Mtp

Everyone Uniform and Drill
321

[quote=“timmyrah” post=10773][quote=“juliet mike” post=10768][quote=“zinggy” post=10767]I always thought it was something to do with camouflage I could be wrong but wasnt it to do with counting troops red being harder to count on mass than say blue??

therefor hiding the true numbers of troops?[/quote]

I believe this is correct - in order to know your enemies strength, you would count the front rank of men. Red is apparently, the hardest colour to distinguish at a distance, hence you couldn’t be sure your enemies strength.[/quote]

I always thought it was the new model army stuff. :)[/quote]

I’d always thought the true story was that it was the cheapest cloth available…

A quick google shows that there doesn’t actually seem to e any surviving record of why red was chosen rather than any other colour. Red was certainly an expensive choice later on (hence Napoleonic infantry redcoats being cheaper dye and darker than officers’, which were scarlet and expensive).

The most convincing argument seems to be that it was just the most easily available cloth, since several regiments on both sides of the Civil Wars had been using it. Ergo, it may have been more economical at the time, much like the RAF starting out in Prussian blue because of a lot of left over material for the Tsar’s cavalry…*

*although, Prussian blue was swapped for blue grey in the Twenties, so anyone who tells you modern RAF uniform colour comes from Russian cavalry is mistaken…

I’ll stop now.

322

No it’s not. Noone is ordering you to replace your CS95.

It’s hard luck really. Authorising MTP is the right choice. There may well be cadets who’ve just bought CS95 and will suddenly think “Ohhhhh. If I’d waited I could have bought the shiny new uniform instead…” but that’s just the way it goes. It’s certainly not “plain wrong”; it’s tough luck - like much of life.

[quote=“spicester” post=10658]And the massive stock we just got for free from the army is gonna be about just good enough to go on a car boot or ebay…

I put enough of my own money into my squadron without having to buy yet more kit because of a policy change.[/quote]

There will not be a ban on wearing DPM for a good few years to come. There’s no requirement to buy more kit, and any unit that ditches their free CS95 would be utterly mad.

But I’m more interested in this comment:

Which email was that?[/quote]

We received an email through the chain of command stating from the CACWO that MTP was not to be worn until the dress regs were updated and that that process was ongoing now.

323

No it’s not. Noone is ordering you to replace your CS95.

It’s hard luck really. Authorising MTP is the right choice. There may well be cadets who’ve just bought CS95 and will suddenly think “Ohhhhh. If I’d waited I could have bought the shiny new uniform instead…” but that’s just the way it goes. It’s certainly not “plain wrong”; it’s tough luck - like much of life.

[quote=“spicester” post=10658]And the massive stock we just got for free from the army is gonna be about just good enough to go on a car boot or ebay…

I put enough of my own money into my squadron without having to buy yet more kit because of a policy change.[/quote]

There will not be a ban on wearing DPM for a good few years to come. There’s no requirement to buy more kit, and any unit that ditches their free CS95 would be utterly mad.

But I’m more interested in this comment:

Which email was that?[/quote]

We received an email through the chain of command stating from the CACWO that MTP was not to be worn until the dress regs were updated and that that process was ongoing now.[/quote]

There may be confusion arising from the fact that the CACWO sent an email to a similar effect ages ago. I haven’t seen anything more recent from him.

324

[quote=“Baldrick” post=10777][quote=“wdimagineer2b” post=10662]
We received an email through the chain of command stating from the CACWO that MTP was not to be worn until the dress regs were updated and that that process was ongoing now.[/quote]

There may be confusion arising from the fact that the CACWO sent an email to a similar effect ages ago. I haven’t seen anything more recent from him.[/quote]

Not seen or heard about either of these emails, so glad that we are all being kept in the same loop.

325

theres a loop?

326

No it’s not. Noone is ordering you to replace your CS95.

It’s hard luck really. Authorising MTP is the right choice. There may well be cadets who’ve just bought CS95 and will suddenly think “Ohhhhh. If I’d waited I could have bought the shiny new uniform instead…” but that’s just the way it goes. It’s certainly not “plain wrong”; it’s tough luck - like much of life.

[quote=“spicester” post=10658]And the massive stock we just got for free from the army is gonna be about just good enough to go on a car boot or ebay…

I put enough of my own money into my squadron without having to buy yet more kit because of a policy change.[/quote]

There will not be a ban on wearing DPM for a good few years to come. There’s no requirement to buy more kit, and any unit that ditches their free CS95 would be utterly mad.

But I’m more interested in this comment:

Which email was that?[/quote]

We received an email through the chain of command stating from the CACWO that MTP was not to be worn until the dress regs were updated and that that process was ongoing now.[/quote]

There may be confusion arising from the fact that the CACWO sent an email to a similar effect ages ago. I haven’t seen anything more recent from him.[/quote]

I realise the Cmdt told a recent SSIC that MTP was going to be authorised soon as long as it was not demanded from stores (ie scrounged or private purchased from commercial companies). However the policy and badging still needs to be authorised and approved. Partially copied from the email.

327

[quote=“tango_lima” post=10774][quote=“timmyrah” post=10773][quote=“juliet mike” post=10768][quote=“zinggy” post=10767]I always thought it was something to do with camouflage I could be wrong but wasnt it to do with counting troops red being harder to count on mass than say blue??

therefor hiding the true numbers of troops?[/quote]

I believe this is correct - in order to know your enemies strength, you would count the front rank of men. Red is apparently, the hardest colour to distinguish at a distance, hence you couldn’t be sure your enemies strength.[/quote]

I always thought it was the new model army stuff. :)[/quote]

I’d always thought the true story was that it was the cheapest cloth available…

A quick google shows that there doesn’t actually seem to e any surviving record of why red was chosen rather than any other colour. Red was certainly an expensive choice later on (hence Napoleonic infantry redcoats being cheaper dye and darker than officers’, which were scarlet and expensive).

The most convincing argument seems to be that it was just the most easily available cloth, since several regiments on both sides of the Civil Wars had been using it. Ergo, it may have been more economical at the time, much like the RAF starting out in Prussian blue because of a lot of left over material for the Tsar’s cavalry…*

*although, Prussian blue was swapped for blue grey in the Twenties, so anyone who tells you modern RAF uniform colour comes from Russian cavalry is mistaken…

I’ll stop now.[/quote]

Yes, it was simply cheap. Madder was a very cheap dye and it was a very common military coat colour (Russia, Denmark and Saxony also clothed most of their infantry in red at the time, while large parts of other armies also wore red - e.g. the Swiss and Irish mercenary regiments found in many armies). The scarlet dye used later for officers and some heavy cavalry regiments was considerably more expensive.

I’ve never heard the ‘counting troops’ theory before - that sounds like something noticed ‘after the fact’ rather than being a reason for clothing the troops in red.

Re ‘Prussian Blue’: The RAF certainly did use large stocks of fabric ordered by the Russian army. ‘Horizon Blue’ was the traditional colour used by the Russian Army for cavalry capes (‘Prussian Blue’ is the name of the synthetic dye used to create the colour - so-called as it was developed by a Prussian chemist). However, it was quite a pale shade of blue and dirtied easily, particularly as RAF personnel had to deal with oily engines on a regular basis, so the RAF later went with a darker grey-blue.

328

OK, back on topic please chaps.

If you want a history of uniform topic, please make one!

329

[quote=“pEp” post=10808]OK, back on topic please chaps.

If you want a history of uniform topic, please make one![/quote]

Can you do some moddy magic and move the posts into one? At least that debate wasn’t moving in endless circles.

330

I’m sure that here on ACC we could find a way to make it happen in a short time :stuck_out_tongue:

331

[quote=“Baldrick” post=10809][quote=“pEp” post=10808]OK, back on topic please chaps.

If you want a history of uniform topic, please make one![/quote]

Can you do some moddy magic and move the posts into one? At least that debate wasn’t moving in endless circles.[/quote]

Ta-dah!

332

Did the Wedgwood blue of the shirts stay over from the original uniforms though? Or was it a different shade?

333

I wondered that…

Didn’t somebody on here mention duck egg blue being an approved shirt colour for officers once?

The huge portrait of Trenchard at Cranwell has him in the original RAF number ones.

334

Yes, it was me! Many years ago (early '80s), my Wg Staff officer who was an ex National Service officer I think, turned up at the Sqn wearing a duck egg blue shirt and when I asked him he said that a decent military tailor would ask what colour blue you wanted your shirts to be made in. Parades were different, but for general wear, apparently there were several shades permissible. It looked like a genuine uniform shirt too, not one he’d just grabbed out of the wardrobe because his wedgewood one was in the wash!

Good thread on PPRuNe re variations in ‘uniform’ #17 mentions a confusing anarchic period re shirts in the early 1970s.

http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/488105-historical-raf-uniform-question.html

I think the high collar uniforms look really smart, like the Army Blues. Shame that it’s only Bandsmen who get to wear them.

335

Anyone heard anything new on this?

336

[quote=“chrisholloway1” post=11090]Anyone heard anything new on this?[/quote]What’s the rush?

337

Curiosity? Do I have to be in a rush?

338

Nothing new, but something official is in the water…

339

The COS’ view is that we will have periods of mixed dress. It won’t be issued (it was worked out it would cost £8.2 million for an initial issue to every member of the organisation!), but we should be permitted to do what we do now with CS95.

Unfortunately, one RC will not have mixed dress on his squadrons, so there’s a discussion about it next week I believe.

340

[quote=“pEp” post=11127]The COS’ view is that we will have periods of mixed dress. It won’t be issued (it was worked out it would cost £8.2 million for an initial issue to every member of the organisation!), but we should be permitted to do what we do now with CS95.

Unfortunately, one RC will not have mixed dress on his squadrons, so there’s a discussion about it next week I believe.[/quote]

The squadrons he’ll likely never see? (Because an anti-green RC will likely never see a unit on an occasion when they will be in No3s.)