Pre-metric British clothing sizes

I need some help here. I trying to find some sort of conversion chart for the old pre-metric/pre-NATO sizing system used by the British military. I mean what the heck is "Size 1" or "Size 4" supposed to mean? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

I'm not sure about NATO sizes, but back in the day in Oz a size 5 shirt was an OS (oversize) and size 4 pants was a large. Those were the sizes I wore and I was 6' and about 11 Stone then. The US equivaents were about large and regular respectively.

Thanks, Paul! This has been driving me crazy, & it seems this system hung around down your way into the '80s. I've got Kiwi DPM trousers, one says Size 1 and the other Size 4, and I can't see a hill of beans worth of diference in size between them! But I've also seen these sizes on British KF shirts from the 60s and no one seems to know what it translates to.

Thanks again!

Oops, forgot to say the one pair of trousers is dated 1980, the other 1984.

yeah, we went metric in the '70s but old sizing kept going for a long time after the change.

To this day I still have to do a maths conversion from Stones to Kilos for my weight. Fruedian,,,probably.

Your size 1 is short small and size 4 is medium small. The 4's are just longer. Then comes size 7 which is tall small.

Most of the old pre-decimal British Army battledress blouses and trousers were made by two companies. Ladybird in Belfast and the other was a government contract with the prison service (or poison service as it's called here).

If you got a set made by Ladybird, then you hoped that they were made by a protestant because the catholics at the factory used to make them so that they were all over the place. As for the prison service contracts, well....., you could get anything and as for sizes, well, the label was totally irrelevant. There'd be 5 buttons up the front but 4 button holes, seams that would never mate even in a month of sundays, waist fittings that would do Marylin Monroe justice and a greatcoat that I had, had pockets that were about 2 feet long inside that slowly tapered down to nothing.

Yes........... whether imperial or metric, UK Militaryclothing sizes didn't always equate with the size on the label

You will not find any easy conversion. It's really trying it on and finding something that fits. Never take size labels as gospel.
The wartime battledress went up in steps of three, i.e. 1,2, & 3 were for men of the same height but slim, normal, and portly, so if 6 was too short for you then you probably needed to be looking at a 9. The postwar BD added considerably more size gradations, and eventually a size 0 and a 00 for cadets who were too small for the regular ones.

Thanks for the responses everyone!

Browningautorifle, if I'm following your explanation correctly, Size 9 would be Tall Large, correct? Was there no provision for XL or did they tack on another series of numbers?

I can't imagine why this system isn't still in use... :lol:

Thanks again everyone! :D

The wartime battle dress sizes had nothing to do with Nato sizes other than they used numbers. You sort of are correct but I THINK size 9 was extra tall extra large. Beyond that I think it was custom manufacture. We did recruit one ex basketball player who was nearly seven feet tall. His clothing didn't even have size marking. I had to deal with recruits for several years and part of start up duties was helping QM staff kit the troops up. We didn't have too many of the size 9's. I also can't say if the UK did things exactly the same. Now the system is four numbers. I was 7336 shirt and 7334 pants. 73 inches tall and 36 inch chest. Either system is easy to use once you're used to it.

I just happen to have my "Overalls, Denim Blouse" on today. It is dated 1954 and was made by "John Peck & Co., Ltd." The blouse (Jacket) is a size "8", measurements - Height 5ft. 9 inches to 5ft. 10 inches, Breast - 39ins. - 41ins., Waist - 35ins. - 36ins.

I am a fairly small guy, 5' 7" tall and weigh 142 lbs. so the measurements are a little large for me but comfortable with a sweater. The British sizing system is interesting. I tried to figure it out years ago but never came up with anything that made sense, not having access to enough different garments to figure it out accurately. I do know that they didn't run in sequence.

Denims (so-called, only the first issues were actually made of denim material) were intended to be worn on top of the serge blouse-and-trousers as protective clothing for fatigue duties, and the size labels reflected this. In reality, they were almost never used in this way, and generations of soldiers were puzzled to find labels that bore no apparent relation to the fit. For similar reasons, some of the trousers were made with slits that allowed you access to the pockets of the trousers you were supposedly wearing underneath. Most people sew these up again, as they either exposed your keks to the world or prompted you to drop your money down inside where it collected on top of your gaiters.