Lightweights (the uniform, that is...)

#1
Boring bone question I can probably guess the answer to anyway, :oops: but...

Why don't we get issued lightweights (olive greens) any more?

I suspect it's cost, but C95 can look a bit scruffy if we're out recruiting, or on parade of an evening.


V
 
#2
CS95 is a very tidy piece of kit. Lightweights look god awful IMO. CS95, when pressed up and fitting well, actually looks very neat.
 
#3
devilish said:
CS95, when pressed up and fitting well, actually looks very neat.
I think the words "fitting well" are the key here...I'm afraid our stores have a tape measure they bought from some bloke at the door, which measures in an obscure Mongolian system of measurement...
 
#4
I believe they are scheduled for reintroduction soon, quite how soon, I dont know.
They can look quite smart, especially if you achieve the proper "two-tone" effect. Hopefully, there will be a decent shirt to complement them.
 
#5
Sndmanfez,

Hadn't heard that one. Devilish, I know C95 CAN look neat, but (and I think I'm echoing another thread about the sigs regt uniform) it can sometimes be an advantage to look a little less warry when recruiting.
It would also be an advantage to have something you don't have to wear out into the field to change into on annual camp for example, maybe giving you a chance to get your uniform clean and dry at some point. Even with several sets it can turn into an admin nightmare if you're not careful.

V
 
#6
CS95 is part of the Army brand image and is instantly recognisable to people, so to not wear it when recruiting is, in my opinion, foolish. If you are concerned about 'scaring' people off by looking too warry then wear CS95 Trousers with a Black T-shirt or better still Polo Shirt.
 
#7
vanners said:
Sndmanfez,

Hadn't heard that one. Devilish, I know C95 CAN look neat, but (and I think I'm echoing another thread about the sigs regt uniform) it can sometimes be an advantage to look a little less warry when recruiting.
It would also be an advantage to have something you don't have to wear out into the field to change into on annual camp for example, maybe giving you a chance to get your uniform clean and dry at some point. Even with several sets it can turn into an admin nightmare if you're not careful.

V
I think thats is why they are reintroducing barracks dress as well. So that we are not wearing CS(%s all the time and so look less warry. Plus it looks quite smart.
 
#8
SilverBullet said:
If you are concerned about 'scaring' people off by looking too warry then wear CS95 Trousers with a Black T-shirt or better still Polo Shirt.
Where does this nonsense about 'scaring' people actually come from - if they are afraid of people wearing army uniforms they're hardly the sort of person we want in.

msr
 
#9
so would we HAVE to wear the lightweights? becasue i hate them, i think the 95's look very good and professional and modern.
 
#10
minime33 said:
[
I think thats is why they are reintroducing barracks dress as well. So that we are not wearing CS(%s all the time and so look less warry. Plus it looks quite smart.

There is NOTHING wrong with 95 FFS. We are supposed to be soldiers, lets dress like soldiers. As soon as we go down the Barrack Dress route we will be playing into the hands of those who want to play at dressing up rather than soldiering.

I've even heard of people who have a "dress up" Friday... just an excuse to get the pace sticks and bulled brogues out. What a waste of time. - If nothing else it makes us look like something from the 1940s, when we are trying to appeal to young people who want to crawl about in the woods.....

Want your unit to look smart ? - March the salad dodgers down the MOs and get them a nice medical discharge.
















u











u
 
#12
Rumour has it that CS95 is too expensive/tricky and that lightweights ARE on their way back after the next CS95 order.

Life's full of circles.

We'll be enlarging the regular Army and establishing a reserve force 'just in case' next.....
 
#13
Hope there not the ones the cadet forces are issued with along with shirt OG complete crap, no thigh pocket (not that I ever used it), and tissue paper is of better quality than the stuff theses are made of.

Zippy483
 

Legs

ADC
Book Reviewer
#14
Wingletang said:
Rumour has it that CS95 is too expensive/tricky and that lightweights ARE on their way back after the next CS95 order.

Life's full of circles.

We'll be enlarging the regular Army and establishing a reserve force 'just in case' next.....
:lol: I didn't realise that this was a new joke thread :lol:
 
#16
robbo9 said:
so would we HAVE to wear the lightweights? becasue i hate them, i think the 95's look very good and professional and modern.
Agree its not like they would be any cheaper than 95 . At least with 95 you can keep a set for best then rotate it round .Lightweights get a bit of oil on it screwed for parade but not damaged enough for exchange :x
 
#19
If I remember right one reason for ditching lightweights was the fire retardent qualities, or rather lack of... bit like the old coveralls, did they not melt rather than just burn in a fire thereby causing more severe injuries?

That apart, they wasent anything wrong with em, cheaper to make than 95, damm sight harder wearing although not as good as 'proper combats' but the biggest plus had to be exchanging em.... How many times have you managed to change a wornout pair of 95 trousers and a good 95 jacket just so you dont end up with a 'mismatch' pattern and the badge going off on one on a Sqn Parade.
 
#20
Lightweights rule! They're so old school! :lol:

I've seen some pics recently of P-Coy training and they're wearing them? Is it like this throughout the Army for training purposes?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top