Sizes (80/92/108 being inside leg, waist, bum) - are the sizes "to fit" or "this is the size". i.e. if I'm a 108 bum measured, and get a 108 set of trousers, is it going to be tight, or will I still have nice free movement.
And by god why don't more clothing places sell with such specific sizes, it makes life so much easier.
coffeeking - Member
Sizes (80/92/108 being inside leg, waist, bum) - are the sizes "to fit" or "this is the size". i.e. if I'm a 108 bum measured, and get a 108 set of trousers, is it going to be tight, or will I still have nice free movement.And by god why don't more clothing places sell with such specific sizes, it makes life so much easier.
Irony alert?
Annie Hall
".. two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of 'em says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions."
Sizes (80/92/108 being inside leg, waist, bum) correct,if you've got a 108 bum and get 108 it will fit as if it was part of your body no free movement. Military clothing is exactly the size it states not like everything else.
this might be of use:
http://www.denbigharmysurplus.co.uk/army-stores/Military-Sizes.html
Gortex waterporoofs are designed to be worn under your uniform (hence the lack of pockets), mine are whichever size was handy when i was issued them and they fit me fine! Having said all that i've never actually seen anyone wear them under their uniform.
The new ones have pockets. (Just like the really old ones)
druid - just need the one thing clearing up first, thanks 
I mean't sizes for each individual part - being one of those people who has a small waist and large thighs I often find something sized to my waist is a joke that won't go over my knees.
jrb - ta, but now rootes1 has thrown in an opposing opinion :S
Gortex waterporoofs are designed to be worn under your uniform (hence the lack of pockets), mine are whichever size was handy when i was issued them and they fit me fine! Having said all that i've never actually seen anyone wear them under their uniform.
I was about to call you a liar until you said you were issued them.
Really? Under your uniform?
Really? Under your uniform?
Yep, so that you can easily access the pockets on your combat jacket rather than having to undo your gore tex jacket to get at them.
Nope sorry last jacket i had had rank slide, if it were designed to be underneath then why the slide?
for when you remove your combat jacket?
This doesn't help me with my fit problem if I measure my bum at 108 and buy 108 pants, will they be a tight fit or loose enough for over-shorts?
I was issued them too and all I can say is that Mark Datz couldn't even have made that one up. Underneath?? oooh me sides.
I'll measure my arse and compare to troosers this evening.
The really old ones had pockets and rank slides - worn on top
They were replaced with the ones without pockets and slides - worn under
New ones have pockets and slides with a hood which rolls into collar - worn on top.
cheers kevonakona! Email in profile if you're shy about your arse size!
Underneath?? oooh me sides.
Yep, an absolutely bonkers idea.
Coffeeking
if it helps I'm 6ft2 with a 34 inch waist. My combat trousers are 85/92/108 (sensible fit i.e not skin tight or too baggy) and my goretex overtrousers are 85/96/112.
If I had the overtrousers in the smaller size there's no way they would fit over my combat trousers.
right, so being a 36" waist, 6'1 (32ish inside leg) and no idea on my bum size yet, I'd probably be looking around 86 (doesnt matter, cutting anywy), 96-98 and 112-114ish for the planned over-shorts.
beamers did you find you got sent for a long stand in stores? Or had to ring Sgt Barker at the dog section?
beamers did you find you got sent for a long stand in stores? Or had to ring Sgt Barker at the dog section?
No - but I am standing in line waiting for tartan paint as I type this.
CK - I don't think the trousers come in a huge variety of sizes. There might not be a size in between the two sizes that I have described above. Having said that though I think the size of my overtrousers would be spot on for the plans that you have for them.
He probably got sent to ask for a blue bubble for a spirit level though.
N.B. A soldier's primary load carrying equipment is the jacket/smock that he wears and Beamers is spot on when he says the older style goretex was supposed to be worn under the rest of it.
However, i think the MoD realised that people were just putting it over the top (when it rained for example) and changed the design to the new stuff. My issue set has no pockets, but I still wear it over the top of everything else.
much obliged and understood. Still requesting on kevonakonas arse size
yep,
i find for a given size that the gortex comes up slightly larger than my cs95 as it is meant to go on top!!
i couldn't imagine wearing it underneath your clothes???? whats the point? i thought it was meant to keep you dry?
The really old ones with the velcro adjusters are the best IMO.
Strictly speaking they were supposed to under your combats because;
Combat eqpt is kept in pockets
Noise; they aren't as bad as the old "crisp packets" but still are not great in a CTR!
we were amazed at the difference in performance of goretex when they were first issued opposed to the crisp packets. It was remarkable.
We never wore the trousers and putting the hood up was just not done (hinders hearing).
beamers, have the QMs got your "long weight" yet?
Under your uniform?? i think someone may of been wahhhing you.
Apart from anything else the army gortex makes you sweat like a rapist if you do anything but sit still in it.
FFS Send someone down to the guard room for the keys to the parade ground will you.
I was used to the old crinkly stuff this new Goretex is ace compared to what we used to get issued.
im 5'10 32" waist and my combat trousers are 80/80/96.
hope that helps.
TBH all my gortex stuff dosent have pockets on them and i have never worn them on the inside of my clothes. also i have never worn my gortex trousers. waste of time IMO. Combat trousers dry out quick enough any way.
how odd from 91-03 i was issued a fair few sets and not one mention of wearing under my combats. What a silly idea . Did you get sent for any camo paint
On another note there should be a fair amount of kit knocking about very soon as the new kit is gonna be issued soon
yeah all the new stuff is being issued very soon.
so surplus stores will be rammed with the stuff
The older 95 gore tex jackets actually had a zip to reach your smock pockets through, then they added proper pockets for REMFs to put their sweeties in
I'm not saying anyone ever did wear them under their combats, but that was the MODs original wisdom!
backhander speaks truth. The concept was sound (same stuff in same pockets of jacket - field dressing etc, jacket over top so you didn't have to move everything to waterproof, noise reduction etc) - but good ideas are only usually good in a vacuum. Nobody in their right mind was going to wear a waterproof underneath. Hence why the pocketless and rank slide-less jackets didn't last long before they were replaced.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
