Wicky Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8422942.stm and well worth repeating! http://myprops.org/content/Monty-Pythons-camouflage-tips-video/ The uniform of the British Army is to be changed for the first time in almost 40 years. The new Multi-Terrain Pattern (MTP) will replace the traditional four colour woodland uniform known as No.8: Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM). Forces in Afghanistan will start to get the new uniforms in March next year, with the whole army upgraded by 2011. Not perfect Lt Col Toby Evans - a military advisor with the Government's Defence Science and Technology Laboratory - told the BBC the new uniform was a compromise between having a uniform that was perfectly suited to a specific environments and one that would work well across a wide range of conditions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zwobot Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Looks almost like Multicam to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bodkin Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Interesting that it's only replacing the woodland DPM. It sounds like it wouldn't be as suitable for temperate climates and is the result of neither the desert or woodland being suitable for Helmand. I can see someone in the DoD saying "well you can't have three sets of camouflage that's just being silly". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 To zwobot, from the BBC article linked above: "Developed by Crye Precision, MTP is developed from the firm's MultiCam pattern, currently used by some special forces units. " Spot on with the ID. (Okay, a poor pun... ) Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zwobot Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Yeah I did not read the article and only watched the video... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noltyboy Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Interesting that it's only replacing the woodland DPM. It sounds like it wouldn't be as suitable for temperate climates and is the result of neither the desert or woodland being suitable for Helmand. I can see someone in the DoD saying "well you can't have three sets of camouflage that's just being silly". I dont know about green DPM in the uk but in afghanistan the issue will be 3 sets of uniform in the new pattern and 1 in old desert pattern. Im happy its at least not an ACU look alike. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 The Brits currently have three primary issues: 1. Temperate DPM 2. Tropical DPM 3. Desert DPM #1 and #2 are identical in colors, but #2 is the same cloth and cut as #3. The Germans have the same system for their uniforms. They trialled a different, uniquely British, compromise camo last year (PECOC). Apparently it was rejected in favor of Multicam. Which, ironically, the US Army rejected and is now trialling again as a replacement for Universal Camouflage Pattern (ACU's color scheme). Guess the British move makes it unlikely the US Army will adopt it The funny thing is about the British thinking this gives them a distinctly "British brand" of uniform. MultiCam is the favored uniform of US Special Forces and Airsoft players. I can't think of a pattern that is LESS distinctly British than this one. Having distinct British style tailoring doesn't do much to change that. And being made in China doesn't help either Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 Ah... just saw some closeups. It's not QUITE MultiCam, and it does have some trappings of DPM. That makes it far more of a "brand" than I thought. http://strikehold.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/dpm-out-after-40-years-uk-adopts-new-multi-terrain-pattern-camouflage/ Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I don't like the idea of the British army getting rid of DPM. DPM works better in the UK than this MTP stuff. Isn't the primary job of the British army to defend the UK? By all means include this new stuff for overseas deployments but why get rid of the superior camoflage for home defense!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noltyboy Posted December 20, 2009 Share Posted December 20, 2009 I don't like the idea of the British army getting rid of DPM. DPM works better in the UK than this MTP stuff. Isn't the primary job of the British army to defend the UK? By all means include this new stuff for overseas deployments but why get rid of the superior camoflage for home defense!? I'll be very sad to see DPM go as i think it looks the shiz (as a matelot), however one thing ive heard loads of squaddies say is that DPM is too dark a green for anything other than the german forests. ACU is perfect for fighting Aliens, monsters etc in cities at night in movies such as Cloverfield, Transformers and so on. Otherwise im going for MARPAT. That looks like its designed to actualy hide people. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 I don't like the idea of the British army getting rid of DPM. DPM works better in the UK than this MTP stuff. Isn't the primary job of the British army to defend the UK? Sure but normally you try to do that, at least initially, before they are in your country. Saying your only going to wear a uniform that only works well in the Home Counties is a bit Maginot Line ish, don't you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted December 21, 2009 Share Posted December 21, 2009 Well it does send a message that our army is now solely to be used invading other people! One compromise is to issue TA units with DPM and regular ones with MTP but that would not work because it differentiates the two and people join the TA to 'Be The Best'. Maybe I'm just being conservative here but I will be very sad to see DPM go. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Has the British Army *ever* fought a battle on mainland UK? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Has the British Army *ever* fought a battle on mainland UK? Ah yes and against itself - have you not heard of the English Civil War (pre TV I know ). Indeed that's why the British Army doesn't have the title Royal (as in Royal Navy and Royal Air Force). And then there's the campaigns against the Scots and Welsh to create the UK, the Jacobite rebellion and the actions against the Irish, and ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ah yes and against itself - have you not heard of the English Civil War (pre TV I know ). Indeed that's why the British Army doesn't have the title Royal (as in Royal Navy and Royal Air Force). That wasn't the British Army though was it? That was the Kings army and the parliamentarians, later the NMA. Was it actually established as the British Army then, or was that some time later? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 "Indeed that's why the British Army doesn't have the title Royal (as in Royal Navy and Royal Air Force)." Hummm, no. That is complete tosh, though I have seen it bandied about on the Internet quite a lot. The British army was never a coherent service. It was, and in many ways still is, a collection of regiments. Some individual regiments do have the "Royal" prefix others, despite a couple of hundred years of service, do not. The British Army is in many ways a complex and mystical organisation that is very diifficult to explain. Indeed it is easier to explain cricket to an American. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Well off to the History Lesson The "United Kingdom" didn't exist until Scotland was incorporated and indeed the British Army was founded in 1707(?) by the merging of the English Army and the Scottish Army as a result of the creation of the United Kingdom. So I guess the battles pre 1707 are more accurately part of the English Army's history. So to most accurately answer the original question: Has the British Army *ever* fought a battle on mainland UK? The answer is still "Yes" because the British Army fought in the Irish War of Independence (1919 - 1921) as the whole thing was about Northern Ireland joining Ireland / Eire and leaving the UK. I guess we could get excited about including the term "mainland" but no doubt Americans don't differentiate between Alaska or Hawaii compared to the "mainland" USA? To go into murkier territory we also have the "War on Terror" where on a few occasions units of the Household Cavalry (Scimitars / Scorpion, etc.) were deployed to protect Airports, etc. but its a bit of a stretch to say that's "fighting a battle" (at least in a non asymmetric sense.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 GibsonM, I don't think the Irish issues in 1919-1921 can be called a war, there were certainly no battles as such. However, if you want an example post 1707 of a the British Army fighting home turf then the Second Jacobite Rebellion (1745-1746) would qualify. In fact the battle of Culloden Moor on 16th April 1746 was the last battle fought on British soil. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 "Indeed that's why the British Army doesn't have the title Royal (as in Royal Navy and Royal Air Force)." Hummm, no. That is complete tosh, though I have seen it bandied about on the Internet quite a lot. The British army was never a coherent service. It was, and in many ways still is, a collection of regiments. Some individual regiments do have the "Royal" prefix others, despite a couple of hundred years of service, do not. The British Army is in many ways a complex and mystical organisation that is very diifficult to explain. Indeed it is easier to explain cricket to an American. Hmm, I thought it was because the Coldstream Guards went with James the Second rather than support William the Third (aka William of Orange) and hence this also is the basis why the Grenadier Guards have their tunic buttons in groups of one and the Coldstream Guards have theirs in groups of two (having been "demoted" if you like). I'm quite familiar with the "Royal" title being granted by the Sovereign to specific units / Regt. Indeed I have experience of it here, being in the RAAC but having also served in: 1st / 15th Royal New South Wales Lancers and 1st Armoured Regiment (no "Royal") 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 GibsonM, I don't think the Irish issues in 1919-1921 can be called a war, there were certainly no battles as such. However, if you want an example post 1707 of a the British Army fighting home turf then the Second Jacobite Rebellion (1745-1746) would qualify. In fact the battle of Culloden Moor on 16th April 1746 was the last battle fought on British soil. Ah well then - happy to go with that to satisfy Other Means' query. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackcat Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 GibsonM, It was knowing you were with the RAAC that made me wonder about your line about the British Army not having the Royal prefix. You clearly understand about the British regimental system, but many on here will not (hence my comments) and I certainly don't want to get into discussing the history of the Coldstream Guards (*shudders, spits and crosses himself*). All the best 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 All the best And to you and yours too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 1st Armoured Regiment (no "Royal") Ah ... isn't that "1st Armd Regt, RAAC", just like all the other supposedly non-Royal regts in the RAAC? In much the same way, no individual regt of British artillery is "Royal", yet they are /all/ of the Royal Artillery. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Ah ... isn't that "1st Armd Regt, RAAC", just like all the other supposedly non-Royal regts in the RAAC? In much the same way, no individual regt of British artillery is "Royal", yet they are /all/ of the Royal Artillery. No. The Corps' name is RAAC. The Regts names vary (some have Royal in the title, some don't). So for example we have: 1st Armoured Regt (No Royal in name) 2nd Cavalry Regt (No Royal in name) 3rd / 9th South Australian Mounted Rifles (No Royal in name) 1st / 15th Royal new South Wales Lancers (Royal is part of the Regt's name) 4th / 19th Prince of Wales Light Horse (No Royal in name) 10th Light Horse (No Royal in name) 2nd / 14th Queensland Mounted Infantry (No Royal in name) So there you have 7 units, all of which are part of the RAAC, but only one has "Royal" in its name. For a UK example of the same thing: Corps Title = Royal Armoured Corps (RAC) Some Unit names: 1st Queen's Dragoon Guards (No Royal in name) 19th / 12th Lancers (No Royal in name) 2nd Royal Tank Regiment (Royal is part of the Regt's name) Queen's Royal Lancers (Royal is part of the Regt's name) But back in Aust The Infantry have "Royal" in the Corps Title and in the Unit names: Corps Title = Royal Australian Infantry Corps (RAInf) Sample unit names: 2nd / 17th Bn, the Royal New South Wales Regiment. or 3rd Bn, Royal Australian Regiment. For other Corps though they do have "Royal" in the Corps' titles for RAE, RAE, RAEME, RASigs ... None of the units in those Corps have Royal in the title. e.g. There is a 7 Fd Regt as part of the RAA (Royal Australian Artillery), but there is say no 7th Royal Field Regt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I thought British and Commonwealth countries' naming systems were all messed up, then I found out how kludged the conventions are in the current US Army's Modular system. I have, therefore, come to the conclusion that no military has an ounce of sanity when it comes to naming their units Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.