Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Soldier 2017

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • DeV
    replied
    Just had a look in the wardrobe imho the Carra/Seyntex 2003 material is much better than 2014 Seyntex NV. They are cooler and better wearing, also a better fit

    Leave a comment:


  • apod
    replied
    Lads. I know the gym gods amongst us just want uniforms that are bate onto them to show off their muscles but let's not forget why uniforms are meant to be
    "Worn loose and in layers".
    You can't fit layers under uniforms that are form fitting. Simple as. That was one of the reasons we went with a baggy smock in the first place. I for one would prefer to be warm during the colder months rather than just looking good.

    Let's also look at uniform wear. We don't need an all singing,all dancing smock with hundreds of features. Most of us wear UBACS these days in the field with or without a baselayer depending on the climate.The GSBA tends to keep you warm enough anyway .When you are static you throw on the smock and layers under as required. If you go to the range the UBACS has padded sleeve inserts so no need for elbow pads on the smock if worn over the UBACS.

    Pit zips are a nice to have.Not a deal breaker.And the more zips you put on a garment the more expensive it is.Let's be real. DoD will always spend as little as possible and the DFCC must find a balance between what they want and the money DoD will allow to be spent.A poachers pocket IMHO is useless. If worn with a battlebelt/GSBA you cant access it if it is on the outside and you can access it even less if inside.Also it is extremely uncomfortable if packed when sitting in and APC seat for example.

    Bicep pockets are a must these days.No further explanation required.Why these were omitted off the new waterproofs is a mind boggler.

    The newer shirts(2016 up) etc are made from a much lighter material. No comparison with the 2010(OK but still very warm) and 2012(Plastic bag!!Really wide sleeves)). However the 2016's and 2017's are cut more like a shirt(closer fitting and shorter) than the older models. The 2018 type appears to be more of a jacket style cut.

    I do agree that one boot for all occasions is a bad idea.Great in theory but no good in practice. I can see A LOT of boots being purchased by soldiers again.At a time when they don't have that kind of money to spare.
    Last edited by apod; 5 August 2019, 17:16.

    Leave a comment:


  • X-RayOne
    replied
    Definitely there is an international trend to better fitting, slimmer profile uniforms. The days of combats being baggy, loosely fitted garments are long gone. Increased use of CBA and vehicles has probably had a big influence to reduce snag hazards, pressure points, etc.

    To your list I'd add these Buck:
    Form fitted garments
    must designed to assume CBA worn over it always

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Is a bigger problem not the material?

    Whatever it is about the last few issues it is extremely warm and isn’t hard wearing enough??

    Difference in the day c2002 and c2016 issues is unreal. The winter 2002 are cooler than the 2016

    Leave a comment:


  • Buck
    replied
    So is there a general consensus on the board as to what is a must in a uniform?

    Pit zips
    Elbow/knee pad inserts
    Slanted pockets
    Poacher pocket
    Arm pockets/velcro biceps
    Helmet with rail attachments (not sure what these are called)
    Multiple boots for multiple AORs
    Detachable smock hood
    Shirt for barracks/ubacs for tactics
    Zips instead of buttons
    Press studs instead of buttons
    ?

    I kind of see that among other armies there are things that are essentially standards that we don't have but there are things that some have and some don't. So is there a single uniform solution?

    Leave a comment:


  • X-RayOne
    replied
    Originally posted by apod View Post
    New DPM Smock........Four out of seven isn't bad.
    Nearly never won the race!!!

    Seven out of seven would have been better!? It's a pity we missed an opportunity to have a significant jump forward with the re-design.

    Under arm pit zips.....opportunity lost for individual climate control.

    Poacher rear pocket...good to see re-introduced. but may be under-utilised, anything in it will push into wearer as opposed to external pocket that would bellow away from wearer like current combat pockets...which were a major improvement over previous issue.

    Elbow padding inserts.....again opportunity lost. Integral inserts should be norm for jackets and trousers not just preserve of SOF. Does away for need of issuing separate sets of elbow / knee pads which may give cost savings and ensures personnel are always wearing bump protection.

    But to give the new smock its due, the included changes are improvements. Hopefully the trialed combat trousers will be the norm too.

    Leave a comment:


  • apod
    replied
    New DPM Smock
    Detachable hood,(Check) under arm ventilation zips, flush chest pockets (T4),(Both omitted) shorter length,(Check) poacher rear pocket,(Check,but inside) UBACS sleeve pockets,(Check) elbow padding inserts.(Omitted)
    Four out of seven isn't bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • X-RayOne
    replied
    My point is the features on the T3 / T4 uniforms are very useful and well thought out from a practical point of view:
    Detachable hood, under arm ventilation zips, flush chest pockets (T4), shorter length, poacher rear pocket, UBACS sleeve pockets, elbow padding inserts.
    All and all, a much neater, useful design with or without CBA and battle vast.
    The matching trousers are equally well thought out. These practical features should be imported to our uniform (or just use the same design instead of trying to put the usual Irish slant on something that already works perfectly well)

    While the current combat uniform was a massive jump ahead from the OGs it is looking and wearing quite dated now. All we are really doing to make improvements is tinkering with an old design.....zips on pockets or not, trouser pockets angled forward / back.

    Leave a comment:


  • apod
    replied
    Originally posted by X-RayOne View Post
    French Felin T4 uniform is the way to go.

    Stop messing up / around with our uniform and just go with our DPM on their clothing design.
    You do realise the French are getting rid of that uniform and going to this.
    http://foreignlegion.info/2018/01/04...rm-since-2018/

    Now.If they are going to insist on ditching the chest pockets on the shirt then having a UBACS style pocket on BOTH sleeves would be the way to go. A couple of points though.Where would you store your pens then? Move the pens pocket to the lower left sleeve like on the new smock? Then you wont be able to use it if you wear the sleeves up. That wouldn't go down well. Possible solution would be to have the pen pocket inside the UBACS pocket. Also why include velcro panels on the sleeve pockets and then stitch the tri-colour above them? Kinda defeats the purpose.
    Anyway check out the picture in this article on the new US Army Hot weather uniform for an example of how to do it right.
    https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-...ather-cammies/
    Last edited by apod; 3 August 2019, 12:07.

    Leave a comment:


  • X-RayOne
    replied
    French Felin T4 uniform is the way to go.

    Stop messing up / around with our uniform and just go with our DPM on their clothing design.

    Leave a comment:


  • spider pig
    replied
    It was an AR wearing it. The amount of pockets on the sleeve looks insane

    Leave a comment:


  • EUFighter
    replied
    The Churchill that was buried in the Glen of Imaal in 1967 was excavated and recovered in 2002/3.
    It was then given to North Irish Horse Regiment, the only Irish Tank regiment and is on display at the barracks in Dunmore Park in Belfast.

    Leave a comment:


  • na grohmiti
    replied
    Don't forget the "bury them on DF property" option.
    Has worked well for us in the past with 37 pattern webbing, wool overcoats, churchill tank, aircraft etc...

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by apod View Post
    I know all of that and I never implied that all branches would be issued the same type.However my understanding is that GENPOP are having our issue scale reduced IOT save money.Hence two pairs of boots(Multi-role and Ceremonial) as Opposed to three.Curious to know if the Artillery and ARW will be issued both the Scouts AND their role specific boots.I cant see the drop shorts being happy with having to wear safe toe boots in all weather and for all tasks.
    exactly


    And what happens to all the current Haix op boots that are not issued by the time the Scouts etc go on issue??Do you just shred them? DoD won't sell them via a disposals agency and try an recoup some of the cost.What do you do? Throw out the Regs and issue them to the RDF on masse?
    They would probably issue a LOI saying all RDF to be issued a pair.... which flies in face of SFC and there being a uniform DFR

    How long have you been in the DF ???? Sell them are you mad
    We will store them till they are falling apart in 20 years (probably in a contracted warehouse), put them up for sale and it will cost us €10 million to get some to take them off our hands

    Leave a comment:


  • apod
    replied
    There will not be a single operational boot on issue, the artillery, ARW, aircrew and naval service will get boots specific to their roles and needs, and rightly so.
    I know all of that and I never implied that all branches would be issued the same type.However my understanding is that GENPOP are having our issue scale reduced IOT save money.Hence two pairs of boots(Multi-role and Ceremonial) as Opposed to three.Curious to know if the Artillery and ARW will be issued both the Scouts AND their role specific boots.I cant see the drop shorts being happy with having to wear safe toe boots in all weather and for all tasks.
    I also believe that scraping the barrack boot is a bad idea and will cost more money in the long run, wearing out expensive boots quicker.
    100% Agree.A false economy. Two pairs of cheaper boots at say €40-€50 a pair say over five years is still cheaper than replacing a pair of €184 over the same time frame.And what happens to all the current Haix op boots that are not issued by the time the Scouts etc go on issue??Do you just shred them? DoD won't sell them via a disposals agency and try an recoup some of the cost.What do you do? Throw out the Regs and issue them to the RDF on masse?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X