# The Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB)



## Poppa (27 Jan 2014)

Just got this from my RHQ.

PWGSC has awarded contracts today for two different Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB).  They are:

Royer



Terra


Both boots were selected by soldiers during the bid evaluation.  Sufficient quantities are expected to be delivered in time to start issue by early 2015 (One year from now).

Soldiers will be issued two pairs and will have the choice of two pairs of either kind or one one pair of each kind.

The LOTB project is the last of the Clothe The Soldier sub-projects.  When deliveries are complete, the Clothe The Soldier will have delivered 25 separate items of clothing and load carriage equipment at a total overall cost of $400M.
FYI


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2014)

Poppa said:
			
		

> Just got this from my RHQ.
> 
> PWGSC has awarded contracts today for two different Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB).  They are:
> 
> ...



Apparently once you are issued the brown ones, privately purchased ones will be verboten.....

We shall see.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (27 Jan 2014)

Cool Aid. Makers of suede Coyote-Tan boots are gonna make a fortune with us buying their boots.



			
				Poppa said:
			
		

> Just got this from my RHQ.
> 
> PWGSC has awarded contracts today for two different Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB).  They are:
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2014)

Poppa said:
			
		

> PWGSC has awarded contracts today for two different Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB).  They are:
> 
> Royer



Royer has GSP as a spokesperson, so they must know exactly how to build military footwear. 

If the initial issue is going to be Summer 2015 (lets be realistic), I'll get my custom made pair sometime in 2019.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Royer has GSP as a spokesperson, so they must know exactly how to build military footwear.
> 
> If the initial issue is going to be Summer 2015 (lets be realistic), I'll get my custom made pair sometime in 2019.



Concur. This is the saga that never ends.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Jan 2014)

Poppa said:
			
		

> Soldiers will be issued two pairs and will have the choice of two pairs of either kind or one one pair of each kind.



I find this line interesting....


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2014)

The Clothe The Soldier fluff at the end was the most hilarious part. A giant project that delivered sub-par equipment, late, and in insufficient quantities. $400 million in overall cost doesn't include the $400 million to keep the project office open for the last 10 years or so.


----------



## acen (27 Jan 2014)

Meanwhile we have troops with no boots whatsoever that are on BMQ using either civvy running shoes or other personal footwear. At least one guy had borderline trench foot as a result of having wet weather boots only and no issued socks (using his civvy cotton socks).  Many could not get environmental clothing (i.e. ICE jacket and pants, gloves, or mukluks) at supply, which really limits what we can do as a course on a winter PRes BMQ. Staff can lend out some of their own personal kit to make this work, but the CAF's procurement system is seriously letting candidates down when a simple thing such as boots is just not obtainable. Not to mention the fact that I am walking around in cheese cloth combats and can't get them replaced (tried supply in Petawawa as well as NDHQ clothing stores). Brown boots, black boots, civvy running shoes, and not to mention different colours of t-shirts. So much for the concept of a "uniform".


----------



## George Wallace (27 Jan 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> I find this line interesting....



Yes....Bad grammar.  Could get confusing.


----------



## Loachman (27 Jan 2014)

"25 separate items of clothing and load carriage equipment".

It's been twenty-five types of failed boots alone, hasn't it?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Jan 2014)

So that means I could get one left boot of brand A and a right boot of brand B  >

 ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Jan 2014)

Loachman said:
			
		

> "25 separate items of clothing and load carriage equipment".
> 
> It's been twenty-five types of failed boots alone, hasn't it?



At least that many.... if not more.....


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Jan 2014)

I finally got up to Edmonton last week.. thought I'd get at least one pair of boots swapped out..I'll take brown, purple, I don't care.

Nope. Anything in "normal" sizes is out of stock.  Bonus, the one pair that fits me well has started to split.  This is embarrassing.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2014)

Wear flipflops. We'll have come full circle from donating boots to the ANA so they can get rid of their sandals (or no footwear), to use having to wear sandals because DND procurement can't sort out $#%@#$% boots.


----------



## x_para76 (27 Jan 2014)

This whole situation with the lack of kit and equipment in the supply system must be so deflating for new recruits. I think as a civvy when someone joins the army their expectation is that it's a well oiled and organized machine, and instead these recruits are finding out that they've joined an army that can't even organize something as basic as proper footwear.  What a gong show?! 

I can't fathom that even after these new boots come into service in 2015 that there still won't be a need for non-issue boots. Nor can I understand why the powers that be would be so opposed to troops wearing their own boots in the field or while on ops. As long as the CF doesn't have to pay for it why would they care what soldiers are wearing on their feet?


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jan 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Nor can I understand why the powers that be would be so opposed to troops wearing their own boots in the field or while on ops. As long as the CF doesn't have to pay for it why would they care what soldiers are wearing on their feet?



That's a whole other issue, and we don't know what the direction will be once there's finally boots in the system. I'm the first one to admit I love non-issue kit, and prefer a lot of it over issue stuff, but I'll give the Terra/Royer boots a fair shake, and if they work I'll keep wearing them.


----------



## slayer/raptor (27 Jan 2014)

So which of the three boots that were being trialled are the Royer/Terra? I hope the one with the zipper got cut.


----------



## Ayrsayle (27 Jan 2014)

My Company trialed the three new boots - general consensus was none were a particularly good replacement for our current boot (Most of the issues weren't regarding comfort, but rather that they fell apart during anything rigorous - like marching in the woods).

Maybe they have sorted out the durability issues?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (27 Jan 2014)

Probably by adding more glue to them.... ;D


----------



## Jungle (27 Jan 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Probably by adding more glue to them.... ;D



Yeah... you can turn a T-bone into hamburger, but you can't make a T-bone out of hamburger.
If the boots are not satisfactory, make a new trial.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2014)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's a whole other issue, and we don't know what the direction will be once there's finally boots in the system. I'm the first one to admit I love non-issue kit, and prefer a lot of it over issue stuff, but I'll give the Terra/Royer boots a fair shake, and if they work I'll keep wearing them.



I love my non issue Danner Kinetics, but if I ever get deployed anywhere the CF will not resup me with them. They will send me issue boots.
This whole boot fiasco is a mess. We really have not learned a lot about procurement over the last 100 years, other than to make it harder to properly kit the troops out.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (28 Jan 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I love my non issue Danner Kinetics, but if I ever get deployed anywhere the CF will not resup me with them. They will send me issue boots.
> This whole boot fiasco is a mess. We really have not learned a lot about procurement over the last 100 years, other than to make it harder to properly kit the troops out.



An RSM is always adequately prepared for all eventualities. That is why you keep handy a second pair of your favorite boots in your kitbag.  

Edit to add:

A quick Ebay search and I found they had more boots in stock than the supply system:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=air+boot&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313&_nkw=arid+boot&_sacat=0


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> An RSM is always adequately prepared for all eventualities. That is why you keep handy a second pair of your favorite boots in your kitbag.
> 
> Edit to add:
> 
> ...



Good point, BUT the WOs, Sgts , MCpls and the troops take their lead from the RSM.


" the RSM isn't wearing issued boots.....why should I?" Is what will be heard among the troops.


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jan 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> " the RSM isn't wearing issued boots.....why should I?  *finally, a common-sense RSM who isn't glued to a 19th-century parade square*"


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (28 Jan 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Good point, BUT the WOs, Sgts , MCpls and the troops take their lead from the RSM.
> 
> 
> " the RSM isn't wearing issued boots.....why should I?" Is what will be heard among the troops.



Aye. And rightly so that it should raise an existential debate among the ranks but in the words of Sir Thomas Picton :



> I don’t care how they dress so long as they mind their fighting.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

>



Good point but people above the RSM - at higher HQs - are the driving force behind the "thou shalt wear only issue kit no matter how substandard it is" regulations.

Which brings me to the point about fleece toques.....I shall leave that for another time.

Well said Mr St Cyr. IF the people in higher HQs would abide by that rule,....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (28 Jan 2014)

Tell me about it Jim... we had a Brigade RSM who decreed no fleece toques will be worn only the "toque,wool, itchy/scratchy"...but yet he wondered around with a nice fleece toque on.....

 :facepalm:


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Jan 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Tell me about it Jim... we had a Brigade RSM who decreed no fleece toques will be worn only the "toque,wool, itchy/scratchy"...but yet he wondered around with a nice fleece toque on.....
> 
> :facepalm:



Great example of "Lead by example". :facepalm:


----------



## ballz (1 Feb 2014)

I received an email on Thursday that started with someone (not sure who) and went to Canadian Army Sgt-Maj Hornbrook, to the 2 CMBG Sgt-Maj, to 2 RCR's RSM, to the rest of us at 2 RCR, saying that two boot contracts had been awarded with pictures, supposed to be delivered to troops by "early 2015."

The zippered one, and the Terra were apparently selected. Both are much more "dessert" looking than brown.

There was a subtle undertone in the email chain that kinda of made me think that once these are delivered, they would go back to enforcing pers to wear issued boots.


----------



## Journeyman (1 Feb 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> Both are much more "dessert" looking than brown.


Yummy


----------



## x_para76 (1 Feb 2014)

IMO they'll enforce the no non issued boots policy. The same as they do with every other bit of kit in the CF. If troops don't use the issued stuff then they won't wear it out and need replacement kit, and if that doesn't happen then the CF won't have to order more of it, and some contractor in Quebec will go out of business because the CF hasn't ordered more of the over priced, and sub standard kit they produce.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

Don't like the idea of a zippered boot or the other one that looks like the upper is only made of mesh........ my  :2c:


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (1 Feb 2014)

They actually bought the zippered boots?
 :facepalm:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

Yup, if you look back through the pages you will find them.... if not I can post them tomorrow.....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (1 Feb 2014)

This warrants a Dumb and Dumber quote:


''Lloyd, just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber. You pull a stunt like this...AND TOTALLY REDEEM YOURSELF!''


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Feb 2014)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> IMO they'll enforce the no non issued boots policy. The same as they do with every other bit of kit in the CF. If troops don't use the issued stuff then they won't wear it out and need replacement kit, and if that doesn't happen then the CF won't have to order more of it, and some contractor in Quebec will go out of business because the CF hasn't ordered more of the over priced, and sub standard kit they produce.



Glad to see your optimism. It would make life so much simpler if we were all issued the same size and type of feet.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

So RSM, what do you think of the two boot choices?


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Feb 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> So RSM, what do you think of the two boot choices?



No opinion as I have not seen them nor worn them at all. If they are like my Danners they'll be ok.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

RSM, I will send you the email I got the other day with pics of them if you want...


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Feb 2014)

Got the pics. I'm not sold on zip up boots just yet.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

Same here....great for that 0-dark stupid need to get up and have a piss moment...


----------



## armyvern (1 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Got the pics. I'm not sold on zip up boots just yet.



Lots of my troops bought these overseas ... only to have the zippers blow in a couple months; I can hardly wait.


----------



## Infanteer (1 Feb 2014)

I forbid my soldiers from wearing zippered boots after watching them go on marches and exercises...now I'll have no choice.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I forbid my soldiers from wearing zippered boots after watching them go on marches and exercises...now I'll have no choice.



Once we send in enough paperwork to have zippers removed......


----------



## MilEME09 (1 Feb 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I forbid my soldiers from wearing zippered boots after watching them go on marches and exercises...now I'll have no choice.



Knowing the CAF, you'll say that but then the other boot will be out of stock, and you'll be stuck with them. Personally If i got stuck with the zippered boots I'd only wear them in Garrison, and use my worn Mk.III's or wet weathers in the field. That or get my hands on both boots, and use the other one for the field, A zippered boot would not last.


----------



## dangerboy (1 Feb 2014)

I would love to read the trial report on the boots, I wish they made the reports available.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Feb 2014)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I would love to read the trial report on the boots, I wish they made the reports available.



Good luck. As I have state earlier , our procurement process was learned prior to WWI and it doesn't not appear to have changes much.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I would love to read the trial report on the boots, I wish they made the reports available.



Depends did this go through LFTEU?


----------



## dangerboy (1 Feb 2014)

Not sure is the trials were done by DLR or CATEU.  All I know is that trials were done on the boots.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

If LFTEU CATEU did the trials there "should" be a trial summary on their intranet site...


----------



## dangerboy (1 Feb 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> If LFTEU CATEU did the trials there "should" be a trial summary on their intranet site...



Thanks, I will attempt to have a search on Monday.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (1 Feb 2014)

I'll take a gander tomorrow on it...


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2014)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I would love to read the trial report on the boots, I wish they made the reports available.



You could ATI the report....  :nod:


----------



## McG (2 Feb 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You could ATI the report....  :nod:


The performance of each boot would be censored under the privacy act, just as the annex describing each "product" in an LFTEU report is given a protected designation.
The performance is seen as proprietary information of the equipment manufacture.


----------



## Container (2 Feb 2014)

In law enforcement the zipper fad comes and goes. I can't stand them- now I try and keep my boots as close to a running show with ankle support at I can.

My 80 dollar merrells are the best boot for chasing, jumping, crawling I've ever come across. They are decidedly un-uniformly though. So they remain a point of contention.

Zippers are awesome if you don't have to travel or run like working low impact static point stuff.....but if you have the remote possibility of needing to hike duck and run.....they are a bad idea.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Feb 2014)

LFTEU has not posted anything since 2006 so I do believe DLR did the trials on the boots....


----------



## Old EO Tech (2 Feb 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> LFTEU has not posted anything since 2006 so I do believe DLR did the trials on the boots....



Perhaps there is something recent on the CID then...worth looking at.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2014)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Perhaps there is something recent on the CID then...worth looking at.



I looked this week, nothing since the update in 2012.


----------



## x_para76 (2 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Glad to see your optimism. It would make life so much simpler if we were all issued the same size and type of feet.



I apologize for my lack of optimism but with some of the ridiculous lengths I've seen the members of this man's army go to when it comes to enforcing the policy on the wear of non issued kit it's difficult for me to be little miss sunshine.  

On a side not I like you're idea with the feet the only drawback would be that they would have to be produced out of Quebec and they would be outrageously over priced.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (2 Feb 2014)

And you would end up with two left feet.......  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2014)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> And you would end up with two left feet.......  ;D



Made by the lowest bidder from Quebec.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Feb 2014)

ballz said:
			
		

> There was a subtle undertone in the email chain that kinda of made me think that once these are delivered, they would go back to enforcing pers to wear issued boots.



I've read an email (points from the base&army RSM o group) stating once these boots are issued soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear non-issue boots.


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I've read an email (points from the base&army RSM o group) stating once these boots are issued soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear non-issue boots.



And I wish them good luck with that. The horse is out of the barn.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I've read an email (points from the base&army RSM o group) stating once these boots are issued soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear non-issue boots.



Until we're in another shooting match, and we get to wear whats comfortable, durable and looks issued.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Feb 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I've read an email (points from the base&army RSM o group) stating once these boots are issued soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear non-issue boots.



At the soonest, I would think that's when all supply sections on all bases have a full and complete supply of all sizes...

#whataretheoddsofthat


Reagrds
G2G


----------



## dale622 (3 Feb 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> At the soonest, I would think that's when all supply sections on all bases have a full and complete supply of all sizes...
> 
> #whataretheoddsofthat



That should happen around an approximate time line of never to don't hold your breath.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Feb 2014)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> At the soonest, I would think that's when all supply sections on all bases have a full and complete supply of all sizes...
> 
> #whataretheoddsofthat
> 
> ...



Along with the second coming of.....you know....


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Feb 2014)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Along with the second coming of.....you know....



I think the odds are better of DND following through with their plan to have the C7 replacement in the pipe by 2020.......oh wait


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (3 Feb 2014)

Woah! A C7 replacement? By the state of the other replacement projects, whoever thought of that one deserves a scolding from Captain Keen:

http://youtu.be/d6qtLWwJq9U


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Feb 2014)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Woah! A C7 replacement? By the state of the other replacement projects, whoever thought of that one deserves a scolding from Captain Keen:
> 
> http://youtu.be/d6qtLWwJq9U



If you go on ADM MAT, and look at all their projects and plans you'll see quickly where the budget goes, and it aint to us, its keep porjects going so people have jobs that can be justified


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (4 Feb 2014)

Yes I did have a look once to glance at the progress of the LOTB. Very disturbing indeed.


----------



## Old EO Tech (8 Feb 2014)

Yes the Army without Agan is definitely going to take a back seat to the RCAF and RCN now.  Even projects that are vital like the LVM Project(replacing our trucks) and the ERC Project(getting new recovery vehicles) are taking forever and are going to have serious implications even for our ability to react to Dom Ops let alone of the GOC ever decides we need to help the world out....


----------



## K-Town (20 Feb 2014)

I too have seen the "dessert" style boots that are to be issued. I have a couple of questions for anyone who may have some knowledge of this project.
1.  Are these boots going to be available with female lasts/sizes, as opposed to just being small men's boots? I put this question to one of our bin rats, hardly a scientific survey, and he stated they will receive sizes 7-14 mens which will not fit me.
2. Why were contracts awarded to companies that have no experience making combat/tactical footwear?


----------



## OldSolduer (20 Feb 2014)

K-Town said:
			
		

> I too have seen the "dessert" style boots that are to be issued. I have a couple of questions for anyone who may have some knowledge of this project.
> 1.  Are these boots going to be available with female lasts/sizes, as opposed to just being small men's boots? I put this question to one of our bin rats, hardly a scientific survey, and he stated they will receive sizes 7-14 mens which will not fit me.
> 2. Why were contracts awarded to companies that have no experience making combat/tactical footwear?



Because Canada will not allow Danner to supply our boots. It has to be a Canadian company.


----------



## armyvern (20 Feb 2014)

K-Town said:
			
		

> I too have seen the "dessert" style boots that are to be issued. I have a couple of questions for anyone who may have some knowledge of this project.
> 1.  Are these boots going to be available with female lasts/sizes, as opposed to just being small men's boots? I put this question to one of our bin rats, hardly a scientific survey, and he stated they will receive sizes 7-14 mens which will not fit me.
> 2. Why were contracts awarded to companies that have no experience making combat/tactical footwear?



Did you put the question #1 to a bin-rat in clothing or one of _your_ bin-rats?

I am a bin-rat (with some experience - including 4 years as the Clothing Stores Supervisor) and I couldn't answer that sizing question without having to talk to the SME --- who would be a Cpl currently actually working in Clothing Stores.  Anything less is just talking out of ones ass.


I don't buy for an instant that we'll only get size 7 & up ... from experience. 5.5 - 6 being one of the most popular/utilized sizes in the system as a whole not just for females.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 Feb 2014)

....you know what they say about guys with big boots...


They wear big socks as well.


----------



## blacktriangle (21 Feb 2014)

What do they say about guys with no boots?  That's the way we are heading  ;D

_...and to think Sgt Majors used to ask me why I bought my own boots_


----------



## DirtyDog (8 Mar 2014)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Lots of my troops bought these overseas ... only to have the zippers blow in a couple months; I can hardly wait.


How very anecdotal.

I've seen lots of non-zippered boots fail and I've seen troops overseas wear zippered boots with no problems.  And that was through constant patrolling and hikes in the mountains.

I don't like zippered boots personally but I get a kick out of all this uproar in regards to them.


----------



## MeatheadMick (10 Mar 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> I've read an email (points from the base&army RSM o group) stating once these boots are issued soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear non-issue boots.



Lol... that should be sexy with meathead blacks  :rofl:


----------



## MeatheadMick (15 Mar 2014)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> How very anecdotal.
> 
> I've seen lots of non-zippered boots fail and I've seen troops overseas wear zippered boots with no problems.  And that was through constant patrolling and hikes in the mountains.
> 
> I don't like zippered boots personally but I get a kick out of all this uproar in regards to them.



I've had the same zippered boots for 2 years... seen multiple months in the field. The tabs are busted off, but they still zip fine. However... with issued boots, they're probably going to be shitty zippers


----------



## daftandbarmy (16 Mar 2014)

MeatheadMick said:
			
		

> I've had the same zippered boots for 2 years... seen multiple months in the field. The tabs are busted off, but they still zip fine. However... with issued boots, they're probably going to be shitty zippers



I'd like to see how those zippers will hold up after two weeks grubbing around in trenches at Wainwright or Gagetown.


----------



## MeatheadMick (18 Mar 2014)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'd like to see how those zippers will hold up after two weeks grubbing around in trenches at Wainwright or Gagetown.



I'll give you that, not a whole lot of dismounted time spent in trenches, and whenever it was muddy, they were protected by Neos. Touche Daft... Touche lol


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Mar 2014)

MeatheadMick said:
			
		

> I'll give you that, not a whole lot of dismounted time spent in trenches, and whenever it was muddy, they were protected by Neos. Touche Daft... Touche lol



OTOH, one of the latest trends in high performance mountaineering boots includes zippers, but it's usually only for the integrated Gore-Tex gaiter.

http://www.backcountry.com/mammut-nordwand-tl-mountaineering-boot-mens

This might be a good option for winter/artic boots, but would probably still suck for we grunts, who would likely wind up holding their boots together with the usual repair kit essential: gun tape.


----------



## icdbko32 (19 Mar 2014)

zippers always freeze that would suck for winter i cant even count how many times ive had to defrost zippers with my breath only to have them freeze again


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Mar 2014)

From the Info-machine:


> The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Federal Economic Development Agency for Southern Ontario), on behalf of the Honourable Rob Nicholson, Minister of National Defence, today announced that the Government of Canada has awarded two contracts totalling $11.7 million to Kodiak Group Holdings and LP Royer for two types of new Canadian-made boots for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).
> 
> The Kodiak Group Holdings contract is valued at approximately $4.2M for 28,000 pairs of one version. The company’s headquarters are in Cambridge, Ontario, and the boots will be manufactured in Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. The L.P. Royer contract is for 52,000 pairs of a second version and is valued at approximately $7.5M. They will be manufactured onsite in Lac Drolet, Quebec. The contracts include options to buy up to an additional 70,000 boots over 4 years, which could bring the contract value up to an estimated $22 million.  Production of the new boots will commence in the late Spring/Summer of 2014 and will be ready for use in early 2015.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2014)

Given the record of boot quality from Quebec, I'll bet they run out of the Kodiaks before there's a dent in the 52,000 from the Belle Province.

Don't know if there's a tie in, but the Mk llls that served us so well were really Greb Kodiaks.


----------



## Tibbson (22 Mar 2014)

So, if fears come to pass as a result of the next Quebec provincial election (which I personally don't think they will)....one of these contracts will kinda throw a wrench into Canada's "buy Canadian" policy.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Mar 2014)

Seperation.

[quote author=Rick Mercer]
"The Parti Québecois is like some guy in a bar telling his friends he's going to leave his wife except he's going to keep the house and the dog and plus they’re going to sleep with each other when he’s in the mood. And oh she's going to take over the car payments."
[/quote]


----------



## Crispy Bacon (24 Mar 2014)




----------



## Rheostatic (24 Mar 2014)

The zippered boot is the one manufactured by Royer. Why the difference in quantity?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Mar 2014)

Kodiak will be making the boots here in NFLD at their Harbour Grace facility.


----------



## Quirky (24 Mar 2014)

So now that we know the color of both boots, what are the options from magnum and other suppliers?


----------



## acen (24 Mar 2014)

Quirky said:
			
		

> So now that we know the color of both boots, what are the options from magnum and other suppliers?



Magnum already makes boots to the UK's MOD Brown, which is very similar to the Royer offering. The big european boot makers are aboard as well (Lowa, Altberg etc).


----------



## GreenMarine (24 Mar 2014)

I look forward to them coming into the supply depot and leaving. And down the road I'm sure I'll be asked "Why do you still wear those god ugly black things."

To which I reply, " I'm a true Supply tech that supports his customers and trying to get the best possible stuff out, I see no reason to self indudge (sample ) in what I provide them as that may take away from what is needed out there."

Man I do miss work in clothing stores.


----------



## Quirky (24 Mar 2014)

acen said:
			
		

> Magnum already makes boots to the UK's MOD Brown, which is very similar to the Royer offering. The big european boot makers are aboard as well (Lowa, Altberg etc).



Are they safety/CSA boots?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Mar 2014)

http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/4425870-kodiak-lands-4-2-million-boot-deal-with-canadian-armed-forces/


----------



## MilEME09 (24 Mar 2014)

personally I would be inclined to wear the the zippered boot in garrison and the the tan one in the field. At least you have that strap there that will no doubt also fail when the zipper goes


----------



## DexOlesa (24 Mar 2014)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-story/4425870-kodiak-lands-4-2-million-boot-deal-with-canadian-armed-forces/



Apparently our GP's (or maybe gortex I can't tell from the small picture) have been around since the 1940's


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2014)

The way they were built probably hasn't changed since the 40s though. Leather upper, thick heavy sole, etc. Materials changed a bit, but the design never caught up with the times.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (24 Mar 2014)

DexOlesa said:
			
		

> Apparently our GP's (or maybe gortex I can't tell from the small picture) have been around since the 1940's



The concept of a black leather boot yes, the GP and Gortex (issued to troops late 90's early 2000's??) not so much ... besides they are just showing off the other types of boots they have produced....


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (25 Mar 2014)

Yep, the Brown looks a bit like the suede MOD Brown boots I have seen. Most companies have 3-4 models to choose from.

Lowa http://www.lowaboots.com/catalog/elite-mountain-gtx/2108900493/8

Altberg http://www.altberg.co.uk/product/mens-desert-microlite-mod-brown/

Haix http://www.haix.co.uk/military/


----------



## McG (25 Mar 2014)

Since fashion is our highest priority these days, I want the boot without a zipper in the colour of the boot with the zipper.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Mar 2014)

High end boot companies with years of experience incorporating zippers into boots  (which have been used overseas for 10+ years) have had issues with zippers blowing out. Despite lots of trial and error time it was still enough of an issue for some CoCs to ban their use.

Considering the quality issues we have had with "made at home" uniforms and boots in the very recent past does anyone expect the zippers on these boots not to be a catastrophic fail?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Mar 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> High end boot companies with years of experience incorporating zippers into boots  (which have been used overseas for 10+ years) have had issues with zippers blowing out. Despite lots of trial and error time it was still enough of an issue for some CoCs to ban their use.
> 
> Considering the quality issues we have had with "made at home" uniforms and boots in the very recent past does anyone expect the zippers on these boots not to be a catastrophic fail?



I'm guessing it's all going to have to do with what your job is.

Infantry and Combat Engineer might stress them to break. 

However, we crewmen wore zippers in our boots for years with no problem.

Now the ones in our head................  :


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (25 Mar 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> High end boot companies with years of experience incorporating zippers into boots  (which have been used overseas for 10+ years) have had issues with zippers blowing out. Despite lots of trial and error time it was still enough of an issue for some CoCs to ban their use.
> 
> Considering the quality issues we have had with "made at home" uniforms and boots in the very recent past does anyone expect the zippers on these boots not to be a catastrophic fail?



I think the zipper's are a poor choice so I'll take two pairs of the Kodiaks.  Look on the bright side, at least we are getting a pair of boots that won't be complete pieces of junk.  Now what I am really hoping for is that it doesn't take 6 months to get a pair and that they don't have the stupidest sizing system in the world.  

Nothing worse then going into supply telling them you'd like a size 11 and having them give you a 276-3-6-whatever and then tell you it will take 3 months to order, you will need to wear it for 3 months and then if it doesn't fit properly, bring it back and repeat the process until you finally have the right size  :

Meanwhile, you have an exercise on Monday and it's Friday and you just blew your last pair of MkIII's out.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Mar 2014)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> Now what I am really hoping for is that it doesn't take 6 months to get a pair and that they don't have the stupidest sizing system in the world.
> 
> Nothing worse then going into supply telling them you'd like a size 11 and having them give you a 276-3-6-whatever and then tell you it will take 3 months to order, you will need to wear it for 3 months and then if it doesn't fit properly, bring it back and repeat the process until you finally have the right size  :



That's why I think I'll keep what I have and/or buy my own in a _real_ store.


----------



## DexOlesa (26 Mar 2014)

MCG said:
			
		

> Since fashion is our highest priority these days, I want the boot without a zipper in the colour of the boot with the zipper.



Funny how that was my first thought too   Actually had more to do with the zipper ones looking a bit less clunky and heavy (but that's just appearance from a photo, haven't seen a pair in real life)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Mar 2014)

Are these going to be issued to the Army and RCAF, or just RCAF?  We just went thru a project to get new boots not that long ago, so it's about time to replace those with something new.   ^-^


----------



## x_para76 (27 Mar 2014)

acen said:
			
		

> Magnum already makes boots to the UK's MOD Brown, which is very similar to the Royer offering. The big european boot makers are aboard as well (Lowa, Altberg etc).



Lowa's are brilliant and that's what I'd be spending my money on if I wanted a non-issue boot!


----------



## Transporter (27 Mar 2014)

They look a little short, especially the lighter coloured one. Gonna need longer pants


----------



## Dissident (28 Mar 2014)

I never thought I would EVER say this: You can have my MkIIIs from my cold, dead, feet.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Mar 2014)

Transporter said:
			
		

> They look a little short, especially the lighter coloured one. Gonna need longer pants



Good luck, is the contract signed for those yet? I don't have shirts that fit properly, been told to wait for the new ones in the system... that you can't request as they only show up at random from depot.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Mar 2014)

The latest from the Info-machine on the new boots:


> Soldiers will soon be able to choose which combat boots suits them best.
> 
> The Directorate of Land Requirements and the Directorate of Soldier Systems Program Management will give soldiers a choice about which type of Land Operations Temperate Boot (LOTB) they wish to wear. This choice marks a change in how combat footwear is issued, allowing soldiers to choose their preference out of two designs of boots.
> 
> ...


----------



## Transporter (28 Mar 2014)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> High end boot companies with years of experience incorporating zippers into boots  (which have been used overseas for 10+ years) have had issues with zippers blowing out. Despite lots of trial and error time it was still enough of an issue for some CoCs to ban their use.
> 
> Considering the quality issues we have had with "made at home" uniforms and boots in the very recent past does anyone expect the zippers on these boots not to be a catastrophic fail?



I agree 100%. Blow out a zipper in the middle of nowhere, or anywhere where replacements aren't readily available, and you're pretty much up s*** creek. Bust a lace anywhere, anytime and you'll still be able to fix it rather easily.


----------



## quadrapiper (28 Mar 2014)

Entirely garrison question: is there any maintenance/re-colouring/whatever for the tan boots? Or will the new standard accept that boots get looking beat up?


----------



## Lerch (28 Mar 2014)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Entirely garrison question: is there any maintenance/re-colouring/whatever for the tan boots? Or will the new standard accept that boots get looking beat up?



Watch and shoot, I reference the ECU trousers that there's gonna be be people who are anal about old standards and spit n' polish and until there's a change in the dress regs we won't see any advancement.


----------



## Quirky (28 Mar 2014)

Our tan boots were black within 2 weeks in Italy after crawling around on aircraft and getting in contact with oil, hydraulics and fuel. They should just let us keep our black boots for hangar use.


----------



## Marauder (16 May 2015)

A year after the last post, and I still haven't seen these "in the wild". Anyone know what's going on with getting these into general issue?


----------



## PuckChaser (16 May 2015)

I thought I remember seeing something that they were delayed into general issue until Fall 2015 (of course). The news article in the previous page says early 2015, so its likely a few months away.


----------



## Arty39 (16 May 2015)

I've seen one pair in person at maple resolve 2014.


----------



## Forester (10 Jun 2015)

So I know the thread is a little dead, but I have been having trouble finding info elsewhere, and this seems the most appropriate. 

I am looking to replace my nike boots that are falling apart, and if we are going to brown boots I will go that way. Though i have been told that there is an official directive that we are allowed to wear brown boots that are non-issue now. Is this a thing? 

I may just be half blind but I read anything I could find on it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jun 2015)

You would need to check the C Army, then your Div, your Brigade and then unit dress orders.  Sounds easy enough eh?   8)


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jun 2015)

Ask at your unit. I've been wearing my coyote brown SWATs I wore overseas for a year now because there's no contract for custom boots (and they only gave me one set of COTS). Nobody really checks anymore, our boots are such a ****show, there's better things to worry about. Like RCCS tabs.


----------



## PanaEng (10 Jun 2015)

Marauder said:
			
		

> A year after the last post, and I still haven't seen these "in the wild". Anyone know what's going on with getting these into general issue?



delayed spending as part of our contribution to balance the budget ;-)


----------



## McG (23 Sep 2015)

Starting to hear user opinions on these boots.  Both types seem to have durability issues with the zipper failing one one and the heel cap separating off the other.  The cream coloured trim on the zippered boot is also quite bright and will not help camouflage.


----------



## dangerboy (23 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Starting to hear user opinions on these boots.  Both types seem to have durability issues with the zipper failing one one and the heel cap separating off the other.  The cream coloured trim on the zippered boot is also quite bright and will not help camouflage.



This does not surprise me, I was always very doubtful of a boot that uses a zipper. Plus we have a history dating back to the first world war of screwing up the procurement of boots, probably the most important clothing item that a soldier needs.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (23 Sep 2015)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> This does not surprise me, I was always very doubtful of a boot that uses a zipper. Plus we have a history dating back to the first world war of screwing up the procurement of boots, probably the most important clothing item that a soldier needs.



But with all the LAVs we have we don't need good boots, right?


----------



## dimsum (23 Sep 2015)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> This does not surprise me, I was always very doubtful of a boot that uses a zipper. Plus we have a history dating back to the first world war of screwing up the procurement of boots, probably the most important clothing item that a soldier needs.



Is this when someone pipes up with the idea of a specific boot allowance, and an authorized selection of boots that one can LPO?   >


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Is this when someone pipes up with the idea of a specific boot allowance, and an authorized selection of boots that one can LPO?   >



 :facepalm:


----------



## MJP (23 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Is this when someone pipes up with the idea of a specific boot allowance, and an authorized selection of boots that one can LPO?   >



One can dream I suppose.


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Sep 2015)

My argument here has always been about the BTU.

And I do apologize if I come across as a tad crude, but I'm a Supply Tech set in his ways! 

They say that given the numerous "sizes" that a bra can be, DND would need to dedicate a large amount of resources to the logistics of stocking, sizing and maintaining inventory. They came up with a plan - the BTU claim. A female soldier may go out to a shop, purchase undergarments necessary up to a set cost ($160.00) every year and submit the bill to DND for reimbursement. I have no issue with that. They say that a size off here or there is quite uncomfortable. I have not worn one (sober...) so I can only agree with this statement.

What I have worn (sober...) are combat boots. I believe we can apply the same principal as the BTU here. Let's get rid of the boots in the system and allow the member to purchase his / her boots COTS on their own. Up to a certain cost, reimburse the soldier. Maybe every 3 years, or something like that.

Quality control? Not a big issue, really - much like the BTU, we have to ensure it falls within some set guidelines. Young Cpl Bloggins finds a great deal on lace sets that include a crotchless panty (don't laugh - this REALLY happened!) and tries to claim it - no fly. 4 durable Nike sports bras - well done. IOT submit a receipt for a boot, it needs to be inspected. If it meets the color, material, and other criteria necessary it gets paid for. If not, suck it up.

Something like that.


----------



## Oscar590 (23 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What I have worn (sober...) are combat boots. I believe we can apply the same principal as the BTU here. Let's get rid of the boots in the system and allow the member to purchase his / her boots COTS on their own. Up to a certain cost, reimburse the soldier. Maybe every 3 years, or something like that.
> 
> Quality control? Not a big issue, really - much like the BTU, we have to ensure it falls within some set guidelines. Young Cpl Bloggins finds a great deal on lace sets that include a crotchless panty (don't laugh - this REALLY happened!) and tries to claim it - no fly. 4 durable Nike sports bras - well done. IOT submit a receipt for a boot, it needs to be inspected. If it meets the color, material, and other criteria necessary it gets paid for. If not, suck it up.
> 
> Something like that.


That will never fly. It makes too much sense


----------



## dimsum (23 Sep 2015)

Lean-N-Supreme said:
			
		

> That will never fly. It makes too much sense



I guess the one issue would be what happens if someone in a semi or isolated posting has to get new boots?  How does s/he get COTS boots in Goose Bay or similar?  Similarly, how about deployed areas?

I like the idea in general though - makes a lot of sense.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I guess the one issue would be what happens if someone in a semi or isolated posting has to get new boots?  How does s/he get COTS boots in Goose Bay or similar?  Similarly, how about deployed areas?
> 
> I like the idea in general though - makes a lot of sense.



Goose Ba would get them the same way as anyone else - delivered by Amazon.com.


----------



## sidemount (23 Sep 2015)

If we moved to cots boots I think you would see some new stores, and even Canex (they carry some now) carrying the popular brands of boots.


----------



## McG (23 Sep 2015)

sidemount said:
			
		

> If we moved to cots boots I think you would see some new stores, and even Canex (they carry some now) carrying the popular brands of boots.


COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf
The new boots are COTS.


----------



## sidemount (23 Sep 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> COTS = Commercial Off The Shelf
> The new boots are COTS.


Sorry meant if they moved to buy our own boots for reimbursment.

(Still cots,  just us buying them instead of the military)


			
				sidemount said:
			
		

> If we moved to cots boots I think you would see some new stores, and even Canex (they carry some now) carrying the popular brands of boots.


----------



## BinRat55 (24 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I guess the one issue would be what happens if someone in a semi or isolated posting has to get new boots?  How does s/he get COTS boots in Goose Bay or similar?  Similarly, how about deployed areas?
> 
> I like the idea in general though - makes a lot of sense.



Yes, the Amazon thing _would _ work but I have been in several semi isolated and isolated areas and there are usually outlets there for Sears, some type of foot wear place... also direct from the manufacturer online works too. But I think a better approach (which definitely falls into the deployment category as well...) would be to get a little proactive. Again, common sense should prevail. If I knew my boots wouldn't last or the "due date" is up while on deployment, just buy them prior. Claim after. Same as isolated postings.


----------



## captloadie (24 Sep 2015)

While the boot allowance is a good idea, what is the solution for new recruits? Do you set aside an additional day of training during basic to bus the platoon down to the local shoe store to but their boots? If you need to stock 34 different sizes to accomodate recruits' initial issue, you lose a large chunk of savings from the implementation of a boot allowance.


----------



## BinRat55 (24 Sep 2015)

I know I'm really good looking, but I don't have all the answers... just yet!!


----------



## George Wallace (24 Sep 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> While the boot allowance is a good idea, what is the solution for new recruits? Do you set aside an additional day of training during basic to bus the platoon down to the local shoe store to but their boots? If you need to stock 34 different sizes to accomodate recruits' initial issue, you lose a large chunk of savings from the implementation of a boot allowance.



Initial issue covers this.  I am not an expert on the American system, but do they not bring all their recruits in and give them an "Initial Issue" and then after they have finished Basic, they are left to purchase all their items on their own?  Next question would be: "Does this now mean the a Clothing Allowance has to be reintroduced?"


----------



## MJP (24 Sep 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> While the boot allowance is a good idea, what is the solution for new recruits? Do you set aside an additional day of training during basic to bus the platoon down to the local shoe store to but their boots? If you need to stock 34 different sizes to accomodate recruits' initial issue, you lose a large chunk of savings from the implementation of a boot allowance.



The CAF would still hold stock of boots for initial issue, resupply on operations and other cases where accessing the stores or online boot vendors is not feasiable.  Not having some is just as silly as having too much.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Initial issue covers this.  I am not an expert on the American system, but do they not bring all their recruits in and give them an "Initial Issue" and then after they have finished Basic, they are left to purchase all their items on their own?  Next question would be: "Does this now mean the a Clothing Allowance has to be reintroduced?"



No clothing allowance was for DEU.

Boots would be done similar to BTU reimbursement.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Sep 2015)

MJP said:
			
		

> No clothing allowance was for DEU.



Not saying that.  I mean reintroduced to cover ALL items of clothing........OR as the BTU reimbursement for boots.


----------



## MJP (24 Sep 2015)

Sure but this discussion is about boots, which like bras is usually partucular to a person.  It makes no sense at this point to worry about the rest of our clothing as most items aren't an issue that boots are


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2015)

The boot gong-show the CAF is constantly in is worthy of an entire season's episodes on The Gong Show.  

Everytime I need new LPO boots its a clusterfucked gongshow that makes me picture myself kickin' people in the 'nads.  Despite the fact I have had CF Health Svcs-ordered orthotics since 2003, I am constantly required to produce a 'chit' for my orthotics when I need boots replaced.  Do people believe fallen arches are going to reverse themselves?  Then you get people in the DSSPM world who tell you that you aren't entitled, despite your SOI and the SAM direction.  This latest round of the Gong Show, I've been trying to get my LPO boots replaced since the first of June and I am still wearing the only pair of boots I have left that fit my orthotics; a pair of worn out Magnums that have the inside portion of the heel worn away right down to the plastic insert.  I am tired of having to explain to people the words in the SAM, the SOI for RCAF/aircrew, and that planes can fly places hot _AND_ cold, so yes I need CWWBs despite it being summertime.  Why is the tail wagging the dog?  Its a SOI for fuck sakes.  If people worried more about doing THEIR jobs as opposed to why I need the kit on my SOI to do MINE, things would be much better.  

The word CLUSTERFUCK does not adequately cover how bad the CAF boot 'situation' is.


----------



## BinRat55 (25 Sep 2015)

Tryin to please 100,000 people ain't easy!


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The boot gong-show the CAF is constantly in is worthy of an entire season's episodes on The Gong Show.
> 
> Everytime I need new LPO boots its a clusterfucked gongshow that makes me picture myself kickin' people in the 'nads.  Despite the fact I have had CF Health Svcs-ordered orthotics since 2003, I am constantly required to produce a 'chit' for my orthotics when I need boots replaced.  Do people believe fallen arches are going to reverse themselves?  Then you get people in the DSSPM world who tell you that you aren't entitled, despite your SOI and the SAM direction.  This latest round of the Gong Show, I've been trying to get my LPO boots replaced since the first of June and I am still wearing the only pair of boots I have left that fit my orthotics; a pair of worn out Magnums that have the inside portion of the heel worn away right down to the plastic insert.  I am tired of having to explain to people the words in the SAM, the SOI for RCAF/aircrew, and that planes can fly places hot _AND_ cold, so yes I need CWWBs despite it being summertime.  Why is the tail wagging the dog?  Its a SOI for frig sakes.  If people worried more about doing THEIR jobs as opposed to why I need the kit on my SOI to do MINE, things would be much better.
> 
> The word CLUSTERFUCK does not adequately cover how bad the CAF boot 'situation' is.



And you KNOW the boot situation is at critical levels when even the Air Force agrees with the Combat Arms.  ;D


----------



## BinRat55 (25 Sep 2015)

As an aside here, when the Air Force first introduced their WWB, I got a brand new pair from Clothing and took em over to CMTT to weight them on their fancy moon scale. Over 4 pounds. I then took off my very comfortable Magnums and weighed them. just one single pound. I'm wearing freaking air on my feet!!


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> As an aside here, when the Air Force first introduced their WWB, I got a brand new pair from Clothing and took em over to CMTT to weight them on their fancy moon scale. Over 4 pounds. I then took off my very comfortable Magnums and weighed them. just one single pound. I'm wearing freaking air on my feet!!



For all their faults, I have worn the CWWB quite comfortably while snowshoeing in -25C and deep snow. 

I don't have Magnums but assume they aren't designed for that?


----------



## BinRat55 (25 Sep 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> For all their faults, I have worn the CWWB quite comfortably while snowshoeing in -25C and deep snow.
> 
> I don't have Magnums but assume they aren't designed for that?



I can't offer a comparison as I have not worn the CWWB in any climate, however I have worn them (my Magnums) in the hottest place on earth quite comfortably and arguably one of the top twenty coldest placed on earth (Goose Bay Labrador) ... ON a LOSV, on a frozen pond in -50 bitterness - also quite comfortable.

I have put these things through hell and they have treated me well.


----------



## dimsum (25 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I can't offer a comparison as I have not worn the CWWB in any climate, however I have worn them (my Magnums) in the hottest place on earth quite comfortably and arguably one of the top twenty coldest placed on earth (Goose Bay Labrador) ... ON a LOSV, on a frozen pond in -50 bitterness - also quite comfortable.
> *
> I have put these things through hell and they have treated me well.
> *



You're a poet but you're not sure?   

I agree - I got LPO'd Magnums years ago and those things are amazing.  I'm not looking forward to the tan safety-toed boots I'll need to get soon.


----------



## McG (25 Sep 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> For all their faults, I have worn the CWWB quite comfortably while snowshoeing in -25C and deep snow.


Pedantic point, but: the Army never had a CWWB.  The Air Force had a CWWB while the Army only ever had a WWB.


----------



## BinRat55 (25 Sep 2015)

Yea, that's what I said... just omitted the "C" part... see quote below...



			
				BinRat55 said:
			
		

> As an aside here, when the Air Force first introduced their WWB, ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Tryin to please 100,000 people ain't easy!



I know, but we are victims of our own policy and people who are supposed to be on the same team are shootin' the puck in different nets sometimes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> For all their faults, I have worn the CWWB quite comfortably while snowshoeing in -25C and deep snow.
> 
> I don't have Magnums but assume they aren't designed for that?



The Air Force CWWBs have lots of steel in them, and are far LESS comfortable than the Army CWWBs (I've worn both).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> You're a poet but you're not sure?
> 
> I agree - I got LPO'd Magnums years ago and those things are amazing.  I'm not looking forward to the tan safety-toed boots I'll need to get soon.



If things go well, you won't get those meat-grinders.  I think there is discussion at the Div now, but I know the recommendation on the UCRs from theatre were to add the army hot weather boot to the SOI for IMPACT aircrew (2 pr ea).  Tic toc.

FWIW, I know of more than one person who's feet were wrecked by those just by walking from their car into the Hornell center.   rly:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2015)

There's a fairly detailed article in this 2008 issue of Flight Comment on the boots the RCAF got from the CEMS project if anyone is really bored.


----------



## Loachman (25 Sep 2015)

The CWWB is the absolute worst boot that I ever wore - maybe there are worse out there that I missed.

Aside from foot pain (top of each foot), they - well, the right one, actually - almost made me crash my van. The soles were so wide that, when braking at a stop sign, I caught the accelerator and surged through the stop sign.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2015)

So the "don't like these on pedals" comments are valid then. 

I know of more than 1 person who has used this alternative solution either with, or without, a nice piece of paper from the Flt Srgn.

While that works, it should never come to that point.  Personally I refuse to buy my own boots anymore.


----------



## BinRat55 (26 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So the "don't like these on pedals" comments are valid then.
> 
> I know of more than 1 person who has used this alternative solution either with, or without, a nice piece of paper from the Flt Srgn.
> 
> While that works, it should never come to that point.  Personally I refuse to buy my own boots anymore.



A newer sexier army... can I say that?


----------



## dimsum (26 Sep 2015)

And here I was, thinking (hoping) you meant this:


----------



## Quirky (26 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> So the "don't like these on pedals" comments are valid then.
> 
> I know of more than 1 person who has used this alternative solution either with, or without, a nice piece of paper from the Flt Srgn.
> 
> While that works, it should never come to that point.  Personally I refuse to buy my own boots anymore.



I bought my own safety magnums and it was the best $200 I've spent. The tan safeties we got issued for impact were complete and utter garbage. I've never had knee pain before in my life until I wore those pieces of crap for 6 months. Less than a month after I got home my knee pain went away, gee I wonder why.  : I have a feeling these new brown boots may be the same issue, I'll give them a month and see how they feel. If its the same standard crap I'll just go out and buy my own.


----------



## BinRat55 (26 Sep 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> And here I was, thinking (hoping) you meant this:



I think I was actually issued these in the Golan... they look oddly familiar though... comes with a UN blue ascot?


----------



## dimsum (26 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I think I was actually issued these in the Golan... they look oddly familiar though... comes with a UN blue ascot?



And monocle, like the one that Col is sporting?   :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Sep 2015)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I bought my own safety magnums and it was the best $200 I've spent. The tan safeties we got issued for impact were complete and utter garbage. I've never had knee pain before in my life until I wore those pieces of crap for 6 months. Less than a month after I got home my knee pain went away, gee I wonder why.  : I have a feeling these new brown boots may be the same issue, I'll give them a month and see how they feel. If its the same standard crap I'll just go out and buy my own.



Yup, garbage boots.  But until people start following up with UCRs and if they are hurting you, trips to the MIR even, they will stay in the system.  Our Det submitted a UCR and I know it went to the Div and others.  Gotta take the time to do the paperwork.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Yup, garbage boots.  But until people start following up with UCRs and if they are hurting you, trips to the MIR even, they will stay in the system.  Our Det submitted a UCR and I know it went to the Div and others.  Gotta take the time to do the paperwork.



Yes. A very good point. Too many of us tend to sit comfortably at our desks, on duty in the out route, or at the mess complaining to each other and not in the right direction.

UCRs tell us what the soldiers / airmen and women / navy people NEED... the next big step is for them in the tower to LISTEN!!


----------



## Good2Golf (27 Sep 2015)

Technically, a UCR tells people what is wrong with what was provided.  There may be suggestions of what may make the unsatisfactory condition less unsatisfactory, or perhaps what could completely resolve the situation, but the LCMM must take that UCR (hopefully multiple UCRs that give greater insight to the overall deficiency) and confer with requirement staff as to what went wrong in the design and implementation of the project to supply the particular item.  All to often, poor specification of the operational requirement in the early phases of a project leads to unsatisfactory conditions later downstream. Sadly, many projects are quick to conclude that they know what's required without conducting a full analysis, 'situating the estimate' as it were.  The result is then issues arising that could have been foreseen and avoided with more care, but that weren't.  The project equivalent to "time spent on recce is seldom wasted" is taking an appropriate amount of time to validate all aspects of the operational requirement and not to pre-judge solutions.

Of course, then factors other than the operational requirement come into play...regionalism and factors external to DND...

:2c:

G2G


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> navy people



I'm pretty sure they're called sailors.  ;D


----------



## Sigs Pig (28 Sep 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure they're called sailors.  ;D


OK smarty pantz... Please define the other term he coined:
/ airmen and women / - Is it airpersons? 

Stay cool
ME


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Sep 2015)

I coulda said "plugs", but then he woulda called me a pongo, and it would have gotten messy...

We are all one big happy family... with the Army sitting at the head of the table!


----------



## Arty39 (29 Sep 2015)

@binrat55 Are these boots slowly coming into the system in the next few weeks? My buddy said he saw a few higher ups in Gagetown wearing them.


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Sep 2015)

Arty39 said:
			
		

> @binrat55 Are these boots slowly coming into the system in the next few weeks? My buddy said he saw a few higher ups in Gagetown wearing them.



What you buddy probably saw was T&E (LFTEU). They're great and all, but man do they ever make our job difficult at times!! Not intentionally of course...

You shoulda been around for the AF WW GoreTex Jacket trials! RSMs went ballistic!!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What you buddy probably saw was T&E (LFTEU). They're great and all, but man do they ever make our job difficult at times!! Not intentionally of course...
> 
> You shoulda been around for the AF WW GoreTex Jacket trials! RSMs went ballistic!!



Or when they paraded around WTP in the field with CADPAT boots...


----------



## Arty39 (29 Sep 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What you buddy probably saw was T&E (LFTEU). They're great and all, but man do they ever make our job difficult at times!! Not intentionally of course...
> 
> You shoulda been around for the AF WW GoreTex Jacket trials! RSMs went ballistic!!


I heard it basically turned into everybody going to base supply and asking for one.


----------



## BinRat55 (30 Sep 2015)

Arty39 said:
			
		

> I heard it basically turned into everybody going to base supply and asking for one.



It did! I never saw such pandemonium - except for that Manchester U soccer game!! We had several RSMs lined up to see the Sgt (IC Clothing) to find out why their soldiers weren't getting this jacket, B Sup O getting calls for 1st line COs asking for "favors"... on one hand, I cannot blame them whatsoever. They were trying to take care of their troops.

Problem was that the only pers entitled to the WW jacket then was the Air Force. Air Force money bought the first CADPAT rain jacket. Trying to explain to an infanteer crawling around in the muddy training are that the Air Force guy down at 403 was good to go for this, but he had to keep that old green garbage bag of a rain jacket was almost insulting!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2015)

And _then _came the AF Fleece jacket.   ;D


----------



## BinRat55 (30 Sep 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> And _then _came the AF Fleece jacket.   ;D



Hah! Don't even get me startrd with THAT little gem.

All things said and done though, we have some of the most sophisticated and amazing kit in the world. I can only imagine what my great uncle felt like in Normandy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Sep 2015)

The Air Force Fleece jacket is a pretty awesome piece of kit.  MOSTLY because we are authorized to wear it as an actual jacket.  It causes twitches and popping veins in some C Army types.   ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Sep 2015)

Only the dinosaur ones.


----------



## slayer/raptor (1 Oct 2015)

5 GBMC is supposed to start getting issued these next week over the month of October, apparently they have enough for the whole bde. At least they are starting with the right priorities: Those deploying on OPS, Exercise Trident Juncture, 3x inf Bns, eng, Arty etc...


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Oct 2015)

SCHEDULE & DISTRIBUTION MATRIX

Formation	                      LOTB Distribution 	          Phase of Issue
3 CMBGs & CFLRS	                                1	                                1

2 Division	                                2	                                2
3 Division	                                3	                                2
4 Division	                                4	                                2
5 Division	                                5	                                2
1 Division and CADTC	                  6	                                2
CA HQ / NCR	                                6	                                2

Primary Reserve	                                                                         3   
3 Division	                                7	                                3
4 Division	                                8	                                3
2 Division	                                9	                                3
5 Division	                               10	                                3

Phase 1:  Concurrent Issue of LOTB to the 3 Regular Force CMBG’s (including Tactical Helicopter squadrons) and CFLRS starting in Sep 15.
Phase 2: In accordance with the CA MRP, sequential issue by Division of the LOTB to all remaining Regular Force, HQs and eligible personnel in the national capital region, Primary Reserve Class B personal employed over 180 days and all other personnel/organizations entitled to the CA scale of issue.

Phase 3: In accordance with CA MRP, sequential issue by Division of the LOTB to all Primary Reserve Class A and any other remaining personnel.


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Oct 2015)

http://acims.mil.ca/sp/CosLandStratAdmin/Documents%20to%20DCCA/from%20DLR/Implementation%20Order%20(LOTB)%20Revised%20-%20Sep%2015/Implementation%20Order%20-%20LOTB%20Revised.doc

http://acims.mil.ca/sp/CosLandStratAdmin/Documents%20to%20DCCA/from%20DLR/LOTB/20150610-BNtoComdCA-LOTB_Slides_with_Notes_COS%20Strat%20reviewed.pptx


----------



## acen (1 Oct 2015)

BinRat, is that for both versions of the boots? For two pairs per? I'm not on DWAN at the moment so I cannot see if it is in the links posted.

Thanks


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Oct 2015)

1.	Components.   The CTS project will deliver 150,000 pairs of LOTB in two different models:
a.	Model #1:  Boot Combat, NSN 8430-20-001-2410, with laces and side zipper; and 
b.	Model #2:  Boot Combat, NSN 8430-20-008-2050, with laces only.


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Oct 2015)

LOTB Pics...


----------



## Lumber (1 Oct 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> 1.	Components.   The CTS project will deliver 150,000 pairs of LOTB in two different models:
> a.	Model #1:  Boot Combat, NSN 8430-20-001-2410, with laces and side zipper; and
> b.	Model #2:  Boot Combat, NSN 8430-20-008-2050, with laces only.



I don't know if side-zipper boots are more expensive than laces-only boots, but I would argue it would be cheaper in the long run to just go with zipper-only. I'll explain my reasoning:

This might be specific to the Navy. We're issued two sets of "winter" Sea Boots and one set of "Summer" Sea Boots. The only ones with zippers, however, are the Summer Sea Boots. Which boot do you think I saw sailors wearing every day, 12 months out of the year? The summer ones. Which, means everyone (myself included) had two pairs of really nice boots sitting in their lockers/basements/closets collecting dust because, who the hell wants to tie up laces when you have a zipper!

I don't know what the scale of issue will be for the LOTB boots though.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Oct 2015)

As far as I know, it's two pairs, individual's choice.  The ordering is not 50/50, thogh; I believe the order is weighted more heavily to the zippered models.

As the transition is ongoing, there will no doubt be parades with soldiers is a wide array of authorized gear.  They'll be wearing all the old boots in the system, plus two kinds of new boots.  If it's in CADPAT, there will be the old/old CADPAT (uncovered pocket buttons); the new/old CADPAT (covered buttons) and the new/new CADPAT (mandarin collars etc).  Too bad I never studied medicine; I think there's about to be a lot of money in treating CWOs for heart attacks.


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Oct 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't know if side-zipper boots are more expensive than laces-only boots, but I would argue it would be cheaper in the long run to just go with zipper-only. I'll explain my reasoning:
> 
> This might be specific to the Navy. We're issued two sets of "winter" Sea Boots and one set of "Summer" Sea Boots. The only ones with zippers, however, are the Summer Sea Boots. Which boot do you think I saw sailors wearing every day, 12 months out of the year? The summer ones. Which, means everyone (myself included) had two pairs of really nice boots sitting in their lockers/basements/closets collecting dust because, who the hell wants to tie up laces when you have a zipper!



Problem there is the "blowing out" of the zipper more often than laces. A set of laces cost appron .18 cents. a zipper will cose 2.54 PLUS the labor of installing it, not to mention the time spent going to Clot, going without said boot for periods of time... I just see so much against the "zipper only" theory...



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> I don't know what the scale of issue will be for the LOTB boots though.



c.	Clothing and Equipment Entitlements.  All CA personnel are entitled to two pairs of LOTB under the Scale of Issue: D01-301 – Land Force Command Operational Performance Standard Clothing & Personal Issued Items.  The introduction of a “managed choice” will not impact this entitlement.


----------



## Lumber (1 Oct 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Problem there is the "blowing out" of the zipper more often than laces. A set of laces cost appron .18 cents. a zipper will cose 2.54 PLUS the labor of installing it, not to mention the time spent going to Clot, going without said boot for periods of time... I just see so much against the "zipper only" theory...



Maybe it's different in the army, or with these boots in specific, but in my experience (and I can confidently use that phrase now ), when a zipper breaks, they throw out whatever it is that had the zipper on it. As a ship's team diver, I own a $1300 dry-suit. I wored in about a dozen times and hte zipper stopped working, despite no visible sign of damage. The result? They threw it in the garbage and bought me a new one.

I started that paragraph thinking I was counter-arguing, but I now see this actually supports the idea of no-zippers. If the laces break, get new laces. If the zipper breaks, get new boots. Which is more cost effective? (That being said I love my zippers... we can call it a morale and welfare expense)


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Oct 2015)

I was on an OP one time and for a solid 16 hours dreamed up many, many "morale and welfare" initiatives... funny, zippers weren't one of them.

But... why not? I remember teaching my children how to tie their sneakers, now my nephew (who is a 6 and a half and three quarters according to him...) is actually being instructed in the art of Velcro...

Let's get velcro!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Problem there is the "blowing out" of the zipper more often than laces. A set of laces cost appron .18 cents. a zipper will cose 2.54 PLUS the labor of installing it, not to mention the time spent going to Clot, going without said boot for periods of time... I just see so much against the "zipper only" theory...



Ah!  Shades of "Boots, Rubber, Clumsy".


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Oct 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  Shades of "Boots, Rubber, Clumsy".



Definitely. However, I put those things on maybe a hundred times in my career. Think of the torture the zipper in question will receive over a few years of daily abuse... normal circumstances be damned - what about up to your arse in muck, dried on after that 4 hour night nav from hell with bark, grass, weeds, limbs stuck in there good...

Maybe those in a cubicle in Ottawa wouldn't be so hard on them...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Oct 2015)

Never used them, except twice when I was ordered too.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (1 Oct 2015)

My experience with side-zipper boots...not that great.  Now, why they just didn't get the 'lace in zippers', and issue them with each pair if the mbr wanted them...who knows.  If you are on a deployed op and you blow a zipper, you are down to 1 pr if its side-zip.  If you have a 'lace in' zipper and it blows, you can still lace them up.  Same effect, better serviceability. 

Expect to see a lot of ruined heel-cups too, if people just undue the zipper to take them off.  In the end the little zipper idea is cooler than it is functional.  I had a pair of LPO Reebok TCBs with the side zipper, they didn't last a month, and that is airfield/plane usage, not field usage.  I have the exact same model of boots for my desert boots, except no side zipper and they are in near perfect shape and that included scootin' around the desert in them, forced marching with load/weapons, and a higher than average flying rate.  Great boots without the side zipper.

YMMV


----------



## dimsum (1 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My experience with side-zipper boots...not that great.  Now, why they just didn't get the 'lace in zippers', and issue them with each pair if the mbr wanted them...who knows.



In 2010 on Maple Guardian, the CANEX in Wainwright were selling the lace-in inserts for $1 per set   :nod:


----------



## George Wallace (1 Oct 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> In 2010 on Maple Guardian, the CANEX in Wainwright were selling the lace-in inserts for $1 per set   :nod:



Bought a pair of those over forty years ago.  It was a "Kool Tanker" thing.  Having high arches caused the zippers to get stuck half way up.  It was faster to tie laces than fight with the zippers, so those boots found their way to the bottom of a duffle bag where I found then a couple years ago.  Kodiac Mark 1's..... ;D


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Oct 2015)

And this is my point. Some like zippers, some LOVE zippers. Some despise zippers. Some like soft and supple, some like rough and tough (no George, not your friends, your BOOTS...)

If there was an avenue where soldiers could grab a boot they could live with, this being a boot CAF can live with (a lot like the way the BTU was run) there would be a lot more satisfied customers (foot-wise). I can absolutely acknowledge that DND is really trying here, but it's not easy to meet the unique challenges we pose. The need to satisfy almost 100,000 soldiers for comfort, the need to match that comfort with the durability to sustain what a lot of us do for a living (the conditions we live in exercise to exercise, operation to operation...) and the cost associated with this initiative is a huge hurdle.

Let US, the troops, do the work FOR you ADM(Mat)...


----------



## captloadie (2 Oct 2015)

Do we really think that the push back is coming from ADM(Mat) though? I think it still all goes back to uniformity and the belief that CAF members should all be dressed the same from top to bottom (yes I know that is laughable to some degree given our current uniform/boots issues). 

Nobody sees what is under the uniform, so the BDU works. Boots though . . . .


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Oct 2015)

I think it has more to do with current government 'policy and desire' to have a _Canadian-made/Canadian-content_ (in this case, boot) that helps keep Canadian companies like Terra busy with work; this helps the job sector and helping the job sector is good politics and government.  That is the biggest reason we will never see the 'annual boot allowance', IMO.  PWGSC (?) already signed contracts and paid monies to have the boots produced.  Unless I don't understand the very basics of government contracting, and perhaps I don't, the ship has sailed on Air Force, Navy and Army boot projects.

 I have no problem with this _Canadian-content _idea EXCEPT the boots being turned out are, when compared to other boots (such as Bates, Magnum, Danner, etc) are inferior products.  Example, the weight of the Air Force TCB is 5+ lbs/pr.  The reason given for using steel vice composite was that composite can't give a CSA Grade 1 rating.  Well, that's just false; my Magnums (Model 5314) that are LPOs are almost as light as my sneakers and they are CSA grade 1 and use composite toe and shank.  What they _are_, however, is roughly double the price.  They (the AF issued TCBs) are not comfortable.  The leather heel cup inside the boot will help the boot last longer, but at the cost of your heel, which might not last a day.  Did they not consider that aspect?  They are also, I was told, approx. $80 CDN a pair.  You get what you pay for, which in the case of the AF TCB is a heavy uncomfortable boot that no one wants to wear.  

The AF CEMS project did a great job identifying the specs for the AF boots:

a.  TCB specs: +10 to +30 range,harder rubber compound sole, providing the appropriate amount of cushioning in warmer climates,  breathable liners (no Gortex) for moisture wicking.

b.  CWWB specs: -25°C to +10°C range “in all operating locations”, sole is designed much like a winter tire, with a softer compound that will more easily grip icy surfaces, Gore Tex liner within the boot wall, providing the Wet Weather resistance.

The lacing system is the best I've seen to date.  The boots look 'uniform professional' IMO.  However, at the end of the day they are heavy and uncomfortable.  People aren't willing to ruin their feet when they can go to Shoeme.ca and pick up a pair of Magnum Stealth's for $100 and walk around in sneaker-weight comfort.  If you are lucky enough to have a MO/Flt Srgn who will give you a chit, you're off to the races and that is exactly what at least one person I know is doing.  He got tired of the constant BS he had to deal with to get LPOs.

Before the "but you aren't covered!" crowd says anything, I am one of the 'receives a disability pension from DVA' types.  Not once was there ever a question asked by the CAF or DVA on 'what type of boots or other kit was I wearing'.  That whole line is, IMO, an empty urban legend.

Hopefully the LOTB works out better for the Army folks than the AF boots have for a lot of AF folks.


----------



## BinRat55 (2 Oct 2015)

captloadie said:
			
		

> Do we really think that the push back is coming from ADM(Mat) though? I think it still all goes back to uniformity and the belief that CAF members should all be dressed the same from top to bottom (yes I know that is laughable to some degree given our current uniform/boots issues).



Yeah, that went out the door years ago. And furthermore, we are not sending THAT particular message when we develop 2 styles / colors and say - here, choose... all the boys will wear the dark, manly brown and all the girls will wear the light, slightly effeminate brown.

When I worked the special orders desk in Clothing, I raised POs for nurses footwear. The nurses, dental assistants came in to me and gave me their info and submitted a request for the two pairs of sneakers they wanted. I gave them the spiel - neutral color, soft non-marking soles, cross-trainers not running shoes. Yada yada yada... The order was submitted, we picked them up, I inspected the goods. If they met with the standard, GTG. If they were Neon purple really expensive running shoes - they went back.


----------



## BinRat55 (20 Oct 2015)

Just in case there are those who wish to complain the right way:

http://ucrs.mil.ca/


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Oct 2015)

The problem isn't in the boot. It's that there aren't any.


----------



## BinRat55 (20 Oct 2015)

Wait for it - there will be plenty, then all the problems surface (becomes justification for Cpl Anydude to run out and buy the ones he truly wants...) BUT - I do see issues with the zipper.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Oct 2015)

Look at the number of successful, profitable footwear companies in the world though.  They are successful because not every shoe is made the same and not every foot is shaped the same.  There is enough variety to choose from that everyone can find something that fits their feet properly.

The CAF continues to ignore this and produces 1 or 2 type of boots and then gets pissed off when mbr complain about them.  Ignoring a fact like there are more than 10 different shapes of feet in the universe doesn't make it less of a reality.


----------



## Arty39 (20 Oct 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Just in case there are those who wish to complain the right way:
> 
> http://ucrs.mil.ca/


Link doesn't work


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Oct 2015)

DWAN only if you tried it at home.


----------



## Arty39 (20 Oct 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> DWAN only if you tried it at home.


----------



## BinRat55 (21 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Look at the number of successful, profitable footwear companies in the world though.  They are successful because not every shoe is made the same and not every foot is shaped the same.  There is enough variety to choose from that everyone can find something that fits their feet properly.
> 
> ... Ignoring a fact like there are more than 10 different shapes of feet in the universe doesn't make it less of a reality.



Very excellent points! Now if you were to insert the word "breast" like so - 

 Look at the number of successful, profitable _*BRASSIER * _ companies in the world though.  They are successful because not every _*BREAST * _ is made the same and not every _*BREAST * _ is shaped the same.  There is enough variety to choose from that everyone can find something that fits their _*BREASTS * _ properly.

... Ignoring a fact like there are more than 10 different shapes of _*BREASTS * _ in the universe doesn't make it less of a reality.

In no way am I attempting to make light of anything, I am merely drawing focus to the true basis of the BTU. Remove "foot" and insert "breast" and it's the same issue.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Oct 2015)

This doesn't make sense.

I'm looking at my boot rack and there's at least $1000 worth of booths that I've bought with my own money to use and that's not counting the numerous pairs of other boots which have been destroyed from use or that I don't use. I know I'm not the only one.

We were told once we get issued the brown boots we will be forbidden from using black boots or from using brown/tan boots whether they are bought with our money OR even if they are_ issued _brown/tan boots. Only the new stuff will be used. Which is also kind of strange since there seems to be an anti-tan kit crusade against tan gloves, backpacks etc.. with a lot of units.  Even though an order came down that we're permitted to use tan t-shirts while green t-shirts run out of stock to make way for the new brown t-shirts we need a written note from clothing saying they are in fact out of green shirts.

In any case it's going to be awesome for the medical and supply system once they are bombarded by requests from members who feel (rightly or wrongly) these 2 different styles of boots don't work for them/hurt their feet.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Oct 2015)

I have been jealously guarding a brand new pair of Mk III combat boots and have just started breaking them in.

I got a few 'oo, ahs' down at the unit this week when I waltzed in with them, which tells me that this kind of boot is still highly regarded. 

At least by old farts like me


----------



## Lumber (23 Oct 2015)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Though an order came down that we're permitted to use tan t-shirts while green t-shirts run out of stock to make way for the new brown t-shirts we need a written note from clothing saying they are in fact out of green shirts.



You guys are switching to brown T-shirts? What has this world come to...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Oct 2015)

I am having flashbacks to the early 90s when there was the "new" combat shirt in the system that RSMs everywhere prohibited from being worn on their parade squares.  And woe to the poor soldier who was only issued shirts in that style...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (23 Oct 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I am having flashbacks to the early 90s when there was the "new" combat shirt in the system that RSMs everywhere prohibited from being worn on their parade squares.  And woe to the poor soldier who was only issued shirts in that style...



I had one of those...with the square chest pockets and pen racks?  Yeah, they freaked out that I wore it on my GMT.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Oct 2015)

Gotta love bring issued kit and them someone decides you can't wear it.  This stupidity is something we can do something about inside the CAF.  If I can't wear it why are we wasting money and time procuring it?


----------



## OldSolduer (23 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Gotta love bring issued kit and them someone decides you can't wear it.  This stupidity is something we can do something about inside the CAF.  If I can't wear it why are we wasting money and time procuring it?



Inside my pea brain, if the Queen issued it, it's good to go.


----------



## dimsum (23 Oct 2015)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Gotta love bring issued kit and them someone decides you can't wear it.  This stupidity is something we can do something about inside the CAF.  If I can't wear it why are we wasting money and time procuring it?



That's due in large part to the baffling OCD-like behaviour of some RSMs (apologies to any here who aren't dinosaurs) to have everyone look exactly the same while in operational kit.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (24 Oct 2015)

I got mine last week. We weren't given the option, we were issued one of both types. It's a push so you can keep your current boots as souvenirs. I would have gotten two pairs of the lace-less boots had I been given the chance. The laced version is pretty close to coyote tan and the zippered one is a darker brown but paradoxically has an almost white sole? They are both a little too low for my taste... I prefer an 8'' boot myself. A couple open-minded individuals used them the day after they were issued to us to complete a BFT and nobody's feet were destroyed. I used my Blackhawk coyote tan warriors instead. The pair with zippers is more akin to slippers than boots and the lace-less pair is somewhat sturdier; I believe it has a steel shank in the stole. These boots are a step in the right direction anyway; on the bright side one can now simply buy any pair of the multitude of coyote tan boots on the market and call it a day.









Arid Region Boot, Magnum Amazon 4 in DOD Brown, LOTB, Blackhawk Warrior Coyote Tan, Original Swat Tan.

The zippered pair is still in the box at the office... lol


----------



## Arty39 (24 Oct 2015)

@Mr. St-cyr What do you do for cleaning these? Just a wipe down with soapy water and a rag each night?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (24 Oct 2015)

I get dirt off with a boot brush.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Oct 2015)

Mr. Gigglesworth said:
			
		

> I got mine last week. We weren't given the option, we were issued one of both types. It's a push so you can keep your current boots as souvenirs. I would have gotten two pairs of the lace-less boots had I been given the chance. The laced version is pretty close to coyote tan and the zippered one is a darker brown but paradoxically has an almost white sole? They are both a little too low for my taste... I prefer an 8'' boot myself. A couple open-minded individuals used them the day after they were issued to us to complete a BFT and nobody's feet were destroyed. I used my Blackhawk coyote tan warriors instead. The pair with zippers is more akin to slippers than boots and the lace-less pair is somewhat sturdier; I believe it has a steel shank in the stole. These boots are a step in the right direction anyway; on the bright side one can now simply buy any pair of the multitude of coyote tan boots on the market and call it a day.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This picture reminds me of a story....

Once upon a time there was a platoon that I know of that turned up on a formal-ish parade each wearing, on their left feet, one type of issued boot and on their right, another type of issued boot.

Just sayin'


----------



## NL_engineer (13 Dec 2015)

Does anyone have the new boots in the system?  What one is better the one with or without the zipper?  We were told you get to choose one or the other and that's it; no test or exchange.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

I just heard from a Formation CWO the new boots that were supposed to come out are dead.  Program has been cancelled and the Army is back to step zero.... Again


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

How do we go from issuing boots with a plan and implementation order (including a delay to get production levels up), to complete grinding to a halt and cancellation? Is anything on CID or DLR pages on DWAN?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> How do we go from issuing boots with a plan and implementation order (including a delay to get production levels up), to complete grinding to a halt and cancellation? Is anything on CID or DLR pages on DWAN?



I haven't seen anything but I've heard from multiple sources it's over.  The zippers of the one pair supposedly were bursting after a few weeks of use (something many people predicted) and the soles of the boots were too soft for the field.


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> ..... zippers of the one pair supposedly were bursting after a few weeks of use (something many people predicted) and the soles of the boots were too soft for the field.


But if you're wearing out the butt of your CADPAT in a cubicle....   >


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> But if you're wearing out the butt of your CADPAT in a cubicle....   >



Don't forget the elbows!  Mine are literally white!


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Don't forget the elbows!  Mine are literally white!



But how about the knees?


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> But how about the knees?


Staff officer problems?

As for the soles being too soft, we shouldn't be designing combat boots after swats. Those things fall apart after a year of ruck marches. 

Maybe the Army will decide to award the contract to companies 1-6 who beat these guys out. Companies likely to be Oakley, Rocky, Belleville, but aren't made in Canada. They're considering off shore for the ships, let's do it for boots.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Staff officer problems?
> 
> As for the soles being too soft, we shouldn't be designing combat boots after swats. Those things fall apart after a year of ruck marches.
> 
> Maybe the Army will decide to award the contract to companies 1-6 who beat these guys out. Companies likely to be Oakley, Rocky, Belleville, but aren't made in Canada. They're considering off shore for the ships, let's do it for boots.



Problem is none of those companies will sell Boulet, Kodiak, etc... Their patents  

I would personally go with Lowa's, best army boot on the market IMO.  It's what the Brits and Germans use  8)


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I would personally go with Lowa's, best army boot on the market IMO.  It's what the Brits and Germans use  8)



I like my Lowas, but $420 per boot is steep, even the cheaper versions are $300+.

At the end of the day, boots are just a microcosm of what's wrong with the procurement system. We don't get the best available, that meets all mandatory requirements at the market price. We get whatever a Canadian company has, that may or may not meet requirements, at an inflated price because we absorb the cost of retooling.

I bet if we asked Rocky to ship us 50,000 pairs of S2Vs in Coyote Brown, we'd have them in 3 months, ready to issue.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I like my Lowas, but $420 per boot is steep, even the cheaper versions are $300+.



Didn't stop the Brits from outfitting their entire Army with multiple pairs per soldier 8)



> At the end of the day, boots are just a microcosm of what's wrong with the procurement system. We don't get the best available, that meets all mandatory requirements at the market price. We get whatever a Canadian company has, that may or may not meet requirements, at an inflated price because we absorb the cost of retooling.
> 
> I bet if we asked Rocky to ship us 50,000 pairs of S2Vs in Coyote Brown, we'd have them in 3 months, ready to issue.



Proper footwear is probably one of the most basic requirements of an Army.  The fact we haven't had any in a decade plus is criminal.  It symbolizes everything that is wrong with the bureaucracy and the civil service that supports it.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

Completely agree. It also shows a systematic failure of senior leadership to raise this issue up to the highest levels, and more than just once. CCA should be in the CDS' office constantly about this, and perhaps even a few letters to the CBC.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely agree. It also shows a systematic failure of senior leadership to raise this issue up to the highest levels, and more than just once. CCA should be in the CDS' office constantly about this, and perhaps even a few letters to the CBC.



I agree and it's one of the reasons I have a very low opinion of a lot of senior folks in this military.

Between boots, radios and the lack of a b-fleet, I would use far too many expletives if I were to actually post how I truly feel about our performance.


----------



## McG (13 Dec 2015)

At least we have new flags and patches for all our L2 formations.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (13 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> At least we have new flags and patches for all our L2 formations.



I also heard they are trying to change our ranks again :rofl:

The GOFOs are unhappy and want maple leafs to replace their pips  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2015)

Lets use pot leaves and bongs.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> At least we have new flags and patches for all our L2 formations.



Just saw the DIV Sgt Maj with the div patch on CADPAT.... :facepalm:


----------



## dangerboy (13 Dec 2015)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Just saw the DIV Sgt Maj with the div patch on CADPAT.... :facepalm:



I was hoping that this would not actually happen.


----------



## NL_engineer (13 Dec 2015)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Just saw the DIV Sgt Maj with the div patch on CADPAT.... :facepalm:



Like Velcro patch on the newer uniform or sowen on?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (13 Dec 2015)

I'd hope Velcro


----------



## ballz (13 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I like my Lowas, but $420 per boot is steep, even the cheaper versions are $300+.



When you factor in all the money spent on failed boot projects, I am guessing $400 for a pair of boots would look like a steal.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I bet if we asked Rocky to ship us 50,000 pairs of S2Vs in Coyote Brown, we'd have them in 3 months, ready to issue.



With a huge wholesale discount as well... Imagine buying boots "off the shelf" from these companies, the kind of discounts they could offer to get the contract.

I am a Meindl person myself, Lowa's biggest competitor in Europe as far as I know. To my (limited) knowledge, the Brits offer Lowas, Meindls, and I believe 4 more varieties of boots, all off the shelf models.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

A lot of the size issues can be fixed with ditching mondo point and buying commercial sizes. People easily know what size boot they are, and commercial boots are meant to fit as many people as possible to make money. We're re-inventing the wheel constantly.


----------



## McG (13 Dec 2015)

Do you know the new boots are not commercial sizes?  I thought they were COTS.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Do you know the new boots are not commercial sizes?  I thought they were COTS.



I'd have to double check on CID, but originally the RFP required them be in mondo point, as apparently that covers 95% of the CAF.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Dec 2015)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Like Velcro patch on the newer uniform or sowen on?





			
				Sheep Dog AT said:
			
		

> I'd hope Velcro



Yes velcro, then again he has the new shirt....


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Dec 2015)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Yes velcro, then again he has the new shirt....



New shirt is meant to build teamwork, you're constantly getting arms stuck together if you get too close to someone.


----------



## BinRat55 (14 Dec 2015)

I can assure everyone, the LOTB is not dead, nor is there any talk of it going away. I have already issued over a thousand pairs, plus there are thousands more enroute to me. Both styles. And yes - mondo-point sizing. 74 sizes of each style.

Not sure which FSM told pers that the LOTB was done, but it was an error on their part.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Dec 2015)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I can assure everyone, the LOTB is not dead, nor is there any talk of it going away. I have already issued over a thousand pairs, plus there are thousands more enroute to me. Both styles. And yes - mondo-point sizing. 74 sizes of each style.
> 
> Not sure which FSM told pers that the LOTB was done, but it was an error on their part.



You've just raised my spirits a bit!  PM inbound


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Problem is none of those companies will sell Boulet, Kodiak, etc... Their patents
> 
> I would personally go with Lowa's, best army boot on the market IMO.  It's what the Brits and Germans use  8)



I was involved in some of the UK trials to replace their boots.... over 30 years ago. It was a full on exercise in futility, and we endured with the DMS boot (and, yes, puttees) until the mid-80s brought us a thoroughly UNSAT 'combat high boot'.

It took them another 10 + years after I left to come to their senses and look 'on the shelf' for the right answer, which was the recommendation we had made decades before. I have no idea how that happened, but we may be able to learn from their experience in some way.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (14 Dec 2015)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I was involved in some of the UK trials to replace their boots.... over 30 years ago. It was a full on exercise in futility, and we endured with the DMS boot (and, yes, puttees) until the mid-80s brought us a thoroughly UNSAT 'combat high boot'.
> 
> It took them another 10 + years after I left to come to their senses and look 'on the shelf' for the right answer, which was the recommendation we had made decades before. I have no idea how that happened, but we may be able to learn from their experience in some way.



I believe it happened because of Iraq and Afghanistan after the UK government took massive flak for how poorly equipped the troops were.  The individual soldier equipment of the British Army is very good now.  I picked up some of their kit when I did Cambrian Patrol in 2012, it's pretty high quality stuff.  The Brits made a lot of fun of our tacticL vests, they wondered why we wore fishing vests to battle   ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Brits made a lot of fun of our tacticL vests, they wondered why we wore fishing vests to battle   ;D



Balderdash!  It's a highly effective, proven _combat vest_!!     You can never run out of grenades, for instance, because you are never able to get them out of the pockets designed for them!!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (14 Dec 2015)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I believe it happened because of Iraq and Afghanistan after the UK government took massive flak for how poorly equipped the troops were.  The individual soldier equipment of the British Army is very good now.  I picked up some of their kit when I did Cambrian Patrol in 2012, it's pretty high quality stuff.  The Brits made a lot of fun of our tacticL vests, they wondered why we wore fishing vests to battle   ;D



We're in a world if hurt when the Brits are making odlf our kit. (The old saying- you can buy good or you can buy british)


----------



## MattGotts (18 Mar 2016)

When I went to Clothing stores to get proper fitting boots after a year of clownshoes, they gave me Boulet desert boots. Other guys in my unit have the brown hot weather boots, the leather brown boots, or mark 3's. 
Does anyone else this happening in their armoury?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Mar 2016)

MattGotts said:
			
		

> When I went to Clothing stores to get proper fitting boots after a year of clownshoes, they gave me Boulet desert boots. Other guys in my unit have the brown hot weather boots, the leather brown boots, or mark 3's.
> Does anyone else this happening in their armoury?



Canadian Army confirms that is moving to an attrition model for the issuing of new boots (LOTB).  This means that rather than automatically issuing two new pairs of LOTB to each soldier, we will issue replacement boots only (i.e. as a pair of existing boots wears out, new boots (LOTB) will be issued).  We will also use up all existing stocks of boots, and phase in the introduction of new LOTB


----------



## BinRat55 (21 Mar 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Canadian Army confirms that is moving to an attrition model for the issuing of new boots (LOTB).  This means that rather than automatically issuing two new pairs of LOTB to each soldier, we will issue replacement boots only (i.e. as a pair of existing boots wears out, new boots (LOTB) will be issued).  We will also use up all existing stocks of boots, and phase in the introduction of new LOTB



Yea - this happened mid-phase 2 after we had sized / ordered / issued to at least 25% of the base. Now we have half a dozen units complaining that their neighbor has the new boots but not them. Their buddy down the road has the new boots, but not them. Their grandmother has the new boots but not them.

Try to explain the concept of attrition to a soldier who really doesn't care - they just want the new boot! For those of you reading this and haven't received the new LOTB, please understand - it's not those behind the counter saying no - we are only following direction.

And attrition is not "Well, I have had these boots for the past 3 years but now all of a sudden the only thing that fits are the new boots..."

This is blowing up in the Supply Tech's faces. We have had 6 people actually removed from Clothing last week because the Front Counter staff said they had to check depot and order the MKIV vice the LOTB... very colorful and unprofessional language!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Yea - this happened mid-phase 2 after we had sized / ordered / issued to at least 25% of the base. Now we have half a dozen units complaining that their neighbor has the new boots but not them. Their buddy down the road has the new boots, but not them. Their grandmother has the new boots but not them.
> 
> *Try to explain the concept of attrition to a soldier who really doesn't care - they just want the new boot!* For those of you reading this and haven't received the new LOTB, please understand - it's not those behind the counter saying no - we are only following direction.
> 
> ...



Or, in many cases, they just need some sort of new boot because their's are fucked. I know many, many people that don't care about what colour or style they get, they just need their boots replaced because their current ones are totally worn out. Just throwing any sort of boot at them doesn't work either. Cold wet weather boots worn in the summer are just as damaging to the feet as regular boots worn in the cold and wet of winter.

Whatever the case, the whole boot file has been completely mismanaged and to blame troops because someone figures "that they just want the newest and shiniest" is degrading and immoral. They just want something on their feet that works and shouldn't be concerned with what the procurement problems are. That area is not anywhere near their balliwick. It belongs to the system only. The same system that is supposed to properly equip and take care of our troops so they can concentrate on doing their jobs properly without having to worry about their main mode of transportation. Nor should they be used for blame by an archaic, dysfunctional system that can't\ won't do their own job properly.


----------



## Flavus101 (21 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Or, in many cases, they just need some sort of new boot because their's are fucked. I know many, many people that don't care about what colour or style they get, they just need their boots replaced because their current ones are totally worn out. Just throwing any sort of boot at them doesn't work either. Cold wet weather boots worn in the summer are just as damaging to the feet as regular boots worn in the cold and wet of winter.
> 
> Whatever the case, the whole boot file has been completely mismanaged and to blame troops because someone figures "that they just want the newest and shiniest" is degrading and immoral. They just want something on their feet that works and shouldn't be concerned with what the procurement problems are. That area is not anywhere near their balliwick. It belongs to the system only. The same system that is supposed to properly equip and take care of our troops so they can concentrate on doing their jobs properly without having to worry about their main mode of transportation. Nor should they be used for blame by an archaic, dysfunctional system that can't\ won't do their own job properly.



 :goodpost:

I wish more people got on-board with this train of thought.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 Mar 2016)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> I wish more people got on-board with this train of thought.



You need to have more disgruntled old guys for that thought to catch any momentum. We sneak them off to become Commissionaires before they get to that point.


----------



## medicineman (21 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Balderdash!  It's a highly effective, proven _combat vest_!!     You can never run out of grenades, for instance, because you are never able to get them out of the pockets designed for them!!



Assuming of course they can find grenades to issue...

MM


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 Mar 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> Assuming of course they can find grenades to issue...
> 
> MM



None this year, sorry.

Here, have this new cap badge. Please pay us for it though.


----------



## RCPalmer (21 Mar 2016)

I think the real question becomes, how many times are we going to through this process, only to see it fail again?  I remember seeing the first trial temperate boots in CADPAT (which, apart from being as ugly as sin, were not a terrible design) in field use back in 2005.  That is a longer time period than WW2 and the Korean Wars combined. Soldiers who joined during that trial will be up for their CDs in a few months.  At some point, the CoC needs to say uncle, and make hard decisions to find workable solutions.  

The combat bra (individual allowance) option appears to have been investigated and rejected due to the associated TB regulations.  

At this point, we would be better off to publish a list of acceptable boots, make soldiers buy them with their own money (which so many are doing already), and then consider that expense as part of the next compensation review.  If it works for the U.S. Army, I see no reason it couldn't work for us.  They capture that expense through a uniform upkeep allowance.  Maybe we will decide that the personal expense is reasonable considering existing compensation, or perhaps we can parlay that into a .5% salary increase in a year or two. 

Ultimately, the CoC has a responsibility to deliver on government directed defence capabilities, and boots are an essential component of delivering on virtually any defence capability, just like rifles, helmets, pencils and toilet paper.  Would the CoC tolerate a failure of the supply system to deliver toilet paper?  Additionally, the cost of the staff effort associated with this program is likely quite prohibitive, and could have been much more usefully allocated to the acquisition of more complex systems like vehicles or weapon systems.

I attended a briefing a few months ago where a very smart WO challenged the visiting DLR rep on this topic. His comments went something like this, "Stop worrying about boots, the troops are solving that problem for themselves...focus on something they can't buy like anti-armor weapons".

One way or another, they should have figured out a way to solve this problem before now, and given the current state of play (which does not fill me with confidence), should still be looking at sustainable alternatives.


----------



## dimsum (21 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> At this point, we would be better off to publish a list of acceptable boots, make soldiers buy them with their own money (which so many are doing already), and then consider that expense as part of the next compensation review.  If it works for the U.S. Army, I see no reason it couldn't work for us.  They capture that expense through a uniform upkeep allowance.  Maybe we will decide that the personal expense is reasonable considering existing compensation, or perhaps we can parlay that into a .5% salary increase in a year or two



<sarcastic but not joking>  

Because then the Canadian company that makes said footwear will not have the lucrative contract, and like the CRTC, there must be a "made in Canada" proportion for all things.

</sarcastic but not joking>


----------



## medicineman (21 Mar 2016)

In all seriousness, what really needs to happen is that the mentally challenged procurement process needs to get sorted - the "It must be made in Quebec by the highest bidder in the PM's or some other Minister's home riding" crap, coupled with continuing to be paid despite being 20 years behind schedule, with inferior quality stuff, has got to stop.  For the same number of public dollars spent on alleged R&D and production, I'm willing to bet that that money could be given to the soldiers to buy a few pairs of good boots every couple years and there'd even be some left over for coffee money for the TB to use.

Or do I need to hand the crack pipe to others so it makes sense to them?

MM


----------



## BinRat55 (22 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Whatever the case, the whole boot file has been completely mismanaged and to blame troops because someone figures "that they just want the newest and shiniest" is degrading and immoral. They just want something on their feet that works and shouldn't be concerned with what the procurement problems are. ...



In no way, shape or form am I "blaming" troops for anything. And I never said that everyone want the newest and shiniest. But it is problematic behaviour in our line of work.

My whole point is please don't blame the Supply Tech - we are not out to screw over everyone that come in to the front counter. I say "I'm sorry, you aren't entitled to that" and the troop goes to his CoC and tell them how Clothing Stores berated him and told him to go buy it somewhere else! This happened to one of my girls two weeks ago. 

The boot-fiasco is just that - a fiasco. I am in 100% agreement with you. There is nothing that I can do about it at my level except follow my direction. We often become the "bearers of bad news" and pay the price for the frustration of the soldier on the other end. Many are quite understanding, many are not.

What is degrading is when someone comes in wanting the new combat shirt (the one with the big flag) and i hand them an older style (because I have to issue on attrition) and i'm told I am stingy, racist and an asshole because I won't "help" a guy out... now THAT'S degrading!


[Edit to fix coding for quote.]


----------



## RCPalmer (22 Mar 2016)

medicineman said:
			
		

> In all seriousness, what really needs to happen is that the mentally challenged procurement process needs to get sorted - the "It must be made in Quebec by the highest bidder in the PM's or some other Minister's home riding" crap, coupled with continuing to be paid despite being 20 years behind schedule, with inferior quality stuff, has got to stop.  For the same number of public dollars spent on alleged R&D and production, I'm willing to bet that that money could be given to the soldiers to buy a few pairs of good boots every couple years and there'd even be some left over for coffee money for the TB to use.



I fully agree Medicine Man, but it is more than that.  The procurement process is not fully under the control of the CAF, or DND for that matter, and while we should do our best to improve it, we should also look to find solutions that are within CAF control such as the one I have proposed above.  The relevant commander (such as the CDS or CCA) could say, "thanks DLR, let me know when you've sorted out that boot thing" while moving forward with solutions that address the immediate need.   At the moment, lower level commanders (unit and brigade) are assuming all the risk by turning a blind eye to non-issue boots because they have no practical alternative while the official policy (via most recent CANFORGENs) is that all non-issue kit is forbidden.  

I have heard ridiculous things come from parties in both the supply and medical system stating that if you incur a lower body injury while wearing non-issue footwear (absent a medical chit), you would not receive compensation for your injuries.  I can tell you with confidence that this is not the case, and if it came to that for one of my soldiers I would engage all necessary parties to see it resolved.  

Commanders should be crushing that kind of talk while working to find solutions that are both within our control and achievable within a reasonable time frame.  I am all for fixing the procurement system, but we have to get on with business in mean time.


----------



## BinRat55 (22 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> The combat bra (individual allowance) option appears to have been investigated and rejected due to the associated TB regulations.



What did you mean by this? 



			
				RCPalmer said:
			
		

> At this point, we would be better off to publish a list of acceptable boots, make soldiers buy them with their own money (which so many are doing already), and then consider that expense as part of the next compensation review.  If it works for the U.S. Army, I see no reason it couldn't work for us.  They capture that expense through a uniform upkeep allowance.  Maybe we will decide that the personal expense is reasonable considering existing compensation, or perhaps we can parlay that into a .5% salary increase in a year or two.
> 
> Ultimately, the CoC has a responsibility to deliver on government directed defence capabilities, and boots are an essential component of delivering on virtually any defence capability, just like rifles, helmets, pencils and toilet paper.  Would the CoC tolerate a failure of the supply system to deliver toilet paper?  Additionally, the cost of the staff effort associated with this program is likely quite prohibitive, and could have been much more usefully allocated to the acquisition of more complex systems like vehicles or weapon systems.
> 
> ...



I have always been a firm believer in a COA that mirriored the BTW allowance. But a few weeks ago, I was voicing this opinion (to a possibly smarter, albiet not quite as good looking Logistician) when I was given pause for thought.

Major: How many years you got in?
Me: 27.
Major: How often have you exchanged your boots in 27 years?
Me: (counting on fingers...) 5 or 6 maybe...
Major: So, if we were to give you $160.00 a year just like the BTU, how often would you buy new boots?
Me: Every... ooohhh....

It's not perfect, but we can still do it. The CUA (for those who remember it) was 17 bucks a pay. The cost of a complete uniform (DEU) spread out over a 5 year period.

Edited to say "See? I'm not as black and white as some would think!"


----------



## RCPalmer (22 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What did you mean by this?



My understanding (which is mostly second hand, town halls with senior leaders, etc.  Perhaps someone closer to the mechanics of the issue could weigh in) was that there was considerable interest within the CAF senior leadership to pursue a boot allowance COA after the QA/QC issues with the last supplier, but that there was treasury board resistance to this.  I think the logic is that if the CAF can provide a piece operational clothing through the supply system, it should do so. I happen to agree with that logic, provided that the system can actually deliver. 

Keep in mind that the allowance COA for the BTW was only adopted after the CAF tried (and failed) to produce a garment suitable for all women.  When the members in the BTW trial said "You can't possibly produce a style of bra that would suit every woman, so you should stop trying", how could anyone (lacking the er...equipment) disagree with them?  I know I wouldn't try.  If only we could apply that logic to feet...

Personally, I think the boot allowance COA is a great idea.  However, every other initiative seems to be moving away from allowances, and towards the provision publicly funded items. The transition from the clothing upkeep allowance to the points system delivered by Logistik Unikorp is a prime example of that.  Concurrently, the Kilt Grant (provided to Army Reserve units to pay for items of highland kit in lieu of CAF issued DEU trousers), appears to be in the process of being replaced by a system to supply some basic items of highland dress.  In the case both of these initiatives, I think this approach is a good one.  

I view my COA as an acceptance of this wholly unsatisfactory situation in the short term while getting proper footwear on our soldier's feet today.


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Mar 2016)

It's difficult. I agree that this "boot" thing needs to come to a head - I have seen more boot styles throughout my career than you can shake a stick at. But it does say something to me - DND has not stopped trying. While seemingly fail after fail has produced nothing but basements and kit rooms full of boots, as frustrating as it is they keep going back to the drawing board. I know we keep slapping s*** on a pig, but at least they are trying. We could be like other nations - you will take this and like it - making the troops suffer to sustain an economy of otherwise wasted dollars.

But, as I come full circle here, I know this needs to stop. We can't make everyone happy, but like i've said (and RCPalmer and many others) how many females are unhappy with their bras? I wouldn't say any - they chose them, they bought them. Same with nurses and dental assistant footwear. We don't issue these - the member goes to an approved footwear provider and chooses from several different approved styles. All in all, a nurse has about 15 different options for sneakers.

I would love to hear the council's reasoning for why a "boot allowance" of any sort would not work.

Speaking as a Supply Tech - we only issue the kit - we don't buy it and put it on the shelves. We don't set the entitlements nor do we create the implementation scheme. Please try not to take your frustrations out on us!


----------



## Terrier (23 Mar 2016)

From a PD session here in Gagetown, the current brown boots are an interim boot. The decision has been made to go with the Mark IV for everyone, with a softer sole than initially trialed. I'm not sure on time frame or anything, but that's the word.

My only issue (no pun intended,) is that there is no perfect boot for everyone... You can't find a boot that will make both clerks (as an example,) and infantry soldiers happy. Their jobs are completely different, and they require different things.


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Mar 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> From a PD session here in Gagetown, the current brown boots are an interim boot. The decision has been made to go with the Mark IV for everyone, with a softer sole than initially trialed. I'm not sure on time frame or anything, but that's the word.



I was there. I honestly think that was misspoken. These two boots were researched, trialed and manufactured over a 5 year period. Millions have gone into it. Only to be an intrem boot so we can go back to a boot we already have? Sounds wrong somehow...



			
				Terrier said:
			
		

> My only issue (no pun intended,) is that there is no perfect boot for everyone... You can't find a boot that will make both clerks (as an example,) and infantry soldiers happy. Their jobs are completely different, and they require different things.



Very true!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Mar 2016)

If you don't like Binary'[I meant] Binrat's answers [god damn auto-correct], you can always go about it this way (A bit of levity before the long week-end  [):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nbbi16tvYA


----------



## captloadie (23 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Speaking as a Supply Tech - we only issue the kit - we don't buy it and put it on the shelves. We don't set the entitlements nor do we create the implementation scheme. Please try not to take your frustrations out on us!



You don't give your trade enough credit. There are many Supply techs involved in the setting of entitlements, designing scales of issue, and providing inputs into implementation schemes. Your trade is supposed to be the CAF SMEs on these issues, and it is to the senior Sup Techs we often turn to when making these plans.


----------



## Arty39 (23 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I was there. I honestly think that was misspoken. These two boots were researched, trialed and manufactured over a 5 year period. Millions have gone into it. Only to be an intrem boot so we can go back to a boot we already have? Sounds wrong somehow...
> 
> Very true!


There was a rather large discussion about boots that day at the pd session and the answer was a modified mark 4 boot would be the boot of the future.


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If you don't like Binary'[I meant] Binrat's answers [god damn auto-correct], you can always go about it this way (A bit of levity before the long week-end  [):
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nbbi16tvYA



I got the insult...


----------



## Terrier (23 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I was there. I honestly think that was misspoken. These two boots were researched, trialed and manufactured over a 5 year period. Millions have gone into it. Only to be an intrem boot so we can go back to a boot we already have? Sounds wrong somehow...
> 
> Very true!


]

Nothing was unclear about what was said, and I doubt the CWO was mistaken, or shooting from the hip on that one. The Mark IV with a softer sole will be the boot we are issued going forward. I'm just not sure when the planned start date for that is, as I don't recall there being one given. Agree with it or not, that's what we were told is happening.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Mar 2016)

So, a Mk IV III with vibram soles.  :rofl:

Exactly where we were 10 years ago, millions of man hours (how many PYs did this burn up with testing, QM time, research, etc) wasted and millions of dollars spent :facepalm:

"Halt, as you were!!" [Xp


_Edit: forgot there was no such thing as a Mk IV_


----------



## blacktriangle (23 Mar 2016)

If the CAF wasn't a joke before, it's certainly heading in that direction. 

Enjoy your crappy boots, troops.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Mar 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> ]
> 
> Nothing was unclear about what was said, and I doubt the CWO was mistaken, or shooting from the hip on that one. The *Mark IV * with a softer sole will be the boot we are issued going forward. I'm just not sure when the planned start date for that is, as I don't recall there being one given. Agree with it or not, that's what we were told is happening.



No such boot exists....

The following boots do exist:

i.	Mk III Combat Boot (21-872-4291);
ii.	General Purpose Boot (20-001-9296);
iii.	Arid Regions Combat Boot (20-005-2773);
iv.	MK II Temperate Combat Boot (20-008-0229)

In addition to

Land Operations Temperate Boot (LOTB)
20-0012410 AA   Zipper
20-0082050 AA Laces


----------



## Terrier (23 Mar 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> No such boot exists....



Then I'd say it fits the criteria of a NEW boot.


----------



## RCPalmer (23 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, a Mk IV with vibram soles.  :rofl:
> 
> Exactly where we were 10 years ago, millions of man hours (how many PYs did this burn up with testing, QM time, research, etc) wasted and millions of dollars spent :facepalm:
> 
> "Halt, as you were!!" [Xp



Don't forget about the personnel costs of injuries associated with ill-fitting or inadequate footwear...for the last decade. That's my sunny thought for the day.   :facepalm:


----------



## Terrier (23 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Don't forget about the personnel costs of injuries associated with ill-fitting or inadequate footwear...for the last decade. That's my sunny thought for the day.   :facepalm:



It was also stated that there would be 80 sizes... I'm not sure if that will translate into a better fit, or greater chance of error, but that's what was said at any rate.


----------



## BinRat55 (23 Mar 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> ]
> 
> Nothing was unclear about what was said, and I doubt the CWO was mistaken, or shooting from the hip on that one. The Mark IV with a softer sole will be the boot we are issued going forward. I'm just not sure when the planned start date for that is, as I don't recall there being one given. Agree with it or not, that's what we were told is happening.



No no no... I completely understand about the clarity of what was said, and that the CWO was NOT mistaken... misinformed is a better way to put it. What I'm saying is that yes, it may be true, but I have read everything on CTS and I can't find anything on another implementation. They reference a new boot (the LOTB) ready to go for trial in 2014, but that's it. No completion timeframe. It just seems off to me. Just like recce said - we would be right back to square zero. Why would we do that?

But, one never knows, do they!


----------



## RCPalmer (23 Mar 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> It was also stated that there would be 80 sizes... I'm not sure if that will translate into a better fit, or greater chance of error, but that's what was said at any rate.



Greater chances of error, more sizes to stock (or not stock).  I have received three separate issues of mondopoint sized boots (once when the CWWB was introduced, and twice for arids), and I have never received the size measured. Instead, I got what was available.  I could get by using extra insoles or thicker socks, but I've yet to have a really good fit with mondopoint.


----------



## MJP (23 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> No no no... I completely understand about the clarity of what was said, and that the CWO was NOT mistaken... misinformed is a better way to put it. What I'm saying is that yes, it may be true, but I have read everything on CTS and I can't find anything on another implementation. They reference a new boot (the LOTB) ready to go for trial in 2014, but that's it. No completion timeframe. It just seems off to me. Just like recce said - we would be right back to square zero. Why would we do that?
> 
> But, one never knows, do they!



I looked on the Army G4 ACIMs site in addition to the DLR/CTS site and even read the recent G4 Sitrep and there is nothing in there except the LOTB issuance.  If there is a move back to a MkIV boot they are hiding it well.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (23 Mar 2016)

MJP said:
			
		

> I looked on the Army G4 ACIMs site in addition to the DLR/CTS site and even read the recent G4 Sitrep and there is nothing in there except the LOTB issuance.  If there is a move back to a MkIV boot they are hiding it well.



Veddy veddy sneaky. You underestimate their sneakiness?


----------



## Terrier (23 Mar 2016)

MJP said:
			
		

> I looked on the Army G4 ACIMs site in addition to the DLR/CTS site and even read the recent G4 Sitrep and there is nothing in there except the LOTB issuance.  If there is a move back to a MkIV boot they are hiding it well.



I don't know about the documentation aspect of it. I'm just going by the info passed on to us via the CWO. He passed it on and told us to spread the info to those that ask / bring it up.


----------



## buzgo (23 Mar 2016)

It would be a greater than $5 million project so therefore would be on the Capability Investment Database... 

It wouldn't be out of line for something like this to happen but come on. How much do we need to continue wasting on this problem? Canada doesn't have a viable footwear industry. Get over it.


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2016)

If it is a minor improvement to an in service item done on a going forward basis it would be a product improvement, not a capital project.


----------



## Loachman (23 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> we would be right back to square zero. Why would we do that?



To take advantage of the cost savings derived from buying leather for these boots and the new Sam Browne belts all in one go...?


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2016)

Out of curiosity could someone quote me the price of what the CF pays per pair of MkIV boot and LOTBs?


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Mar 2016)

Cost should be easy to find in CGCS.


----------



## captloadie (23 Mar 2016)

I actually heard the same info today from someone in the Supply system, that is, the plan is to bring back the Mark IIIs with a vibram sole. I would think that many people would be happy with this, because all I've heard from alot of seasoned members was "why don't they bring back the Mark III's", or "I've resoled my Mark III's x number of times rather than get the new ones".

For being able to find the correct size, how much of that is actually physical foot discomfort, vs. the psychological impact of not wearing what you are used to. For example, soldier x wears size 9.5 in everthing else he wears, regardless of manufacturer, but because the boot is in mondopoint, it all of a sudden doesn't fit "right". Similar to how when we went F to C, 22 degrees C was either too hot or too cold, but 72 degrees F was perfect.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Mar 2016)

Mondopoint scale is messed up. I can wear 10.5 running shoes, and 9.5 COTS boots with no issues, but as soon as they try mondopoint, I end up with a width that is either too tight in the forefoot, or too loose in the heel causing blisters. How do we screw up something so simple as shoe size? It's the same for shirts. I can wear a dress that fits my arm length, or look like my shirt shrunk in the wash. I'm 6'1", not a 6'7" monster. Thankfully the new combat shirts have a significantly better fit.


----------



## cld617 (23 Mar 2016)

If I had 2 dimensional feet, I might buy into the belief that 101 flavors of mondopoint sizing is adequate on providing people proper fitting footwear, but it's not. There is something seriously wrong with the product we're being offered when I struggle to be provided with footwear that fits, yet I can walk into any store and find running/hiking/casual footwear that fits fine.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (23 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I can wear a dress that fits my arm length, or look like my shirt shrunk in the wash.



Just saying... nothing wrong with it, it's all about the cut that makes a man look good or bad in a dress. Trust me, I know.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Mondopoint scale is messed up. I can wear 10.5 running shoes, and 9.5 COTS boots with no issues, but as soon as they try mondopoint, I end up with a width that is either too tight in the forefoot, or too loose in the heel causing blisters. How do we screw up something so simple as shoe size? It's the same for shirts. I can wear a dress that fits my arm length, or look like my shirt shrunk in the wash. I'm 6'1", not a 6'7" monster. Thankfully the new combat shirts have a significantly better fit.



I know it's the new army.. but...... ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Mar 2016)

It's strictly a style and comfort thing, guys. No name change to Caitlyn.


----------



## dimsum (23 Mar 2016)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Just saying... nothing wrong with it, it's all about the cut that makes a man look good or bad in a dress. Trust me, I know.



Yeah, yeah....we've all seen that Fresh Prince episode too.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBopPE_HAyY


----------



## Loachman (23 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> No name change to Caitlyn.



If we get enough "Reports to Moderators" requesting that, and he does not offer us enough money not to do so, who knows what is or isn't possible?


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2016)

I too have heard that the Army Sergeant Major, with the Army Commander,while addressing the last Army Command Team Course, had stated that the LOTB will go away and we will all move to the GP boot through attrition replacement.  That means you will wear what is on your feet until those wear-out, and you will get whatever style of boot happens to be on the shelf at clothing when you go for replacement or new issue.  However, when the LCMM needs to restock the shelves, then GP boot is what will be contracted for.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (23 Mar 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> I too have heard that the Army Sergeant Major, with the Army Commander,while addressing the last Army Command Team Course, had stated that the LOTB will go away and we will all move to the GP boot through attrition replacement.  That means you will wear what is on your feet until those wear-out, and you will get whatever style of boot happens to be on the shelf at clothing when you go for replacement or new issue.  However, when the LCMM needs to restock the shelves, then GP boot is what will be contracted for.



So we're back to square one again essentially....


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2016)

So I'll be able to just keep spending $300 a pop out of my own pocket to get boots that work best for me and I'll be left alone?


----------



## Terrier (23 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So I'll be able to just keep spending $300 a pop out of my own pocket to get boots that work best for me and I'll be left alone?



Not by default, no... is the short answer. They're moving back to one boot issued, one boot worn from what I understand. I'm sure there will still be people with medical chits etc... but the new boot will be the rule to the exception.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (23 Mar 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So I'll be able to just keep spending $300 a pop out of my own pocket to get boots that work best for me and I'll be left alone?





			
				Terrier said:
			
		

> Not by default, no... is the short answer. They're moving back to one boot issued, one boot worn from what I understand. I'm sure there will still be people with medical chits etc... but the new boot will be the rule to the exception.



That hasn't stopped people from doing it now....so it won't stop them in the future.....


----------



## rmc_wannabe (23 Mar 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> Not by default, no... is the short answer. They're moving back to one boot issued, one boot worn from what I understand. I'm sure there will still be people with medical chits etc... but the new boot will be the rule to the exception.



I'm sure the HSS Folks are going to love the sudden influx of people demanding boot chits.


----------



## Terrier (23 Mar 2016)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I'm sure the HSS Folks are going to love the sudden influx of people demanding boot chits.



I'm sure there's a line up already just from talking about boots... hopefully most people at least try them on first.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (23 Mar 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> I'm sure there's a line up already just from talking about boots... hopefully most people at least try them on first.



If they are more of the same garbage from Boulet... They won't need to.


----------



## sidemount (24 Mar 2016)

Agreed, my foot didnt fit in the mkIII properly nor the mondo size. (Sorry more to boots fitting then just length and width). I'll just keep on buying boots that actually fit.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2016)

Last boots the Army issued me that fit properly were 9.5D MkIIIs, and 9.5D parade boots. Mondopoint is junk.


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Mar 2016)

sidemount said:
			
		

> Agreed, my foot didn't fit in the mkIII properly nor the mondo size. (Sorry more to boots fitting then just length and width). I'll just keep on buying boots that actually fit.



That's what I did.  Screw the medical chit.  I had Danners for my desert boot and kept a pair of the old combat boots which had Vibram soles on them....that I paid for myself...twice.  I also managed to keep that pair when I released. And the desert boot, of course, as they weren't on my docs.

I never did get issued new boots (CWW or whatever) because they didn't fit.


----------



## Lumber (24 Mar 2016)

Just so a tadpole like myself can keep up with all you land lubbers...

I recall and still own MkIIIs, but I also have a pair of boots I got in 2007 that they called "Gortex" at the time; which ones are those?
Which ones are the tan ones everyone coming back from Afghanistan was wearing?
And which ones are the ugly brown ones I see people wearing lately?

Cheers and thanks.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2016)

Tan ones were original desert boots with a rippled sole, ugly brown are arid region combat boots, uglier brown are the failed temperate boot, and there's 2 types of brown/tan boots that look more like civilian boots that are LOTB.

Your goretex boots are either cold wet weather, or GP (known as Mk IV). Difference is basically cwwb has an insulated liner, GP is much thinner.


----------



## Lumber (24 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tan ones were original desert boots with a rippled sole, ugly brown are arid region combat boots, uglier brown are the failed temperate boot, and there's 2 types of brown/tan boots that look more like civilian boots that are LOTB.
> 
> Your goretex boots are either cold wet weather, or GP (known as Mk IV). Difference is basically cwwb has an insulated liner, GP is much thinner.



Damnit! And just when I had it all straight in my head, you go using another new acronym!

Otherwise, thanks for the clarification. I have several pilots working for me and they all are wearing different coloured boots (black, brown and tan).


----------



## Loachman (24 Mar 2016)

The Cold Wet Weather Boot was the a** f**ce boot, which was the crappiest boot that I ever wore. The Wet Weather Boot was the Army equivalent. I was issued a pair of those when I returned the CWWBs to Borden Clothing Stores, with a scathing review (which I also posted on the a** f**ce CEMS (Clothing and Equipment Millennial Standard).

Borden Base Clothing was also nice enough to buy me two pairs of Magnum desert boots when they could not fit me with the ones in stock. No medical chit was required, and the very helpful lady had begun the paperwork while I was still struggling to cram a foot into a boot.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Mar 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Damnit! And just when I had it all straight in my head, you go using another new acronym!
> 
> Otherwise, thanks for the clarification. I have several pilots working for me and they all are wearing different coloured boots (black, brown and tan).


GP is general purpose, it was supposed to be an interim solution between mark IIIs and temperate boot... 10 years ago....


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Tan ones were original desert boots with a rippled sole, ugly brown are arid region combat boots, uglier brown are the failed temperate boot, and there's 2 types of brown/tan boots that look more like civilian boots that are LOTB.
> 
> Your goretex boots are either cold wet weather, or GP (known as Mk IV). Difference is basically cwwb has an insulated liner, GP is much thinner.



This summary is in itself a wonderful testament to how f&cked up the whole boot thing is, IMHO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Don't forget about the personnel costs of injuries associated with ill-fitting or inadequate footwear...for the last decade. That's my sunny thought for the day.   :facepalm:



This.

Because of the crappy cbt boot "insoles" that were issued for years, I have fallen arches.  Because of that, since 2003 I have been getting orthotics and LPO boots and will until I am CRA in 2030.  

So for 27 years, the CAF will pay for:

- orthotics every 2 years, approx. $300/pr.

- LPO temp cbt boots x 2 pair, LPO CWWBs x 2 pair, and LPO desert boots x 2 pair.  My current boots are about $180/pr for TCB and desert, and $230 for the CWWB because I make sure they meet the same specs as the CEMS project CWWB; Thinsulate, waterproof and all that IAW the CEMS project boots specs.

If I replaced all that at the same time, the bill would be about $1780, every 2 years.   Yup, we are great at producing shitty boots that no one wants that also have the added benefit of costing even MORE money for years after.  BZ!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The Cold Wet Weather Boot was the a** f**ce boot, which was the crappiest boot that I ever wore. The Wet Weather Boot was the Army equivalent. I was issued a pair of those when I returned the CWWBs to Borden Clothing Stores, with a scathing review (which I also posted on the a** f**ce CEMS (Clothing and Equipment Millennial Standard).
> 
> Borden Base Clothing was also nice enough to buy me two pairs of Magnum desert boots when they could not fit me with the ones in stock. No medical chit was required, and the very helpful lady had begun the paperwork while I was still struggling to cram a foot into a boot.



The CEMS project boots are junk IMO.  Kind of weird to be 'thankful' the old cbt boots messed my feet up, so now I am LPO for all types of boots and don't have to suffer with the 6lb cripplers on.  Who the hell wants to walk around with 5-6lbs of boots on even in the summer?   :facepalm:

Worst are the desert boots.  Absolute fuckin' junk that I would refuse to put on my feet if I wasn't a LPO type.


----------



## BinRat55 (26 Mar 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> This summary is in itself a wonderful testament to how f&cked up the whole boot thing is, IMHO.



A very accurate statement. Add the rumour mill, outside-the-box policies and personal preference and you have ... well, this. 

I know that unit RSMs will allow troops to wear personally bought footwear. I know that certain units even stock them in their kit shop. I know that there are many, many people who legitimately can't wear issued boots. But I also know there are many people who just want cool looking boots. 

Here is what I also know - we are directed by ADM(MAT) to utilize all 76 sizes prior to going the COTS route. as far a medical chits go, we have have had meetings with the BSurg WRT the legitimacy of said chits. Now please don't get me wrong - as I said, there are many who legitimately can't wear the issued boot. But there was a problem in the past where some docs and physio people blindly writhing these chits. The system is tightening up quite a bit on COTS boots and there are now many hoops to leap through before it happens. 

Yes, it's like a soup sandwich. I have heard that we are going back to MkIII with vibram soles, MkIV with different soles, sticking with the LOTB (two styles) come hell or high water and we are also going back to the "CADPAT GP". What I can tell you for fact is that all I can find on and CTS / CEMS / ADM / VCDS site is that we are issuing the LOTB through attrition - which means to me that we are exhausting our stock of everything else we have first. The only reason I can see this happening (my opinion only) is the LOTB is here to stay.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Mar 2016)

As unethical as it is, no one would cry if there was at fire a depot only where they stock triwalls of crappy boots.

Fortunately for most troops, the common sizes are what we eat through first, so they won't have to wait long.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> As unethical as it is, no one would cry if there was at fire a depot only where they stock triwalls of crappy boots.
> 
> Fortunately for most troops, the common sizes are what we eat through first, so they won't have to wait long.



Lol... I could think of a few other pieces of kit to roast a marshmallow on...


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Lol... I could think of a few other pieces of kit to roast a marshmallow on...


You could throw tacvests and bianchi holsters on to keep the fire going.


----------



## BinRat55 (27 Mar 2016)

Fleece would create a nice colour to the burn. The C7 and 9mm wouldn't burn so well, but I would give it my best!!


----------



## blackhat123 (27 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Fleece would create a nice colour to the burn.



You monster! IMO the fleece is an excellent piece of kit. That plus thermals, and stealth suit and I'm good down to -10.

On the boot issue, I've seen a pair of the Royer ones and they seemed like they got really dirty easily and didn't clean up very well. I'll continue to wear my Rocky's until they're pried from my cold, dead hands. Apparently I'm very much so the exception to the rule; I have had good luck with the brown boots (arid combat, or something like that) when I was in a situation that required issued boots (courses, parades, etc.)


----------



## dimsum (27 Mar 2016)

blackhat123 said:
			
		

> I'll continue to wear my Rocky's until they're pried from my cold, dead *hands*.



If you're wearing boots on your hands, you're doing it wrong.


----------



## quadrapiper (29 Mar 2016)

sidemount said:
			
		

> Agreed, my foot didnt fit in the mkIII properly nor the mondo size. (Sorry more to boots fitting then just length and width). I'll just keep on buying boots that actually fit.


Issue with the "height" of the space for your foot? 

Not Army, but I've found that the more recent sea boot patterns, of the right length and width are too tall or capacious, even with the heavy wool socks, with the two sides almost meeting when laced up.


----------



## sidemount (29 Mar 2016)

Those might fit right. Ive always found the issued boots press down on the top of my foot. Could barely get the mkIIIs on with insoles for high arches. I find bates tactical, rocky, and magnum boots are the only ones that fit properly with high arches


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Mar 2016)

See, 60,000 soldiers (that's 120,000 feet!) will have roughly 20,000 differences of opinion (that's 1 in 3 where the boots legitimately don't fit right or are not comfortable).

It is impossible to make everyone happy and while I really do think this boot fiasco is just that, I also see that they are trying. Many sit at their desk, in their trench, in their hatch or in their living room and say "I know you can't please everyone, but at least please me..."

I wish there was a better solution, but 20 years ago, size 7EE and 9 1/2F worked for the majority. It wasn't until we brought in the LPO option that boot complaints rose dramatically. Why is it, you think, that we went from a system with 32 sizes and very little complaints to a system with 76 sizes and massive amount of complaints?

Baffling.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Mar 2016)

Mondopoint makes the shape of the boot different from commercial sizes. 20 years so, how many guys destroyed their feet in Mk3s, and just sucked it up? Troops are a lot more careful with preventing injuries now, and they want boots that will help with that. You're insinuating that the majority who are getting LPO boots are doing it for the LCF, and that's both dangerous and offensive. I'm sure some guys are gaming the system, but in whitewashing their requirement, you're going to ignore the majority who have a legitimate fitting issue with lowest bidder boots.


----------



## BinRat55 (29 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Mondopoint makes the shape of the boot different from commercial sizes. 20 years so, how many guys destroyed their feet in Mk3s, and just sucked it up? Troops are a lot more careful with preventing injuries now, and they want boots that will help with that. You're insinuating that the majority who are getting LPO boots are doing it for the LCF, and that's both dangerous and offensive. I'm sure some guys are gaming the system, but in whitewashing their requirement, you're going to ignore the majority who have a legitimate fitting issue with lowest bidder boots.



I'm not insinuating anything. I said "many" not "most". You agree that there are people gaming the system and I agree that there are those with legitimate feet issues. I am not trying to be offensive and why would you say "dangerous"? Odd word to use here...

Just putting my thoughts as I see things - I have been issuing boots for over 25 years and there is not much I haven't seen or dealt with. So I truly believe my thoughts count here in some form. Please note that I started out by saying that I absolutely agree with you - this is a fiasco at it's finest and it does need to get fixed. 

I also don't see how addressing a 32 size system by implementing a 76 size system is considered "whitewashing their requirement" ... unless I misread that... albeit the 76 sizes might as well be 1000 sizes - if you have a foot issue, you have a foot issue.

Just as an aside, I am one of those whose feet do NOT fit the boots. See, several years ago I lost my big toe and part of my second on my right foot. Nothing fits right. So I know there are soldiers with legitimate concerns. And I stand by my "insinuation" that there are those out for the LCF... 

as dangerous as that may be...


----------



## buzgo (30 Mar 2016)

I was always fine with the MKIII boot, and once my knees started disintegrating and I was given a vibram sole chit things were even  better.

Then I tried to get my boots resoled and was denied, and pushed over to the GP boot (black one like the WWB) which didn't feel right, the same way the WWB never felt right. Like the sole is too wide or something. Anyway, I couldn't get them to work.

So I wore SWATs. Until I was posted to a unit where the RSM wanted absolute uniformity, so back to physio to figure something out - something that ended up being custom boots. Note, all I wanted was to get my MK3 boots resoled. So I get the custom boots, after some hassle which included the guys at clothing stores giving me a hard time for not wearing the issued sock system (!?). The custom boots (brown, GP style, temperate) lasted about a week before they fell apart. Oh and they also suffered from the don't feel right issue.

Anyway. Enough is enough - I now wear either Danner or Lowa, can't get issued the new boot and don't really care.

I'll pile on to the long list of people complaining about this. Why is it that I can order boots online, having never tried them on, and they fit and perform better than anything the military has ever issued me - anything non-cots that is?

Honestly, and I have a pretty solid understanding of Defence Capability Development, our issue with boots appears to come down to the fact that we want to spend Canadian defence $$ in Canada - Regional Industrial Benefits. The problem is that we don't really have an effective Canadian footwear industry.

I think that the solution is to have a standard issue boot, that meets our requirements and makes 75% of the force happy, while at the same time creating a list of acceptable boots (similar to the US Army's AR 670-1 Compliant Boot List).


----------



## BinRat55 (30 Mar 2016)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I was always fine with the MKIII boot, and once my knees started disintegrating and I was given a vibram sole chit things were even  better.
> 
> Then I tried to get my boots resoled and was denied, and pushed over to the GP boot (black one like the WWB) which didn't feel right, the same way the WWB never felt right. Like the sole is too wide or something. Anyway, I couldn't get them to work.
> 
> ...



Do away completely with the standard issue boot and have a Compliant Boot List. Period. This is the only thing that will make everyone happy - or at the very least absolve the CF of any malfeasance... until someone finds a boot NOT on the Compliant Boot List, and then it's this all over again!

PS - I just paid the 32 bucks myself to have my MK IIIs vibram soled. Best money I ever spent!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Do away completely with the standard issue boot and have a Compliant Boot List. Period. This is the only thing that will make everyone happy - or at the very least absolve the CF of any malfeasance... until someone finds a boot NOT on the Compliant Boot List, and then it's this all over again!
> 
> PS - I just paid the 32 bucks myself to have my MK IIIs vibram soled. Best money I ever spent!



Where did you get them done?


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Do away completely with the standard issue boot and have a Compliant Boot List. Period. This is the only thing that will make everyone happy - or at the very least absolve the CF of any malfeasance... until someone finds a boot NOT on the Compliant Boot List, and then it's this all over again!



Not going to happen.  That was part of the National Army Op Clothing project I worked on years ago (when I was the Army Op Clothing Sgt at your current location) ... the resounding reponse to that proposal was "NYET".  Why?  Because all those troops with that proposed boot allowance would buy from out of country thus taking away Canadian jobs etc etc etc.  It's political and has been discussed here many, many times.


----------



## BinRat55 (30 Mar 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Where did you get them done?



Back in '99 there was a cobbler shop in the Regent mall and there used to be one in the mall adjacent to the Regent (the one that's not there anymore). One pair at the Regent mall he did for 33 bucks. I went back with my other pair and he was closed, but Cletus the Cobbler in the other mall did them - for free because I was a veteran! Pretty cool.

Yea, that wasn't yesterday. I still have them.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Mondopoint makes the shape of the boot different from commercial sizes. ...



You do realize, do you not, how many troops are *still* having their feet destroyed by mondopoint footwear?  The numbers haven't decreased since it's introduction.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (30 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Back in '99 there was a cobbler shop in the Regent mall and there used to be one in the mall adjacent to the Regent (the one that's not there anymore). One pair at the Regent mall he did for 33 bucks. I went back with my other pair and he was closed, but Cletus the Cobbler in the other mall did them - for free because I was a veteran! Pretty cool.
> 
> Yea, that wasn't yesterday. I still have them.



Cool, will probably get my old boots resoled...even though I use SWATS now....


----------



## BinRat55 (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Not going to happen.  That was part of the National Army Op Clothing project I worked on years ago (when I was the Army Op Clothing Sgt at your current location) ... the resounding reponse to that proposal was "NYET".  Why?  Because all those troops with that proposed boot allowance would buy from out of country thus taking away Canadian jobs etc etc etc.  It's political and has been discussed here many, many times.



I completely understand, I really do. But I still can't wrap my simple mind around how this differs from the BTU. I have seen thousands of receipts in my career for ladies undergarments not bought in Canada - or even manufactured in North America!

I know it's political and wayyyyy over my pay grade and I can definitely accept that. This is why I am not complaining about it like others. I just have an... opinion... if you will!

PS - wanna come back here as my big boss?


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> I completely understand, I really do. But I still can't wrap my simple mind around how this differs from the BTU.



The difference is in the dollars.  Even bras bought in Canada aren't, for the vast majority, made in Canada.  Negative impact upon Canadian manufacturing, thus the Canadian economy and employment, is negligble at best.

All soldiers wear boots, men far outnumber the females wearing BTU.  A couple of Canadian manufacturers do make footwear (whether we like their footwear or not and whether it is acceptable to soldiers or not aren't areas open for debate by the relevant powers that be). The cost of just one pair of footwear itself in comparison to the lower cost of 4 each bras each for far fewer soldiers (most of whom never even claim this allowance anyway - I never have claimed my bras).  The negative economic impact upon Canadian manufacturing and the economy is far greater with footwear - in the sheer costs, volumes and number of soldiers we are talking about.

Now, I do agree that a boot allowance is exactly what we need and is what I have always advocated for, but politically it is not going to happen.  Ergo, the fallout effect of that is simple:


----------



## BinRat55 (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ...  Kind of like the Toronto Maple Leafs ... why spend time, money and studies geared to improve your product/team when the fans are selling out yours tickets years in advance anyways?  Go Bruins!



Slow, forceful, golf clap (should be an emoji for that...)

That was hands down the greatest analogy I have ever heard concerning this boot crap. Except for the Bruins stuff... Well done Vern - nice to see you still got it!!


----------



## Arty39 (30 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Back in '99 there was a cobbler shop in the Regent mall and there used to be one in the mall adjacent to the Regent (the one that's not there anymore). One pair at the Regent mall he did for 33 bucks. I went back with my other pair and he was closed, but Cletus the Cobbler in the other mall did them - for free because I was a veteran! Pretty cool.
> 
> Yea, that wasn't yesterday. I still have them.


A store on Restigouche in Oromocto does the resole as well, no clue the price.


----------



## BinRat55 (30 Mar 2016)

Arty39 said:
			
		

> A store on Restigouche in Oromocto does the resole as well, no clue the price.



I think if you're talking about the one that was next to Timmies, it's been closed a few years now... I can't think of anything in Oromocto that does it now... closest MAY be the other side of the river...


----------



## blacktriangle (30 Mar 2016)

I don't care if we buy crappy Canadian made boots. That's a political problem. 

When we try to force our soldiers to all wear a single boot style for the sake of uniformity (despite medical implications and the superior engineering of COTS alternatives) - that's a leadership problem.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I don't care if we buy crappy Canadian made boots. That's a political problem.
> 
> When we try to force our soldiers to all wear a single boot style for the sake of uniformity (despite medical implications and the superior engineering of COTS alternatives) - that's a leadership problem.



So, they just attempted to alleviate the above by having Canadian manufacturers make boots based off multiple boot styles from trials by soldiers ... how'd that manufacturer make out?  The CoC is also hampered by the politics of the whole thing.  I can assure you that not a single RSM or CWO that I know (or CO) is happy with the boot dilemma lest you believe they are the cause of this.


----------



## blacktriangle (30 Mar 2016)

The politics tell us we have to buy Canadian made boots, but they don't tell us we have to enforce the wearing of said boots. That's where dress policy comes in, no?

I've never seen the boot issue enforced too strictly (considering there are entire units wearing COTS boots) but every so often the topic seems to come up and it makes me shudder. 

Edited to add - so I'm not in the know obviously, but just how high does the boot thing go? If you are telling me it's above RSMs and COs, just who up there, so desperately cares which boots we wear?


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> The politics tell us we have to buy Canadian made boots, but they don't tell us we have to enforce the wearing of said boots. That's where dress policy comes in, no?



And, politics says, "if you don't enforce the wearing of said footwear, then said manufacturer is still being paid by Canadian taxpayers XXX number of dollars per year by contract to provide you with the contracted footwear".  If soldiers aren't using/wearing said footwear, then we still have to pay them even though we require no replenishment from that contractor as we won't have to issue any.  Then, that Canadian manufacturer, who is still being paid, can lay off his staff as he doesn't need them to manufacture footwear that is "paid for", but not being required to be provided as it is not being worn/used by troops.  Those laid-off Canadians then collect UIC paid for by the Canadian taxpayer because they don't have to make boots for troops who aren't wearing them all the while the Company itself remains collecting due to the contract.  So, the taxpayer (the Government) ends up paying twice if we go to your "well, we just won't wear them then" ... quite the domino effect isn't it?

Quite like being ordered to go to historical ranks by the political masters vice the actual CAF serving leadership ...


----------



## MilEME09 (30 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> The politics tell us we have to buy Canadian made boots, but they don't tell us we have to enforce the wearing of said boots. That's where dress policy comes in, no?
> 
> I've never seen the boot issue enforced too strictly (considering there are entire units wearing COTS boots) but every so often the topic seems to come up and it makes me shudder.
> 
> Edited to add - so I'm not in the know obviously, but just how high does the boot thing go? If you are telling me it's above RSMs and COs, just who up there, so desperately cares which boots we wear?



Someone under pressure by the politician to make sure these great canadian made boots are seen on canadian troops.


----------



## blacktriangle (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, politics says, "if you don't enforce the wearing of said footwear, then said manufacturer is still being paid by Canadian taxpayers XXX number of dollars per year by contract to provide you with the contracted footwear".  If soldiers aren't using/wearing said footwear, then we still have to pay them even though we require no replenishment from that contractor as we won't have to issue any.  Then, that Canadian manufacturer, who is still being paid, can lay off his staff as he doesn't need them to manufacture footwear that is "paid for", but not being required to be provided as it is not being worn/used by troops.  Those laid-off Canadians then collect UIC paid for by the Canadian taxpayer because they don't have to make boots for troops who aren't wearing them all the while the Company itself remains collecting due to the contract.  So, the taxpayer (the Government) ends up paying twice if we go to your "well, we just won't wear them then" ... quite the domino effect isn't it?
> 
> Quite like being ordered to go to historical ranks by the political masters vice the actual CAF serving leadership ...



Fair enough. But let's say the issued boots work fine for half of our people, isn't that enough to sustain long term buys of replacement boots to satisfy the political aspect? There are always going to be people that are happy to wear the issued boots, or too cheap to buy their own. I just don't see why we need to punish the person doing long patrols or working on their feet all day in a warehouse. In the long term, we will be paying them for their injuries (one can hope) and losing our investments in members earlier than if we had supplied them with proper equipment. In turn, we have to train new people sooner, and lose out on experience. 

I realize you are well aware of this though. If the politics of the issue are really that bad, it's truly a corrupt system we are forced to work within. I guess I don't envy the leadership one bit.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I realize you are well aware of this though. If the politics of the issue are really that bad, it's truly a corrupt system we are forced to work within. I guess I don't envy the leadership one bit.



Corrupt?? Or just the Federal Canadian Procurement system, by law, that all Federal Departments are subject to work within ... 'tis the way of this nation and the overwhelming majority of Canadian taxpaying citizens seem to prefer it as it keeps employment in Canada.  Unfortunate fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Canadian citizens do not have to bear the brunt of those items procured --- for if they also had to wear our footwear, fly in our Sea Kings, or man the Border with Canadian Border agents without the proper resources etc, you can bet there would be a massive Canada-wide upcry from citizens in high enough numbers that their votes actually would matter and something would be done to revisit the current law of the land.


----------



## RCPalmer (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, politics says, "if you don't enforce the wearing of said footwear, then said manufacturer is still being paid by Canadian taxpayers XXX number of dollars per year by contract to provide you with the contracted footwear".  If soldiers aren't using/wearing said footwear, then we still have to pay them even though we require no replenishment from that contractor as we won't have to issue any.  Then, that Canadian manufacturer, who is still being paid, can lay off his staff as he doesn't need them to manufacture footwear that is "paid for", but not being required to be provided as it is not being worn/used by troops.  Those laid-off Canadians then collect UIC paid for by the Canadian taxpayer because they don't have to make boots for troops who aren't wearing them all the while the Company itself remains collecting due to the contract.  So, the taxpayer (the Government) ends up paying twice if we go to your "well, we just won't wear them then" ... quite the domino effect isn't it?
> 
> Quite like being ordered to go to historical ranks by the political masters vice the actual CAF serving leadership ...



While the knock on effects are disconcerting, it really isn't the CAF's problem.  While we are beholden to DND and TB policies with regards to acquisitions, they do not (at least not yet...) have any say on the lawful orders issued within the CAF.  Our responsibility as leaders in the CAF is to ensure we can deliver on defence capabilities, and that includes getting from A to B without injuring our soldiers. I see no reason why our orders would or should deviate from that imperative.  

The TB has the accountability and efficiency mandate.  If they decide that the contract awarded is not delivering value for money, or has unintended downstream effects, they can adjust their policy to ensure a more intelligent contract is awarded next time.   In fact, warehouses full of un-issued boots would probably serve as a great indicator that the procurement process needs to be fixed.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> In fact, warehouses full of un-issued boots would probably serve as a great indicator that the procurement process needs to be fixed.



If the F35s, the ships, and the Sea Kings didn't do it, a warehouse full of boots isn't going to do it.  Like I said, it's the circle of life and I've been dealing with it for 28 years and numerous governments of all political stripes ... your boots are only a meaningless drop in the bucket of procurement policy in Canada ... a policy whereby the impact is felt by only select few who serve or work in federal departments and find themselves hampered by such vice the Canadian taxpayers who, overwhelmingly, have different and higher priorities on their wish-lists for funding than that of the CAF.



> Our responsibility as leaders in the CAF is to ensure we can deliver on defence capabilities, and that includes getting from A to B without injuring our soldiers.



A to B without "*undue*" risk (or by minimizing risk) is more like it.  We are expected to take on risk in carrying out our mandate ergo the "military factor" on our pay and the very existance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.

No military in the world has the "without causing injury" caveat involved in carrying out it's mandate of defence.  And, in the case of footwear, when it *does* cause an injury to a member ... Health Svcs steps in and can issue both any required MELs and an order to procure COTs footwear for said injured soldier due to the medical reason.


----------



## rmc_wannabe (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A to B without "*undue*" risk (or by minimizing risk) is more like it.  We are expected to take on risk in carrying out our mandate ergo the "military factor" on our pay and the very existance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> No military in the world has the "without causing injury" caveat involved in carrying out it's mandate of defence.  And, in the case of footwear, when it *does* cause an injury to a member ... Health Svcs steps in and can issue both any required MELs and an order to procure COTs footwear for said injured soldier due to the medical reason.



I would say pushing out an inferior product that can cause pain and injury due to political and financial pressure is both undue and unethical.

Gambling the odds that 1/25 CAF members will be injured or have permenant medical injuries rather than fixing the procurement system is akin to Toyota cheaping out on brakes and dealing with the lawsuits after cause its cheaper and easier.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

rmc_wannabe said:
			
		

> I would say pushing out an inferior product that can cause pain and injury due to political and financial pressure is both undue and unethical.
> 
> Gambling the odds that 1/25 CAF members will be injured or have permenant medical injuries rather than fixing the procurement system is akin to Toyota cheaping out on brakes and dealing with the lawsuits after cause its cheaper and easier.



Many of us would agree.  Get the voting public to agree with you and make Federal procurement overhaul *THEIR* priority.  That's the only thing that's going to effect change to federal procurement.

Good luck!!


----------



## RCPalmer (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If the F35s, the ships, and the Sea Kings didn't do it, a warehouse full of boots isn't going to do it.  Like I said, it's the circle of life and I've been dealing with it for 28 years and numerous governments of all political stripes ... your boots are only a meaningless drop in the bucket of procurement policy in Canada ... a policy whereby the impact is felt by only select few who serve or work in federal departments and find themselves hampered by such vice the Canadian taxpayers who, overwhelmingly, have different and higher priorities on their wish-lists for funding than that of the CAF.



Touche...I said it would be a good indicator that change is needed, not that it would actually drive change   .  You are quite correct.  From a spending standpoint, the boots are "small potatoes", and not likely to drive government procurement policy.  



			
				MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Someone under pressure by the politician to make sure these great canadian made boots are seen on canadian troops.



I don't buy this.  If the MND actually gave any such direction (which I doubt), or if he did, cared about it at all, we would have seen some enforcement by now.  

My point here is that the CAF does have control over 2 things:
1. The orders issued to soldiers. We can authorize the use of non-issue, personally purchased footwear.
2. The tasking of CAF pers.  We can zero man the boot section in DLR (and anyone else in the supply system involved in the process) and throw the "acceptable boot list" task to the RSM net.  

While this would not fix the procurement process, it would save considerable staff effort within the CAF, and allow us to get this issue off of our collective agendas once and for all.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> 2. The tasking of CAF pers.  We can zero man the boot section in DLR (and anyone else in the supply system involved in the process) and throw the "acceptable boot list" task to the RSM net.
> 
> While this would not fix the procurement process, it would save considerable staff effort within the CAF, and allow us to get this issue off of our collective agendas once and for all.



If only things were that simple. They're not and were addressed earlier today.


----------



## RCPalmer (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If only things were that simple. They're not.



So, what is the variable I am missing? If the elected officials aren't going to stop us (because I'm sure they don't care one way or the other about the boots we physically wear), and the TB is out of the picture (because we aren't spending the queen's shilling), what is there to stop us?


----------



## dapaterson (30 Mar 2016)

If you'e proposing a "bring your own" philosophy, then you're imposing a financial burden on CAF members.  What item could we chop next and expect members to pay for?  Rucks?  Fighting rigs?  Vehicles?  Weapons?  Ammunition?


----------



## RCPalmer (30 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you'e proposing a "bring your own" philosophy, then you're imposing a financial burden on CAF members.  What item could we chop next and expect members to pay for?  Rucks?  Fighting rigs?  Vehicles?  Weapons?  Ammunition?



Those are all items the system is able to supply to the people that need them.  

Am I happy with every aspect of what is delivered with regards to those systems? No. 

Are there always enough of the vehicles we need or want? No.  However, the army still figured out a way to get you to the range, and ensure the haybox was delivered.  When critical operational requirements were identified (and I admit that in a few circumstances they were not), the CAF provided us with vehicles with firepower, mobility, and protection as good as or better than our allies.  

However, every soldier needs boots, and because this is Canada, boots for a variety of weather conditions. For the past decade, the system has failed to deliver on that core requirement with any consistency.  I don't see that changing in the immediate future.  The LOTB is our third crack at this, and by all accounts that effort is headed for a reset as well.

I am not a fan of passing the cost on to the individual members either, but that is effectively what is happening already. I would love a boot allowance, or better yet, a supply system stocked with 2-3 designs from suppliers with track records of producing high quality military footwear.  However, the barriers to those to those two options identified in this thread are sufficient to put them out of reach for the foreseeable future.  At some point we need to say uncle and move onto the next issue.  This has consumed far too much money and staff effort already.


----------



## RCPalmer (30 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A to B without "*undue*" risk (or by minimizing risk) is more like it.  We are expected to take on risk in carrying out our mandate ergo the "military factor" on our pay and the very existance of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
> 
> No military in the world has the "without causing injury" caveat involved in carrying out it's mandate of defence.  And, in the case of footwear, when it *does* cause an injury to a member ... Health Svcs steps in and can issue both any required MELs and an order to procure COTs footwear for said injured soldier due to the medical reason.



Fair enough, but my original point still stands.  Let's call it an undue and very cost prohibitive risk.  Either way, CAF leaders still have an obligation to do something about it.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Many of us would agree.  Get the voting public to agree with you and make Federal procurement overhaul *THEIR* priority.  That's the only thing that's going to effect change to federal procurement.
> 
> Good luck!!



As you have said, that is highly unlikely, and even if it were to happen I am not sure that the system that will make a good purchasing decision on the next generation fighter (which actually merits some taxpayer attention due to the costs)  will be well suited to a "small" problem like boots.  It might produce a wicked awesome exoskeleton self walking boot after we're all retired, but that doesn't help us.  That is why I proposed an easy to implement solution entirely within the control of the CAF leadership.


----------



## armyvern (30 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> ... Either way, CAF leaders still have an obligation to do something about it.
> ...



You make it seem like they haven't even tried to live up to their obligations.  28 years of footwear problems and at least 10 years on the boot allowance to purchase off an approved list (feel free to go back to my posts from 10 years ago on this site when the projects were happening and they were trying).  Tried, tried, tried, tried, tried ... to keep getting the huge resounding no.  You'll also find the exact same suggestions from other projects such as the useless tac vest (troops buying molle or chest rigs off an approved list etc [there's other site threads here dealing with the whys and why nots of "approved lists"]).  Other than a couple rotos where COTS buys were done in Afg ... nyet to that as well. 

Just because you are not getting the answer/result that you want does not mean that CAF leadership is not doing it's job or living up to it's obligation.

Anyway, ten years from now ... the exact same thing will still be being discussed here, answered here etc etc etc


----------



## TCM621 (31 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You make it seem like they haven't even tried to live up to their obligations.  28 years of footwear problems and at least 10 years on the boot allowance to purchase off an approved list (feel free to go back to my posts from 10 years ago on this site when the projects were happening and they were trying).  Tried, tried, tried, tried, tried ... to keep getting the huge resounding no.  You'll also find the exact same suggestions from other projects such as the useless tac vest (troops buying molle or chest rigs off an approved list etc [there's other site threads here dealing with the whys and why nots of "approved lists"]).  Other than a couple rotos where COTS buys were done in Afg ... nyet to that as well.
> 
> Just because you are not getting the answer/result that you want does not mean that CAF leadership is not doing it's job or living up to it's obligation.
> 
> Anyway, ten years from now ... the exact same thing will still be being discussed here, answered here etc etc etc


Who keeps denying these issues? If they are wearing a uniform it is a leadership issue not a political one.


----------



## RCPalmer (31 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You make it seem like they haven't even tried to live up to their obligations.  28 years of footwear problems and at least 10 years on the boot allowance to purchase off an approved list (feel free to go back to my posts from 10 years ago on this site when the projects were happening and they were trying).  Tried, tried, tried, tried, tried ... to keep getting the huge resounding no.  You'll also find the exact same suggestions from other projects such as the useless tac vest (troops buying molle or chest rigs off an approved list etc [there's other site threads here dealing with the whys and why nots of "approved lists"]).  Other than a couple rotos where COTS buys were done in Afg ... nyet to that as well.
> 
> Just because you are not getting the answer/result that you want does not mean that CAF leadership is not doing it's job or living up to it's obligation.
> 
> Anyway, ten years from now ... the exact same thing will still be being discussed here, answered here etc etc etc



As I have said above, I am not married to any specific COA, or as you say, the specific answer I allegedly want.  I would be happy with any COA (be that supply issued, boot allowance or personal purchase) provided it resulted in soldiers receiving half-way decent footwear in a reasonable time frame.

Commanders (at any level) are not assessed on the things they try to do, they are assessed on the things that they do.  At a certain point, the "why's" as in "why" something cannot be done cease to matter. We are all paid to generate an effect on the ground, which means using our initiative and creativity to solve the problems between where we are and the desired end state. It is unfair to blame the politicians, the TB, or the civilian bureaucracy for a CAF failure to resolve such a small matter internally within a decade.  If we were discussing the acquisition of the next generation fighter, or the surface combatant project, I would be more patient.

If we are still  having this discussion in 10 year's time, it is because our commanders (at all levels) have failed us.


----------



## BinRat55 (31 Mar 2016)

So the "ownership" in all this is very clear to me. Canada was mandated to improve the kit / equipment our soldiers use / wear. We have made huge strides in this improvement - I don't care what anyone thinks. I wore rags, garbage bags and drove parts buckets for at least half of my career. I can only imagine what my predecessors put up with!

My point is, Canada just didn't go and say "Well, we think this will work so lets put millions on millions into this and force them to like it"... We are taught due-dilligence. We have LFTEU for a reason. How many times have I sent out a request for volunteers to either participate in a trial or survey, only to have to send back a no-fill to ops. How many of you on this thread alone have submitted a UCR along with your complaint posts, or the bitterness around the water cooler? I was with a combat arms unit not too long ago where post-ex drills at my level included an AAR. We had several kit issues to which I addressed in the report as it hindered our troops effectiveness. At the following A&Q we we over the final draft of the AAR and my input had been dropped off. Asking why, I got the response "That's a Supply issue, not an "us"issue"...

I have been accused of being monochromatic in some of my views. But I put this to all of us - common sense aside, we live, breath eat and sleep regs as soldiers. What IF every RSM, CSM, OC and CO actually ENFORCED the dress policy? What would you do then? 

The reason we "trial" kit is to get a general concensus about what works and what doesn't. Maybe the trials and evaluations process needs to be looked at?


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2016)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Who keeps denying these issues?



Denying what issues?  What are you talking about?



> If they are wearing a uniform it is a leadership issue not a political one.



Any scholastic insights to school us on that, I'd wager, a full 100% of this forum membership did not already know?


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> What IF every RSM, CSM, OC and CO actually ENFORCED the dress policy? What would you do then?



If we did that, they'd shoot us.   ;D


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> ...
> If we are still  having this discussion in 10 year's time, it is because our commanders (at all levels) have failed us.



http://army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-732035.html#msg732035

This link is only 8 years old (but there are some older than that on this site too), but I'm sure you'll see the frustration being faced all the way around.  Same questions, same proposals, same nyets each and every time.

When a new boot comes out a few years from now, this circle will continue ... to go round and round and round.  It is the law of the land for procurement and until we have a government willing to do what's right for the troops' feet ...


----------



## Loachman (31 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> How many of you on this thread alone have submitted a UCR along with your complaint posts, or the bitterness around the water cooler?



Me. I UCRed every single piece of the Aircrew NBCD ensemble in 1988/1989, except for the overboots as they were the standard Army ones and actually worked. The rest would reduce a Tac Hel unit operating in the field to 0% effectiveness in less than 24 hours if there was a chemical threat, even if no chemicals were used. Only the mask has changed in that time. The rest is still just as worse-than-useless. I've not seen much benefit from the UCR system since then.

Staffing a UCR is, especially in this day of customer-friendly online forms with drop-down menus, an onerous task. It should be done via an online form - and one that meets commercial standards (ie gathers information without driving customers mad/away) rather than the nightmarish online Security Clearance form.



			
				BinRat55 said:
			
		

> The reason we "trial" kit is to get a general concensus about what works and what doesn't. Maybe the trials and evaluations process needs to be looked at?



Yes. Operational kit should not be handed to non-operational people to try.

Several different examples/versions should be issued to the same trial group for comparison. A single version only allows comparison to the previous POS. As development takes a decade or so, troops conducting trials tend to accept anything marginally better than the previous POS, even if it is badly flawed. They know that, if they reject it, it'll be another ten years before the revised version appears. Speedy revision/manufacture/issue/trial/feedback cycles would improve this as well.

That is what commercial manufacturers do very well - receive complaints, change designs/materials, remanufacture, and put out to market - because they have a very real incentive.


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2016)

The UCR is an online form.  It is just that you can only get to it on DWAN.

https://army.ca/forums/threads/121372.0


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> How many times have I sent out a request for volunteers to either participate in a trial or survey, only to have to send back a no-fill to ops. How many of you on this thread alone have submitted a UCR along with your complaint posts, or the bitterness around the water cooler?



As with Loachman, I submitted mid-double digits' worth of UCRs, first as a Squadron ALSEO, then as a Group and Wing ALSEO.  Temporarily, to respond to some of the UCRs for boots (haven't even touched on gloves, Life-perserver/Survival-vests, etc...), we were given L501 funding to procure Danners (mid/late-90's) until the situation was "fixed"....still waiting for the fix.  As you said BinRat55, it isn't a Sup Tech issue, it is a Force Development issue that remains to be resolved...mondopoint and some other "good ideas" along the way have not helped the long-term solution...

op:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As with Loachman, I submitted mid-double digits' worth of UCRs, first as a Squadron ALSEO, then as a Group and Wing ALSEO.  Temporarily, to respond to some of the UCRs for boots (haven't even touched on gloves, Life-perserver/Survival-vests, etc...), we were given L501 funding to procure Danners (mid/late-90's) until the situation was "fixed"....still waiting for the fix.  As you said BinRat55, it isn't a Sup Tech issue, it is a Force Development issue that remains to be resolved...mondopoint and some other "good ideas" along the way have not helped the long-term solution...
> 
> op:
> 
> ...



I can vouch for those UCRs!!    :nod:


----------



## MJP (31 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Staffing a UCR is, especially in this day of customer-friendly online forms with drop-down menus, an onerous task. It should be done via an online form - and one that meets commercial standards (ie gathers information without driving customers mad/away) rather than the nightmarish online Security Clearance form.



The UCR form is online and fairly simple except for a few tricky spots.  

1) Finding the NSN or the right one and sometimes the actual item name.
1) Finding the right authority (DSSM5 etc etc).

All the that info means going to the CGCS which is unwieldy at best and then once you find the item knowing how to read it.

Luckily there is a UCR how to manual on the UCR site, it says more than it needs to but it gets folks the info they need.  

I agree that the form could be done a bit better and the how to guide pared down to "explain like I am Infantry", but it is workable.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Mar 2016)

Can you post the link?


----------



## MJP (31 Mar 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Can you post the link?



MCG did above and below.  I am at home on leave.


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2016)

ucrs.mil.ca

Simple enough to remember even.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Mar 2016)

:facepalm:

missed it the first time..


----------



## armyvern (31 Mar 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> missed it the first ten time..



Sorted the above out for you as I'm quite certain MCG has placed it on this site at least that many times.   >


----------



## RCPalmer (31 Mar 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> So the "ownership" in all this is very clear to me. Canada was mandated to improve the kit / equipment our soldiers use / wear. We have made huge strides in this improvement - I don't care what anyone thinks. I wore rags, garbage bags and drove parts buckets for at least half of my career. I can only imagine what my predecessors put up with!
> 
> My point is, Canada just didn't go and say "Well, we think this will work so lets put millions on millions into this and force them to like it"... We are taught due-dilligence. We have LFTEU for a reason. How many times have I sent out a request for volunteers to either participate in a trial or survey, only to have to send back a no-fill to ops. How many of you on this thread alone have submitted a UCR along with your complaint posts, or the bitterness around the water cooler? I was with a combat arms unit not too long ago where post-ex drills at my level included an AAR. We had several kit issues to which I addressed in the report as it hindered our troops effectiveness. At the following A&Q we we over the final draft of the AAR and my input had been dropped off. Asking why, I got the response "That's a Supply issue, not an "us"issue"...
> 
> ...



You are quite correct with regards to the improvements.  We are a long way from the denim field jacket with corduroy collar.  

The trials process is very important, and we should all help out with that.  I have been in the field force for 15 years, and I have never seen a request to participate in a trial apart from high readiness training, and there was a fairly disciplined process in place to collect feedback on the tac vests which were being trialed in that case.  If you are looking for a PRes Infantry unit to participate in some trials, please let me know  

In the case of the boots, a proper trial could have/should have noted the glaring QA/QC issues with our suppliers, but I digress...

I am a bit less satisfied by the stuff we build from the ground up based on our own organic human factors research.  My observation is that we tend to get very expensive and over-engineered products out of that process. The CTS rucksack is a good example.  I think it is a bit arrogant for us to think that we can design better products than industry, with its massive R&D resources, and continuous iterative improvement based on customer feedback and market forces.  




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> http://army.ca/forums/threads/33365/post-732035.html#msg732035
> 
> This link is only 8 years old (but there are some older than that on this site too), but I'm sure you'll see the frustration being faced all the way around.  Same questions, same proposals, same nyets each and every time.
> 
> When a new boot comes out a few years from now, this circle will continue ... to go round and round and round.  It is the law of the land for procurement and until we have a government willing to do what's right for the troops' feet ...



I don't dispute the fact that the boot allowance COA has been tried many times over the years. It is a good COA.  Lots of great staff work probably went into providing a solid justification to the TB.  However, as Einstein said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." 

My point here is that for a commander, it isn't acceptable to just accept an unsatisfactory situation on an important issue, or simply reinforce failure and hope for the best. I include myself in this at a lower level. It isn't acceptable for me to ignore this either.  So, where do we stand?

-Boot allowance COA rejected by TB multiple times.  Ok, probably not worth the staff effort to revisit.
-Standard acquisition process fails three times over a decade, not because of a failure to produce a "perfect boot", but because each boot procured disintegrated on contact with dirt.  Do you expect a different result in the next round? Maybe this isn't going to work either...

That is where the initiative and creativity aspect comes in to come up with some new options.  Obviously there are some "tongue-in-cheek" elements to these proposals. For example, we could:

-Implement the self-purchase from a list option I have noted above
-Engage with a non-profit to start a "buy a soldier his dream boots" charitable initiative.  The U.S. Army has a "buy a soldier a long distance phone card" charitable initiative...
-Create a small cobbler occupation and implement a nice signing bonus to attract some talented staff from Lowa, or another top tier manufacturer.  Employ the cobblers as compliance experts to bring a Canadian factory up to speed.  

My point here is that there are always options, and our job is to make things happen.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (31 Mar 2016)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Sorted the above out for you as I'm quite certain MCG has placed it on this site at least that many times.   >



Thanks Vern  [


----------



## Good2Golf (31 Mar 2016)

The system (UCRs) can work.  It may have taken a little time, but I did see an early-90s UCR for mortarman's gloves make its way through the system and provide a workable product in the end.  In the mean time, mortarmen were issued aircrew gloves (tactile feel and required grip).  The Army played quite nicely, and provided the Air Force LCMM with additional funds to procure enough additional gloves to fulfil the mortar requirement -- all in all a rather collegial and workable interim solution, pending the end-state solution.  That said, boots will likely be an enduring challenge.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (31 Mar 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> The UCR is an online form.  It is just that you can only get to it on DWAN.
> 
> https://army.ca/forums/threads/121372.0



Roger. Thanks. It's nice to see progress.

How widely advertised is this? There should be posters everywhere.



			
				RCPalmer said:
			
		

> I think it is a bit arrogant for us think that we can design better products than industry, with its massive R&D resources, and continuous iterative improvement based on customer feedback and market forces.



Yes. Definitely.

And how often do we make "continuous iterative improvement(s) based on customer feedback"? Smaller purchases made over time, rather than one massive purchase every decade or more (everything from tac vests to ships), would make that easier.


----------



## McG (31 Mar 2016)

The LCMM, for many items of kit, can do incremental improvements any time desired.  The specification could be modified prior to each contract to restock the shelves.  

For modifications of major end items, the preference is to get the whole fleet modded as quickly as possible.  Units holding the equipment may be pushed mod kits to do the changes on their own shop floors.  Quick conversion of fleets simplifies maintenance from a number of perspectives ... But sometimes a vehicle does keeps an old configuration longer than the remainder of the fleet, and suddenly a simple repair cannot be done without a significant mod at an inconvenient time.


----------



## RCPalmer (31 Mar 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> The LCMM, for many items of kit, can do incremental improvements any time desired.  The specification could be modified prior to each contract to restock the shelves.
> 
> For modifications of major end items, the preference is to get the whole fleet modded as quickly as possible.  Units holding the equipment may be pushed mod kits to do the changes on their own shop floors.  Quick conversion of fleets simplifies maintenance from a number of perspectives ... But sometimes a vehicle does keeps an old configuration longer than the remainder of the fleet, and suddenly a simple repair cannot be done without a significant mod at an inconvenient time.



While that is a great point, I was more referring to the idea that when we buy an item off the shelf (particularly if it is a somewhat mature product) it has already been subject to iterative cycles of product improvements based off of the feedback of other end users. When we pursue our own designs, we don't have that benefit.


----------



## dangerboy (31 Mar 2016)

We (DND) don't design anything. We issue out a statement of requirements to industry that lists the features we want the piece of equipment to have and the list of standards that it must conform to. Then industry puts forward their proposals to the SOR and the CF tests to ensures it meets the requirements but we don't select the winner.


----------



## Terrier (31 Mar 2016)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> We (DND) don't design anything. We issue out a statement of requirements to industry that lists the features we want the piece of equipment to have and the list of standards that it must conform to. Then industry puts forward their proposals to the SOR and the CF tests to ensures it meets the requirements but we don't select the winner.



According to the PD brief with the Army Sergeant Major, it actually was "us" that decided on the Mark IV with the softer sole. They started out with a table full of boots, and via a list of "requirements" gained from trials, eliminated it rather quickly down to two boots. Then navigated their way to the current plan of the Mark IV with softer soles.


----------



## BinRat55 (1 Apr 2016)

Again, I am not convinved we are scrapping the LOTB to go back to a boot we already have - considering that we are being told to completely deplete stocks in the MkIV before issuing the LOTB...


----------



## Terrier (1 Apr 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Again, I am not convinved we are scrapping the LOTB to go back to a boot we already have - considering that we are being told to completely deplete stocks in the MkIV before issuing the LOTB...



If you're more in the know than the Army Sergeant Major,  so be it.


----------



## Arty39 (1 Apr 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> According to the PD brief with the Army Sergeant Major, it actually was "us" that decided on the Mark IV with the softer sole. They started out with a table full of boots, and via a list of "requirements" gained from trials, eliminated it rather quickly down to two boots. Then navigated their way to the current plan of the Mark IV with softer soles.


That's what I remember hearing. All any one talked about that day was boots and kit.


----------



## RCPalmer (1 Apr 2016)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> We (DND) don't design anything. We issue out a statement of requirements to industry that lists the features we want the piece of equipment to have and the list of standards that it must conform to. Then industry puts forward their proposals to the SOR and the CF tests to ensures it meets the requirements but we don't select the winner.



Correct me if I wrong, but wasn't there both DRDC and RSM net direct design input into the design of the load carriage system? 

Perhaps a better way of saying it would be to draft an SOR that emphasizes the desirability of mature, widely used products, rather than designed from the ground up "bespoke" solutions.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Apr 2016)

RCPalmer said:
			
		

> Correct me if I wrong, but wasn't there both DRDC and RSM net direct design input into the design of the load carriage system?



I remember there was an infantry NCO on that project (if you're talking about the tacvest).  It's he said/she said but I've spoke with someone who talked to the NCO who apparently said he was  told to politely STFU anytime he disagreed with the Tacvest master plan and was basically there so the higher ups could defend the project by saying there was an infantry NCO SME on the team.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Apr 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I remember there was an infantry NCO on that project (if you're talking about the tacvest).  It's he said/she said but I've spoke with someone who talked to the NCO who apparently said he was  told to politely STFU anytime he disagreed with the Tacvest master plan and was basically there so the higher ups could defend the project by saying there was an infantry NCO SME on the team.



Makes sense, because someone at DLR around the time we bought the Bianchi pistol losing devices, I mean holsters, and the TacVest, also became a JTF-A commander. He took it personally that his troops didn't want to wear any of it, so he ordered everyone to only wear issued tacvests and holsters. Even threatened the Recce Pl Comd and WO with sending them home about 2 weeks into the Roto, because they had authorized their guys to buy rigs so they could actually be able to fight.


----------



## BinRat55 (4 Apr 2016)

Terrier said:
			
		

> If you're more in the know than the Army Sergeant Major,  so be it.



Ok Terrier. You find me ONE post where I said the Army CWO was WRONG and that I know more than he. I said "I'm not CONVINCED..." which means my OPINION IS... why are you entitled to your opinion and I'm not? I have 27 years of senior staff either misinforming us unintentionally or completely reneging on wide ranges of issues. 

No no - a CWO said it. It HAS to be true. You're right Terrier, in all your experience with the Logistic and Supply, there no WAY you can be wrong - because you were TOLD by a CWO.

I never once said you were outright wrong, nor did I call your integrity into question by inferring that you were better than anyone else.


----------



## Terrier (4 Apr 2016)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Ok Terrier. You find me ONE post where I said the Army CWO was WRONG and that I know more than he. I said "I'm not CONVINCED..." which means my OPINION IS... why are you entitled to your opinion and I'm not? I have 27 years of senior staff either misinforming us unintentionally or completely reneging on wide ranges of issues.
> 
> No no - a CWO said it. It HAS to be true. You're right Terrier, in all your experience with the Logistic and Supply, there no WAY you can be wrong - because you were TOLD by a CWO.
> 
> I never once said you were outright wrong, nor did I call your integrity into question by inferring that you were better than anyone else.



I don't recall saying anything of the sort,  nor have I stated an opinion of any kind. I've simply posted what the Army Sergeant Major passed on.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (4 Apr 2016)

Oy vey.....

If you got nothing constructive to add, take the  :argument: banter to PM's.....

MILNET MENTOR


----------



## Poppa (19 May 2016)

This morning I received a phone call from clothing....boots in my size were available. Not expecting much I made the trek over and lo and behold LOTBs as far as the eye could see. I tried on the both versions and came away with the Terra (I don't like zippers). They're comfy but a bit on the short side so my blousing looks British. 
That's about it for now


----------



## Miller97 (29 May 2016)

I was under the impression they have recently stopped issuing out boots due to a massive amounts of breakdowns on the royer models? I have one of each and much prefer the terras over the royers.


----------



## LPike (29 May 2016)

My experience with the LOTB.

The Terra ones are the nicest. I did have an eyelet break on my first pair.

The Royer (Zipped) ones are garbage.Third time putting them on, the zip snapped. 

I went back and got another pair of Terra boots, just because a broken eyelet is better than a broken zipper in the feild. My one issue with the Terras is that their impossible to clean after any sort of feild ex. My first pair looked like sh*t very quickly, every after brass brushing like no tomorrow. 

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser (29 May 2016)

I wouldn't use a brass brush, the boots are faux suede, brass is going to cut them apart as you recently found out.


----------



## ZKC (10 Jun 2016)

How did this thread get so far away from the original topic... I just wanted to know if they've started issuing them lol


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jun 2016)

They've stopped issuing the LOTB. If you've got it, you can exchange. If you don't, buy your own or hope they have your size in GP/DCB.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (10 Jun 2016)

ZKC said:
			
		

> How did this thread get so far away from the original topic... I just wanted to know if they've started issuing them lol



Yes and no... they are issued as the last resort if they have your size in the other previous boots.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They've stopped issuing the LOTB. If you've got it, you can exchange. If you don't, buy your own or hope they have your size in GP/DCB.



Anyone know the reason why?  I saw non-army types wearing them in Cold Lake recently (an ATIS Tech).  RCAF types/people posted to RCAF units are required to wear safety toe/shank boots IAW regs.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Jun 2016)

No clue, co-worker called clothing stores and asked about getting them, said they were not being issued. Likely due to quality issues, my Royers have been in an office for 5 months, and seams are coming apart slowly already.


----------



## dimsum (10 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> RCAF types/people posted to RCAF units are required to wear safety toe/shank boots IAW regs.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



They are?  Does that mean I need to replace the old-style aircrew boot (the one that was the MK III but with bigger eyelets)?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Jun 2016)

According to the Div, yup.  I can't get non-safety LPO boots because of the RCAF policy and a few lines in the Sono Ref Guide that state pers handling Ord need safety boots.  Having dropped a 62 on my feet once, I agree!  Heavy little mo-fo's.

I know some people are holding out to replace their oldstyle aircrew boots or cbt boots because the replacements will be the 5 lb issue ones.  They are pretty heavy compared to what you have now.

IMPACT kit...same.  My LPO desert boots are Reebok safety toe and shank (composite, thank god, not steel).  Supply is not authorized to issue us non-safety toe, from the Div.


----------



## Castus (14 Jun 2016)

Now that I'm settled in my new posting, I was going to pop into clothing stores and get myself a pair of the fancy new brown boots.

Apparently not.

I have this feeling I should just go with a pair of Lowa brown patrol boots. The CAF doesn't appear to be willing or able to ever issue a decent pair.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jun 2016)

The CAF doesn't have the funds for Lowas. They retail over $300 a piece.


----------



## Castus (14 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The CAF doesn't have the funds for Lowas. They retail over $300 a piece.



Oh, most certainly not, besides the fact that if you issued someone a pair of Lowas or Hanwags they'd be good for 7-10 years at least. 

I should clarify; I was musing whether or not I should buy myself a pair of Lowas, or just wait until the next trial of new boots.


----------



## Loachman (14 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The CAF doesn't have the funds for Lowas. They retail over $300 a piece.



Bulk purchase, and reduced design and rejection costs, would reduce that greatly.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jun 2016)

Until we demand they're built in Canada. Then they're $500 a piece.


----------



## ZKC (15 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They've stopped issuing the LOTB. If you've got it, you can exchange. If you don't, buy your own or hope they have your size in GP/DCB.



Thanks PuckChaser!

Well.... And here I was hoping my feet won't suffer in BMQ...

What happens when they don't have my size? I know GP is General Purpose boots but what's DCB?

Also, if I got not-very-enduring feet (i.e. If a shoe is not 100% comfortable I suffer a lot and get sore feet easily), and since all I've been hearing about the old boots (the new ones apparently as well) is that they're complete garbage (are they?), should I buy non-issue boots for BMQ, or is it too early?

Pardon me for my questions, I got way too much of them to ask my CoC, and way little time to do enough research (in exam period and BMQ's in 2 weeks...)\

P.S. I'm in PRes if it changes anything


----------



## RedcapCrusader (15 Jun 2016)

Castus said:
			
		

> Oh, most certainly not, besides the fact that if you issued someone a pair of Lowas or Hanwags they'd be good for 7-10 years at least.
> 
> I should clarify; I was musing whether or not I should buy myself a pair of Lowas, or just wait until the next trial of new boots.



I bought a pair of Lowa Z-8S GTX. Worth the money, fantastic. 

I've been out doing dismounted Force Protection for about 3 weeks now and I've never had boots like them. 

The support and comfort is unbelievable.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Jun 2016)

ZKC said:
			
		

> Thanks PuckChaser!
> 
> Well.... And here I was hoping my feet won't suffer in BMQ...
> 
> ...



DCB = Desert Combat Boot


----------



## Oscar590 (15 Jun 2016)

LunchMeat said:
			
		

> I bought a pair of Lowa Z-8S GTX. Worth the money, fantastic.
> 
> I've been out doing dismounted Force Protection for about 3 weeks now and I've never had boots like them.
> 
> The support and comfort is unbelievable.


Was gonna get the same boots as my next pair, but they don't make a non-Goretex version of them. I find that my feet get sweaty in Goretex boots and the moisture just gets trapped inside.


----------



## runormal (15 Jun 2016)

ZKC said:
			
		

> should I buy non-issue boots for BMQ, or is it too early?



I wouldn't, that'll depend on your staff. If they say you can, go for ir. But I'd honestly wait until after basic. Likewise does your home unit allow non issued boots?


----------



## ZKC (15 Jun 2016)

runormal said:
			
		

> I wouldn't, that'll depend on your staff. If they say you can, go for ir. But I'd honestly wait until after basic. Likewise does your home unit allow non issued boots?



Frankly, I don't know. All they gave me were my file and some (typo-ridden) joining instructions for BMQ. The bare minimum I'd say, but hey what do I know? 

But how bad are the issued ones? Are they as horrible as people say? I'm still in school so I'm still not sure if it's worth it (to buy commercial boots)


----------



## Oscar590 (15 Jun 2016)

ZKC said:
			
		

> Frankly, I don't know. All they gave me were my file and some (typo-ridden) joining instructions for BMQ. The bare minimum I'd say, but hey what do I know?
> 
> But how bad are the issued ones? Are they as horrible as people say? I'm still in school so I'm still not sure if it's worth it (to buy commercial boots)


I would stick with issued kit at least until you finish your DP1 and then look around your unit and see what the guys with more time in are wearing, or not wearing, in terms of non-issued kit.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jun 2016)

They're not terrible for most people, but it's lowest bidder boots with neither comfort or functionality in mind. Try them out first with an open mind, I didn't mind DCBs but they just can't size for my feet.


----------



## Arty39 (15 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They're not terrible for most people, but it's lowest bidder boots with neither comfort or functionality in mind. Try them out first with an open mind, I didn't mind DCBs but they just can't size for my feet.


I've found the fit, comfort and weight better than the mk 4's.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jun 2016)

DCB was likely the best out of the gongshow of boots we've had, too bad mondopoint is terrible, otherwise I'd have no problems wearing them.


----------



## ZKC (15 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They're not terrible for most people, but it's lowest bidder boots with neither comfort or functionality in mind. Try them out first with an open mind, I didn't mind DCBs but they just can't size for my feet.





			
				Arty39 said:
			
		

> I've found the fit, comfort and weight better than the mk 4's.



Thank you, I will definitely keep an open mind and hope for the best. In the meanwhile, do they issue used boots? I get athlete's foot pretty easily and it stays for at least a few months (got issued used boots in cadets, stayed for almost a year; borrowed a friend's shoes for a short gym session - 2 months), which is very annoying.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jun 2016)

No, boots are considered next to skin items, and are retained by the member unless you didn't use them. They stamp a hole in the tongue of the boot when its removed from your docs to denote it being used and no longer on charge.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jun 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> DCB = Desert Combat Boot



And they are complete junk IMO and that of many others who had to wear them!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> DCB was likely the best out of the gongshow of boots we've had, too bad mondopoint is terrible, otherwise I'd have no problems wearing them.



The air force, steel toe cripplers??


----------



## LPike (15 Jun 2016)

ZKC said:
			
		

> Thank you, I will definitely keep an open mind and hope for the best. In the meanwhile, do they issue used boots? I get athlete's foot pretty easily and it stays for at least a few months (got issued used boots in cadets, stayed for almost a year; borrowed a friend's shoes for a short gym session - 2 months), which is very annoying.


No, I've never been issued a pair of used boots. 


If your BMQ is anything like mine, you won't be allowed non-issue boots. I know in Halifax, I got issued a pair of goretex and a pair of LOTBs (Although I am on my 3rd pair of the latter)

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The air force, steel toe cripplers??


Army got softer toe ones styled after the GP, but significantly lighter and more breathable (but not what I'd expect our of a desert boot) did a BFT with a pair that only had a couple weeks work in, were fine.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Army got softer toe ones styled after the GP, but significantly lighter and more breathable (but not what I'd expect our of a desert boot) did a BFT with a pair that only had a couple weeks work in, were fine.



I know the ones you mean; we tried to get those for deployed ops.  Got shut down.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jun 2016)

Millbrook tactical has insane deals. 
I just picked sup a pair of $460 Lowas for $99.    Some other $490 Lowas are going for $299

Im banking on the boot situation being so F'd up that no one notices or cares what's on my feet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jun 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Millbrook tactical has insane deals.
> I just picked sup a pair of $460 Lowas for $99.    Some other $490 Lowas are going for $299
> 
> Im banking on the boot situation being so F'd up that no one notices or cares what's on my feet.



Wearing some red lipstick might take the attention away from your Gucci footwear.   :2c:

Example here; the Mess Dinner Makeup look...who would notice if your footwear was polished?


----------



## Zoomie (16 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know the ones you mean; we tried to get those for deployed ops.  Got shut down.


YWG is issuing DCB without steel anything - none of my flying boots have steel toe - never received any direction to change them either.

My two pair of Boulet DCB are soft-toe - I'll be wearing them in the sandbox.


----------



## RedcapCrusader (17 Jun 2016)

Lean-N-Supreme said:
			
		

> Was gonna get the same boots as my next pair, but they don't make a non-Goretex version of them. I find that my feet get sweaty in Goretex boots and the moisture just gets trapped inside.



Honestly the Z-8s-gtx it's negligible. They're light and fast drying, very breathable.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> YWG is issuing DCB without steel anything - none of my flying boots have steel toe - never received any direction to change them either.
> 
> My two pair of Boulet DCB are soft-toe - I'll be wearing them in the sandbox.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They've stopped issuing the LOTB. If you've got it, you can exchange. If you don't, buy your own or hope they have your size in GP/DCB.



Anyone know if this is a "Canada wide" thing?  Limited to "Base X"?


----------



## Oscar590 (18 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They've stopped issuing the LOTB. If you've got it, you can exchange. If you don't, buy your own or hope they have your size in GP/DCB.





			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Anyone know if this is a "Canada wide" thing?  Limited to "Base X"?



I know of 3 guys who just got a pair of the new boots last week in Gagetown.


----------



## Zoomie (18 Jun 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Anyone know if this is a "Canada wide" thing?  Limited to "Base X"?


The initial direction we received from higher was that the LOTB was authorized for RCAF use and units were to start issuing them to deploying pers - fast forward one week and they are saying that LOTB are now on hold to entire CAF due to progressive breakdown in operations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Jun 2016)

Ditch said:
			
		

> The initial direction we received from higher was that the LOTB was authorized for RCAF use and units were to start issuing them to deploying pers - fast forward one week and they are saying that LOTB are now on hold to entire CAF due to progressive breakdown in operations.



Yellow part is why I was wondering, this info was passed recently but I was already aware the LTOB issue had been halted at, at least, some Base/Wing clothing stores.  The Div let up on the 'safety boot requirement' for crews.

Now, with no LOTB...LPO ?


----------



## ZKC (18 Jun 2016)

If it helps lighten up the situation:

Just got my kit today, was (along with everyone else) issued a pair of DCB and goretex. I saw the LOTB, but they were either stored away nicely on shelves, with printed sticky labels on the heels, or still unpacked (or packed?) in boxes. So they are either being returned as said in previous posts (hence packed), or they've just arrived, which doesn't make a lot of sense, since some of us couldn't get the DCBs in the right size and had to get GPs.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Jun 2016)

The ones with stickers are likely sizing samples, one of every size so people can quickly try out a pair if they're being issued.


----------



## ZKC (19 Jun 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The ones with stickers are likely sizing samples, one of every size so people can quickly try out a pair if they're being issued.




Pardon the vocabulary, but there were literally a sh**ton of them on shelves. At least 100 pairs. You may be still be right though. 

EDIT: And that's assuming that there were none placed in depth.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Jun 2016)

We have 99 sizes, but my feet don't fit one. -JayZ


----------

