Soldier 2017

[X-RayOne]

Arktis again??

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.

[apod]

Arktis again??

Arktis made the original ones for the Wing. The current trials item is made by Seyntex.

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 developing i fear.

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.

So in short the uniform IS developing.Just not the a nearly 22 year old study group imagined at the time.We now have a modern uniform comparable with the best out there.A little dated in design in some areas(Smock/trouser/Shirt) but that is being dealt with. My only hope is that in doing so functionality and appearance win out over cost as nobody wants a return to the "elvis" collar days.

[DeV]

Artis made the original ones for the Wing. The current trials items is made by Seyntex.



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.

So in short the uniform IS developing.Just not the a nearly 22 year old study group imagined at the time.We now have a modern uniform comparable with the best out there.A little dated in design in some areas(Smock/trouser/Shirt) but that is being dealt with. My only hope is that in doing so functionality and appearance win out over cost as nobody wants a return to the "elvis" collar days.

It needs very serious cost benefit analysis

The more SKUs (eg 2 different types of shirts) that you have the more some of your costs will increase (and the increased risk of stockout (which isn’t really monitored at the minute)).

But if there is a dramatic difference in the cost and the nominal (through normal wear and tear) life span it does make sense.

[apod]

I don't think we can really put a cost on human lives and welfare can we?

The normal shirt is needed for everyday wear.By everyone.
The UBACS is needed for those occasions when we are doing shooty stuff.Operating in warm climates,and/or driving around in big metal IED targets.

Both have their place. The normal shirt is unsuited to operational tasks and the UBACS is over specced and more costly for day to day Barracks use.
That's just the shirt . If you consider that we used to ,and should still have IMHO, a female specific shirt(wider at the hips) and a male shirt but going forward we will have one type of shirt to kit out both genders.One that looks good on neither gender BTW, than they will have achieved their savings but failed in the functionality and appearance area.

[DeV]

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?)

Imho the original design shirt was relatively ok for both genders in field and barracks. Not prefect but ok.

[apod]

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]

[northie]

Arktis again??

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.

[DeV]

Not suggest UBACS for barracks use

[apod]

Not suggest UBACS for barracks use

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.

[DeV]

Basically that the shirt would be suitable for field wear where circumstances suit (as well as barracks use)

[trellheim]

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.

[Bayern Fan]

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.

[na grohmiti]

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.

Is it a shirt? is it a jacket? Who can tell!
It was a must have if you wanted to be on an FCA shooting team in the 90s.

[koppiteal]

Wore mine once

[apod]

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.

[DeV]

PCS’s lightweight “jacket” appears to a shirt (I’m not sure how heavy the material is) and their smock is well a smock.

They also now have a barracks shirt

[X-RayOne]

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.

[apod]

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.

[na grohmiti]

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....

[apod]

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.

[DeV]

I thought the barrack jacket had been taken off the scale of issue to all anyway?

Should have just stuck to jumpers, tucked in DPM shirt and DPM trousers

I’d say the jumper would be warmer, probably cheaper but not shower proof

[BorderBandit]

Arktis made the original ones for the Wing. The current trials item is made by Seyntex.



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.

So in short the uniform IS developing.Just not the a nearly 22 year old study group imagined at the time.We now have a modern uniform comparable with the best out there.A little dated in design in some areas(Smock/trouser/Shirt) but that is being dealt with. My only hope is that in doing so functionality and appearance win out over cost as nobody wants a return to the "elvis" collar days.

With what you said about shirts APOD, do you think they have no place ahead of UBACs in a tactical scenario? Even if they were proper field orientated ones like clawgear or Arktis designed ones?

[DeV]

With what you said about shirts APOD, do you think they have no place ahead of UBACs in a tactical scenario? Even if they were proper field orientated ones like clawgear or Arktis designed ones?

The current shirts definitely aren’t suitable

I suppose the question is more do we need (a) a tactical or redesigned shirt, or (b) just use UBACS and layer with suitable base layer(s) or mid layers (eg “fleece” that is actually a very lightweight Norge) as required.

[apod]

With what you said about shirts APOD, do you think they have no place ahead of UBACs in a tactical scenario? Even if they were proper field orientated ones like clawgear or Arktis designed ones?

Tactical scenario summer: UBACS during the day. T-shirt under at night. Waterproof jacket carried and worn if necessary.Norgie carried and worn when static giving UBACS a chance to dry.
Tactical scenario spring/autumn: UBACS during the day. Smock worn at night.Norgie worn under smock and over baselayer when static giving UBACS a chance to dry.
Tactical scenario winter: UBACS during the day with long sleeve t-shirt underneath.Smock worn over at night. Snugpak worn under smock and over baselayer when static allowing UBACS to dry

I used never use a shirt on the ground except during the summer in Lieu of smock. Now I see no use for them as we have UBACS.No good with GSBA.Shite wicking abilities and no warmth to weight ratio.

PS: Only a spanner would try and wear a norgie under a UBACS.The UBACS are too tight fitting due to their design. Norgies are worn under DPM shirts or smocks(or if you are RDF over the DPM shirt)

[spider pig]

Not going to be a plate carrier.Report doesn't recommend it. Procurement board not convened yet. Report still being reviewed by the general staff.

As for the scouts.Talking to the lads the other day who were issued them for the 113th. No maintenance items issued with them. Was that an oversight? Did ye get anything with yours? If not what have ye being using to maintain them?
And as for the Goretex membrane in them. It's the summer weight(extended comfort) GTX not the old style insulated version. Hope ye got good socks for the winter months!!
http://www.joint-forces.com/products...s-for-footwear

So what have they decided to go with and who made this decision?

We’ve just been brushing off heavy dirt and using dubbing from time to time. Other than that there’s fec all you can do and they all lol different shades of brown now 🤷🏼*♂️