On the trousers, I remember being told to sew buttons on the inner waistband so we could wear braces instead of the belts when on excersise. The green courlene belts always tended to dig in and were uncomfortable. The combat jackets were ok, they ironed well so Sgt majors were always happy 😂 on the pockets,I do remember there was a change to them as the older style was terrible for dumping the contents when digging or going over obstacles. The change was to include a fold similar to the 95 pattern ones. This was in early 1990.we were issued 2 sets of them.
Interesting, thanks for the information Andrew! the lack of brace buttons does seem odd as I've certainly seen plenty of evidence of chaps using the grey elastic braces with 1968 Pattern combat uniform in the 1980s. That said a waist drawcord would probably have been a better solution!
The braces were more when on exercise carrying kit in the trouser pockets and were a big miss for us. Even on a tab or run if you tried the side buckles too tight they cut into you
This is what I had when I joined up, It didn't take me long to get hold of a couple of 68 pattern jackets once I got to battalion. 84/85 was good for guard duty that was about it, but not very durable in the field.
Remember being issued with this pattern clothing when I joined up in '86, somewhat taken aback with it's inferiority to the '68 pattern jacket I had in cadets. But seem to recall they did press rather well !
I recently discovered there was an improved 84 pattern, they seem to have changed the design of the pocket from the flimsy pointy style on the one you display here to the same style as the 94 temperate smock, minus the large arctic buttons. This style of pocket seems to have been a winner as its more or less on use with PCS smocks today.
The inside rear pocket was used when you rolled the combat jacket up (and buttoned it) to fit into your large pack -- the Americans call it combat rolling but to me it was just a roll. That was on Combats from 71-82 my time in the Army. The ones I used did have the inner 'green' colour so no camouflage problems there.
Thanks veru much for the info! Interested to hear you didn't have problems with the white inner to the frabric, as far as I was aware this wasn't fixed until the '90s. That said the combat uniform during your time of service was more fully lined.
Compared with the combats I was issued in 1977, this was cheap quality, same with with Boots Combat high, they were were better than DMS, but they were cheap quality too. The soles were the same pattern as army issue shoes, which defied logic as they were designed for office use. I managed to get an older style jacket which had a matching colour scheme. It was about then we could wear our own boots on exercise. Later I got hold of an SAS smock and BCH with vibram soles. Soldier 95 combats ended this farce of cheap and nasty uniforms. I have photo of me wearing my old 70s combat jacket in the late 80s, it looked really washed out by then.
The smock was good ,comfortable, decent pockets and I preferred the cord bottom tie for tightening the smock over the later cords. We also found the poacher pocket useful either for a spare pair of socks in a plastic bag or a thin dry spare top. Most of hated the combat trousers because of the side buckles and other reasons I’ve forgot and when allowed swopped for tropical trousers
These smocks were hated for the pockets, really bad bulge pocket design. Most of us kept at least one older set (I handed my new set in when due to lack of combats we had to go to just one set for a while). We modified the pockets to either proper bulge type or just sewed them flat like the previous design. Late 80's we got yet another design of combats which came in a different shade of DPM, this was much heavier material, proper bulge pockets and a huge improvement. The design was used for the Cbt 95 smocks as well although the material went to thinner rip stop type.
@@mikel6517 All the kit in your pockets used to go to the pointy out bits, for us the top pockets had notebook, soxmis, dam con cards etc in one side, FFD, Jack knife the other.
I remember having my trousers ripped so I went to the stores . The replacement was a different colour a more bright one. Was on duty and my RSM went daft . The 84 Pattern was never any good very flimsy , we used to scrounge for sas smock or para smocks on duty in Northern Ireland.
I was in Basic when I was introduced to this gear in '85... and it was terrible - the stitching failed often and every time you bent over, small stuff would fall out of your pockets , - the saving grace's of the smock was the large internal pockets at the front which was handy for dumping used mags in in a hurry- and the fact it was much quicker to iron than the older one because it doesnt have a lining that crinkles - which was handy for the parade ground or if you was going for stick man to get off guard - am sorry to say from experience it stayed wet too - and as for the trousers, the older trousers with the shell pocket were far better and stronger
Terrible Jackets a great example of kit made to the lowest bidder. Thankfully Pattern 90(94) addressed all the shortcomings, although short lived it was excellent.
Great video. Had a pair of 68 pattern trousers when in cadets in late 70s. Went on to wear them out at work also. Very robust compared to soldier 95 ones
Joined up in 86,this was the issued kit at the time,I’d put some woollen cuffs on and reinforced the buttons. Pockets frayed at the corners on the Combat Jacket quite often,could spit thru them on a slightly windy day,bought an arctic wind proof.
Have you done a specific '68 pattern vid? I bought a dpm pattern, ripstop, has 4 bellows pockets with canadian buttons, the top two are slanted, two vertical zip chest pockets, dual lined inside to the waist, tag says jacket, dpm field nsn 8415-99-869-1936. The zip goes to top of collar, there are button holes on back side of collar. Has the 7th mech div desert rat joboa red/black and left sleeve has union jack flag. The pattern while dpm, doesnt look like most. Its a bit more brown and lighter green, reminds me of the us jungle erdl pattern of vietnam. Thoughts on the age of this? There are sooo many variations.. i got this at an antique shop in Holland, Michigan for 40USD.
Another useful video again RM - great for new collectors I'm sure. I would like to add a few general points which are not critical of your vid in any way. First off this combat uniform was made by numerous manufacturers, some of which had produced 68 patt without issues, so they cannot all have had quality problems. I have seen no evidence they were made outside the UK and in any case some 68 pattern was made in Europe so I don't see this to be a possible reason. Therefore, I would suggest most defects of 84 pattern uniform were due to the design. Secondly, I believe many of the 84 combat uniform design features were as a result of Falklands lessons in the shortcomings of 68 pattern - ie weight when wet etc. Note too that the smock and trousers were only half the outfit too - as the new issue Cold Weather quilted liners formed part of the layering system and were intended specifically to worn with 84 pattern. Yes 84 pattern had some problems but there was at least some positive intent (by MOD) to improve upon 68 pattern. However, I think that rather than issue say Arctic smocks (likely due to costs) they rushed out a cheaper alternative without adequate trials or development. Lastly, as with a lot of kit, we only know part of the full story - largely made up of anecdotal info - and more research of primary sources is necessary to complete the true picture. Keep up the good work ☺️
Thanks for sharing. Can you show, for this and other smocks/blouses how the arms attach. You mention on the 1960 pattern how this changed and the ventilation openings were removed. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the battle dress that had similar openings and how that affects the range of movement. And how do Para smock arms attach? I realise that this may be esoteric for many but I'm confident you could enliven it!
I have some 1986 pattern uniform I got from a, show its unissued (I think it's 1986) I'm not sure on how to tell what year it would be coukd someone tell me how to know from the tags also was wondering what was it would fall into maybe cold war but I'm not sure
made to a budget at the time I remember the crutch on the trousers were prone to splitting, Ill say they were a total bungle by procurement at the time . I was stationed in Germany at the time. 84-90.
We never got them till late 85 as in 84 they still was giving out the older gear.And most of us didn't want the new stuff And not one person I knew used the back pocket. To much trouble sitting and with webbing on the back
I think it's a case of the pattern date preceding introduction which is not uncommon. Thanks for the info regarding the back pockets, I have always thought them a bit impractical.
@@RiflemanMoore if you have webbing on it was impossible to get at anything in the back. Plus my jacket was a size bigger than normal so anything in the back you was sitting on it. Plus no one told us that it was a pocket. We was just given the jacket with a body warmer. It was someone smarter than me that told us what it was.And it was supposed to be for mess tins etc when you didn't need webbing . But it didn't work out when I tried it.
Smock, Combat, Nasty, Cheap. You do have to love the cobblers that are put on these labels. As if any NCO is going to let anyone walk around with the button flap unfastened.
Point to note: the guy on the thumbnail is “Soapy” Souter, ex Gordon Highlanders. He spent most of his NI service as part of ADUNI. A top bloke all round.
I was lucky having been issued with the 68 pattern, those that followed were issued this horrible version. You could spot it a mile off, the brown colour was a nasty bright brown. It was also colder, less water resistant, and just seemed to fall apart. Issued because it was cheaper. No wonder we brought our own kit!
Initially when we were issued this we were quite pleased. But once wearing it, the lack of quality and flaws with the design became obvious. The bellows pockets were too large in that they lost their shape easily and failed to hold items in pockets with any security. Pockets partly because of the design and partly due to the material would wear out quickly. The whole design was not smart and it's utility was flawed. So it was largely unsuccessful as a pattern, which is illustrated by its very short lifespan as a pattern. It did have a useful role as a design progression though. These came out at a similar time as boots high leg, which was very similar in terms of quality, function and utility, or lack of.
84 pattern was the first green kit I was issued as a cadet, CS95 hadn't made it into the ATC in large numbers and we were given what ever was on hand including older 68 sets. I don't think mine had a white base though.
I was in a similar position although '68 Pattern was gone by the time I was issued a set of combats, Soldier 95s were just making an appearance. By the time I left they predominated.
Had much better quality stuff in the old TA, when I joined in late 81 got same issue.In BAOR got this rubbish, unlined with pockets that wore out with mag in it ,plus BCH.Luckily had one good O.C.Wear DPM and any black boots",I don't care".Back to T.A. kit with separate hood sewn in.Warmer than most.
I hated this design. The Zip was rubbish, the corners of the pockets got holes easily, it was only half lined,and material was not as robust as the 68 pattern. It was made on the cheap. A lot of guys sowed the pockets down to make them more robust.
Indeed, it's a shame because I think if the quality had been better the design itself might well have proved popular. But there's no point having bellows pockets if they're just going to rip open!
MOD procurement at its worst ,cheap & nasty poorly stitched, they even penny pinched on the material in the arms of the jackets which were too short for many of the sqaddies issued with them!
These combat suits were not good, we used them in NI , the blackthorn hedges ripped them to pieces, the old pattern were much better, thicker and much stronger, only thing with the older pattern is when you got wet you stayed wet.
These were probably designed in Russia! Terrible! These pointy pocket designs were only good on the parade ground. Nothing but lint stayed in the chest pockets. The stiching came undone, and the buttons on the internal poachers pocket dug into the lower back. Especially during CFT tests. There was an interim pattern that had an external front zipper. Similar to the denison smock. That was excellent. Then came the rip stop 95 pattern.
Universally hated. Made from the same material that is used to make teabags. The bellows pockets were cheap compared to those on the windproof smock and the corners stuck out. They just looked stupid.
A typical example of you're kit is made by the lowest bidder,these were made in sweat shops in Morroco i was later old it was cheap,nasty and just fell apart the pockets ripped off the crutch of the trousers ripped from arse to the fly the elbows and knees used to wear out zips broke it was shite lol even the modifications that were implemented wernt enough it should be consigned to the shit bin of history lol this is why went out and bought the tropical DPM uniform,Para smocks aswell as the windproof uniforms also Survival Aids made a bomb from us back in the day with their commercial kit they made.
Indeed, kit definitely took a downturn in the 1980s. That said, from a collector and military historian point of view it's interesting to see the growth of private purchase kit in the Army. Much as the situation leading to it should never have transpired.
@@RiflemanMoore yep if i ever bump into you at a show wearing it it will bring a cold sweat upon me and no doubt nightmares of the late 80s n early 90s think I even managed to get hold of some 68 Pattern trousers back in the day and cut out the liner than wear those trousers lol,great to see what you do keep it up 👍
Indeed. A shame as the design wasn't bad but there's not much point in bellows pockets if they're going to tear at the corners, the quality of manufacture has to be there too.
The 84 was awful. The buttons fell off; poorly stitched; one pull of the single thread and they dropped off. They cut back on the make up…..single stitch and not double stitch….cheap thin nylon zips….cheap Velcro on the cuffs….all to save cost.
84 pattern sparked a thriving trade in 68 pattern kit,
On the trousers, I remember being told to sew buttons on the inner waistband so we could wear braces instead of the belts when on excersise. The green courlene belts always tended to dig in and were uncomfortable. The combat jackets were ok, they ironed well so Sgt majors were always happy 😂 on the pockets,I do remember there was a change to them as the older style was terrible for dumping the contents when digging or going over obstacles. The change was to include a fold similar to the 95 pattern ones. This was in early 1990.we were issued 2 sets of them.
Interesting, thanks for the information Andrew! the lack of brace buttons does seem odd as I've certainly seen plenty of evidence of chaps using the grey elastic braces with 1968 Pattern combat uniform in the 1980s. That said a waist drawcord would probably have been a better solution!
The braces were more when on exercise carrying kit in the trouser pockets and were a big miss for us. Even on a tab or run if you tried the side buckles too tight they cut into you
Along with the SA80, that had to be the worst POS ever inflicted on a British Soldier.
The late '80s were not a good time for the British squaddie. I think the early issue BCH should also be added to the list.
This is what I had when I joined up, It didn't take me long to get hold of a couple of 68 pattern jackets once I got to battalion. 84/85 was good for guard duty that was about it, but not very durable in the field.
I've heard as much from others too, a shame really as if properly made from decent cloth the design itself seems a good one.
Remember being issued with this pattern clothing when I joined up in '86, somewhat taken aback with it's inferiority to the '68 pattern jacket I had in cadets. But seem to recall they did press rather well !
I recently discovered there was an improved 84 pattern, they seem to have changed the design of the pocket from the flimsy pointy style on the one you display here to the same style as the 94 temperate smock, minus the large arctic buttons.
This style of pocket seems to have been a winner as its more or less on use with PCS smocks today.
I always sewed the corners of the pockets down. Think I’ve still got some of these in the loft. 😂
The inside rear pocket was used when you rolled the combat jacket up (and buttoned it) to fit into your large pack -- the Americans call it combat rolling but to me it was just a roll. That was on Combats from 71-82 my time in the Army. The ones I used did have the inner 'green' colour so no camouflage problems there.
Thanks veru much for the info! Interested to hear you didn't have problems with the white inner to the frabric, as far as I was aware this wasn't fixed until the '90s. That said the combat uniform during your time of service was more fully lined.
You could also roll the jacket inside it and use it as a pillow.
Compared with the combats I was issued in 1977, this was cheap quality, same with with Boots Combat high, they were were better than DMS, but they were cheap quality too. The soles were the same pattern as army issue shoes, which defied logic as they were designed for office use. I managed to get an older style jacket which had a matching colour scheme. It was about then we could wear our own boots on exercise. Later I got hold of an SAS smock and BCH with vibram soles. Soldier 95 combats ended this farce of cheap and nasty uniforms. I have photo of me wearing my old 70s combat jacket in the late 80s, it looked really washed out by then.
The smock was good ,comfortable, decent pockets and I preferred the cord bottom tie for tightening the smock over the later cords. We also found the poacher pocket useful either for a spare pair of socks in a plastic bag or a thin dry spare top. Most of hated the combat trousers because of the side buckles and other reasons I’ve forgot and when allowed swopped for tropical trousers
These smocks were hated for the pockets, really bad bulge pocket design.
Most of us kept at least one older set (I handed my new set in when due to lack of combats we had to go to just one set for a while).
We modified the pockets to either proper bulge type or just sewed them flat like the previous design.
Late 80's we got yet another design of combats which came in a different shade of DPM, this was much heavier material, proper bulge pockets and a huge improvement. The design was used for the Cbt 95 smocks as well although the material went to thinner rip stop type.
Think carried gloves, hat in the bottom 2. Notebook and Compass, penknife, whistle on cords in the top 2. Not much else, Long time ago
@@mikel6517 All the kit in your pockets used to go to the pointy out bits, for us the top pockets had notebook, soxmis, dam con cards etc in one side, FFD, Jack knife the other.
I remember having my trousers ripped so I went to the stores . The replacement was a different colour a more bright one.
Was on duty and my RSM went daft .
The 84 Pattern was never any good very flimsy , we used to scrounge for sas smock or para smocks on duty in Northern Ireland.
I had a couple of smocks made in Cyprus. They were really good. I sold them when I got out for what I paid for them and I had them for eight years!
I was in Basic when I was introduced to this gear in '85... and it was terrible - the stitching failed often and every time you bent over, small stuff would fall out of your pockets , - the saving grace's of the smock was the large internal pockets at the front which was handy for dumping used mags in in a hurry- and the fact it was much quicker to iron than the older one because it doesnt have a lining that crinkles - which was handy for the parade ground or if you was going for stick man to get off guard - am sorry to say from experience it stayed wet too - and as for the trousers, the older trousers with the shell pocket were far better and stronger
I had them in the cadets, loved em, glad to contribute to great informative videos on stuff that floats my boat
Glad you enjoyed!
Thanks for sharing, one of my favorite variants . I always liked the lined trousers for colder weather . God bless !
I think the preceding 1968 Pattern was better to be honest but the bellows pockets were a neat addition, if quality had been up to the mark that is!
Terrible Jackets a great example of kit made to the lowest bidder. Thankfully Pattern 90(94) addressed all the shortcomings, although short lived it was excellent.
Great video. Had a pair of 68 pattern trousers when in cadets in late 70s. Went on to wear them out at work also. Very robust compared to soldier 95 ones
Indeed so, the 1968 Pattern is in many ways superior to the kit looked at in this video.
Joined up in 86,this was the issued kit at the time,I’d put some woollen cuffs on and reinforced the buttons.
Pockets frayed at the corners on the Combat Jacket quite often,could spit thru them on a slightly windy day,bought an arctic wind proof.
Hated the pointy map pockets on the trousers
That's crazy they kept the dressing pocket there that long
Indeed, a real hallmark of British uniform right into the 1980s.
We never used them.
Have you done a specific '68 pattern vid? I bought a dpm pattern, ripstop, has 4 bellows pockets with canadian buttons, the top two are slanted, two vertical zip chest pockets, dual lined inside to the waist, tag says jacket, dpm field nsn 8415-99-869-1936. The zip goes to top of collar, there are button holes on back side of collar. Has the 7th mech div desert rat joboa red/black and left sleeve has union jack flag. The pattern while dpm, doesnt look like most. Its a bit more brown and lighter green, reminds me of the us jungle erdl pattern of vietnam. Thoughts on the age of this? There are sooo many variations.. i got this at an antique shop in Holland, Michigan for 40USD.
I grew up in NI Iooking at this uniform on the sheets every day.
So what happened to 1972 pattern DPM uniform sure I had some items.
Looked good in baracks but that was it
I see a Webley revolver tucked away on the shelf behind you....
Another useful video again RM - great for new collectors I'm sure. I would like to add a few general points which are not critical of your vid in any way. First off this combat uniform was made by numerous manufacturers, some of which had produced 68 patt without issues, so they cannot all have had quality problems. I have seen no evidence they were made outside the UK and in any case some 68 pattern was made in Europe so I don't see this to be a possible reason. Therefore, I would suggest most defects of 84 pattern uniform were due to the design. Secondly, I believe many of the 84 combat uniform design features were as a result of Falklands lessons in the shortcomings of 68 pattern - ie weight when wet etc. Note too that the smock and trousers were only half the outfit too - as the new issue Cold Weather quilted liners formed part of the layering system and were intended specifically to worn with 84 pattern. Yes 84 pattern had some problems but there was at least some positive intent (by MOD) to improve upon 68 pattern. However, I think that rather than issue say Arctic smocks (likely due to costs) they rushed out a cheaper alternative without adequate trials or development. Lastly, as with a lot of kit, we only know part of the full story - largely made up of anecdotal info - and more research of primary sources is necessary to complete the true picture. Keep up the good work ☺️
Thanks for sharing. Can you show, for this and other smocks/blouses how the arms attach. You mention on the 1960 pattern how this changed and the ventilation openings were removed. It would be interesting to see a comparison of the battle dress that had similar openings and how that affects the range of movement. And how do Para smock arms attach? I realise that this may be esoteric for many but I'm confident you could enliven it!
Something for the future perhaps James, I'll look into it!
I have some 1986 pattern uniform I got from a, show its unissued (I think it's 1986) I'm not sure on how to tell what year it would be coukd someone tell me how to know from the tags also was wondering what was it would fall into maybe cold war but I'm not sure
made to a budget at the time I remember the crutch on the trousers were prone to splitting, Ill say they were a total bungle by procurement at the time . I was stationed in Germany at the time. 84-90.
Ah, DPM...just about my favorite pattern, even though I'm a Yank. I have a Gore-Tex parka, which I really like and wear a lot.
This 84 pattern came in many shades of DPM, some very like the Dutch DPM, I have examples in my Collection. I also have a rare Olive type print.
Very nice pattern, I like it
Just a pity about the issues with quality.
Could you sometime show these camo patterns side by side. Just to see how different UK, USA, Ireland ..
Absolutely I'll certainly conside that for the future.
@@RiflemanMoore Thanks ;)
I think I'm right in saying that some of this stuff came from Belgium or Holland and would last for one or two exercises.
Would you be able to do an 80s 90s northern Ireland loadout please
Absolutely, at some point in the future. It's on the cards.
Is this lighter or heavier than 68 pattern? Looking for a smock for cold war re-enactment during the summer and don't want something too warm.
It's definitely lighter than the 68 Pattern.
@@RiflemanMoore Yeah, I finally got a set of each for myself, the 85 pattern is much lighter, shame it was so poor quality.
We never got them till late 85 as in 84 they still was giving out the older gear.And most of us didn't want the new stuff And not one person I knew used the back pocket. To much trouble sitting and with webbing on the back
I think it's a case of the pattern date preceding introduction which is not uncommon. Thanks for the info regarding the back pockets, I have always thought them a bit impractical.
@@RiflemanMoore if you have webbing on it was impossible to get at anything in the back.
Plus my jacket was a size bigger than normal so anything in the back you was sitting on it. Plus no one told us that it was a pocket. We was just given the jacket with a body warmer. It was someone smarter than me that told us what it was.And it was supposed to be for mess tins etc when you didn't need webbing . But it didn't work out when I tried it.
Got one of these in a charity shop yesterday for £5 !
Smock, Combat, Nasty, Cheap. You do have to love the cobblers that are put on these labels. As if any NCO is going to let anyone walk around with the button flap unfastened.
That strikes me as a very British mustache...and am I seeing Sir Terry Pratchett books on your top self?
Indeed so!
Point to note: the guy on the thumbnail is “Soapy” Souter, ex Gordon Highlanders. He spent most of his NI service as part of ADUNI. A top bloke all round.
Thanks for letting me know, it's always great to put a name to a face.
I was lucky having been issued with the 68 pattern, those that followed were issued this horrible version. You could spot it a mile off, the brown colour was a nasty bright brown. It was also colder, less water resistant, and just seemed to fall apart. Issued because it was cheaper. No wonder we brought our own kit!
The quality was a bit crap. When crawling it was not a rarity for the chest pockets to become detached.
Initially when we were issued this we were quite pleased. But once wearing it, the lack of quality and flaws with the design became obvious. The bellows pockets were too large in that they lost their shape easily and failed to hold items in pockets with any security. Pockets partly because of the design and partly due to the material would wear out quickly. The whole design was not smart and it's utility was flawed. So it was largely unsuccessful as a pattern, which is illustrated by its very short lifespan as a pattern. It did have a useful role as a design progression though. These came out at a similar time as boots high leg, which was very similar in terms of quality, function and utility, or lack of.
Got one for 5 pound from eBay fantastic smock much better than the ones with the hood
84 pattern was the first green kit I was issued as a cadet, CS95 hadn't made it into the ATC in large numbers and we were given what ever was on hand including older 68 sets. I don't think mine had a white base though.
I was in a similar position although '68 Pattern was gone by the time I was issued a set of combats, Soldier 95s were just making an appearance. By the time I left they predominated.
Comparing to Marines smock fabric material
I managed to dodge wearing this pattern jacket it was hated ! seams would split and pockets disintegrate horrible horrible horrible!
Indeed, a real shame the manufacturing was so shoddy at this time.
Had much better quality stuff in the old TA, when I joined in late 81 got same issue.In BAOR got this rubbish, unlined with pockets that wore out with mag in it ,plus BCH.Luckily had one good O.C.Wear DPM and any black boots",I don't care".Back to T.A. kit with separate hood sewn in.Warmer than most.
I hated this design.
The Zip was rubbish, the corners of the pockets got holes easily, it was only half lined,and material was not as robust as the 68 pattern.
It was made on the cheap.
A lot of guys sowed the pockets down to make them more robust.
Indeed, it's a shame because I think if the quality had been better the design itself might well have proved popular. But there's no point having bellows pockets if they're just going to rip open!
Don't you reckon they sewed down the pockets just to make them easier to iron? It was a right fiddle.
dpm>mtp
It was absolute crap.
MOD procurement at its worst ,cheap & nasty poorly stitched, they even penny pinched on the material in the arms of the jackets which were too short for many of the sqaddies issued with them!
These combat suits were not good, we used them in NI , the blackthorn hedges ripped them to pieces, the old pattern were much better, thicker and much stronger, only thing with the older pattern is when you got wet you stayed wet.
These were probably designed in Russia! Terrible! These pointy pocket designs were only good on the parade ground. Nothing but lint stayed in the chest pockets. The stiching came undone, and the buttons on the internal poachers pocket dug into the lower back. Especially during CFT tests. There was an interim pattern that had an external front zipper. Similar to the denison smock. That was excellent. Then came the rip stop 95 pattern.
Universally hated.
Made from the same material that is used to make teabags.
The bellows pockets were cheap compared to those on the windproof smock and the corners stuck out. They just looked stupid.
A typical example of you're kit is made by the lowest bidder,these were made in sweat shops in Morroco i was later old it was cheap,nasty and just fell apart the pockets ripped off the crutch of the trousers ripped from arse to the fly the elbows and knees used to wear out zips broke it was shite lol even the modifications that were implemented wernt enough it should be consigned to the shit bin of history lol this is why went out and bought the tropical DPM uniform,Para smocks aswell as the windproof uniforms also Survival Aids made a bomb from us back in the day with their commercial kit they made.
Indeed, kit definitely took a downturn in the 1980s. That said, from a collector and military historian point of view it's interesting to see the growth of private purchase kit in the Army. Much as the situation leading to it should never have transpired.
@@RiflemanMoore yep if i ever bump into you at a show wearing it it will bring a cold sweat upon me and no doubt nightmares of the late 80s n early 90s think I even managed to get hold of some 68 Pattern trousers back in the day and cut out the liner than wear those trousers lol,great to see what you do keep it up 👍
Not well made. 68 pattern was far better.
Indeed. A shame as the design wasn't bad but there's not much point in bellows pockets if they're going to tear at the corners, the quality of manufacture has to be there too.
Very dark colouring.... not a good design.
As I say in the video it seems to be a consequence of the change from cotton to a cotton mix.
The 84 was awful. The buttons fell off; poorly stitched; one pull of the single thread and they dropped off. They cut back on the make up…..single stitch and not double stitch….cheap thin nylon zips….cheap Velcro on the cuffs….all to save cost.
It was crap!