helpingarmydads Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 http://www.abacuscover.co.uk/blog/news/2014/01/24/british-army-kit-a-history/ The evolution of British Army equipment through 100 years of conflict; from 1914 to 2014. Since the First World War, the British soldiers' personal kit has continuously improved to meet the new challenges of warfare. To commemorate the centenary of WW1, see how equipment capabilities through through major conflicts compare and take a look at future military technology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fumps Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I love how the future stuff is always so far fetched. The older stuff is interesting though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russe11 Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 I think they may have messed up on the webbing. The pictures and descriptions for the 58 and 90 pattern are around the wrong way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted February 6, 2014 Supporters Share Posted February 6, 2014 I love how the future stuff is always so far fetched. The older stuff is interesting though Not that far fetched: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/19/talos-iron-man-suit_n_4300576.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fumps Posted February 6, 2014 Share Posted February 6, 2014 Yeh mate Only if budget allows, maybe when they cut back on the soldiers pensions enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Ian_Gere Posted February 7, 2014 Supporters Share Posted February 7, 2014 The future rifle is missing its blurb - it's just the above repeated. Not very comprehensive either. What happened to '94 pattern and Soldier 2000, just to name two missing examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters TheFull9 Posted February 7, 2014 Supporters Share Posted February 7, 2014 'Soldier 2000' is/was a myth, there was only ever CS95. The contract and production details of the uniform changed various times throughout the lifespan of CS95 but that's all it was, the actual system remained the same (obviously until PCS came in). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Lozart Posted February 7, 2014 Supporters Share Posted February 7, 2014 Yeh mate Only if budget allows, maybe when they cut back on the soldiers pensions enough. TALOS is a DARPA project, nothing to do with us yet. We'll probably get one made of cardboard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russe11 Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 The hidden buttons and pleated pockets they list for the WW2 battledress is wrong also. 37 Battledress had them but was replaced with 40 battledress when they lost all the army's gear at Dunkirk and had to re-equip fast. 40 Battledress had exposed buttons and no pleats to make it quicker and cheaper to make and was only replaced by 49 Battledress which had these features after the war. Obviously 40 Battledress would disprove the idea that the gear was continuously improved as it was a step backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Ian_Gere Posted February 7, 2014 Supporters Share Posted February 7, 2014 'Soldier 2000' is/was a myth, there was only ever CS95. The contract and production details of the uniform changed various times throughout the lifespan of CS95 but that's all it was, the actual system remained the same (obviously until PCS came in). Oh right. My two DPM jackets are 94 Pattern (that one that's dyed dark on top of the DPM - I finally found out) and a 2000 variant which is basically the same as the 94 without the big inside arse pocket, but made from rip-stop. I just assumed there must be a proper name for the changed spec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters TheFull9 Posted February 7, 2014 Supporters Share Posted February 7, 2014 That was the assumption many people made, it's obviously an understandable one. The Field jackets actually changed at least 3 times in the course of the life span of CS95, but the system nomenclature remained. As an example of the point, every time I went to get new '95 trousers from stores throughout my initial and phase two training they would be noticeably different; not in the cut or design, but the moulding of buttons, stitching, colour of the fabric etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supporters Ian_Gere Posted February 7, 2014 Supporters Share Posted February 7, 2014 Both my jackets have extra pockets behind the usual breast pockets, with vertical zips next to the main zip to get into them. That's the main difference between them and usual S95's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Posted February 7, 2014 Share Posted February 7, 2014 I can't comment on the communications/uniforms/body armour, but here are some points - There may be a typo for the Land Rover's speed. I'd like to see anyone get a Land Rover to go 160 km/h without rocket assistance or dropping it out of a transport plane... (It's 95 km/h, isn't it?) SIG-Sauer and Glock are the wrong way round. The Sharp-shooter rifle isn't a future weapon, it's only a UOR, like the ACOGs on the L85s and the SIG-P226s bought for use in Afghanistan. We won't be buying any more, and once we've returned from Afghanistan, they'll be returned to the Treasury (who'll do whatever they like with them, scrap or sell them most likely). There certainly isn't a maintenance/logistics program to support their continued use. Actual future rifle - the program to find a replacement was meant to start in 2015, but has been pushed back to 2020 (costs, also seeing if the US wants to change from 5.56mm), and probably won't enter service until 2030 at the earliest. It's likely we'll see further modifications to the SA80 family in the mean-time. Although there is firearms design capability left in the UK, the reality is we'll probably buy off the shelf. Since H&K currently run the former RSAF Nottingham plant, and seem to be getting a lot of love from the MoD as of late (L7A2 upgrade contract, the L111A1 modernisation, among others), it's likely we'll probably buy some over-priced and over-rated high quality precision German engineering from them. The section on vehicles seems a little odd. I'd have gone for some of the Daimler/Humber lorries rather than the Universal Carrier. Where's Jackal MWMIK? After all the controversy we saw over the Landies/Snatch/WMIKs being "mobile coffins", the Jackal is one of the most significant bits of kit we've bought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainSwoop Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The hidden buttons and pleated pockets they list for the WW2 battledress is wrong also. 37 Battledress had them but was replaced with 40 battledress when they lost all the army's gear at Dunkirk and had to re-equip fast. 40 Battledress had exposed buttons and no pleats to make it quicker and cheaper to make and was only replaced by 49 Battledress which had these features after the war. Obviously 40 Battledress would disprove the idea that the gear was continuously improved as it was a step backwards. 40 wasn't a step backwards over 37, it was just more efficient when you need them produced by the million. No functionality was lost. Battledress was a complete step backwards in design compared to the jacket it replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainSwoop Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 WW2 Comms, Carrier Pigeons? I guess all those radios didn't count. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russe11 Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 40 wasn't a step backwards over 37, it was just more efficient when you need them produced by the million. No functionality was lost. Battledress was a complete step backwards in design compared to the jacket it replaced. Less Pocket space and buttons that catch on webbing and undergrowth isn't a step back? British officers and the better off soldiers tended to pay substantial amounts of money to get hold of Canadian Battledress which was still pattern 37. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.