• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Daily wear - Work Dress vs Operational dress [Split from Sleeves up]

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
299
Points
1,130
gcclarke said:
The clothes don't make the person, their actions do.

There is also this old saying,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=w1hcXcPzJoa7ggft4bpY&q=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&oq=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..45844...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.9aNTskEy1Z0&ved=0ahUKEwiD4bzLpZLkAhWGneAKHe2wDgsQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566333169817
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
336
Points
910
mariomike said:
There is also this old saying,
clothes+make+the+man

31gYJj0k2mL._SX326_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
  8)

I didn't mind Work Dress.  Mind you, we wore it with a jump smock... and when in the office, it was normally Regimental t-shirt or sweatshirt, depending on the season.


I too got caught up in the thread split..... but I'm not too concerned.  :boring:

 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
344
Points
880
Pusser said:
2007 in a Canadian ship.  2015 in a British one.  It appears that yet another tradition has died.  :'(

PS:  Do they not let you inside your ships?  It must get pretty miserable being on them all the time ;D

Well played  ;)
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
410
Blackadder1916 said:
Such would be, IMO, BS.  However in the vein of "clothes make the man", in our southern neighbour's navy there seemed to be considerable angst when they went to a common "operational dress" (the much reviled blueberries) that required officers and CPOs to stop wearing khakis on ship.  They even refer to their Chiefs as "khaki leadership" and there were even some misguided souls who proclaimed that eliminating khakis afloat who seriously disrupt operational efficiency.  There were similar outbursts when junior ratings were given an "office uniform" that included a khaki shirt.  The identification of rank (social standing?) differences seems to be of such importance to them that the USN's latest trial version of a sea going operational dress includes a khaki version to be worn by officers and chiefs and a blue version for junior ratings.

Funny you should mention that.  In the early days of the switch from green to blue work dress at sea, it was suggested that officers be issued extra white shirts for use with work dress, precisely so they could be readily identified as leaders in tense situations.

Of note, in the USN there was a difference between the standard (largely polyester) permanent press khakis worn ashore and the "wash khakis" (cotton) worn at sea.  Wash khakis always had long sleeves, whereas those worn ashore often had short sleeves.
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
410
Oldgateboatdriver said:
First, it is important to remember that for the Army, the dichotomy between uniforms worn in battle (wether you call it Battledress, Combat or Cadpat) and those worn in garison (which we would call Service dress today) started in the Crimean war and was fully adopted during WWI. Before that, soldiers had only one - bright, colonial power - uniform. Trench warfare made adoption of batle dress necessary.

The green service dress (and it is still true of the current Navy DEU - save the SS shirts) was made of wool, with mostly (65%) cotton shirt, while the seamen wore the old green work dress at sea, which was all made of 100% polyester. As for shoes, in my days, we all wore the seaboots at sea, regardless of uniform, until they were unfortunately discontinued and replaced by "parade" boots. Even then, most of us, at sea, had a pair of "parade" boots that we had resoled with a proper hard rubber sole for good grip.

Even today, considering that the naval DEU is wool and cotton (save the SS shirt - but most officers I know don't use the CF issued one anyway - but buy the 100% cotton US pattern ones), working onboard wearing #3's would not be much of a danger in case of fire or other shipboard emergency.

The British Army actually had a garrison uniform as far back as at least the 18th Century.  It was made of a natural shade of wool (whitish) and was worn for daily work and could be cleaned.  The red coat was saved strictly for battle and parades and could not generally be cleaned because they were not colourfast.

I don't recall anyone wearing service dress at sea.  Officers tended to wear S4B (work dress trousers and short-sleeve light green shirt).  Work dress was a cotton-poly blend, but service dress was a wool-poly blend.  Both melted when it got too hot.

Things have changed.  We haven't had those horrific 100% polyester short-sleeved shirts for some time now.  They are now the same cotton-poly blend as the long-sleeved ones and even come with the Canada badges already sewn on!
 

gcclarke

Sr. Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
mariomike said:
There is also this old saying,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=w1hcXcPzJoa7ggft4bpY&q=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&oq=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..45844...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.9aNTskEy1Z0&ved=0ahUKEwiD4bzLpZLkAhWGneAKHe2wDgsQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566333169817

Well, yes. I kind of thought it was fairly obvious that I was directly alluding to that phrase, and rejecting its premise. Like a lot of old sayings, it's a load of bullshit.
 

Furniture

Sr. Member
Reaction score
85
Points
330
gcclarke said:
Well, yes. I kind of thought it was fairly obvious that I was directly alluding to that phrase, and rejecting its premise. Like a lot of old sayings, it's a load of bullshit.

Is it?

First impressions still matter in this modern age, and being well dressed/turned out helps one make a positive first impression. We can pretend all we want that people aren't judged on appearances, but that's not reality.

Clearly it takes more than just being well dressed to keep a positive image  with others, but starting out positive sure does make it easier to get the chance to make a more lasting positive impression.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
2,799
Points
1,060
Furniture said:
Is it?

First impressions still matter in this modern age, and being well dressed/turned out helps one make a positive first impression. We can pretend all we want that people aren't judged on appearances, but that's not reality.

Clearly it takes more than just being well dressed to keep a positive image  with others, but starting out positive sure does make it easier to get the chance to make a more lasting positive impression.

Dress for the job you want, then you can look as sloppy as you like if you're aiming low :)

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2018/11/15/should-people-really-dress-for-the-job-they-want-not-the-job-they-have/#fe5defa26364
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
213
Points
680
You know, this sentence in that article just jumped at me:

"In addition, there is a common perception among management that if you can’t handle the small things, you probably aren’t well suited to handle larger responsibility. Put simply: If you can’t even dress yourself properly, you can’t handle much else."

Well, well! Wouldn't that be something appropriate to the threads where we discuss the proper wearing of uniforms or performance of drill.

Just sayin!  :whistle:
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
213
Points
680
Pusser said:
I don't recall anyone wearing service dress at sea.  Officers tended to wear S4B (work dress trousers and short-sleeve light green shirt).  Work dress was a cotton-poly blend, but service dress was a wool-poly blend.  Both melted when it got too hot.

OK, just a few points here Pusser (and I am trying to be ... pusser,  ;D): First, my comprehension fo the thread was that it related to wearing uniforms onboard a ship while in harbour.

In my days (1975-2000), we certainly wore service dress in harbour onboard ship. I refer to "3's" for the sake of comprehension by people who have never used the old green unibags, but in reality, we wore the S4A's (winter) and S4B's (summer), especially after the green combat sweater became available.

The S4B's, however are NOT what you described. The S4 order of dress were as follows: S4A: service pants, shoes, long sleeve shirt and tie - could be worn with combat sweater. That's what we wore in harbour in winter. S4B was the same but substitute short sleeve shirt/open collar for the long sleeve/tie one. That's what we wore in summer.

When we let the lines go - had finished exiting harbour (i.e. part ship hands had been secured) we switched to a W5/W6 combination.
The W orders of dress were amazingly simple: W1: full work dress including jacket and tie; W2: same without the jacket*; W3: full work dress with jacket - no tie; W4: same but without jacket - but then with sleeves rolled up, which you didn't do with the W2 order; W5: work dress with light green service shirt and jacket; W6: same but without jacket.

You may recall also that, even though not i.a.w. any dress order, we officers wore the W5/W6 at sea with our green P-cap - not the berets. If anyone is interested in finding what we looked like, I suggest you go on YouTube and type: "Canadian navy Full Speed Ahead" and watch a beautiful little document made by the CAF to attract candidates to the naval officer program of the days (mid 1970's). Here's a direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbmUrOtRfJU


*: To be fair, in all my years, I cannot recall a single occasion in the Navy where we bothered to wear the tie with the work dress, must be an Army thing that it even existed  ;).
 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
336
Points
910
Oldgateboatdriver said:
You know, this sentence in that article just jumped at me:

"In addition, there is a common perception among management that if you can’t handle the small things, you probably aren’t well suited to handle larger responsibility. Put simply: If you can’t even dress yourself properly, you can’t handle much else."

Well, well! Wouldn't that be something appropriate to the threads where we discuss the proper wearing of uniforms or performance of drill.

Just sayin!  :whistle:
Hang on.  So you're saying that if you play dress-up like an extra in a low-budget Bollywood movie, maybe governing a country isn't for you?  ;)
 

Pusser

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1
Points
410
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The S4B's, however are NOT what you described. The S4 order of dress were as follows: S4A: service pants, shoes, long sleeve shirt and tie - could be worn with combat sweater. That's what we wore in harbour in winter. S4B was the same but substitute short sleeve shirt/open collar for the long sleeve/tie one. That's what we wore in summer.

When we let the lines go - had finished exiting harbour (i.e. part ship hands had been secured) we switched to a W5/W6 combination.
The W orders of dress were amazingly simple: W1: full work dress including jacket and tie; W2: same without the jacket*; W3: full work dress with jacket - no tie; W4: same but without jacket - but then with sleeves rolled up, which you didn't do with the W2 order; W5: work dress with light green service shirt and jacket; W6: same but without jacket.

You may recall also that, even though not i.a.w. any dress order, we officers wore the W5/W6 at sea with our green P-cap - not the berets. If anyone is interested in finding what we looked like, I suggest you go on YouTube and type: "Canadian navy Full Speed Ahead" and watch a beautiful little document made by the CAF to attract candidates to the naval officer program of the days (mid 1970's). Here's a direct link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbmUrOtRfJU


*: To be fair, in all my years, I cannot recall a single occasion in the Navy where we bothered to wear the tie with the work dress, must be an Army thing that it even existed  ;).

You're absolutely right.  I guess the memory fades over the years.  S4B was with service dress trousers.  W5/6 looked similar, but with work dress trousers and occasionally the work dress jacket (or flight jacket for those so lucky).
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
299
Points
1,130
gcclarke said:
Perhaps it's time to stop wasting so much time on what we look like and more time on what we do.

Of course you are right.

First impressions aside, there is also the old adage, "Deeds speak."

 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
172
Points
710
mariomike said:
Of course you are right.

I don't believe he/she IS right actually.  I think there should be a balance.  When we are "in the public eye", as a matter of day to day business, how we look in uniform is important.  Parades, Nov 11th, etc.

Other times, dress is less important for "the PR factor" and is only pertinent to operations (or should be);  Hot Wx Ops, field op, on ship "when not along side"...however, there are still regs and need to be regs on how we dress because people just can't do what they want.  We'd be a shitshow in front of the public (doesn't matter if they care, or not) and people would start ignoring things like sanitizing uniforms, wear of PPE, etc during ops. 

We could adopt the 'unprofessional military look', in service and operational dress...sort of go the way the folks in the attached pictures have.  Or we could maintain a professional military look.  I personally don't want people to wonder if I might be a member of a group of pissed off wild turkey hunters association or something when I am alone or in a group.  Dress standards and reg's exist for good reasons, both for PR sakes and for operational reasons as well.
 

Attachments

  • Professional look.jpg
    Professional look.jpg
    155.4 KB · Views: 254
  • 111_security_force-1024x512.jpg
    111_security_force-1024x512.jpg
    128.1 KB · Views: 230

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
299
Points
1,130
Of course you are also right. 

Forgot the sarcasm emoji.  Didn't think it was needed.  :)

Apparently it was,

mariomike said:
There is also this old saying,
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1280&bih=641&ei=w1hcXcPzJoa7ggft4bpY&q=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&oq=%22clothes+make+the+man%22&gs_l=psy-ab.12...0.0..45844...0.0..0.0.0.......0......gws-wiz.9aNTskEy1Z0&ved=0ahUKEwiD4bzLpZLkAhWGneAKHe2wDgsQ4dUDCAo#spf=1566333169817



 

Journeyman

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
336
Points
910
Eye In The Sky said:
...a group of pissed off wild turkey hunters association or something
Professional appearances aside, my first thought looking at those two pics was ".... and they're breeding. FML  :'(  "

;)
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
2,799
Points
1,060
Eye In The Sky said:
I don't believe he/she IS right actually.  I think there should be a balance.  When we are "in the public eye", as a matter of day to day business, how we look in uniform is important.  Parades, Nov 11th, etc.

Other times, dress is less important for "the PR factor" and is only pertinent to operations (or should be);  Hot Wx Ops, field op, on ship "when not along side"...however, there are still regs and need to be regs on how we dress because people just can't do what they want.  We'd be a shitshow in front of the public (doesn't matter if they care, or not) and people would start ignoring things like sanitizing uniforms, wear of PPE, etc during ops. 

We could adopt the 'unprofessional military look', in service and operational dress...sort of go the way the folks in the attached pictures have.  Or we could maintain a professional military look.  I personally don't want people to wonder if I might be a member of a group of pissed off wild turkey hunters association or something when I am alone or in a group.  Dress standards and reg's exist for good reasons, both for PR sakes and for operational reasons as well.

We almost shot some friendlies by accident, once upon a time in a cr*ppy terrorist conflict a long time ago, who were in a covert OP and dressed not too differently from these guys.

Where anything you do can get you killed, including dressing differently, there's alot of value in conforming to dress regulations :)
 
Top