after Garnet Joseph Wolseley.   A busby is a sort of truncated bearskin, it also has a flap over one side and the bearskin does not.   Hussars, the Artillery, Signals, Engineers and a host of other regiments and corps wear the busby.



The RCR at their 100th Anniversary:







[Moderator note:   Correctional edit only - "Image" coding - no content changed.]


----------



## Steel Badger (26 Dec 2004)

The more I think on it, the more i think  that the DEU uniform shuld be abolished for the Army....

We should have:

Combats for the field.

For garrison

Cbt Pants, boots, Regimental stable belt worn as trouser belt (the Imperial Argylls and the Para's have great wee belts)
and a Jacket like a jumo smock that you can put yer ribbons and such on.....
The Idea being closer to the CDN Army of 55-69...


For full dress,

The regiments to wear their own No.1's...The Corps and Services to default to high collar blues...



Comments?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> The more I think on it, the more i think  that the DEU uniform shuld be abolished for the Army....
> 
> We should have:
> 
> ...



The DEU is the closest thing we have to civilian business dress.  You are suggesting the CDS go to a meeting with his civilian deputy ministers or a press conference either in full dress scarlets and large feathery hat, or else in what amounts to combat gear?

Give your head a shake!


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Dec 2004)

Who cares what the CDS wears when he lunches with fellow bureaucrats?

If it really bothers too many people we can always put Ottawa *back* into civilian suits - like it was in the '50s and '60s.

I agree, mostly, with _Steele Badger_.   Soldiers need two uniforms:

"¢	Battle dress, which doubles - with the addition of T shirts, sweaters, coveralls, etc - as garrison dress; and

"¢	Ceremonial dress - No 2s and No 1s - what General Middleton called _full dress and feathers_ when, back in the 1880s, he complained that uniforms and garrison balls were the major preoccupations of the Canadian militia.

Why just two?   We only do two *important* things: we go to the 'field' to fight or keep whatever passes for the peace or train to do that sort of thing; and we 'celebrate' our or the nation's accomplishments - everything else, including working in the orderly room or QM stores is just _administrivia_.

The fact that the DEU is _"the closest thing we have to civilian business dressâ ?_ is a very good reason to get rid of it.   Soldiers don't need suits and ties - they aren't insurance salesmen or file clerks.   They need battle dress and ceremonial dress.

(As an aside: I don't recall that we wore much on our jump smocks in the '50s and '60s: wings, unit shoulder tittles and rank badges for sure; marksmanship badges, I think, but no div patch and no ribbons.   The jump smock was neither practical nor comfortable, not after we got real combat uniforms in the mid '60s - but it looked smart and had a certain cachet to it to which made it popular but tastes change, even soldiers' tastes and when they tried to reintroduce something like the jump smock (in the '80s, I think) as a disruptive pattern garrison jacket; it was quite unpopular, so I'm told.)

Many allied armies use their battle dress uniforms as garrison dress - 'livened up' a wee bit with coloured T shirts and/or made more comfortable with a short sleeved shirt and/or sweater.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

Anyone who doesn't see the need for an equivalent to civilian business dress isn't playing with a full deck and can be entirely disregarded as far as this topic goes.

ROJ - You're seriously suggesting that DND officers show up for meetings (not just the CDS, but any officer going to any meeting, be it a Militia PAFFO going to brief the media about an upcoming open house, the small arms team going to talk to civilian corporations who are bidding on our weapons, or how about an officer showing up for court - or a military court martial) wearing jungle gear?  Grow up.  For every soldier in the field carrying a rifle or crewing an armoured vehicle, there are ten behind him - five of them in Ottawa or the various headquarters.  

Suggesting that we abandon the DEU simply reveals an enormous ignorance as to what the "other half" of the Army is doing.  Researchers, staff officers, correspondents, lawyers, medical professionals - they all need to fit into society; we represent society, not hold ourselves above it - or in the case of Jungle Jim wearing camo to a press conference - hold ourselves away from it.

As a serious student of military dress, it strikes me as obvious that Service Dress - from which the DEU is derived - was an extension of civilian dress.  In fact, military dress has ALWAYS been a reflection of civilian dress.  Disassociating ourselves from society is NOT in the best interests of the service, and showing up for civilian functions in inappropriate attire (read that as "dressed like a retard") will put us two steps backward.

I think the next evolution in military dress (which I am not in favour of) will be making headdress optional or even obsolete.  John F. Kennedy finally got civilians to stop wearing hats; Policemen in Calgary and other large cities no longer wear forage caps on duty (most wear no hats at all).  Mailmen no longer wear hats.  It is only a matter of time before the military also abandons "funny hats" as part of the daily uniform.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Dec 2004)

What's wrong with showing up in No 2s?   Rifle green â â€œ for most of the army â â€œ patrol jacket with a cloth belt, rifle green trousers, no medals â â€œ just ribbons.   Same jacket, with the addition of all the _feathers_ turns itself into No 1s for most of the army.   Some regiments, let's restrict it, just for the sake of argument, to regiments of foot guards and those which went on active service, *as regulars*, in scarlets, may need two jackets: one green and one scarlet â â€œ the latter for No. 1 order of dress.

Senior officers in the RCMP routinely show up in parliament â â€œ to appear before Senate and House committees â â€œ in scarlets, minus the gold belts; but, I guess, they _are not playing with a full deck_, either ...

As to the doctors, dentists, lawyers and researchers â â€œ and fashion conscious generals and pay clerks, too, I suppose â â€œ let 'em buy an optional _service dress_ jacket and tie if they cannot stand a plain, unadorned patrol dress jacket and, if they really think the press will faint at the sight of CADPAT trousers and a sweater, public affairs officers, too.   

Soldiers need only two uniforms: battle dress and ceremonial dress â â€œ variants of the two: tidied up and 'dulled down' will do for everything else.


----------



## Steel Badger (26 Dec 2004)

MIke, I AM shaking ma heid....

Stop thinking like a civilian....

Out DEU is just the holdover form the old service dress (ie field dress uniform)
We do NOT need a civvy equivalent.....


And uniforms should NEVER be created / put in service based on the possibility of the CDS getting dirty looks from Chiziks!!!


----------



## bossi (26 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Anyone who doesn't see the need for an equivalent to civilian business dress isn't playing with a full deck and can be entirely disregarded as far as this topic goes.



You're welcome to your own, personal opinion, but not at the expense of insulting others.



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> ROJ - You're seriously suggesting that DND officers show up for meetings (not just the CDS, but any officer going to any meeting, be it a Militia PAFFO going to brief the media about an upcoming open house, the small arms team going to talk to civilian corporations who are bidding on our weapons, or how about an officer showing up for court - or a military court martial) wearing jungle gear? Grow up. For every soldier in the field carrying a rifle or crewing an armoured vehicle, there are ten behind him - five of them in Ottawa or the various headquarters.



Ironically, you've probably hit the nail on the head with respect to the Army ordering all soldiers to wear CADPAT - it's to make the point that soldiers are unique in Canadian society.  Unfortunately, you've missed the broad side of the barn with your ill-conceived admonishment for ROJ to "grow up" (no doubt he had a good chuckle at your expense, Sparky).



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Suggesting that we abandon the DEU simply reveals an enormous ignorance ...



No, it doesn't - it simply is an opinion differing from yours.



			
				Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> As a serious student of military dress, it strikes me as obvious that Service Dress - from which the DEU is derived - was an extension of civilian dress. In fact, military dress has ALWAYS been a reflection of civilian dress. Disassociating ourselves from society is NOT in the best interests of the service, and showing up for civilian functions in inappropriate attire (read that as "dressed like a retard") will put us two steps backward.



Well, I'm not a "serious student of military dress", but I do have manners.
Furthermore, I'm curious what civilian clothing was the inspiration for the high-collared full dress tunics ... or the bearskin hats, feather bonnets, etc.  "Eisenhower" and bomber jackets are two more examples where I'd suspect that military clothing made the fashion statement first (and, of course, camouflage ...).

But, that's just my opinion.  $0.02

P.S. (by the way - when I was working for the Ontario government near Queen's Park, it was quite evident that the "suits" didn't have too much respect for ANYBODY in uniform - thus, if one were to set out to impress a political mandarin with a fashion statement vice reason, intelligence, elocution or military bearing ... I'd tend to agree that a "power suit" is a useful addition to the arsenal of the defence bureaucrat ...).


----------



## Infanteer (26 Dec 2004)

Michael - Power Down the DeathStar man.   The guys have made honest proposals and backed them up with rational reasons; until they say get rid of DEU's because Michael Moore said so, I think you can set your phaser to stun.

That being said...I've always viewed uniforms with the "Mechanic" philosophy:

- We need "coveralls" for working on cars (A Field uniform - combats): I don't like wearing these when I don't have to - they look dumpy and silly in a public setting.   They are made for the field so we may as well wear them there.  When they are taken to be more then just a field uniform, silly rules start to become the norm, like ironing your combats (The US Army has taken it a step further by starching their combat dress....)

- We need a "suit" for when we have to do the business deals (a Service uniform): Something smart for day-to-day, out-of-field wear.   It will be simple, with only a minimum amount of gaudy regimental junk on it.   I'm not a fan of the current Army colour, I like the "greener" colour of the old Service uniform I see in the Regimental Museum.

- We need a "tux" for when we have to go to a wedding (A Dress uniform): This could be the regimental dress, complete with feathered hat, for mess events, balls, parade for dignitaries, etc, etc.   Heck, guys could even wear a kilt with this one....

I've always admired the fact that US Marines are always so smartly dressed - their dress and deportment is often impeccable and just screams soldier.   Here is a link I gave earlier in this thread (many moons ago) that I feel does a good job of breaking down a reasonable Uniform requirement.

USMC Dress Regs

Here is a regulation from the above link that I feel sets the right mentality about Military Dress, which should reflect pride of service and a professional bearing:

_4. Marines set the example. In any uniform we will maintain the highest standards of appearance -- at all times -- in all places. Exercise good judgment, if there's a doubt -- don't stop._


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> MIke, I AM shaking ma heid....
> 
> Stop thinking like a civilian....
> 
> ...



But where do you think Service Dress came from?  Compare it to civilian lounge coats of the era and you will have your answer.  

Of course we need a civvie equivalent; not everyone in the Forces wants or needs to look like Action Man when he is doing business on civvie street; and don't fool yourself, we are represented in the civilian world every day.  There needs to be a link to the community; that comes from the way we dress.  The only people to wear jungle gear in the public eye are tinpot dictators like Castro, Hussein, or Khadaffy.  Even the latter is wearing civilian dress these days now that he wants to be seen as respectable.

At least Idi Amin had the common sense to wear a DEU equivalent.

Perhaps someone from NDHQ could give you their opinion; frankly, hearing field soldiers talking about what the entire Army needs is on the same level of that same bureaucrat at a desk in Ottawa deciding what field gear you should be taking on exercise with you.

All the grunts complain that no one in NDHQ sees things their way; guess who's got the blinkers on now? 

No offence, but the views of yourself and ROJ are extremely one sided.  You wouldn't go to a job interview on civvie street without wearing a tie, would you?  Try attending a couple of board meetings for Diemaco or White Western Star or a company like that and show up not wearing a tie.

DEU is a necessity, full stop.  Maybe not for the field units, but they are also much less expensive than Full Dress.

I knew plenty of guys in our regimental pipes and drums, and I was one of them, that preferred DEU to the full dress because it was easier to wear, more comfortable, and above all, CANADIAN.   When we paraded on Horse Guards with the Scottish Division, there was nothing to identify us at a glance as Canadians.

Granatstein talks about the new CF uniform and how the Germans congratulated the Canadians on finally not looking like the British.

I'm far more proud of my DEU jacket, with the CANADA titles, my trades badge, the marksmanship badge (which I don't have but others do), the brigade badge - none of that is worn on ceremonial dress.  Even my name tag is a source of pride.   I wouldn't be hurt if they got rid of ceremonial dress altogether.  DEUs were good enough for the PPCLI to mount guard at Buckingham Palace in a few years ago; should be good enough for everyone.  

Comfort. Cost. Adaptibility to civilian functions.  Ceremonial Dress has nothing going for it except the fact it appeals to people who wish they were British.


----------



## Canuck_25 (26 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> But where do you think Service Dress came from?   Compare it to civilian lounge coats of the era and you will have your answer.
> 
> Of course we need a civvie equivalent; not everyone in the Forces wants or needs to look like Action Man when he is doing business on civvie street; and don't fool yourself, we are represented in the civilian world every day.   There needs to be a link to the community; that comes from the way we dress.   The only people to wear jungle gear in the public eye are tinpot dictators like Castro, Hussein, or Khadaffy.   Even the latter is wearing civilian dress these days now that he wants to be seen as respectable.
> 
> ...



 I find your post offensive. Have you ever heard of the word "heritage"? I recognize the belief that we should distringuish ourselves from the British, but we shouldnt let the 100+ years of heritage disappear for those who find DEU more appealing. Keep DEU, but dont let it replace ceremonial dress. Keep DEU for its established purpose, a "middle wear" between combat uniform and the ceremonail dress.


----------



## Steel Badger (26 Dec 2004)

I was offended as well, and resent like hell the implication that preferring the uniforms worn by the old canadian army makes me an anglophile or uncanadian...My father, Grand-father and Great -Grand Father not to mention uncles etc wore the uniforms Mike derides.......and they were damn proud of 'em,,,,,

I am not saying that dress uniforms are the meak or break factor for the army...

I merely suggested going back to a uniform that was at once smart, comfaortabel and that a soldier could feel proud wearing....

The Garrision dress didnt cut it do to the piss poor material it was made of etc etc.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Dec 2004)

This is silly.

The functions of uniforms are:

"¢	To identify people as soldiers, as good military sense and the _laws and usages of war_ require;

"¢	To protect soldiers, in so far as can be done, from the elements and, even, bio-chemical agents;

"¢	To _display_ our military values.

Our _battle dress_ does, I think, satisfy the first two conditions.

We ought to have distinctly Canadian customs and traditions, including uniforms - bearing in mind, of course, that most of our _national_ military history was made by men - almost all men - who wore uniforms that were, essentially, indistinguishable from those worn by Australian, British, etc forces.

If the existing _service dress_ uniforms are all we need then why are regiments, regular and reserve, paying out their hard earned money to provide more and more soldiers with different, distinctive _ceremonial_ uniforms.

The answer is: the soldiers - not the retired colonels - want them.

I had the great please, just a few years ago, to join with a few hundred members of my regiment and their ladies at a formal ball honouring the 100th anniversary of one of our victories.   We men, every single rank from private through to lieutenant general were in a mix of black - tail coats and dinner jackets for retired officers, and scarlet for the serving members: mess jackets for senior NCOs and officers, full dress tunics for the rank and file.   I spoke to several young privates and corporals, and their ladies, and I am pretty sure that all expressed pride in their ceremonial uniforms.   None complained, at least not within my hearing, about being _too British_ or insufficiently cheap and   utilitarian.   The ceremonial uniform, as the soldiers well knew, is based on the one worn on active service (Yukon Field Force) with ceremonial white helmets, belts and gloves replacing the _battle dress_ brown leather boots, belts and straps and the brown slouch hat.

Most soldiers only need two uniforms: battle (working) dress and ceremonial dress.   When most, even many soldiers have offices then they may need militarized business suits.

People who spend all day in their offices _could_, as the staff in Ottawa did within my memory, wear civilian clothes to work - it might boost the sales of regimental ties and blazer crests, strengthening cash strapped kit shops.   The last time I stalked the halls of the UK Ministry of Defence, in the 1990s, civilian suits were, still, the order of the day - didn't seem to make the British staff officers less warlike; on the other hand, the last time I was in the Pentagon - also in the '90s - many officers were perched in front of their computer screens in their camouflaged uniforms, no one seemed to think they looked silly.

I would have no objection to those who _want_ the military equivalent of the business suit being able to buy one and being allowed to wear it in headquarters, etc.   I expect some officers and a few clerks would scurry to the CANEX to buy them.   Remember, please, that our, Canadian, service dress (now the DEU) came into being, during World War II, as 'walking out dress' - worn almost exclusively by soldiers who never got out of Canada.   That's what it says here: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ in the part about Uniforms/Tunics - Other ranks.

I would like to see a distinctively Canadian ceremonial dress uniform issued to each trained soldier ... as I mentioned above, rifle green for most (honouring the _Loyalist_ heritage exemplified in e.g. Ranger regiments) and scarlet for a few - honouring our long, distinguished _Imperial_ history.

I'm not offended by anyone's remarks - each is entitled to his own opinion, even when it is expressed with disdain.   It reminds me of a 1939_ish_ naval joke.   The navy was having some difficulty managing its wartime expansion and the officers of the naval reserve (mostly seasoned, coastal seamen) the naval volunteer reserve (the equivalent of our modern militia) and the RCN, proper, were rubbing each other the wrong way.   The navy, it was said, was divided into three parts: the RCNR, who were sailors trying to be gentlemen, the RCNVR who were gentlemen trying to be sailors and the RCN who were neither trying to be both.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> I was offended as well, and resent like hell the implication that preferring the uniforms worn by the old canadian army makes me an anglophile or uncanadian...My father, Grand-father and Great -Grand Father not to mention uncles etc wore the uniforms Mike derides.......and they were damn proud of 'em,,,,,
> 
> I am not saying that dress uniforms are the meak or break factor for the army...
> 
> ...



Garrison Dress was indeed goofy.

Bear in mind my ceremonial dress as a piper included a horsehair sporran, spats that needed to be put on with a buttonhorn, a full length plaid and brooch which was impossible to drive a car in (ditto the cock feather in the hat, or feather bonnet for the drummers), a sword belt (without a sword because I was not authorized one), a dirk, and a tightly buttoned-to-the-neck collar that most people walked around leaving it undone until the 10 minutes or so they were required to perform in it.

Comfortable?   Not on your life.

Canadian?  Heritage?   MOST REGIMENTS NEVER WORE FULL DRESS TO BEGIN WITH!   Since the inception of the Calgary Highlanders, we have never, ever, never had full dress uniforms for the rank and file, until about 1957 when we went to a green coatee for the whole unit - and even then we did not go the whole hog and get feather bonnets and plaids.  These jackets lasted til about 1980 when they were downgraded to a special item for the colour party only.  

Most of the Regiments that existed before 1921 are long gone in any event.  Yorkton Regiment?  Battleford Light Infantry?  Alberta Dragoons?   They're long gone, and they never wore full dress either.

Some rich units like the 48th or Camerons of Ottawa have had 100 man guards turn up in red jackets.  I am willing to bet the Saskatoon Light Infantry, Regina Rifles, Winnipeg Rifles, Loyal Edmontons or some of the other smaller units never had rifle green or scarlet tunics for their entire complement in their history.

ROJ, you want to display military values?  What is better to do that on - a DEU with your trades badge, wound stripe, rank, brigade patch, command badge, marksmanship qualification badge, a name tag - or a British Army jacket with your rank and some crown lace?

If the soldiers want them, let them buy their own as a privte purchase piece - exactly what was done with the Coloured Field Service Cap and patrol dress.

I am quite sure that soldiers won't complain about ceremonial dress if they wear it twice a year.  That hardly seems the point though, does it.


----------



## Steel Badger (26 Dec 2004)

Mike....again you missed the point

I was talking about creating a dress to take the place of DEU's...

A comfortable working dress that could be dressed up with the requisite badges/ patchs etc and still be practical.....I was NOT referring to the No1s as comfortable....


Ease down,,,,,,thiese posts are not a personal attack on yourself and yet you are showing an edge not present in your other excellents posts / replies.


I can verify that the RHLI and the 91st etc DID wear full dress...but disputing who did  or did not is not my point...

Again you equate ROJ's and my points to mean a desire to be Brit....

Can't you see we are looking to the CANADIAN ARMY as our guide......not the British.....
Is it so impossible to believe?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

Steel...you say you want to create a new uniform to replace the DEU.   Specifically, if I understand you correctly, you wish to move away from the jacket and tie and move towards a "traditional" uniform more akin to ceremonials or patrols.

These are my points

a) many, many officers and NCMs need a working dress akin to civilian business dress - recruiters, researchers, PAFFOs, staff officers, project managers, administrators, specialists, even officers in combat arms units who deal with the public

b) "traditional" uniforms in Canada don't work because we have been cash poor - no two regiments have ever dressed alike when it came to "traditions".  The closest we have to a tradition is the CF Green uniform.  God help us if we go back to that!

c) I don't understand the connection ROJ is making, if I understand correctly, between "looking military" and at the same time insisting on a uniform that divests itself entirely of any type of miliitary symbols.   The hypothetical full dress uniform is entirely British in appearance, likely never worn by the majority of regiments in their lifetime (not to mention completely incorrect for units of the supporting arms), and gives no indication of military qualifications.  In fact, the full dress uniform is the same one worn by teenage kids in the 78th Fraser Highlanders re-enactment units at the Old Fort in Montreal and in Calgary, as well as the university students who work at the Halifax Citadel in the summer.

Creating a uniform to "replace" the DEUs would be more expensive (a DEU jacket probably costs 20 dollars to make, a wool doublet of whatever colour and cut you choose would be many times that), would make the wearer stand out like a sore thumb in anything but a parade square setting, and would make little connection between the wearer and the Canadian Armed Forces to anyone not in the know (how many times have you worn your kilt downtown and been asked what instrument you play?   and a similar lack of connection between the wearer and the society he is supposed to represent.

I'm sorry if anyone is reading a hostile tone into my remarks; not at all.  There just appears to be a disconnect in thinking; anyone suggesting DEUs are not necessary really hasn't thought through how many people wear them, and for what purposes.  For an infantryman in a reserve unit, it probably matters little whether he wears a doublet or DEU - he goes to Rememberance Day and the one or two battle commemoration parades each year while wearing it, maybe a couple hours downtown at the Legion or the bar afterwards, and he's done for the year.

I am not in favour of abandoning a nice ceremonial uniform; I would suggest that they are unnecessary, expensive, and really don't represent our history as well as some people would suggest since most units have never worn them.  I do like the sight of our pipe band in greens and reds; can't stand having to, as we say, "put all that shit on again", and nothing feels better after a pipe band performance than dumping all that stuff on the floor and letting one's skin breathe again.

A jacket and tie are mandatory; that's just the way it is, and whether you are talking about red doublets, camouflage windbreakers, or lightweight patrol jackets, the wearer will still be conspicious and out of place in certain settings in which he needs to appear.  Even Garrison Dress was unsuitable for office work and it was designed as a working dress!  The belt rode up too high, the jacket has tight and constrictive, and the boots were uncomfortable and required way too much maintenance to wear on a day to day basis.  Most clerks I knew went and got chits so they didn't have to wear them.    What could be simpler than DEU trousers and a shirt/sweater combination, with the option of a tie and jacket for smartness?  Very nicely mimics Business Casual and Business dress.   Even if, Steel Badger, you are suggesting a patrol jacket in material like the DEU, with stand up collar and waistbelt - I have to ask, what is the point?  You can throw out the historical precedent for that, ditto comfort.  Taking the garrison belt on and off every time you wanted to work, go to the bathroom, enter the mess, was a colossal pain.

I say again, dressing like we are superior to others is not the way to go.  We are a unique institution that is supposed to reflect the best of society; that means fitting in.  There is so much talk of "footprint in the community" these days, even on this very board.   Do we mean it, or don't we?

I don't see that the DEU uniform in any way infringes on our ability to be military; in fact, it is one of the few distinctively Canadian uniforms we've had.  If we could just get past the self-conscious in us that makes us put the name of the country on the sleeves, we'd be set.  The US Marines look so sharp, to use Infanteer's example, because they have one uniform for everyone.   When they wore their service dress, it used to be that people in the northern US would ask "are you in the Canadian Army?"  No one recognized their dress greens.  We can't do that the way the Marines or the Mounties have been associated with a single dress uniform.  Way too many different regimental and corps traditions.  Creating one out of whole cloth will not be a success.  The closest thing we've done is the DEU.  Like it or not, THAT is the tradition, and if you trace it back, it has been in evolution since 1902, and always been with us, from the Service Dress to T-Dubs.

And yes, ROJ, it is not "battle dress" and was not worn during war time.  Neither would the DEU if we ever mobilized again - but neither would Steel Badgers new No. 1 uniform; it would be the first thing on the chopping block and we would simply concentrate on CADPAT and environmental kit (or so I would hope - do you want guns, or butter?)

Anyway, perhaps I'm not getting your point. You want a Canadian uniform (CF Green jacket and tie has been traditional for 25 years and counting now), something comfortable (I'll take a loose fitting lounge coat with collared shirt and tie over two neck hooks and turnback cuffs anyday), something military (don't get more military than a wolf or snarling bear on the shoulder patch) and something with multiple applications (add a bow tie and it is mess dress/evening wear, replace the jacket with a sweater and it is office clothing).

Don't get much better than the DEU.  Save parade clothes for parades and field clothes for the field.


----------



## Canuck_25 (26 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Garrison Dress was indeed goofy.
> 
> Bear in mind my ceremonial dress as a piper included a horsehair sporran, spats that needed to be put on with a buttonhorn, a full length plaid and brooch which was impossible to drive a car in (ditto the **** feather in the hat, or feather bonnet for the drummers), a sword belt (without a sword because I was not authorized one), a dirk, and a tightly buttoned-to-the-neck collar that most people walked around leaving it undone until the 10 minutes or so they were required to perform in it.
> 
> ...




 I find the DEU uniforms look too American for my liking. If anything, why would be want to look more American? Keep our disapearing British culture. God knows how long till its gone.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> I find the DEU uniforms look too American for my liking. If anything, why would be want to look more American? Keep our disapearing British culture. God knows how long till its gone.



And that, my friend, is absolute ignorance showing through.  Take a look at the evolution of service dress from 1902 onwards and you will see that the current DEU is directly related the CF Green jacket of 1968.  The CF Green jacket was based directly in the older tropical worsted.  The tropical worsted was based on the Service Dress.  Where you get "American" from is beyond me.  The colour?  I can't think of anything more Canadian than "CF Green" which has been a staple for 35 years... The design?  If you think jackets with pockets on them are "American" then you have probably never seen a British, German, Russian, French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, Brazilian or Ugandan soldier in uniform.

And what on earth do you think the British wear for a DEU?  As Infanteer points out, they have a nice khaki jacket, but even they are not wearing serge anymore.   And it looks remarkably like an "American" uniform....four pockets, two sleeves, and a collared shirt and tie. 

A little bit of research will show that the so-called "traditionless" uniforms we wear are actually part of the ongoing evolution of Canadian uniforms.  Instead of celebrating them, all that people seem to do is complain that they're "not British."   

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Canuck_25 (26 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And that, my friend, is absolute ignorance showing through.   Take a look at the evolution of service dress from 1902 onwards and you will see that the current DEU is directly related the CF Green jacket of 1968.   The CF Green jacket was based directly in the older tropical worsted.   The tropical worsted was based on the Service Dress.   Where you get "American" from is beyond me.   The colour?   I can't think of anything more Canadian than "CF Green" which has been a staple for 35 years... The design?   If you think jackets with pockets on them are "American" then you have probably never seen a British, German, Russian, French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, Brazilian or Ugandan soldier in uniform.
> 
> And what on earth do you think the British wear for a DEU?   As Infanteer points out, they have a nice khaki jacket, but even they are not wearing serge anymore.     And it looks remarkably like an "American" uniform....four pockets, two sleeves, and a collared shirt and tie.
> 
> ...



 You also have to note that people see the "red coat" dress as an impressive uniform. Its beautiful, impressive and smart. Do you know enough people that hate it? I have the impression that people love it.


----------



## pbi (26 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> He is not talking about Mess Dress, he means the scarlet Full Dress uniform.
> 
> Any infantry regiment that can afford it can wear it, conceivably.   I've seen Regular Force guards wearing them, especially for Royal visits.   The Camerons of Ottawa also have scarlets.
> 
> Interestingly, when the PPCLI guarded Buckingham Palace a few years ago, they did so in standard CF uniforms - aside from the band and the Corps of Drums, I've never seen PPCLI in scarlet uniforms.



Michael: unlike the richly endowed RCR, or the R22eR who have the "_Garde en Rouge_" job at La Citadelle, the PPCLI has simply never had the Regimental resources to fund scarlet beyond outfitting a Corps of Drums in each battalion. The PPCLI Band, when it existed, was dressed at public expense but it is long gone. We also used to dress a few Assault Pioneers in each battalion with scarlets, aprons and axes for ceremonial parades but now that we no longer have Pioneer Platoons I'm not sure how long this will last. For us in the PPCLI,(at least in my experience) keeping any organization in scarlet means scrounging, scrimping and repairing, with no dedicated funding. 

On the issue of the dress of the Guard that was mounted at BP, the wear of DEUs was a national decision (it was also applied to my old Res unit, the RRegtC, when they did BP back in the 1980's...) The rationale was that if the Canadians wore their British-style No. 1 dress, they might not be distinctively Canadian enough, so DEU was the order of dress worn. Seems a bit weak to me, but there you are. 
Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> On the issue of the dress of the Guard that was mounted at BP, the wear of DEUs was a national decision (it was also applied to my old Res unit, the RRegtC, when they did BP back in the 1980's...) The rationale was that if the Canadians wore their British-style No. 1 dress, they might not be distinctively Canadian enough, so DEU was the order of dress worn. Seems a bit weak to me, but there you are.
> Cheers.



I agree with that logic; when I was on parade with the Scottish Division, I looked for all the world like an Argyll and Sutherland Highlander.  Not that there is anything wrong with that...

I will agree that a ceremonial uniform is a nice to have.  I will agree that the British ones are "traditional" enough to support wearing it.   I agree that a "Canadian" ceremonial uniform would be nice too.

Incidentally, the standard Canadian pattern band uniform was the CF Green tunic with gold shoulder boards ala Napoleon and cuff braids, and green CF pants with a gaudy gold stripe down the pants.  It was horrid.

Just not at the expense of "ditching" the DEU.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (26 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> You also have to note that people see the "red coat" dress as an impressive uniform. Its beautiful, impressive and smart. Do you know enough people that hate it? I have the impression that people love it.



It's not about loving or hating it; it's about replacing the sensible DEU with it.  

Those who love it don't have to wear them as working dress, that is all I am saying.  I've done my share of ceremonial, in June heat no less when it was 30+ above on a football field standing outside for 4 hours while HM presented us new colours.  This was the same month that we did the Horse Guards parades - three days in a row, in ceremonial uniform, also in June heat though it was cloudy in England (go figure).  That was more than enough....


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

I think we need both.

Of course, I also think we need tanks and helicopters, so I might be crazy....


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> It's not about loving or hating it; it's about replacing the sensible DEU with it.
> 
> Those who love it don't have to wear them as working dress, that is all I am saying.   I've done my share of ceremonial, in June heat no less when it was 30+ above on a football field standing outside for 4 hours while HM presented us new colours.   This was the same month that we did the Horse Guards parades - three days in a row, in ceremonial uniform, also in June heat though it was cloudy in England (go figure).   That was more than enough....



 Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Dec 2004)

Quote,
_ Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage._

Have you worn one yet?...try it before you make those comments to someone who has been wearing them for quite a while.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Quote,
> _ Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage._
> 
> Have you worn one yet?...try it before you make those comments to someone who has been wearing them for quite a while.



And as I've pointed out 10 times, it is 100 years of BRITISH military heritage.  Canadian military heritage lies in the DEU, which has been the ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907...


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> And as I've pointed out 10 times, it is 100 years of BRITISH military heritage.  Canadian military heritage lies in the DEU, which has been the ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907....



 Isnt Canadian history linked with British heritage?

 As a Canadian, i recognise our link with Britain, and our British heritage. Just because you find something uncomfortable, outdated and "uncanadian" is a rather poor excuse for ditching our military links with Britain. Let me guess, your one of those lads who seems to think the monarchy should be replaced by the governor general as head of state.

 We have fought in British uniforms, with British weapons, and beside the British for over 100 years. Our military's foundation rests on British heritage.

 Your soldiers for god sake, if something is uncomfortable, you learn to adapt. If men fought in those dress uniforms, in snow, desert, the oceans and flields, with bullets flying at them, im sure you can stand at attention for one hour without difficulty in them.


Moderator Note - edited in error instead of hitting "reply"; original post hopefully restored in entirety.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Dec 2004)

Quote,
_ Isnt Canadian history linked with British heritage?_.....yep and North American Indian and France....should we mix that in too?


----------



## bossi (27 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> ...  Canadian military heritage lies in the DEU, which has been the ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907...



Huh?   "... ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907 ..."??
What colour is the sky in your universe?
(or, what on Earth was stuffed in your turkey ... crack?)

Regiments that could afford FULL DRESS wore it (as you'll see in the photo dated 1908).
Those that couldn't afford it, wore ... whatever.


----------



## pbi (27 Dec 2004)

> Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage.



If we're talking about a purely ceremonial uniform, I agree with you. For eight years in RRegtC I wore (off and on) the two sharpest uniforms I have ever posessed: Guards-pattern scarlet with bearskin for parades and blue patrols for parade undress or Mess functions. I also (more briefly) wore 1885 pattern scarlet with full Pioneer equipment including apron, gauntlets, pack, tools, axe, water bottle, blah blah etc. I wore all of this stuff on parade at various times, including one memorable march from Toronto City Hall to Fort York in Pioneer kit in June. Fun, fun.

Anyway, I was very proud to wear all that stuff, and it looked great, but it was hideously uncomfortable, which is why it was replaced in daily and opreational service over the last century by more practical uniforms. Hopefully nobody proposes that we replace DEU with scarlet? I can't see doing 90% of the things we do in DEU wearing that stuff, sorry. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

bossi said:
			
		

> Huh?  "... ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907 ..."??
> What colour is the sky in your universe?
> (or, what on Earth was stuffed in your turkey ... crack?)
> 
> ...



Try reading one or two posts, Mark, I'm tired of repeating myself.  48th were one of those "rich" regiments I'm talking about. For every regiment that has worn scarlet (or blue or rifle green) at some point in the 20th Century, there were 10 that knew nothing but khaki.  And in a pattern perpetuated by the DEU.

What colour is your sky?  Life doesn't stop and start with the Dileas boys, even if Toronto IS the centre of the known universe....


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

canuck25 said:
			
		

> We have fought in British uniforms, with British weapons, and beside the British for over 100 years. Our military's foundation rests on British heritage.



*Bullshit.*

Check out the Canadian Pattern service dress we adopted before World War One.  The first contingent wore it proudly in 1914-15, and for as long as they could get away with it.  Stand up collar vice stand-and-fall (and even when we got British jackets in 1916, many Canadians secured the collar closed to look "Canadian" with hooks and eyes), seven button front instead of five, and detachable coloured shoulder straps which indicated arm of service (the British had nothing like that at all).  We wore breeches for dismounted troops instead of trousers; those too were replaced with British pants, but it wasn't until late 1915 or even into 1916 - and proud Canadians hung on to their initial issue in some cases.

Check out both my books on Second World War uniforms and compare Canadian Battledress from 1939-1945 to British.  After the war it was even more different and by the 1950s, wasn't even close.  The only time we wore "British" uniforms as a matter of course were IN THE FIELD in WW I, and in Italy in WW II.   We designed our own Service Dress in WW II for Other Ranks.  By Korea, all our field uniforms were different (bush dress, battledress) and in the 1960s we got the Combat Uniform which was even farther from the British.

Canadians INSISTED that uniforms be of Canadian pattern and manufacture in WW II; one of the items that were of "continuing Canadian supply".  

Saying that we've always worn "British" uniforms is simply advertising how uninformed you are.

We also used CANADIAN weapons in WW I - the Ross rifle, until 1916 when it was finally replaced by the Lee Enfield.  We also used US Colt machine guns until replaced by the Lewis, and some of our officers had Colt .45 automatics purchased by the government from the US.

In WW II, 60% of all Bren Guns were made by Inglis in Canada; we made our own Lee Enfields and Stens (Long Branch and others).  By the 1960s we were using Belgian weapons.  Now we use "American" weapons, but if they are made in Canada does it still count as 'American'?

"British" uniforms were a minority in the Canadian Army, and after 1941, we didn't maintain a single British pattern of any of our uniforms with the exception of ceremonial (including mess and patrol dress) and for a brief time in Italy, combat dress (KD - though we had our own Canadian pattern that was different too).  Bush dress, battle dress, combats, DEU, work dress, garrison dress, everything else since 1948 was Canadian pattern.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (27 Dec 2004)

Ok,

This topic has touched a few hot buttons here.

I think that both uniforms have their place.  I think that the DEU's shade of 'CF Green' too closely resembles the shade of green used by the US Army.  I'd like to see a return to the green/khaki/brown shade used in the previous service dress.

I love the look of the scarlets, but unfortunately, theyir use is too prohibitively expensive for most units.  

I was dissapointed to see the PPCLI doing guard duty in London wearing the CF DEU.  Not that their conduct or performance would have been sub-par to those British units serving, but it's kind of like showing up to a black tie event dressed in a business suit.  Not quite appropriate for the occasion.

What I think should be considered is a reintroduction of the blue patrol dress as an authorized private purchase item for serving troops, similar to the Dress Blues that we wear in the Marines.  Even as a reservist, I tend to end up wearing my blues for at least 5 or 6 events during the year, such as the Marine Corps Birthday Ball, various Toys for Tots charity events, weddings, etc.  I love my Marine 
Service Dress, however I never have the occasion to wear it, as I have my blues.

I think that if anything were to replace the DEU, it should be patrol dress with forage cap.  For the type of events that soldiers tend to wear their DEUs for are predominantly parades, weddings, and other ceremonial functions, the patrol dress would be far better suited.  It's formal, but not too fancy like full dress is.  Units still desiring to equip their troops in full dress would do so, but those units without the funds to do so, would still look extremely sharp at a modest cost of tailoring the patrols to their specs (ie. Armoured/Cavalry replacing epaulets with chainmail) and care could be taken to allow tailoring flexibility (ie. trousers would be stripeless so that appropriate corps stripes would be sewn on).


----------



## pbi (27 Dec 2004)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> I think that both uniforms have their place.   I think that the DEU's shade of 'CF Green' too closely resembles the shade of green used by the US Army.   I'd like to see a return to the green/khaki/brown shade used in the previous service dress.



Actually, IIRC it's called "Rifle Green" and supposedly reproduces the very dark green uniforms worn by the Rifle Brigade, so in that sense it has a strong link to our British military heritage. However, I agree with you that a return to a more "brown" shade would look good. I loved the look of the tan DEUs but they were an absolute bugger to keep clean after a few minutes of wear, and in our Regt we found that they got badly stained by the WO/NCO sashes or officers' sword sashes if it was a particularly sweaty or rainy parade. Cheers.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> Actually, IIRC it's called "Rifle Green" and supposedly reproduces the very dark green uniforms worn by the Rifle Brigade, so in that sense it has a strong link to our British military heritage. However, I agree with you that a return to a more "brown" shade would look good. I loved the look of the tan DEUs but they were an absolute bugger to keep clean after a few minutes of wear, and in our Regt we found that they got badly stained by the WO/NCO sashes or officers' sword sashes if it was a particularly sweaty or rainy parade. Cheers.



Rifle Green is correct, as is CF Green.  I don't know what "the book" says, but both terms are in common usage and I've seen both used on clothing tags or in regulations.  The CF Sweater, in particular, was called "rifle green."

I loved the tans, also - the short sleeve work (garrison) dress shirts were great and looked good when worn with the kilt in shirt sleeve order.  (The pants were horrible, especially on females, or anyone of either gender whose BMI was greater than that of an average undernourished 12 year old).  Jackets were sharp also, and looked "military".  I'd support a lighter colour of olive, brown or green for the DEU jacket, but there is no real reason to do so.  That rifle/CF green has been the standard for 30 years now.  The dark green jacket IS a bit much in the summer; a lighter colour for year round wear would be good, plus it would set us a bit further apart from the Navy; I realize they have cloth badges and a double breasted jacket, but their black coats look very much like CF Green.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Dec 2004)

Weren't they supposed to come put with a lighter version of the land DEU...sorta like the air force light weight and heavy weight ??


----------



## Storm (27 Dec 2004)

In my opinion, the ideal format would be as follows:

1) cadpat for the pointy stuff and low visibility/mundane garrison operations.

2) some version of DEU for more "businesslike" or visible things such as media/public relations, meeting with industry and government people, recruiting centres, and the like.

3) a patrol type dress that can serve as both ceremonial AND mess kit.

My personal preference would be to have a CF standard for the (3) stuff. It could be red or black or green, or blue, or whatever, so long as it works both on parade and in the mess. Looking at Infanteer's USMC link, it can be seen that evening dress (which looks awesome IMO) isn't all that far off in basic style from the dress blues. Wouldn't be hard to make something that fills both roles. One example that I've seen is the BCR's get up. A Sgt (can't recall his name) working a mess dinner I was at was wearing the gear sported by the three on the BCR website, and it looked right at home in the mess (not sure if the BCRs actually use this for mess dinners, just saying it fit the occasion). 

Now I know all the people who have cried out about loss of heritage etc thus far are going to jump all over me. The thought I have, however, is that if a regiment can't remember it's own history without dressing a certain way then the clothes aren't where the problem lies. If something is deemed a truly important item that just has to be shown on parade once in a while, then there is a perfect place for it: the colour party (and/or band).

If a CF standard was in existence, the ceremonial/formal kit could be issued to all. Our regiments being the way they are though, they would likely insist upon unique styles, so that wouldn't happen (not going to get started on that just now). Therefore, the "have" regiments that want to blow cash on pimping out their troops for parades could provide the kit for their people, while for other regiments it could be personal expense as mess kit is now. 

Honestly though, in the end, we're really just talking about clothes here people. The world will continue to spin, recruits will continue to learn the history of their new regiment, and the army will keep training and deploying whether they wear plate mail or pink pj's on parade. Lighten up, it's not like DND is going to mess with the ceremonial gear anyway... I think it has something to do with fixing things that could get people killed before worrying about making Pte(R) XXXXX look so sexy in his reds that the civie in formal wear on the other side of the hottie doesn't stand a chance. :


----------



## Storm (27 Dec 2004)

Oh yes, to chime in on DEU colour as well, I have no problem with the dark green. It's the sickly light green shirts I have an issue with. That colour is vile :blotto:


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> *Bullshit.*
> 
> Check out the Canadian Pattern service dress we adopted before World War One.   The first contingent wore it proudly in 1914-15, and for as long as they could get away with it.   Stand up collar vice stand-and-fall (and even when we got British jackets in 1916, many Canadians secured the collar closed to look "Canadian" with hooks and eyes), seven button front instead of five, and detachable coloured shoulder straps which indicated arm of service (the British had nothing like that at all).   We wore breeches for dismounted troops instead of trousers; those too were replaced with British pants, but it wasn't until late 1915 or even into 1916 - and proud Canadians hung on to their initial issue in some cases.
> 
> ...



 Canada became a country in 1867. Before that we wore British Uniforms. From 1867 to 1914, we wore British Uniforms. Our weapons from 1800 to the 1950's were British designed. Just becuase we manufactured all our weapons here, dosnt mean they are "canadian." To simply forget these crucial years in Canadian military history is ingorance. 

 The Ross rifle was a shambles, dont bother mentioning it.
 The British also used american weapons (Tommy gun, Browning .50, hand guns, ect.)

 Even though we had our own patterns post WW1, they were very similar to British design. The importance is, our dress uniforms distinguish ourselves from those south of the border. I remember one old veteran (served in Korea, PPCLI) told me the DEU's look too american, and he would like to see an increase of Canadian soldiers wearing ceremonial dress, seeing how impressive they look. 

 Im not asking that every soldier be issued one, nor expected to pay for his own, but to encourage regiments to fundraise for them, maby supply a platoon instead of a company with them (reserves.)

  I remember what inspired me most about the British and Canadian dress uniforms was the history and culture in them. I would wear one proudly, and pay 100% for it.


----------



## Sailing Instructor (27 Dec 2004)

For a while before reading this thread, I would have lumped myself in with those who opt for a 2 uniform army (& a 1 uniform navy, but I'll save that for one of my threads about the naval uniform).   After reading this, I am a little more cautious in saying we ought to radically change the uniforms.   Nonetheless, here's my suggestion for a 2-uniform army:

I understand the need for a separate ceremonial & everyday (but not combat) uniform.   Civvies have morning dress to suit the occasions of weddings or other daytime ceremonies where the military has dress uniforms.   However, there is also the (sad) fact that most civilians do not even know what a morning suit is and wear the most abominable combinations of evening dress clothes to daytime events (weddings, mostly).   The lounge suit has, I can safely say, taken over as the dress & everyday clothing for male civilians (not employed in clothes-dirtying labour work).   

I find we have a choice in the CF: to make the DEU (equivalent to lounge suit) the dress & everyday uniform; to make some new uniform which is both dress & everyday; or to say 'screw it, we're conservative' & keep an daytime dress uniform in addition to a DEU everyday uniform.

I opt for choice #2: a new dress/everyday uniform.   My reasoning is as follows: firstly, I find that the 'shirt & tie necessary' argument is rather faulty.   I indeed like shirts & ties, but they--at least the tie--are supposed to be a thing of colour & beauty, not some thin, polyester, black or dark green thing hanging drearily around the neck.   These drab issued ties came out in the early part of the 20th century when ties themselves, rather than their colours, were all the rage.   That is no longer so, while ties are still worn they are only as part of a dress code (essentially a lax uniform) or because those who wear them like the style.   They are not, however, worn because they are ties--ties, as such, are not a must have item any longer.   Although the navy & airforce have had ties since thier first uniforms (the navy had some sort of neckcloth, anyway) but the army has not.   At least, that is, not some dull, boring khaki or green tie.   Regimental ties or ascots are fine and show some quality & colour which is absent from the DEU tie.   

Secondly, I opt for a new dress/everyday uniform because of something stemming from a small detail I've noticed about not being able to show my DEU shirt cuffs out of my DEU jacket sleeves.   On this matter, I've been told that the DEU is not quite like civilian business clothes.   This may be seemingly insignificant but it shows that it is simply the collar & tie style popularised in the early 20th century which has remained on the DEU.   That is, that DEU is equated with civilian business clothes is a retro-explanation for what is simply a fashion (collar & tie) which has lasted longer than it did in the civilian world due to rules about how to dress.   Civilian clothes have often followed military clothes in as much as vice versa occurs.   For instance, the lapels & collars of contemporary jackets originate from the high-collar tunics being unbuttoned & rolled down.   While the CF cannot ignore changes in clothing & stubbornly wear scarlets while Canadians move on to wear space age foil suits (as we all know is inevitable), it can choose to deviate from the collar & tie style to something else without, I think, abandoning civilians along the sartorial road.

If we are to adopt some sort of high-collar patrol or scarlet uniform as a dress/everyday uniform, I might remind those who fear the loss of the shirt & tie of the Nehru-collared jacket phenomenon back in the 1960s.   These jackets simply turned up that collar & buttoned up those lapels that had been open since some soldier let them down several hundred years ago.   They were popular with civilians and even made it as dinner suits.   And people even wore collars & ties under them (at least Telly Savales did when playing a James Bond villain).   I would also advocate that, just as one may dress up combats, one may undress the scarlets/patrols (i.e. the new uniform I am proposing) & therefore make them fit in to office work or going to the mess or whatever.   Certainly colouring a soldier's uniform scarlet rather than rifle green doesn't force him to wear gongs, bullion, & a sword all the time.   In that same vein of confort, that scarlets/patrols are (1) unconfortable, & (2) expensive need not be so.

For confort, I see nothing wrong with construction & materiel akin to our DEUs for new scarlets/patrols.   (I understand doeskin is rather unconfortable.)   A lightweight khaki or white version might be considered for the summer (as the navy has our summer whites) as well.

Expense runs, I believe, hand-in-hand with undressing the uniform for everyday work.   Taking away all the gold braid & accoutrements for the new uniform would considerably reduce the cost.   Care must be taken, however, not to make the uniform look bad; rather a few more dollars on gold in the badges than some muddle of DEU & scarlets which is worse-looking than either.   Also, getting rid of many of the orders of CF uniform would somewhat reduce cost, I reckon.

As for deciding what branches get what colour of uniforms: I can't really pass judgement on that.   I think I've gone a bit deep even in making the above suggestion of 2 uniforms after only (looking at my watch here) 6 months in the navy.   Though I thought it was an interesting idea to give patrols (presumably to be equivalent to scarlets & not 'undress') to the support branches.   

Speaking of support branches: I was, upon first becoming really acquainted with the CF, suprised to see the PSOs wearing CADPAT to conduct interviews _to which they had requested I wear a coat & tie_.   This, I think, would be the most striking example in favour of a civilian business clothing equivalent.   Although after wearing the CADPAT & DEUs, I find that the CADPATs are far more confortable so I can now see why the PSOs don't wear DEUs.

That brings me to a final aside: perhaps what we all ought to be looking at is redesigning the CF uniforms not for looks or tradition or anything so bold but simply for confort.   Is it any surprise that most of the CF walks around in CADPAT or NCD when these are the more confortable uniform compared to the DEUs?   I think more important than the collar-&-tie vs high-collar-tunic debate is whether or not our soldiers & sailors feel good in whatever we're wearing.   Part of that will be about looks, naturally, but we mustn't forget that someone unconfortable in DEU or scarlets will make that uniform look less sharp than one who is confortable in CADPAT.

An addition to respond to the second-last post:   if the CF is to pursue having dress uniforms, it ought to recognise the traditional distinction between day & evening dress.   Hence, mess & ceremonial (i.e. scarlet) dress must remain 2 separate orders.   Essentially this distinction lies in the fact that the mess is not where you do your work & what we now have as ceremonial dress was once for combat & assuredly not formally worn in the mess.   

To clarify my position, I wish for the army to have:

1. a dress uniform, for parades & daytime ceremonies, which, with the dressings (i.e. medals, accoutrements, etc.) removed, becomes;

2. an undress uniform, for everyday wear & situations which presently call for DEU; 

3. mess dress, in summer & winter flavours I suppose, which, with the dressings (i.e. medals, accoutrements, etc.) removed, becomes;

4. mess undress for everynight wear & situations which presently call for shipboard mess dress & mess service (because I really wish people still changed for dinner, but that's really only my pet peeve & I write this order of dress simply as a logical one); and

5. field combat clothing, otherwise known as the current CADPAT or whatever variant we come up with in the future.

So, 3 uniforms with 5 variants.   No protracted book of dress instructions really needed with this one.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

HOLY FUCKBALLS!!!

_Queer Eye for The Straight Guy_ just made-over the Canadian Army....

A)   Will it be in a non-baggy polyester gabardine?

B)   When do I get my riding boots?


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

Sailing Instructor said:
			
		

> For a while before reading this thread, I would have lumped myself in with those who opt for a 2 uniform army (& a 1 uniform navy, but I'll save that for one of my threads about the naval uniform).  After reading this, I am a little more cautious in saying we ought to radically change the uniforms.  Nonetheless, here's my suggestion for a 2-uniform army:
> 
> I understand the need for a separate ceremonial & everyday (but not combat) uniform.  Civvies have morning dress to suit the occasions of weddings or other daytime ceremonies where the military has dress uniforms.  However, there is also the (sad) fact that most civilians do not even know what a morning suit is and wear the most abominable combinations of evening dress clothes to daytime events (weddings, mostly).  The lounge suit has, I can safely say, taken over as the dress & everyday clothing for male civilians (not employed in clothes-dirtying labour work).



This is all reasonable and a correct reading of the situation in my opinion.



> I find we have a choice in the CF: to make the DEU (equivalent to lounge suit) the dress & everyday uniform; to make some new uniform which is both dress & everyday; or to say 'screw it, we're conservative' & keep an daytime dress uniform in addition to a DEU everyday uniform.
> 
> I opt for choice #2: a new dress/everyday uniform.



This is reasonable also.



> My reasoning is as follows: firstly, I find that the 'shirt & tie necessary' argument is rather faulty.  I indeed like shirts & ties, but they--at least the tie--are supposed to be a thing of colour & beauty, not some thin, polyester, black or dark green thing hanging drearily around the neck.  These drab issued ties came out in the early part of the 20th century when ties themselves, rather than their colours, were all the rage.  That is no longer so, while ties are still worn they are only as part of a dress code (essentially a lax uniform) or because those who wear them like the style.  They are not, however, worn because they are ties--ties, as such, are not a must have item any longer.  Although the navy & airforce have had ties since thier first uniforms (the navy had some sort of neckcloth, anyway) but the army has not.  At least, that is, not some dull, boring khaki or green tie.  Regimental ties or ascots are fine and show some quality & colour which is absent from the DEU tie.



Regimental ties are not exactly uncommon; ties in which the colours are significant are more historically based, I think, to "school ties" than "regimental ties" but I honestly don't know which came first.

I've rarely worn one to work; most places have "business casual", and I think any new uniform should distinguish between an equivalent to Business (tie worn) and Business Casual.  The current DEU does exactly that, by the addition of a sweater or wearing of shirtsleeves.



> Secondly, I opt for a new dress/everyday uniform because of something stemming from a small detail I've noticed about not being able to show my DEU shirt cuffs out of my DEU jacket sleeves.  On this matter, I've been told that the DEU is not quite like civilian business clothes.  This may be seemingly insignificant but it shows that it is simply the collar & tie style popularised in the early 20th century which has remained on the DEU.  That is, that DEU is equated with civilian business clothes is a retro-explanation for what is simply a fashion (collar & tie) which has lasted longer than it did in the civilian world due to rules about how to dress.  Civilian clothes have often followed military clothes in as much as vice versa occurs.  For instance, the lapels & collars of contemporary jackets originate from the high-collar tunics being unbuttoned & rolled down.  While the CF cannot ignore changes in clothing & stubbornly wear scarlets while Canadians move on to wear space age foil suits (as we all know is inevitable), it can choose to deviate from the collar & tie style to something else without, I think, abandoning civilians along the sartorial road.



You may have an improperly fitting DEU; have the sleeves altered?



> If we are to adopt some sort of high-collar patrol or scarlet uniform as a dress/everyday uniform, I might remind those who fear the loss of the shirt & tie of the Nehru-collared jacket phenomenon back in the 1960s.  These jackets simply turned up that collar & buttoned up those lapels that had been open since some soldier let them down several hundred years ago.  They were popular with civilians and even made it as dinner suits.  And people even wore collars & ties under them (at least Telly Savales did when playing a James Bond villain).  I would also advocate that, just as one may dress up combats, one may undress the scarlets/patrols (i.e. the new uniform I am proposing) & therefore make them fit in to office work or going to the mess or whatever.  Certainly colouring a soldier's uniform scarlet rather than rifle green doesn't force him to wear gongs, bullion, & a sword all the time.  In that same vein of confort, that scarlets/patrols are (1) unconfortable, & (2) expensive need not be so.



The Other Ranks of the  British Army fought tooth and nail for the "privilege" of wearing a necktie.  See Brian L. Davis or Mike Chappell's works on battledress.  It may seem funny to all those hard core Brit heritage types, but the Other Ranks felt scandalized that they were not permitted to wear a tie.

And I'm quite serious here.  Chappell goes into some detail; at a large gathering of soldiers (sort of like a commander's hour) that took part in WWII, he related how the "official" line on uniforms was that the Army always wore stand up collars to resist sword thrusts at their neck.  The men replied that officers wore collar and tie since before WW I, how was it that they had sword-resistant necks?  The dress regulations were changed in 1943 or 44 for the British Army, and earlier for the Canadian Army.  In Canada, ORs wearing a necktie was not seen as a privilege, and they called the ties "Zombie ties".  Zombies were the undead from science fiction, and a term used in WW II to denote a draftee who refused to volunteer for "General Service" or combat employment.

It is funny that those who champion British heritage and the old standup collar are ignorant of the viewpoint at one time that wearing a necktie - like an officer or civilian - was a jealously fought-for privilege.



> For confort, I see nothing wrong with construction & materiel akin to our DEUs for new scarlets/patrols.  (I understand doeskin is rather unconfortable.)  A lightweight khaki or white version might be considered for the summer (as the navy has our summer whites) as well.



Reasonable, but I think unnecessary - let's pick a medium colour and run with it year round.  Shirtsleeves is always an option in summer.



> Expense runs, I believe, hand-in-hand with undressing the uniform for everyday work.  Taking away all the gold braid & accoutrements for the new uniform would considerably reduce the cost.  Care must be taken, however, not to make the uniform look bad; rather a few more dollars on gold in the badges than some muddle of DEU & scarlets which is worse-looking than either.  Also, getting rid of many of the orders of CF uniform would somewhat reduce cost, I reckon.



But you're proposing the opposite...



> Speaking of support branches: I was, upon first becoming really acquainted with the CF, suprised to see the PSOs wearing CADPAT to conduct interviews _to which they had requested I wear a coat & tie_.  This, I think, would be the most striking example in favour of a civilian business clothing equivalent.  Although after wearing the CADPAT & DEUs, I find that the CADPATs are far more confortable so I can now see why the PSOs don't wear DEUs.



DEUs aren't necessarily uncomfortable (unless you're wearing the kilt) but take more maintenance than CADPATs - ironing creases, shining boots, etc.  A new patrol dress won't change that.



> That brings me to a final aside: perhaps what we all ought to be looking at is redesigning the CF uniforms not for looks or tradition or anything so bold but simply for confort.  Is it any surprise that most of the CF walks around in CADPAT or NCD when these are the more confortable uniform compared to the DEUs?  I think more important than the collar-&-tie vs high-collar-tunic debate is whether or not our soldiers & sailors feel good in whatever we're wearing.  Part of that will be about looks, naturally, but we mustn't forget that someone unconfortable in DEU or scarlets will make that uniform look less sharp than one who is confortable in CADPAT.



Depends on what the uniform is for; if we are still talking about every day, day to day, you are correct, though there is no excuse for unshone shoes or wrinkled uniform.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Dec 2004)

This, _full dress and feathers_ is a silly argument, but I am impressed, perhaps depressed is a better word, by the lack of attention displayed, in this and other threads, to our history â â€œ especially our military history - and the symbolism which attaches to it.

There are five main 'threads' in the strands of our history: Aboriginal, French, British (as opposed to English), American and Modern/Multicultural.   Each is different in both duration and impact; the aboriginal people were here longest but their (historical or cultural) 'step' was _light_ â â€œ they left too few records and historians are having difficulty giving it its full and proper 'place' (due, in part to a combination of fragmentary evidence, cultural politics (which is common to all cultures, by the way)and honest, essential academic disagreement).   The modern/multi-cultural thread is shortest but its immediate impact is bright and loud and all pervasive, on everything but the military â â€œ so far, but, to quote generations of sergeants on thousands of parade squares: â Å“Wait for it!â ?   The French were the major factor in 'modern' Canada for 250 years â â€œ they explored, settled and farmed but failed to _exploit_; their gaze was always back, over their shoulders, to France.   For the next 250 years the influences in Canada were British and (Anglo) American, in about equal strength.   They cannot be separated too much â â€œ they were concurrent influences, one feeding off the other. It is a common, but serious error to try to keep them apart.   Victorian and 20th century Canada was and remains far less 'British' than, say, distant New Zealand â â€œ the _French fact_ is irrelevant â â€œ the difference is the friendly, familiar, neighbourly and overwhelming influence of our _American cousins_.

The important differences for modern Canada between the British and _Loyalist_ North Americans, on the one hand, and the French, on the other, were many and deep but they began with the _idea_ of a new place with new, local institutions â â€œ _tied_ but not *bound* to Europe.

Our _Canadian_ military culture owes little to the aboriginals, the French or the modern, multicultural communities: it is, overwhelmingly, British-American, as it has been since the arrival of the _Loyalists_ in the 18th century and, especially, the Scots _migrations_ (forced and voluntary) of the early 19th century.   _(Some (I'm not sure of the number â â€œ more than two or three, less than a dozen, I think) regiments were raised in Scotland for service in India followed by settlement in Canada â â€œ with a decade of imprisonment and starvation for families until soldiers and family survivors were reunited, on regimental land grants, in Canada.   You can still find the traces in the Eastern Townships of Quebec, the St Lawrence and Ottawa valleys and e.g. Wellington and Dufferin counties in Ontario â â€œ I spent several weeks perusing parish records in those areas about 40 years ago.)_

Military history is not static and military _customs and traditions_ are a reflection of _social_ rather than _political_ history.   Thus, over the 250 years of British-American _dominance_ of Canadian military history, many things have changed.   We have forgotten, or relegated local _heroes_ like de Salaberry and Tecumseh and replaced them with (estimable, to be sure) people more _familiar_ to the dominant, British-American, culture of the day.   At the turn of the 21st century Roméo Dallaire and Lewis MacKenzie have, in their turns, replaced Sir Arthur Currie, Bert Hoffmeister and Cec Merritt in the Canadian military _pantheon_ â â€œ as happens everywhere, all the time.   Ditto for regiments and the attendant _buttons and bows_   issues.   (_It may be interesting for some to note that many of the *customs and traditions*, including the 'ceremonial' uniforms worn by some regiments, which are most popular with many Canadians on the fringes of our military, are very 'un-Canadian'.   They date from the Cardwells's much needed reforms of the post-Crimean British Army.   Some of these reforms persisted well into the 20th century and people of my age can remember regular ration stock-takings to ensure that the CO did not end up with a pay deduction at fiscal year end because he had gone too far over his battalion's ration entitlement â â€œ a holdover from the clean up of the corruption which was rife in the British commissariat system and which led to charges of theft being levelled (but not, often, proved) against several British commanders of 'good' blood.   Others, like Guy Simmonds' 'creation' of a Regiment of Canadian Guards are self-inflicted wounds, a result of our own, sometimes excessive, Anglophilia.)_

All that to say that 35 year old 'DEUs' â â€œ all gussied up with bright gee-gaws to replace the _traditional_, in 20th century *wars*, subdued rank badges and simple div patches â â€œ are no more _traditional_ than high collared, drab wool tunics or bright scarlet ones with different coloured piping and facings.   There is nothing especially Canadian or un-Canadian about our uniforms â â€œ they look remarkably similar to those worn by the Chinese _People's Liberation Army_ and, indeed, by Idi Amin â â€œ neither, in my view, making a case *for* their form, fit and function.

I agree that uniforms reflect the civilian dress of the day, with, almost inevitably, modifications for good, military reasons: most Romans wore a short tunic and so did Roman soldiers, a good wool tunic, augmented by a good wool blanket/cloak, and with a breastplate, helmet, shield and sometimes a leather kilt and woollen or leather trousers, too, and so on.   Ditto the army that took Québec â â€œ cutaway coats with waistcoats and knee breeches with stockings were the 'norm' for _gentlemen_ and even for _common men_, for Sunday wear, in the 1760s.   They were issued to, and adapted for soldiers, too. But, big *BUT*, the fact that soldiers dressed in a manner which was 'normal' for society at large does not, by any stretch of the imagination, translate into a *requirement* for the soldiers to have a uniform that _â ?mimics Business Casual and Business dressâ ?_ â â€œ that is a huge red herring.

In the 19th century the British and German armies noted that bright red, white and blue did not aid camouflage and concealment and, first, rifle green jackets with subdued facings and buttons, and, later, khaki and _feldgrau_ (field grey) appeared on the battlefield, thus, irrevocably, _*separating*_ military from civilian attire.   The khaki _battle dress_ or _field service dress_ was, inevitably, 'dressed up' as Michael Dorosh notes, on his web site â â€œ especially for British officers.   The utilitarian leather belts and straps, including the famous Sam Browne belt, (worn, on active service, with scarlet tunics, by the RCD and The RCR) became increasing, then wholly decorative.   The visible distinctions between officers, senior NCOs and the rank and file became greater and greater, reinforcing concomitant but outmoded social divisions.   In the '60s and then, again, in the '80s the British Army upgraded soldiers' uniforms to a style and quality which aimed to reduced those distinctions.   The initial Canadian _jolly green jumper_ was designed to remove them entirely â â€œ polyester and plastic for one and all.   Very soon we saw â â€œ I think it is now quite common â â€œ that officers spent their own money to get a better cut or fit and, often, better cloth, too.   Some (many?) naval officers have real (American or British) gold on their sleeves â â€œ even on the slip-ons they wear on sweaters, etc.   On balance I favoured, and still do, the British approach (*better kit for the soldiers*) to the Canadian one (*lower quality for all*}.

It is noted that not all Canadian regiments had ceremonial dress uniforms â â€œ neither did all British regiments.   Until the late 19th century soldiers in most armies had one 'style' of uniform â â€œ the one they fought in.   Ditto, on the basis of the photographic evidence on their web site: the Calgary Highlanders in the 1920s and The RCR in the 1950s.   The soldiers' tropical worsted uniform was an attempt to give Canadian soldiers and airmen a summer weight 'walking out' uniform, such as their British colleagues had for tropical service.   In the '50s a form of _garrison dress_ had already evolved: bush pants and dress shirts, sleeves rolled up, in the summer, and bush pants or battle dress trousers, shirt and high-neck sweater in the winter with either a jump smock or a nylon parka (no liner in spring and fall) as outerwear.   Neither full, _garrison duty_, pressed and gussied up woollen battledress or TWs were popular â â€œ soldiers wanted to wear something practical, comfortable and easy to care for, while still looking 'smart.'   In the '50s and '60s most Canadian officers wore service dress, highly polished leather Sam Browne and all, when 'on parade' but they, too â â€œ even the CO and the brigadier - wore the informal _garrison dress_ on normal 'working days.'

That still seems to be the case in Petawawa â â€œ or it was when members of our regimental association last visited: I don't think I noticed a full (jacket and tie) DEU in wear and I think I would have noticed because it would have stood out.   I did see a few â â€œ a very few â â€œ green trousers with open neck shirts and sweaters but mostly I saw CADPAT _battle dress_, including the CO and the brigade commander.   I observed this, again, when I visited a British base a few years ago â â€œ I don't think I saw an officer or NCO and certainly not a private, in anything but a disruptive pattern uniform â â€œ and that included the brigadier in his office.   My _impression_ (and it has been a decade plus since I last set foot on an American base) is that the US is the same.

I see many mixes of dress when I stop by the Army Officers' Mess in Ottawa â â€œ most of the military bureaucrats wear sweaters/trousers or their CADPAT uniforms; a few (some colonels and most generals) wear a tunic and tie.   If NDHQ is to be the _standard_ then there is a need, there, for something other than _battle dress_ and a ceremonial uniform.   But, really, is what General Howsyourfather is going to wear when he meets a lobbyist for lunch really the 'standard' for issue of uniforms in the entire Canadian Army?

Whatever uniforms we are going to issue to Canadian soldiers â â€œ and I do not agree that they should buy their own â â€œ should reflect our unique Canadian military traditions.   For 250 years the predominant Canadian military traditions have been local (North American) adaptations of British customs, traditions, organizations and equipment.   Sometimes â â€œ e.g. Rangers/Rifles/Light Infantry â â€œ we, British North Americans, have led the way but mostly we have adapted British ways and means to meet our needs.   We still do â â€œ to the extent that we retain the ever flexible and ever changing _regimental system_   Ignoring those traditions is to try to rewrite Canadian history â â€œ dishonest in the extreme.

This, _full dress and feathers_, is still a silly argument â â€œ we have better things to do with scarce dollars but ... as I have mentioned before, morale and pride (_self esteem_) and self confidence are all mixed together and all can be damaged if there is a sense that soldiers, NCOs and officers are, somehow, less 'worthy' than other Canadians.   

With all possible respect to today's soldiers, traditions matter, too â â€œ we need to focus our soldiers more on Alexander Dunn, Richard Rowland Thompson, Milton Gregg and Cec Merritt and less on Lester B Pearson and Roméo Dallaire.   The indisputable geopolitical *fact* is that we had a 40 year 'rest' from large scale combat (a long time in our history) while our armed forces _kept the peace_, the only peace that really, ever, needed to be kept, through intensive training for war and hair trigger alertness.   The bits of other overseas service we saw â â€œ so called _Pearsonian peacekeeping_ was nothing more than military busy-work, designed to help preserve the fragile, but peaceful, balance of power.   Keeping the 'real' peace â â€œ the peace that mattered â â€œ required tough, superbly disciplined, well trained and adequately equipped troops.

Getting that 'mix' (toughness, discipline, training) right required something I would call, for lack of a better term, *an agenda of respect* for soldiers and soldiering â â€œ we had it under St. Laurent, it began to slip, a bit, under Pearson and Diefenbaker, and it collapsed, totally and completely, in 1968 when Trudeau and Head gave practical, political effect to their anti-military views.   I do not believe it, the _*agenda of respect*_, ever recovered ... certainly not after 1993.   I remember the debilitating effects of the original _jolly green jumper_ and the universally *despised* 'work dress' â â€œ the soft drink deliverymen's uniform.   Soldiers wondered if anyone in Ottawa gave a hoot about them.   So, uniforms can matter ...

There is a lot more to do than fiddle with uniforms, but *if* those uniforms are not supportive of our most valuable traditions, if polyester and plastic and fierce brigade patches do no good, then they may be part of the problem.

I apologize for the length; I adopt Churchill's defence: I didn't have time to write a short one ... actually I'm just too lazy to revise and edit.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> This, _full dress and feathers_ is a silly argument, but I am impressed, perhaps depressed is a better word, by the lack of attention displayed, in this and other threads, to our history â â€œ especially our military history - and the symbolism which attaches to it.
> 
> (snips)
> 
> I apologize for the length; I adopt Churchill's defence: I didn't have time to write a short one ... actually I'm just too lazy to revise and edit.



I read through that twice and have no idea what point you were trying to make.  Unless the point was simply to avoid all the points I've been trying to make, in which case, well done.

You seem to base the entire Army's uniform needs on what you've seen at Petawawa (a training outpost - I'm sure I've never seen a jacket and tie in Wainwright either), dismissing "NDHQ" as unimportant or representative of the only people in contact with the business world.    We have brigade headquarters throughout Canada, and even at the unit level there are officers and men with contacts in the "real" world, the need for a business type dress is not restricted to the CDS or even all of NDHQ...but I've stated that all before, haven't I.

You also assert that there is nothing "Canadian" about the DEU, and compare it to a Chinese uniform.  That only speaks to the same level of ignorance that canuck25 is displaying; his last post wasn't worth responding to, and I find this latest of yours fits the same category.  On the most basic level, all armies in the world wear the "same" uniform, if your only points of comparison are the fact that they have sleeves, pockets, some method of buttoning up the front, and a collar to put your neck through!   Check out the book DRAB SERGE AND KHAKI DRILL: THE FOREIGN SERVICE, UNIVERSAL SERVICE, BATTLE AND COMBAT DRESS JACKETS OF THE CANADIAN ARMY 1899-2003  by Grant Tyler, published just this year, for an introduction to "Canadian" uniforms.  If you really don't see the evolution from "Line Warrant Officers' Summer Service Dress Jacket, Tropical Worsted ca. 1961, Tan-c" as illustrated on page 132, and the current uniform, there is no point continuing the conversation... That was the reality for Canadians for the last 100 years, not the stand up collars that British soldiers actually lobbied to do away with!

I really have no idea what it is you propose.  Stand up collars and scarlet doublets to replace the DEU?  I thought that was your point a few pages ago, but am now thoroughly confused as to what you are on about.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

Here is the passage from Chappell (BRITISH BATTLEDRESS 1937-1961)



> In the last month of 1944 an Army Regulation permitted Other Ranks to wear collars and ties with BD when off duty.  The prohibition of collars and ties to this date - officially, at least (*) - had for a long time been a bone of contention among British soldiers, who resented the denial of a right enjoyed by members of other services.  The civilians in uniform who made up the vast majority of the British Army in wartime saw no good reason why they should be forced to present an old-fashioned and unstylish appearance when walking out; the author well remembers a 'current affairs' talk held in Bradford City's football stadium in October 1943 which degenerated into a heated discussion of this point.  Were British Tommies considered unequal to the 'civilized' task of knotting a tie?  The hard-pressed officer giving the talk was reduced to claiming that the Army had always worn button-up collars as protection against sword-thrusts.  He had no satisfactory answer when asked if officers, who had worn open-collar tunics since early in the century, had sword-resistant throats...



(*) this implies that British soldiers wanted so badly to wear neckties that they did so unofficially

This quote says a lot about the so-called "British traditions" of the stand up collar and the collared shirt and tie.  Those proposing to get rid of the DEU in favour of going back to our "British roots" may find it interesting that those same British soldiers they want to look like viewed the jacket and tie as "civilized" and the act of doing the collar up to the neck as "old-fashioned" and "unstylish."

If not wearing a tie was uncivilized and unstylish in 1944, how would it be any less so today?

I would suggest my earlier comments about the officer in the quote above giving the "official" line on high collars is incorrect - the actual passage reads much more like the officer was simply hard pressed and made that up on the spot to soothe the legions before him...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2004)

ROG's post just put this whole debacle in a nutshell for me, and I'm not here to debate on, what I consider, an out of control thread. I'm sure if a topic came around, on which I was an expert, I'd be inclined to run it out to dozens of pages refuting every tiny point also. I can only hope there's bigger things plaguing our military, other than if my cuffs show below my sleeves or if the extra pockets, or the collar up or down make my uniform distinctly Canadian :, but carry on, tis the season to be jolly!


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Here is the passage from Chappell (BRITISH BATTLEDRESS 1937-1961)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I never suggested we rid ourselves of the DEU. I support it for how it is currently used. I am totally agianst replacing the scarlet with the DEU. 

 Also, you must consider the oppinon of the public. If the public likes these uniforms (scarlet and DEU) why replace one with the other?

 Also, Australia and New Zealand still use the scarlet dress (scottish dress)


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Dec 2004)

Petawawa is a _*training outpost*_?   What on earth do you imagine the army is, Mr. Dorosh, a bunch of insurance salesmen playing at _Mister Dressup_   every other week end?

The 'real world' for The Royal Canadian Regiment, at least, is 'home' in Petawawa and active service in Afghanistan, now that the Balkans is over and done with.   I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know that they have to take their 'business suits' with them, next time they go, lest they create a bad impression with the locals.

NDHQ is overly full of less than productive people, a way too large percentage of them protecting the rears of ministers and senior bureaucrats: people in business suits.   NDHQ is to the real army as Xanadu would have been to Kublai Khan's real empire.


----------



## Jungle (27 Dec 2004)

Aren't the cuffs supposed to show on that pic of the NZ Mess dress ??   : I hope the guy didn't get in too much trouble...  
You'd never see me on the internet with hidden cuffs !!  ;D ;D


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Petawawa is a _*training outpost*_?  What on earth do you imagine the army is, Mr. Dorosh, a bunch of insurance salesmen playing at _Mister Dressup_  every other week end?
> 
> The 'real world' for The Royal Canadian Regiment, at least, is 'home' in Petawawa and active service in Afghanistan, now that the Balkans is over and done with.  I'm sure they'll be thrilled to know that they have to take their 'business suits' with them, next time they go, lest they create a bad impression with the locals.
> 
> NDHQ is overly full of less than productive people, a way too large percentage of them protecting the rears of ministers and senior bureaucrats: people in business suits.  NDHQ is to the real army as Xanadu would have been to Kublai Khan's real empire.



So we really need scarlet doublets in Petawawa, do we?   The argument here was about DEUs being replaced by scarlet tunics.  I do recall your idea that we only needed camouflage suits, but you only make my point for me.  Your "real army" would still be fighting with pointy sticks without guys in Ottawa (and elsewhere) doing the procurement, lobbying Parliament for funding, etc. etc....  Take the blinkers off.  The combat arms are the most important element of the Forces but not by any means the only element.   I doubt you will accept that, however.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

Ok, I'm starting to agree with Recceguy here.   This is getting silly.

Now we're arguing over cuff lengths and what flavour the tie should be.

Now everyone put your proposal into one single, 500 word paragraph or less.   Rather then rant on about fabric types and what Martha Stewart would think of it, make sure it adheres to the following principles that ROJ pointed out:



> The functions of uniforms are:
> 
> "¢	To identify people as soldiers, as good military sense and the _laws and usages of war_ require;
> 
> ...



I will still hold to my "Mechanic" Philosophy.   I simply do not believe that Combats do any justice to military Dress and Deportment in the public eye (Point 3).   I will again insist that I believe that any policy we propose on uniforms and dress should be based around the following policy:

_4. Marines set the example. In any uniform we will maintain the highest standards of appearance -- at all times -- in all places. Exercise good judgment, if there's a doubt -- don't stop._

Replace "Marines" with "The Canadian Soldier".   What is it the RCR's say - "Never Pass a Fault".

Anyways, there should be a caveat attached to my proposal.   It is that all of this is LOW on the priority list - If the Army is going to designate resources and manpower to solving an issue, I've got a slew of issues on the operational spectrum that deserve immediate attention.

Let's see the proposals.

Infanteer

PS: I've always felt the Aussies had a nice looking Army dress - perhaps this could be the basis of a "Catch-All" military uniform?


----------



## Sailing Instructor (27 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Regimental ties are not exactly uncommon; ties in which the colours are significant are more historically based, I think, to "school ties" than "regimental ties" but I honestly don't know which came first.
> 
> I've rarely worn one to work; most places have "business casual", and I think any new uniform should distinguish between an equivalent to Business (tie worn) and Business Casual.   The current DEU does exactly that, by the addition of a sweater or wearing of shirtsleeves.
> 
> ...



Before I respond, I must say that we are not arguing about cuffs showing (this was simply an anecdote I used to point out something) though even if we were, a debate on the aesthetics of our uniform is hardly silly.  We're forced to wear the thing every day (more or less) & I think that these debates, while perhaps not as pertinent as what field kit is better, are as important as any other.  Civilians can just buy other clothes if they don't like what they wear: their rules on dress are unwritten & therefore lenient.  Ours aren't either.

Anyway, here I go:  regarding business casual, I do come from the school of thought that this is a horrid phenomenon and is not, in fact, casual as it simply replaces a suit (which looks very nice) with a sweater (etc.) and is another, and I think uglier, formal 'order' of clothes.  I think the military needn't, as ROJ pointed out, follow civvy dress to a T.  Especially what may be unstylish fads.  The suit & tie, & therefore the normal DEUs, will be in style for a long time (with variation) but this business casual fad is just that, a fad.  (Keep in mind I have a very strong sense of sartorial morality so I am rather unjust in my discussion of clothes.)

Regarding the shirt & tie: I must mention that I was writing ignorantly in terms of the fact that ties were a sign of status in society (though I was not ignorant of this, it was simply 0300h when I posted!).  While that is a very, very interesting history of ties in the military, it does not totally change my pro-high-collar stance (perhaps it is the language we use which makes this discussion seem silly).  I am firstly advocating high-collars for all ranks, so officers will not be specially allowed to wear the tie while ncms get stabbed in the neck.  Also, I once again must state that the collar & tie look is at least not as strong as it was back when these Pongos fought to wear a tie.  While it is still the proper dress for parliaments & courts, etc.  It is nowhere near as pervasive as in the first 1/2 of the 20th century.  Also, badly-made polyester ties were never in style, except perhaps in the 80s. 

One caveat, I do think the addition of collars & ties to the service or battle uniforms was a neat idea to bring the uniform to the standard of a walking-out one.   It is essentially the same as the argument for dressing the CADPATs with ascots & accoutrements or whatever.  However, our current DEU, while styled to reflect its utilitarian heritage, is purely either ceremonial or a louge suit equivalent.  It is not currently utilitarian enough, I think, to warrant the idea that a tie dresses it up, since the tie (or medals, etc.) cannot be taken away to leave the soldier with a utility uniform.

Just a side note on the summer tunic: I realise that this is not necessary when one has the option of shirt sleeves but I meant that the summer tunic would replace the short-sleeved shirt orders of dress.  The 5 uniforms I suggested were the complete repretoire (minus outerwear, underwear, other combat uniforms, etc.) for the army.  Essentially they provide what orders 1-3 currently do.  (Also, I think my mention of these 5 uniforms counts as my 500 word proposal, since I do tend to go on a lot.)

On the British vs Canadian debate I am not taking a side.  Though I am quite the Tory I don't advocate the scarlets or patrols over DEU because they are more British than American (DEUs were partly modelled after USAF service dress after all).  For me it is an aesthetic choice, with some grounding in that they are not totally foreign to Canada.  Remember also: the high collared tunic need not be unconfortable.  I envision a dress & undress uniform which is at least as confortable as DEUs--hopefully more so.  After all, people fought wars wearing scarlets whereas I don't think the DEUs can make that claim (yes, I realise admin work is just as important but my point's about confort).

PS. No soldier or sailor should be forced to wear polyester.  It is just plain evil.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2004)

I am vindicated yet once more :


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I am vindicated yet once more :



Yes you are, my friend, yes you are....

Sailing Instructor, your yarns on aesthetics, high fashion, and what would look good on the runway in Milan are irrelevant to what the Army needs.   You've yet to address anything pertinent to the three reasons for a uniform that ROJ clearly laid out (which I'll restate):

_The functions of uniforms are:

"¢     To identify people as soldiers, as good military sense and the laws and usages of war require;

"¢     To protect soldiers, in so far as can be done, from the elements and, even, bio-chemical agents;

"¢     To display our military values._

Functional and comfortable is a given; other then that, who cares what the history of the tie or business casual is - the only question is the standard of dress we wish our soldiers to be held to.


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Functional and comfortable is a given; other then that, who cares what the history of the tie or business casual is - the only question is the standard of dress we wish our soldiers to be held to.



 I care, and by the way this thread has been debated, many care. 

 I see the conflict of interest in this thread is over heritage. The point is, our military was established on British traditions and before that, the French. New Zealand and Australia havent abondoned the scarlet dress, and i dont think they will. The RCMP havent abondoned their scarlet dress, and i dont think they will either. I attended an RCMP training camp, and at the dinner, all officers were dressed in scarlet, the most beautiful boots ive ever seen, and that trooper hat. They have established an image that has held for over 100 years, why do members in the military argue over our links with Britain as if it is something to be ashamed of. Keep the scarlet dress, embrace it, dont dispise it.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Functional and comfortable is a given; other then that, who cares what the history of the tie or business casual is - the only question is the standard of dress we wish our soldiers to be held to.



Functional and comfortable are obviously not a given, since there have been many posts championing such archaic things as stand up collars and wool material.  In fact, there is a line to be drawn between form and function; the question, of course, is where to draw it.  That can't be arbitrary - well, it can, but we have a disaster on our hands as I feel that line was arbitrarily drawn with Garrison Dress.

If you don't want to discuss the matter seriously, you're free not to participate.  For what it is worth, you have made good points - I do like the look of the Australian uniform you posted, though not as a replacement for our DEU - I still think our DEU is better.

Trying to "sum up" is admirable, but thinking that comfort, expense, ease of maintenance, etc. are not issues is simply not realistic; add to that historical precedent which in itself is causing quite a bit of a problem here (at least for those not capable of grasping how little precedent there really is for anything but a DEU style jacket for what the Army still refers to as "service dress."

I have worn business casual on civvie side for the last five years; I do wear a tie and jacket on occasion - sometimes just because I like the way people look at me when I am wearing one.  But I get blessed little accomplished when I am wearing them.  I do, however, acknowledge the need for such on occasion.  Comments from crusty field soldiers who see nothing beyond the next training area probably don't know the difference in purpose between a light coloured suit or a dark one....

That's their right; those who stand on the wall, in Colonel Jessup's words, and defend our freedoms may hold themselves above the rest of society if they wish.  When society similarly looks back in a less than accepting way, they cease to have reason to be surprised; or worse, when they find they budgets have been slashed yet again.  The Army needs to be a partner in society, not a hostage of society nor the other way around.  That means looking the part on occasion.

What IS a given, however, is operational needs reigning supreme.  No one is disupting that; the conversation I've been trying to nurse along has been a response to the suggestion we replace the DEU with a ceremonial type tunic.  I think I've clearly delineated some good reasons why that shouldn't be done which have gone largely unrefuted in any kind of honest or scholarly way.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> I care, and by the way this thread has been debated, many care.
> 
> I see the conflict of interest in this thread is over heritage. The point is, our military was established on British traditions and before that, the French. New Zealand and Australia havent abondoned the scarlet dress, and i dont think they will. The RCMP havent abondoned their scarlet dress, and i dont think they will either. I attended an RCMP training camp, and at the dinner, all officers were dressed in scarlet, the most beautiful boots ive ever seen, and that trooper hat. They have established an image that has held for over 100 years, why do members in the military argue over our links with Britain as if it is something to be ashamed of. Keep the scarlet dress, embrace it, dont dispise it.



I never advocated eliminating the scarlets.   Read the "mechanics" proposal - we need a tuxedo.

However, that being said, I also stated that next to ammunition, vehicles, and an assortment of other items, Scarlets are last on the list.   If it is deemed to expensive or to much of a burden to maintain (ie: the "mechanic" philosophy becomes untenable), then going with a single, more versatile service uniform is the way to go (I nominated something similar to the Aussie uniform).

How looking like some plug from Liverpool once a year at the Officer's Mess has any bearing on operational effectiveness is beyond me.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

Michael Dorosh said:
			
		

> Functional and comfortable are obviously not a given, since there have been many posts championing such archaic things as stand up collars and wool material.   In fact, there is a line to be drawn between form and function; the question, of course, is where to draw it.   That can't be arbitrary - well, it can, but we have a disaster on our hands as I feel that line was arbitrarily drawn with Garrison Dress.



I liked the policy based upon "Never Pass a Fault" myself.   Just because the Army does its duties in a field environment doesn't mean we have to look like slobs in public (baggy combats and big, black boots).



> If you don't want to discuss the matter seriously, you're free not to participate.



I'm trying to.   The fact that many of the BTDT's aren't taking this discussion seriously should send a message to bring it back to Earth.



> For what it is worth, you have made good points - I do like the look of the Australian uniform you posted, though not as a replacement for our DEU - I still think our DEU is better.



Aren't they the same (ie: suit and tie deal)?   I just liked the colour of the Aussie one - I agree with PBI that the Rifle Green is too dark.   A nice olive drab/khaki says "Army".




> Comments from crusty field soldiers who see nothing beyond the next training area probably don't know the difference in purpose between a light coloured suit or a dark one....
> 
> That's their right; those who stand on the wall, in Colonel Jessup's words, and defend our freedoms may hold themselves above the rest of society if they wish.   When society similarly looks back in a less than accepting way, they cease to have reason to be surprised; or worse, when they find they budgets have been slashed yet again.   The Army needs to be a partner in society, not a hostage of society nor the other way around.   That means looking the part on occasion.



I'm not following this....



> What IS a given, however, is operational needs reigning supreme.   No one is disupting that; the conversation I've been trying to nurse along has been a response to the suggestion we replace the DEU with a ceremonial type tunic.   I think I've clearly delineated some good reasons why that shouldn't be done which have gone largely unrefuted in any kind of honest or scholarly way.



Well, this is the problem - everbody shooting down the wrong lane.   I don't recall seeing the argument to replace the DEU with the Scarlets on the forum - ROJ advocated eliminating DEU's and using combats as the day-to-day dress, regardless of duties.   I've disagreed with this principle (so I guess I agree with you).

Then you got Canuck25 who is bleeding Red all over the thread and not really giving any reasonable reason for his view other then the fact that "we used to do it that way".

If the Army wishes to expend the effort into supporting a fancy uniform (like Scarlets), then do so in a manner which makes it accessible to all and doesn't interfere with more pressing concerns (like "how the hell am I going to deploy to the operational theater?").   Matt Fisher put forward a decent proposal with this:

_"What I think should be considered is a reintroduction of the blue patrol dress as an authorized private purchase item for serving troops, similar to the Dress Blues that we wear in the Marines.   Even as a reservist, I tend to end up wearing my blues for at least 5 or 6 events during the year, such as the Marine Corps Birthday Ball, various Toys for Tots charity events, weddings, etc.   I love my Marine Service Dress, however I never have the occasion to wear it, as I have my blues."_

If we can't do this, "fancy up" the DEUs.


"What's wrong with my Uniform?!?"


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I never advocated eliminating the scarlets.   Read the "mechanics" proposal - we need a tuxedo.
> 
> However, that being said, I also stated that next to ammunition, vehicles, and an assortment of other items, Scarlets are last on the list.   If it is deemed to expensive or to much of a burden to maintain (ie: the "mechanic" philosophy becomes untenable), then going with a single, more versatile service uniform is the way to go (I nominated something similar to the Aussie uniform).
> 
> How looking like some plug from Liverpool once a year at the Officer's Mess has any bearing on operational effectiveness is beyond me.



 In my oppinon, the scarlet uniform should be supplied to all regular memebers of the army. The reservist would have to fundraise for theirs.

 Keep the DEU, keep the scarlet, dont replace one with the other.


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> In my oppinon, the scarlet uniform should be supplied to all regular memebers of the army. The reservist would have to fundraise for theirs.
> 
> Keep the DEU, keep the scarlet, dont replace one with the other.



Well, next time I'm sitting on the range wondering why I only have 30 rounds to shoot for the entire year, I'll remember to thank you for your opinion.


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Then you got Canuck25 who is bleeding Red all over the thread and not really giving any reasonable reason for his view other then the fact that "we used to do it that way".
> 
> If the Army wishes to expend the effort into supporting a fancy uniform (like Scarlets), then do so in a manner which makes it accessible to all and doesn't interfere with more pressing concerns (like "how the heck am I going to deploy to the operational theater?").   Matt Fisher put forward a decent proposal with this:
> 
> ...



 Well, are you sure that you have read the whole thread, becuase i pointed out that the general public loves the scarlet dress, its part of our heritage, and i even gave an example of how the RCMP arent rushing to replace their scarlet dress, it represents them, and people love it. You also might think this is a joke, but when people see the formidable, beautful and inspiring scarlet dress, it makes one want to join the military (thats what caught my eye, along with adventure and excitement.) I remeber out of the 35 teens at the RCMP camp i attended, 10 are now training to become officers. Some remarked how they couldnt wait to wear the "red coat" uniform. 

 "Fancy up" the DEU to replace the scarlet dress is unacceptable in my oppinon. 3 dresses, like the Aussies and Kiwis is what we need. It works for the British, Australians and New Zealanders, it can work for us.


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, next time I'm sitting on the range wondering why I only have 30 rounds to shoot for the entire year, I'll remember to thank you for your opinion.



 Im sure that wouldnt happen if you werent trigger happy


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> You also might think this is a joke, but when people see the formidable, beautful and inspiring scarlet dress, it makes one want to join the military (thats what caught my eye, along with adventure and excitement.) I remeber out of the 35 teens at the RCMP camp i attended, 10 are now training to become officers. Some remarked how they couldnt wait to wear the "red coat" uniform.



If people are joining the military on the premise of wearing a stuffy uniform a few days a year, then they should probably re-evaluate their reasons for wanting to become a soldier.



> "Fancy up" the DEU to replace the scarlet dress is unacceptable in my oppinon. 3 dresses, like the Aussies and Kiwis is what we need. It works for the British, Australians and New Zealanders, it can work for us.



You're showing yourself to be quite inflexible and dogmatic - therefore, the weight of your posts are being discounted as such.


----------



## Canuck_25 (27 Dec 2004)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If people are joining the military on the premise of wearing a stuffy uniform a few days a year, then they should probably re-evaluate their reasons for wanting to become a soldier.
> 
> You're showing yourself to be quite inflexible and dogmatic - therefore, the weight of your posts are being discounted as such.



 Well, you must realise (i know its difficult, but you must try) that the public funds our military. They are the ones that put pressure on the politicians to increase or decease the military's budget. If the public adores the scarlet dress, keep it. I know enough people in my small red neck community that love them, and love seeing the scottish regiments in kilts, with all that extra clothing that is mostly symbolic. Its heritage, and its disapearing for more modern values. Who cares if the soldiers might only wear it 3-6 times a year. When they do, crowds and the media are there to greet those soldiers, in their uncomfortable, expensive, bright and colourfull uniforms, marching proudly down the street.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (27 Dec 2004)

Infanteer, you are absolutely correct about people continuing to "fire down the wrong lane"; this thread may have run its course.  

My comments were intended originally only to respond to the idea that we don't need DEUs - one poster suggested replacing them with scarlets or some other non-specific "dress uniform", another suggested using combats.  Neither one has given a compelling reason why, nor responded directly to my explanation.

There are a few in the middle ground like yourself who have made useful suggestions.  The Marines, as you and Matt pointed out, do have a useful model, and I think by and large we already follow it.  A "business suit", a sweater for "business casual", good combat gear (MARPAT and CADPAT are of a family, if only we had those nifty squared-off covers, but of course that would be horrifyingly American), and a smart ceremonial dress.   

We will never, ever have a "Canadian" ceremonial dress, or at least I hope not, as there are indeed too many regimental traditions at stake.  You'd never get the armoured, infantry, Rifles, artillery, chaplains, clerks, engineers etc. and et al to agree on a colour, much less a common pattern.  I like things the way they are now; the "have" regiments like the Glamour Boys in Toronto can keep their very British uniforms, others can go with patrols or coatees, as they can afford them.

I think we've come full circle.  I also agree that the colour of the DEU could be lightened for a more "Army" look, but reinventing the wheel there is not necessary either since the colour is firmly established as a tradition (meaning we've done it twice, right?   literally, we have, the CF Jacket and then the DEU Jacket).

I could get behind the suggestion of adopting a blue jacket across the CF, even with the dreaded stand up collar.  But for the simply reason that it looks good, and with the promise we would still have DEUs.  In fact, blue patrols have probably been far more common than any of the "ceremonial" uniforms described here.  They were also common to all corps and regiments; the blue forage cap had a coloured band to designate the affiliation, and as Matt pointed out, the pants could also have a coloured stripe.  You might even claim that it is "traditional".  I get the feeling they were never intended as parade dress - the Royal Regiment of Canada expected officers,  WOs and Sgts to own it as mess dress before WW II, for example.  This very thread revelaed that scarlets were considered the No. 1 dress for them.  I presume junior NCOs and privates did not own such uniforms, nor that it was ever universal across the Army.

In any event,  the Empire is dead and we have been quite good at designing our own uniforms to suit our own needs for at least half a century.

We have a young Army; whatever we end up doing vis a vis a "national ceremonial uniform" will simply be making up things from whole cloth, no matter what the final style and pattern.  And guess what, it's our right to do so.  Just don't expect to be able to justify it on any logical grounds, as you will be on as shaky a footing as you would be trying to justify the Garrison Dress.

Anyway, that's probably enough from me for one thread, unless anyone really wants to go round the mill again on why red jackets are not "traditional" or why collars and ties were a privilege the British Army begged to have....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Dec 2004)

FWIW, I seem to be getting more recognition, as a soldier and what we are doing now, from the civilians while I am in CADPAT than I ever did while in DEU's.



			
				Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> In my oppinon, the scarlet uniform should be supplied to all regular memebers of the army. The reservist would have to fundraise for theirs.



Why? Want to move back to the "poor cousin" "us vs them" mentality? Reservists aren't good enough to get it issued?



			
				Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Well, are you sure that you have read the whole thread, because i pointed out that the general public loves the scarlet dress, its part of our heritage, and i even gave an example of how the RCMP aren't rushing to replace their scarlet dress, it represents them, and people love it. You also might think this is a joke, but when people see the formidable, beautiful and inspiring scarlet dress, it makes one want to join the military (thats what caught my eye, along with adventure and excitement.) I remeber out of the 35 teens at the RCMP camp i attended, 10 are now training to become officers. Some remarked how they couldnt wait to wear the "red coat" uniform.



IIRC, Scarlets are only worn on special occasions and ceremonies. The brown tunic and shirt is daily wear when required.

There's also a big difference (costwise) in outfitting the comparably small number of RCMP to the total of the Land Force (as small as we are).

Your whole premise is tilting at windmills. The Gov't IS NOT going to outfit everyone with Scarlets for any reason. Your whipping a dead horse. Bury it before it attracts flies.

Patrols (in some Units) and Mess Dress are available and sanctioned for those wishing to purchase it. That satisfies those of us wishing to dress up a little on special occasions

And as per Michael and the rest, this is my last word on this "subject".


----------



## Infanteer (27 Dec 2004)

So when do I get my Prussian Staff Corps stripe and my riding boots?


----------



## Veterans son (28 Dec 2004)

Speaking of uniforms, were the DEUs worn by the Canadian Forces(prior to 1968) a khaki colour? 
Also, the blue forage caps were mentioned.
Would they be a navy-blue or light-blue?

Thanks for any information!


----------



## Johnny_H (28 Dec 2004)

Not sure if these will show up or if Img code is enabled but I have some personal pics taken Canada Day of the Guards regiment ( Governor Generals Foot Guards and or Grenadier Guards of Canada ) the Princess Louise Fusiliers Band ( a Atlantic Reserve Unit ) and some RCR's in formation with Navy and Airforce Personal


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> FWIW, I seem to be getting more recognition, as a soldier and what we are doing now, from the civilians while I am in CADPAT than I ever did while in DEU's.
> 
> Why? Want to move back to the "poor cousin" "us vs them" mentality? Reservists aren't good enough to get it issued?
> 
> ...



 Do you know how many RCMP officers Canada has? About the same size as our army. You arguement sucks.

 Reservists are part time. The usually have full time employment, and thus, most likely have a bit more money then a regular serving soldier.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Do you know how many RCMP officers Canada has? About the same size as our army. You arguement sucks.
> 
> Reservists are part time. The usually have full time employment, and thus, most likely have a bit more money then a regular serving soldier.



No. Enlighten me with your numbers and sources.

Do you know the average wage of most of the Reserves (students and new entry workers)? It's also not a valid reason, due to the Total Force concept. YOUR argument sucks.


----------



## Acorn (28 Dec 2004)

Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Reservists are part time. The usually have full time employment, and thus, most likely have a bit more money then a regular serving soldier.



A wise man once said "it's better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you a fool, than to open it and prove them right." You are depriving a village, somewhere, of an idiot.

If you like the scarlet stuff so much, I recommend you join a reinactor group so you can also stand in ranks and execute the 21 movements to load the Brown Bess musket.

Acorn


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> No. Enlighten me with your numbers and sources.
> 
> Do you know the average wage of most of the Reserves (students and new entry workers)? It's also not a valid reason, due to the Total Force concept. YOUR argument sucks.



I agree with recce here.  Canuck25 has really not shown a lot of logic in his posts in this thread and has tended to talk past any serious discussion of any of his points.  I am getting the impression that he is simply trolling for responses.


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

I smell a lock coming pretty quick.

Any last words - perhaps on a the importance of a nice gabardine scarf to go with my riding boots?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

Infanteer,
Don't forget the jodpurs.  ;D I know a bunch of people that wanted to join the RCMP because they still wear those too.


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> No. Enlighten me with your numbers and sources.
> 
> Do you know the average wage of most of the Reserves (students and new entry workers)? It's also not a valid reason, due to the Total Force concept. YOUR argument sucks.



 Lets not bicker here, i have my proof, its here.


 The on-strength establishment of the Force as of April 4, 2004, was 22,239. A breakdown of these positions by rank and category is shown below. 

ACTUAL STRENGTH 

Commissioner 1 
Deputy Commissioners 6 
Assistant Commissioners 27 
Chief Superintendents 58 
Superintendents 139 
Inspectors 333 
Corps Sergeant Major 1 
Sergeant Major 7 
Staff Sergeant Major 1 
Staff Sergeants 752 
Sergeants 1,606 
Corporals 2,846 
Constables 10,028 
Other regular members 4 
Civilian Members 2,611 
Public Servants 4,052 
Total 22,472 

      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         
Content created: date 
Content revised: 2004-11-04
Page updated: 2004-12-02 Return to Top Important Notices 


 Of course, they all arent issued with scarlet dress.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/html/organi_e.htm


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

Acorn said:
			
		

> A wise man once said "it's better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you a fool, than to open it and prove them right." You are depriving a village, somewhere, of an idiot.
> 
> If you like the scarlet stuff so much, I recommend you join a reinactor group so you can also stand in ranks and execute the 21 movements to load the Brown Bess musket.
> 
> Acorn



 Well, i didnt say all reservist are full time at another occupation did I? I do recognise that their is a substantail amount of reservists who are students.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

Thanks.

You're right, on that one point. I also don't think we should be counting the almost 7,000 civilians, so we're actually only talking about less than 16,000. However, I notice your caveat. They're not all issued scarlets? Why's that, pray tell?



			
				Canuck_25 said:
			
		

> Well, i didnt say all reservist are full time at another occupation did I? I do recognise that their is a substantail amount of reservists who are students.



So then, by logical extention, who and what would be the determining factor for a Reservist to recieve a free issue? And quid pro quo, when and at what pay scale should a Reg have to purchase his own?


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> 
> You're right, on that one point. I also don't think we should be counting the almost 7,000 civilians, so we're actually only talking about less than 16,000. However, I notice your caveat. They're not all issued scarlets? Why's that, pray tell?
> 
> So then, by logical extention, who and what would be the determining factor for a Reservist to recieve a free issue? And quid pro quo, when and at what pay scale should a Reg have to purchase his own?



 Well, after all, the RCMP was involved in the sponsorship scandal, and that was over horses and uniforms. Every rank listed recieves a scarlet uniform, thats a fact. Volunteers obviously dont. I have seen a commisioners uniform, and it looks very similar to a high ranking scarlet dress uniform (medals, ect)

 I never said that the reservists should recieve a free scarlet dress uniform. I suggested that reserve regiments involve themselves in the community, fundraise, in the hope that maby a platoon or maby even a company would be supplied with a scarlet uniform. Those who cant afford a scarlet uniform can benifit from this.


----------



## Art Johnson (28 Dec 2004)

*The Other Ranks of the   British Army fought tooth and nail for the "privilege" of wearing a necktie.   See Brian L. Davis or Mike Chappell's works on battledress.   It may seem funny to all those hard core Brit heritage types, but the Other Ranks felt scandalized that they were not permitted to wear a tie.
*

Michael, I think people you are quoting are wrong when it comes to ties in WWII. below is a quote from page 738 of Dileas by Kim Beattie;

"The First Canadian Army was going to be a bit irksome about dress
              and discipline after the easy-going -days of the 8th Army in Italy.
              They had to be smart when walking out. They must wear their
              spam-ribbons, and also the black-tie which they had considered the
              Zombie's private badge of shame."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

canuk25,

What you said was:

* In my oppinon, the scarlet uniform should be supplied to all regular memebers of the army. The reservist would have to fundraise for theirs.
*

I was never under the illusion that you said for the Reserves to get a free issue, vice the Regs getting it. I want to know your reasoning, given all that's been said. If the Regs get it free, so should the Reserves. Either way, it won't happen.


----------



## Canuck_25 (28 Dec 2004)

recceguy said:
			
		

> canuk25,
> 
> What you said was:
> 
> ...



 Why, may i ask, wont it happen? In you oppinon of course, unless its written in gold


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

Cause the colour of my sky is blue. :


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

...and now we're talking about Mountie Uniforms....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2004)

OH, I know I'm going to take a beating for this but,...[deep breath],
 looking at the pictures on the previous page "makes" Michael's arguement. Those hats and red coats make them look like stuff that should be worn at "the"  :-[parade in Toronto they hold once a year.
Novelty act, yes,.... serious uniform, no.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)

Well, I'm done here. Time to go.






Maybe time for a lock also. Art & Michael, how bout you?


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

How about this as the new General "Canadian" dress uniform - it is green after all.  What do you think the material is?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2004)




----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2004)

......and on that note, lets move on. :-[

..and please Infanteer, no more self-portraits. 

                                                 LIGHTNING BOLT


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

...and the new "Blue Patrols".


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (28 Dec 2004)

Wanna see my "mag" pouch?.........no darn it..stay locked......


----------



## Infanteer (28 Dec 2004)

Ok...ok.

Seriously now.

ENDEX.


----------

