The stuff the Army issues is Excellent!

[daftandbarmy]

While we're on the subject of underwear (near and dear to my heart and other parts), I've just been down to stores and got issued a set of the latest thermal undies and shorts. The material seems a great improvement over the first set I was issued a ferw years ago - so silky smooth against my rough skin. 

Have they improved this stuff on purpose or was it some kind of accident?

 

[observor 69]

And some of us were still in junior high. 

And some of us were working on the 416 Sqn flightline. 

 

[Loachman]

While we're on the subject of underwear (near and dear to my heart and other parts), I've just been down to stores and got issued a set of the latest thermal undies and shorts. The material seems a great improvement over the first set I was issued a ferw years ago - so silky smooth against my rough skin. 

Have they improved this stuff on purpose or was it some kind of accident?

It's all highly flammable synthetic. You may not consider it such an improvement if you get too close to a fire.

Products like http://www.drifire.com/ are far superior, although a little pricey.

 

[Ecco]

Underwear should be worn under another layer of clothing, by definition.  As such, for land forces requirements at least, they do not need to be flame retardant.  No-drip, no-melt yes, but flame "retardancy" is a non-issue.  The outer layer absorbs flame and only transfer limited heat underneath, which is no problem for synthetic materials. If synthetic underwear is worn correctly (under something else) and "flame", then you have much greater problems already (burnt lungs, amongst other things).  This knowledge is not a guess, but comes from trial burns of all our uniforms, made in canadian university. 

Carry on and stop worrying.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

And some of us were still in junior high. 

There she goes, bragging about her education again  :

[...continued derail]

Hey, best 8 years of her life.

 

[Old Sweat]

Does that include the repeated years?

 

[Loachman]

Underwear should be worn under another layer of clothing, by definition.  As such, for land forces requirements at least, they do not need to be flame retardant.  No-drip, no-melt yes, but flame "retardancy" is a non-issue.  The outer layer absorbs flame and only transfer limited heat underneath, which is no problem for synthetic materials. If synthetic underwear is worn correctly (under something else) and "flame", then you have much greater problems already (burnt lungs, amongst other things).  This knowledge is not a guess, but comes from trial burns of all our uniforms, made in canadian university. 

Carry on and stop worrying.

I wouldn't count on any of that in the real world. I'm not worrying, but I take reasonable precautions with my pretty pink skin.

Drifire is a form of insurance that will benefit me directly, rather than my survivors.

 

[Ecco]

CASPEAN is a DRDC project, that stands for CASualty Protective Equipment ANalysis.  There a complete chain of people whose job is to document damages to protective equipment, injuries or fatalities in theater, in order to provide critical analysis on actual performance.  The chain involves the Tech LO, bio science officers, medical pers, the different CQs, DRDC Toronto and DRDC Valcartier, the relevant survivability desks at DSSPM and DAVPM.  The results are continually reviewed by VERY senior people.

I understand that drifire does nice marketing, but CF PPE design and requirements are based on actual reality, backed by a very relevant dataset.  We have actual data on fire exposure and results, not just opinions.

 

[daftandbarmy]

CASPEAN is a DRDC project, that stands for CASualty Protective Equipment ANalysis.  There a complete chain of people whose job is to document damages to protective equipment, injuries or fatalities in theater, in order to provide critical analysis on actual performance.  The chain involves the Tech LO, bio science officers, medical pers, the different CQs, DRDC Toronto and DRDC Valcartier, the relevant survivability desks at DSSPM and DAVPM.  The results are continually reviewed by VERY senior people.

I understand that drifire does nice marketing, but CF PPE design and requirements are based on actual reality, backed by a very relevant dataset.  We have actual data on fire exposure and results, not just opinions.

Interesting. How do our thermal undies do in comparison to civvie products like Drifire?

 

[George Wallace]

Underwear should be worn under another layer of clothing, by definition.  As such, for land forces requirements at least, they do not need to be flame retardant.  No-drip, no-melt yes, but flame "retardancy" is a non-issue.  The outer layer absorbs flame and only transfer limited heat underneath, which is no problem for synthetic materials. If synthetic underwear is worn correctly (under something else) and "flame", then you have much greater problems already (burnt lungs, amongst other things).  This knowledge is not a guess, but comes from trial burns of all our uniforms, made in canadian university. 

Carry on and stop worrying.

I disagree with your statement about underwear being worn under another layer of clothing and as a result not required to be flame retardant.  Once your outer layers of clothing are gone, due to flame and heat, your underwear will soon follow.  I doubt any medical practitioner likes the job of surgically removing molten synthetics from a burn.

 

[Loachman]

One told me that it peels off rather nicely. I just don't want anybody peeling burnt plastic off of me.

I don't care what anybody says, I'm not wearing polyester next to skin.

I've seen enough documentation of people with vicious burns, and I've read enough flight safety reports (ours and others), and I'll pay a few dollars not to end up like them.

If it's not FR, 100% cotton, or leather, it's not going around my nads.

 

[BurnDoctor]

I'll respectfully weigh in on the thermal underwear turn that this thread has taken. Not a soldier, no real world experience in that realm. Newly sworn in to CF (HSvcs PRL), no training under my belt, nada. That is all yet to come. But...my day job is Burn Surgeon.

In a civilian setting, most (but not all) burn patients who survive to come to hospital have had the burning process stopped in time that the underwear-covered areas are generally spared in a distribution that clearly correlates to the waistband and thigh bands - thus making it available as a potential source of skin graft harvest.  This would support the theory raised by another poster about heat energy being dissipated via the outer layers of clothing.

I would tend to agree that in a situation where the thermal source was proximate or intense enough to melt the underwear to the patient (burning LAV/tracked vehicle/aircraft/ship/other enclosed space), there are bigger issues, e.g. death at scene, death prior to evacuation, impending death during evacuation or early resuscitation period; from shock/massive burn/inhalation injury.

My $0.02 

 

[ballz]

Well if BurnDoctor is a burn surgeon and he's right, then he's right

But I have to ask if you don't mind, when it comes to something as simple as the material used for t-shirts, underwear, etc, where impeding mobility is not a factor, can it really do any harm to have a layer of DriFire between yourself and everything that's on fire, as opposed to polyester/cotton? I lean on Loachman's side of an extra ounce of prevention when it comes to my nads...

This video really catches my attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HirHetcleIE

I have 3 DriFire t-shirts because I was looking for something moisture-wicking like UnderArmour to wear under my combats, but seeing them held against a blow-torch and kind of win that battle makes me even happier I bought them.

 

[daftandbarmy]

One told me that it peels off rather nicely. I just don't want anybody peeling burnt plastic off of me.

I don't care what anybody says, I'm not wearing polyester next to skin.

I've seen enough documentation of people with vicious burns, and I've read enough flight safety reports (ours and others), and I'll pay a few dollars not to end up like them.

If it's not FR, 100% cotton, or leather, it's not going around my nads.

Amen to that, as Simon Weston will tell you. Many of the severley burned Welsh Guardsman on the Sir Galahad (Falklands War, 1982) were wearing helly hansen polypro underwear and plastic rain gear, which added to their miseries. Several were also wearing 'jungle lightweights' or synthetic denims, which had a plastic fly, so you can guess what happened to their 'nads' when the inferno engulfed them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston

 

[BurnDoctor]

Agree 100% with ballz' coments in post #212.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Amen to that, as Simon Weston will tell you. Many of the severley burned Welsh Guardsman on the Sir Galahad (Falklands War, 1982) were wearing helly hansen polypro underwear and plastic rain gear, which added to their miseries. Several were also wearing 'jungle lightweights' or synthetic denims, which had a plastic fly, so you can guess what happened to their 'nads' when the inferno engulfed them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Weston

Bear in mind that polypropylene is a textile form of paraffin, which is inherently flammable.  What I find ironic is that the CFs have developed their hybrid combat shirt using a super-duper Kermel/Viscose blend FR fabric for the sleeves and shoulders, yet are still issuing a regular nylon/cotton blend combat cloth trousers.

If the data suggests that enough burn injuries were taking place on the battlefield to warrant the hybrid shirt being made entirely fire retardant, then why aren't there an accompanying pair of FR combat trousers?
-does the data suggest that the upper torso is the main recipient of burn injuries, thus negating the value of FR outer garments on the botton half of the body?
-The Brits haven't bought into the FR clothing ensembles to the same extent that the Americans have.  Their UBACS shirt is a polyester based fabric in the torso area, chosen primarily for moisture management properties.  What do British vs. US vs. Canadian casualty statstics say about the prevalance of burn injuries in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[stealthylizard]

Trying to recall the area proportions for figuring out the percentage of body burned.  9% for each extremity, chest was 18%, and groin is 1%.  Saving the upper body from serious burns is more "important" than your lower half.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Trying to recall the area proportions for figuring out the percentage of body burned.  9% for each extremity, chest was 18%, and groin is 1%.  Saving the upper body from serious burns is more "important" than your lower half.

That only applies to single guys  ;D

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Trying to recall the area proportions for figuring out the percentage of body burned.  9% for each extremity, chest was 18%, and groin is 1%.  Saving the upper body from serious burns is more "important" than your lower half.

Sources you can reference?

 

[Journeyman]

Sources you can reference?

Rule of Nines, seen here