British DPM Camouflage

[brickie501]

... The example you have is an officers issue pattern No2 dress item which is rare in itself as officers receive a uniform allowance and have to actually buy everything except a basic scale of combat clothing plus a few other items such as trousers lightweight (they were taken off most scales back in the '90s I believe. So, most officers kit tends to be private purchase becuase they usually buy from tailors etc spending a little more for quality higher than that of the ordnance supplied items (in some case I have heard that the private tailor purchased items were actually cheaper).

Mark,

Probably more true in the era of '68 patt kit (although, as always, varying by Regimental tradition/convention)! On a wider note however, as time went on, less & less items were private purchase for officers; to the extent that with the recent introduction of Future Army Dress (still sometimes referred to by its acronym 'FAD' … seems to take longer & longer to decide what to call something 'Future' once its 'in' ) I think it is only Mess Dress, No1 uniform (unless on public duties) & headdress that have to be purchased (in a few other cases eg No2 Dress brown shoes, there is/was an 'initial issue' & it is only future replacements that have to be purchased).

For example, by the nineties, all officers were issued later 'fawn' versions, of the shirt discussed above. Officers in REME (my capbadge) wore those with their purchased "Service Dress" jacket, trousers & headdress. Other Regiments (Royal Artillery springs to mind), continuing tradition, wore privately purchased 'cream' shirts.

The latter is probably still the case, 'post FAD', as shirts aren't too big an expenditure to maintain traditions ... not sure about your last point though

I flippantly wonder if the military tailors 'caused' the above policy changes because [Sarcasm] quite remarkedly [/Sarcasm] the total cost of all the items new officers had to purchase would come to exactly the money they received (the 'allowance' is actually a one-off Grant, on commissioning, then tax relief each year after), with a blazer thrown in if you were very lucky!

Oh, & Lightweight trousers were re-issued in the early 2000's for Barrack Dress; replacing the hated 'plastic trousers'. It may not have been 'universal' but I was reissued several pairs around that time, whilst at Staff College, & think they were phased out again, by FAD, when I was in Bristol (Defence Equipment & Support, Abbeywood) in the mid- to late- 2010's.

Newer production ones (common sizes) came without the original 'map pocket' (that may even have started before 90's withdrawal?) but as something of an 'old sweat' I was able to dig out my original ones. I'd learnt not to create the old 'two tone effect' while ironing though!

[Watchdog]

Mark,

Probably more true in the era of '68 patt kit (although, as always, varying by Regimental tradition/convention)! On a wider note however, as time went on, less & less items were private purchase for officers; to the extent that with the recent introduction of Future Army Dress (still sometimes referred to by its acronym 'FAD' … seems to take longer & longer to decide what to call something 'Future' once its 'in' ) I think it is only Mess Dress, No1 uniform (unless on public duties) & headdress that have to be purchased (in a few other cases eg No2 Dress brown shoes, there is/was an 'initial issue' & it is only future replacements that have to be purchased).

For example, by the nineties, all officers were issued later 'fawn' versions, of the shirt discussed above. Officers in REME (my capbadge) wore those with their purchased "Service Dress" jacket, trousers & headdress. Other Regiments (Royal Artillery springs to mind), continuing tradition, wore privately purchased 'cream' shirts.

The latter is probably still the case, 'post FAD', as shirts aren't too big an expenditure to maintain traditions ... not sure about your last point though

I flippantly wonder if the military tailors 'caused' the above policy changes because [Sarcasm] quite remarkedly [/Sarcasm] the total cost of all the items new officers had to purchase would come to exactly the money they received (the 'allowance' is actually a one-off Grant, on commissioning, then tax relief each year after), with a blazer thrown in if you were very lucky!

Oh, & Lightweight trousers were re-issued in the early 2000's for Barrack Dress; replacing the hated 'plastic trousers'. It may not have been 'universal' but I was reissued several pairs around that time, whilst at Staff College, & think they were phased out again, by FAD, when I was in Bristol (Defence Equipment & Support, Abbeywood) in the mid- to late- 2010's.

Newer production ones (common sizes) came without the original 'map pocket' (that may even have started before 90's withdrawal?) but as something of an 'old sweat' I was able to dig out my original ones. I'd learnt not to create the old 'two tone effect' while ironing though!

Yep, thanks for that,

You are quite right about the shirt colours changing over time and I think that this has occurred with shirts, especially officers patterns more than any other piece of kit. I didn't want to stray too far from the question posed by Rene re the Officers versus ORs (EM) patterns and whether the shirt shown above was appropriate for combat dress.
The Household regiments (Guards & H.Cav) have officers No2 Dress shirts that are almost brown whilst The Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders wore an Atholl Grey shirt in some forms of dress.

I didn't mention the initial issue on commissioning for the same reason as re-payment issue / private purchase would come into play later as you say.
Before the introduction of CML (Clothing Maintenance Levels), now this is going off topic, it was very common for officers to "persuade" their soldiers to exchange items at the QM store to avoid the need to purchse replacements.

As for pricing I think you are correct and it has almost been a "tradition" for tailors to produce a package "to a budget" on the premise that they were giving a special price as the cost should be higher ("I'm cheating myself here Sir" and "there's little margin in this Sir but as it's you" ) unless as in the case of cavalry, guards regiments etc the principle may well be "it is top quality Sir, the General himself....etc).

The lightweight trousers (TML or Trousers Mens Lightweight) did go out and back in several times in my service. The first time was with the introduction of Trousers Mens Barrack Dress No13 Dress (the plastic trousers you mention) when only some were
issued the new trousers (not the infantry etc) in some cases partially replacing the TML, in others completely, and yet others in addition to TML depending on role.

Anyway, this is far enough away from the subject of British DPM but hopefully of interest in the wider context of British uniform as a whole.

As for the original question, that shirt with that jacket? No.

We Brits understand what we are talking about here so I hope we have not confused anyone and the discussion is useful.

Regards

Mark

[brickie501]

Gawd, I'd forgotten about Highlanders' (& others') shirt variations!

To avoid continuing to stray waaaay off topic, I'd better not start on different coloured jumpers the 'woolly pulley' shown is appropriate 'in combats' though, as is quilted 'cold weather liner' (or jacket?)!

And, to bring things properly back around to the original question...

I did still have a couple of GS shirts (maybe even a KF 'shirt, hairy') as they weren't taken off me & I didn't 100% trust the "don't worry sir, they won't ask for that back when you leave"...

If I can remember where I put them / the Mrs hasn't thrown them out, I'll dig them out & try to put up a picture of a (more?) 'correct' shirt for rene

[Watchdog]

Here are a couple of pics of my last remaining "Shirts Combat". This one is quite worn and so had reached the stage where it was comfortable on all but a hot sunny day.
The colour tended to become lighter as one might expect but the main characteristic of wear was the (much appreciated) loss of pile. They were quite "fuzzy" when new.

The collar was similar in cut to that of the earlier '52 patt "Shirts KF (Khaki Flannel) rather than the later '60 patt (?) which was smaller. However, the collar of this shirt was very "floppy and it was a total bugger to get it to lie over a smock or especially a JHW (Jersey Heavy Wool). One of the pics shows the method of wear most common with the DPM smock. It was a happy day indeed when "Shirts Itchy-scratchy" were finally replaced by the olive green "Shirts GS" made of a much more comfortable polycotton material.

I have also added pics of the TML (Trousers Mens Lightweight) which replaced the Trousers OG in the early '70s. The ones pictured are from the very end of the timeline of this configuration (map pocket on left leg) but the design is the same as the first issue. Only the quality, manufacturing methods and labels differ. They are obviously not part of the DPM clothing system but were worn with the DPM smock so frequently as to be worthy of connection to the subject as a whole.

Regards

Mark



PS For most of the time in service of the Shirts Combat it was commonly referred to as the KF shirt. This is incorrect and came about through older soldiers not differentiating between it and the similar earlier shirt in terms of nomenclature. To them the KF was just a name and the word Khaki didn't enter in to it. These were still KF shirts except green ones!
This carried forward into the vocabulary of younger soldiers who had never seen a real example of Shirts KF so they had genuinely no idea of the difference. To be honest, just by feel/comfort rather than the visual aspects you couldn't tell the difference. They were both bloody awful except that it was it was far more difficult to press the Shirts GS into a smart and soldier-like appearance!

[brickie501]

Mark,

As the saying goes "every day's a school day"...

I had no idea I'd been getting it wrong about 'KFs' all these years! Since I only wore the 'Shirt Combat' as an Army Cadet, I definitely fell under the category of "younger soldiers who had never seen a real example of Shirts KF" though

Thank you for the explanation,

Rob

[reneblacky]

Patt 68 trousers? or a transition patt 60? no 1st aid pocket & single map pocket.

[Anderson]

New Zealand DPM uniform. A photo from 2010.

[reneblacky]

Here are a couple of pics of my last remaining "Shirts Combat". This one is quite worn and so had reached the stage where it was comfortable on all but a hot sunny day.
The colour tended to become lighter as one might expect but the main characteristic of wear was the (much appreciated) loss of pile. They were quite "fuzzy" when new.

The collar was similar in cut to that of the earlier '52 patt "Shirts KF (Khaki Flannel) rather than the later '60 patt (?) which was smaller. However, the collar of this shirt was very "floppy and it was a total bugger to get it to lie over a smock or especially a JHW (Jersey Heavy Wool). One of the pics shows the method of wear most common with the DPM smock. It was a happy day indeed when "Shirts Itchy-scratchy" were finally replaced by the olive green "Shirts GS" made of a much more comfortable polycotton material.

I have also added pics of the TML (Trousers Mens Lightweight) which replaced the Trousers OG in the early '70s. The ones pictured are from the very end of the timeline of this configuration (map pocket on left leg) but the design is the same as the first issue. Only the quality, manufacturing methods and labels differ. They are obviously not part of the DPM clothing system but were worn with the DPM smock so frequently as to be worthy of connection to the subject as a whole.

Regards

Mark


PS For most of the time in service of the Shirts Combat it was commonly referred to as the KF shirt. This is incorrect and came about through older soldiers not differentiating between it and the similar earlier shirt in terms of nomenclature. To them the KF was just a name and the word Khaki didn't enter in to it. These were still KF shirts except green ones!
This carried forward into the vocabulary of younger soldiers who had never seen a real example of Shirts KF so they had genuinely no idea of the difference. To be honest, just by feel/comfort rather than the visual aspects you couldn't tell the difference. They were both bloody awful except that it was it was far more difficult to press the Shirts GS into a smart and soldier-like appearance!

Ripper Mark Cheers again Mate

[reneblacky]

New Zealand DPM uniform. A photo from 2010.

Lovely shot Anderson Thanks Mate

[reneblacky]

I've never come across a pair of trousers like these. Interesting how the trousers are lined, particularly at the ankles! gators or for drying purposes?