Australian Military Clothing Development
The military uniform allows a group of people (e.g. the Defence Force) to be identified as distinct from the rest of society and creates a boundary between them. There are four major reasons for using a uniform: control; utility; status; and as a symbol. It can also be a means by which the wearer conforms to regulations and behaviours of a group, and can serve as a symbol of status and rank. It signifies national identity, rank, and unifies those serving to protect and defend their country and the principles it represents. The designs and standardisation of the military uniform are legally sanctioned and protected by law (Intellectual Property). The uniform is the property of the nation, and is manufacture and supplied by the nation.
Official sealed pattern is a Government control system that provides manufacturers with a perfect sample of each garment which has been inspected, labelled, numbered, and sealed with a metal tag. Manufacturers are supplied with sealed samples to replicate, and upon inspection, approval given for a full production run. It was suggested initially that these labels on sealed patterns had a distinguishing letter for each of the three Services: ’N’ for Navy, ‘L’ for Land (Army), and ‘A’ for Air Services, but this was not adopted due to duplication of items across the Services. Instead, the letters M.S.B./Aus. (Munitions Supply Board) or M.G.O./Aus. (Master-General of Ordinance Department) was printed on the label, followed by a number that indicated the Service that the item was used.
Following Federation in 1901, when the military forces of individual states was transferred to the Commonwealth, a standing military force was implemented. In 1902 the Commonwealth had a military force of 28,886 men at its disposal, but only 1500 of these were permanent soldiers. In 1903 the Dress Regulations were drawn up by Major-General Hutton, which described the unified design for the Australian military uniform which ended the multitude of colourful uniforms worn by troops in each colony.
The types of uniforms regulated were:
• Field (or service) uniforms are those worn on active duty, during field exercises, at war or during peacekeeping service. These are functional garments, providing ease of movement, fabric strength, and to withstand heavy duty.
• Dress (or walking out) uniforms are worn on parades, or official functions, and are tailored garments.
Standing Orders for Dress and Clothing, the Dress Regulations, and the Dress Manual provide a reference and direction in the wearing of these types of uniform.
In 1909 a Bill was passed by Parliament for conscription to increase the military force’s size by 50%. This prompted the establishment of defence factories to supply small arms, munitions, clothing, and harness. The (Australian) Commonwealth Government Clothing Factory (CGCF) was established in 1912 and provided uniforms until 1995 when it was then privatised. It was an institution that encompassed innovation and creativity in the military clothing industry, and collaborated with another institution, that being the Australian Army. It was built in South Melbourne, and commenced operations in 1912 with the appointment by Government of the first CGCF operations Manager, Henry Slade. He set about to employ the finest cutters, pressers and machinists to set a high standard in the manufacture of the garments.
The clothing business changed from a multitude of individual tailors in the late 1800s each producing an entire uniform, to factories using division of labour where one worker would produce only one part in the process. The output from the factory oscillated depending on increase in demand due to conscription, compulsory military service, war, or reduction in demand by the cessation of hostilities.
Technology and other driving forces were key to the innovation and creativity of the CGCF. Such driving forces were technological advancement of manufacturing processes (improved cutting, sewing and finishing machines, new fabric materials, electricity, and later computerised design methods). Indeed, todays textiles provide greater comfort and an increased level of protection in terms of measuring and controlling moisture, heat, fungi, bacteria, or changing colour when electrically charged.
Prior to Federation, Australia’s security relied on colonial defence systems. At first Imperial troops were based in garrisons in major cities, which was gradually expanded to include resident volunteer units in each Australian colony. Fuelled by a fear of a French attack, the colony of New South Wales was the first to establish a corps of volunteers in 1801. This diminished in size following Napoleon’s demise.
In 1854, with Britain involved in the Crimean War, Volunteer Defence Forces were called upon in New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. With a volunteer force being established in Queensland in 1860, Tasmania in 1859, and Western Australia in 1861.
In 1870, following the departure of the Imperial troops from Australia, the colonies became entirely reliant on their own defence and so small permanent forces were established alongside partially paid militia and volunteer regiments.
Volunteers were required to provide their own uniform, which usually were influential citizens as the purchasing cost was beyond the means of the ordinary citizen.
The uniforms of these small colonial units were all made to measure by local tailors, often using cloth imported from Britain. These would be classified today as Dress uniform as they were far less suitable for combat. The designs were based upon those current in Britain and varied widely both between the colonies and regiments in each colony. The expansion of the colonial units increased the urgency to manage, streamline, and supply garments, but the local tailors were deemed to be unable to supply the required quantities and quality. Therefore, the Royal Army Clothing Depot in Britain was approached and many of the colonial corps made the decision to adopt uniforms identical to their equivalent corps in Britain. The Royal Army’s Clothing Factory fabricated uniforms with stringent inspection as to quality of materials, workmanship, and compliance with specifications. Additionally, uniform cloth was imported from Britain by local tailors who fabricated uniforms using sealed patterns of the relevant corps as a guide. The importation of complete uniforms and of cloth used by local tailors continued after Federation.
Gradually locally manufactured cloth became widely available as the capacity of the Australian wool and worsted industries grew. By 1909 the newly established Australian Department of Defence would purchase fabric of Australian manufacture to be sold to contractors to make up clothing with sealed patterns in use. Uniform cloth was stored in Ordinance Stores across metropolitan areas.
As late as 1909 there was no centralised system that planned, budgeted, or purchased military uniforms. Instead, Commanding Officers of regiments and corps (General Officer Commanding (GOC)) were authorised to enter into contracts under certain conditions, and payment was made from the Corps Contingent Fund, recouped annually by Parliamentary vote. MAJ-GEN Hutton established a direct link between defence administration and the Defence Minister, thereby preventing the GOC from taking actions not inline with parliament. However, this was formally changed in 1905 with the establishment of the Military Board of Administration that reported to the Minister of Defence who had the power of approve or veto the board’s recommendations.
The Dress Regulations of the Military Forces of the Commonwealth, 1903, covered officers of the Headquarters and other General Staff, militia, partially paid, and volunteer military forces (however, it was permitted for those officers to continue to wear their previous uniform which would gradually be replaced over time). However, the Dress Regulations were a much more unified picture of the Commonwealth forces - ‘Undress’ (day to day or working uniform) for Staff officers, Instructional Staff, Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, Medical Corps, etc were all to wear the same jacket. This was referred to as the ’Service Jacket’ and had four expandable pockets with flaps, ‘drab’ woollen serge fabric of a ‘pea soup’ shade, which was more functional than the colonial uniforms. This Service Jacket was also worn by the Army’s rank and file. Bedford cord breeches or trousers of the same special drab mixture of serge as the jacket.
The breeches were loose at the thigh and tight at the knee which was laced below, pockets cut across, waist strap and buckle, and were worn by mounted, Field Artillery, Army Service Corps and Army Medical Corps.
Trousers came in three patterns: for Mounted Officers, Service Trousers (same material as the Service Jacket), and Staff Pattern Trousers (made of blue cloth). The Mounted Officers trousers were cut straight and longer than ordinary trousers so they fitted over the boots. The Service Trousers were cut loose in the breech and at the knee, but narrowed towards the ankle. They had cross pockets. The Staff pattern trousers of blue cloth were not described in the Dress Regulations (they were not worn by the Army Medical Corps).
This streamlining in the range of uniforms was a significant cost reduction, and paved the way for large volumes of identical garments to be made by the CGCF a decade later in 1912. The 1903 Dress Regulations standardised Australian Army uniforms with so many ranks requiring the same pattern of jacket, breeches, trousers, etc. The CGCF would play a pivotal role in the development of the Army uniform, working closely with the Department of Defence, Army departments, and scientists on government and private labourites. There was a redirection of some of the labour force and raw materials from private enterprise to government enterprise that monopolised uniform manufacturing. Control of supply lines, demand, delivery of product was now controlled by the government, turning private firms into subcontractors.
The range of outfits started to diverge from its British counterpart as early as 1906 when the Orders for Dress and Clothing was complimented by tropical clothing, worn by units in the northern tropical parts of Australia and Thursday Island. This consisted of tropical jackets and trousers (breeches for mounted) made from khaki cotton drill fabric. Instead of the wool greatcoat, the men were issued with a waterproof coat or cape. These were made of oil skin and trialled on Thursday Island in 1908. It was also found that oil skin capes were imperious to, and were thus employed against, gas particle infiltration under clothing during gas attack in WW1. This gas particle infiltration caused skin blisters and caused casualty hospitals to become over whelmed. No anti-gas clothing or research was conducted during WW1, only anti-gas goggles, box respirators, anti-gas helmets with tube, satchels and wallets were on issue. Oil skin and rubber (gloves etc) were employed after WW1 and for the next 30 years in the protection against gas. By 1924, the USA had developed impregnated clothing that gave excellent protection over long periods. This type of clothing was made available to the RAAF as the type of Australian dying processes could not be utilised.
A Trust Fund Account, which was independent of the annual government budget estimates, was established to pay for materials. Cord material for breeches was still imported until the Woollen Cloth Factory (WCF) commenced operations in 1915. There was then transactions between the CGCF and WCF for supply and manufacture.
Around the commencement of WW1, the government also operated a separate Harness, Saddlery and Accoutrements Factory at Cliffton Hill, Victoria. This factory closed in 1923 due to drop in demand. New demand inn 1941 forced the government to establish new premises in Leicester Street, Carlton (Melbourne) to produce canvas goods (artillery cartridge bags, wants, flags, etc) and caps (transferred from the Clothing Factory). The Clothing Factory in South Melbourne was then called the No. 1 Factory, and the Caps and Canvas Factory (CCF) in Carlton as the No. 2 Factory. At the end of WW2 the CCF was closed due to drop in demand and the production of caps was transferred back to the Clothing Factory.
The introduction of compulsory military training in 1911 for all Australian males who were British subjects and the accompanying need for the free issue of uniforms placed great financial pressures on the Defence account as well as the businesses producing the uniforms. Better cut of breeches and simplifying of patterns and general issue assist in better economy. Australian uniforms were also produced by the English Pimlico factory in the United Kingdom in 1917 to meet high demand. During WW1 there was between 45,645 (in 1914) to 122,186 (in 1918) enlistments in the Australian Army. In WW2 there was almost 1,000,000 men and women who enlisted in the three services (3/4 of these Army). Thus, employment levels and output of the CGCF oscillated throughout the 20th century with the advent of conflict or peace keeping actions.
However, as the result of very high demand during WW1 and the inability of the CGCF to supply garments to meet this demand, resulted in surplus work to be contracted out to the private sector. Some of the ore successful of these were Adelaide Clothing Manufacturing Co. Ltd., C. Anderson in Sydney, O’Brien and Down in Melbourne, S. Bartlett in Brisbane, and Steedman Bros. in Melbourne. These companies manufactured jackets, tunics, trousers, breeches, shirts, and greatcoats. Army hats were manufactured by Denton Hat Mills in Melbourne (30,750 hats), Dunkerley Hat Mills Ltd. in Sydney (27,000 hats), the Stockport Hat Co. Ltd. in Melbourne (19,750 hats). Buttons were supplied by A.J. Parkes in Brisbane, putties came from John Vickers and Co. in Sydney, and shirts by V. Kaufman and Co. in Melbourne (94,913 shirts). This reliance on external contractors in the private sector became firmly established and in fact increased over the course of the following decades. By 1951 the AGCF (the CGCF changed its name to Australian Government Clothing Factory, or AGCF) was producing only 15% of garments required by the Services. The main staple for the AGCF was postal and railway uniforms, Boy Scouts Association, Tram uniforms, St John Ambulance uniforms, Fire Brigade, Aborigines department, penal, Zoological gardens, etc: the reason for this was due to commerce, as the production of this uniform was a more constant source of income and employment. This left the CGCF dependent on the vital contribution from the private sector subcontractors throughout its history.
The Woollen Cloth Factory (WCF) in South Melbourne supplied the fabric for the uniforms as well as blankets for the military until mid-1920s, when it was sold. Even though it formed part of the government-owned supply chain, it also produced and sold woollen products to the private sector. It commenced operations in September 1915, and consisted of a wool scouring, carding, and dyeing plant, as well as yarn spinning and weaving operations. The produced range included khaki woollen cloth, drab mixture serge, woollen waterproof coating material, Bedford cord and whipcord, blankets, and rugs. The cloth produced by the WCF was both cheaper than private mills and of the best quality, even compared with imported cloth. This government owned business was in direct competition with the private sector which prompted the government to sell the business into private hands in 1923 despite its success. At the end of WW1 both the CGCF and WCF had to reduce their workforce and were overstocked with military garments. The WCF continued to produce fine wool for the government for the production and issue of fine woollen ready-to-wear civilian suits for returned servicemen.
Surplus stocks were also sold to the civilian market during the Great depression, where Australian families and unemployed were in desperate need of clothing, bedding, and blankets. The RSL assisted in securing stocks to assist returned servicemen. The stockpiles of part-worn and unserviceable clothing was the first to be used. Jackets, breeches, greatcoats were re-dyed and distributed to civilians. This continued until 1935 when developments in Europe and Asia begun to cause political unease in Australia and so a build up of military clothing once again resumed.
On the commencement of WW2, the CGCF had new lines of garments, such as tropical uniforms, in addition to the woollen uniforms. New developments in camouflage, dyes, and textiles led to new designs for the Australian Army, Navy, and Airforce in the 1930s. A new design in 1931 for uniforms for the volunteer Militia Forces was introduced that resulted in a large military order for clothing. During WW2, subcontractors were again utilised in 1941 to make up the shortfall in supply, especially in the initial stages of the war when demand was urgent. In fact, upon hearing about a serious shortfall in uniforms in all three Services, the Minister of Supply and Development immediately signed an order that uniforms were to be delivered within 48 hours. By 1940 the Board of Business Administration ensured standardisation of all linings, trimmings, threads, buttons, and accessories which would economise and streamline production. This enabled the cutters, sewing processes, and weaving machines to use similar cloth weights, trimmings, and patterns for the three Services. Additional services such as the Australian Women’s Army Service (AWAS), the Australian Women’s Army Medical Service, Women’s Naval and Air Force Services, and Women’s Land Army increased the pressure on supply in therms of the need for winter and summer dresses, skirts, collars, caps, hats, jackets, overalls, underclothing, stockings, and gloves. Private uniform contractors paid for accessories (buttons, trims, etc) arrange through the Australian Department of the Army at regular Army prices. Furthermore, Australian clothing industry also provided clothing items for US troops in Australia but American Stores supplied the fabric and accessories. Following the end WW2 the government gave ex-servicemen a grant of 7 pounds 6 shillings towards the cost of a civilian suit and hat and Army uniform surplus was sold off.
The Australian cotton industry was very small in the early 1940s and khaki drill cotton for summer uniforms was obtained from India (100,000 yards), and interestingly, Japan (500,000 yards) - economically benefiting from Australian military orders on the eave of war! During the 1930s it became therefore necessary for the Australian cotton producers to grow better quality American cotton varieties, thereby influencing their industry.
During the 1930s a Camouflage Section of the Home Security was established, and was still in its infancy at the commencement of WW2. This Section was headed by a zoologist, Professor William Dakin. He established the ‘Sydney Camouflage Group’ made up of zoologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, and artists. The aim of this group was to discover the best combinations of colours and patterns of light and shadow for concealment. Unfortunately, the secondment of Professor Dakin to the Defence Central Camouflage Committee, tried to educate soldiers and their superiors to the ‘unmanly’ use of camouflage but only ended up in an advisory role only. However, following the experiences fighting the Japanese in the jungles of New Guinea in 1942, Dakin was again approach regarding camouflage (he had developed (in conjunction with Colgate-Palmolive Pty. Ltd. in Sydney) a suitable dark-brown face grease). Furthermore, on his advise, the Army adopted a dark green dye (‘jungle green’) for jungle uniforms. However, Captain Tadgell of the Camouflage Wing, New Guinea Forces, stated that green olive drab, rather than dark green, was more effective in the jungle. Furthermore, the khaki cotton drill uniforms used in tropical ares were needed to be replace by more suitably coloured uniforms. In spite of a number of different trials, even from different units, using spray paint, dyes, etc., there were two areas of push back: one was from the manufacturing side where lining up camouflage patterns to sew was much more difficult, and the other from objections in the field, where the jungle green was in more favour to the mottled pattern for general use in operations. The opinion on some form of patterned camouflage akin to the natural environment, rather than a plain dye, seemed to filter through. Dermatitis was a problem in tropical areas in WW2, and it was found that chrome dyes used in khaki uniforms were the cause of skin problems. The Director-General of Medical Services directed that uniforms should be vat dyed (jungle green) which was safer than solvent based dyes on khaki fabric. Impregnation of uniforms with certain chemicals to thwart mites, chiggers, and other insects was also researched. The ‘demand pull’ from Army to industry provided the emphasis for the development of new products. Indeed, with the Australian and US forces operating jointly in the Pacific region, defence industries of both nations began to work more closely - an arrangement that continues to this day. Research in regards to colours and patterns continued after WW2, as well as to the most suitable types of fabrics (polyester, nylon, flax, etc).
In 1951, demand increased on the Clothing Factory with the influx of immigration and the need for wider postal services, and the need for raincoats, overalls, etc for the armed services.
The Clothing Factory played an important role in designing and experimenting with new uniform designs, and the safeguarding of patterns and sealed samples. However, it still only produced 15% of Service requirements and the remaining 85% of short runs were already in the hands of the private sector. In 1952 the cap and canvas portion of the Clothing Factory was transferred to a Commonwealth building in Falon Street, Brunswick, Victoria, as the Clothing Factory in Melbourne was by then outdated.
During the 1960s and after many government committees and proposals, the construction of the new Clothing Factory at Gaffney Street, Coburg, Victoria, was finally built at a cost of $1.3 million and opened in January 1971 (this in spite of 85% short runs provided by the private sector).
Textile yarns was also researched and evaluated in the 1960s to counter celluloyti fungi, flame retardants, and for worn strength against wear. At this point, new technologically advanced fibres had not been developed, so the ‘layered’ principle was still recommended where the soldier could add or remove layers of clothing when required to enable the wearer to control his surface body temperature according to the weather and the nature of work.
The need for protective clothing in the nuclear age had also become essential. Cloth which was impermeable to radiation and other chemical dangers (e.g. rocket fuel, war gasses), was required but it also needed to maintain an acceptable body temperature while being worn. Australia experimented with different options: a wettable outer layer, a portable pump located in boots which operated while walking, hoses that supplied cool air into the suit, and small wearable air conditioners. Later, different patterns of camouflage and colours were developed into the combat and day-to-day uniforms worn currently. Health and protection of the soldier has been a driving force behind the close collaboration between science and Defence.
New fibre technologies were also being developed in Australia, such as unshrinkable wooled socks using chemicals or gasses. Companies relied on Army purchases, being a significant consumer of goods and services, to cover the costs and enhance their technological research, investment, employment, and industry structure. Since the late 1800s uniforms were cut and pedal sewn by tailors. Then, in the early 1900s compressed gas was replaced by electricity during the 1920s, which by the 1930s cutting machines could cut out one hundred garments at a time, sewn by 5 needle electric sewing machines. Private firms who supplied large quantities to Defence needed to introduce necessary techniques and machinery in order to stand a chance of winning a Government tender. This, together with the Clothing Factory supplying samples and sealed patterns, encouraged innovation in the private sector, and has been the general trend right through to the late 1990s where the use of computer-programmable sewing machines, CAD systems that design patterns to match, CNC cutting systems cutting out hundreds of patterns at a time, EDI and modern ware-housing and distribution systems have all made the manufacturing process much more efficient in labour and costs.
Uniforms were developed with climatic conditions in mind, from the heat and dry desert to humid and wet jungle conditions. The wool tunics of WW1 were quite hot to wear and so Australian troops modified them to suit the conditions. This occurred throughout the ranks, from General Monash to the private soldier. Cut down khaki overalls into shorts was the most noticeable, which not only was cooler to wear and stylish but was comfortable that allowed the soldier to climb hills. Khaki drill shorts were then proposed and considered by the Quartermaster-General’s department but the introduction of shorts as uniform dress did not occur until WW2. Modifications to provide for a higher degree of comfort under the different battlefield conditions were the order of the day, as testified by the enormous amount of correspondence emanating from the Commanders of units, the Quartermaster-General’s Department, and Ordinance Services Department. This impetus from the ranks for change is still relevant even in todays army: in 2010, SASR in Afghanistan had been using a digital camouflage pattern uniform in leu of DPCU as it afforded greater concealment and, upon a visit from a General, not only was its continued use authorised, it lead the way for the Australian Army to adopt a change to the now current camouflage pattern. Field reports and comments from first-hand ‘consumers’ have thus shaped future uniform developments but are usually peripheral issues that can be incorporated into the product. Although the Army listens to these, critical changes though still come from the Clothing Factory itself and the Military Board. This was seen by minimising cloth wastage by ‘laying’ the patterns in such a way as to utilise as much cloth as possible.
This was borne out when the Military Board resolved in 1905 to delete the yoke in the Commonwealth Pattern tunic to simplify and reduce costs, however Commanding Officers disagreed as it would be detrimental to the appearance of the tunic and exposing the soldier’s shoulders to the cold without the extra layer of cloth. Any changes to the yoke, or cheaper cloth lining, were thus discarded in favour of retaining the current pattern.
Other occurrences in uniform design could also come from private firms. In 1941, the Adelaide tailor H. L. Clisby wrote to the Contract Board in Melbourne to propose some alterations in the design of the AIF jacket worn by the Volunteer Defence Force (VDF) to better reflect the physique of these middle aged volunteers. He proposed deleting the back darts, and to reduce the pocket darts and collar size by 1/2 inch. This not only save the Department money but the new specifications were accepted and drawn up.
Other alterations to the uniform were borne out of circumstance. During the Gallipoli campaign, Australian soldiers sewed white calico patches upon the back and sleeves of their tunics in order to distinguish them from Turkish soldiers in close quarters at dusk and at the night. Later, on the Western Front in the snow covered ground of France, Brigadier-General Wisdom recommended the issue of white overalls to Australian troops; this being an early form of camouflage in Australian uniform history.
After 1947, the blue ‘walking out dress’ (“Blues”) was issued and was also used for ceremonies (1952 Orders of Dress). This was authorised by the Committee on Post War Dress to determine basic orders of dress for the Australian Military Forces: Battle Dress and Walking out dress. The choice of the ‘Blues' was a bias towards the British Army and coincided with preparations for the Royal Visit. This uniform was universally disliked as military parades became a ’sea of blue’; was ‘too colourful for the Australian way of life’; ’too dressy for the troops’; ‘unsuitable for hot climates’; and the wearing of a white collared shirt with a tie ‘unmilitary’. As a result the Army’s Dress Committee reconsidered the issue and the 1963 Army Dress Manual incorporated the following colours for Ceremonial Dress that depended on Corps or Unit: Khaki (winter and summer); blue; jungle green; khaki or green (tropical); and white (Staff Cadets, Governor-General Staff). Thus by 1960, the Australian Army dispensed with ‘Blues’ in favour of khaki for all ranks for ceremonial, walking-out, and battle dress. This turbulent time of the 1950s and reversal back to khaki was a lot of extra work and use of materials, not to mention the significant cost to the taxpayer.
The Clothing Factory was placed under the Department of Defence Production in 1982, and in 1989 was transferred for privatisation to the newly incorporated Australian Defence Industries Pty. Ltd.. In 1995 the remnants of the Australian Government Clothing Factory were sold to Free ’N’ Easy. Clothing operations then became known as Australian Defence Apparel Pty. Ltd. (ADA), which continued the pattern of innovation by research and development. This company successfully tendered for Australian Defence and other contracts. Body protection became the companies mainstay, expanding into the police force, fire brigade and emergency personnel. Today, it produces the Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform (DPCU) for the Australian Defence Force, and collaborates with Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).
Information taken from: The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory, by Anneke Van Mosseveld.
The military uniform allows a group of people (e.g. the Defence Force) to be identified as distinct from the rest of society and creates a boundary between them. There are four major reasons for using a uniform: control; utility; status; and as a symbol. It can also be a means by which the wearer conforms to regulations and behaviours of a group, and can serve as a symbol of status and rank. It signifies national identity, rank, and unifies those serving to protect and defend their country and the principles it represents. The designs and standardisation of the military uniform are legally sanctioned and protected by law (Intellectual Property). The uniform is the property of the nation, and is manufacture and supplied by the nation.
Official sealed pattern is a Government control system that provides manufacturers with a perfect sample of each garment which has been inspected, labelled, numbered, and sealed with a metal tag. Manufacturers are supplied with sealed samples to replicate, and upon inspection, approval given for a full production run. It was suggested initially that these labels on sealed patterns had a distinguishing letter for each of the three Services: ’N’ for Navy, ‘L’ for Land (Army), and ‘A’ for Air Services, but this was not adopted due to duplication of items across the Services. Instead, the letters M.S.B./Aus. (Munitions Supply Board) or M.G.O./Aus. (Master-General of Ordinance Department) was printed on the label, followed by a number that indicated the Service that the item was used.
Following Federation in 1901, when the military forces of individual states was transferred to the Commonwealth, a standing military force was implemented. In 1902 the Commonwealth had a military force of 28,886 men at its disposal, but only 1500 of these were permanent soldiers. In 1903 the Dress Regulations were drawn up by Major-General Hutton, which described the unified design for the Australian military uniform which ended the multitude of colourful uniforms worn by troops in each colony.
The types of uniforms regulated were:
• Field (or service) uniforms are those worn on active duty, during field exercises, at war or during peacekeeping service. These are functional garments, providing ease of movement, fabric strength, and to withstand heavy duty.
• Dress (or walking out) uniforms are worn on parades, or official functions, and are tailored garments.
Standing Orders for Dress and Clothing, the Dress Regulations, and the Dress Manual provide a reference and direction in the wearing of these types of uniform.
In 1909 a Bill was passed by Parliament for conscription to increase the military force’s size by 50%. This prompted the establishment of defence factories to supply small arms, munitions, clothing, and harness. The (Australian) Commonwealth Government Clothing Factory (CGCF) was established in 1912 and provided uniforms until 1995 when it was then privatised. It was an institution that encompassed innovation and creativity in the military clothing industry, and collaborated with another institution, that being the Australian Army. It was built in South Melbourne, and commenced operations in 1912 with the appointment by Government of the first CGCF operations Manager, Henry Slade. He set about to employ the finest cutters, pressers and machinists to set a high standard in the manufacture of the garments.
The clothing business changed from a multitude of individual tailors in the late 1800s each producing an entire uniform, to factories using division of labour where one worker would produce only one part in the process. The output from the factory oscillated depending on increase in demand due to conscription, compulsory military service, war, or reduction in demand by the cessation of hostilities.
Technology and other driving forces were key to the innovation and creativity of the CGCF. Such driving forces were technological advancement of manufacturing processes (improved cutting, sewing and finishing machines, new fabric materials, electricity, and later computerised design methods). Indeed, todays textiles provide greater comfort and an increased level of protection in terms of measuring and controlling moisture, heat, fungi, bacteria, or changing colour when electrically charged.
Prior to Federation, Australia’s security relied on colonial defence systems. At first Imperial troops were based in garrisons in major cities, which was gradually expanded to include resident volunteer units in each Australian colony. Fuelled by a fear of a French attack, the colony of New South Wales was the first to establish a corps of volunteers in 1801. This diminished in size following Napoleon’s demise.
In 1854, with Britain involved in the Crimean War, Volunteer Defence Forces were called upon in New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia. With a volunteer force being established in Queensland in 1860, Tasmania in 1859, and Western Australia in 1861.
In 1870, following the departure of the Imperial troops from Australia, the colonies became entirely reliant on their own defence and so small permanent forces were established alongside partially paid militia and volunteer regiments.
Volunteers were required to provide their own uniform, which usually were influential citizens as the purchasing cost was beyond the means of the ordinary citizen.
The uniforms of these small colonial units were all made to measure by local tailors, often using cloth imported from Britain. These would be classified today as Dress uniform as they were far less suitable for combat. The designs were based upon those current in Britain and varied widely both between the colonies and regiments in each colony. The expansion of the colonial units increased the urgency to manage, streamline, and supply garments, but the local tailors were deemed to be unable to supply the required quantities and quality. Therefore, the Royal Army Clothing Depot in Britain was approached and many of the colonial corps made the decision to adopt uniforms identical to their equivalent corps in Britain. The Royal Army’s Clothing Factory fabricated uniforms with stringent inspection as to quality of materials, workmanship, and compliance with specifications. Additionally, uniform cloth was imported from Britain by local tailors who fabricated uniforms using sealed patterns of the relevant corps as a guide. The importation of complete uniforms and of cloth used by local tailors continued after Federation.
Gradually locally manufactured cloth became widely available as the capacity of the Australian wool and worsted industries grew. By 1909 the newly established Australian Department of Defence would purchase fabric of Australian manufacture to be sold to contractors to make up clothing with sealed patterns in use. Uniform cloth was stored in Ordinance Stores across metropolitan areas.
As late as 1909 there was no centralised system that planned, budgeted, or purchased military uniforms. Instead, Commanding Officers of regiments and corps (General Officer Commanding (GOC)) were authorised to enter into contracts under certain conditions, and payment was made from the Corps Contingent Fund, recouped annually by Parliamentary vote. MAJ-GEN Hutton established a direct link between defence administration and the Defence Minister, thereby preventing the GOC from taking actions not inline with parliament. However, this was formally changed in 1905 with the establishment of the Military Board of Administration that reported to the Minister of Defence who had the power of approve or veto the board’s recommendations.
The Dress Regulations of the Military Forces of the Commonwealth, 1903, covered officers of the Headquarters and other General Staff, militia, partially paid, and volunteer military forces (however, it was permitted for those officers to continue to wear their previous uniform which would gradually be replaced over time). However, the Dress Regulations were a much more unified picture of the Commonwealth forces - ‘Undress’ (day to day or working uniform) for Staff officers, Instructional Staff, Artillery, Engineers, Infantry, Medical Corps, etc were all to wear the same jacket. This was referred to as the ’Service Jacket’ and had four expandable pockets with flaps, ‘drab’ woollen serge fabric of a ‘pea soup’ shade, which was more functional than the colonial uniforms. This Service Jacket was also worn by the Army’s rank and file. Bedford cord breeches or trousers of the same special drab mixture of serge as the jacket.
The breeches were loose at the thigh and tight at the knee which was laced below, pockets cut across, waist strap and buckle, and were worn by mounted, Field Artillery, Army Service Corps and Army Medical Corps.
Trousers came in three patterns: for Mounted Officers, Service Trousers (same material as the Service Jacket), and Staff Pattern Trousers (made of blue cloth). The Mounted Officers trousers were cut straight and longer than ordinary trousers so they fitted over the boots. The Service Trousers were cut loose in the breech and at the knee, but narrowed towards the ankle. They had cross pockets. The Staff pattern trousers of blue cloth were not described in the Dress Regulations (they were not worn by the Army Medical Corps).
This streamlining in the range of uniforms was a significant cost reduction, and paved the way for large volumes of identical garments to be made by the CGCF a decade later in 1912. The 1903 Dress Regulations standardised Australian Army uniforms with so many ranks requiring the same pattern of jacket, breeches, trousers, etc. The CGCF would play a pivotal role in the development of the Army uniform, working closely with the Department of Defence, Army departments, and scientists on government and private labourites. There was a redirection of some of the labour force and raw materials from private enterprise to government enterprise that monopolised uniform manufacturing. Control of supply lines, demand, delivery of product was now controlled by the government, turning private firms into subcontractors.
The range of outfits started to diverge from its British counterpart as early as 1906 when the Orders for Dress and Clothing was complimented by tropical clothing, worn by units in the northern tropical parts of Australia and Thursday Island. This consisted of tropical jackets and trousers (breeches for mounted) made from khaki cotton drill fabric. Instead of the wool greatcoat, the men were issued with a waterproof coat or cape. These were made of oil skin and trialled on Thursday Island in 1908. It was also found that oil skin capes were imperious to, and were thus employed against, gas particle infiltration under clothing during gas attack in WW1. This gas particle infiltration caused skin blisters and caused casualty hospitals to become over whelmed. No anti-gas clothing or research was conducted during WW1, only anti-gas goggles, box respirators, anti-gas helmets with tube, satchels and wallets were on issue. Oil skin and rubber (gloves etc) were employed after WW1 and for the next 30 years in the protection against gas. By 1924, the USA had developed impregnated clothing that gave excellent protection over long periods. This type of clothing was made available to the RAAF as the type of Australian dying processes could not be utilised.
A Trust Fund Account, which was independent of the annual government budget estimates, was established to pay for materials. Cord material for breeches was still imported until the Woollen Cloth Factory (WCF) commenced operations in 1915. There was then transactions between the CGCF and WCF for supply and manufacture.
Around the commencement of WW1, the government also operated a separate Harness, Saddlery and Accoutrements Factory at Cliffton Hill, Victoria. This factory closed in 1923 due to drop in demand. New demand inn 1941 forced the government to establish new premises in Leicester Street, Carlton (Melbourne) to produce canvas goods (artillery cartridge bags, wants, flags, etc) and caps (transferred from the Clothing Factory). The Clothing Factory in South Melbourne was then called the No. 1 Factory, and the Caps and Canvas Factory (CCF) in Carlton as the No. 2 Factory. At the end of WW2 the CCF was closed due to drop in demand and the production of caps was transferred back to the Clothing Factory.
The introduction of compulsory military training in 1911 for all Australian males who were British subjects and the accompanying need for the free issue of uniforms placed great financial pressures on the Defence account as well as the businesses producing the uniforms. Better cut of breeches and simplifying of patterns and general issue assist in better economy. Australian uniforms were also produced by the English Pimlico factory in the United Kingdom in 1917 to meet high demand. During WW1 there was between 45,645 (in 1914) to 122,186 (in 1918) enlistments in the Australian Army. In WW2 there was almost 1,000,000 men and women who enlisted in the three services (3/4 of these Army). Thus, employment levels and output of the CGCF oscillated throughout the 20th century with the advent of conflict or peace keeping actions.
However, as the result of very high demand during WW1 and the inability of the CGCF to supply garments to meet this demand, resulted in surplus work to be contracted out to the private sector. Some of the ore successful of these were Adelaide Clothing Manufacturing Co. Ltd., C. Anderson in Sydney, O’Brien and Down in Melbourne, S. Bartlett in Brisbane, and Steedman Bros. in Melbourne. These companies manufactured jackets, tunics, trousers, breeches, shirts, and greatcoats. Army hats were manufactured by Denton Hat Mills in Melbourne (30,750 hats), Dunkerley Hat Mills Ltd. in Sydney (27,000 hats), the Stockport Hat Co. Ltd. in Melbourne (19,750 hats). Buttons were supplied by A.J. Parkes in Brisbane, putties came from John Vickers and Co. in Sydney, and shirts by V. Kaufman and Co. in Melbourne (94,913 shirts). This reliance on external contractors in the private sector became firmly established and in fact increased over the course of the following decades. By 1951 the AGCF (the CGCF changed its name to Australian Government Clothing Factory, or AGCF) was producing only 15% of garments required by the Services. The main staple for the AGCF was postal and railway uniforms, Boy Scouts Association, Tram uniforms, St John Ambulance uniforms, Fire Brigade, Aborigines department, penal, Zoological gardens, etc: the reason for this was due to commerce, as the production of this uniform was a more constant source of income and employment. This left the CGCF dependent on the vital contribution from the private sector subcontractors throughout its history.
The Woollen Cloth Factory (WCF) in South Melbourne supplied the fabric for the uniforms as well as blankets for the military until mid-1920s, when it was sold. Even though it formed part of the government-owned supply chain, it also produced and sold woollen products to the private sector. It commenced operations in September 1915, and consisted of a wool scouring, carding, and dyeing plant, as well as yarn spinning and weaving operations. The produced range included khaki woollen cloth, drab mixture serge, woollen waterproof coating material, Bedford cord and whipcord, blankets, and rugs. The cloth produced by the WCF was both cheaper than private mills and of the best quality, even compared with imported cloth. This government owned business was in direct competition with the private sector which prompted the government to sell the business into private hands in 1923 despite its success. At the end of WW1 both the CGCF and WCF had to reduce their workforce and were overstocked with military garments. The WCF continued to produce fine wool for the government for the production and issue of fine woollen ready-to-wear civilian suits for returned servicemen.
Surplus stocks were also sold to the civilian market during the Great depression, where Australian families and unemployed were in desperate need of clothing, bedding, and blankets. The RSL assisted in securing stocks to assist returned servicemen. The stockpiles of part-worn and unserviceable clothing was the first to be used. Jackets, breeches, greatcoats were re-dyed and distributed to civilians. This continued until 1935 when developments in Europe and Asia begun to cause political unease in Australia and so a build up of military clothing once again resumed.
On the commencement of WW2, the CGCF had new lines of garments, such as tropical uniforms, in addition to the woollen uniforms. New developments in camouflage, dyes, and textiles led to new designs for the Australian Army, Navy, and Airforce in the 1930s. A new design in 1931 for uniforms for the volunteer Militia Forces was introduced that resulted in a large military order for clothing. During WW2, subcontractors were again utilised in 1941 to make up the shortfall in supply, especially in the initial stages of the war when demand was urgent. In fact, upon hearing about a serious shortfall in uniforms in all three Services, the Minister of Supply and Development immediately signed an order that uniforms were to be delivered within 48 hours. By 1940 the Board of Business Administration ensured standardisation of all linings, trimmings, threads, buttons, and accessories which would economise and streamline production. This enabled the cutters, sewing processes, and weaving machines to use similar cloth weights, trimmings, and patterns for the three Services. Additional services such as the Australian Women’s Army Service (AWAS), the Australian Women’s Army Medical Service, Women’s Naval and Air Force Services, and Women’s Land Army increased the pressure on supply in therms of the need for winter and summer dresses, skirts, collars, caps, hats, jackets, overalls, underclothing, stockings, and gloves. Private uniform contractors paid for accessories (buttons, trims, etc) arrange through the Australian Department of the Army at regular Army prices. Furthermore, Australian clothing industry also provided clothing items for US troops in Australia but American Stores supplied the fabric and accessories. Following the end WW2 the government gave ex-servicemen a grant of 7 pounds 6 shillings towards the cost of a civilian suit and hat and Army uniform surplus was sold off.
The Australian cotton industry was very small in the early 1940s and khaki drill cotton for summer uniforms was obtained from India (100,000 yards), and interestingly, Japan (500,000 yards) - economically benefiting from Australian military orders on the eave of war! During the 1930s it became therefore necessary for the Australian cotton producers to grow better quality American cotton varieties, thereby influencing their industry.
During the 1930s a Camouflage Section of the Home Security was established, and was still in its infancy at the commencement of WW2. This Section was headed by a zoologist, Professor William Dakin. He established the ‘Sydney Camouflage Group’ made up of zoologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, and artists. The aim of this group was to discover the best combinations of colours and patterns of light and shadow for concealment. Unfortunately, the secondment of Professor Dakin to the Defence Central Camouflage Committee, tried to educate soldiers and their superiors to the ‘unmanly’ use of camouflage but only ended up in an advisory role only. However, following the experiences fighting the Japanese in the jungles of New Guinea in 1942, Dakin was again approach regarding camouflage (he had developed (in conjunction with Colgate-Palmolive Pty. Ltd. in Sydney) a suitable dark-brown face grease). Furthermore, on his advise, the Army adopted a dark green dye (‘jungle green’) for jungle uniforms. However, Captain Tadgell of the Camouflage Wing, New Guinea Forces, stated that green olive drab, rather than dark green, was more effective in the jungle. Furthermore, the khaki cotton drill uniforms used in tropical ares were needed to be replace by more suitably coloured uniforms. In spite of a number of different trials, even from different units, using spray paint, dyes, etc., there were two areas of push back: one was from the manufacturing side where lining up camouflage patterns to sew was much more difficult, and the other from objections in the field, where the jungle green was in more favour to the mottled pattern for general use in operations. The opinion on some form of patterned camouflage akin to the natural environment, rather than a plain dye, seemed to filter through. Dermatitis was a problem in tropical areas in WW2, and it was found that chrome dyes used in khaki uniforms were the cause of skin problems. The Director-General of Medical Services directed that uniforms should be vat dyed (jungle green) which was safer than solvent based dyes on khaki fabric. Impregnation of uniforms with certain chemicals to thwart mites, chiggers, and other insects was also researched. The ‘demand pull’ from Army to industry provided the emphasis for the development of new products. Indeed, with the Australian and US forces operating jointly in the Pacific region, defence industries of both nations began to work more closely - an arrangement that continues to this day. Research in regards to colours and patterns continued after WW2, as well as to the most suitable types of fabrics (polyester, nylon, flax, etc).
In 1951, demand increased on the Clothing Factory with the influx of immigration and the need for wider postal services, and the need for raincoats, overalls, etc for the armed services.
The Clothing Factory played an important role in designing and experimenting with new uniform designs, and the safeguarding of patterns and sealed samples. However, it still only produced 15% of Service requirements and the remaining 85% of short runs were already in the hands of the private sector. In 1952 the cap and canvas portion of the Clothing Factory was transferred to a Commonwealth building in Falon Street, Brunswick, Victoria, as the Clothing Factory in Melbourne was by then outdated.
During the 1960s and after many government committees and proposals, the construction of the new Clothing Factory at Gaffney Street, Coburg, Victoria, was finally built at a cost of $1.3 million and opened in January 1971 (this in spite of 85% short runs provided by the private sector).
Textile yarns was also researched and evaluated in the 1960s to counter celluloyti fungi, flame retardants, and for worn strength against wear. At this point, new technologically advanced fibres had not been developed, so the ‘layered’ principle was still recommended where the soldier could add or remove layers of clothing when required to enable the wearer to control his surface body temperature according to the weather and the nature of work.
The need for protective clothing in the nuclear age had also become essential. Cloth which was impermeable to radiation and other chemical dangers (e.g. rocket fuel, war gasses), was required but it also needed to maintain an acceptable body temperature while being worn. Australia experimented with different options: a wettable outer layer, a portable pump located in boots which operated while walking, hoses that supplied cool air into the suit, and small wearable air conditioners. Later, different patterns of camouflage and colours were developed into the combat and day-to-day uniforms worn currently. Health and protection of the soldier has been a driving force behind the close collaboration between science and Defence.
New fibre technologies were also being developed in Australia, such as unshrinkable wooled socks using chemicals or gasses. Companies relied on Army purchases, being a significant consumer of goods and services, to cover the costs and enhance their technological research, investment, employment, and industry structure. Since the late 1800s uniforms were cut and pedal sewn by tailors. Then, in the early 1900s compressed gas was replaced by electricity during the 1920s, which by the 1930s cutting machines could cut out one hundred garments at a time, sewn by 5 needle electric sewing machines. Private firms who supplied large quantities to Defence needed to introduce necessary techniques and machinery in order to stand a chance of winning a Government tender. This, together with the Clothing Factory supplying samples and sealed patterns, encouraged innovation in the private sector, and has been the general trend right through to the late 1990s where the use of computer-programmable sewing machines, CAD systems that design patterns to match, CNC cutting systems cutting out hundreds of patterns at a time, EDI and modern ware-housing and distribution systems have all made the manufacturing process much more efficient in labour and costs.
Uniforms were developed with climatic conditions in mind, from the heat and dry desert to humid and wet jungle conditions. The wool tunics of WW1 were quite hot to wear and so Australian troops modified them to suit the conditions. This occurred throughout the ranks, from General Monash to the private soldier. Cut down khaki overalls into shorts was the most noticeable, which not only was cooler to wear and stylish but was comfortable that allowed the soldier to climb hills. Khaki drill shorts were then proposed and considered by the Quartermaster-General’s department but the introduction of shorts as uniform dress did not occur until WW2. Modifications to provide for a higher degree of comfort under the different battlefield conditions were the order of the day, as testified by the enormous amount of correspondence emanating from the Commanders of units, the Quartermaster-General’s Department, and Ordinance Services Department. This impetus from the ranks for change is still relevant even in todays army: in 2010, SASR in Afghanistan had been using a digital camouflage pattern uniform in leu of DPCU as it afforded greater concealment and, upon a visit from a General, not only was its continued use authorised, it lead the way for the Australian Army to adopt a change to the now current camouflage pattern. Field reports and comments from first-hand ‘consumers’ have thus shaped future uniform developments but are usually peripheral issues that can be incorporated into the product. Although the Army listens to these, critical changes though still come from the Clothing Factory itself and the Military Board. This was seen by minimising cloth wastage by ‘laying’ the patterns in such a way as to utilise as much cloth as possible.
This was borne out when the Military Board resolved in 1905 to delete the yoke in the Commonwealth Pattern tunic to simplify and reduce costs, however Commanding Officers disagreed as it would be detrimental to the appearance of the tunic and exposing the soldier’s shoulders to the cold without the extra layer of cloth. Any changes to the yoke, or cheaper cloth lining, were thus discarded in favour of retaining the current pattern.
Other occurrences in uniform design could also come from private firms. In 1941, the Adelaide tailor H. L. Clisby wrote to the Contract Board in Melbourne to propose some alterations in the design of the AIF jacket worn by the Volunteer Defence Force (VDF) to better reflect the physique of these middle aged volunteers. He proposed deleting the back darts, and to reduce the pocket darts and collar size by 1/2 inch. This not only save the Department money but the new specifications were accepted and drawn up.
Other alterations to the uniform were borne out of circumstance. During the Gallipoli campaign, Australian soldiers sewed white calico patches upon the back and sleeves of their tunics in order to distinguish them from Turkish soldiers in close quarters at dusk and at the night. Later, on the Western Front in the snow covered ground of France, Brigadier-General Wisdom recommended the issue of white overalls to Australian troops; this being an early form of camouflage in Australian uniform history.
After 1947, the blue ‘walking out dress’ (“Blues”) was issued and was also used for ceremonies (1952 Orders of Dress). This was authorised by the Committee on Post War Dress to determine basic orders of dress for the Australian Military Forces: Battle Dress and Walking out dress. The choice of the ‘Blues' was a bias towards the British Army and coincided with preparations for the Royal Visit. This uniform was universally disliked as military parades became a ’sea of blue’; was ‘too colourful for the Australian way of life’; ’too dressy for the troops’; ‘unsuitable for hot climates’; and the wearing of a white collared shirt with a tie ‘unmilitary’. As a result the Army’s Dress Committee reconsidered the issue and the 1963 Army Dress Manual incorporated the following colours for Ceremonial Dress that depended on Corps or Unit: Khaki (winter and summer); blue; jungle green; khaki or green (tropical); and white (Staff Cadets, Governor-General Staff). Thus by 1960, the Australian Army dispensed with ‘Blues’ in favour of khaki for all ranks for ceremonial, walking-out, and battle dress. This turbulent time of the 1950s and reversal back to khaki was a lot of extra work and use of materials, not to mention the significant cost to the taxpayer.
The Clothing Factory was placed under the Department of Defence Production in 1982, and in 1989 was transferred for privatisation to the newly incorporated Australian Defence Industries Pty. Ltd.. In 1995 the remnants of the Australian Government Clothing Factory were sold to Free ’N’ Easy. Clothing operations then became known as Australian Defence Apparel Pty. Ltd. (ADA), which continued the pattern of innovation by research and development. This company successfully tendered for Australian Defence and other contracts. Body protection became the companies mainstay, expanding into the police force, fire brigade and emergency personnel. Today, it produces the Disruptive Pattern Camouflage Uniform (DPCU) for the Australian Defence Force, and collaborates with Defence Science and Technology Organisation (DSTO).
Information taken from: The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory, by Anneke Van Mosseveld.
RSS Feed
