Talk:British Battledress

Battle Dress, or Battledress (British)?
My sources don't separate the word into two - what are editors feelings about changing the terminology?Dom Damian (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Only Women Wear Dresses, Army Personnel Wear Uniforms
As an American, the term with or without the space sounds slightly effeminate at first hearing. The term "dress" being something that women wear below the waist. The term "battledress blouse" being even more suspicious to american ears, as only a woman would call their top a blouse, and only a woman would wear a dress. Having been a reenactor, by the way, I prefer the term battledress without the space. Battledress, British, sounds good. Since I understand British English. I also have created illustrations of the P-37 Web Gear by the way. WonderWheeler (talk) 03:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It's "Battle Dress" as opposed to "Full Dress Uniform". GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Another American here with a different experience: One "dresses" (or doesn't) for dinner. Offices and schools have "dress codes." People "dress up" to go out to the theatre and "dress down" to go to a t-shirt and shorts event. Police wear "dress uniforms" to funerals (and happier occasions). Defendants are warned to "dress appropriately" for court, and actors strive to be "best dressed" on the red carpet. Restaurants have signs warning "Proper Dress Required." Etc. Military personnel do, indeed, wear uniforms. So do waitresses, janitors, bus drivers, and school girls. The military has ceremonial dress uniforms, full dress uniforms, service dress uniforms, and other such categories. I can't speak for the waitresses, janitors, bus drivers, or school girls. (wink) TheCormac (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

What Did it Look Like?
This otherwise excellent article seems to omit a critical piece of information: What Battle Dress looked like. The introduction tells us why it was formulated, and how, and when, and by who. The next section, "Variants," then begins to immediately describe versions that departed from the original/basic design, without first describing that design. Very confusing. I would correct it, except I don't know the answer. Could someone with personal experience or historical/military/apparel expertise please write up a detailed description? I would appreciate it. TheCormac (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Present use in Australia
How about the one worn in the article David Hurley? 118.90.20.3 (talk) 03:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

World War 2 Brritish Army combat clothing.
The combat clothing provided to British troops in World War 2 was a heavy, coarse wool suit, featuring a short jacket without expansion pleats and high waisted trousers. An ankle length leather boot was used. The gap between these and the trousers was closed with buckle fastened canvas gaiters. The helmet was a 'soup plate' style featuring a wide brim. This design was basicaly the same as the World War 1 variant and continued in essence with only minor changes for decades. Comparison with American combat clothing is interesting and sobering. By the time American soldiers joined Operation Torch in 1942 they already wore the round helmet that was standard issue until the 1980;s. The American troops also had a variety of clothing to choose from. Although they did produce a short jacket dubbed the Ike jacket, it was made of cotton and featured expansion pleats. This made it lighter, cooler and easier to move in. They were also issued with a windcheater style short jacket with elasticated cuffs and waist band. As this jacket has remained a staple of casual clothing to the present day its functional practicality was obviously very prescient.The standard American combat jacket was also cotton, with expanding pockets, expansion pleats, high collar and zip. Again this basic design with minor changes remains in use today. One can only sympathise with the British troops in their uncomfortable, hot and impractical uniforms (I know, I've worn them). Archive footage of World War 2 shows American troops looking largely similar to their counterparts today. The British on the other hand look archaic and undignified. Why was the British Army so poorly served by its masters? Consider also the old bolt action rifle they were issued with and one can only feel a mixture of shame and indignation. Was any other army so short changed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linespace1310 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Short changed? You forget that the 'old bolt action rifle', or to clarify, the Lee-Enfield, was one of the finest and highly-prized military rifles of the century (and it had been modernised since WWI); the German Army used 'old bolt action rifles' as you put it, so did the Russians. America was almost entirely unique in having a semi-automatic as standard-issue, and you omit to mention that many American troops entered the war still using the Springfield '03. And I have to object against the fusilade you've launched against the British battldress, as I too have worn one, and found it as comfortable as it's counterparts (though the most comfortable and common uniform I wear is a British officer's service dress- we really did go to war in style). The 1939 Battledress does differ a fair bit from the Great War-era incarnation, which at the time was called Service dress, but differed majorly from officer service dress. 81.153.52.80 (talk) 16:08, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The 1916 pattern Brodie helmet was replaced by the 1944-pattern 'turtle' helmet and did not contunue in use for decades, exceptperhpas in some Commonwealth armies (e.g India, Pakistan, Bangladesh & Sri Lanka). The 1944 pattern steel helmet was replaced by non-metallic helmets in the 1980's. Barney Bruchstein (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)