Raise your hand if you agree...
- Thread starter Mikeg81
- Start date
Frostnipped Elf said:
The uniforms are quite sharp. Chapter 8 of RRCA Standing Orders discusses them and their loan. Figures 11 and 12 show RCA and RCHA period dress circa 1905. The RCA Band wears period dress circa 1968 (Figure 13) See: http://www.artillery.net/English/RCA%20Standing%20Orders.pdf
- Reaction score
- 1,292
- Points
- 940
geo said:
Meanwhile, us Army types are stuck with only the winter weight DEU since they got rid of the tans (which, personally, I liked).
They're GREAT in the summer!
Vern? Any idea when a "summer" weight Army DEU might be in the making? ???
- Reaction score
- 27,527
- Points
- 1,090
PMedMoe said:Meanwhile, us Army types are stuck with only the winter weight DEU since they got rid of the tans (which, personally, I liked).
They're GREAT in the summer!
Vern? Any idea when a "summer" weight Army DEU might be in the making? ???
Summer weight Land DEUs were trialled a number of years ago; I remember seeing a number of folks picking them up and wandering around NDHQ in lesser states of discomfort compared to the rest of us. No idea what has transpired since then.
And for those who'd like each branch to return to distinct uniforms vice DEUs: Increasing the range of clothing increases the cost. You can get better pricing, and better inventory management when everyone is in the same uniform, vice having to worry about having enough 7234 pants in eleven different styles.
)
- Reaction score
- 5,973
- Points
- 1,260
Interesting, I had a variation of this debate with a former member a few years ago. He argued that the military needed “business dress” (à la the current DEO with a jacket and tie). I argued that the “business suit” is CADPAT but that, in addition to that, the military needed ceremonial dress, too.
My rationale was (still is): We do three things:
1. Fight (or train to fight) in the field – CADPAT and Navy Combats (or whatever they are) and flight suits and whatever is worn on the flight line all apply;
2. Work at various mundane jobs – washing vehicles, sorting stores in bins, fixing radios, tapping away at computers (maintaining software, sorting our pay problems, drafting briefing notes for the cabinet), etc, etc, etc – all of which can be done in some variants of our CADPAT “battle dress;” and
3. Show off, albeit not too often, for which an appropriate ceremonial uniform is required.
Now, I agree that sometimes some officers and some NCOs have to go to lunch with the mayor or brief a committee on Parliament Hill or whatever and maybe CADPAT or some CADPAT (minus) “work dress” is not quite suitable but, I think we could find several work arounds, including:
1. Ceremonial dress (minus) – one could go to lunch with the mayor wearing a patrol dress uniform minus all the parade accouterments; or
2. Blazer and flannels – maybe provided as an initial issue item to everyone; or
3. Authorized (for purchase) but not issues “business suit” type uniforms.
All to say that I agree, in general, with Mikeg81, but: It would be expensive (I was around when we counted the costs of the “Coates of many colours” project (the move back to DEUs authorized by then defence minister Bob Coates circa 1985) – think $25-150 million to dress 75,000 members, today). I’m not sure that, were I still serving, I would be able to argue for millions for buttons and bows until we had bullets and beans well in hand.
My rationale was (still is): We do three things:
1. Fight (or train to fight) in the field – CADPAT and Navy Combats (or whatever they are) and flight suits and whatever is worn on the flight line all apply;
2. Work at various mundane jobs – washing vehicles, sorting stores in bins, fixing radios, tapping away at computers (maintaining software, sorting our pay problems, drafting briefing notes for the cabinet), etc, etc, etc – all of which can be done in some variants of our CADPAT “battle dress;” and
3. Show off, albeit not too often, for which an appropriate ceremonial uniform is required.
Now, I agree that sometimes some officers and some NCOs have to go to lunch with the mayor or brief a committee on Parliament Hill or whatever and maybe CADPAT or some CADPAT (minus) “work dress” is not quite suitable but, I think we could find several work arounds, including:
1. Ceremonial dress (minus) – one could go to lunch with the mayor wearing a patrol dress uniform minus all the parade accouterments; or
2. Blazer and flannels – maybe provided as an initial issue item to everyone; or
3. Authorized (for purchase) but not issues “business suit” type uniforms.
All to say that I agree, in general, with Mikeg81, but: It would be expensive (I was around when we counted the costs of the “Coates of many colours” project (the move back to DEUs authorized by then defence minister Bob Coates circa 1985) – think $25-150 million to dress 75,000 members, today). I’m not sure that, were I still serving, I would be able to argue for millions for buttons and bows until we had bullets and beans well in hand.
- Reaction score
- 10,346
- Points
- 1,260
My opinion.
CADPAT is horrible as a service dress. It is the equivalent to a mechanics coveralls. Mine are of various shades of fade due to the fact that I've thrashed in the course of using them as they're meant to be - Dress 5: Operational Clothing. The uniform always has a poor fit and, in my opinion, lets fat people hide behind a set of MC Hammer Pants. It is definitely not what I see as the ideal uniform for presenting ourselves to the public in.
I spoke at length with another member here and we agree that the CF has succumbed to nothing short of pure laziness. We wear CADPAT all the time now because we are too lazy to hold ourselves or our subordinates to a higher standard; namely shined shoes/boots and a decent Service dress. We should dress up as opposed to dress down. That being said, I don't blame us, as our existing service dress is uncomfortable and it makes us look like retarded washouts from Saturday Night Fever with the nice big mint-green collar.
IF I were the buttons and bows guy, I would look at uniforms in the following way (within the current dress reg system):
Dress 1. Ceremonial Dress - We need a form of dress that goes above the Service dress. Would you wear a business suit to a black-tie affair? CF Ceremonial Dress (like the scarlets) should be fairly standardized and issued (ie: standard high-collar scarlet tunic, standard headdress). This would be appropriate for funerals, state functions, special parades, etc, etc; when we put our best foot forward.
Dress 2. Mess Dress - This is social evening wear that should continue to be a private purchase.
Dress 3. Service Dress: This is current DEU minus ceremonial things like belts, sashes, swords, medals. A simple, revised service dress (one that actually looks decent in both style and colour) should be maintained for those who work out of operational jobs (training, operational units, etc), especially when the public is involved (ie: recruiting). There is something to be said for looking simple and smart.
Dress 4. Garrison Dress: Not required, as either the above or below covers its function off.
Dress 5. Operational Dress: As Edward stated, "fight or train". However, the "mundane" jobs that he listed - washing, fixing, sorting - are operational duties for alot of people in the CF, therefore I believe it falls under this category.
5a. Operational <Enhanced>: As a subset of the above, it is recognized that guys "leaving the wire" have some unique requirements. Body Armour is always worn (necessitating changes to the shirt). Padding for elbows/knees is needed. I could go on, but "Combat" requirements are different enough from "Operational" ones to justify looking into a different suite of clothing. Crye's products (look 'em up) are an excellent example of this. This would, like a flight suit, be a specialized order of operational dress for specific trades.
----
This is somewhat similar to the Marine Corps, as I believe they personify both "Dress Up, Not Down" and that they look the part of the professional organization that they are. This isn't shockingly new for our organization - it is all from the current dress PAM; it's just one that we loosely apply for either financial reasons or for the fact that we're just plain lazy (my favorite was the CEFCOM guys in Ottawa who felt that Combats were the dress of the day to get everyone into the expeditionary mindset....)
That being said, as Edward mentioned, clothing an entire organization is expensive, and I wholeheartedly endorse the opinion that we need beans and bullets before buttons and bows.
CADPAT is horrible as a service dress. It is the equivalent to a mechanics coveralls. Mine are of various shades of fade due to the fact that I've thrashed in the course of using them as they're meant to be - Dress 5: Operational Clothing. The uniform always has a poor fit and, in my opinion, lets fat people hide behind a set of MC Hammer Pants. It is definitely not what I see as the ideal uniform for presenting ourselves to the public in.
I spoke at length with another member here and we agree that the CF has succumbed to nothing short of pure laziness. We wear CADPAT all the time now because we are too lazy to hold ourselves or our subordinates to a higher standard; namely shined shoes/boots and a decent Service dress. We should dress up as opposed to dress down. That being said, I don't blame us, as our existing service dress is uncomfortable and it makes us look like retarded washouts from Saturday Night Fever with the nice big mint-green collar.
IF I were the buttons and bows guy, I would look at uniforms in the following way (within the current dress reg system):
Dress 1. Ceremonial Dress - We need a form of dress that goes above the Service dress. Would you wear a business suit to a black-tie affair? CF Ceremonial Dress (like the scarlets) should be fairly standardized and issued (ie: standard high-collar scarlet tunic, standard headdress). This would be appropriate for funerals, state functions, special parades, etc, etc; when we put our best foot forward.
Dress 2. Mess Dress - This is social evening wear that should continue to be a private purchase.
Dress 3. Service Dress: This is current DEU minus ceremonial things like belts, sashes, swords, medals. A simple, revised service dress (one that actually looks decent in both style and colour) should be maintained for those who work out of operational jobs (training, operational units, etc), especially when the public is involved (ie: recruiting). There is something to be said for looking simple and smart.
Dress 5. Operational Dress: As Edward stated, "fight or train". However, the "mundane" jobs that he listed - washing, fixing, sorting - are operational duties for alot of people in the CF, therefore I believe it falls under this category.
5a. Operational <Enhanced>: As a subset of the above, it is recognized that guys "leaving the wire" have some unique requirements. Body Armour is always worn (necessitating changes to the shirt). Padding for elbows/knees is needed. I could go on, but "Combat" requirements are different enough from "Operational" ones to justify looking into a different suite of clothing. Crye's products (look 'em up) are an excellent example of this. This would, like a flight suit, be a specialized order of operational dress for specific trades.
----
This is somewhat similar to the Marine Corps, as I believe they personify both "Dress Up, Not Down" and that they look the part of the professional organization that they are. This isn't shockingly new for our organization - it is all from the current dress PAM; it's just one that we loosely apply for either financial reasons or for the fact that we're just plain lazy (my favorite was the CEFCOM guys in Ottawa who felt that Combats were the dress of the day to get everyone into the expeditionary mindset....)
That being said, as Edward mentioned, clothing an entire organization is expensive, and I wholeheartedly endorse the opinion that we need beans and bullets before buttons and bows.
A
aesop081
Guest
Mikeg81 said:
Nice edit :
Dont worry, we remember the question
Milnet.ca staff
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
E.R. Campbell said:
I agree with most of this, but I draw a distinction between fixing radios and tapping away at computers. The latter is, in my opinion, an office-type job that calls for office-type attire. I think Infanteer has pretty well nailed it.
- Reaction score
- 27,527
- Points
- 1,090
As someone in baggy green pajamas sitting in an Ottawa cubilce I fully agree that it's utterly inappropriate. HQ staff are not field soldiers - they were in the past, may well be again in the future, but for now should present themselves in a profesisonal manner.
I suspect that the "We're really field soldiers too!" justification is more of a "We're too lazy to press and polish" issue.
(And I won't begin to discuss the absurd steps that lead to the Land Staff wearing CADPAT vice DEU - more than a few people in Ottawa don't understand command relationships...)
I suspect that the "We're really field soldiers too!" justification is more of a "We're too lazy to press and polish" issue.
(And I won't begin to discuss the absurd steps that lead to the Land Staff wearing CADPAT vice DEU - more than a few people in Ottawa don't understand command relationships...)
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I suppose I am a "buttons and bows" guy to some extent, in that I feel that uniforms reflect the mindset of the Army wearing them. I was at a major event with the USMC a couple of months ago and was embarrassed by both our ill-fitting, baggy, faded combats and our cheap, uncomfortable DEUs.
Generally speaking, I'm with Infanteer. It was a mistake (IMHO) to make CADPAT the "dress of the day" Army-wide. We are the worst turned-out soldiers in NATO as a result. I see four uniforms total, with only variants of two worn by soldiers generally. That is:
- a properly fitting, modularized combat uniform with a shirt designed to fit under a flak vest and a smock for day to day wear when not wearing body armour. This means a fabric that doesn't fade and is rip resistant, no "grenade pouches" in the pockets and no useless FN mag pouches on the chest. The gang who designed the current combats obviously did nothing to address utility issues (let alone appearance) when building the "new" CADPAT and merely adopted the old combats to the new digitized fabric. I've heard "people like the pockets" far too many times. Infanteer has this exactly right; beside Marines in MARPAT we look like glue bags.
- A redesigned Army DEU that reflects (some) Army tradition and looks better than a knocked off Air Canada uniform. The rank stripes (for officers) look cheap, the colour isn't identifiable as "army" and its uncomfortable without tailoring. Go to "old Army" olive green with (gasp!) a Sam Browne and better rank idenftifiers (see WW I cuff stripes as an example of how this can be done without breaking the "CF" mould). Issue in sufficent quantities and with enough options to wear year-round. Again IMHO, this should be dress of the day (stable belts anyone?) unless training, working on vehicles or the like.
- Mess dress: as now
- Ceremonials: for select units at public expense. Each unit (Reg and PRes) should have a small suite for colour guards and the like. Normally, though, soldiers wouldn't wear ceremonials.
This leaves us with two uniforms for 90% of soldiers: more useful, robust combats and a revised DEU
We're not short of money for day-to-day operational requirements. Perhaps it is time, while we have the public's eye, to sort this out.
My 2 cents, as usual.
Generally speaking, I'm with Infanteer. It was a mistake (IMHO) to make CADPAT the "dress of the day" Army-wide. We are the worst turned-out soldiers in NATO as a result. I see four uniforms total, with only variants of two worn by soldiers generally. That is:
- a properly fitting, modularized combat uniform with a shirt designed to fit under a flak vest and a smock for day to day wear when not wearing body armour. This means a fabric that doesn't fade and is rip resistant, no "grenade pouches" in the pockets and no useless FN mag pouches on the chest. The gang who designed the current combats obviously did nothing to address utility issues (let alone appearance) when building the "new" CADPAT and merely adopted the old combats to the new digitized fabric. I've heard "people like the pockets" far too many times. Infanteer has this exactly right; beside Marines in MARPAT we look like glue bags.
- A redesigned Army DEU that reflects (some) Army tradition and looks better than a knocked off Air Canada uniform. The rank stripes (for officers) look cheap, the colour isn't identifiable as "army" and its uncomfortable without tailoring. Go to "old Army" olive green with (gasp!) a Sam Browne and better rank idenftifiers (see WW I cuff stripes as an example of how this can be done without breaking the "CF" mould). Issue in sufficent quantities and with enough options to wear year-round. Again IMHO, this should be dress of the day (stable belts anyone?) unless training, working on vehicles or the like.
- Mess dress: as now
- Ceremonials: for select units at public expense. Each unit (Reg and PRes) should have a small suite for colour guards and the like. Normally, though, soldiers wouldn't wear ceremonials.
This leaves us with two uniforms for 90% of soldiers: more useful, robust combats and a revised DEU
We're not short of money for day-to-day operational requirements. Perhaps it is time, while we have the public's eye, to sort this out.
My 2 cents, as usual.
I spent 4 months on course in Texas in 2006 with students from around the world. The only time I felt proud of the quality and design of the uniform was when we had the chance to wear mess kit. The Canadians were the topic of conversation that night. The remainder of ther time we were made fun of. Our CADPAT design serves it purpose in the appropriate environment. Many other countries ask why we blouse our pants, hard question to explain to folks, especially once they see the photos of deployed soldiers.
I come from a time when you were not allowed off the base in utilities, and the few times you were, you had better look stracck!! It was the rule, and you know what, we took pride in looking good when we went off the base.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Bringing a bit from the Naval dress thread, and my own opinion from being on the land side a bit.
I think we need a separate uniform option. Give the troops the option to wear Patrols for a BLING dress. When I was with H Svc Gp I've always wondered why we were not allowed to wear Patrols. It's a sharp nice looking uniform that serves well as a walking out dress, where DEUs would not blend in and still look rather spiffy at some semi-formal functions.
Now, the Navy has whites
and high collared whites should be provided... it looks really nice...
Back to the patrols... I'd say bring it back. But only after we've updated all our essential equipment and bought more... and more and more ammo.
I think we need a separate uniform option. Give the troops the option to wear Patrols for a BLING dress. When I was with H Svc Gp I've always wondered why we were not allowed to wear Patrols. It's a sharp nice looking uniform that serves well as a walking out dress, where DEUs would not blend in and still look rather spiffy at some semi-formal functions.
Now, the Navy has whites
and high collared whites should be provided... it looks really nice...Back to the patrols... I'd say bring it back. But only after we've updated all our essential equipment and bought more... and more and more ammo.
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,876
- Points
- 1,260
I agree with Infanteer and Teddy. I've always liked patrol blues and ceremonial dress and wished they were more common in the Army. I also think a khaki DEU, with Sam Brownes for senior NCOs and officers would look much sharper than the present "green hornet" DEU, and reflect our Commonwealth military heritage.
As for combats, I've felt that there should be a proper fitting shirt for wear with tactical vests/chest rigs, and for garrison, a wash-n-wear khaki shirt with CADPAT pants. This way you would have the practicality for the field, and RSMs would be happy that the troops looked well turned out in garrison.
My two cents...
As for combats, I've felt that there should be a proper fitting shirt for wear with tactical vests/chest rigs, and for garrison, a wash-n-wear khaki shirt with CADPAT pants. This way you would have the practicality for the field, and RSMs would be happy that the troops looked well turned out in garrison.
My two cents...
