British Sateen Battledress Blouse

[@jameskellard5075]

I used to work at a military museum and there was one of these in the reserve collection store. My understanding was that it was a trials item intended as a summer battledress at the same time as 1950's pattern combat dress was being issued.

[@robertstallard7836]

I think the answer lies in the US basic work utility uniform which at that time was the OG-107 series, also in cotton sateen. It was worn by all branches of the United States Armed Forces from 1952 until its discontinuation in 1989. I'm sure this is part of British Army trials undertaken at that time to see what the armed forces would change to - whether to stick with the smarter two-piece battledress concept (except in a "modern" material), or whether to move to the US style of a sloppy but practical combat jacket. They had probably already decided that cotton sateen was the way to go, hence trial items of both patterns were produced. In the end of course, the combat jacket style won and was issued as the 1960 pattern. I imagine that to save costs, rather than produce hundreds of trial garments in a range of sizes and equip an entire unit, a number individuals were nominated for made-to-measure items. One wonders if trial items of what eventually became the 1960 pattern combat jacket are still knocking around but unidentifiable through faded labels!

[@mrjockt]

Wearing Battle Dress made out of non standard material was still a thing even as late as the 1970’s in the R.A.F., a lot of the older SNCO’s had their old No1 Dress Tunics, when they were issued a new No1 uniform, converted by a local tailor into a Battle Dress Tunic because they disliked the No2 Jacket, the so called “Thunderbird Jacket”, and there was apparently nothing in the regulations against wearing Battle Dress if you had it as a working uniform.

[@SteveMrW]

As you say, unusual but a smart looking jacket.

[@RiflemanMoore]

Yes, very happy to have it.

[@militarybandsuk]

Great Video , Very Interesting!

[@RiflemanMoore]

Thank you!

[@michaelamos4651]

Great video. What a unique garment. Out of interest what does the GDS stand for. Thankyou

[@RiflemanMoore]

I'm not sure off the top of my head, I shall try and find out.

[@michaelamos4651]

@@RiflemanMoore Thankyou

[@HO-bndk]

G.D.S. stands for "Garment Development Section." This, at that time, was a government R&D organisation that designed and trialled new clothing and other textile stores.

[@michaelamos4651]

@@HO-bndk Thank you

[@Patriotic_Brit]

Marvellous!

[@RiflemanMoore]

Thank you!

[@davidbrennan660]

You can see why it was not adopted, a nice historic artefact.

[@RiflemanMoore]

Indeed so.

[@jcmaxie4758]

Very romantic thumbnail 😉

[@RiflemanMoore]

I suppose it is, yes!

[@jcmaxie4758]

Rifleman Moore I was only joking. I a big fan, love your ww1 ww2 videos in particular. 🐶

[@johnshanahan8477]

Wonder . May it have been made as a working dress tipe uniform. For mabe barracks duitys

[@RiflemanMoore]

The British Army had denims for that at the time.

[@johnshanahan8477]

Ya very interesting uniform. Just trying to think why it would have been ordered.

[@TheLoachman]

@@RiflemanMoore Same/similar style but in khaki? I have something like that - blouse only - that I purchased in a surplus shop in London in 1972. Have you done a video about that uniform?

[@HO-bndk]

It was a trials item. It would have been rather rubbish in the field as it combined all the disadvantages of the BD blouse design with a material that is less durable than serge and that soaks up water.

[@mattmagee180]

not a tailor made item then?

[@RiflemanMoore]

As I said in the video the label provides an argument against that.