tie strings & the fit of combat uniforms (Split: Need for a new Army dress uniform)

[SeanNewman]

I wear mine down year round...unless it's dictated they have to be up for a parade.

Must be nice to be able to make decisions for yourself; some people don't have that freedom.

And I'm not just talking Privates, either...Majors get told how they have to wear their sleeves in some units.

 

[Franko]

Must be nice to be able to make decisions for yourself; some people don't have that freedom.

And I'm not just talking Privates, either...Majors get told how they have to wear their sleeves in some units.

I've seen that as well. Perhaps it's just a sign of the times that some people are clinging to the old ways (summer dress) and not allowing their troops to figure out how they want to be comfortable all on their own.

Myself, I have no problems with allowing sleeves up or down for my troops...unless it's in the field and then they are down.

I'm pretty sure there is a CANLANDGEN or CANFORGEN message out there somewhere that states it's personal preference unless otherwise dictated. Some of them Majors could allow their troops a bit of leeway if it's in their scope to do so.

My 0.02 Dirham worth.

I won't breach into the whole "bottom button undone" issue. At least not yet.

Regards

 

[George Wallace]

We don't always wear body armour, that's why we have breast and hip/waist pockets.  The only change I would offer would be to have those sleeve pockets put on our shirts.  A flat breast pocket would be useless, as was seen in that God Awful shirt with no pockets.  I get it that the pockets used to be magazine pouches; however, they are actually a bit larger now (the pockets, I mean).  And that "pen holder" in the pockets was actually not designed for pens, but for some dosimeter-thingy (pardon the tech-speak) and is now used to hold pens.  So, given that we are actually doing things smart, IMHO, in having but one uniform that we use for both garrison and field duties, it has to be "good enough" for both, with the emphasis on field use.  Losing the pockets would add no utility to field use, nor would it detract from field use.  Keeping them has utility in garrison.  So, since there's no utility lost for field use, but there is merit in them for garrison use, I say keep them.
Speaking of which, since adding sleeve pockets (as we do with Deserts for operations) add utility for field use, then I say "make it so".  My  :2citching them would add no utility for field use.  In fact, as stated elsewhere, those strings are there to cinch the shirt to the body in specific environments.

This is pretty much it.  These are the reasons we came back to the current style of Cbt Shirt, ditching the 86 shirt with no cargo pockets and small breast pockets.  As for the pockets inside of the Cargo pockets, originally they were designed to keep magazines in posn to be used, and then the newer style no doubt is simply to keep your pocket contents more organized.

I have seen more complaints from people about the uniform, and usually it is because they have never been instructed how to wear it and use it properly.  Take the dust sleeves in the trousers for instance.  How many don't know what they are for and how to use them?  How many times have you seen a "goof" walking around with his grey, or white, or pink socks showing between the tops of his/her boots and the bottom of their trousers?  In many cases, the idea that a piece of clothing is useless just indicates that the person has no knowledge how to use it or why.  True; this is not always the case, but for a large part it may be. 



[Edit to add]

Remember when this shirt was designed it took into account that a soldier may get in a position that they did not have their webbing or would have to work or go on an op without webbing.  This is all pre Tac Vest and body armour.  Does that mean that we don't need to redesign it and update it?  No.  We are evolving with newer weapons and equipment, including body armour, etc.  Keep in mind that one may not always have their Tac Vests and Body Armour, etc.  Technoviking basically points out these factors as being while in garrison, but they may just as easily happen on operations.

 

[SeanNewman]

Some of them Majors could allow their troops a bit of leeway if it's in their scope to do so.

Oh, there's the word "Major" in the position, that's for sure, but it's not the rank "Major".  The rank "Major" just seems to be following the unit-level direction and nobody fights it other than the Sgts and Capts grumbling.

 

[REDinstaller]

As for the Majors getting directed to how their sleeves are, I think it also takes into account the habits of some officers that think rolling their sleeves up is going past the wrist but not past the elbows. IMHO its lazy and unprofessional to have that look.

 

[Brutus]

The silly drawstrings do serve one purpose - if I start to get fat, the bow gets smaller. Other than that, I see it as just a silly holdover, a nuisance, and just one more thing the CSM looks at to put forth a blast of poo.

 

[Journeyman]

Tell you what, if i ever happen to jump out of an airplane, and my string free shirt billows, I'll buy you a coke.

.... the strings are for paratrooping, as I seem to recall.

If you're wearing a static-line, CT1-type parachute, the bellyband holding the reserve to your body will keep any air from blowing up your shirt.

If you're wearing a freefall rig and wind is blowing up your shirt, you're either tracking massively backwards or falling feet-to-earth -- either way, you're likely so unstable that wind up your shirt probably isn't a major concern. 


Personally, I suspect that parade-square soldiering is the more likely cause of this fashion hand-wringing than jumping (which is simply another method of getting to work).

 

[Old Sweat]

It seems to me that the harness on a CT-1 (or a T10 for us real old guys)  type parachute would hold one's combat shirt or jacket in place, especially with the ruck in place. Besides if it was a factor, doing the string up would have been taught on the basic parachutist course and confirmation that it was tied would have been part of the JM check on the ground and probably the equipment check as part of aircraft drills. Since the army saw fit not to include failure to do up the string before donning a parachute on the long list of things troops could get yelled at for, it may have been devised by a chairborne commando, or it was somebody's idea of a practical joke.

 

[REDinstaller]

The proper term for the waist string is probably a GRD. Gut Retaining Device. ;D

 

[George Wallace]

Not enough string for that in some cases.

Perhaps an "Hour glass" device to give many who didn't have one, the appearance of having one. 

 

[ArmyRick]

My earlier point made, the strings serve no purpose whatsoever.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I think the parachuting thing is a hold over to the old shirt which actually gave that explanation on the inside wearer instruction label. I'd go look, but it's not important enough to go rooting through boxes, in my basement, for confirmation.

 

[REDinstaller]

I just found one of my old shirts, but it was from a late run after the size labels went to being green and there is no instruction panel any more.

 

[vonGarvin]

Think back, waaaaaaaay back to before the 198x pattern webbing, to that belt with yoke thingy we had (64?).  If you were a rifleman, your breast and hip pockets were magazine pouches for the FN C1.  As I seem to recall, when you were carrying 6 magazines, your shirt tended to droop "a bit", and the strings were to help keep things "from bouncing around". 

Now?  I think it's probably a hold over from times gone by.  "We've always had it, therefore...."

Edit to add upon reflection:

The strings probably (may?) serve a useful cosmetic purpose as well.  Remembering that our raison d'etre isn't just to fight in the deserts of Southern Asia, and remembering that it sometimes gets a bit chilly here in Canada, the shirts may be deliberately large in order to allow one to wear stuff under it, to add layers.  So, when not wearing stuff under, you have the strings to draw the shirt in, cutting down on a garbage-bag appearance.  Maybe? 

(NOTE: by "extra stuff" under, I don't mean a huge gut, but rather layers of clothes)

 

[SeanNewman]

Again though Techno, even if your argument were 100% correct as to the why the strings are there, I remain unconvinced that anyone has found the reason that they are so high (not around the natural waistline).

If they were just there to make something baggy more snug, then it would be snugger around the thinnest part of the torso, and certain more comfortable.

 

[OldSolduer]

We carried 4 Mags. The draw strings were to prevent billowing when parachuting. The waist one was to hold the waist in for better heat retention. That's about what I know. I'm sure there are other old dogs who will tell us all something different!!

 

[armyvern]

I must have missed the CANFORGEN announcing that the CF was now part & parcel of the Ford Modelling Agency; wondering when I'm going to start getting paid 10k an hour ...

:

 

[REDinstaller]

Right after the young pups quit complaining about how the Cadpat/IECS/ICE is substandard. They never had to wear the shirt, wool extra itchy

 

[Nfld Sapper]

Right after the young pups quit complaining about how the Cadpat/IECS/ICE is substandard. They never had to wear the shirt, wool extra itchy

Which one?

This one

or this

(closest pic I can find to that really old looking one.....)

;D

 

[REDinstaller]

The second one is the one, but that is the smooth one. There was another version that had less buttons and a much coarser material.