Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

[Liam1992]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

Never mind DPM or multicam lets get back to 'Trousers, Lightweight' and green shirts


OK I'll get my zimmer frame and leave now shall I

Its okay, get a wheelchair. They've installed those ramps bloomin everywhere nowadays! Disabled people have never had it so good!

To be honest, I just enjoy a good whinge. They could tell us to come to work in flip flops and Hawaiian T shirts and I would still find reason to complain. Having said that however, latest rumour was we were going to back to CS95 Cut MTP clothing as the "standard issue". Don't quote me on that as it literally could have been cooked up over a NAAFI break, but so I've heard.

As for tucking it in, It just means we can all get our Stable Belts back out (For those Regt's/Corps that wear them!) and put a bit of pride back into it. Corps Identity and all that!

I think the Beret still has its time yet! I think RSM's across the Army will go into meltdown if they can't pick us up for having fluff on your Beret! Its been hard enough for them since the inclusion of the unshinable Brown Boots!

[akey]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

Never mind DPM or multicam lets get back to 'Trousers, Lightweight' and green shirts


OK I'll get my zimmer frame and leave now shall I

[Gadge Europa]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

You say berets are ingrained in the armies history but it's actually a really recent thing in the grand scheme of things.

Going from the 'New Model Army' of 1645 to the modern army of 2013 it's only really been an 'army thing' since the 1950s (and in selected corps since 1940) so thats about 10 per cent of 'army history'. while i agree the beret has great cultural heritage it might be that it's time has come.

I'm sure some gentleman in the mid 1800s was adamant that the 'shako will never be replaced, by god sir it's tradition!'

[curlyrocks]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

Really glad to hear about your thoughts cheers mate, im glad to hear about the rules of tucking in now . Maybe during the winter months is might get better?
cheers buddy always great to hear from the soldiers

[Liam1992]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

Views on the PCS uniforms compared to the classic soldier 95 uniforms ?
Personally I don't like the way how the British army are starting to look more and more like the US I mean there were even discussions to remove berets and put on caps on instead ( saw it on arrse somewhere ).

Wearing it every day (Now with sleeves rolled up and tucked in) it still feels like a very hot pair of Pyjamas. Frankly I'm not a fan, having worn both CS95 and PCS in my still fairly short Career I would personally wear 95's given the choice. Nothing to do with the properties of the pattern itself, just the comfort of wearing it. PCS is intentionally baggy and designed for the combat environment (Which admittedly, it is better at), but as a day to day dress for work its too warm, too baggy, not particularly comfortable and a nightmare to make look smart.

As for Beret's replaced by Caps, I can't see it happening myself. Beret's are engrained in the History of the British Army, and aren't particularly inpractical, or unsmart. Won't happen, certainly not for a day to day dress.

[Slava]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

It's so the yanks don't shoot at us.

[curlyrocks]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is?

Views on the PCS uniforms compared to the classic soldier 95 uniforms ?
Personally I don't like the way how the British army are starting to look more and more like the US I mean there were even discussions to remove berets and put on caps on instead ( saw it on arrse somewhere ).

[Slava]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

Did no one read my post?
Everyone is agreeing with B.E.N even though I said the same thing in my first and second posts

[Gadge Europa]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

DPM was fantastic for the job it was designed to do and did for decades, conceal the army in the dark wooded dense forests of germany. It was designed for that, not for the UK as some people seem to think (we were not planning on fighting the russians in basingstoke).

It's great for what it does , where we are now but you can bet we've got a lot of the old temperate stuff stockpiled in warehouses because if anything kicks off in the balkans again and we're needed there we may as well have 'shoot me' written on bright yellow suits as wear MTP there.

As Ben says, its a trade off, you cant have a truly universal camo pattern but you can have one thats 'allright' at most things but optimised for what you're doing the most of (i.e. ops in largely arid locations).

It's interesting they kept the 'drawings' (as camo shapes are called) of the old DPM in the MTP, partly to retain a British Army 'brand' and continuity but i'd imagine a lot of it was also because those shapes *work*. Until cadpat came along in the early 90s DPM consistently won NATO camouflage trials.

Personally I think the new stuff looks a bag of shit, i'm sure it's very effective and thats clearly the most important thing but i'm also really glad that I never had to wear it when i was soldiering, We had a load of it given to us at the forces charity I work for and it's pretty nasty in construction and quality too compared to the older DPM.

[gdsm8095]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

i agree with B.E.N also as if you think the modern battle field now, there is no longer a need atm for a full use of camouflage. if anything was to kick off its most likely gonna be in an area of conventional warfare again in buildings etc so wether its MTP or DPM your still gonna stick out like a sore thumb. It is however interesting to find the adoption of crye multicam by the US forces and Australian foces. The overall concept of MTP/multicam is a good one. the design of the PCS equipment is that of a good one. when it comes to use of MTP as its been stated it works in some areas but doesnt in some like any camouflage. I personally find it works where i play in Anzio camp, especially in the winter months when the grass is started toloose colour as i have been told i blend well with it. Each to there own realy

[Liam1992]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

B.E.N has pretty much hit the nail on the head regards MTP and its use.

It essentially boils down to the compromise of a couple of factors; Cost and effectiveness.

Its cheaper to have one set of MTP than everyone being issued both DPM and DDPM.

MTP, as proved in its testing phase, is as good a compromise as any in a variety of theatres.

Image I suspect was also a factor, DPM looks dated, and "Cold War Era" . The Armed Forces are always striving to look modern and with it due to our ever growing exposure to the Media it was kind of necessary to bring us up a grade, possibly due to the fact the US are constantly changing Uniforms and pattern designs as previously mentioned.

[B.E.N.]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

The reason MTP (MULTIPLE TERRAIN PATTERN) camouflage isn't as effective in woodland as Woodland DPM is because it;s a jack-of-all-trades pattern. It's a compromise to have a reasonable amount of concealment in a broad band of terrain types and conditions. It's not bad in many environments although it excels in very few conditions.

Woodland DPM, is a specialised WOODLAND camouflage.

The reason the MoD issue MTP to Forces at home is because it is a uniform. It's about uniform image of the Armed Forces. Besides, we are not under any form of attack and we don't really require concealment on home soil, quite the opposite.

The Americans use different types of camouflage as a branding excercise for each branch, hence them going to far as to have the logos and emblems of each branch sublimated into the patterns.

Little factoid...

AOR2 was actually a rejected colour scheme for the Marine Corps Woodland MARPAT.

With technology and warfare as it stands, concealment of an entire force is becoming less and less of a factor. There are specialist and extenuating circumstances that require more advanced concealment, but really, the opposite is required for most troops most of the time. A show of force is preferable to anything.

[curlyrocks]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

Atleast MTP was not as bad as this .

[Snowdrop]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

Thats down to the fact they each wanted a unique image rather than money, at one stage the US Army and Marines where both using ACU but due to the Marines being in green parts of the world they changed to MARPAT and the Navy cheifs didn't like them looking like the Army

Or just more money than sense!

[curlyboy]

Re: Opinions of how effective MTP actually is ???

Never saw US marines in ACU, Marines adapted CADPAT colours (but kept the general layout) into MARPAT for about $30,000 and fielded it long before ACU which cost the DOD $millions to create there was a running joke that the marines make do and perform where the Army waste and don't.

A couple of years back the US senate were asked to pay for the switch to multicam from ACU and asked why should they when ACU was sold to them by DOD as the perfect all theatre camo. Because they are at war the DOD called it a operational imperative and got the money for it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/blame...niforms-2013-5

Curlyboy