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

Naval Combat Dress (NCD) uniform [Merged]

Radar114

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
gwp said:
Your right, but you don't take it far enough.  The Navy's point of view is "Sailors don't wear CADPAT" unless they are working in the field.  Sailors posted to land or air units in office, classroom training environments etc. dress as sailors.

Not necessarily only in the field.  If the unit is to wear CADPAT as dress of the day then the sailors will wear CADPAT with the element color nametag and slipons.  Sailors who are ashore in Halifax and Esquimalt at Navy shore positions continue to wear Naval dress.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,479
Points
1,090
Radar114 said:
Not necessarily only in the field.  If the unit is to wear CADPAT as dress of the day then the sailors will wear CADPAT with the element color nametag and slipons.  Sailors who are ashore in Halifax and Esquimalt at Navy shore positions continue to wear Naval dress.

Purple trades wear the dress of the day of the element they are working for. Hard Sea trades will only wear Cadpat if they are sent on an operation such as A-stan (like the clearance divers)
 

Radar114

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Personal experience here and I still have the leftovers from my posting as a hard sea trade to a inland posting.  CADPAT as dress of the day.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
Does that mean that Army/AF types have to wear NCD's while working in Halifax/Esquimalt?

Obviously they don't. 
 

gwp

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Snakedoc said:
Though I seem to remember hearing about a directive somewhere that Navy pers working on Army bases shall wear CADPAT (can someone clarify?), just going strictly on the NFLD Sappers comment that navy pers wear the dress of the day of the unit, isn't dress of the day promulgated by order of dress?

Ie. If dress of the day is No.5's, for army pers this would be CADPAT whereas the Navy equivalent would be NCD's?
Exactly.  There is no authority to issue Maritime Command Personnel Reg or Res with CADPAT except if there is an operational requirement.  I.E. crawling in the mud.

If you doubt this.  Take it up with the Command or the Formation CPOs.  The response will be "Sailors don't wear CADPAT"

The following two pieces of the discussion may be useful.

Subject: ISSUE OF CADPAT TO NAVAL PERSONNEL
Sir:
The Navy does not want their personnel wearing CADPAT, just for the sake of wearing it. Obviously, if a Navy member is deployed, or employed in field work, where they are down in the dirt, crawling around on their bellies, or requires the camouflage elements of the kit, then it's required. For instruction duty in the field, on the range, etc, it is not required...

CPO1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Good afternoon:

A short time back, the issue of the wearing of CADPAT as a field dress for sailors (PLQ/BRT/BOTC staff) and which sailors have the authority to wear CADPAT, when, where and under which circumstances.
The excuse of uniformity in dress [everyone being in CADPAT], the soldier first training concept etc, I see as nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt for one to disguise the fact that the person wishes to appear different than those around them (the other sailors) or the person blatantly does not wish to take the time and effort to maintain their DEU (Naval uniform).The type of uniform a person wears does not assist or detract from the training task at hand. More importantly having staff members in different DEU would clearly demonstrates to our newly recruited candidates that personnel in all three elements are capable, willing and able to execute the same duties, responsibilities and training, thereby enforcing a sense of unity, equality, commonality and unified capability of all members of the CF regardless of element affiliation.

I see absolutely no reason for sailors to be in CADPAT when in garrison. To that end NOTC VENTURE has established the fol policy.

203: DRESS AND DEPORTMENT
References: A. A-AD-265 CF Dress Instructions
B. VENTURE Standing Orders

The VENTURE dress of the day is designated as:
a. Petty Officer Second Class / Sergeant and above shall wear the DEU order  of dress; and
b. Master Seaman / Master Corporal and below shall wear Operational dress (NCD/CADPAT in the field), with the personal choice to wear DEU;
The only exceptions to this directive are:
· at sea and when working or training on board HMC Ships or Submarines;
· during weapons instructional training, seamanship and DC/FF training periods;
· when attending training in NABS;
· during operational and field exercises; and
· when required to work on equipment, in storerooms, or in an unclean environment.

All ceremonial events, including Colours and Sun Set shall be conducted in the DEU order of dress.
 

Radar114

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
So, then what about the 3 years I wore CADPAT in ON?  I wasn't crawling in the mud everyday.  How about the guys working at CEFCOM?  The old CFJHQ in Kingston?

The directive in the ref is aimed at pers in Esquimalt / Halifax, not at sailors working in other establishments.  Also the directive is from NOTC VENTURE and could be applied for MARCOM pers while employed in MARCOM units.
 

Sailorwest

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Personally, I've never quite figured out why the Army and now the Air Force type seem fixated on wearing the most expensive clothing issued by the CF to wear around an office and push paper around. You spend $$$$ on coming up with a sophisticated camoflauge pattern and special cloth and then choose to wear it every day in an office environment so it can fade and have to become unservicable sooner than it should be.
Regardless, it is up to the employing unit how it wants its staff to be dressed. Navy pers attached to an Army unit will typically be issued CADPAT and will be compelled to wear it as dress of the day. Army pers attached to a shore based Navy unit will almost never be issued with NCD's and would follow the order of dress determined by that unit. Although I'm not sure about the air Det in a FFH, who I assume wear their own specialized dress (flight gear), any non-Navy types posted in a ship would be issued NCD and follow the order of dress for the ship. Navy guys posted to a Navy shore based unit should be only wearing CADPAT if they are in fact going to be doing field related work. At least in my opinion.
 

gwp

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Radar114 said:
So, then what about the 3 years I wore CADPAT in ON?  I wasn't crawling in the mud everyday.  How about the guys working at CEFCOM?  The old CFJHQ in Kingston?

And that is one aspect of why the Navy has an image problem in inland Canada.  If no one dresses as a sailor there are no sailors and then there is no Navy as far as Canadians are concerned.
 

Sailorwest

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
gwp said:
And that is one aspect of why the Navy has an image problem in inland Canada.  If no one dresses as a sailor there are no sailors and then there is no Navy as far as Canadians are concerned.
You are maybe overlooking the presence of NRD's throughout the major inland cities. None of the sailors at those units should be wearing CADPAT and are supposed to be the Naval presence in the inland cities. Granted, they are typically only working one or two evenings a week but that image problem in inland areas is the reason why there are NRD's in places like Saskatoon and Calgary.
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
28
Points
580
IMO Navy should only wear cadpat if they are going into the field. Just because you are posted to Gagetown, Kingston, Petawawa, etc does not mean you need or should wear them.  Why should I wear cadpat to go into an office the same as I do now?
 

PMedMoe

Army.ca Legend
Donor
Reaction score
763
Points
940
Let's just go back to tri-service work dress.  That will solve all the "confusion"..... ::)  ;)
 

CountDC

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
28
Points
580
That was a bad move the first time around.  How about a fourth uniform for purple trades - anyone up for wearing a purple tunic?  ;D
 

M Feetham

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
260
I think the best answer to this question was that each base and unit will decide what it's personnel will wear depending on situation. When I was teaching in ST Jean I wore Cbts for the entire course until the troops returned theirs and then I wore environmental specific dress, IE... NCD's or DEU's. Personnaly if I'm working ashore, even on an army base I should be wearing my salt and peppers, and only changing to cbt's if I go in the field.
Feet :cdn:
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,293
Points
1,090
As a member of a shooting team, I can speak on sailors in CADPAT a bit.

I was the last person to wear OD at CFSAC two years ago.  I got jacked up by MGen Beares, (sp?) over it.

Here in Halifax, we received permission to trade our OD's in for CADPAT about 2 years ago.  (for the shooting team)

I get some interesting looks when I change at the end of the day before I head to the range and walk out of the office in CADPAT.

That said, my regular dress of the day is a white short sleeve shirt, and black pants.

NS
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
452
Points
980
Sailorwest said:
Personally, I've never quite figured out why the Army and now the Air Force type seem fixated on wearing the most expensive clothing issued by the CF to wear around an office and push paper around.

Because it reduced the number of different uniforms bulking out personal closets and supply facilities. Units also looked like units again instead of three-ring circuses.

Of course, somebody had to go and ruin that with different coloured T-shirts and unreadable nametags and rank insignia.

There is more expensive clothing than combat, too. And the combat uniform could be produced far more cheaply with some common-sense simplifications.
 

Lil_T

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Loachman said:
Because it reduced the number of different uniforms bulking out personal closets and supply facilities. Units also looked like units again instead of three-ring circuses.

Of course, somebody had to go and ruin that with different coloured T-shirts and unreadable nametags and rank insignia.

There is more expensive clothing than combat, too. And the combat uniform could be produced far more cheaply with some common-sense simplifications.

Like colourfastness perhaps?  I'm sure there would be a decent coin saved if uniforms didn't need to be replaced as often due to fading.  How can the CADPAT be considered effective if it's grey?
Also, nothing looks more stupid than a new CADPAT shirt and busted, washed out CADPAT pants.  Saw that way too much working at Scotia Square when we were in Halifax.
 

Loachman

Former Army Pilot in Drag
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
452
Points
980
Lil_T said:
Like colourfastness perhaps?  I'm sure there would be a decent coin saved if uniforms didn't need to be replaced as often due to fading.  How can the CADPAT be considered effective if it's grey?
Also, nothing looks more stupid than a new CADPAT shirt and busted, washed out CADPAT pants.  Saw that way too much working at Scotia Square when we were in Halifax.

The old combat faded. Everything fades. It happens quicker on the uniforms worn outside more, though - more sun and more washings. Office workers can expect the dyes to last longer.

I was referring to the over-complication of the design. Every seam costs money, and there are far too many of them. Pockets within pockets, complicated pockets, interior pockets that nobody uses, tabs for flags, and if we absolutely have to wear our rank insignia a foot and a half above our genitalia rather than the shoulders were it belongs, just stick it on a velcro patch instead of another unnecessary tab.
 

Nfld Sapper

Army.ca Fixture
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
14
Points
580
Loachman said:
The old combat faded. Everything fades. It happens quicker on the uniforms worn outside more, though - more sun and more washings. Office workers can expect the dyes to last longer.

And don't forget the OG107's also turned into "combat lingerie" over time.
 

Lil_T

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
NFLD Sapper said:
And don't forget the OG107's also turned into "combat lingerie" over time.

sexy. 

I'll agree about the multitude of pockets/ seams/ superfluous stitching etc.  I'll never understand the pocket-within-a-pocket thing.  I mean, if you're going to do that, why not go whole hog and give the pants a jogging pant hem instead of using boot bands while keeping the mudflap portion.  What's one more little bit of sewing - right?





 

medaid

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Loachman said:
The old combat faded. Everything fades. It happens quicker on the uniforms worn outside more, though - more sun and more washings. Office workers can expect the dyes to last longer.

I was referring to the over-complication of the design. Every seam costs money, and there are far too many of them. Pockets within pockets, complicated pockets, interior pockets that nobody uses, tabs for flags, and if we absolutely have to wear our rank insignia a foot and a half above our genitalia rather than the shoulders were it belongs, just stick it on a velcro patch instead of another unnecessary tab.

Agreed. It would see our current CADPAT uniforms mimic the design of US ACU pattern shirts. Forgoing the lower pockets which aren't accessible with body armour on, and no to mention the useless bulging chest pockets that once again, aren't accessible with armour on. Move pockets to arms with large velcro panels sewn on the outside.

It's not Americanized... its practicalized...
 
Top