# Raise your hand if you agree...



## Mikeg81 (29 Jan 2008)

Never f**king mind...


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jan 2008)

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> I'm sick of seeing the GGFG, *The *RCR, and Van Doos in their Scarlet uniforms.
> 
> Isn't it time that the Artillery went back to Blues for uniforms? Put some pride back in the Royal Regiment, the Army's senior unit.
> 
> Anyone agree?



By all means.  Keep in mind that ceremonial dress is not a public expense item (except perhaps for the Ceremonial Guard).  All you need to do is develop the regimental plan for funding, perhaps by voluntary subscriptions by all members of the Artillery.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2008)

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> I'm sick of seeing the GGFG, RCR, and Van Doos in their Scarlet uniforms.
> 
> Isn't it time that the Artillery went back to Blues for uniforms? Put some pride back in the Royal Regiment, the Army's senior unit.



I don't know where you have been, but these already exist in the Artillery Units.  Just because you don't see them every summer on Parliament Hill or at La Citadelle, doesn't mean that they are not in existence.


----------



## geo (29 Jan 2008)

Hmmm Patrol blues for all ..... Start mass producing em and we should be able to get Logistek to crank em out at +/- the same price as a set of DEUs.  Get em on points.

With the number of points we all get every year ( and the points that we accumulate ) we should be able to afford both Green AND blue uniforms every 4 years - with points to spare.

.... It's an idea...


----------



## Mikeg81 (29 Jan 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I don't know where you have been, but these already exist in the Artillery Units.  Just because you don't see them every summer on Parliament Hill or at La Citadelle, doesn't mean that they are not in existence.



I was working with you over at Area Troops, remember?  

I have asked about them. They are listed in the dress regs, and authorized to wear. 

And no, they don't exist at my unit...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Jan 2008)

I know we are sending some lads up to Ottawa to be part of the Ceremonial Guard wonder if they will wear the Engineer Pattern Uniform.


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2008)

If you go to the Reg Force units you will find that they have them for ceremonial purposes.  Busby's and all.  Some Reserve Units may have them, but again, it is all under the NPP budget, not NPF.  That means that the Unit has to raise the money privately.  This often requires "Sugar Daddies".


----------



## George Wallace (29 Jan 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I know we are sending some lads up to Ottawa to be part of the Ceremonial Guard wonder if they will wear the Engineer Pattern Uniform.



Not likely.  Perhaps you remember the photos of the CDS as a member of the Ceremonial Guard.  That wasn't a Dragoon helmet and scarlets.   ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Jan 2008)

Yeah, my bad got the 1B Full Dress and the Mess Kit mixed up 

 :brickwall:


----------



## Petard (29 Jan 2008)

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> Isn't it time that the Artillery went back to Blues for uniforms? Put some pride back in the Royal Regiment, the Army's senior unit.
> 
> Anyone agree?



No, we don't have to "peacock" ourselves in order to have a sense of pride in our accomplishments, especially lately, besides which I wasn't aware the Artillery was lacking in a sense of pride.


----------



## Mikeg81 (29 Jan 2008)

Petard said:
			
		

> No, we don't have to "peacock" ourselves in order to have a sense of pride in our accomplishments, especially lately, besides which I wasn't aware the Artillery was lacking in a sense of pride.



Don't get me wrong, I have intense pride in what the Regiment has done. Adding to it is what I am looking for.

Sharp dress Artillery Blues, or generic green "enivironmental" thing.


----------



## geo (29 Jan 2008)

Sapper,
One of the problems with the CME & Patrol Blues is that we were the RCE at that time.
We wore grenades as collar dogs & our Forage caps had a Blue band.
As the CME is classified as one of the four "combat arms", logic would require that we wear the red band..... 
but there is no official "dress" regulation to adress this problem

5 RGC has enough patrol blues for a honour guard... and they wear RCE livery.... which I don't particularly agree with.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (29 Jan 2008)

I realized my error geo after I went and looked at the Customs of the CME and the Dress Regs.

Guess I should research more before posting 

:cheers:


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2008)

Yea, just what I would want,....another "look at us" thing to take care of. :clown:

Next!!


----------



## Mikeg81 (29 Jan 2008)

OK, OK, I get it.

Bad idea. The current uniform is just fine.

How dare I think outside the box.

Can a mod lock this please?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (29 Jan 2008)

Not yet, some may come later who like the idea and wish to debate.


----------



## Remius (29 Jan 2008)

I'm not against the idea.  I'm a big fan of tradition and what it means.  Uniforms can make a difference, Guard regiments with their scarlets, RCMP red serge, marine corps uniform etc etc.  One year, for rememberance day the ChofO wore their service dress with glengarries because they didn't have enough scarlets to go around.  I really thought that was shame.   Patrol blues look sharp.  Don't get turned off because a few people disagree.


----------



## bms (29 Jan 2008)

http://www.artillery.net/English/rhquniforms.htm

 I think blue looks great. The pictures take a bit away from it, but still.


----------



## geo (29 Jan 2008)

Funny thing is.... no one really dissagrees.
As stated, it wouldn't be all that difficult to kit out most Infantry, Armoured, Artillery & Engineers in patrols via the point system at Logistek.  You could do the same with the Sigs, Log (Ordonance & Service corp) Medical branches....
BUT those highland rigs would be a bit much IMHO...


----------



## Gunner98 (29 Jan 2008)

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> I was working with you over at Area Troops, remember?
> I have asked about them. They are listed in the dress regs, and authorized to wear. And no, they don't exist at my unit...



30th Fd RCA may not have any because the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery has them for ceremonial purposes. They can be obtained through the Director of Artillery (or his minions in Shilo) for special occasions.


----------



## dimsum (30 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Funny thing is.... no one really dissagrees.
> As stated, it wouldn't be all that difficult to kit out most Infantry, Armoured, Artillery & Engineers in patrols via the point system at Logistek.  You could do the same with the Sigs, Log (Ordonance & Service corp) Medical branches....
> BUT those highland rigs would be a bit much IMHO...



Perhaps some Navy white high-collar tunics as well?  I'm scratching my head thinking of an equivalent for the Air Force, but nothing comes to mind.


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2008)

Dimsum,
Whites are already part of standard navy dress DEU for the summer... blacks for the winter.

Airforce have summer and winter weight for their DEU.


----------



## Gunner98 (30 Jan 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> 30th Fd RCA may not have any because the Royal Regiment of Canadian Artillery has them for ceremonial purposes. They can be obtained through the Director of Artillery (or his minions in Shilo) for special occasions.



The uniforms are quite sharp.  Chapter 8 of RRCA Standing Orders discusses them and their loan.  Figures 11 and 12 show RCA and RCHA period dress circa 1905.   The RCA Band wears period dress circa 1968 (Figure 13)  See: http://www.artillery.net/English/RCA%20Standing%20Orders.pdf


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jan 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Whites are already part of standard navy dress DEU for the summer... blacks for the winter.
> 
> Airforce have summer and winter weight for their DEU.



Meanwhile, us Army types are stuck with only the winter weight DEU since they got rid of the tans (which, personally, I liked). 
They're GREAT in the summer! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Vern?  Any idea when a "summer" weight Army DEU might be in the making?  ???


----------



## dapaterson (30 Jan 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, us Army types are stuck with only the winter weight DEU since they got rid of the tans (which, personally, I liked).
> They're GREAT in the summer!
> 
> 
> ...



Summer weight Land DEUs were trialled a number of years ago; I remember seeing a number of folks picking them up and wandering around NDHQ in lesser states of discomfort compared to the rest of us.  No idea what has transpired since then.

And for those who'd like each branch to return to distinct uniforms vice DEUs: Increasing the range of clothing increases the cost.  You can get better pricing, and better inventory management when everyone is in the same uniform, vice having to worry about having enough 7234 pants in eleven different styles.


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jan 2008)

I agree as to the cost of distinct uniforms.  When we went back to the distinct environmental uniforms, the cost was (approx) $13 million.  Guess how much we lost out of the posting budget?  (First two guesses don't count.  )


----------



## geo (30 Jan 2008)

Anyone remember the old 4 season CF Green uniforms we used to have..... somewhat uncomfortable to wear outdoors in winter but, quite comfy in summer....


----------



## PMedMoe (30 Jan 2008)

Sorry, geo, I arrived at Cornwallis just after they stopped issuing them.  My platoon was one of the first to have all the environmental DEU.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jan 2008)

Interesting, I had a variation of this debate with a former member a few years ago. He argued that the military needed “business dress” (à la the current DEO with a jacket and tie). I argued that the “business suit” is CADPAT but that, in addition to that, the military needed ceremonial dress, too.

My rationale was (still is): We do three things:

1. Fight (or train to fight) in the field – CADPAT and Navy Combats (or whatever they are) and flight suits and whatever is worn on the flight line all apply;

2. Work at various mundane jobs – washing vehicles, sorting stores in bins, fixing radios, tapping away at computers (maintaining software, sorting our pay problems, drafting briefing notes for the cabinet), etc, etc, etc – all of which can be done in some variants of our CADPAT “battle dress;” and

3. Show off, albeit not too often, for which an appropriate ceremonial uniform is required.

Now, I agree that sometimes some officers and some NCOs have to go to lunch with the mayor or brief a committee on Parliament Hill or whatever and maybe CADPAT or some CADPAT (minus) “work dress” is not quite suitable but, I think we could find several work arounds, including:

1. Ceremonial dress (minus) – one could go to lunch with the mayor wearing a patrol dress uniform minus all the parade accouterments; or

2. Blazer and flannels – maybe provided as an initial issue item to everyone; or

3. Authorized (for purchase) but not issues “business suit” type uniforms.

All to say that I agree, in general, with Mikeg81, but: *It would be expensive* (I was around when we counted the costs of the _“Coates of many colours”_ project (the move back to DEUs authorized by then defence minister Bob Coates _circa_ 1985) – think $25-150 million to dress 75,000 members, today). I’m not sure that, were I still serving, I would be able to argue *for* millions for _buttons and bows_ until we had _bullets and beans_ well in hand.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Jan 2008)

My opinion.

CADPAT is horrible as a service dress.  It is the equivalent to a mechanics coveralls.  Mine are of various shades of fade due to the fact that I've thrashed in the course of using them as they're meant to be - Dress 5: Operational Clothing.  The uniform always has a poor fit and, in my opinion, lets fat people hide behind a set of MC Hammer Pants.  It is definitely not what I see as the ideal uniform for presenting ourselves to the public in.

I spoke at length with another member here and we agree that the CF has succumbed to nothing short of pure laziness.  We wear CADPAT all the time now because we are too lazy to hold ourselves or our subordinates to a higher standard; namely shined shoes/boots and a decent Service dress.  We should dress up as opposed to dress down.  That being said, I don't blame us, as our existing service dress is uncomfortable and it makes us look like retarded washouts from Saturday Night Fever with the nice big mint-green collar.

IF I were the buttons and bows guy, I would look at uniforms in the following way (within the current dress reg system):

Dress 1. Ceremonial Dress - We need a form of dress that goes above the Service dress.  Would you wear a business suit to a black-tie affair?  CF Ceremonial Dress (like the scarlets) should be fairly standardized and issued (ie: standard high-collar scarlet tunic, standard headdress).  This would be appropriate for funerals, state functions, special parades, etc, etc; when we put our best foot forward.

Dress 2.  Mess Dress -  This is social evening wear that should continue to be a private purchase.

Dress 3.  Service Dress:  This is current DEU minus ceremonial things like belts, sashes, swords, medals.  A simple, revised service dress (one that actually looks decent in both style and colour) should be maintained for those who work out of operational jobs (training, operational units, etc), especially when the public is involved (ie: recruiting).  There is something to be said for looking simple and smart.

Dress 4.  Garrison Dress:  Not required, as either the above or below covers its function off.

Dress 5.  Operational Dress:  As Edward stated, "fight or train".  However, the "mundane" jobs that he listed - washing, fixing, sorting - are operational duties for alot of people in the CF, therefore I believe it falls under this category.

5a.  Operational <Enhanced>:  As a subset of the above, it is recognized that guys "leaving the wire" have some unique requirements.  Body Armour is always worn (necessitating changes to the shirt).  Padding for elbows/knees is needed.  I could go on, but "Combat" requirements are different enough from "Operational" ones to justify looking into a different suite of clothing.  Crye's products (look 'em up) are an excellent example of this.  This would, like a flight suit, be a specialized order of operational dress for specific trades.

----

This is somewhat similar to the Marine Corps, as I believe they personify both "Dress Up, Not Down" and that they look the part of the professional organization that they are.  This isn't shockingly new for our organization - it is all from the current dress PAM; it's just one that we loosely apply for either financial reasons or for the fact that we're just plain lazy (my favorite was the CEFCOM guys in Ottawa who felt that Combats were the dress of the day to get everyone into the expeditionary mindset....)

That being said, as Edward mentioned, clothing an entire organization is expensive, and *I wholeheartedly endorse the opinion that we need beans and bullets before buttons and bows.*


----------



## Gunner98 (30 Jan 2008)

I was quite surprised to see CADPAT as the Dress of the Day for Army Cadets at RMC.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Jan 2008)

Mikeg81 said:
			
		

> Never f**king mind...



Nice edit  :

Dont worry, we remember the question

Milnet.ca staff


----------



## Neill McKay (31 Jan 2008)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1. Fight (or train to fight) in the field – CADPAT and Navy Combats (or whatever they are) and flight suits and whatever is worn on the flight line all apply;
> 
> 2. Work at various mundane jobs – washing vehicles, sorting stores in bins, fixing radios, tapping away at computers (maintaining software, sorting our pay problems, drafting briefing notes for the cabinet), etc, etc, etc – all of which can be done in some variants of our CADPAT “battle dress;” and
> 
> 3. Show off, albeit not too often, for which an appropriate ceremonial uniform is required.



I agree with most of this, but I draw a distinction between fixing radios and tapping away at computers.  The latter is, in my opinion, an office-type job that calls for office-type attire.  I think Infanteer has pretty well nailed it.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2008)

As someone in baggy green pajamas sitting in an Ottawa cubilce I fully agree that it's utterly inappropriate.  HQ staff are not field soldiers - they were in the past, may well be again in the future, but for now should present themselves in a profesisonal manner. 

I suspect that the "We're really field soldiers too!" justification is more of a "We're too lazy to press and polish" issue.

(And I won't begin to discuss the absurd steps that lead to the Land Staff wearing CADPAT vice DEU - more than a few people in Ottawa don't understand command relationships...)


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (31 Jan 2008)

I suppose I _am_ a "buttons and bows" guy to some extent, in that I feel that uniforms reflect the mindset of the Army wearing them.  I was at a major event with the USMC a couple of months ago and was embarrassed by both our ill-fitting, baggy, faded combats and our cheap, uncomfortable DEUs.

Generally speaking, I'm with Infanteer.  It was a mistake (IMHO) to make CADPAT the "dress of the day" Army-wide.  We are the worst turned-out soldiers in NATO as a result.  I see four uniforms total, with only variants of two worn by soldiers generally.  That is:

-  a properly fitting, modularized combat uniform with a shirt designed to fit under a flak vest and a smock for day to day wear when not wearing body armour.  This means a fabric that doesn't fade and is rip resistant, no "grenade pouches" in the pockets and no useless FN mag pouches on the chest.  The gang who designed the current combats obviously did nothing to address utility issues (let alone appearance) when building the "new" CADPAT and merely adopted the old combats to the new digitized fabric.  I've heard "people like the pockets" far too many times.  Infanteer has this exactly right; beside Marines in MARPAT we look like glue bags.

-  A redesigned Army DEU that reflects (some) Army tradition and looks better than a knocked off Air Canada uniform.  The rank stripes (for officers) look cheap, the colour isn't identifiable as "army" and its uncomfortable without tailoring.  Go to "old Army" olive green with (gasp!) a Sam Browne and better rank idenftifiers (see WW I cuff stripes as an example of how this can be done without breaking the "CF" mould).  Issue in sufficent quantities and with enough options to wear year-round.  Again IMHO, this should be dress of the day (stable belts anyone?) unless training, working on vehicles or the like.

-  Mess dress:  as now

-  Ceremonials:  for select units at public expense.  Each unit (Reg and PRes) should have a small suite for colour guards and the like.  Normally, though, soldiers wouldn't wear ceremonials.

This leaves us with two uniforms for 90% of soldiers:  more useful, robust combats and a revised DEU

We're not short of money for day-to-day operational requirements.  Perhaps it is time, while we have the public's eye, to sort this out.

My 2 cents, as usual.


----------



## COBRA-6 (31 Jan 2008)

I would love to see the changes Teddy suggested as well. A functional combat uniform instead of the MC Hammer pants and smock shirt we have now, and a sharp set of DEU in Olive or Khaki with a Sam Browne / stable belt.


----------



## Gunner98 (31 Jan 2008)

I spent 4 months on course in Texas in 2006 with students from around the world.  The only time I felt proud of the quality and design of the uniform was when we had the chance to wear mess kit.  The Canadians were the topic of conversation that night.  The remainder of ther time we were made fun of.  Our CADPAT design serves it purpose in the appropriate environment.  Many other countries ask why we blouse our pants, hard question to explain to folks, especially once they see the photos of deployed soldiers.


----------



## GAP (31 Jan 2008)

I come from a time when you were not allowed off the base in utilities, and the few times you were, you had better look stracck!! It was the rule, and you know what, we took pride in looking good when we went off the base.


----------



## medaid (31 Jan 2008)

Bringing a bit from the Naval dress thread, and my own opinion from being on the land side a bit.

I think we need a separate uniform option. Give the troops the option to wear Patrols for a BLING dress. When I was with H Svc Gp I've always wondered why we were not allowed to wear Patrols. It's a sharp nice looking uniform that serves well as a walking out dress, where DEUs would not blend in and still look rather spiffy at some semi-formal functions. 

Now, the Navy has whites  and high collared whites should be provided... it looks really nice...

Back to the patrols... I'd say bring it back. But only after we've updated all our essential equipment and bought more... and more and more ammo.


----------



## RangerRay (31 Jan 2008)

I agree with Infanteer and Teddy.  I've always liked patrol blues and ceremonial dress and wished they were more common in the Army.  I also think a khaki DEU, with Sam Brownes for senior NCOs and officers would look much sharper than the present "green hornet" DEU, and reflect our Commonwealth military heritage.

As for combats, I've felt that there should be a proper fitting shirt for wear with tactical vests/chest rigs, and for garrison, a wash-n-wear khaki shirt with CADPAT pants.  This way you would have the practicality for the field, and RSMs would be happy that the troops looked well turned out in garrison.

My two cents...


----------



## Infanteer (31 Jan 2008)

Para 2, Chapter 2 of the Dress Manual:

_2. A military force’s uniform is an outward symbol of its commitment, identity and ethos.  Coupled with overall appearance, the uniform is the most powerful visual expression of pride by the individual service member, and is the primary means by which the public image of the CF is fashioned._

I don't think we are really meeting that ideal right now.

I think Teddy et al. provided flesh to my ideas - cheers.  On the issue of ceremonial dress, I do think an effort to find a cost effective version for general issue (even if it is only a high-collar tunic, pants and a hat) would be interesting.  Let's not get caught up in patrols, bearskin hats, and all that stuff.  There is a clear time and place where Scarlets would be great - the USMC has the Dress Blues which are probably one of the most recognized uniforms in the world.  They look sharp, dressed to the occasion, and they ensure that all ranks are provided with an equivelent to our 1.  We have the traditions in place - they just need to be revamped.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Jan 2008)

So you guys want to go back to that 1985 Cbt Shirt that only had two flat breast pockets and no one could make up their minds if it should be tucked in or left out?  I remember the first day I went on the scrounge with that shirt on.  I had no place to store the goodies.    ;D


----------



## geo (31 Jan 2008)

George,
If we were wearing TVs and Body armour back in 1985, there is a good chance that we would indeed have kept those Mk2 shirts.


----------



## RangerRay (1 Feb 2008)

I remember those shirts!  One guy on course had one and he had to wear it untucked.  He looked like he was pregnant!  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Feb 2008)

I had one of those shirts in Germany.  The Base Chief told me to tuck it in.  Tucked in, it looked okay, left out, yes, it did make one look pregnant.
Then again, I have seen some pretty big guys in the new combats that look pregnant as well.  :
I also once saw a female who had to pull up the bottom of her shirt before she sat down as it was too tight.  ???


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Feb 2008)

I've read the thread a few times, but I can't find anyone mentioning our old "paint by numbers" jacket (with belt / branch buckle).  In light of our "functions" for certain dress, I do think that was nice idea.  The garrison boots (in my case SSF boots) were shone to a high standard and worn 4 days a week.  Only on stables (usually Thursdays) did we were our combats - and that was in Petawawa late 80's early 90's!!  Our tan shirts had to be ironed nicely as did our green workdress pants.  Our Cpl's had something to inspect then!!  Then the belt went, then the whole thing.  I went from jump smock and blue tshirt to work dress to green combats to CADPAT.  And now, all I can pick anyone up for is threads!!  Even the boots are mostly commercial (no polish allowed)...


----------



## COBRA-6 (1 Feb 2008)

One other thing, if DEU will continue to be the dress of the day for many can we please get a proper overcoat in order to end the CADPAT combat coat/DEU combo... I think that looks far worse than people wearing CADPAT as dress of the day...


----------



## geo (1 Feb 2008)

COBRA-6 said:
			
		

> One other thing, if DEU will continue to be the dress of the day for many can we please get a proper overcoat in order to end the CADPAT combat coat/DEU combo... I think that looks far worse than people wearing CADPAT as dress of the day...


Umm... Zip in liner and all - don't we have an overcoat for the DEUs?


----------



## Gunner98 (1 Feb 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I've read the thread a few times, but I can't find anyone mentioning our old "paint by numbers" jacket (with belt / branch buckle).  In light of our "functions" for certain dress, I do think that was nice idea.  The garrison boots (in my case SSF boots) were shone to a high standard and worn 4 days a week.  Only on stables (usually Thursdays) did we were our combats - and that was in Petawawa late 80's early 90's!!  Our tan shirts had to be ironed nicely as did our green workdress pants.  Our Cpl's had something to inspect then!!  Then the belt went, then the whole thing.  I went from jump smock and blue tshirt to work dress to green combats to CADPAT.  And now, all I can pick anyone up for is threads!!  Even the boots are mostly commercial (no polish allowed)...



Ah, the pretend jump smock for us wannabes and now a favorite of the Goth kids. Only tan shirt collars had to be ironed.  The jacket did not look good on very many folks.  The belts were trash, the buckles had to be purchased or else you wore the cheap plastic buckle.  Those pants were left over from the gas station attendant days. The boots :skull:  nice you had SSF boots. In other threads we are talking about the challenge of finding comfort and functionality - these were neither.  They were great for compulsive spit-shiners.


----------



## COBRA-6 (1 Feb 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Umm... Zip in liner and all - don't we have an overcoat for the DEUs?



We do, but it must not be up to snuff if the CADPAT jacket (or AF/Navy versions thereof) is required for winter wear... I'm just sayin'


----------



## geo (1 Feb 2008)

IIRC, when CADPAT was 1st issued, it was verboten to mix "IT" with anything else.
Then, it was OKd to wear with DEU as an equivalent to the old CANEX parka / windbreaker...
I wasn't too impressed when that happened but, as I was no longer responsible for the dress & discipline of anyone other than myself.... que sera, sera...


----------



## JesseWZ (1 Feb 2008)

I have never had a problem with the issued gabardine (sp?) although I have only worn it in really cold temperatures a few times. With the exception of Rememberance Day I can't think of any activities that would have you outside in the cold for terribly long periods of time in your DEU's anyways. But then again I might very well be wrong. Feel free to correct me.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Feb 2008)

My mother bought me a Canex parka for a winter jacket when I was 13.   They were cheaper, believe it or not, than a parka at the stores.  Still have it, although I haven't worn it with DEU.  It would have to be better than the gabardine, though.

Remember the great coat?  If you were going on course, it took up almost a whole duffel bag itself!


----------



## geo (1 Feb 2008)

PMM
I have have worn the OD & CF Green greatcoats.
I liked the look the brass buttons gave to the OD coat.  The huge colar also did a good job of protecting the face on cold windy days.
The cheap Plastic buttons & stiff wool of the CF green one made it a dissapointment.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I've read the thread a few times, but I can't find anyone mentioning our old "paint by numbers" jacket (with belt / branch buckle).



I mentioned this when I crossed it out - it is something between Operational and Service dress and is not, in my opinion, required.


----------



## PMedMoe (1 Feb 2008)

I never minded the paint-by-numbers work dress jacket but I absolutely HATED the garrison boots.  They were so stiff I was always afraid to fall down the stairs.  :-[


----------



## davidk (1 Feb 2008)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I have never had a problem with the issued gabardine (sp?) although I have only worn it in really cold temperatures a few times. With the exception of Rememberance Day I can't think of any activities that would have you outside in the cold for terribly long periods of time in your DEU's anyways. But then again I might very well be wrong. Feel free to correct me.



Yeah, it works fine. Unless you happen to be in a Highland unit; then it just makes you look like a flasher. Looking from the bottom up, spats, hose, bare legs and then that long coat doesn't go over well. Members of our unit training for deployment with the regs had to carefully point out this fact so as not to look foolish on Remembrance day. They were cold, but dignified.

100% in agreement with Teddy, especially the stable belts - that's something I'd really like to see, just not mixed with combats like the British army does.


----------

