|
|
Post by jms on Oct 20, 2021 8:53:05 GMT -5
 Just made by WPG. What do you think? |
|
|
|
Post by craigtx on Oct 21, 2021 21:51:18 GMT -5
They're good trousers. I need to get another pair in my correct size since I lost weight. They're made well and fit according to size. Just make sure you measure on your natural waist (about the navel) to get the correct size.
|
|
|
|
Post by jms on Oct 22, 2021 5:09:34 GMT -5
I haven't ordered any trousers from WPG before. So, if I wear a size 42 in jeans, etc you are saying not to order by that size but to measure and go by the number of inches instead? Would this be the case for the TTA 47 trousers as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Oct 25, 2021 9:17:33 GMT -5
I haven't ordered any trousers from WPG before. So, if I wear a size 42 in jeans, etc you are saying not to order by that size but to measure and go by the number of inches instead? Would this be the case for the TTA 47 trousers as well? Yes to all the above. My waist and navel are pretty close, so the measurement I use is the same. Make sure to use the actual inch measurement. Note on WPG trousers: they are usually not ideally-sized for athletic types, meaning they can be tight around the quads. Both my buddy and I have encountered this with their Rhodesian trousers, but my TAP 50 pants are pretty roomy. |
|
|
|
Post by Kenneth on Oct 27, 2021 18:32:06 GMT -5
For what it's worth, one pattern of British DPM pants (84 pattern?) were very narrow in the leg. Apparently that's what the soldiers wanted. I recall that some soldiers in the US Army had their fatigue pants "pegged," that is, had the legs tapered narrower. I doubt that was ever done with patterns with cargo pockets.
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Oct 28, 2021 11:15:00 GMT -5
Yeah, and lots of larger Brit troops bitched about that pattern for that very reason. Looked good in garrison, terrible in the field.
|
|
Just made by WPG. What do you think?
