New Dress Regs 🤣

[RangerRay]

I once saw a Seaforth sergeant wearing trews in DEU once. It was fugly.

 

[AirDet]

Sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I don't see these regulations harming us in any way. I doubt we'll see the extremes very often on parade and if we do, who cares. I care much more about a soldier's competence than his/her appearance.

 

[Haggis]

The fact that Trews were allowed and even encouraged, means that the Scottish units should have no say in Dress Regulations.

Go big or go home.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes, they wear the kilt, therefore they cannot wear the skirt

Can't have Kilts and skirts in the same parade, otherwise small children might ask: "What is the difference?"

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Trained soldiers, who happen to be male or female or some other personal choice or gender, are permitted to wear the kilt.

At least that was the case a couple of years ago out here in the West.

Our Highland Unit here has both male and females in kilts.

 

[dangerboy]

Can't have Kilts and skirts in the same parade, otherwise small children might ask: "What is the difference?"

Also, current dress regulations do not allow skirts to be worn on parades. I have no idea if this will change or not with the new regulations, but here is what the regulations currently state: "Women may wear the No. 3 order alternative skirt with No. 1A order of dress when not on parade and when strict uniformity is not ordered, according to the occasion for wear."

 

[Kilted]

Our Highland Unit here has both male and females in kilts.

Yes, that's how it's been for a long time. I said that women in Scottish regiments were not allowed to wear skirts. That's because they were wearing kilts already.

Also, somewhat of a pet peeve of mind, while all Highland regiments are Scottish regiments, not all Scottish regiments are Highland regiments.

 

[FJAG]

My experience has been that those who are at the rank level that is authorized to wear Trews are seldom the right people to show them off in a complimentary manner

It is quite amazing how the parallel lines of the pattern on the trews emphasize the non parallel lines of those who wear trews.

 

[Quirky]

Sorry I'm late to this conversation, but I don't see these regulations harming us in any way. I doubt we'll see the extremes very often on parade and if we do, who cares. I care much more about a soldier's competence than his/her appearance.

I think both appearance and competence matter, along with maintaining a professional attitude and conduct. Maybe it's too much to ask these days.

 

[daftandbarmy]

It is quite amazing how the parallel lines of the pattern on the trews emphasize the non parallel lines of those who wear trews.

I've heard the phrase 'contour lines' used to good effect with respect to the 'rounder' members

 

[Gunnar]

I think both appearance and competence matter, along with maintaining a professional attitude and conduct. Maybe it's too much to ask these days.

While appearance shouldn’t matter, I think history shows it does. If your unit looks like a bag of crap, people will see it and think “that unit is a bag of crap”. Who wants to be part of the Crap Bag Regiment? Further, in the “fake it till you make it department”, looking in the mirror like a badass trained killer in Her Majesty’s service, may make you more inclined to do the work/change the attitude necessary to actually make it true. I may not be James Bond in my tux, but damned if I’m not going to try to be suave, cultured and debonair while I’m looking that good.

Note the weasel words: “may”. There are still plenty of people who lie to themselves and think if they wear the same clothes as their heroes that they become their heroes. “Look at me: I’m Rambo!”. This isn’t true either.

In sum, looking the part isn’t a negligible component, but it isn’t everything either.

 

[SupersonicMax]

If your unit looks like a bag of crap, people will see it and think “that unit is a bag of crap”. Who wants to be part of the Crap Bag Regiment?

You mean units in which people look like this?



The unit this gentleman was in had no recruitment problems yet most of their members would look like « bags of crap » by military standards.

Further, in the “fake it till you make it department”, looking in the mirror like a badass trained killer in Her Majesty’s service, may make you more inclined to do the work/change the attitude necessary to actually make it true. I may not be James Bond in my tux, but damned if I’m not going to try to be suave, cultured and debonair while I’m looking that good.

Looks certainly don’t mean anything to me. Looks are superficial and I look for substance, as most of my colleagues do. The fact that some put any importance to looks to judge people’s ability to do their work effectively is concerning.

 

[OldSolduer]

You mean units in which people look like this?

View attachment 70219

The unit this gentleman was in had no recruitment problems yet most of their members would look like « bags of crap » by military standards.





Looks certainly don’t mean anything to me. Looks are superficial and I look for substance, as most of my colleagues do. The fact that some put any importance to looks to judge people’s ability to do their work effectively is concerning.

SOF are a different kettle of fish. For the most part they are a proven quantity.

Why does the Regular Army have inspections to ensure standards are being maintained?

 

[KevinB]

Why does the Regular Army have inspections to ensure standards are being maintained?

Because they can't be bothered with actual drills that would teach more useful applications of attention to detail...

 

[Gunnar]

I still think both appearance AND competence matter. Later on in your career, you simply know better what to look for. The way you choose to look says something about your character, and the way you see yourself and others. As one gets older, or less inexperienced, you fine-tune that “look” based on what is of importance to you and your perceived self-image. Your pic isn’t spit and polish, but I bet that guy’s rifle is operable.

 

[FSTO]

While appearance shouldn’t matter, I think history shows it does. If your unit looks like a bag of crap, people will see it and think “that unit is a bag of crap”. Who wants to be part of the Crap Bag Regiment? Further, in the “fake it till you make it department”, looking in the mirror like a badass trained killer in Her Majesty’s service, may make you more inclined to do the work/change the attitude necessary to actually make it true. I may not be James Bond in my tux, but damned if I’m not going to try to be suave, cultured and debonair while I’m looking that good.

Note the weasel words: “may”. There are still plenty of people who lie to themselves and think if they wear the same clothes as their heroes that they become their heroes. “Look at me: I’m Rambo!”. This isn’t true either.

In sum, looking the part isn’t a negligible component, but it isn’t everything either.

Badass, as in this guy? A real change initiator?

 

[Booter]

Your pic isn’t spit and polish, but I bet that guy’s rifle is operable.

You moved your goalposts. That sentence means he could be effective, but it has nothing to do with whether he has frosted tips or a tuxedo.

I think people don’t want to admit that they’d rather have everyone LOOK like they know what they are doing because they brushed their hair a certain way

We have grooming standards because of lice. So it’s practicality- which is The same reason we don’t shit and eat in the same place.

 

[KevinB]

I still think both appearance AND competence matter. Later on in your career, you simply know better what to look for. The way you choose to look says something about your character, and the way you see yourself and others. As one gets older, or less inexperienced, you fine-tune that “look” based on what is of importance to you and your perceived self-image. Your pic isn’t spit and polish, but I bet that guy’s rifle is operable.

Honestly that is a pretty cheap copout IMHO.
For Recruits etc - uniformity in dress and appearance is done to promote cohesion - self discipline and attention to detail.
It is often taken to extremely stupid levels - when instead of doing kit and quarters inspections, KIM's games and other drills should and could be done.
A extraordinary amount of time is wasted by most Militaries doing stupid stuff, simply because it has always been done that way - when some actual thought about the job can come up with 99x better things to do -- the problem most "experienced" soldiers aren't actually experienced, and simply go through inane repetition because it has always been done that way.

 

[OldSolduer]

Because they can't be bothered with actual drills that would teach more useful applications of attention to detail...

There’s a bit more to it than that. Younger troops need the mentorship and inspections ensure serviceability and maintenance of kit. Over time they can be reduced once you’re confident in their progress.

 

[KevinB]

There’s a bit more to it than that. Younger troops need the mentorship and inspections ensure serviceability and maintenance of kit. Over time they can be reduced once you’re confident in their progress.

My experience is that the CAF tends to not understand the reason for that - and candidates are often encourage to damage weapons unwittingly to get them "Inspection clean" - simply because very few of the staff even understand that either.