[quote=“Hendon Chipmunk” post=5296]
The way round this would be to allow a mix of DPM / MTP on units or even on the same person which would look pretty awful![/quote]
visually it would yes, and dare i sound like a worn out Warrent Officer record, would not be uniform.
not simply in the aspect that there will be a difference in what is being seen and worn, but part of the reason why have uniform is everyone is seen as equals not just are “uniform” in appearance.
take a look round the troops at camp of an evening in civis, you’ll be able to guess with fair level of accuracy the degree of finances that child’s family are in…are they wearing Jack Wills and SuperDry or unbranded clothing?
i could see the same happening with uniform if PCS/MTP is accepted providing it is privately purchased.
taking the mix of Cadets on the Squadron i am on
Little Jimmy whose Dad, a successful surgeon, can afford to fork out £200+ for the new gear will “look the part” while little Jonny who is from a struggling single parent, low income family will be stuck in the “old” kit until it becomes available through Sqn.
now i am not saying there will be bullying, i’d hope the Cadets would know better, but psychologically there will be an obvious difference, and of course art of wearing a uniform to make everyone equal, irrespective of background is suddenly lost.
that is just looking at the Cadets, consider the staff.
there are those that cant commit to weekend events, or other activities which allow entitles staff to claim a “days pay” due to commitments with work or home life
or others where they rely on the extra income of ACO pay to subsidise their “9-5” pay, again i know Staff in our Wing who this is true for.
these staff will not have the spare £200+ to privately purchase PCS/MTP and all of a sudden a level of credibility is lost…even more so when on a multi-Squadrons event/Wing weekend
edit: it woudl seem angus beat me to it on the discussion of “fashion”
That was only a UOR, and is now like rocking horse poo. The shirts especially are very sought after by the regulars as they are less heavy than PCS shirts, easier to roll up the sleeves and tuck in.
Given the way uniform changes filter their way onto squadrons this has been the norm since the late 70s/early 80s or even before.
I have cadets wearing different pattern jumpers and trousers (some on the same cadet!), working blue shirts straight out of the packet in different hues, shoes from all different shops.
So DPM or it’s variants mixed, given the amount of times someone will wear it doesn’t really matter, well unless you are a must have fashion conscious poseur tart, in which case what are you doing in the ACO.
My response to anyone commenting is get it for me in the sizes I want when I want it each and everytime I want it and we will all be the same. Until that state can be achieved, live with it or leave the ATC. I’ve forgotten the number of times I’ve put a demand in and when collected it has/had any number/combination of things missing. But after the first couple of times you get numbed to it.
The fact the MoD can’t settle on ONE style, stick with it and make it available as described is not our problem. They obviously have money to burn, making all these changes.
I don’t know what’s going on here! Perry Mason agreeing with GHE in another thread and now me agreeing with Angus!
It’s all pretty much spot-on. SATT’s - due to them being scaled for CS95 will start receiving issues of MTP in the near future and the sale of CS95 to surplus outlets has already commenced.
My understanding is the same as has been said, that the ACF will hand-over all their stocks of CS95 to the ATC. This stock will then be farmed out to every Sqn in the Corps which will mean that an average Sqn will probably get half-a-dozen shirts, trousers and smocks each. Sqn Cdrs will more than likely to be told to issue it only when a cadet needs it and ensure that it’s laundered and handed back in ready for someone else to use.
The only plan I can think of HQAC having is that once CS95 runs out and PWS MTP becomes available, we’ll get that, on the same basis that we get it DPM clothing today. This saves HQAC from having to fork out huge amounts of wonga to buy-in the kit and thus avoid scaling everyone for it.
In the meantime, standby for the mix of kit thats being described above.
That was only a UOR, and is now like rocking horse poo. The shirts especially are very sought after by the regulars as they are less heavy than PCS shirts, easier to roll up the sleeves and tuck in.[/quote]
Easier to tuck in! CS95 is like a tent. PCS looks like someone’s actually made an effort to tailor it to the form of the human body!
That was only a UOR, and is now like rocking horse poo. The shirts especially are very sought after by the regulars as they are less heavy than PCS shirts, easier to roll up the sleeves and tuck in.[/quote]
Easier to tuck in! CS95 is like a tent. PCS looks like someone’s actually made an effort to tailor it to the form of the human body![/quote]
That was only a UOR, and is now like rocking horse poo. The shirts especially are very sought after by the regulars as they are less heavy than PCS shirts, easier to roll up the sleeves and tuck in.[/quote]
Easier to tuck in! CS95 is like a tent. PCS looks like someone’s actually made an effort to tailor it to the form of the human body![/quote]
then you clearly have never worn it![/quote]
Or I have a more svelte figure than you.
I have to admit, now PCS has taken over, I actually don’t dread the days that the Queen asks me to go to work in something other than a growbag (or flying onesie, as they must surely soon be known). The cut of PCS, both the trousers and the “shirt” are far better than CS95 IMHO.
CS95 shirt? Baggy, awful excuses for pockets, and a zip that was too short. Covered in buttons just to make sure you were uncomfortable if you wanted a lie down.
PCS? Fits properly, well designed pockets without a huge clumsy button and at an angle where you actually get stuff in and out without it all coming out. My only complaint are the cuffs are just as bad as they were on CS95. They discovered the modern miracle of “hook and loop material”, yet still used buttons on the cuff!
That was only a UOR, and is now like rocking horse poo. The shirts especially are very sought after by the regulars as they are less heavy than PCS shirts, easier to roll up the sleeves and tuck in.[/quote]
Easier to tuck in! CS95 is like a tent. PCS looks like someone’s actually made an effort to tailor it to the form of the human body![/quote]
Easier if you’re short. PCS shirts are tailored so that, if you’re below a certain height you have to tuck the pockets in to your trousers as well. And the sleeve pockets don’t help rolling up the sleeves. Not ideal if you don’t want to wear it like a set of pyjamas.
[quote=“Gunner” post=5305]
My understanding is the same as has been said, that the ACF will hand-over all their stocks of CS95 to the ATC. [/quote]
A good idea, however our cadets will still be in it for another 6 months. If it is being sold off at the same time I really don’t know how much there will be at the end!
A decent plan on paper, however it doesn’t work when more than 6 cadets need it and it doesn’t take sizes into account.
[quote=“talon” post=5317][quote=“Gunner” post=5305]Sqn Cdrs will more than likely to be told to issue it only when a cadet needs it and ensure that it’s laundered and handed back in ready for someone else to use.
[/quote]
A decent plan on paper, however it doesn’t work when more than 6 cadets need it and it doesn’t take sizes into account.[/quote]
We had this sort of thing already. We were “given” sets of CS95 to be used as described but as mentioned god knows which cadets they’re meant to fit.
Possibly not as ‘near’ as previously thought…
The original idea of 6 SATTs of 12 personnel would make for a total of 72 scaled persons. This would be feasible for issue of MTP. However I understand that having started digging HQAC have discovered that there are currently 170-odd persons claiming SATT-related issue of CS95.
170+ persons claiming for MTP will be more problematic and apparently some people at HQAC are having kittens.
Does this mean that there is a widespread shortage within the MoD, that means another 100+ (removing the orginal 72) is problematic. OR does it mean highlighting that HQAC don’t have the first idea what’s going on with respect to staffing of SATTs and creating some red faces. If the latter … shame.
No doubt there will be some who are SATT members on paper but who haven’t attended for some considerable time and are claiming that they ‘are scaled for issue’.
Wg Shooting Officers are ex-officio SATT members, so would they also be scaled?
Does this mean that there is a widespread shortage within the MoD, that means another 100+ (removing the orginal 72) is problematic. OR does it mean highlighting that HQAC don’t have the first idea what’s going on with respect to staffing of SATTs and creating some red faces. If the latter … shame.[/quote]
Well, I don’t know first-hand, but I would suspect it means that someone got out their calculator and worked out the cost of an extra 100 issues above what they originally thought…and then soiled themself.
