Talk:British Battledress

message: 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)
thread_title: Battle Dress, or Battledress (British)?

message: 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)
thread_title: Only Women Wear Dresses, Army Personnel Wear Uniforms

message: 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)
thread_title:  What Did it Look Like? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  World War 2 Brritish Army combat clothing.