# Hard Truths



## LawnDart (13 Feb 2005)

I wasn't sure whether to post this under "Equipment" or "History" so I defaulted to this topic heading.

I'm just wondering how many people out there remember the old style uniforms we wore prior to the new millenium.

Ah yes, I remember it well. It was the 1980's and I was en route to a parade practice. We had been pounding the ashphalt for weeks in prep for the arrival of some General who was going to show up 25 minutes late, leaving us all standing around on the parade square with pounding headaches from the night before. It wasn't all one sided though. Our reward was that he would deign to inspect us, stop to talk to a few of the boys for a moment, then get up and regale us with an interminabley boring speech about how this was a "particularly challenging time to be in the CF blah, blah, blah".

Anyway, I was still living in, but was usually staying off base with a particular little chickie who I loved at the time but whose name I now barely remember.  We were getting ready for this big event, and I had to stop on my way to work to get gas.

I gassed up my car, then proceeded to walk into the kiosk to pay. As I did, I was met by a cute 14 year old girl on the way out. She was looking at me-hard. At first I thought she might be interested. Then I thought better of it because she was... ONLY 14! (That said, looking back I was only 19 or so. Doing the math, that would put her well into cougar country and my league nowadays!) Still, that was then, this is now.

Still, I was feeling pretty proud of myself, being a dumb teenager in uniform, recently out of the awkward experience that is high school, and now being ogled by the same kind of girls who never gave me a minute's thought only months before. 

Then it happened. The girl, though trying to be polite, was suddenly overcome with horror at the sight before her eyes. She suddenly screwed up her face, pointed directly at me and exclaimed  "eeewwwwwwww!"

I didn't know what to do. Was she talking about me? She must be, that's where she's pointing. What happened?

Suddenly, I passed myself in the store window. That's when it all became horrifyingly clear.

I looked at myself. I was wearing the dress of the day!

Boots, ankle, black;
Work dress polyester green pants;
Lagoon green vomit coloured work dress shirt;
Work dress jacket, green (bus driver style);
Forge Cap, green;
White plastic belt, white;
Gloves, white;
And finally
Silver braid on hat, unhooked and placed on the chin to keep the head dress on in strong wind.

I was mortified!

Instantly, I understood what the poor girl had been repulsed by. I looked like a train wreck in slow motion. You didn't want to look anymore, but somehow, you just couldn't help yourself. It was awful!

Man, there was so many bad decisions of uniforms made foisted on the CF when I was in. 

Does anyone remember the "CF K-way". Manufactured in Quebec, that's a great example of Government corruption/kickbacks and graft. Not one drop of rain was ever stopped by one of those things. EVERYONE I knew went out and spent their own money on decent US gear at John's Army Surplus in Pet. The troops shouldn't have been expected to do that. We are a first world nation, and troops shouldn't be expected to go begging for decent clothing.

How about the "Jeans Jacket"  aka; the CF combat jacket? That was another example of Government suppliers paying off DND bureaucrats to push their useless product. I don't remember anyone after about 1989 wearing that useless piece of crap outside of garrison. The white, courdrouy collar was a nice touch though. Jon and Ponch from CHIPS would have been proud to wear it!

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence upon those who would do us harm."


----------



## Blakey (13 Feb 2005)

You were wearing a forge cap in work dress   ???


----------



## LawnDart (13 Feb 2005)

Yep, we actually did that for parade prep. See "Ripley's".


----------



## DaveK (13 Feb 2005)

Blakey said:
			
		

> You were wearing a forge cap in work dress   ???



Me too.

On QL3 in '87, plus we wore the CF tie with the lagoon green shirt.  Man, the pride was brimming.  Third World? Try tenth.  As they say on FUBAR, turn up the suck.


----------



## Grimey (13 Feb 2005)

I remember the CF pants i was issued in 85.  They had been on the shelf in Cornhole-iss for at least 15 yrs.  When i sat down, the material was so thin my leg hairs would poke through.


----------



## LawnDart (13 Feb 2005)

How's about the fact we were the last real army in the world to find the cash to get some camo coloured uniforms? That was a joke. We all walked about telling each other we were hardcore and the OD's were versatile, but in reality, we were just cheap.  Bush League.

In Somalia, everyone had desert cam on except the Canadians. Not to mention the fact our AFV's were painted bright white. Most of the guys who drove them in 3 CDO/Direct Fire Support and Recce cammed them up with dirt, but it was labour intensive and units like 1 Commando couldn't be bothered and  undermined the idea by walking around laughing that they hadn't bothered to do it. They were a suck ass unit though.

I realise uniforms are a huge expense, but really, would it have been that hard to get some decent clothes in time for Afghanistan? The Canadians were still wearing green in Khandahar in 02. I mean, the Africa Korps and Brit 8th Army had figured out by 1942 that desert enviornments warrant desert uniforms. Why can't our Generals? Canada has about 7 for every Corporal these days. With so many brains up top, I don't understand why things are so F'd up!


----------



## FredDaHead (13 Feb 2005)

LawnDart said:
			
		

> With so many brains up top, I don't understand why things are so F'd up!



Maybe it's the Dilbert Principle at work?


----------



## DaveK (13 Feb 2005)

How 'bout the fact that we are just about the only army that does not put skill/formation badges on our combats?  I once saw an email from a MWO supply tech in NDHQ or Louis Standaround saying that the reason there are no jump wings etc. on the CADPAT (TM) was because it would affect the camouflage properties of the clothing.  As for being "Sterile" when on ops, I'm sure we can cough up an extra shirt for the fifty guys in the military that actually have to be "sterile."


----------



## pbi (14 Feb 2005)

When I hear complaints about some of our gear today,   I think back to the Korean War canvas and brass equipment I was issued in 1974, the useless rain gear we had in the late 70s/early eighties, the combat coat: possibly the single most useless and ill-designed piece of clothing we ever had excepting the old rain gear, garrison dress (with those ridiculous boots that had a killer tread but had to be spitshone), and of course the hideous atrocity known as workdress. Remember those stupid ascots?

While we still have some items of field kit that need work (see the "Equipment" thread on this site) we are in my opinion far ahead of where we were ten years ago, and not even in the same solar system compared to 20 years ago. Except of course for the ruck-the current issue one (haven't seen the brand new one yet) is a shambles that is too small even for a pogue like me.

As for skill badges-the new US Army field uniform will have them all removable for a sterile look: maybe we should consider the same, because CADPAT is our dress of the day in garrison, and I see nothing wrong with wearing skill badges in garrison.

Cheers.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Feb 2005)

Well, I hate to say, _â Å“back in the ol' days,â ?_ again, but ...

The 51 pattern web gear to which *pbi* refers may have been developed and issued to someone in the Korean War time frame but, in the '50s and '60s we, in the Canadian Army (Regular) were issued, and carried in the field, 37 pattern web gear â â€œ canvas and brass without those neat little holes for hooking things â â€œ everything connected by straps and buckles.

We were issued with woolen battle dress (with a greatcoat and a jerkin â â€œ all of which fit in the canvas large pack as part of 'marching order') and, for summer, cotton 'bush dress' â â€œ both of which, overlain with black coveralls, and were meant to be both garrison and field dress.   (We also had 'tropical worsted' uniforms â â€œ which looked rather like ill-matched (the jackets and trousers were *never* quite the same colour) dull khaki versions of today's service dress) and were perfectly bloody useless for any function known to man.)

We had switched from canvas gaiters to woolen putties by the time I joined, but black ankle boots with leather soles and heels were standard issue â â€œ field and garrison.   We had a peaked cap, known as 'caps, winter, ridiculous' and a similarly shaped 'bush cap'.

Depending on unit, there were a dozen and one varieties of garrison dress â â€œ the high-necked woolen sweater was popular: good, effective, comfortable, etc, and, of course, those on the jump roll (and those who had been on the jump roll, even once) all had jump smocks which, while uncomfortable and impractical, were 'smart.'   The woolen battle dress was all _gussied up_ with badges and patches and Regimental _quiffs_ abounded â â€œ scarves and stable belts and striped or tartan ties and gawd alone knows what else.   Suffice it to say that _gypsy caravan_ was the most common phrase which sprang to the lips when one saw a Canadian Army unit in the field circa 1960.   Nothing we had, however, ever looked as bad or was as hated, by the rank and file in *The Royal Canadian Regiment*, as the work dress issued in the '70s.

One of the things we were told, when we were first issued combat clothing in the early '60s, was that it was to have nothing sewn to it â â€œ no name tag or badge â â€œ so that it could be exchanged at a mobile bath/laundry or decontamination unit (we trained, seriously, for nuclear/chemical operations).


----------



## pbi (15 Feb 2005)

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The 51 pattern web gear to which *pbi* refers may have been developed and issued to someone in the Korean War time frame but, in the '50s and '60s we, in the Canadian Army (Regular) were issued, and carried in the field, 37 pattern web gear â â€œ canvas and brass without those neat little holes for hooking things â â€œ everything connected by straps and buckles.
> 
> ...



Cheers


----------



## DaveK (15 Feb 2005)

PBI

Agree with the new US combat uniform, plus it is very practical i.e. no lower shirt pockets which are, of course, handy with a flak vest, webbing, or tac vest.

The MLBU leaves me wondering.  They gave us laundry bags.  We used 'em for the MLBU.  Why the sterility after that.  The Americans use an MLBU system too.  Yet they have their UER on their BDU.

Cheers


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2005)

DaveK said:
			
		

> PBI
> 
> Agree with the new US combat uniform, plus it is very practical i.e. no lower shirt pockets which are, of course, handy with a flak vest, webbing, or tac vest.
> 
> ...



I'm not so sure about the utility of having no lower pockets. Most of the time that you are wearing CADPAT, you are not wearing a tacvest or IPE: you are in garrison or inside your base camp. Therefore the pockets are needed and useful. 

On the MLBU "sanitization" thing, with no disrespect to ROJ, I think that is one of those many things in the Army that are told to people as "truths" but either a) were not correct in the first place; or b) have long ago been overtaken by events. 
Like the "Crash Route" signs  on bases: you would be amazed how many people repeated the story that these were actually "bug-out" routes to let the units "crash out" in case of an alert. In fact they were designated routes for the crash fire rescue apparatus to get to the airfield in an emergency. 

In the case of our MLBUs today, nametags and patches have no real effect on the cleaning system. 

Cheers


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Feb 2005)

I agree with pbi â â€œ we began to sew things on the original combat uniforms before the ink was dry on the â Å“Don't sew things on combatsâ ? memo.

We were told (instructed, I think) that _*decontamination*_ was the rationale for direct exchange of combat uniforms.

I almost hate to go on because laundry has become something of a mini _hot topic_ on army.ca but: we, too, had laundry bags and there were all sorts of schemes to drop dirty clothes off at the MLBU and, eventually, maybe, get clean, folded clothing back a day or so later, via the CQMS.

We, in the '60s and '70s, only had black coveralls impregnated with some powders for NBC protective suits.   I participated in BAOR's Exercise Cruscader/Spearpoint in 1980.   It was, I believe, the largest exercise ever run in NATO.   _(All of 1 (BR)Corps was in the field, plus LOC units (dozens of 'em, even a NAAFI re-supply unit) from BAOR and the UK, plus dozens and dozens of elements â â€œ including a few nearly complete TAVR regiments and battalions â â€œ from the UK, representing 2 (BR) Corps.   Most of RAF Germany and large parts of RAF Strike Command participated â â€œ with deployed, mobile, HQ and comms elements, too. There was a large, German, enemy force (two divisions, I think) plus thousands, probably tens of thousands of controllers, umpires and observers from all over NATO *and* the Warsaw Pact (observers, only, I hope!).)_   Laundry and decontamination was an important exercise element â â€œ soldiers (lieutenant generals through private) spent days and days _buttoned up_ in NBC suits â â€œ generals slept in their NBC suits, as did RAF group captains, TA sergeants in LOC units and privates in rifle sections.   Suffice it to say that when the NBC alert level permitted everyone in the area â â€œ 100,000+ people â â€œ hopped about, naked as jay birds, while they scrambled to change clothes and shake out the NBC suit before the alert level went up again.

On a personal note, pbi, re your comment, above, about caps: I hated hats and caps and toques and helmets and I never worried what was sewn on mine (proud as i was of my Regiment) because, much to the CSM's disgust, it was usually stuffed in my hip pocket.   It, eventually, became my own little _signature_, of sorts ... an unruly shock of reddish hair made me easy to find in the field.


----------



## jrhume (16 Feb 2005)

Heh-heh.  Would you like to hear from the other side of the fence?

In 1965 I was issued shapeless cotton fatigues and black boots.  There were still a good many NCOs and officers who remembered the 'brown shoe days', which ended sometime in the fifties.  Once I was out of basic training and into air traffic control school, all my fatigues went for tailoring.  They looked pretty good once that was done.  We starched them heavily and wore the trousers bloused.  I'll have to say they were comfortable.  When working outside in the heat -- this was Alabama -- we could take off the shirt and work in t-shirt and trousers.

Our field jacket was serviceable, had been around for a good many years, and could be worn with a liner or just with the shell.  I suspect it wouldn't have been adequate in cold weather, but I'm almost positive the Army issued a parka to soldiers stationed in colder climates.  I spent my whole time in the southern states or in Vietnam, where we had no need for parkas.

In Vietnam I was issued the rip-stop jungle fatigues, which were just coming into service (1967).  For the first few months in-country most of us wore either the old uniforms or jungle fatigues.  By early 1968 we were wearing only jungle fatigues.  The old cotton uniforms faded to a nice soft olive drab and the jungle fatigues did the same, except they never had the comfortable feel to them that only comes with cotton.

Naturally, we had jungle boots by then.  Us REMFs wore the trousers bloused.  Infantrymen wore them however the hell they wanted -- but they usually tucked them in or bloused them in some manner because of the damned leeches and other biting things.

The regular fatigue shirts had only upper pockets and we weren't to carry anything in them anyhow, except maybe a pen.  Tankers and some others had trousers with side pockets, but most of us never saw those.  The jungle fatigues had too many pockets, probably, but for a first effort they worked pretty well.

Our boots were good, both the full leather black ones and the jungle boots.  In Nam, I wore tennis shoes except when actually on duty.  Or flip-flops and cut-off jeans.

In general, I'd say the sixties era US Army uniform was pretty good, even the greens.  I was issued a set of light weight greens when I came back from Vietnam.  They were very nice and quite comfortable.  For a long time the Army had a light green shirt that was worn with the green trousers that was a very comfortable rig.  When I was in, there we still wore khaki in warm climates and there was variation to the regular cotton khakis made of cotton/poly blend, I imagine.  I never had any of those.

In Vietnam, the rucks (which I never had to carry - thank God) came in for a lot of criticism.  Some of the LRRPs and others carried NVA rucks, but most outfits had to make do with the issue gear.  Every infantryman I knew went into the bush loaded down like a pack mule.  

I'm sure there were problems with uniforms, but I can't recall any serious issues.

Jim


----------



## Glorified Ape (16 Feb 2005)

Listening to this stuff makes complaints about the present-day equipment pale in comparison.


----------



## Riobeard (16 Feb 2005)

I've just got to say these messages brought back a flood of memories of the '70's and the bus driver uniforms we wore complete with ascots and all.  To top it off I remember driving around in Vehicles from the mid 50's and an assortment of other unique Canadian inventions like the Carry All made by International Harvester which up until my joining the army I'd though only built tractors and combines.....
Ah the memories.
Best memory was the cheese cloth Pants we had for our "dress" uniform and my Platoon Commander bending over just before parade only to have the crotch rip out.  He scurried into the nearest building and could only find a stapler to put them back together before going on to parade.  Needless to say he was one sore soldier by time we had finished.......we could hardly keep from busting a gut laughing in the ranks as we did the marchpast to his bow legged attempt to stem the pain......


----------



## pbi (16 Feb 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> Listening to this stuff makes complaints about the present-day equipment pale in comparison.



A good observation, and one I've made a couple of times over on the Equipment thread. But, I guess that we each have our own perspective: we can only judge against what we know. Guys who never wore the old "Brasso and Capo" webbing, or the 64 pattern stuff, or tried the original raingear (or the old X-50 poncho before that!!) can't compare, and to them those comparisons are meaningless. In general, we will never be happy with our kit (perhaps a good thing that spurs development?) but I do believe that the gear we have on issue today is in general far superior to the old stuff, and IMHO makes us one of the best personally-equipped armies in the world.

Cheers.


----------



## ZipperHead (17 Feb 2005)

I think that the day will come when soldiers are complaining about their hover-tanks being too hard to maintain and that their plasma-cannon jams all the time (made by the lowest bidder still of course). 

One of the guys from the regiment (he's a mil history buff) told me a story once about the Roman army (I don't remember the story word-for-word: APS (aluminum pot syndrome) has taken it's toll  :skull: ). Anyway, it goes something like this: two young Roman soldiers were taking a break from sacking Carthage, when one looks at the other and complains about the crappy sandals he's wearing. Poor quality, ill fitting, yada yada. A Centurion overhearing the conversation says to his buddy: "Hmmph!!! I remember when we didn't even HAVE sandals!!"

For the record, I think the majority of the kit that we have been issued over the last 5 or so years is of very good quality, with many changes (for the better) over the short life of some of the kit. I think some of it is slow in coming (CADPAT jackets, for example) and the rationale of not issuing everybody the new Rucksack (from the CTS site: *The Rucksack will be a basic issue item to dismounted CF personnel conducting land operations. It will provide the primary load carriage means in operations where soldiers are required to carry combat supplies and sustainment items for greater than 24 hours and sufficient for up to 72 hours.* ). I have heard rumour-net stuff that says Armour types won't get it because we aren't truly dismounted. Sure....... I've been out of the loop for a little while (Parental Leave), so I may have my facts wrong, so anybody who can point me in the right direction..... I haven't received the new small-pack yet, but from all accounts it seems very useful (in field and garrison). I used to cringe seeing people use bright neon backpacks in uniform, even though dress regs constantly stated "conservative" colours, and I think it was criminal that guys had to go out and buy (though Canadian Peacekeeper (CPGear, now, I guess) and the like must have loved it......) their own backpacks, especially when units wouldn't allow the IPE bag to be issued/worn/etc.

I know people will always complain about what we get issued, saying that there is something better. The Gerber Multitool vs the Leatherman stands out in my mind. Of course, if anybody remembers the C5 knife, I think that anything was an improvement on that. One thing that I would like to see (and I know that the Canadian content rule will usually trump it) is more "off the shelf" purchases of other country's issued kit, and/or what is readily available in the civvy market. I know that they do "one off" purchases (ie US woodland Camo Camelbacks for A'stan), but I don't see much point in some of the Trials & Evaluation time wasted on already proven products (be it battlefield, or civvy expeditions). Let other country's, and civvy companies, spend the money on R&D, and let our soldiers benefit with better kit, sooner. But then again, what do I know  ???

Another thing that springs to mind is, after 17 years in, and 3 tours, I have enough boots to filll at least one barracks box, and probably 2. Don't get me wrong, the new boots are great, but did it really need to take THAT long to get rid of (well, not yet completely) the Mk III combat boot. And if/when they do, will we be allowed to run in combat boots again (I threw that out to start a debate...... one of my top ten,, of my 5 million pet peeves, is the "no running in combat boots" regulation. I understand it in principle (ie. don't run 50 km a day. 7 days a week in them) but the way it has been perverted to being a capital crime to jog across the parade square in them truly grates on my nerves. And is it really a coincidence that the high rates of overweight and/or out of shape pers in uniform  has gone up since??? I think not.....

I realize that I've been away from the forum for quite a while, so I've probably flogged an already dead and decaying horse, but that's my thoughts...

AL


----------



## TCBF (17 Feb 2005)

Hey Al, how do you like Gagetown?

Ah, yes; Boots.

1. Low shoes (oxfords),  2 pr.
2. Ankle boots, 2 pr.
3. Ankle boots, triple soled with fore-and-aft cleats, and Howes oak soles (Cerremonial Guard), 2 pr.
4. Shoes, gymnasium, canvas, white, ankle height, left, and right, 1 pr.
5. Mid 80s civ repl for 5 above, 1 pr.
5. Overshoes, CF, 1 pr.
6. Boots, Cbt, Mk. 3, 2 pr.
7. Overboots, Cbt, 1 pr.
8. Jungle boots (grn&blk), 2 pr.
9. Desert boots (tan), 2 pr.
10. Mukluks, 1 pr.
11. Arctic slippers, 1 pr.
12. SSF boots, 1 pr.
13. Garrison boots, 1 pr.
14. Prospectors, 2 pr.
15. Cold WW boots, 2 pr.

24 pair of footwear and counting.  I dont think I missed anything I was given, but I might have.

Tom


----------



## George Wallace (17 Feb 2005)

TCBF

You should have quite a few stories to tell.  If not, kick Sieggie's chair out from under him and have that "Carrot Top" post a few.

Glad to see you here.

GW


----------



## S McKee (18 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> When I hear complaints about some of our gear today,   I think back to the Korean War canvas and brass equipment I was issued
> 
> 
> Cheers.



Hey don't laugh we STILL issue that same Korean War canvas and brass....at the DB. J.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (19 Feb 2005)

"Don't get me wrong, the new boots are great, but did it really need to take THAT long to get rid of (well, not yet completely) the Mk III combat boot. And if/when they do, will we be allowed to run in combat boots again (I threw that out to start a debate......"

     Let me get this straight, its against regs to run in a combat boot?  I marched, jumped, ran, even played football in my combat boots in the 80's and 90's.  I logged so many klicks jogging behind/beside Iltis and 5/4 line vehicles recovering line my conversations naturally were carried out to allow breathing in double time.  We double timed everywhere in Kingston in our lineboots with full climbing rigs, and carrying our spurs, and now soldiers get in trouble for running in combats?  I got out at the right time, thats too stupid for words.  What good is a combat boot you can't run in.  Combat tends to be a high intensity activity, and you can't exactly do it at the walk.  If you can't run in it, it is NOT a combat boot.  Honestly, the sight/sound of a company of soldiers double timing is the most common memory of my time on base (any base) and now it doesn't happen. Un be freaking leavable.


----------



## ZipperHead (19 Feb 2005)

I have a copy of the CANFORGEN on this issue at work (I was going to laminate it and carry it around to show people who have taken the meaning and changed it to suit their own personal interpretation, usually to the detriment of the CF), and if I can find it here at home I will post it.

There is a somewhat sound logic behind it: that the current issue boots (Mk III) are not designed for running (poor arch support, nonexistent cushioning, generally poison tread pattern, esp compared to what is available in civvy market), so there is some merit in saying that troops shouldn't be running greats distances (particularly on asphalt or concrete) all the time, but they seem to have removed any grey area (and common sense, IMO) and said "no running in combat boots".

Personally, I still run the 13 km in the boots, and will take my lumps if/when I get busted, and I have had to "counsel" young/keen soldiers, who want to run along with me, that they are on their own if they get hurt. Nice system, where keen soldiers can get punished for wanting to "be all they can be".

I don't know how long this policy will stay in effect, as I doubt there are any plans to get rid of the Mk III, so the steady decline in overall fitness of soldiers will probably continue [Note: edited for use of double negative.... Al]
Al


----------



## chrisf (19 Feb 2005)

I have to ask, the combat coat that everyone was speaking of at the begining of this thread... is that the combat coat that pre-dates the new goretex coat? The four-seasons coat or whatever it was called?


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (20 Feb 2005)

Ah, the combat jacket.  It was as warm as a combat tunic (not) had saw toothed seams and buttons on the inside for attatching a liner that
was heavy, perpetually damp, open at the armpits to let the cold air in, didn't insulate, didn't cushion, and looked like sh*t.  It sucked in the cold, in the heat, in the wet.  There were no conditions that it benifitted to wear your combat jacket, except to keep the brush from getting on your (civilian or US purchased) gortex or polar fleece that all thinking soldiers past their basic training replaced it with.  Honestly, that was designed by a person whose sole aim was to punish soldiers, and it worked.  It was at least as comfortable to wear as the unified service work dress was stylish to wear (not).  Lets face it, the gear of today is better than some of the stuff we had.


----------



## pbi (20 Feb 2005)

Amen to that description of the combat coat: it was neither fish or fowl-just abut useless.

Cheers


----------



## Jungle (20 Feb 2005)

It is permitted to run in combat boots. What is not authorized is to carry out PT in them. The problem, as outlined by Allan Luomala, is that we were taken for "ruck runs" on paved roads, and the MK-3 was not designed for that use.
Nobody said you are forbidden to run during an attack... or any trg activity other than PT.


----------



## Bert (20 Feb 2005)

Jungle make a good point.  We can't run in combat boots during  PT.  Any other time, we
hustle as we must.  It would be nice to have a light boot, with a tough outter sole and general
support for arches/cushioning, durability, and a good tread.  My most comfortable pair of boots is
less than a year old but I have little tread left.


----------



## ZipperHead (20 Feb 2005)

Again, the interpretation of the CANFORGEN regarding "running in combat boots" has been perverted by whomever has an agenda: to whit, I recall a story (how true is anybody's guess, but it seems to have a grain of truth to it, at least) about how there was a Sgt Major at one of the training establishments who saw a soldier running down the road in combats. He stopped the soldier, who was on a leadership (JLC, PLQ, etc) course. When asked why he wsa running, the soldier explained that he had to hightail it back to the shack to get something that he forgot. The SM gave him a blast, and referred to the running in combats policy, and told him to walk.

Anyway, short story long, depending on whom and how it is interpreted can cause different takes on it. I suppose there can be many implications, particularly VAC pension benefits being denied, if you are injured whilst running in combat boots under the current regs. I think I'll take my chances and continue to run, when required.

Al


----------



## Yeoman (20 Feb 2005)

I have a set of all that 37 pattern issued stuff. and man I have respect for the lads that had to wear that stuff day in and day out. I wear the stuff maybe a dozen times a year (that's pushing it) and every time I feel like I'm going to die because that stuff is so bloody hot and so bloody itchy and so bloody uncomfortable.
so feel thank ful for what we got now, I'd hate to see that stuff again.
Greg


----------

