Combat 95 Kit

#1
I keep hearing that the MOD is planning to stop soldiers wearing combat 95 as it's costing too much. Can anyone confirm this?
 
#2
It's made by 13 year old boys in Chinese sweat shops, it's only redeeming quality is that it dries quickly.

I honestly fail to see how it costs so much alongside the alternatives.
 
#4
Aahhhh this old chestnut. It's not like they have anything else. However it is believed that Future Army Dress (FAD I kid you not!) is going to adress this for use by the shiney arses in the office. But this is probably more to do with people looking smart than cost.
 
#7
One step forward two steps back, we had combats, lightweights, barrack dress and parade uniform all gone exept No2 great move, now they want to go back to mixed dress heaven stick with the CS 95 much better than all (also cheap and nasty) that crap.
 
#8
Fact: CS 95 and its PECOC replacement will always be cheaper than barrack dress (including FAD)
 
#9
The main difference between CS95 and all the old styles is is versatility, not to turn this is an Old n Bold thread but I remember the "good old days" when you turned up on daily muster parade and the troops would be in lightweights, clerks in barrack dress and those on field training in combats a total shambles. you would then get enlightened RSMs who would parade the unit in lightweights then you would have to get changed into your appropriate working dress what a waste of time.

As for durability the old style was far from hard wearing I was once sent to the QMs as i had ripped the knee of my lightweights, I was given an old set and told to cut a patch and sew up my own, the patch was inspected by the RSM and passed as suitable, that was the mid 80s. Trust me stick with CS 95 it is much more versatile than some of the crap we were issued.
 
#10
cbgramc said:
The main difference between CS95 and all the old styles is is versatility, not to turn this is an Old n Bold thread but I remember the "good old days" when you turned up on daily muster parade and the troops would be in lightweights, clerks in barrack dress and those on field training in combats a total shambles. you would then get enlightened RSMs who would parade the unit in lightweights then you would have to get changed into your appropriate working dress what a waste of time.

As for durability the old style was far from hard wearing I was once sent to the QMs as i had ripped the knee of my lightweights, I was given an old set and told to cut a patch and sew up my own, the patch was inspected by the RSM and passed as suitable, that was the mid 80s. Trust me stick with CS 95 it is much more versatile than some of the crap we were issued.
Remember the cheap & nasty dpm we get issued in mid 80's when they binned the old hard wearing dpm? (70's time)
Jackets were that crap if you put something heavyish in a pocket it ripped off! I was forever sewing up the pockets & seams.
 
#11
Why dont we just get the yank kit, in UK DPM, would be cheaper hard wearing and the only drawback I can think of is the sizes may start too large.
 
#13
ironrations said:
Why dont we just get the yank kit, in UK DPM, would be cheaper hard wearing and the only drawback I can think of is the sizes may start too large.
I once swapped an RAF Forage cap and badge for a set of Woodland BDU's, from a Seppo and I can assure you, they are nowhere near as hardwearing as CS95 Pyjamas. On the plus side though they are 100% cotton. Down side is they do fade quite quickly. I Think the US troops get through 5 or 6 sets in an average year
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top