Soldier Operational Clothing and Equipment Modernization

[Maxman1]

Found a picture online today:

View attachment 83646

On a side note, apparently the "pants blousing optional" rule only applies to the field, it is still required in garrison.

 

[Furniture]

On a side note, apparently the "pants blousing optional" rule only applies to the field, it is still required in garrison.

Depends, it's not required anywhere I have been since the new regs came out.

Edit: I'm also pretty sure she was my cadet RSM many years ago...

 

[markppcli]

On a side note, apparently the "pants blousing optional" rule only applies to the field, it is still required in garrison.

Not true at all. Dress regs allow you to “low blouse” around the ankles. As per the design in the pants. Frankly it looks better and it’s more functional anyways.

Edit: for clarity this was addressed by the CFCWO and hasn’t made it to the Dress Instruction yet. I shall endeavour to find the source.

 

[Aper]

Depends, it's not required anywhere I have been since the new regs came out.

I find it to be a serious lack of proper dress code. I understand the whole "We're accepting colored hairs, beards and guys wearing dresses now to be inclusive", but FFS keep it sharp as for dressing up properly.

But that's my old school mentality speaking.

 

[dimsum]

Not true at all. Dress regs allow you to “low blouse” around the ankles. As per the design in the pants. Frankly it looks better and it’s more functional anyways.

B-but…

 

[dimsum]

I find it to be a serious lack of proper dress code. I understand the whole "We're accepting colored hairs, beards and guys wearing dresses now to be inclusive", but FFS keep it sharp as for dressing up properly.

But that's my old school mentality speaking.

The better question is why was blousing required in garrison? The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.

These rules should be based on practical reasons, not “we’ve done it since 1930s after we stopped wearing puttees”.

 

[markppcli]

The better question is why was blousing required in garrison? The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.

These rules should be based on practical reasons, not “we’ve done it since 1930s after we stopped wearing puttees”.

If only the pant had some kind of a way to secure it around the bottom… like a Velcro strap or something.

 

[Maxman1]

Not true at all. Dress regs allow you to “low blouse” around the ankles. As per the design in the pants. Frankly it looks better and it’s more functional anyways.

Depends, it's not required anywhere I have been since the new regs came out.

Edit: I'm also pretty sure she was my cadet RSM many years ago...

Apparently a separate Army dress regs was released around the same time as the new CAF-wide regs, which allows a low blouse in the field, but not garrison, and it was misinterpreted as allowing a low blouse anywhere. Don't know about Navy and Air Force.

I've also heard rumours the new dress regs may be rolled back to what they were originally, but with some allowance for self expression. So blue hair, mullets and hobo beards will be banned again.

 

[Aper]

The better question is why was blousing required in garrison? The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.

These rules should be based on practical reasons, not “we’ve done it since 1930s after we stopped wearing puttees”.

I agree; there's nothing to worry about when in garrison, but I find it to be more professional looking when there's not several standards like nowadays an everyone looking all different.

Sometimes, it's all about traditions. When losing or giving up on them, you loose at the same time a certain identity, a certain pride, and certainly not about the only fact that we've been doing it for decades or centuries.

 

[markppcli]

Apparently a separate Army dress regs was released around the same time as the new CAF-wide regs, which allows a low blouse in the field, but not garrison, and it was misinterpreted as allowing a low blouse anywhere. Don't know about Navy and Air Force.

I've also heard rumours the new dress regs may be rolled back to what they were originally, but with some allowance for self expression. So blue hair, mullets and hobo beards will be banned again.

I edited above. CA dress instruction is what your referring to.

The SM of the Canadian Army passed this along which is the cause of the confusion:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1574481431769718784

Dress regs actually say “top of the boot” which in an era of low as possible ankle boots functionally means unbloused . But still secured.

 

[Furniture]

Apparently a separate Army dress regs was released around the same time as the new CAF-wide regs, which allows a low blouse in the field, but not garrison, and it was misinterpreted as allowing a low blouse anywhere. Don't know about Navy and Air Force.

I've also heard rumours the new dress regs may be rolled back to what they were originally, but with some allowance for self expression. So blue hair, mullets and hobo beards will be banned again.

Dress regs might tighten up a bit, but they won't go back to what they were. There is no reason for the CAF to be locked into 1950s fashion trends.

 

[dimsum]

Apparently a separate Army dress regs was released around the same time as the new CAF-wide regs, which allows a low blouse in the field, but not garrison, and it was misinterpreted as allowing a low blouse anywhere. Don't know about Navy and Air Force.

I've also heard rumours the new dress regs may be rolled back to what they were originally, but with some allowance for self expression. So blue hair, mullets and hobo beards will be banned again.

Navy NCDs don’t blouse and the RCAF doesn’t need to blouse at all now in CADPAT. I’m assuming that any RCN folks wearing CADPAT would be allowed to not blouse as well.

 

[Kilted]

Found a picture online today:

View attachment 83646

If it's a trial version, why are people wearing it in public?

 

[FSTO]

Don't know about Navy and Air Force.

Navy never bloused their pants. I’d think the Air Force would mutiny if they were forced to blouse their flight suits.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Navy never bloused their pants. I’d think the Air Force would mutiny if they were forced to blouse their flight suits.

The Navy used to wear the blouse topside, spats below decks...

 

[markppcli]

If it's a trial version, why are people wearing it in public?

Because you trial something by going through your duties in it.

 

[Maxman1]

Navy NCDs don’t blouse and the RCAF doesn’t need to blouse at all now in CADPAT. I’m assuming that any RCN folks wearing CADPAT would be allowed to not blouse as well.

That's probably why a separate Army-specific dress manual was released.

 

[dangerboy]

That's probably why a separate Army-specific dress manual was released.

Which is a pain. I wish the full dress manual had a chapter on environmental dress where each element put their relevant info. Would make it much easier especially for supervisors that have people from different elements under their command.

 

[FSTO]

The Navy used to wear the blouse topside, spats below decks...

View attachment 83649

Are we really going to debate gaiters and paratrooper wannabe`s?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The idea was not to have stuff go up your legs - that’s unlikely to happen in an office setting.

You obviously haven't served in the 80's in the old wooden office buildings in Esquimalt's dockyard, where fairly large insects, small, medium and even large rodents, including up to sea otter, dwelled.