Did anyone ever do the Porton Battle Run? 21 days that made me decide never to be an NBC instructor!!
[quote=“MattB” post=17069]After giving it some thought, I’ve decided to really, really not care.
It’s a bit odd, but it doesn’t appear to be against regs. I shan’t be rushing out and buying one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
it may not appear in dress regs, however the dress regs are what you can wear, not what you cannot - UBACS by its very name Under Body Armour Combat Shirt should be enough for anyone to know not to wear it - in the RAF it is only worn of Operational Duties
[quote=“wokkaman” post=17099][quote=“MattB” post=17069]After giving it some thought, I’ve decided to really, really not care.
It’s a bit odd, but it doesn’t appear to be against regs. I shan’t be rushing out and buying one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
it may not appear in dress regs, however the dress regs are what you can wear, not what you cannot - UBACS by its very name Under Body Armour Combat Shirt should be enough for anyone to know not to wear it - in the RAF it is only worn of Operational Duties[/quote]
Where was this UBACS seen? If it was on exercise, in the field then I don’t care. If it was on unit, or in barrack dress. Then Why?
If you enforce the dress regs THAT literally, you can’t wear gaiters, norgies, snugpaks, jumpers, fleeces, or essentially anything which we all wear in the field. I’d say a UBACS falls into that category. It has a practical use in (extremely) limited circumstances. But my opposition or not would have to be entirely based on the context in which it was worn.
i was under the impression having read it somewhere i am sure that these can be worn but not as an “outer layer”
found it:
AP13858c, para 0222 refers:
e. OG Norwegian Shirt. Under garment for cold conditions. (Not MTP)
f. Fleece Liner (OG/DPM). Cold conditions undergarment, or suitable mid layer, not to be worn as outer layer.
i was under the impression having read it somewhere i am sure that these can be worn but not as an “outer layer”
found it:
AP13858c, para 0222 refers:
e. OG Norwegian Shirt. Under garment for cold conditions. (Not MTP)
f. Fleece Liner (OG/DPM). Cold conditions undergarment, or suitable mid layer, not to be worn as outer layer.[/quote]
I stand corrected, does f merely define what a fleece liner is, or is it giving a category of clothing which can be worn. (i.e. would a snugpak or buffalo come under f?)
Nonetheless, the point about gaiters (and I’ll throw in bush hats) still stands.
:blink:
Gaitors(which are issued items) are a practical item. Especially to the cadets.
UBACS are not. Any arguement for them is null and void.
It is purely for the gucci factor. And is waltism of the highest order.
For the price of it you can buy a decent baselayer.
This is where common sense should prevail.
You are a CADET YOUTH organisation. Not the hitler youth.
You have NO requirement for Body Armour. Thus no requirement for UBACs.
They are horrendous anyway!
To clarify, I’m not looking for an excuse to wear one - I’m quite happy with the LW jacket.
I was just justifying my position of not caring.
I would wear one just to annoy RearAdmiralScrinson. 
I was just thinking exactly the same thing.
I was also thinking of speaking only in short sentences.
Because it’s clearly the best way to engage in debate.
While pretending to be aloof.
I was just thinking exactly the same thing.
I was also thinking of speaking only in short sentences.
Because it’s clearly the best way to engage in debate.
While pretending to be aloof.[/quote]
Aloof? I prefer the word pretentious…
And I am on my phone, its easier and quicker.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
The English language isn’t your strong point, is it Scrinson?..
I can think of one potential time they might be suitable…
Nijmegen (which makes up it’s own dress regs anyway). They could be worn as a wicking outer layer which would prevent the sweat build-up between rucksack/webbing/hydration unit and the current LWJ. Having done it a few times, much comfier in a wicking layer than a t-shirt and cotton LWJ.
Maybe a thought for teams going out there
[quote=“juliet mike” post=17145]I can think of one potential time they might be suitable…
Nijmegen (which makes up it’s own dress regs anyway). They could be worn as a wicking outer layer which would prevent the sweat build-up between rucksack/webbing/hydration unit and the current LWJ. Having done it a few times, much comfier in a wicking layer than a t-shirt and cotton LWJ.
Maybe a thought for teams going out there :)[/quote]
Gunner, you got the idea. I leave all that spelling rubbish to the Officers its the only thing they seem to be good at.
And as for wearing it for Nijmegan I would safely put money on any self respecting regular unit to not wear them for Nijmegan. (Stand fast Officers, REMFs and RAF Regt)
I could be wrong. But I have done some fair mileage not in the public eye and even then UBACs were banned. Nijmegan is a high profile event.
Plus its designed for under body armour. The clue is in the name…
Spelling is rubbish in your opinion, eh? ?Just as well you don’t want to join the ATC because what a role-model you would be…
Just so you know, I was a course-qualified NCO in a previous life and could spell long before I commissioned into the VR(T). I also learned to walk upright at an early age. Because spelling and grammar is such an issue for you, is it why you speak in short sentences because you can’t trust yourself to speak or write anything longer than half-a-dozen words?
Go look up the word ‘pretentious’ and find out what you - voluntarily - addressed yourself as.
Wow. Getting personal guys!
All for it. Personally there are plenty of people on this forum I would have a battle of wits with, but I don’t fight unarmed men!
Let’s get back on topic before the Stasi Moderators get us…
For someone new to the forum, you don’t hold back with your opinions do you. I mean, you have loads of experience of this forum since joining last year…
[quote=“RearAdmiralScrinson” post=17149][quote=“juliet mike” post=17145]I can think of one potential time they might be suitable…
Nijmegen (which makes up it’s own dress regs anyway). They could be worn as a wicking outer layer which would prevent the sweat build-up between rucksack/webbing/hydration unit and the current LWJ. Having done it a few times, much comfier in a wicking layer than a t-shirt and cotton LWJ.
Maybe a thought for teams going out there :)[/quote]
Gunner, you got the idea. I leave all that spelling rubbish to the Officers its the only thing they seem to be good at.
And as for wearing it for Nijmegan I would safely put money on any self respecting regular unit to not wear them for Nijmegan. (Stand fast Officers, REMFs and RAF Regt)
I could be wrong. But I have done some fair mileage not in the public eye and even then UBACs were banned. Nijmegan is a high profile event.
Plus its designed for under body armour. The clue is in the name…[/quote]
That sort of activity is exactly where they would work. But I was thinking something a bit more informal. Such as just a fieldcraft exercise. They would work pretty well under assault vests as well.
I’m going to kit my whole sqn out in them when I get back, just to wind people up.
[quote=“Baldrick” post=17104][quote=“wokkaman” post=17099][quote=“MattB” post=17069]After giving it some thought, I’ve decided to really, really not care.
It’s a bit odd, but it doesn’t appear to be against regs. I shan’t be rushing out and buying one.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
it may not appear in dress regs, however the dress regs are what you can wear, not what you cannot - UBACS by its very name Under Body Armour Combat Shirt should be enough for anyone to know not to wear it - in the RAF it is only worn of Operational Duties[/quote]
Where was this UBACS seen? If it was on exercise, in the field then I don’t care. If it was on unit, or in barrack dress. Then Why?
If you enforce the dress regs THAT literally, you can’t wear gaiters, norgies, snugpaks, jumpers, fleeces, or essentially anything which we all wear in the field. I’d say a UBACS falls into that category. It has a practical use in (extremely) limited circumstances. But my opposition or not would have to be entirely based on the context in which it was worn.[/quote]
A FMST exercise camp photo posted on a public Facebook page!!