Friday 2010-02-05 Screenshots AND Discussion Thread

[Blackdog_kt]

The RAF battledress shown in the period photos is 99% identical to the winter issue uniform i was wearing last year when serving as a flak gunner in the Greek air force
It was the "ceremonial" uniform, used mostly in special occasions like unit inspections, taking the serviceman's oath after basic training and when you're on leave or entering/exiting the camp, as you're allowed to wear it in public
(as opposed to fatigues and overalls which is a no-no to be seen walking around in them in public during peacetime).

Well, we were on the allied side and also had a few squads fighting under RAF command in N.Africa after the country was occupied, so i guess that explains the similarities. Even the various rank isnignia have a a big resemblance. So, what i'm curious about is, what was the original use of this battledress uniform back in the 40s? Did people actually fly and fight in it or was it mostly the "look pretty" type of uniform like it is in our airforce today?

[Skoshi Tiger]

double post sorry!

Cheers

[Skoshi Tiger]

I think you'll find that it is evolved from actual combat clothing. From the late 18th Century through World War 1 they were used throughout British Empire. There were minor changes to colars, cuffs, lapels and pockets but the basic design was used right up to modern times, though as you say it has become more cerimonial now. The basic pattern was used by many different nations, just altered to suit the style/culture of the nation in question.

The Jackets are tailored around the chest/torso so you don't catch or snag on anything and the waist flares to give your lower body freedom. When used in conjunction with the webbing it was designed to ensure lower body freedom.

(From an Aussie POV) Just like you told us, if you saw a digger landing on the beach of Gallipoli and a modern day staff officer in dress uniform, you would recognise it as the same uniform.

I think during WWII uniforms became more practical in that they were generally chosen (or modified) to suit the conditions that the soldiers were operating in or the task that they were performing. WWII changed warfare a lot, and traditions usually came out second best)

Originally Posted by Blackdog_kt

The RAF battledress shown in the period photos is 99% identical to the winter issue uniform i was wearing last year when serving as a flak gunner in the Greek air force
It was the "ceremonial" uniform, used mostly in special occasions like unit inspections, taking the serviceman's oath after basic training and when you're on leave or entering/exiting the camp, as you're allowed to wear it in public
(as opposed to fatigues and overalls which is a no-no to be seen walking around in them in public during peacetime).

Well, we were on the allied side and also had a few squads fighting under RAF command in N.Africa after the country was occupied, so i guess that explains the similarities. Even the various rank isnignia have a a big resemblance. So, what i'm curious about is, what was the original use of this battledress uniform back in the 40s? Did people actually fly and fight in it or was it mostly the "look pretty" type of uniform like it is in our airforce today?

Now this is a general question (I don't know the answer). Before someone told us that the country name was only used by the dominion forces when they went over seas. What did the RAF servicemen wear on their shoulders when they went to Russia?

Cheers

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by Skoshi Tiger

I think you'll find that it is evolved from actual combat clothing. From the late 18th Century through World War 1 they were used throughout British Empire. There were minor changes to colars, cuffs, lapels and pockets but the basic design was used right up to modern times, though as you say it has become more cerimonial now. The basic pattern was used by many different nations, just altered to suit the style/culture of the nation in question.

The Jackets are tailored around the chest/torso so you don't catch or snag on anything and the waist flares to give your lower body freedom. When used in conjunction with the webbing it was designed to ensure lower body freedom.

(From an Aussie POV) Just like you told us, if you saw a digger landing on the beach of Gallipoli and a modern day staff officer in dress uniform, you would recognise it as the same uniform.

I think during WWII uniforms became more practical in that they were generally chosen (or modified) to suit the conditions that the soldiers were operating in or the task that they were performing. WWII changed warfare a lot, and traditions usually came out second best)



Now this is a general question (I don't know the answer). Before someone told us that the country name was only used by the dominion forces when they went over seas. What did the RAF servicemen wear on their shoulders when they went to Russia?

Cheers

Cheers, thanks for the information. I couldn't for the life of me imagine myself crawling on the ground with a G3 in hand, standing guard for 5-8 hours per day (too hot for the Greek summer and too cold for the humid winters we have) or doing maintenance on the Rheinmetall twins we used with that uniform and polished shoes in place of the camo fatigues and standard boots, but then again i was a conscript serving on a ground posting.

On the other hand, i guess that the blue battledress was initially used by flight crew before becoming widespread in other specialists and that makes more sense. There's not too much crawling on the ground inside an airplane and from a couple period films i've seen, it seems that they used to wear the shipskin overalls and boots over whatever other uniform they were using to deal with the cold anyway, so the battledress was somewhat suitable as an inner layer because it wraps around the body and is not loose like the fatigues. Makes more sense that way

The similarity is astonishing though, even the buckle on the belt of the jacket is identical and i think the side hats are almost exact copies as well.

[luthier]

Thanks guys for all the corrections, we'll get on right away!

One more question. What's up with these caltrop things on the bridge? Pre-war photos show them on, and a lot of wartime photos have them missing. It looks like they were still there during the Battle, is that correct?

Should we have them on or off?

[dAMOCLES]

Good grief, you're not supposed to take our nit picking seriously, we're just filling in time and being a pain.

[dAMOCLES]

The missing parts, look like typical Gothic finials, probably made from stone, and probably removed because they proved unsafe with the vibration from the traffic or draw bridge. I suspect one fell off, and the remainder were then removed for safety subsequently being replaced during restoration after being strengthened or redesigned.

[dAMOCLES]

British Pathe is always a good source of Information films during this period.

Here's a nice one entitled "Knights of the air"

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=74753

[ECV56_Lancelot]

Originally Posted by luthier

Thanks guys for all the corrections, we'll get on right away!

One more question. What's up with these caltrop things on the bridge? Pre-war photos show them on, and a lot of wartime photos have them missing. It looks like they were still there during the Battle, is that correct?

Should we have them on or off?

Seeing the pictures posted by Zorin, i would leave them off. Even if in one of those pictures they are there.
Also, its the breadth of the road correct? By the pictures of Zorin, it seems there is enough space to put 4 cars side by side, and by image of the model, it looks there is enough space just for two, maybe three. Still, i might be getting a wrong impression.