• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Redcoat dress uniforms

  • Thread starter Thread starter nbk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steel Badger said:
I was offended as well, and resent like hell the implication that preferring the uniforms worn by the old canadian army makes me an anglophile or uncanadian...My father, Grand-father and Great -Grand Father not to mention uncles etc wore the uniforms Mike derides.......and they were damn proud of 'em,,,,,

I am not saying that dress uniforms are the meak or break factor for the army...

I merely suggested going back to a uniform that was at once smart, comfaortabel and that a soldier could feel proud wearing....

The Garrision dress didnt cut it do to the piss poor material it was made of etc etc.

Garrison Dress was indeed goofy.

Bear in mind my ceremonial dress as a piper included a horsehair sporran, spats that needed to be put on with a buttonhorn, a full length plaid and brooch which was impossible to drive a car in (ditto the cock feather in the hat, or feather bonnet for the drummers), a sword belt (without a sword because I was not authorized one), a dirk, and a tightly buttoned-to-the-neck collar that most people walked around leaving it undone until the 10 minutes or so they were required to perform in it.

Comfortable?  Not on your life.

Canadian?  Heritage?  MOST REGIMENTS NEVER WORE FULL DRESS TO BEGIN WITH!  Since the inception of the Calgary Highlanders, we have never, ever, never had full dress uniforms for the rank and file, until about 1957 when we went to a green coatee for the whole unit - and even then we did not go the whole hog and get feather bonnets and plaids.  These jackets lasted til about 1980 when they were downgraded to a special item for the colour party only. 

Most of the Regiments that existed before 1921 are long gone in any event.  Yorkton Regiment?  Battleford Light Infantry?  Alberta Dragoons?  They're long gone, and they never wore full dress either.

Some rich units like the 48th or Camerons of Ottawa have had 100 man guards turn up in red jackets.  I am willing to bet the Saskatoon Light Infantry, Regina Rifles, Winnipeg Rifles, Loyal Edmontons or some of the other smaller units never had rifle green or scarlet tunics for their entire complement in their history.

ROJ, you want to display military values?  What is better to do that on - a DEU with your trades badge, wound stripe, rank, brigade patch, command badge, marksmanship qualification badge, a name tag - or a British Army jacket with your rank and some crown lace?

If the soldiers want them, let them buy their own as a privte purchase piece - exactly what was done with the Coloured Field Service Cap and patrol dress.

I am quite sure that soldiers won't complain about ceremonial dress if they wear it twice a year.  That hardly seems the point though, does it.
 
Mike....again you missed the point

I was talking about creating a dress to take the place of DEU's...

A comfortable working dress that could be dressed up with the requisite badges/ patchs etc and still be practical.....I was NOT referring to the No1s as comfortable....


Ease down,,,,,,thiese posts are not a personal attack on yourself and yet you are showing an edge not present in your other excellents posts / replies.


I can verify that the RHLI and the 91st etc DID wear full dress...but disputing who did  or did not is not my point...

Again you equate ROJ's and my points to mean a desire to be Brit....

Can't you see we are looking to the CANADIAN ARMY as our guide......not the British.....
Is it so impossible to believe?









 
Steel...you say you want to create a new uniform to replace the DEU.  Specifically, if I understand you correctly, you wish to move away from the jacket and tie and move towards a "traditional" uniform more akin to ceremonials or patrols.

These are my points

a) many, many officers and NCMs need a working dress akin to civilian business dress - recruiters, researchers, PAFFOs, staff officers, project managers, administrators, specialists, even officers in combat arms units who deal with the public

b) "traditional" uniforms in Canada don't work because we have been cash poor - no two regiments have ever dressed alike when it came to "traditions".  The closest we have to a tradition is the CF Green uniform.  God help us if we go back to that!

c) I don't understand the connection ROJ is making, if I understand correctly, between "looking military" and at the same time insisting on a uniform that divests itself entirely of any type of miliitary symbols.  The hypothetical full dress uniform is entirely British in appearance, likely never worn by the majority of regiments in their lifetime (not to mention completely incorrect for units of the supporting arms), and gives no indication of military qualifications.  In fact, the full dress uniform is the same one worn by teenage kids in the 78th Fraser Highlanders re-enactment units at the Old Fort in Montreal and in Calgary, as well as the university students who work at the Halifax Citadel in the summer.

Creating a uniform to "replace" the DEUs would be more expensive (a DEU jacket probably costs 20 dollars to make, a wool doublet of whatever colour and cut you choose would be many times that), would make the wearer stand out like a sore thumb in anything but a parade square setting, and would make little connection between the wearer and the Canadian Armed Forces to anyone not in the know (how many times have you worn your kilt downtown and been asked what instrument you play? ;)  and a similar lack of connection between the wearer and the society he is supposed to represent.

I'm sorry if anyone is reading a hostile tone into my remarks; not at all.  There just appears to be a disconnect in thinking; anyone suggesting DEUs are not necessary really hasn't thought through how many people wear them, and for what purposes.  For an infantryman in a reserve unit, it probably matters little whether he wears a doublet or DEU - he goes to Rememberance Day and the one or two battle commemoration parades each year while wearing it, maybe a couple hours downtown at the Legion or the bar afterwards, and he's done for the year.

I am not in favour of abandoning a nice ceremonial uniform; I would suggest that they are unnecessary, expensive, and really don't represent our history as well as some people would suggest since most units have never worn them.  I do like the sight of our pipe band in greens and reds; can't stand having to, as we say, "put all that shit on again", and nothing feels better after a pipe band performance than dumping all that stuff on the floor and letting one's skin breathe again.

A jacket and tie are mandatory; that's just the way it is, and whether you are talking about red doublets, camouflage windbreakers, or lightweight patrol jackets, the wearer will still be conspicious and out of place in certain settings in which he needs to appear.  Even Garrison Dress was unsuitable for office work and it was designed as a working dress!  The belt rode up too high, the jacket has tight and constrictive, and the boots were uncomfortable and required way too much maintenance to wear on a day to day basis.  Most clerks I knew went and got chits so they didn't have to wear them.    What could be simpler than DEU trousers and a shirt/sweater combination, with the option of a tie and jacket for smartness?  Very nicely mimics Business Casual and Business dress.  Even if, Steel Badger, you are suggesting a patrol jacket in material like the DEU, with stand up collar and waistbelt - I have to ask, what is the point?  You can throw out the historical precedent for that, ditto comfort.  Taking the garrison belt on and off every time you wanted to work, go to the bathroom, enter the mess, was a colossal pain.

I say again, dressing like we are superior to others is not the way to go.  We are a unique institution that is supposed to reflect the best of society; that means fitting in.  There is so much talk of "footprint in the community" these days, even on this very board.  Do we mean it, or don't we?

I don't see that the DEU uniform in any way infringes on our ability to be military; in fact, it is one of the few distinctively Canadian uniforms we've had.  If we could just get past the self-conscious in us that makes us put the name of the country on the sleeves, we'd be set.  The US Marines look so sharp, to use Infanteer's example, because they have one uniform for everyone.  When they wore their service dress, it used to be that people in the northern US would ask "are you in the Canadian Army?"  No one recognized their dress greens.  We can't do that the way the Marines or the Mounties have been associated with a single dress uniform.  Way too many different regimental and corps traditions.  Creating one out of whole cloth will not be a success.  The closest thing we've done is the DEU.  Like it or not, THAT is the tradition, and if you trace it back, it has been in evolution since 1902, and always been with us, from the Service Dress to T-Dubs.

And yes, ROJ, it is not "battle dress" and was not worn during war time.  Neither would the DEU if we ever mobilized again - but neither would Steel Badgers new No. 1 uniform; it would be the first thing on the chopping block and we would simply concentrate on CADPAT and environmental kit (or so I would hope - do you want guns, or butter?)

Anyway, perhaps I'm not getting your point. You want a Canadian uniform (CF Green jacket and tie has been traditional for 25 years and counting now), something comfortable (I'll take a loose fitting lounge coat with collared shirt and tie over two neck hooks and turnback cuffs anyday), something military (don't get more military than a wolf or snarling bear on the shoulder patch) and something with multiple applications (add a bow tie and it is mess dress/evening wear, replace the jacket with a sweater and it is office clothing).

Don't get much better than the DEU.  Save parade clothes for parades and field clothes for the field.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
Garrison Dress was indeed goofy.

Bear in mind my ceremonial dress as a piper included a horsehair sporran, spats that needed to be put on with a buttonhorn, a full length plaid and brooch which was impossible to drive a car in (ditto the **** feather in the hat, or feather bonnet for the drummers), a sword belt (without a sword because I was not authorized one), a dirk, and a tightly buttoned-to-the-neck collar that most people walked around leaving it undone until the 10 minutes or so they were required to perform in it.

Comfortable?    Not on your life.

Canadian?   Heritage?    MOST REGIMENTS NEVER WORE FULL DRESS TO BEGIN WITH!    Since the inception of the Calgary Highlanders, we have never, ever, never had full dress uniforms for the rank and file, until about 1957 when we went to a green coatee for the whole unit - and even then we did not go the whole hog and get feather bonnets and plaids.   These jackets lasted til about 1980 when they were downgraded to a special item for the colour party only.  

Most of the Regiments that existed before 1921 are long gone in any event.   Yorkton Regiment?   Battleford Light Infantry?   Alberta Dragoons?    They're long gone, and they never wore full dress either.

Some rich units like the 48th or Camerons of Ottawa have had 100 man guards turn up in red jackets.   I am willing to bet the Saskatoon Light Infantry, Regina Rifles, Winnipeg Rifles, Loyal Edmontons or some of the other smaller units never had rifle green or scarlet tunics for their entire complement in their history.

ROJ, you want to display military values?   What is better to do that on - a DEU with your trades badge, wound stripe, rank, brigade patch, command badge, marksmanship qualification badge, a name tag - or a British Army jacket with your rank and some crown lace?

If the soldiers want them, let them buy their own as a privte purchase piece - exactly what was done with the Coloured Field Service Cap and patrol dress.

I am quite sure that soldiers won't complain about ceremonial dress if they wear it twice a year.   That hardly seems the point though, does it.


I find the DEU uniforms look too American for my liking. If anything, why would be want to look more American? Keep our disapearing British culture. God knows how long till its gone.
 
Canuck_25 said:
I find the DEU uniforms look too American for my liking. If anything, why would be want to look more American? Keep our disapearing British culture. God knows how long till its gone.

And that, my friend, is absolute ignorance showing through.  Take a look at the evolution of service dress from 1902 onwards and you will see that the current DEU is directly related the CF Green jacket of 1968.  The CF Green jacket was based directly in the older tropical worsted.  The tropical worsted was based on the Service Dress.  Where you get "American" from is beyond me.  The colour?  I can't think of anything more Canadian than "CF Green" which has been a staple for 35 years... The design?  If you think jackets with pockets on them are "American" then you have probably never seen a British, German, Russian, French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, Brazilian or Ugandan soldier in uniform.

And what on earth do you think the British wear for a DEU?  As Infanteer points out, they have a nice khaki jacket, but even they are not wearing serge anymore.  And it looks remarkably like an "American" uniform....four pockets, two sleeves, and a collared shirt and tie. ;)

A little bit of research will show that the so-called "traditionless" uniforms we wear are actually part of the ongoing evolution of Canadian uniforms.  Instead of celebrating them, all that people seem to do is complain that they're "not British." 

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 
 
Michael Dorosh said:
And that, my friend, is absolute ignorance showing through.   Take a look at the evolution of service dress from 1902 onwards and you will see that the current DEU is directly related the CF Green jacket of 1968.   The CF Green jacket was based directly in the older tropical worsted.   The tropical worsted was based on the Service Dress.   Where you get "American" from is beyond me.   The colour?   I can't think of anything more Canadian than "CF Green" which has been a staple for 35 years... The design?   If you think jackets with pockets on them are "American" then you have probably never seen a British, German, Russian, French, Chinese, Italian, Spanish, Brazilian or Ugandan soldier in uniform.

And what on earth do you think the British wear for a DEU?   As Infanteer points out, they have a nice khaki jacket, but even they are not wearing serge anymore.    And it looks remarkably like an "American" uniform....four pockets, two sleeves, and a collared shirt and tie. ;)

A little bit of research will show that the so-called "traditionless" uniforms we wear are actually part of the ongoing evolution of Canadian uniforms.   Instead of celebrating them, all that people seem to do is complain that they're "not British."    

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  

You also have to note that people see the "red coat" dress as an impressive uniform. Its beautiful, impressive and smart. Do you know enough people that hate it? I have the impression that people love it.
 
Michael Dorosh said:
He is not talking about Mess Dress, he means the scarlet Full Dress uniform.

Any infantry regiment that can afford it can wear it, conceivably.  I've seen Regular Force guards wearing them, especially for Royal visits.  The Camerons of Ottawa also have scarlets.

Interestingly, when the PPCLI guarded Buckingham Palace a few years ago, they did so in standard CF uniforms - aside from the band and the Corps of Drums, I've never seen PPCLI in scarlet uniforms.

Michael: unlike the richly endowed RCR, or the R22eR who have the "Garde en Rouge" job at La Citadelle, the PPCLI has simply never had the Regimental resources to fund scarlet beyond outfitting a Corps of Drums in each battalion. The PPCLI Band, when it existed, was dressed at public expense but it is long gone. We also used to dress a few Assault Pioneers in each battalion with scarlets, aprons and axes for ceremonial parades but now that we no longer have Pioneer Platoons I'm not sure how long this will last. For us in the PPCLI,(at least in my experience) keeping any organization in scarlet means scrounging, scrimping and repairing, with no dedicated funding.

On the issue of the dress of the Guard that was mounted at BP, the wear of DEUs was a national decision (it was also applied to my old Res unit, the RRegtC, when they did BP back in the 1980's...) The rationale was that if the Canadians wore their British-style No. 1 dress, they might not be distinctively Canadian enough, so DEU was the order of dress worn. Seems a bit weak to me, but there you are.
Cheers.
 
pbi said:
On the issue of the dress of the Guard that was mounted at BP, the wear of DEUs was a national decision (it was also applied to my old Res unit, the RRegtC, when they did BP back in the 1980's...) The rationale was that if the Canadians wore their British-style No. 1 dress, they might not be distinctively Canadian enough, so DEU was the order of dress worn. Seems a bit weak to me, but there you are.
Cheers.

I agree with that logic; when I was on parade with the Scottish Division, I looked for all the world like an Argyll and Sutherland Highlander.  Not that there is anything wrong with that...

I will agree that a ceremonial uniform is a nice to have.  I will agree that the British ones are "traditional" enough to support wearing it.  I agree that a "Canadian" ceremonial uniform would be nice too.

Incidentally, the standard Canadian pattern band uniform was the CF Green tunic with gold shoulder boards ala Napoleon and cuff braids, and green CF pants with a gaudy gold stripe down the pants.  It was horrid.

Just not at the expense of "ditching" the DEU.
 
Canuck_25 said:
You also have to note that people see the "red coat" dress as an impressive uniform. Its beautiful, impressive and smart. Do you know enough people that hate it? I have the impression that people love it.

It's not about loving or hating it; it's about replacing the sensible DEU with it. 

Those who love it don't have to wear them as working dress, that is all I am saying.  I've done my share of ceremonial, in June heat no less when it was 30+ above on a football field standing outside for 4 hours while HM presented us new colours.  This was the same month that we did the Horse Guards parades - three days in a row, in ceremonial uniform, also in June heat though it was cloudy in England (go figure).  That was more than enough....;)

 
I think we need both.

Of course, I also think we need tanks and helicopters, so I might be crazy....
 
Michael Dorosh said:
It's not about loving or hating it; it's about replacing the sensible DEU with it.  

Those who love it don't have to wear them as working dress, that is all I am saying.   I've done my share of ceremonial, in June heat no less when it was 30+ above on a football field standing outside for 4 hours while HM presented us new colours.   This was the same month that we did the Horse Guards parades - three days in a row, in ceremonial uniform, also in June heat though it was cloudy in England (go figure).   That was more than enough....;)

Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage.
 
Quote,
Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage.

Have you worn one yet?...try it before you make those comments to someone who has been wearing them for quite a while.
 
Bruce Monkhouse said:
Quote,
Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage.

Have you worn one yet?...try it before you make those comments to someone who has been wearing them for quite a while.

And as I've pointed out 10 times, it is 100 years of BRITISH military heritage.  Canadian military heritage lies in the DEU, which has been the ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907...
 
Michael Dorosh said:
And as I've pointed out 10 times, it is 100 years of BRITISH military heritage.  Canadian military heritage lies in the DEU, which has been the ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907....

Isnt Canadian history linked with British heritage?

As a Canadian, i recognise our link with Britain, and our British heritage. Just because you find something uncomfortable, outdated and "uncanadian" is a rather poor excuse for ditching our military links with Britain. Let me guess, your one of those lads who seems to think the monarchy should be replaced by the governor general as head of state.

We have fought in British uniforms, with British weapons, and beside the British for over 100 years. Our military's foundation rests on British heritage.

Your soldiers for god sake, if something is uncomfortable, you learn to adapt. If men fought in those dress uniforms, in snow, desert, the oceans and flields, with bullets flying at them, im sure you can stand at attention for one hour without difficulty in them.


Moderator Note - edited in error instead of hitting "reply"; original post hopefully restored in entirety.
 
Quote,
Isnt Canadian history linked with British heritage?.....yep and North American Indian and France....should we mix that in too?

 
Michael Dorosh said:
...  Canadian military heritage lies in the DEU, which has been the ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907...

Huh?   "... ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907 ..."??
What colour is the sky in your universe?
(or, what on Earth was stuffed in your turkey ... crack?)

Regiments that could afford FULL DRESS wore it (as you'll see in the photo dated 1908).
Those that couldn't afford it, wore ... whatever.
 
Well, im sorry but i dont agree with you. The matter of the uniform being uncomfortable to you shouldnt be a reason to replace 100+ years of military heritage.

If we're talking about a purely ceremonial uniform, I agree with you. For eight years in RRegtC I wore (off and on) the two sharpest uniforms I have ever posessed: Guards-pattern scarlet with bearskin for parades and blue patrols for parade undress or Mess functions. I also (more briefly) wore 1885 pattern scarlet with full Pioneer equipment including apron, gauntlets, pack, tools, axe, water bottle, blah blah etc. I wore all of this stuff on parade at various times, including one memorable march from Toronto City Hall to Fort York in Pioneer kit in June. Fun, fun.

Anyway, I was very proud to wear all that stuff, and it looked great, but it was hideously uncomfortable, which is why it was replaced in daily and opreational service over the last century by more practical uniforms. Hopefully nobody proposes that we replace DEU with scarlet? I can't see doing 90% of the things we do in DEU wearing that stuff, sorry. Cheers.
 
bossi said:
Huh?  "... ceremonial uniform of just about everyone since 1907 ..."??
What colour is the sky in your universe?
(or, what on Earth was stuffed in your turkey ... crack?)

Regiments that could afford FULL DRESS wore it (as you'll see in the photo dated 1908).
Those that couldn't afford it, wore ... whatever.

Try reading one or two posts, Mark, I'm tired of repeating myself.  48th were one of those "rich" regiments I'm talking about. For every regiment that has worn scarlet (or blue or rifle green) at some point in the 20th Century, there were 10 that knew nothing but khaki.  And in a pattern perpetuated by the DEU.

What colour is your sky?  Life doesn't stop and start with the Dileas boys, even if Toronto IS the centre of the known universe....
 
canuck25 said:
We have fought in British uniforms, with British weapons, and beside the British for over 100 years. Our military's foundation rests on British heritage.

Bullshit.

Check out the Canadian Pattern service dress we adopted before World War One.  The first contingent wore it proudly in 1914-15, and for as long as they could get away with it.  Stand up collar vice stand-and-fall (and even when we got British jackets in 1916, many Canadians secured the collar closed to look "Canadian" with hooks and eyes), seven button front instead of five, and detachable coloured shoulder straps which indicated arm of service (the British had nothing like that at all).  We wore breeches for dismounted troops instead of trousers; those too were replaced with British pants, but it wasn't until late 1915 or even into 1916 - and proud Canadians hung on to their initial issue in some cases.

Check out both my books on Second World War uniforms and compare Canadian Battledress from 1939-1945 to British.  After the war it was even more different and by the 1950s, wasn't even close.  The only time we wore "British" uniforms as a matter of course were IN THE FIELD in WW I, and in Italy in WW II.  We designed our own Service Dress in WW II for Other Ranks.  By Korea, all our field uniforms were different (bush dress, battledress) and in the 1960s we got the Combat Uniform which was even farther from the British.

Canadians INSISTED that uniforms be of Canadian pattern and manufacture in WW II; one of the items that were of "continuing Canadian supply". 

Saying that we've always worn "British" uniforms is simply advertising how uninformed you are.

We also used CANADIAN weapons in WW I - the Ross rifle, until 1916 when it was finally replaced by the Lee Enfield.  We also used US Colt machine guns until replaced by the Lewis, and some of our officers had Colt .45 automatics purchased by the government from the US.

In WW II, 60% of all Bren Guns were made by Inglis in Canada; we made our own Lee Enfields and Stens (Long Branch and others).  By the 1960s we were using Belgian weapons.  Now we use "American" weapons, but if they are made in Canada does it still count as 'American'?

"British" uniforms were a minority in the Canadian Army, and after 1941, we didn't maintain a single British pattern of any of our uniforms with the exception of ceremonial (including mess and patrol dress) and for a brief time in Italy, combat dress (KD - though we had our own Canadian pattern that was different too).  Bush dress, battle dress, combats, DEU, work dress, garrison dress, everything else since 1948 was Canadian pattern.
 
Ok,

This topic has touched a few hot buttons here.

I think that both uniforms have their place.  I think that the DEU's shade of 'CF Green' too closely resembles the shade of green used by the US Army.  I'd like to see a return to the green/khaki/brown shade used in the previous service dress.

I love the look of the scarlets, but unfortunately, theyir use is too prohibitively expensive for most units. 

I was dissapointed to see the PPCLI doing guard duty in London wearing the CF DEU.  Not that their conduct or performance would have been sub-par to those British units serving, but it's kind of like showing up to a black tie event dressed in a business suit.  Not quite appropriate for the occasion.

What I think should be considered is a reintroduction of the blue patrol dress as an authorized private purchase item for serving troops, similar to the Dress Blues that we wear in the Marines.  Even as a reservist, I tend to end up wearing my blues for at least 5 or 6 events during the year, such as the Marine Corps Birthday Ball, various Toys for Tots charity events, weddings, etc.  I love my Marine
Service Dress, however I never have the occasion to wear it, as I have my blues.

I think that if anything were to replace the DEU, it should be patrol dress with forage cap.  For the type of events that soldiers tend to wear their DEUs for are predominantly parades, weddings, and other ceremonial functions, the patrol dress would be far better suited.  It's formal, but not too fancy like full dress is.  Units still desiring to equip their troops in full dress would do so, but those units without the funds to do so, would still look extremely sharp at a modest cost of tailoring the patrols to their specs (ie. Armoured/Cavalry replacing epaulets with chainmail) and care could be taken to allow tailoring flexibility (ie. trousers would be stripeless so that appropriate corps stripes would be sewn on).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top