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

[Biggoals2bdone]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

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]

What environments would that be?

 

[Franko]

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]

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]

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

;D


No disrespect meant to anyone in the Para Coys

 

[vonGarvin]

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]

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