New FAD, Old Rules?

#1
Hi Guys,

Probably a bone question, but just asking so I've got ammo against our rubbish Tailor.

I was led to believe that the new Future Army Dress(FAD) was combining our old No.2's and orrificers Service Dress. But on looking at the dress regs with regard to the No.2 dress category which combines both forms of dress, It still has certain seperation between OR's and Officers. It also mentions in the officers category that they're to be issued FAD.

So in effect the questions are, do we just continue to stick with the OR's category or adopt the FAD category although its in the Officers section(rank and obvious badges not adopted obviously)?

And is it FAD for everyone(once everyones been issued)?


Cheers


WWC
 
#3
Ask your camp tailor, he should know.
RTFQ!

"Probably a bone question, but just asking so I've got ammo against our rubbish Tailor."
 
#6
The FAD bit is just the tunic and trousers, most unit/Offr/OR embellishments will probably remain. For example, the difference in thickness between RLC OR and RLC Offr lanyards will remain, as will Sam Brownes for Officers and belts for ORs etc etc ad nauseum.

As an aside, why do you still have a tailor..? The FAD contract provides no public money for tailoring as the uniforms should fit off the peg for most people...
 
#7
Except they don't
 
#9
I had my new 'Service Dress' fitted by the tailor a few months ago - let's just say it fits where it touches. I told him to include a couple of buttons on each cuff to try and perk it up a bit, which he duly did - sadly he baulked at my request for turn-ups in the trousers. I removed the brass belt hooks myself to enable my Sam Brown to sit correctly.

Sometime before Christmas an edict, from someone clearly very busy and important, crossed my desk ordering us all to stop calling it FAD. It is to be known as No2 Dress or Service Dress depending on your relationship to the salt. The label within declares that it is No2 Dress Army All Ranks - That should answer your original question.
 
#10
I had my new 'Service Dress' fitted by the tailor a few months ago - let's just say it fits where it touches. I told him to include a couple of buttons on each cuff to try and perk it up a bit, which he duly did - sadly he baulked at my request for turn-ups in the trousers. I removed the brass belt hooks myself to enable my Sam Brown to sit correctly.

Sometime before Christmas an edict, from someone clearly very busy and important, crossed my desk ordering us all to stop calling it FAD. It is to be known as No2 Dress or Service Dress depending on your relationship to the salt. The label within declares that it is No2 Dress Army All Ranks - That should answer your original question.
The RHG/D officers in my regiment have managed to wangle turn ups on their trousers, although it is known for the household division to do things their own way every now and then...
 
#11
Queensman does the label still instruct you not to iron your new uniform or have they managed to hide that piece of nonsense.
 
#13
The FAD bit is just the tunic and trousers, most unit/Offr/OR embellishments will probably remain. For example, the difference in thickness between RLC OR and RLC Offr lanyards will remain, as will Sam Brownes for Officers and belts for ORs etc etc ad nauseum.

As an aside, why do you still have a tailor..? The FAD contract provides no public money for tailoring as the uniforms should fit off the peg for most people...
My bold.

Money was available for tailoring, but only for some alterations. Length of trousers, button position is OK but length of sleves not covered!

So my trousers were shortened in order for my sleeves to be the right length!
 
#16
What a croc of sh1t FAD really is. I had to be measured up twice as i moved units and no one bothered to record my sizes even though i only moved about a week before the stuff was supposed to turn up at my old unit. When i was measured up the second time i did tell the tailor that i had been measured before, but that was a waste of time. When the set i was measured for at my new unit turned up it was a joke. The jacket fitted me like a double breasted jacket it was that big around the chest, the sleeves were both short although one was shorter than the other and the trousers were massive around the waist, arrse and legs. The tailor took one look and has decided to rip it to pieces and start again. His first question was "where were you measured up for this and which idiot did it?" my reply - Yes i was and it was you!!
As for the barrack dress trousers, they have been taken in twice and are now in the tailors for the third time to get the legs and arrse taken in to something like they should be. Another amusing part of this whole FAD farce was the shirts. As a tall chap i was again measuered for shirt size. Shirts were duely ordered to fit. When the shirts turned up, suprise suprise some fcukwhit had cocked up again. The long sleeve shirts were a good fit, but the short sleeve shirts were cut in a female style. Now at over 6 and a 1/2 ft in height and being an ex rugby player i shudder to think who thought making female shirts in that size was normal.
So for me all i can say is FAD has been a total farce so far and a waste of everyones money. More than happy to wear my service dress as it fits perfectly and is much better quality than the FAD sh1t will ever be.
 
#17
What a croc of sh1t FAD really is. I had to be measured up twice as i moved units and no one bothered to record my sizes even though i only moved about a week before the stuff was supposed to turn up at my old unit. When i was measured up the second time i did tell the tailor that i had been measured before, but that was a waste of time. When the set i was measured for at my new unit turned up it was a joke. The jacket fitted me like a double breasted jacket it was that big around the chest, the sleeves were both short although one was shorter than the other and the trousers were massive around the waist, arrse and legs. The tailor took one look and has decided to rip it to pieces and start again. His first question was "where were you measured up for this and which idiot did it?" my reply - Yes i was and it was you!!
As for the barrack dress trousers, they have been taken in twice and are now in the tailors for the third time to get the legs and arrse taken in to something like they should be. Another amusing part of this whole FAD farce was the shirts. As a tall chap i was again measuered for shirt size. Shirts were duely ordered to fit. When the shirts turned up, suprise suprise some fcukwhit had cocked up again. The long sleeve shirts were a good fit, but the short sleeve shirts were cut in a female style. Now at over 6 and a 1/2 ft in height and being an ex rugby player i shudder to think who thought making female shirts in that size was normal.
So for me all i can say is FAD has been a total farce so far and a waste of everyones money. More than happy to wear my service dress as it fits perfectly and is much better quality than the FAD sh1t will ever be.
The Army has only ever issued 2 sizes, too big or too small!
 
#18
What a croc of sh1t FAD really is. I had to be measured up twice as i moved units and no one bothered to record my sizes even though i only moved about a week before the stuff was supposed to turn up at my old unit. When i was measured up the second time i did tell the tailor that i had been measured before, but that was a waste of time. When the set i was measured for at my new unit turned up it was a joke. The jacket fitted me like a double breasted jacket it was that big around the chest, the sleeves were both short although one was shorter than the other and the trousers were massive around the waist, arrse and legs. The tailor took one look and has decided to rip it to pieces and start again. His first question was "where were you measured up for this and which idiot did it?" my reply - Yes i was and it was you!!
As for the barrack dress trousers, they have been taken in twice and are now in the tailors for the third time to get the legs and arrse taken in to something like they should be. Another amusing part of this whole FAD farce was the shirts. As a tall chap i was again measuered for shirt size. Shirts were duely ordered to fit. When the shirts turned up, suprise suprise some fcukwhit had cocked up again. The long sleeve shirts were a good fit, but the short sleeve shirts were cut in a female style. Now at over 6 and a 1/2 ft in height and being an ex rugby player i shudder to think who thought making female shirts in that size was normal.
So for me all i can say is FAD has been a total farce so far and a waste of everyones money. More than happy to wear my service dress as it fits perfectly and is much better quality than the FAD sh1t will ever be.
So you say that FAD is shit but then give multiple examples of human error and not one example of how shit the uniform is!

I hope you don’t apply the same logic to your work :)
 
#19
Ok then, its cheap nasty stuff that will not last long and end up costing more in the long run. As usual someone has gone for the cheapest option not thinking about how the kit will be used and abused as in ironed everyday and modified to keep RSMs off peoples cases. That better?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top