Only because you have been brainwashed by years of tucking in. The uniform was never designed to be tucked in. I admit it doesn’t look as smart as a tucked in barrack shirt, but I don’t see the need to be “smart” all the time when “smart casual” works just as well and is more comfortable.
I remember when PCS first came in and was worn untucked. All the “old sweats” were moaning about how it was “untidy” and “American” (they can get stuff right occassionally!) and us younger lot just got on with it and considered everything fine. Iron in properly and wear the right size and it looks smart. Some people just can’t stand change.
It looks horrendous. And it’s terrible kit anyway.
As I have and will continue to say the points above. PCS is terrible, not just my opinion but the opinion of a lot of people that have actually used it, and prefer the old style. A lot of people working in the jungle are even trying to retain the old DPM shirts as they were better for Cam and concealment than MTP.
Those choices were all deliberate. The removal of the buttons was to stop pressure points under body armour, you then need the Velcro to close the pockets. The arm pockets were added in because you can’t access chest pockets when wearing body armour.
I don’t mind the arm pockets, I use them quite often when operating in the field as I find sternum straps get in the way of the chest pockets. I can see how they can be annoying with shoulder straps if you over-fill them, but it’s down to personal preference.
Lots of people may dislike it, but lots of people also like PCS just fine. Is it the best kit for everything? No. New flash: CS95 wasn’t the best kit for everything either, and not everyone liked it.
I don’t particularly care what people in the jungle are using. I am not in the jungle and have no wish to go to one.
I will admit to not liking the PCS smock’s hood though. It is more of an annoyance to me. They also existed on the later CS95 smocks though.
Yea I know why. But I never had, nor did I meet anyone who had a problem with the buttons. With osprey or virtus, maybe some Officer on some camp somewhere got a slight irritation on the way to the mess sometime.
And if you did, you wouldn’t use the pockets. So why not just use a UBACS, ditch the PCS shirt and keep the old shirt. Issue people the UBACs for body armour, and the old style shirt for everything else.
The Velcro is loudmin environments where you don’t need BA. The PCS shirts were horrendous in the jungle for the Velcro, the pockets and the double layering affecting the heat loss from the body.
I had the forethought to take old shirts(and I always dodged the new issued stuff for as long as i could) but lads were desperate to go back to the old shirts.
The UBACS lacked any decent pockets to be worn in the jungle, so lads sewed on their own compass pockets. The shirt pockets you can’t access when wearing bodyarmour.
The general cut of the PCS Is terrible, and the trousers pockets at that ridiculous angle and smaller, wraps around the thigh making it harder to access anything from it.
Yea, camp soldiers and people that don’t have to work in it. So why issue it to them? If you have no use or desire to use the kit properly then why use it at all. Or why have an opinion against it.
CS95 wasn’t the best bit but it was a damn sight better than PCS! I would pick it hands down over PCS any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
The hoods were fine but manufactured incorrectly and you would have to roll them up properly and use some spare elastic to fasten it up properly. But again it had those stupid toggles on. Everything seems over engineered, with bells and whistles and stuff we don’t need, and then they slap on some more Velcro for good measure.
Kit should be basic and functional, I don’t care what they wear in Call of Duty, or whatever film or how Gucci it looks.
We can argue this all night though. I won’t be moved from my stance. And I’ve used it in a lot more places than a flat RAF base where you can dive in the mess when there’s a light drizzle.
It’s not all it’s cracked up to be, it doesn’t look that great and it doesn’t function that well at all. It’s not the bees knees.
No one is trying to say your opinion is wrong. All we are saying is that that is all it is. An opinion.
What’s more irritating about your stance is your refusal to accept that there may be other opinions, which don’t match your own lofty one. And you’re simultaneously insulting and denigrating the experiences of everyone else here, simply because we’re not one of ‘the lads’, and simply cut around RAF camps. (Which is in itself a particularly ignorant assumption on your part.)
We get it. You’re a regular, a regular who apparently gets his kicks out of coming to a forum for CFAVs and insulting them for being CFAVs. That may be fair game on ARRSE, but we don’t appreciate it here.
I’m not insulting anyone, or big timing. Maybe that’s just a banter thing/mannerisms. Although it was aimed mostly at the RRBB244, as I have gobbed off about PCS before.
I’m merely stating (and it’s not just me) that all this stuff that everyone goes on about and thinks is so wonderful and great, isn’t. Just because it’s gucci and looks great or American or is whatever or looks whatever.
The drip was mainly about this constant need to “look gucci” and to have all the bells and whistles and Velcro when it can’t even perform at a basic level.
It’s like teaching cadets to use GPS. Then wondering why they get lost when the batteries run out and they can’t use a map and compass its about basics and function over aesthetics.
are you saying because Cadets don’t understand how to best utilize PCS that they can’t work out how to put on trousers or how to wear the shirt so the zip and buttons are at the front?
What I think you are trying to say, and what I actually believe, is that the PCS system is over-engineered for our needs. The features of the uniform that may be useful on operations actually become an irritation in more relaxed circumstances, such as wearing round the squadron, or even on basic ranges or fieldcraft exercises. It is a compromise so that one set of kit can be used in a wide range of circumstances.
I find the standard PCS to be basically a nuisance and the CS95 stuff performed better for my needs. Being an ATC CFAV and therefore not issued with the stuff I cannot say what is ver1 and what is the latest stuff, but the “lightweight tropical” PCS shirt I have works far better for me than the original PCS shirt which was inflexible, scratchy and awkward to roll the sleeves up on.
I like the smock.
What doesn’t matter to me is its efficacy as a camouflage base layer or whether it looks particularly “gucci”. Just like blue uniform, this is simply stuff I am supposed to wear in some situations and will fit in with what the rest of us may be wearing.
Teaching cadets to use a GPS is sensible, as long as you teach them to use a map and compass first. There is nothing wrong with using technology if it is available. Using a map and compass all the time doesn’t make you a martyr.
You missed my point. It’s this constant over engineering and marketing ploy, same with MOLLE and chest rigs and plate carriers and all that gucci stuff. All the zips and Velcro and pockets galore. It’s all going full circle and we are going back to good old fashioned belt kit, and people prefer the old cut.
This point has been done to death, you like PCS? Great wear it all day long, sleep in it for all I care. But I’m telling you, it’s not what it’s cracked up to be. That’s not just an opinion formed on a whim. That’s from using, living and sleeping in it, in various environments. It’s not just PCS, but take it to the extreme, Crye gear is horrendously over priced, over engineered and not all it’s cracked up to be. Give me good old DPM cut MTP over Crye anyday.
We have strayed massively off topic, we can just agree to disagree.
Outside of the world of Andy McNab fans, “the Regiment” generally refers to whatever organisation called a regiment that the speaker talks about the most. Ergo in the RAF, “the Regiment” means the RAF Regiment.
Given that this is Air Cadet Central, “the Regiment” is understood to mean the RAF Regiment whether you like it or not.