# Canadian Pattern Uniform



## MAJOR_Baker (28 Aug 2003)

Do the pockets on the CANPAT uniform have some functionality?  I noticed they seem to be a holdover from the previous Korean war vintage uniform...they use to be able to hold an FN magazine?  Is that still the case?


----------



## combat_medic (28 Aug 2003)

The CADPAT pockes are a holdover from the FN days, but now are designed simply as carry-all cargo pockets.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (28 Aug 2003)

Canada did not have slanted pockets on Korean War uniforms; they were introduced in the 1960s.  Canada wore battledress and bushdress in the 1950s.  The arctic parka, flannel shirt, and the leftover KD shirts all had square pockets as well.

The FN mag pockets were added to Canadian combats after the introduction of the 1964 pattern webbing, which lacked ammunition pouches - the idea being that the FN mags would be carried in the shirt pocket.  Thankfully the idea didn‘t last long!


----------



## Danjanou (29 Aug 2003)

Actually Major, the only use they have now is to store our smokes.

Anybody out there remember the short lived Combat shirt (circa late 1980‘s) with regular style chest pockets and no lower pockets and all the fun with changing dress regs about wearing it tucked in or out?


----------



## Jungle (29 Aug 2003)

The troops wanted to keep the slanted pockets, for esthetic reasons if nothing else.
I don‘t smoke, but i still carry a note pad with pen/ pencil in one, and my compass in the other... but that‘s just me.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Aug 2003)

Danjanou, you are talking about the Mk III combat shirt; I have two and wore them exclusively until CADPAT came out.

Much easier to keep sharp looking - you just had to iron the two flaps shut, though I used safety pins on them on occasion also.  On the "standard" combat shirt, those dumb mag pockets look like ****  unless you‘ve ironed the piss out of them OR stuffed them full of a bunch of crap you don‘t need (I need to carry a compass around the armoury with me?  Don‘t think so!)


----------



## Doug VT (31 Aug 2003)

I thought those shirts were absolutly GAY, no offense.  The only people that could reasonably get away with wearing them were the ladies....In fact isn‘t that whom the shirts were made for?


----------



## onecat (31 Aug 2003)

"Anybody out there remember the short lived Combat shirt (circa late 1980‘s) with regular style chest pockets and no lower pockets and all the fun with changing dress regs about wearing it tucked in or out?"

Why would anyone want to wear them tucked in.  Combats shirts just look better un-tucked; even if there are no lower pockets.

I do think they should of changed to larger chest pocket in the CadPat shirt.  Just for storage reason alone.  Given body armour, combat vests, there is no access to lower pockets.


----------



## Agent-Orange (31 Aug 2003)

How often are you guys running down to QM replacing your CADPAT Combats.  I haven‘t served since 93-94 from my understanding you guys are going thru them a lot quicker than the old olives. I also ran into a site about CADPAT/MARPAT digital design patten can anyone comment if they have seen the Canadian Maple Leaf in the design maybe my eyes are just going?  Or is that just a bunch of krap ?


----------



## Agent-Orange (31 Aug 2003)

I have located the site... some of you may or may not seen this. Fascinating isn‘t it ?     

 http://www.hyperstealth.com/CADPAT-MARPAT.htm


----------



## Michael Dorosh (31 Aug 2003)

Doug, women‘s shirts traditionally button on the other side, and don‘t have breast pockets at all, for obvious reasons, so I think you‘ve pulled that one out of thin air.


----------



## Danjanou (1 Sep 2003)

Michael, hey maybe you liked them but I‘m with Doug, couldn‘t stand them and thought they looked ridiculous. 

I was at CTC in Gagetown when they came in and I‘m serious somebody kept changing the rules on whether to wear them tucked in or flapping out.
Lucky me I just kept forgetting to go get the new shirts and was "forced" to wear my old ones.


----------



## onecat (1 Sep 2003)

Michael,do you have pics of this MK III combat shirt would like to see what all the fuse was about.  If they looked like battle dress jackets from WW2 then I‘m glad there out.  That jacket looked good, but was way too short for field use; never understood why teh British switched to them in 1937... but hey it was 30‘s fashion statment.


----------



## Recce41 (1 Sep 2003)

The Mk III shirts were to be the Garrison shirt. The US had them until 67. They were nice in Garrison. They were not short, just no pockets at the bottom. The 37,40,49 Pat BD was so that a Dress belt could be worn. And the old 03 Pat was not in style. Only Old guard/Home guard wear it. Some units did go to France in 39/40 wearing it. 
 Bush dress came to be, in the 50s. But was not very good in winter. The MkI Combat was just a take off of Bush dress. 
 Mike even with the 64 Pat webbing, they wore old Bren gun pouches. 
 The problem with the new Cadpat is some of the first ones were made of the wrong dye. It fades out too fast.
 I have one set of first old Cadpat square type pockets some where. It had square pockets and buckleson the pants. You may find some on Ebay.


----------



## brin11 (1 Sep 2003)

Danjanou,

I remember those combat shirts.  I remember actually being told twice, in the process of marching from the shacks to the messhall, to tuck and then untuck the shirt.  I actually liked those shirts (once they figured out to untuck them!)mainly because it was easier to find a small size so they fit me better.  I always seemed to have bad luck finding a short/x-small shirt of the regular type.  Funny though, I‘d forgotten about those shirts until you mentioned them.  I guess they just quietly died out.


----------



## MG34 (1 Sep 2003)

Those shirts were one of the most useless waste of money along with the idiotic Garrison jacket...My God what were they thinking!!Thankfully they were banned from use in the unit I was with but the WOGs seemed to like them.Totally useless in a field unit.


----------



## RCA (1 Sep 2003)

Yea, I remember those pieces of crap. I banned them from my Battery for paradfe nights. If the troopies wanted to wear them in field, fine. Not many did.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (2 Sep 2003)

Good info recce41, thanks.  We still issue bren gun pouches for wear with 82 pattern in my unit, or did til they all fell apart a couple of years ago finally, though some still have theirs.  We wear them in addition to the mag and utility pouches.

As for the Mk III dying out, I‘ve seen at least half a dozen individuals in the Mewata garrison wearing them regularly, including our RSM.  CADPAT will finally be the death of them, though.


----------



## Spanky (2 Sep 2003)

The old MK IIIs when tucked in, were great when crawling around inside the cougar.


----------



## Doug VT (3 Sep 2003)

The shirts are still gay.  Yes, I know that female shirts traditionally button on the other side but how many combat shirts do you know of that are not simply "unisex"?  They might not have been officially for females, but it was implied!  Why would anyone really want to wear that shirt anyway? I mean they were just so GAY!!!!!  No combat arms soldier would ever wear such a silly shirt!  In the candian army anyway!


----------



## max flinch (3 Sep 2003)

Those shirts without the bottom pockets were a classic case of the army trying to fix something that wasn‘t broken. I think the REAL reason those shirts disappeared in record time was that the remfs and wogs found out that it was harder to hide the big beer gut in them.

As for the duckhunting Garrison dress, I weep for all the goretex gear that could have been purchased with all the money that went into those goofy jackets and high-maintenance boots. I think that was purchased as work dress so that the chairborne warriors at all levels could strut about pretending to be soldiers (Personally, I think if you aren‘t combat arms or combat support, you should have a choice: either wear business civvies, or be issued those pink bunny pajamas with the plastic soled feet and the flap in the back).


----------



## Jungle (3 Sep 2003)

The gay shirt came around shortly after the ‘82 pattern webgear. Someone decided we didn‘t need those bottom pockets, or the FN-sized breast pockets, because the new webgear had enough pockets for all our kit, including mags. The troops, generally, hated them (I was in the CAR at the time, and there was no way any of us would wear them) so the Army decided to keep the classic CDN cbt shirt.


----------



## Armymedic (4 Sep 2003)

I believe that the clothe the soldier program should look at redesigning our cbt shirts so that they are more functional under our Tac Vests. A couple suggestions would be to add pockets on the sleeves of our shirts and reduce the depth of the chest pockets, or adding a second internal pocket on the inside on the right. Pockets full of stuff don‘t work so well under armour and TV‘s.


----------



## henleykg (6 Nov 2003)

That guy on the HYPERSTEALTH site is an idiot. All of the information he has about that on his sight is simple speculation. 

Read this for the real story.

 http://www.militarymorons.com/misc/misc.html#marpat


----------

