Military style

Russell Street

King Of The Trolls
Supporter
Messages
6,461
This can be a very broad topic.
Mainly I want to rejoice in having found a place that sells the old US Army 5-button (what I know as bivuoac) sweater in real deal wool.
GISweater.jpg

http://onlinemilitaria.com/shopexd.asp?id=2693&bc=no
And for $15 more, one can get a giant shawl collared cardigan.

Anyway, I detest military-look stuff. If I want army clothes, I'm getting the real deal. A few years back there was this fad of epaulets and flapped bellow pockets and other paramilitary themed stuff. This camo thing, I can't get into either.

Basically, I'm not going for fashion, I want practicality and the residual style is just a bonus.

I'm careful not to wear more than one, maybe two military items at once and look too kooky.

What military clothing do you like or own? Tips on how not to look like a crazed veteran? Am I alone on wanting the authenticity of GI Spec stuff?
 
Okay, so don't goose step around with identically attired people in formation. I'm on board there.
I haven't found the need for military helmets either.
 
I have a pile of old surplus for hunting. That's about it. I'm not opposed to GI clothing though, and agree the legit stuff is the only acceptable option. If you are buying military "themed" clothing, go punch yourself in the dick.
 
Do aviator sunglasses and field watches count?
I don't like the high-tech sand camo stuff of the last decade.
 
I'm of the school: 'if you haven't earned it, don't wear it. And even if you've earned it, you really shouldn't wear it / it belongs with the rest of the uniform!".

I like some American field gear - including the jumper above and the original M65 Field Jacket. The Soviets wore a nice looking heavy coat with fake 'fish' fur hood in Afghanistan.

I wouldn't wear it, since I didn't serve with them. I have an Aussie slouch hat, brim down, pugaree and badges removed that I wear out bush occasionally. Also wear my old GP boots and occasionally a DPCU parka. I wore these in the army so don't feal like a poser or wannabe if I'm seen on a rifle range or out hiking wearing some old kit.

However, I can also hear the RSM telling in my ear that it is disrespectful to the uniform. If you do the job, wear your work clothes. If you've left the job, don't wear the uniform and all that. But I'm in another country and the locals here have less issue with it.

Oh and I love epaulets and flapped bellow pockets on my safari shirts!
 
Last edited:
Interesting point Dropbear Dropbear about not wearing the gear if you didn't do the job in the first place. Similar to not wearing regimental ties if you didn't serve or wearing the stripes in the opposite direction, no?

That said, I do wear bits of military kit for outside work and in the woods. They are pieces that are very functional and hard wearing that you either cannot find analogues for in civilian kit or the price is ridiculous.

As previously posted, my winter gear is full of military pieces. I don't wear camo.

I don't think it is disrespectful to wear military kit. The Government surpluses these items so they do not see a problem with having it resold and worn by the general public.
 
It's not current issue...
By and large, this is the simple way to avoid the discharged look. And given the modern sand techwear look of contemporary military gear, it's a bit of a no-brainer anyway.
Some reservist friends of mine were even discussing how they wished to avoid what they called the "that guy veteran" look.
 
I think that's referred to as tactical clothing. Some of it is a little too practical and thought out and overbuilt, in a stylist's opinion. I mean I'll take it over most 'sporty' stuff but maybe I'm a little too observant on the intended purposes and thus find the stuff a bit try-hard.
Then again, it is essentially privateer military garb. The main missing ingredient is the whiff of history or "authenticity." For performance, all this stuff is probably most amazing.
 
TAD gear is quite well made especially the made in USA & Canada. Expensive because of that. A lot is now made in China. Softshell still done in Canada. Well thought out with a military bent. The founder was a Marine? Ex-military anyway.
 
I think that's referred to as tactical clothing. Some of it is a little too practical and thought out and overbuilt, in a stylist's opinion. I mean I'll take it over most 'sporty' stuff but maybe I'm a little too observant on the intended purposes and thus find the stuff a bit try-hard.
Then again, it is essentially privateer military garb. The main missing ingredient is the whiff of history or "authenticity." For performance, all this stuff is probably most amazing.

A most useful term I have heard for aficionados of this tactical attire is "mall ninjas." I was comp'd quite a bit of this stuff when I was working. I have saved some of the trousers for work in the garden and similar chores, and I have one field jacket I might wear if and when I go afield again. Most tactical attire is pretty ghastly, although some of it is durable and well-made.
 
Most tactical attire is pretty ghastly, although some of it is durable and well-made.
Do you mean stylistically, which is almost a given as that is not the prime consideration, or that there is a preponderance of durable (read coarse) fabrics and overwrought construction?
 
Do you mean stylistically, which is almost a given as that is not the prime consideration, or that there is a preponderance of durable (read coarse) fabrics and overwrought construction?

Actually, the construction and fabrics of many of these garments, especially the shirts, were flimsy and shoddy. "Durable/coarse" fabrics are fine in their place, I have no problem with them. However, most of these garments were overdone, with far too many pockets and such. Unless you are actually a member of a SWAT team on active duty, it strikes me as childish and silly to run around dressed as if you are.
 
far too many pockets and such.
The better done stuff presumably is more subtle.
I know in the world of motorcycle protective gear, the lower end imported stuff is overly feature-rich. Adjustments galore, segmented pockets, removable shenanigans. An amazing array of specific fodder of dubious merit. The fabric is lackluster, the construction unimpressive.
Meanwhile, the premium domestic stuff has a few clever features, but is generally basic and minimalist. The materials are incredible and the construction very solid. There seems to be a bells and whistle gimmickry that would better be placed on honest quality.

The one nut I know that practically lives in the stuff generally has things that look sort of Columbia hiking pant-like. They are probably pricey and bulletproof, but they don't reek of paramiltarism. I only notice at all because of being a clothing observer.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom