Talk:Uniforms of the British Army

message: is there some kind of traditional hat for the army infantry specifically? like the australian slouch hat?
Cadetbravo1 (talk) 10:19, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hats 

message: There are none! This article could use some.Lakinekaki 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: British troops really are the best in the world if their squaddies need to know all that shit. I prefer my "Ceremonial," (Winter/summer) "Barracks" (Winter/summer) "DPCU" (Winter/Summer). 124.180.238.55 (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As laid out in this article, it's pretty theoretical. In practice most people would have "smart" (Service Dress), "working" (Combat 95 trousers and shirt, with jacket in winter) and "combat" (more or less anything in British DPM, but based on Combat 95). Though of course there is a whole "military fashion sense" based around which obsolete or non-issue equipment you wear and how you wear it - see http://www.arrse.co.uk/wiki/Category:Clothing )  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.184.230 (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good God 

message: JSP: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=inurl:www.aof.mod.uk/content/docs/jsp336/3rd_ed/vol12/pt3/&num=100&hl=en&safe=off&filter=0 Happy‑melon 17:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference list

message: Perhaps some notes on the evolution of British military dress compared to the rest of Europe should be added. In particular the fact that British formal military dress seems to have stopped developing after the 19th century (the British set-up of grey double breasted coat/ big tunic / etc is very Prussian). 118.90.85.8 (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History? 

message: All the links seem to be dead or not working, should they therefor be removed? 81.170.59.19 (talk) 19:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I have managed to link them to archived versions, so they should work now. Lozleader (talk) 11:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference Links 

message: the cavalry unit shown in the photo behind the Irish Guards is I believe the band of the Inns of Court and City Yeomanry also in full dress
90.197.237.0 (talk) 11:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruritarians 

message: I'm sure the comment under History about the majority of the Army wearing red coats is erroneous. With a few exceptions, I'm sure...by the 19th Century, at any rate...that red tunics were worn only by regiments of foot. Light Infantry and Rifles might wear green, but the artillery, engineers, and various support corps all wore blue tunics. As these support elements constitute the larger part of the Army, then logically the majority of soldiers must have worn blue tunics even before the universal adoption of the No. 2 Dress. This is ignoring the occasional unit that wore something more unusual, like grey.  Aodhdubh (talk) 22:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, how much of the Army was infantry? Most of it? 76.21.107.221 (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Light infantry wore scarlet tunics until 1914, as did foot guards, line infantry, dragoons, dragoon guards, Life Guards (2 regiments then), Royal Engineers and one regiment of lancers. So only the four Rifles regiments (in green), part of the cavalry, the artillery and the support corps (in blue) were exceptions to what Kipling called "a red little, dead little army".Buistr (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The British chose the colour red for their tunics in contrast to the French who had chosen blue.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 19:07, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Coats 

message: Does anyone know where this came from? There's no further info except that they exist.  But why or how did they come about?  76.21.107.221 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Wooly Pully

message: The name "British Army uniform" is in my opinion not a very good title. If you look at all other wiki articles concerning uniforms of a service branch, they are all called "Uniforms of the XXX", I propose to to do the same with this one.Skjoldbro (talk) 16:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't see any problem with what you propose.  SonofSetanta (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving article  

message: Hello friends:
I found this reference to the UK experimenting with the return of kilts in combat uniforms. https://www.duffelblog.com/2012/05/uk-army-to-wear-kilts-into-combat-again-following-research/ Did anything ever come of it? 
Please and thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.28.241 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Has the kilt returned for combat dress? 

message: "Colonel rank and above, do not wear regimental uniform ... rather, they wear their own 'staff uniform'"
Is that something? Or a version of 'Ceremonial'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  'staff uniform' 

message: Greetings and felicitations.  As it stands, the article includes several instances of "no. " and many of "no.", and as American I don't know which is correct in British usage (the former is my personal preference).  Would someone please enlighten me? —03:11, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No."—with or without a following space? 

message: Should the Company of Pikemen and Musketeers get a mention?  Although ceremonial they are part of the British Army.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.51.204 (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Company of Pikemen and Musketeers