Irish Military Online is in no way affiliated with the Irish Defence Forces. It is in no way sponsored or endorsed by the Irish Defence Forces or the Irish Government. Opinions expressed by the authors and contributors of this site are not necessarily those of the Defence Forces. If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Absolutely but we don’t need a barracks and a field shirt for example, just a shirt and a UBACS (wonder could they be done completely DPM just for DPM outer?)
Yes.We do. The UBAC is too expensive for everyday use.When you consider the scale of issue of shirts for day to day use is four and the UBACS is two you can see the logic.We don't need an FR sweat wicking shirt for day to day outer wear in Barracks. The new baselayers are FR as they can be used both in Barracks AND in the Field and especially in CRC OPS.
as for being fully DPM.The original UBACS were.But they were also an IED makers wet dream. High Polyester count and no FR properties. AFAIK the reason the new UBACS body is plain colour is due to the FR Modacryl not being compatible with the dyes used in screen printing.
Imho the original design shirt was relatively ok for both genders in field and barracks. Not prefect but ok.[/QUOTE]
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
Tactical trousers only for field use....combat trousers for normal use
Smock only for field use.....barrack jacket for normal use
Tactical shirt for field use.....shirt for normal use
the whole concept of a single multi-purpose uniform seems to be slowly being eroded back to the 80's.....working dress and combats.
going backwards instead of deveoloping i fear.
Yes, there's a sound financial logic to it.
When you look at the cost of a set of "tactical trouser" circa with features like the trial ones, you are looking at serious money per pair. Look at the offical cyre stuff your talking €350 or the arktis at about €170. There isn't the money in the clothing budget to go issuing 4 pairs of these to everyone, because for what most of us do on a daily basis, its overkill.
Sorry Dev.I am a little confused as to what you actually ARE saying.
You said we don't need a Barracks AND Field shirt but then went on to ask if the UBACS could be made all DPM presumably so it could be used more often?
So if you are not suggesting we use the UBACS for barracks wear what are you saying? Apologies again BTW.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
We had the Ho Chi Minh jacket back ( to PDF and RDF) in the '80s early '90s to deal with some of these problems so I'd like to see some of the lessons of history not lost - it was extremely lightweight but worked for light field use and barrack wear.
We had the Ho Chi Minh jacket back ( to PDF and RDF) in the '80s early '90s to deal with some of these problems so I'd like to see some of the lessons of history not lost - it was extremely lightweight but worked for light field use and barrack wear.
I remember the Ho Chi Minh jacket all right only wore it a few times, it was made from the same material as the trousers and useless in winter.
Basically that the shirt would be suitable for field wear where circumstances suit (as well as barracks use)
Something similar to the British PCS Lightweight jacket would have been ideal. Tailored to function with GSBA.
Problem is the Seniors didn't want to wear a "Field style" shirt/jkt whilst mincing around their offices so they decreed that UBACS was for the field and the Dpm shirt was to be relegated to barracks duties.
A couple of snags with that.
UBACS were originally intended by the people we copied them off as a Hot climate issue only with the PCS Jkt intended for use with Armour in temperate conditions,with layers underneath as required.We never followed that logic.So IOT not freeze our nuts off during the colder seasons the practice has crept in here of wearing t-shirts, both long and short sleeve, under the UBACS.Which totally defeats the idea of a sweat wicking garment that is supposed to be worn next to the skin.
Paddy the pig at his best.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
I don't think that's really fair comment. Things have moved on and what seemed like a good idea then is not necessarily a good idea now.
Back when the DPM's came out the word IED wasn't even a thing. Now CIED is a major consideration. Nobody gave a fiddlers about "Flash effect" outside of the NS(AC?). Now FR properties are De Riguer in modern soldiers combat uniforms. Behind armour effects were not considered either when it came to what we wore under CBA nor was heat illness, as we wore CBA rarely.
Now we wear it for virtually everything.
Also as regards to the Barrack Jkt and smock. The smock would have been grand if officers hadn't insisted in having Ceremonial parades and inspections in them and when they did insisting that they be "good" IE Unfaded/new. Smocks fade and wear out at a faster rate due to their construction and primary mode of use.The Barrack Jkt was introduced as unless you nuke it it hardly fades and is a low maintenance garment for everyday use. It also reduces the wear out time on the Smocks thus saving Johnny taxpayer money.
Apod, totally agree with you on the necessity of UBACS and FR clothing. No arguement there.
I also agree with your comments about the higher ups insisting on keeping smocks "new looking" and not wanting to wear "warry looking" shirts in the office. That old mindset definitely is a factor that is contributing to duplication and restrictions being put on what as you said is a good uniform overall.
However, I still think the barrack jacket is a waste of money. As for trial tactical trousers, if issued generally, there would be savings made due to scale of qauntities needed to be ordered and savings from not needing to purchase stand alone knee pads, etc. I don't think the clothing budget is that restricted. It's just the nature of uniforms and PPE and costs will go up due to modernisations and increased specs. If cost was the only concern we would still be in ODs and wooly jumpers.
Lastly, in relation to UBACS again, from my experience, many lads have shirts that are too big and loose on them, hence tee shirts underneath to warm up. Sizing is vitally important with these to ensure they wick sweat from the body properly.
An army is power. Its entire purpose is to coerce others. This power can not be used carelessly or recklessly. This power can do great harm. We have seen more suffering than any man should ever see, and if there is going to be an end to it, it must be an end that justifies the cost.Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain
However, I still think the barrack jacket is a waste of money.
How can an item that was introduced to save money be a waste of money? I would love to know your logic on this.
If the Barrack jacket lifespan is longer than the lifespan of multiple smocks then it can't be waste of money.
Seriously I think you are only looking at this from an RDF perspective where you are only entitled to one smock and that smock is "technically" all you need(I know ye need two BTW). Whereas back in day PDF troops in line units would need three(only scaled for two). 1 x "Good" Parade smock. 1x Day to day smock and 1x Field/tactical smock. As you replaced one the newest one became the Parade smock and the oldest the Tactical et etc.
The introduction of the Barrack Jacket meant that you didn't need a day to day smock thus saving the taxpayers the cost of a smock per soldier.A smock which we shouldn't have had in the first place but was necessitated by CO's insisting on troops only wearing unfaded smocks on inspections when from day one the item was never intended as Parade dress!
I would take this one step further and argue as a cost saving measure that the Barrack Jacket and the UBACS be added to the RDF issue on a scale of one per soldier.Yes it would be costly up front but would save money in the long term.Smocks could be kept solely for the ground and would last a lot longer as would the Shirt.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
You could issue them but as you know there will always be the BSM somewhere that will insist that only the smock is worn on his particular parade ground....
For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.
You could issue them but as you know there will always be the BSM somewhere that will insist that only the smock is worn on his particular parade ground....
Easily Challenged if you have the balls to see it through.A good solicitor and the army dress code would see you right if you opted for Court Martial.See them back down right fast.
"Let us be clear about three facts. First, all battles and all wars are won in the end by the infantryman. Secondly, the infantryman always bears the brunt. His casualties are heavier, he suffers greater extremes of discomfort and fatigue than the other arms. Thirdly, the art of the infantryman is less stereotyped and far harder to acquire in modern war than that of any other arm." ------- Field Marshall Wavell, April 1945.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Comment