# tie strings & the fit of combat uniforms (Split: Need for a new Army dress uniform)



## Biggoals2bdone (14 Aug 2010)

Ya i feel you on that, bout the combat shirt/jacket (whatever you prefer) can anyone tell me why the draw string in the middle is soooooo damn high...why do I need a string to sinch my shirt, over my RIBCAGE?


----------



## SeanNewman (14 Aug 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> ...why do I need a string to sinch my shirt, over my RIBCAGE?



I fully agree with you that I don't like where it is, but maybe it's because half of the CF is getting so obese that the string where it is just tightens it up over their belly.


----------



## OldTanker (14 Aug 2010)

Or its a hangover from the original combat shirt where the FN C1 mags fit in the chest pockets and the draw strings kept them (sort of) tight to your body and they didn't beat you death when you ran.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Aug 2010)

OldTanker said:
			
		

> Or its a hangover from the original combat shirt where the FN C1 mags fit in the chest pockets and the draw strings kept them (sort of) tight to your body and they didn't beat you death when you ran.



Do you mean the Draw Strings that keep the wind from billowing up your shirt, and so many cut out because they are "unkool"?  I still can't figure out why guys cut off the draw strings.  Perhaps it is a "maturnity" thing.   :-\


----------



## Loachman (14 Aug 2010)

The original Mk I shirts did not have the middle strings, and were just fine that way. They appeared on the Mk II shirts, which were also "improved" by removing the double elbow fabric. The Mk II trousers similarly had the double seat removed. Thankfully, those were later restored but the middle string is just a useless appendage that does nothing more than increase the cost of manufacture. I've never had a shirt "billow". The lower string is equally useless in my opinion.


----------



## chrisf (14 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you mean the Draw Strings that keep the wind from billowing up your shirt, and so many cut out because they are "unkool"?  I still can't figure out why guys cut off the draw strings.  Perhaps it is a "maturnity" thing.   :-\



Because they're utterly useless, they waste time while doing up your shirt (Unless you're the sort of person who ties them in a bow and leaves them hanging... now that's just silly) and finally they get caught in the agitator in top loading washing machines and again waste my time as I have to wrangle them free?

Tell you what, if i ever happen to jump out of an airplane, and my string free shirt billows, I'll buy you a coke.


----------



## ArmyRick (14 Aug 2010)

Changing the combat shirt I see as operational requirement and from the sounds of it, most of us agree on that.

I don't know why we insist on keeping bulky breast pockets, we should go with a flatter style and we should lose the hip/waist pockets on the bottom of the shirt. Seriously with body armour on they are useless. I don't know why the CF has not standardized pockets on the sleeves yet (as we do for operational use).

Oh and ditch the gay strings IMO.


----------



## Ecco (14 Aug 2010)

Anyone has filled a UCR or even just staffed a memo requesting an update to the combat uniform?
(The answer is no, by the way).

There is a project on the books, called FCU (Future Combat Uniform) to update the army combat dress.  It is mostly inactive, by lack of requests from users.  Other priorities will take precedence if we are not asking for it.


----------



## George Wallace (14 Aug 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The original Mk I shirts did not have the middle strings, and were just fine that way. They appeared on the Mk II shirts, which were also "improved" by removing the double elbow fabric. The Mk II trousers similarly had the double seat removed. Thankfully, those were later restored but the middle string is just a useless appendage that does nothing more than increase the cost of manufacture. I've never had a shirt "billow". The lower string is equally useless in my opinion.



So?  We go back to the Cbt Shirt that came out in 1986 or so, that had no lower pockets, and flat upper pockets and RSMs didn't know whether to give you shyte for tucking it in or having it out?


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Aug 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Tell you what, if i ever happen to jump out of an airplane, and my string free shirt billows, I'll buy you a coke.




You got nothing to worry about there, wont happen. About the only thing those strings are good for is being tightened before you do a CF and or Combat Swim test, traps the air a little better for some floatation but in real life I doubt you would get the time to tighten the strings before hitting the water.

Useless hold over from I am not sure what.


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Aug 2010)

No George how about we issue out a shirt that actually functions to it's purpose. A little less garrison dress minded and do something radical like umm oh I don't know have shirt called a combat shirt that is designed for combat.....


The RSM's can take their uniformity and jam it. well no that is harsh they can learn to accpet that if the dress of the day for the Army is going to be called combats, then somethings are not going to look all pretty. It's utility wear after all isn't it?

That or of the 4 shirts you get issued 2 are all nice and spiffy "old" style with pockets as per they are now and 2 shirts designated "field" wear with no pockets on the chest or hips just pockets on the arms and you only wear them when you go into the field....


----------



## George Wallace (14 Aug 2010)

That was a Cbt shirt, not a Garrison Dress Shirt.  (Before your time.  It didn't last more than a year or two in the system.)


----------



## ArmyRick (14 Aug 2010)

I know what retarded combat shirt you are referring to and no, I am thinking of something more practical. I was one of like 5 guys in Cornwallis that had those combat shirts. It made feel like I was wearing cadet uniforms. Oh well.

BTW, if the money came down to new LAVs, new weapons or new combat uniforms, I would on place priority on the other stuff.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2010)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I don't know why we insist on keeping bulky breast pockets, we should go with a flatter style and we should lose the hip/waist pockets on the bottom of the shirt. Seriously with body armour on they are useless. I don't know why the CF has not standardized pockets on the sleeves yet (as we do for operational use).


We don't always wear body armour, that's why we have breast and hip/waist pockets.   The *only* change I would offer would be to have those sleeve pockets put on our shirts.  A flat breast pocket would be useless, as was seen in that God Awful shirt with no pockets.  I get it that the pockets used to be magazine pouches; however, they are actually a bit larger now (the pockets, I mean).  And that "pen holder" in the pockets was actually not designed for pens, but for some dosimeter-thingy (pardon the tech-speak) and is now used to hold pens.  So, given that we are actually doing things smart, IMHO, in having but one uniform that we use for both garrison and field duties, it has to be "good enough" for both, with the emphasis on field use.  Losing the pockets would add no utility to field use, nor would it detract from field use.  Keeping them has utility in garrison.  So, since there's no utility lost for field use, but there is merit in them for garrison use, I say keep them.
Speaking of which, since adding sleeve pockets (as we do with Deserts for operations) add utility for field use, then I say "make it so".  My  :2c:


			
				ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Oh and ditch the gay strings IMO.


Ditching them would add no utility for field use.  In fact, as stated elsewhere, those strings are there to cinch the shirt to the body in specific environments.


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Aug 2010)

What environments would that be?


----------



## Franko (15 Aug 2010)

At the very least get rid of the inner pockets in the lower pockets. I remember the shirts that had no lower pockets on them and it was a daily toss up on whether or to have them tucked in or out by the SSM or RSM.

Getting pockets on the sleeves is a great idea and it seems to be making it's way in, look at the newest edition of rain jackets.

TV - they were visual pencil dosimeters. I haven't seen one in 20 years.

Methinks it's time to get my guys to sit down and write up some UCRs again.

Regards


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Aug 2010)

Techno,

I believe the original poster was not as concerned about the strings themselves but why they were placed in such a seemingly stupid location (over the ribcage instead of the natural waist line).

A quick liaison with my wife has confirmed that what we are wearing is refereed to as an "Empire waistline", often used to hide bellies:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Aug 2010)

Lawn Dart country I expect.......

 ;D


No disrespect meant to anyone in the Para Coys


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Techno,
> 
> I believe the original poster was not as concerned about the strings themselves but why they were placed in such a seemingly stupid location (over the ribcage instead of the natural waist line).
> 
> *A quick liaison with my wife* has confirmed that what we are wearing is refereed to as an "Empire waistline", often used to hide bellies:


Are you sure your wife had to tell you? ;D  (j/k)

ArmyRick: the strings are for paratrooping, as I seem to recall.  (NOTE: I have never jumped from a plane.  Ever.  I'm just relying on very old memory here.  Having said that, if the use of the strings is of no value other than to have an "Empire Waistline", then I say "Get Rid of them".

As for the inner pouches on the lower pockets, they are the ones used to make our shoulder pockets.  I find it retarded that we get issued a shirt made one way, then as a routine, we alter them for use on operations.  

So, pockets on sleeves, and how about a CANLANDGEN directing that those sleeves NEVER get rolled up.  I just hate the whole "sleeves up/sleeves down" BS that seems to go on and on, at least in some units.


----------



## Franko (15 Aug 2010)

It's personal preference unless otherwise dictated. I used to hate the "Summer Dress" timing of the first week in May. Away with the jackets and roll up your sleeves.

Even though it was around 5C outside on some days.

I wear mine down year round...unless it's dictated they have to be up for a parade.

Regards


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Aug 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I wear mine down year round...unless it's dictated they have to be up for a parade.



Must be nice to be able to make decisions for yourself; some people don't have that freedom.

And I'm not just talking Privates, either...Majors get told how they have to wear their sleeves in some units.


----------



## Franko (15 Aug 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Must be nice to be able to make decisions for yourself; some people don't have that freedom.
> 
> And I'm not just talking Privates, either...Majors get told how they have to wear their sleeves in some units.



I've seen that as well. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that some people are clinging to the old ways (summer dress) and not allowing their troops to figure out how they want to be comfortable all on their own.

Myself, I have no problems with allowing sleeves up or down for my troops...unless it's in the field and then they are down.

I'm pretty sure there is a CANLANDGEN or CANFORGEN message out there somewhere that states it's personal preference unless otherwise dictated. Some of them Majors could allow their troops a bit of leeway if it's in their scope to do so.

My 0.02 Dirham worth.

I won't breach into the whole "bottom button undone" issue. At least not yet.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> We don't always wear body armour, that's why we have breast and hip/waist pockets.   The *only* change I would offer would be to have those sleeve pockets put on our shirts.  A flat breast pocket would be useless, as was seen in that God Awful shirt with no pockets.  I get it that the pockets used to be magazine pouches; however, they are actually a bit larger now (the pockets, I mean).  And that "pen holder" in the pockets was actually not designed for pens, but for some dosimeter-thingy (pardon the tech-speak) and is now used to hold pens.  So, given that we are actually doing things smart, IMHO, in having but one uniform that we use for both garrison and field duties, it has to be "good enough" for both, with the emphasis on field use.  Losing the pockets would add no utility to field use, nor would it detract from field use.  Keeping them has utility in garrison.  So, since there's no utility lost for field use, but there is merit in them for garrison use, I say keep them.
> Speaking of which, since adding sleeve pockets (as we do with Deserts for operations) add utility for field use, then I say "make it so".  My  :2citching them would add no utility for field use.  In fact, as stated elsewhere, those strings are there to cinch the shirt to the body in specific environments.



This is pretty much it.  These are the reasons we came back to the current style of Cbt Shirt, ditching the 86 shirt with no cargo pockets and small breast pockets.  As for the pockets inside of the Cargo pockets, originally they were designed to keep magazines in posn to be used, and then the newer style no doubt is simply to keep your pocket contents more organized.

I have seen more complaints from people about the uniform, and usually it is because they have never been instructed how to wear it and use it properly.  Take the dust sleeves in the trousers for instance.  How many don't know what they are for and how to use them?   How many times have you seen a "goof" walking around with his grey, or white, or pink socks showing between the tops of his/her boots and the bottom of their trousers?  In many cases, the idea that a piece of clothing is useless just indicates that the person has no knowledge how to use it or why.  True; this is not always the case, but for a large part it may be.  



[Edit to add]

Remember when this shirt was designed it took into account that a soldier may get in a position that they did not have their webbing or would have to work or go on an op without webbing.  This is all pre Tac Vest and body armour.  Does that mean that we don't need to redesign it and update it?  No.  We are evolving with newer weapons and equipment, including body armour, etc.  Keep in mind that one may not always have their Tac Vests and Body Armour, etc.  Technoviking basically points out these factors as being while in garrison, but they may just as easily happen on operations.


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Aug 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> Some of them Majors could allow their troops a bit of leeway if it's in their scope to do so.



Oh, there's the word "Major" in the position, that's for sure, but it's not the rank "Major".  The rank "Major" just seems to be following the unit-level direction and nobody fights it other than the Sgts and Capts grumbling.


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

As for the Majors getting directed to how their sleeves are, I think it also takes into account the habits of some officers that think rolling their sleeves up is going past the wrist but not past the elbows. IMHO its lazy and unprofessional to have that look.


----------



## Brutus (15 Aug 2010)

The silly drawstrings do serve one purpose - if I start to get fat, the bow gets smaller. Other than that, I see it as just a silly holdover, a nuisance, and just one more thing the CSM looks at to put forth a blast of poo.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Aug 2010)

a Sig Op said:
			
		

> Tell you what, if i ever happen to jump out of an airplane, and my string free shirt billows, I'll buy you a coke.





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> .... the strings are for paratrooping, as I seem to recall.


If you're wearing a static-line, CT1-type parachute, the bellyband holding the reserve to your body will keep any air from blowing up your shirt.

If you're wearing a freefall rig and wind is blowing up your shirt, you're either tracking _massively_ backwards or falling feet-to-earth -- either way, you're likely so unstable that wind up your shirt probably isn't a major concern.  


Personally, I suspect that parade-square soldiering is the more likely cause of this fashion hand-wringing than jumping (which is simply another method of getting to work).


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Aug 2010)

It seems to me that the harness on a CT-1 (or a T10 for us real old guys)  type parachute would hold one's combat shirt or jacket in place, especially with the ruck in place. Besides if it was a factor, doing the string up would have been taught on the basic parachutist course and confirmation that it was tied would have been part of the JM check on the ground and probably the equipment check as part of aircraft drills. Since the army saw fit not to include failure to do up the string before donning a parachute on the long list of things troops could get yelled at for, it may have been devised by a chairborne commando, or it was somebody's idea of a practical joke.


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

The proper term for the waist string is probably a GRD. Gut Retaining Device. ;D


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2010)

Not enough string for that in some cases. 

Perhaps an "Hour glass" device to give many who didn't have one, the appearance of having one.


----------



## ArmyRick (15 Aug 2010)

My earlier point made, the strings serve no purpose whatsoever.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2010)

I _think_ the parachuting thing is a hold over to the old shirt which actually gave that explanation on the inside wearer instruction label. I'd go look, but it's not important enough to go rooting through boxes, in my basement, for confirmation.


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

I just found one of my old shirts, but it was from a late run after the size labels went to being green and there is no instruction panel any more.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Aug 2010)

Think back, waaaaaaaay back to before the 198x pattern webbing, to that belt with yoke thingy we had (64?).  If you were a rifleman, your breast and hip pockets were magazine pouches for the FN C1.  _As I seem to recall_, when you were carrying 6 magazines, your shirt tended to droop "a bit", and the strings were to help keep things "from bouncing around".  

Now?  I think it's probably a hold over from times gone by.  "We've always had it, therefore...."

Edit to add upon reflection:

The strings probably (may?) serve a useful cosmetic purpose as well.  Remembering that our raison d'etre isn't just to fight in the deserts of Southern Asia, and remembering that it sometimes gets a bit chilly here in Canada, the shirts may be deliberately large in order to allow one to wear stuff under it, to add layers.  So, when not wearing stuff under, you have the strings to draw the shirt in, cutting down on a garbage-bag appearance.  Maybe?  

(NOTE: by "extra stuff" under, I don't mean a huge gut, but rather layers of clothes)


----------



## SeanNewman (15 Aug 2010)

Again though Techno, even if your argument were 100% correct as to the _why_ the strings are there, I remain unconvinced that anyone has found the reason that they are so high (not around the natural waistline).

If they were just there to make something baggy more snug, then it would be snugger around the thinnest part of the torso, and certain more comfortable.


----------



## OldSolduer (15 Aug 2010)

We carried 4 Mags. The draw strings were to prevent billowing when parachuting. The waist one was to hold the waist in for better heat retention. That's about what I know. I'm sure there are other old dogs who will tell us all something different!!


----------



## armyvern (15 Aug 2010)

I must have missed the CANFORGEN announcing that the CF was now part & parcel of the Ford Modelling Agency; wondering when I'm going to start getting paid 10k an hour ...

 :


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

Right after the young pups quit complaining about how the Cadpat/IECS/ICE is substandard. They never had to wear the shirt, wool extra itchy


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Aug 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Right after the young pups quit complaining about how the Cadpat/IECS/ICE is substandard. They never had to wear the shirt, wool extra itchy



Which one? 

This one







or this






 (closest pic I can find to that really old looking one.....)

 ;D


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

The second one is the one, but that is the smooth one. There was another version that had less buttons and a much coarser material.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Aug 2010)

Ah yes I seem to remeber that one Tango18....the shirt, wool , extra, extra itchy

 ;D


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

Yep, the other one only seemed to come in smaller sizes, which meant i never wore mine due to the discomfort of the itching.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2010)

Photo one is of the Sweater, Wool, Green, Do NOT Wash or it will become Baby Clothes.


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Aug 2010)

I miss my sweater, wool, green.  That thing was the warmest single piece of kit I ever had.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Aug 2010)

So do I Techno.....


----------



## vonGarvin (15 Aug 2010)

I forgot to mention that I'm in the 1 % of people who don't mind wool.  So I found it super-comfy too!


----------



## BDTyre (15 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I miss my sweater, wool, green.  That thing was the warmest single piece of kit I ever had.



I still have mine.  Haven't worn it for a while...tempted sometimes though.  Packs easier than the fleece and I imagine much warmer.


----------



## GK .Dundas (15 Aug 2010)

I miss my even older then your sweater wool  5 button Olive C/W pockets and epaulets . I  want another one! wah!


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

The old Battledress???


----------



## Shamrock (15 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I forgot to mention that I'm in the 1 % of people who don't mind wool.  So I found it super-comfy too!



The shirt, wool, uncomfortable with epaulettes proved its worth to me several times over during rain, heavy, drenching.  Yep, it got wet, but it remained warm.

Unfortunately, 99% of the population seem to think the stealth suit is an effective piece of kit.


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Aug 2010)

Whats wrong with the Stealth Suit?

I mean I don't use one anymore but I liked it when I was in Recce Pl.


----------



## REDinstaller (15 Aug 2010)

The stealth suit isn't bad, but i find it can be a bit too warm at times. And the sleeves a bit too short.


----------



## Franko (16 Aug 2010)

I'd love to get my hands on another itchy/ scratchy shirt....and a May West.

Regards


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2010)

Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
			
		

> I'd love to get my hands on another itchy/ scratchy shirt....and a May West.
> 
> Regards



The May West is quite simple to fill.  A quick trip to the supermarket and voila:


----------



## Franko (16 Aug 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> The May West is quite simple to fill.  A quick trip to the supermarket and voila:



Not what I meant....black Beatty, old style mattress.


----------



## REDinstaller (16 Aug 2010)

Going rafting are you?


----------



## Franko (16 Aug 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Going rafting are you?



 ;D      At least it gets you off the ground and doesn't soak up moisture.

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Aug 2010)

When I did my component transfer from the militia to the regular force in 1989, I received my initial issue, including Betty, Black, C1A1.  I still have it.  I have never used that "self-inflating" thing.  It served me well in Gagetown, in Petawawa, in Wainwright, as well as in Haiti and Afghanistan.  "From my cold, dead hands" is my motto when it comes to Betty, Black, C1A1.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Aug 2010)

TV

Make sure I never get your address! I am willing to do that to get my hands on one!

I mean we are still friends but well you know how it goes right LMAO


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Aug 2010)

BulletMagnet said:
			
		

> TV
> 
> Make sure I never get your address! I am willing to do that to get my hands on one!
> 
> I mean we are still friends but well you know how it goes right LMAO


:rofl:

I live at:
123 Fake Street,
Madeupville, NB


;D


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Aug 2010)

Damnit now I need to use a GPS and everything can't you live somewhere easy to find?  ;D


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (16 Aug 2010)

Personally speaking the bottom string is even more useless then the ribcage one.  Not to mention it gets caught up or ripped out in the wash more often then not.

Personally I use the upper torso pockets, for phone, pens, notepad, etc...but I rarely (read never unless i'm out of room) put stuff in my bottom hip level pockets (on the shirt)

and empire waistline is really only useful if there's enough material for it to be baggy (to hide your gut if you have one) not to mention it accentuates your boobs (if you have them)


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Aug 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> it accentuates your boobs (if you have them)


If the middle strings accentuate boobs, well, then, why are we even suggesting getting rid of them?  ;D


----------



## Franko (16 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If the middle strings accentuate boobs, well, then, why are we even suggesting getting rid of them?  ;D



...and boom goes the dynamite!

Regards


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (16 Aug 2010)

The empire waist is supposed to do that, BUT what we have in our shirts is not an empire waist. As well as the shirt not being baggy enough for the proper effect, if thats what they were going for.


----------



## George Wallace (16 Aug 2010)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> The empire waist is supposed to do that, BUT what we have in our shirts is not an empire waist. As well as the shirt not being baggy enough for the proper effect, if thats what they were going for.



Could it be that you have improperly fitted shirts?

The drawstrings are probably a cost effective way to cut down on tailoring.  It is simpler to put in a drawstring, than to create a vaste number of new shirt sizes, and to include tappered cuts to fit all body sizes and shapes.   Don't forget; both men and women wear these shirts.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (16 Aug 2010)

Its possible, but not due to staff, due to lack of sizes. I'm also not a typical shape, I've got quite a V-taper, with close to a 50in chest, and bout 36 waist, and I stand 5'9.  the sleeves are as long as they need to be, and the stitching for the shoulders is also where its supposed to be.

So with all that being said, even civi clothing I find it really difficult to find proper fitting clothing that doesn't look like a moomoo.

My gf hates it lol


----------



## Nfld Sapper (16 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I live at:
> 123 Fake Street,
> ...



Wow you live next door to me.....

 ;D


----------



## Loachman (17 Aug 2010)

If the style designed to hide the preggy look is called an "Empire Waist", what is the name of the style wherein the hem of a combat shirt is allowed to fall to its normal designed place in the front, while being draped across the top of rather generous buttocks on the other side?

It occurred to me as I observed this fashion statement in the Canex this afternoon that perhaps what is needed is not a drawstring that runs around the hem, but one that instead goes from front to back, under the crotch. This would keep the rear of the hem where it should be.

Perhaps.


----------



## medicineman (17 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> I live at:
> 123 Fake Street,
> ...



That's near Geary isn't it?

MM


----------



## armyvern (17 Aug 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> If the style designed to hide the preggy look is called an "Empire Waist", what is the name of the style wherein the hem of a combat shirt is allowed to fall to its normal designed place in the front, while being draped across the top of rather generous buttocks on the other side?
> 
> It occurred to me as I observed this fashion statement in the Canex this afternoon that perhaps what is needed is not a drawstring that runs around the hem, but one that instead goes from front to back, under the crotch. This would keep the rear of the hem where it should be.
> 
> Perhaps.



I don't know, but I need that style for my fat ass. Perhaps they could just re-insert the extra-chest material that I don't need into the rear.

Just a thought.

PS: Why the hell didn't you say "hi" at Canex when you saw me??


----------



## armyvern (17 Aug 2010)

medicineman said:
			
		

> That's near Geary isn't it?
> 
> MM



Yep, it's the blue house with the old toilet and bathtub masquerading as planters in it's yard.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, it's the blue house with the old toilet and bathtub masquerading as planters in it's yard.



And the 74 Chevvy garden shed.


----------



## medicineman (17 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, it's the blue house with the old toilet and bathtub masquerading as planters in it's yard.



Vern, you'll have to narrow it down a bit  ;D.

MM


----------



## Loachman (18 Aug 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> PS: Why the hell didn't you say "hi" at Canex when you saw me??



Oops. Sorry. I didn't see you. My body was there, but not so much of my brain. I'm still recovering from leave.


----------



## armyvern (18 Aug 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Oops. Sorry. I didn't see you. My body was there, but not so much of my brain. I'm still recovering from leave.



Quit lying; you saw me:



> It occurred to me as *I observed * this fashion statement in the Canex this afternoon that perhaps what is needed is not a drawstring that runs around the hem, but one that instead goes from front to back, under the crotch...



 ;D


----------



## Loachman (18 Aug 2010)

That was soooo not you. Even the capbadge was wrong.


----------



## GK .Dundas (18 Aug 2010)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I miss my even older then your sweater wool  5 button Olive C/W pockets and epaulets . I  want another one! wah!


 post Korea based on (in fact probably purchased from them ) the American 5 button sweater  OD it was warm comfortable and useful pockets allowed me to carry a pen and notebook . Also owned a early 70's British woolly pully (ex RM issue) god couldn't believe how thick and heavy the wool was .
In that sweater with a light wool shirt on underneath it was possible to wander around outside in minus 18 degree weather and still be toasty.


----------



## chrisf (18 Aug 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I _think_ the parachuting thing is a hold over to the old shirt which actually gave that explanation on the inside wearer instruction label. I'd go look, but it's not important enough to go rooting through boxes, in my basement, for confirmation.



I was wondering how the subject of the strings being for parachuting ended up in my brain...

I'm fairly certain I must have one of those shirts old enough for said label in a box in my basement as well, though I HAVE to make space in those boxes for new uniforms from another government department within a week or so... so before said shirt goes back to the QM, I'll take a picture.


----------



## XMP (22 Aug 2010)

Mk 1 and Mk 2 Combat shirt user labels....











Note the slight changes in instruction #5.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2010)

Quote from: recceguy on August 15, 2010, 13:23:54


> I think the parachuting thing is a hold over to the old shirt which actually gave that explanation on the inside wearer instruction label. I'd go look, but it's not important enough to go rooting through boxes, in my basement, for confirmation.



Thank you, thank you I'll be here all week 8)

It's too bad I can't remember really important shit instead of stuff like this  ;D


----------



## Franko (22 Aug 2010)

Love #9/ #10 on either shirt....do not press this garment.

Try and show that to Staff during your CLC and see what happens. I still hear the screaming!        ;D

Regards


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Aug 2010)

I love #4.  I'm tucking my shirt in tomorrow ;D


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2010)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I love #4.  I'm tucking my shirt in tomorrow ;D




Hey!  Look!  Hippo hips.


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Aug 2010)

I can't for the life of me see why the parachuting part is mentioned.

As has already been brought up, with the harness and the reserve chute clamping your shirt on you like a vice, not to mention your rifle and rucksack, there is no real worry of the shirt billowing and fluttering out of control.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Aug 2010)

:


Because it was originally written for the bottom drawstring, and amended by some faceless person later.  If you think the bottom drawstring was useless in keeping the wind from blowing up your arse, then I guess the flap on the Jump Smock was just as useless.











Here we go with another useless debate on why someone designed something.    :


----------



## Arctic Acorn (4 Sep 2010)

Along the same vein, doesn't the bottom elastic on the Cold Wet Weather Jacket have a slit in the back to prevent billowing for parachute ops? I remember reading it on that little card that came with the jacket. you loosen up the elastic on the bottom hem, and fromt the back you pull it...err, across the 'dark side of the moon' as it were, between your legs and up over the bottom button of the coat. 

It didn't seem very practical at the time, but I'm not a jumper so I know SFA about if it's really needed.


----------



## SeanNewman (4 Sep 2010)

0tto Destruct said:
			
		

> ...but I'm not a jumper so I know SFA about if it's really needed.



Has already been mentioned that however well-meaning, there are enough straps that make up the parachure harness and holding your reserve and equipment on that the shirt/jacket isn't going to billow anywhere.

Besides, it was one thing for the CAR to have their own specialty clothing back in the day but now the Para Coys are part of conventional battalions and it doesn't make sense to change the combats that 50,000+ people wear to accommodate 300 people even if it did serve a purpose.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Sep 2010)

I suppose no one bothered to imagine the fact that CF members, not only parachutists, do from time to time operater in extreme conditions that may involve extremely high winds.  Even a "Leg" may find themself in a situation where high winds may billow their shirt up over their head.  But that is only if one were to imagine such conditions.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Sep 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Even a "Leg" may find themself in a situation where high winds may billow their shirt up over their head.  But that is only if one were to imagine such conditions.


As a "Leg", I have found myself in windy situations ;D


----------



## Jammer (4 Sep 2010)

I just put on my old SSF jump smock and pinned up the diaper...not to prove a point...I really needed the damn thing.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Sep 2010)

Jammer said:
			
		

> I just put on my old SSF jump smock and pinned up the diaper...not to prove a point...I really needed the damn thing.


*TOO MUCH INFO!  
*  ;D


----------



## Franko (4 Sep 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I suppose no one bothered to imagine the fact that CF members, not only parachutists, do from time to time operater in extreme conditions that may involve extremely high winds.  Even a "Leg" may find themself in a situation where high winds may billow their shirt up over their head.  But that is only if one were to imagine such conditions.



I guess I could use it today...a little windy around Oromoscow today,er, well not really.

Regards


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Sep 2010)

I noticed one of my peeves about the waist string on the combats.  Usually it's females, but I have seen guys do it too;  don't tie the string so tight as to create a bulge above _and_ below it.   :-X   Loose combat shirts are a blessing in disguise sometimes.....they hide my many body flaws.


----------



## PanaEng (10 Sep 2010)

I  like the freaking strings...
imagine if you get into a survival situation and are separated from the rest of your kit; you need to tie stuff for a shelter or trap or something but you have no cordage... then you remember that you still have that idiot string...
anyway, just a stretch.
I do still have those in place, I just find the right tightness, make some appropriate knots and tie them in place, not dangling - permanently; I just undo two top buttons and pull it over (i reverse it for washing so that the pattern doesn't wear out... (waiting for a call from the psychoanalyst...)

cheers,
Frank


----------



## PanaEng (10 Sep 2010)

The jump smock was cool but some ppl also cut the diaper out - didn't prevent any billowing. I used to hate the big a** bras buttons to hold it that ended up just about your kidneys.

cheers,
Frank


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Sep 2010)

PanaEng,

It's not so much that there are strings so much as their seemingly too-high location which is not at the natural waistline but a couple ribs up.


----------



## Brutus (10 Sep 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> I  like the freaking strings...
> imagine if you get into a survival situation and are separated from the rest of your kit; you need to tie stuff for a shelter or trap or something but you have no cordage... then you remember that you still have that idiot string...
> anyway, just a stretch.



Not to nit pick, but in your scenario, you're seperated form your kit, but you have a tarp? Myself and pretty much every other Infantryman I know carries a pocket knife, cordage, flint, etc. with them in the unlikely but very regretable event of being 'sans kit'. If you are in a 'survival situation' and are relying on your drawstrings for shelter, you're already pretty much hooped.

The dustflaps on the other hand, I have heard of guys using them for tp after a particularly 'energetic' IMP.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> Not to nit pick, but in your scenario, you're seperated form your kit, but you have a tarp? Myself and pretty much every other Infantryman I know carries a pocket knife, cordage, flint, etc. with them in the unlikely but very regretable event of being 'sans kit'. If you are in a 'survival situation' and are relying on your drawstrings for shelter, you're already pretty much hooped.
> 
> The dustflaps on the other hand, I have heard of guys using them for tp after a particularly 'energetic' IMP.



The strings are good for self-strangualtion purposes,  :nod:to promote total blackout during certain PowerPointless presentations....


----------



## PanaEng (10 Sep 2010)

see: strangulation, tarp or trap, keep the ideas coming  ;D
I know we can come up with more  8)


----------



## Brutus (10 Sep 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> see: strangulation, tarp or trap, keep the ideas coming  ;D
> I know we can come up with more  8)



Particularly sadistic and inventive staff on a BMQ could tie fire team partners together with their belly ties if they repeatedly lose one another?


----------



## SeanNewman (10 Sep 2010)

If they had been wearing Canadian uniforms on Boondock Saints, they wouldn't have even needed to buy the rope.


----------



## Pearlina (3 Oct 2010)

The strings I don't mind. Being knee high to a grasshopper and about just as think around the issue I run into with the Combat Shirts is the fact that while the main size goes down, the pocket size does not.  My uniform looks like a large patch of 4 pockets, with maybe one inch between upper and lower pockets and the pockets are so close together that my epaulet (sp?) cannot sit flat.  Its one of the smallest sizes available and is still super baggy and droopy around the pockets.  If I put something in them they hang down to my waist pulling my whole top part away from my body  (strings tied up as well)


----------

