If it wasn't for boots they called it P.T.
For fun it was Boots, Puttees, DPM Trousers, PT Vest and 58 Webbing minus the back-pack... And once twice around the aerodrome. Oh those were the days...
How do you feel about MTP clothing/kit?
- Thread starter troutman
- Start date
-
Hey Guest, We're having our annual Winter Moot and we'd love you to come. PLEASE LOOK HERE to secure your place and get more information.
For forum threads CLICK HERE
If it wasn't for boots they called it P.T.
For fun it was Boots, Puttees, DPM Trousers, PT Vest and 58 Webbing minus the back-pack... And once twice around the aerodrome. Oh those were the days...
I like the smock, it's well designed and the fleece lined pockets are lovely.
As for the shirt, it feels a bit like you're wearing pyjamas.
I prefer the look of the pattern itself over dpm, even if it is not the bet in some British woodlands.
As for the shirt, it feels a bit like you're wearing pyjamas.
I prefer the look of the pattern itself over dpm, even if it is not the bet in some British woodlands.
Got a mate who recently left the army and consequently I have a bit of MTP stuff, The smock is OK, the keks are quite good and the Gore Tex jacket is great.
The jackets only pocket is on the sleeve and it doesn't even have a hood but I'm fine with that cos I don't really do hoods and the lack of pockets doesn't bother me.
I thought that it would but I fast got used to no pockets.
I have heards that the gore tex jacket is often worn under the smock but I can't say I bother.
The jackets only pocket is on the sleeve and it doesn't even have a hood but I'm fine with that cos I don't really do hoods and the lack of pockets doesn't bother me.
I thought that it would but I fast got used to no pockets.
I have heards that the gore tex jacket is often worn under the smock but I can't say I bother.
Ive got the shirts, smock and combats all in DPM as well as the wind proof jacket with a hood, not so sure if I like the new style stuff.
Hi all,
Just thought I'd get off the lurking bench and add my tuppence worth. I've got a number of different types of gear most of which I picked up secondhand and it has become quite obvious that the surroundings dictate which is best, for general use nature-watching etc/bushcrafting I think Realtree APG or MTP is best - I found the worst general purpose one is Jack Pyke English Oak but this probably works the best on the moors near me in winter. I have a couple of photos showing the various types in action but not too sure how to post them on here
Just thought I'd get off the lurking bench and add my tuppence worth. I've got a number of different types of gear most of which I picked up secondhand and it has become quite obvious that the surroundings dictate which is best, for general use nature-watching etc/bushcrafting I think Realtree APG or MTP is best - I found the worst general purpose one is Jack Pyke English Oak but this probably works the best on the moors near me in winter. I have a couple of photos showing the various types in action but not too sure how to post them on here
The thoughts of camouflage for hunting and nature watching is a subject that has been discussed many times on many varied forums.
I read on one that someone had tested various patterns and found the best pattern was a really load Hawaiian shirt...
The true way to camouflage is based on blending in
Shape, Shine, silhouette, Spacing, Shimmer, Smell, Sound and Movement
If you look at the shooters in the US they wear a hi-viz orange hat, jacket, gillet when on a hunt, so other shooters can see them, but it doesn't make the prey see them any better.
I tend to wear camouflage clothing because it was pretty cheap and a bit "rufty tufty" not because I don't want to be seen by the other bush crafters or animals/birds.
It does make some money for the manufacturers though when people buy the commercial products, but it often isn't necessary to wear it, just need to be more stealthy.
I read on one that someone had tested various patterns and found the best pattern was a really load Hawaiian shirt...
The true way to camouflage is based on blending in
Shape, Shine, silhouette, Spacing, Shimmer, Smell, Sound and Movement
If you look at the shooters in the US they wear a hi-viz orange hat, jacket, gillet when on a hunt, so other shooters can see them, but it doesn't make the prey see them any better.
I tend to wear camouflage clothing because it was pretty cheap and a bit "rufty tufty" not because I don't want to be seen by the other bush crafters or animals/birds.
It does make some money for the manufacturers though when people buy the commercial products, but it often isn't necessary to wear it, just need to be more stealthy.
Last edited:
I agree with your comments but if I'm getting a jacket for outdoors I want it to be sturdy and prefer the more subdued colours - hence quite a bit is surplus or ebay - working on the basis if I'm paying the same price it can't hurt to be camp lol! The Deerhunter was a birthday present though so it was new..
Shortly after the last photos were taken a deer wandered through and got within about 5 yards but I made the mistake of trying to get my camera out and guess what :
Think I've finally got the hang of photo uploading so some comparative photos although obviously not trying to hide too hard in these as wanted to see the effect whilst generally moving, all with Goretex MTP trousers:
English Oak Fleece:
Flecktarn:
Realtree APG:
In order of value for money Flecktarn wins by a mile :- £10 for the jacket although the MTP goretex was £30
Shortly after the last photos were taken a deer wandered through and got within about 5 yards but I made the mistake of trying to get my camera out and guess what :
Think I've finally got the hang of photo uploading so some comparative photos although obviously not trying to hide too hard in these as wanted to see the effect whilst generally moving, all with Goretex MTP trousers:
English Oak Fleece:
Flecktarn:
Realtree APG:
In order of value for money Flecktarn wins by a mile :- £10 for the jacket although the MTP goretex was £30
Every bit of clothing I wear for bushcraft is army issue kit, it is not too expensive and is reasonably durable and fit for purpose, I cant see why some folks spend hundreds of pounds on northface and berghaus clothing but each to their own. I like the MTP, especially the smock, those fleece lined pockets are the muts nuts 
Here's a good photo that compares the current British and American cammo patterns (if I do this correctly): http://www.1id.army.mil/bigredone/commandteam.aspx
You will notice that one of the assistant division commanders of the 1st (U.S.) Infantry Division is a British brigadier.
I have and have had a variety of issue and reproduction camouflage clothing over the years, most of which I still have. Since I'm no longer in the army (I got out in 1968, though I was in the National Guard later on), the pattern of the camouflage itself isn't as important as the fabric, the fit and the design. Personally, I think the current British jacket, so labelled, I believe, is awful, that is, unless you like Velcro. There are about a dozen separate pieces of velcro on the jacket. But the fabric seems tough and the pattern isn't bad. I haven't examined any of the other garments.
Of the older DPM garments, I like the rip-stop smock, which I think is now labeled "field jacket." But I like the previous pattern a little better because it had nothing more than a single zip in front, just like the para smock. The para smock seems to have a funny cut to it and they're a little thin. The so-called arctic windproof is actually lighter, though, but I like it anyway. I really don't care for those new-fangled Canadian pattern buttons. For any of these garments you need to get them big enough to wear as much underneath as you care to without it being too tight, which also goes for the trousers. Some patterns of the DPM trousers were really narrow in the leg, although to be honest, it was fashionable when I was the the (U.S.) army to have your fatigue pants legs "pegged" because that the way they were being worn in civilian life.
I also have a reproduction "SAS" windproof (the pullover WWII style) smock and trousers. The trousers are actually quite useful and I really do wear them as over-trousers, something that I understand was rarely done with original issue trousers 60 years ago. But the jacket, in spite of its popularity as a special forces garment in the 1940s on into the 1960s and probably later, is something else, at least as issued. It is difficult to get on, being a pullover, and difficult to vent, because it has no front opening whatsoever. I also have an issue Belgium smock that gets some use but generally the lighter garments are the ones that are worn when out walking, even on very cold days, because you generate plenty of heat if you're carrying a pack. I also have an issue US Army GoreTex parka that's actually very good but I seem to only wear it when it's raining or snowing. It's one of those things that's too good to use!
You will notice that one of the assistant division commanders of the 1st (U.S.) Infantry Division is a British brigadier.
I have and have had a variety of issue and reproduction camouflage clothing over the years, most of which I still have. Since I'm no longer in the army (I got out in 1968, though I was in the National Guard later on), the pattern of the camouflage itself isn't as important as the fabric, the fit and the design. Personally, I think the current British jacket, so labelled, I believe, is awful, that is, unless you like Velcro. There are about a dozen separate pieces of velcro on the jacket. But the fabric seems tough and the pattern isn't bad. I haven't examined any of the other garments.
Of the older DPM garments, I like the rip-stop smock, which I think is now labeled "field jacket." But I like the previous pattern a little better because it had nothing more than a single zip in front, just like the para smock. The para smock seems to have a funny cut to it and they're a little thin. The so-called arctic windproof is actually lighter, though, but I like it anyway. I really don't care for those new-fangled Canadian pattern buttons. For any of these garments you need to get them big enough to wear as much underneath as you care to without it being too tight, which also goes for the trousers. Some patterns of the DPM trousers were really narrow in the leg, although to be honest, it was fashionable when I was the the (U.S.) army to have your fatigue pants legs "pegged" because that the way they were being worn in civilian life.
I also have a reproduction "SAS" windproof (the pullover WWII style) smock and trousers. The trousers are actually quite useful and I really do wear them as over-trousers, something that I understand was rarely done with original issue trousers 60 years ago. But the jacket, in spite of its popularity as a special forces garment in the 1940s on into the 1960s and probably later, is something else, at least as issued. It is difficult to get on, being a pullover, and difficult to vent, because it has no front opening whatsoever. I also have an issue Belgium smock that gets some use but generally the lighter garments are the ones that are worn when out walking, even on very cold days, because you generate plenty of heat if you're carrying a pack. I also have an issue US Army GoreTex parka that's actually very good but I seem to only wear it when it's raining or snowing. It's one of those things that's too good to use!
Some excellent thoughts here chaps. Dave, I think the MTP trousers work very well in all of those photos. Also I'm interested in the flecktarn, is that the greener Danish version? The German stuff I have used is much browner in real life but yours appears more green which seems more suitable!
widu13
Bushcrafter (boy, I've got a lot to say!)
Some of these camouflaged garments exhibit some fading as they get older and go through the wash several times, although not to the extent the older all-cotton plain olive drab and olive green uniforms did. I think simple fading might account for the differences in appearance of flectarn from different sources.
My son who was serving in the army when they switched from the older woodland pattern to the current pattern (whatever it's called), said the field uniforms weren't supposed to be ironed, much less starched, but all the sergeants had their own ideas.
My son who was serving in the army when they switched from the older woodland pattern to the current pattern (whatever it's called), said the field uniforms weren't supposed to be ironed, much less starched, but all the sergeants had their own ideas.
The Air Force switched to a poly/cotton blend OG fatigue in the late 70s before switching to the camo BDUs in the mid 80s. Those blended OG fatigues hardly faded at all. The first 3 generations of camo BDUs were all cotton until the early 90s.
Last edited:
I was about to say something until I realized the early 90s were nearly 25 years ago. How time flies. Concerning the woodland camouflage uniforms the US Army used, the design of the jacket was not so great. The collar was wierd and the fit was poor, although, in theory, a combat and work uniform doesn't need to be designed around fit and appearance (again, NCOs have their own ideas and so do some soldiers). However, the pants, which was the exact same design more or less as the 1952 OG version, was made of the toughest material and really very practical for what it was for, although the pants were rather short waisted. They were a little hot for the summer, however, at least in the US.
Similar threads
