Redcoat dress uniforms

[nbk]

Full dress, to simplify the description, is the replica dress of the british army‘s ‘redcoat‘, standard soldier attire well into the 19th Century. Length approximately to the hips, full buttoned with regimental buttons, high closed collar.

That is more or less what I was referring to in the very very very first place...and just to get it straight up, can NCM‘s go and buy a "Full Dress" (with his own money) and use it on formal occasions on or off base? And if so how much does it cost the NCM?

 

[DaveK]

Spr Earl
You found the name for me. Thanks. We in the Hussars called the helmet a busby. The British Hussars call it that. The RCRs wear the British Boer War expedition Helmet. I have just started to colect WW1 and earlier uniforms. Right now I collect WW2. They are cheaper.

The white helmet is a type of pith helmet used by the British army in the middle to late 19th century and was standard tropical/operational wear.  I am not sure what the one in the picture is called but the one used by the RCR and PPCLI is called a Wolseley helmet and is named after Garnet Joseph Wolseley.  A busby is a sort of truncated bearskin, it also has a flap over one side and the bearskin does not.  Hussars, the Artillery, Signals, Engineers and a host of other regiments and corps wear the busby.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Full dress, to simplify the description, is the replica dress of the british army's 'redcoat', standard soldier attire well into the 19th Century. Length approximately to the hips, full buttoned with regimental buttons, high closed collar.

That is more or less what I was referring to in the very very very first place...and just to get it straight up, can NCM's go and buy a "Full Dress" (with his own money) and use it on formal occasions on or off base? And if so how much does it cost the NCM?

Depends on what the auth. full dress is.  Our regiment has green coatees rather than red doublets, but only the Colour Party has worn them for the last couple of decades.  The only occasion a private purchase one might be seen as appropriate would be New Year's Levee (if your area has an all-ranks Levee), perhaps a wedding.

 

[DaveK]

Well let's throw a another wrench into to work's.

As Mike stated due to lack of money.

Engineer's would still being wearing the Scarlet with Pill Box Cap's,Dark Blue Breach's
(with calvery stripe on the side of the leg) with Spur's.F'n smart kit if you have the money!!!


Mess dress for Of.and Snr.N.C.O.'s is Scarlet Tunic with dark Blue Breach's and boot's with Spur's!

Engineers, Signals as well as many others wear black trousers/overalls with a scarlet   stripe (1", the thickness matters and these vary).   The original overalls were worn with both the mess dress jacket (not tunic) or the scarlet tunic (not jacket).   Cavalry stripes are yellow or special regimental colours.   The midnight blue trousers are usually found in infantry units.

Breeches are worn by cavalry units that have the pants tucked into the boot.   What your are referring to are called overalls as the pant covers the boot and is traditionally held down with a strap (leather with a buckle in the UK, but you will more than likely find them made out of elastic material now in Canada)
Spurs (box type) have fallen out of use in Canada.   In the UK spurs can be found on most mess dress and full dress that has overalls.

 

[Pte. Bloggins]

Only on army.ca will you find so many men talking about clothes.  ;D

Sorry just had to say it somewhere.

 

[Steel Badger]

For a good idea of  Kepi's : see any pics of the US Forces during the civil war  or bikers at the blue oyster
..... the Kepi was adopted from the french....

The pill box hat was introduced to the British Army during yet another period of imitating prussia. It was called a pillbox because it resembled a pill pox.(for medicinal pills, not fortifications)

As for the helmet worn by RMC...it is modeled after the foriegn service pattern sun helmet worn by the British and Canadian Armies in the 1870's+ (As worn by B Coy 2/24th Foot at Rourke's Drift......

 

[SHARP WO]

I would rather see something is hockey armour like the stuff used in strange brew.

SHARP WO

 

[Art Johnson]

The white helmet is a type of pith helmet used by the British army in the middle to late 19th century and was standard tropical/operational wear.   I am not sure what the one in the picture is called but the one used by the RCR and PPCLI is called a Wolseley helmet and is named after Garnet Joseph Wolseley.   A busby is a sort of truncated bearskin, it also has a flap over one side and the bearskin does not.   Hussars, the Artillery, Signals, Engineers and a host of other regiments and corps wear the busby.

The RCR at their 100th Anniversary:

[Moderator note:   Correctional edit only - "Image" coding - no content changed.]

 

[Steel Badger]

The more I think on it, the more i think  that the DEU uniform shuld be abolished for the Army....

We should have:

Combats for the field.

For garrison

Cbt Pants, boots, Regimental stable belt worn as trouser belt (the Imperial Argylls and the Para's have great wee belts)
and a Jacket like a jumo smock that you can put yer ribbons and such on.....
The Idea being closer to the CDN Army of 55-69...


For full dress,

The regiments to wear their own No.1's...The Corps and Services to default to high collar blues...



Comments?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

The more I think on it, the more i think  that the DEU uniform shuld be abolished for the Army....

We should have:

Combats for the field.

For garrison

Cbt Pants, boots, Regimental stable belt worn as trouser belt (the Imperial Argylls and the Para's have great wee belts)
and a Jacket like a jumo smock that you can put yer ribbons and such on.....
The Idea being closer to the CDN Army of 55-69...


For full dress,

The regiments to wear their own No.1's...The Corps and Services to default to high collar blues...



Comments?

The DEU is the closest thing we have to civilian business dress.  You are suggesting the CDS go to a meeting with his civilian deputy ministers or a press conference either in full dress scarlets and large feathery hat, or else in what amounts to combat gear?

Give your head a shake!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Who cares what the CDS wears when he lunches with fellow bureaucrats?

If it really bothers too many people we can always put Ottawa back into civilian suits - like it was in the '50s and '60s.

I agree, mostly, with Steele Badger.   Soldiers need two uniforms:

"¢ Battle dress, which doubles - with the addition of T shirts, sweaters, coveralls, etc - as garrison dress; and

"¢ Ceremonial dress - No 2s and No 1s - what General Middleton called full dress and feathers when, back in the 1880s, he complained that uniforms and garrison balls were the major preoccupations of the Canadian militia.

Why just two?   We only do two important things: we go to the 'field' to fight or keep whatever passes for the peace or train to do that sort of thing; and we 'celebrate' our or the nation's accomplishments - everything else, including working in the orderly room or QM stores is just administrivia.

The fact that the DEU is "the closest thing we have to civilian business dressâ ? is a very good reason to get rid of it.   Soldiers don't need suits and ties - they aren't insurance salesmen or file clerks.   They need battle dress and ceremonial dress.

(As an aside: I don't recall that we wore much on our jump smocks in the '50s and '60s: wings, unit shoulder tittles and rank badges for sure; marksmanship badges, I think, but no div patch and no ribbons.   The jump smock was neither practical nor comfortable, not after we got real combat uniforms in the mid '60s - but it looked smart and had a certain cachet to it to which made it popular but tastes change, even soldiers' tastes and when they tried to reintroduce something like the jump smock (in the '80s, I think) as a disruptive pattern garrison jacket; it was quite unpopular, so I'm told.)

Many allied armies use their battle dress uniforms as garrison dress - 'livened up' a wee bit with coloured T shirts and/or made more comfortable with a short sleeved shirt and/or sweater.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Anyone who doesn't see the need for an equivalent to civilian business dress isn't playing with a full deck and can be entirely disregarded as far as this topic goes.

ROJ - You're seriously suggesting that DND officers show up for meetings (not just the CDS, but any officer going to any meeting, be it a Militia PAFFO going to brief the media about an upcoming open house, the small arms team going to talk to civilian corporations who are bidding on our weapons, or how about an officer showing up for court - or a military court martial) wearing jungle gear?  Grow up.  For every soldier in the field carrying a rifle or crewing an armoured vehicle, there are ten behind him - five of them in Ottawa or the various headquarters. 

Suggesting that we abandon the DEU simply reveals an enormous ignorance as to what the "other half" of the Army is doing.  Researchers, staff officers, correspondents, lawyers, medical professionals - they all need to fit into society; we represent society, not hold ourselves above it - or in the case of Jungle Jim wearing camo to a press conference - hold ourselves away from it.

As a serious student of military dress, it strikes me as obvious that Service Dress - from which the DEU is derived - was an extension of civilian dress.  In fact, military dress has ALWAYS been a reflection of civilian dress.  Disassociating ourselves from society is NOT in the best interests of the service, and showing up for civilian functions in inappropriate attire (read that as "dressed like a retard") will put us two steps backward.

I think the next evolution in military dress (which I am not in favour of) will be making headdress optional or even obsolete.  John F. Kennedy finally got civilians to stop wearing hats; Policemen in Calgary and other large cities no longer wear forage caps on duty (most wear no hats at all).  Mailmen no longer wear hats.  It is only a matter of time before the military also abandons "funny hats" as part of the daily uniform.

 

[Edward Campbell]

What's wrong with showing up in No 2s?   Rifle green â “ for most of the army â “ patrol jacket with a cloth belt, rifle green trousers, no medals â “ just ribbons.   Same jacket, with the addition of all the feathers turns itself into No 1s for most of the army.   Some regiments, let's restrict it, just for the sake of argument, to regiments of foot guards and those which went on active service, as regulars, in scarlets, may need two jackets: one green and one scarlet â “ the latter for No. 1 order of dress.

Senior officers in the RCMP routinely show up in parliament â “ to appear before Senate and House committees â “ in scarlets, minus the gold belts; but, I guess, they are not playing with a full deck, either ...

As to the doctors, dentists, lawyers and researchers â “ and fashion conscious generals and pay clerks, too, I suppose â “ let 'em buy an optional service dress jacket and tie if they cannot stand a plain, unadorned patrol dress jacket and, if they really think the press will faint at the sight of CADPAT trousers and a sweater, public affairs officers, too.  

Soldiers need only two uniforms: battle dress and ceremonial dress â “ variants of the two: tidied up and 'dulled down' will do for everything else.

 

[Steel Badger]

MIke, I AM shaking ma heid....

Stop thinking like a civilian....

Out DEU is just the holdover form the old service dress (ie field dress uniform)
We do NOT need a civvy equivalent.....


And uniforms should NEVER be created / put in service based on the possibility of the CDS getting dirty looks from Chiziks!!!

 

[bossi]

Anyone who doesn't see the need for an equivalent to civilian business dress isn't playing with a full deck and can be entirely disregarded as far as this topic goes.

You're welcome to your own, personal opinion, but not at the expense of insulting others.

ROJ - You're seriously suggesting that DND officers show up for meetings (not just the CDS, but any officer going to any meeting, be it a Militia PAFFO going to brief the media about an upcoming open house, the small arms team going to talk to civilian corporations who are bidding on our weapons, or how about an officer showing up for court - or a military court martial) wearing jungle gear? Grow up. For every soldier in the field carrying a rifle or crewing an armoured vehicle, there are ten behind him - five of them in Ottawa or the various headquarters.

Ironically, you've probably hit the nail on the head with respect to the Army ordering all soldiers to wear CADPAT - it's to make the point that soldiers are unique in Canadian society.  Unfortunately, you've missed the broad side of the barn with your ill-conceived admonishment for ROJ to "grow up" (no doubt he had a good chuckle at your expense, Sparky).

Suggesting that we abandon the DEU simply reveals an enormous ignorance ...

No, it doesn't - it simply is an opinion differing from yours.

As a serious student of military dress, it strikes me as obvious that Service Dress - from which the DEU is derived - was an extension of civilian dress. In fact, military dress has ALWAYS been a reflection of civilian dress. Disassociating ourselves from society is NOT in the best interests of the service, and showing up for civilian functions in inappropriate attire (read that as "dressed like a retard") will put us two steps backward.

Well, I'm not a "serious student of military dress", but I do have manners.
Furthermore, I'm curious what civilian clothing was the inspiration for the high-collared full dress tunics ... or the bearskin hats, feather bonnets, etc.  "Eisenhower" and bomber jackets are two more examples where I'd suspect that military clothing made the fashion statement first (and, of course, camouflage ...).

But, that's just my opinion.  $0.02

P.S. (by the way - when I was working for the Ontario government near Queen's Park, it was quite evident that the "suits" didn't have too much respect for ANYBODY in uniform - thus, if one were to set out to impress a political mandarin with a fashion statement vice reason, intelligence, elocution or military bearing ... I'd tend to agree that a "power suit" is a useful addition to the arsenal of the defence bureaucrat ...).

 

[Infanteer]

Michael - Power Down the DeathStar man.   The guys have made honest proposals and backed them up with rational reasons; until they say get rid of DEU's because Michael Moore said so, I think you can set your phaser to stun.

That being said...I've always viewed uniforms with the "Mechanic" philosophy:

- We need "coveralls" for working on cars (A Field uniform - combats): I don't like wearing these when I don't have to - they look dumpy and silly in a public setting.   They are made for the field so we may as well wear them there.  When they are taken to be more then just a field uniform, silly rules start to become the norm, like ironing your combats (The US Army has taken it a step further by starching their combat dress....)

- We need a "suit" for when we have to do the business deals (a Service uniform): Something smart for day-to-day, out-of-field wear.   It will be simple, with only a minimum amount of gaudy regimental junk on it.   I'm not a fan of the current Army colour, I like the "greener" colour of the old Service uniform I see in the Regimental Museum.

- We need a "tux" for when we have to go to a wedding (A Dress uniform): This could be the regimental dress, complete with feathered hat, for mess events, balls, parade for dignitaries, etc, etc.   Heck, guys could even wear a kilt with this one....

I've always admired the fact that US Marines are always so smartly dressed - their dress and deportment is often impeccable and just screams soldier.   Here is a link I gave earlier in this thread (many moons ago) that I feel does a good job of breaking down a reasonable Uniform requirement.

USMC Dress Regs

Here is a regulation from the above link that I feel sets the right mentality about Military Dress, which should reflect pride of service and a professional bearing:

4. Marines set the example. In any uniform we will maintain the highest standards of appearance -- at all times -- in all places. Exercise good judgment, if there's a doubt -- don't stop.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

MIke, I AM shaking ma heid....

Stop thinking like a civilian....

Out DEU is just the holdover form the old service dress (ie field dress uniform)
We do NOT need a civvy equivalent.....


And uniforms should NEVER be created / put in service based on the possibility of the CDS getting dirty looks from Chiziks!!!

But where do you think Service Dress came from?  Compare it to civilian lounge coats of the era and you will have your answer. 

Of course we need a civvie equivalent; not everyone in the Forces wants or needs to look like Action Man when he is doing business on civvie street; and don't fool yourself, we are represented in the civilian world every day.  There needs to be a link to the community; that comes from the way we dress.  The only people to wear jungle gear in the public eye are tinpot dictators like Castro, Hussein, or Khadaffy.  Even the latter is wearing civilian dress these days now that he wants to be seen as respectable.

At least Idi Amin had the common sense to wear a DEU equivalent.

Perhaps someone from NDHQ could give you their opinion; frankly, hearing field soldiers talking about what the entire Army needs is on the same level of that same bureaucrat at a desk in Ottawa deciding what field gear you should be taking on exercise with you.

All the grunts complain that no one in NDHQ sees things their way; guess who's got the blinkers on now?

No offence, but the views of yourself and ROJ are extremely one sided.  You wouldn't go to a job interview on civvie street without wearing a tie, would you?  Try attending a couple of board meetings for Diemaco or White Western Star or a company like that and show up not wearing a tie.

DEU is a necessity, full stop.  Maybe not for the field units, but they are also much less expensive than Full Dress.

I knew plenty of guys in our regimental pipes and drums, and I was one of them, that preferred DEU to the full dress because it was easier to wear, more comfortable, and above all, CANADIAN.  When we paraded on Horse Guards with the Scottish Division, there was nothing to identify us at a glance as Canadians.

Granatstein talks about the new CF uniform and how the Germans congratulated the Canadians on finally not looking like the British.

I'm far more proud of my DEU jacket, with the CANADA titles, my trades badge, the marksmanship badge (which I don't have but others do), the brigade badge - none of that is worn on ceremonial dress.  Even my name tag is a source of pride.  I wouldn't be hurt if they got rid of ceremonial dress altogether.  DEUs were good enough for the PPCLI to mount guard at Buckingham Palace in a few years ago; should be good enough for everyone. 

Comfort. Cost. Adaptibility to civilian functions.  Ceremonial Dress has nothing going for it except the fact it appeals to people who wish they were British. 

 

[Canuck_25]

But where do you think Service Dress came from?   Compare it to civilian lounge coats of the era and you will have your answer.  

Of course we need a civvie equivalent; not everyone in the Forces wants or needs to look like Action Man when he is doing business on civvie street; and don't fool yourself, we are represented in the civilian world every day.   There needs to be a link to the community; that comes from the way we dress.   The only people to wear jungle gear in the public eye are tinpot dictators like Castro, Hussein, or Khadaffy.   Even the latter is wearing civilian dress these days now that he wants to be seen as respectable.

At least Idi Amin had the common sense to wear a DEU equivalent.

Perhaps someone from NDHQ could give you their opinion; frankly, hearing field soldiers talking about what the entire Army needs is on the same level of that same bureaucrat at a desk in Ottawa deciding what field gear you should be taking on exercise with you.

All the grunts complain that no one in NDHQ sees things their way; guess who's got the blinkers on now?

No offence, but the views of yourself and ROJ are extremely one sided.   You wouldn't go to a job interview on civvie street without wearing a tie, would you?   Try attending a couple of board meetings for Diemaco or White Western Star or a company like that and show up not wearing a tie.

DEU is a necessity, full stop.   Maybe not for the field units, but they are also much less expensive than Full Dress.

I knew plenty of guys in our regimental pipes and drums, and I was one of them, that preferred DEU to the full dress because it was easier to wear, more comfortable, and above all, CANADIAN.    When we paraded on Horse Guards with the Scottish Division, there was nothing to identify us at a glance as Canadians.

Granatstein talks about the new CF uniform and how the Germans congratulated the Canadians on finally not looking like the British.

I'm far more proud of my DEU jacket, with the CANADA titles, my trades badge, the marksmanship badge (which I don't have but others do), the brigade badge - none of that is worn on ceremonial dress.   Even my name tag is a source of pride.    I wouldn't be hurt if they got rid of ceremonial dress altogether.   DEUs were good enough for the PPCLI to mount guard at Buckingham Palace in a few years ago; should be good enough for everyone.  

Comfort. Cost. Adaptibility to civilian functions.   Ceremonial Dress has nothing going for it except the fact it appeals to people who wish they were British.  

I find your post offensive. Have you ever heard of the word "heritage"? I recognize the belief that we should distringuish ourselves from the British, but we shouldnt let the 100+ years of heritage disappear for those who find DEU more appealing. Keep DEU, but dont let it replace ceremonial dress. Keep DEU for its established purpose, a "middle wear" between combat uniform and the ceremonail dress.

 

[Steel Badger]

I was offended as well, and resent like hell the implication that preferring the uniforms worn by the old canadian army makes me an anglophile or uncanadian...My father, Grand-father and Great -Grand Father not to mention uncles etc wore the uniforms Mike derides.......and they were damn proud of 'em,,,,,

I am not saying that dress uniforms are the meak or break factor for the army...

I merely suggested going back to a uniform that was at once smart, comfaortabel and that a soldier could feel proud wearing....

The Garrision dress didnt cut it do to the piss poor material it was made of etc etc.

 

[Edward Campbell]

This is silly.

The functions of uniforms are:

"¢ To identify people as soldiers, as good military sense and the laws and usages of war require;

"¢ To protect soldiers, in so far as can be done, from the elements and, even, bio-chemical agents;

"¢ To display our military values.

Our battle dress does, I think, satisfy the first two conditions.

We ought to have distinctly Canadian customs and traditions, including uniforms - bearing in mind, of course, that most of our national military history was made by men - almost all men - who wore uniforms that were, essentially, indistinguishable from those worn by Australian, British, etc forces.

If the existing service dress uniforms are all we need then why are regiments, regular and reserve, paying out their hard earned money to provide more and more soldiers with different, distinctive ceremonial uniforms.

The answer is: the soldiers - not the retired colonels - want them.

I had the great please, just a few years ago, to join with a few hundred members of my regiment and their ladies at a formal ball honouring the 100th anniversary of one of our victories.   We men, every single rank from private through to lieutenant general were in a mix of black - tail coats and dinner jackets for retired officers, and scarlet for the serving members: mess jackets for senior NCOs and officers, full dress tunics for the rank and file.   I spoke to several young privates and corporals, and their ladies, and I am pretty sure that all expressed pride in their ceremonial uniforms.   None complained, at least not within my hearing, about being too British or insufficiently cheap and   utilitarian.   The ceremonial uniform, as the soldiers well knew, is based on the one worn on active service (Yukon Field Force) with ceremonial white helmets, belts and gloves replacing the battle dress brown leather boots, belts and straps and the brown slouch hat.

Most soldiers only need two uniforms: battle (working) dress and ceremonial dress.   When most, even many soldiers have offices then they may need militarized business suits.

People who spend all day in their offices could, as the staff in Ottawa did within my memory, wear civilian clothes to work - it might boost the sales of regimental ties and blazer crests, strengthening cash strapped kit shops.   The last time I stalked the halls of the UK Ministry of Defence, in the 1990s, civilian suits were, still, the order of the day - didn't seem to make the British staff officers less warlike; on the other hand, the last time I was in the Pentagon - also in the '90s - many officers were perched in front of their computer screens in their camouflaged uniforms, no one seemed to think they looked silly.

I would have no objection to those who want the military equivalent of the business suit being able to buy one and being allowed to wear it in headquarters, etc.   I expect some officers and a few clerks would scurry to the CANEX to buy them.   Remember, please, that our, Canadian, service dress (now the DEU) came into being, during World War II, as 'walking out dress' - worn almost exclusively by soldiers who never got out of Canada.   That's what it says here: http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/ in the part about Uniforms/Tunics - Other ranks.

I would like to see a distinctively Canadian ceremonial dress uniform issued to each trained soldier ... as I mentioned above, rifle green for most (honouring the Loyalist heritage exemplified in e.g. Ranger regiments) and scarlet for a few - honouring our long, distinguished Imperial history.

I'm not offended by anyone's remarks - each is entitled to his own opinion, even when it is expressed with disdain.   It reminds me of a 1939ish naval joke.   The navy was having some difficulty managing its wartime expansion and the officers of the naval reserve (mostly seasoned, coastal seamen) the naval volunteer reserve (the equivalent of our modern militia) and the RCN, proper, were rubbing each other the wrong way.   The navy, it was said, was divided into three parts: the RCNR, who were sailors trying to be gentlemen, the RCNVR who were gentlemen trying to be sailors and the RCN who were neither trying to be both.