# Boot Shortage



## big bad john (18 Feb 2005)

From the National Post:

Our forces are running out of boots
The army has a simple hope that all new recruits can be issued at least one pair
  
Chris Wattie 
National Post 

February 18, 2005 

  
Plans to expand the ranks of the Canadian Forces by up to 5,000 new troops -- expected to be one of the key new spending initiatives in next week's federal budget -- are running into a prosaic roadblock: army boots.

According to documents obtained by the National Post, the military is running out of combat boots for its new recruits, even before the widely anticipated announcement of additional soldiers.

An unclassified "CanForGen" message, a directive from the head of the army to all supply depots, says several common sizes of the Canadian Forces' black high-topped combat boots are out of stock and several others "are at critical levels."

The army quartermasters are ordered to issue instead "substitute boots" such as the heavier all-weather combat boots or older, used footwear. "It is our hope that we will be able to at least ensure all new recruits have at least one pair of boots."

Critics say the boot shortage makes a mockery of the Liberal government's pledge, made during last summer's federal election campaign, to bolster the ranks of the Canadian Forces by 5,000 new troops and to add another 3,000 part-time soldiers to the reserves.

In the House of Commons this week, Bill Graham, the Defence Minister, promised a substantial increase in defence spending in the Feb. 23 federal budget. "Watch this budget," the Minister said on Tuesday during Question Period. "We are turning the corner. We will be delivering, as we have indicated, the resources our forces need to provide the role that they do in the world."

Much of that increased spending is expected to be allocated to the additional men and women in uniform, but Gordon O'Connor, the Conservative defence critic, said the fact the army does not have enough boots for the new recruits speaks volumes about the government's defence policy.

"This announcement was a political gambit during the last election ... It was never thought out -- they just threw it out like a grenade on the table," Mr. O'Connor said. "Ever since, the Defence Department has been scrambling to figure out how to do it.

"They can't bring people aboard and give them civilian shoes. If they don't have boots, they can't bring them aboard ... It's so screwed up and so underfunded, it's just something awful."

He said the military is so short of trained personnel, funding and equipment, it will take more than five years to bring the new soldiers into the ranks.

"They're short of instructors. Their recruiting and training system's a mess," he said. "There's about 10,000 people right now stuck in the training system."

Mr. O'Connor said it will take a budget of $18-billion -- up from defence spending of about $13.2-billion -- and at least four years to reverse the effects of more than 10 years of funding and personnel cuts.

"It will take a number of years to stop the rot and start pushing it back," he said.

A spokeswoman for the Department of National Defence said the government had placed an order for more than 50,000 pairs of "Boots, combat Mark III."

Elizabeth Hodges said the $4.5-million contract with a southern Ontario shoe manufacturer specified that the additional boots were to be finished by the end of February but she did not know if the delivery was on schedule.

Howard Marsh, a retired army colonel and analyst for the Conference of Defence Associations, says the boot shortage is symptomatic of a much more troubling problem in the military: the "dumbing down" of the Canadian Forces.

"The Canadian Forces is getting a lot younger, and what's getting lost is the years of experience of senior officers or non-commissioned officers who are retiring," he said. "We've got this black hole in experience levels."

Colonel Marsh said that over the next eight years a number of senior soldiers will reach their early retirement date and many will leave the military, taking with them a wealth of on-the-job experience.

"There aren't enough of those senior warrant officers with 20 years' experience who realize when the generals say we're adding 5,000 new troops that means we're also going to need more combat boots.

"This is just the start of a long season of inexperience," Col. Marsh said. "It could get a lot worse than boots if we start getting people making mistakes with live ammunition or technicians putting the wrong part in a Sea King [helicopter], for instance."

© National Post 2005


----------



## mo-litia (18 Feb 2005)

Is anyone really suprised at this?  ???


----------



## JBP (18 Feb 2005)

Nope! When I recieved my kit mid-January, they didn't even have CAP badges for us! Only 1 pair of boots, which I don't mind at all. Several other smaller types of things were missing like certain gloves or muckluck insoles, air matress bag, etc. Not too bad overall, then on the other hand we recieved some very new gucci like kit. Brand new Gerbers, gas masks, uniforms and goggles etc... 

I can't complain, I knew what it would be like when I joined and I'm lovin' it!

I want to see this new "oohh-ahhhh" defense budget so bad! See if maybe this wasn't the perfect time to join or not for a few reasons:

Politics might play in our favour at this time for once----> More spending=More training avail+equipment/toys
Lack/shortage of experienced instructors-------------------> Better chance of quicker promotion+training

For newbies like me, things seem hopeful at the moment. This can always change for the worse though of course...


----------



## Da_man (18 Feb 2005)

I have two pairs of combat boots and two pairs of gore-tex boots and some ppl cant even get one pair? :-\


----------



## Observer23 (18 Feb 2005)

I remember when I re-enlisted there was a boot shortage (This was Spring 1998).  I retained my rank as an NCO.  I had fight to get issued a pair of Jungle boots (black) just to wear with my combat uniform.
You can well imagine how many people came up to me asking why I, an NCO, was wearing the incorrect boot in garrison.  Until replenishment came in I went out and bought a pair of Surplus boots.


----------



## MikeM (18 Feb 2005)

Da_man said:
			
		

> I have two pairs of combat boots and two pairs of gore-tex boots and some ppl cant even get one pair? :-\



Me too.


----------



## CBH99 (18 Feb 2005)

You've gotta remember though guys, the longer your in, the more "stuff" you seem to aquire in your travels.

Who else thinks this is probably a non-issue, embellished by our great media to seem worse off than it is?  Sure, the Forces are short on all kinds of gear, and it seems "epidemic" when you look at it with a microscope.  But, in the end, you'll eventually get what kit you need, and you'll never go overseas without all the latest gucci kit - just look at Op. Athena.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Feb 2005)

The problem with issuing one set of boots esp for the combat arms is that in their basic and trade courses they are going to be in the elements and their feet will get wet.   If your in the field for 2 weeks and on day 2 your feet get wet and you don't have another set of boots to issue then your going to be in the hurt locker.

Perhaps a way to alliviate this is to give troops money and a catalogue of where they can buy boots from.


----------



## S McKee (18 Feb 2005)

Hey who cares about boots (I don't think I've been on a tour yet where they actually had my size) just keep them pay raises rolling in.


----------



## Bomber (18 Feb 2005)

Has anyone else really had problem with this?  I just got all my WWB's and Mk 3's exchanged, no problems on size or quantity issued.  From what I can see in the warehouse they came form, there are a load of them.


----------



## DBA (19 Feb 2005)

I think boots are procured in batches and have a long lead time. They estimate the number of boots of each size they will need based on current stock and any projections they can cobble together. This leads to problems if conditions have changed since the estimates were made. It's even worse when the numbers were already on the conservative side due to budget constraints. They get the lowest cost per boot this way but can end up with tons of some sizes and none of others or a warehouse of boots that are now obsolete and must be disposed of.


----------



## bossi (19 Feb 2005)

DBA said:
			
		

> I think boots are procured in batches and have a long lead time. They estimate the number of boots of each size they will need based on current stock and any projections they can cobble together. This leads to problems if conditions have changed since the estimates were made. It's even worse when the numbers were already on the conservative side due to budget constraints. They get the lowest cost per boot this way but can end up with tons of some sizes and none of others or a warehouse of boots that are now obsolete and must be disposed of.



Excellent analysis, DBA - especially when we see the sizes that are "short".
Yikes!  I can't even imagine size 2 cbt boots ... unless they're dangling from the rearview mirror of my mighty Suburban ... so, with all due respect to munchkins, Mighty Mouse, and The Little People ... laugh all you want at big, brutish combat arms trained bears who wear double-digit sized boots big enough to use as snowshoes (and, you all know what they say about shoe size ... it DOES matter ...), but ... it would seem that many of the sizes in short supply right now are slightly on the Barbie/small side ... and thus, one might begin to wonder if the Army is suffering from shrinkage in both numbers and vertical prowess ... ?  



> Not sure whether this was a CANFORGEN or CANLANDGEN - UNCLAS 123/04 CLS 026-04:
> 
> ... the following Combat Boots are out of stock at Depots:
> stock # 21-888-7064 size *3-3.5 E*,
> ...


----------



## beach_bum (19 Feb 2005)

I guess that explains why I can't get new boots.   :'(  I guess I'll just keep wearing my last pair that are still in one piece.  It took me a long time to even get that pair!


----------



## Marauder (20 Feb 2005)

Shit, I'll send back both pair of hockey pucks (aka Mk IIIs) if they gimme $100 and let me go buy 2 pair of Wellco jungles. I'll eat the extra cost for the jungles if I can rid myself of those damn Mk IIIs. And while Marsh did take a good sized swipe at us younger, "dumber" generation, he does have a point that this is just one symptom of something more systemic in today's force.


----------



## Matt-Z (20 Feb 2005)

yeah i was just issued a pair of combats.... aparently im sappose to have 2 pairs but im gratefull never the less


----------



## Blakey (20 Feb 2005)

Well, my only response to the "Shortage of Boots" is that, I realy dont care. I have got so many pairs of boots that I dont know what to do with them all!
Ive got:
2 Pair WWB
2 Pair "Old Style" Goretex
2 Pair CBT Boot MK III
4 Pair Jungle (Green)
2 Pair Desert
Plus many more...
I think ive got all the bases covered in the "footwear" department.


----------



## Gayson (20 Feb 2005)

This kind of sucks for all the new recruits.  I'm reading the posts of some saying that they are grateful to get 1 pair.  That absolutely sucks.  As soon as you guys get that pair wet in the field you wont be grateful anymore, but angry because the government could not provide you the kit you need.  IMO the feet are the most important part of the body and need to most care.  I would rather give up my Tac-Vest then have only 1 pair of boots.

Perhaps the system could give out early issueing of the WWB to make up for the 2nd mk 3?  If I were told could only have 1 pair of boots, I would pick something better for the field than garrison.


----------



## chrisf (20 Feb 2005)

I really wouldn't consider goretex boots to be a viable solution... too warm for summer wear, once you fill them [With water], you're screwed, they're not going to be drying out any time soon. The damned things are just as effective at keeping water in as they are at keeping it out. There's really only a very narrow band of useful conditions for the goretex boots in my mind.

Issuing uninsulated safety boots might do in a pinch, but I can't imagine there are nearly enough stocks of these in the system to meet demands. Jungle boots might do in the summer, but certainly aren't a viable option for the winter fall or spring.

We all know the only real solution is to simply buy more boots. Perhaps it's time for a general revamping of the acquitistion portion of the supply chain?


----------



## Love793 (21 Feb 2005)

Or, we can go to the American system, choose the ones you want to buy or wear from the 15 different types avail.


----------



## Baloo (21 Feb 2005)

God bless my size 12.5 F feet...there'll never be a shortage of the big sizes.


----------



## GGboy (21 Feb 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Yikes!   I can't even imagine size 2 cbt boots ... unless they're dangling from the rearview mirror of my mighty Suburban ... so, with all due respect to munchkins, Mighty Mouse, and The Little People ... laugh all you want at big, brutish combat arms trained bears who wear double-digit sized boots big enough to use as snowshoes (and, you all know what they say about shoe size ... it DOES matter ...), but ... it would seem that many of the sizes in short supply right now are slightly on the Barbie/small side ... and thus, one might begin to wonder if the Army is suffering from shrinkage in both numbers and vertical prowess ... ?


You know, I'm pretty sure these are NATO/European sizes ... either that, or they're taking recruits that're WAY younger than they used to be ...


----------



## Inch (21 Feb 2005)

GGboy said:
			
		

> You know, I'm pretty sure these are NATO/European sizes ... either that, or they're taking recruits that're WAY younger than they used to be ...



Definitely not European sizes, right off the tag on my Danners: 
US - 7 1/2
UK - 7
Eur - 41


----------



## old medic (21 Feb 2005)

UK, US, JAPAN conversion chart

http://www.footwearbyfootskins.com/Footskins-Footwear-Sizing-Charts.html

UK, US, FRENCH, MONDO conversion chart
http://www.overstock.com/garmonsize.html

http://www.mec.ca/Main/fyi.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=63655&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=814607


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Feb 2005)

bossi said:
			
		

> Excellent analysis, DBA - especially when we see the sizes that are "short".
> Yikes!   I can't even imagine size 2 cbt boots ... unless they're dangling from the rearview mirror of my mighty Suburban ... so, with all due respect to munchkins, Mighty Mouse, and The Little People ... laugh all you want at big, brutish combat arms trained bears who wear double-digit sized boots big enough to use as snowshoes (and, you all know what they say about shoe size ... it DOES matter ...), but ... it would seem that many of the sizes in short supply right now are slightly on the Barbie/small side ... and thus, one might begin to wonder if the Army is suffering from shrinkage in both numbers and vertical prowess ... ?



Nearly 25 years ago I was out on a big exercise in Gagetown â â€œ about the biggest thing we had tried in 15 or so years ... anyway, I am at the Ex HQ/Div HQ and I am walking from the officers' mess down to wherever and I came across a very young female soldier.   She was tiny, very young, very pretty (cute?) and was wearing tiny little white running shoes with pink bows or pom-poms or something on them.   She saluted and we stood there (waiting for vehicles to clear the road?) and I decided that I should say something, so ... (returning her salute) _â Å“Good morning.   Are you well?   Are your feet better?â ?_     She smiled and looked a bit confused ... _â Å“My feet are fine, sir.â ?_   I looked down ... _â Å“Fine are they?   Then why are you wearing little white and pink plimsolls?   Where are your boots?â ?_   She looked up, way up, with big, brown eyes and a hint of a sniffle and said, _â Å“I don't have boots, sir; they don't make boots small enough for me.â ?_

I hustled off to safety â â€œ with other large, loud middle aged men.   I later asked one of the signals officers running the HQ about the _little princess_ but I had to leave because his tale of woe re: lack of anything nd everything for the hundreds of reservists assigned to his unit was making me alternately laugh and cry.


----------



## chrisf (22 Feb 2005)

Love793 said:
			
		

> Or, we can go to the American system, choose the ones you want to buy or wear from the 15 different types avail.



A possible alternative, but I suggested re-evaluating the procurement system, as there are problems with things other the just boots...


----------



## bossi (22 Feb 2005)

On the other hand, I'm surprised to read that they've actually "solved" the WWB sole problem:
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dsafeg/pubs/digest/1-05/art03_e.asp


----------



## FastEddy (25 Feb 2005)

Yes you can definitely say that we've come a longway, technically in our strides of Modern Warfare.

But a Boot shortage, my heart goes out to all our staunch Infantrymen who must fight and win battles in their Boots and with Rifles.

Who ever coined the phrase, A Army Marches on its Stomach, Never marched ten miles in a ill fitting, soaking wet pair of Boots.

Even if this is remotely true, its a Disgrace.


----------



## Pieman (25 Feb 2005)

Jeepers...I think I will hit the Army surplus store before I hit BOTC, even just to have an extra pair around.

I was in one store not to long ago and they had a nice selection of parade and Garrison boots. Would they give me any gripe if I showed up with my own boots that have been worked in?


----------



## Observer23 (25 Feb 2005)

Quantities of Parade boots are okay.  Don't spend money on those.  Garrison boots are out of the system so don't bother.
If you buy a pair of surplus combat boots (in good to excellent condition) the worse thing going to happen is you'll be prepared for the worse.  Good luck on your course.


----------



## bojangles (25 Feb 2005)

Why does one assume that just because you have small feet, that you are a young recruit?
Last I checked I was closing in on 35yrs old and I still have the same size feet I did when I entered high school........a proud size 3!
Feet size doesn't correspond with age...sorry fellows! 

Bojangles


----------



## bossi (25 Feb 2005)

bojangles said:
			
		

> Why does one assume that just because you have small feet, that you are a young recruit?
> Last I checked I was closing in on 35yrs old and I still have the same size feet I did when I entered high school........a proud size 3!
> Feet size doesn't correspond with age...sorry fellows!



I stand corrected (no pun intended).
However, I've been told that for many men shoe size often increases with age 
(possibly because we're bigger and heavier ... ?  Besides, you're still a young pup).
I'll have to look up some more authoritative proof for you 
(some other time - too busy today).


----------



## 421 (3 Mar 2005)

As far as I remember,
                              There was only ever 2 sizes - too big and too small.  I've been issued all differnt types due to my trade and localles.  Just come through with something that will work and work well - all you can ever hope for.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Mar 2005)

Gee, that's too bad.  Not that I ever wore issued boots anyways....


----------



## big bad john (3 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Gee, that's too bad.   Not that I ever wore issued boots anyways....



After I left CTCRM the first place I went was to buy boots.  Never had another pair of issue boots again.


----------



## JBP (3 Mar 2005)

Well I don't mind my issued boots (MKIII's) , they're comfortable enough with the Dr. Scholls inserts... Lol... $25.00 enstead of like $125.00 for decent boots I suppose.

Then again I've never had the luxury yet of trying on or using anything other than the issued stock also. My boots are brand new too, never been used which could make a difference.

I'll take a look around after I'm done BMQ+SQ+BIQ, see what they have in the Army surplus stores after I've had my feet in those beasts for a summer...


----------



## ZipperHead (3 Mar 2005)

I just had to deal with this "shortage of boots" issue myself.

A bunch of years (~5) back, I went in in, with tales of misery and woe about my knees and back, wanting something done about it (ie orthotics and new soles for Mk III's). The resistance that the system put up was better than the defence of Stalingrad...... Short story long, I was fitted for orthotics at Physio on base, and was given a chit to get Vibram soles put on my Mk III's at a civilian shoe place (the physio people tried, in relative vain, to get through my thick Crewman skull that my orthotics didn't "fit" into my issue boots (Them: ***wink, wink**** "They're pretty snug, huh?"**** wink, wink**** Me: "No.....". Them: "You sure?!??!!?". Me: "Yup!!!!". Anyway, part of it was stupidity, and the other part was not wanting to be like "them": people who milk the system so they can get issued "Gucci" kit (especially the lame ass "running" shoe style of boots, that offer zero ankle support, and are crap in the field), even though the issue stuff would have worked fine. I bought a pair of Danners back around '99, and wore them in the field, and managed to avoid the wrath of those with too much time, too little to do (you know who I mean......) and was content until the WWB's came on line.

Anyway, since then (and before, for that matter), I have been astounded at the number of people that I have seen wearing "Gucci" Danners, Hi-Techs, Corcoran's, etc, etc. I would complain about "How is it that soldiers with next to no time in can get those fancy-schmancy boots, but I (and a lot of old-timers) can't??? Their knee's and back's couldn't have taken the same abuse as people from way back?!?!?!" A light went on in the empty recesses of my brain: "Issue decent boots to people at the beginning of their career, rather than trying to fix their medical problems at the end of it!!!!!" Boy, what a revelation. I remember getting a lecture/briefing from some medical type back in Cornwallis regarding the "Cornwallis Crippler's" that were issued: basically, don't wear them, and go out and buy decent Nike, Adidas, whatever's. But, of course, the only way to wear those non-issue shoes was to (shudder) get a chit. Boy, let's tie up the medical system so that people can get a chit to wear "REAL" running shoes, not those pieces of crap. Anyway, very few people did wear their own shoes, due to the fear of reprisals, the shame, etc. What a great system we are part of!!!!!

Anyway, to get back to the present, I went in to clothing stores the other day, after going to see an MO with an unrelated problem, and slid in the fact that I needed a new pair of boots to get resoled, and I need to get a chit from Physio ("here son, let me get this hoop the right height for you to jump through it......"), I ended up standing in front of a desk at Base Supply with my handy, dandy MO/Physio approved chit. Basically reality (and the message of the article that is in post #1 in this thread) slapped me in the face: IF they had my size in stock (they didn't.... imagine that, no 10.5 E) I couldn't receive them anyways, as they were "operations restricted" (or words to that effect). So here I am, being told I can't get combat boots, or more precisely "tough shit!!!". I had visions of yelling at the poor Pte working there, but for once sanity and common sense prevailed, and my incredulous look was enough to convey that I would need an alternate plan (plus she probably heard some of my comments, which were probably loud enough for her to hear while she was searching the shelves, to another Sgt about how lame it is that I can't get boots, yet almost every Private I see around seems to have "fancy" boots on. Guess what she had on her feet when she came back? Not Mk III's.......) Anyway, a deal was struck: I would be able to go down to the local civvie store that they dealt with and get a pair of non-issue boots. 

Once down at this store (owned by an ex-military guy, who according to him was given the boot in the '80's for the unforgiveable crime of not being able to wear combat boots!!! Oh the irony, of him providing the army with non-issue boots, almost 20 years later........) I lamented how pathetic it is that here I am, buying boots from them. They didn't seem to mind, oddly enough........ Then we got on the subject of "approved" boots. As it turns out, the boots have to be all-leather (as a Crewman I can understand the reasoning (to a degree) of this: flash fires. Fine, but where is the rest of my fire-retardant gear, then??????). But, as they told me, the Base RSM has a say in what is a go, and a no go. I won't venture too far into this territory (call me a sissy, if you will, but your name better be at the top of your post   ), but I was told that one of their more popular boots (by a very respected company) that is purchased by those in the know (ie. infantry soldiers) is on the no-go list because it has canvas side panels (whether they are flame-retardant I never thought to ask), and I suppose don't LOOK exactly like combat boots. Looks...... Hmmmmmm. There's a theme going on here. Rather than bite a gift horse in the ass, I gladly tried on and accepted my very Gucci new boots (Matterhorns, by the way, and more expensive than I would have bought, but hey!!! we got $13 billion dollars in the new budget, let's live a little!!!!!!).

We also got into a discussion (already mentioned here) about how we should be given a list of "approved" (and I would hope that it would be a factor that includes comfort, ruggedness, suitability for field ops, and then LOOOOOOKKKKKKKKSSSSSS (sorry, but the sound you hear is that of RSM's rolling over in their graves......) boots, and then given an allowance to buy those. I think it's a crime that soldiers sometimes have to go outside of the system to buy a pair of boots that are very comfortable, rugged and suitable, only to be told that they can't wear them...... Many moons ago, I remember hearing about how soldiers in a certain unit I was in, were told that they couldn't wear their Matterhorns, Danners, etc because it would demoralize the soldier sitting in the trench beside him that was wearing wet, sloppy, Mk III's..... brilliant!!!!! I have also heard the argument, that if you were in combat, or on exercise, and you broke your leg/rolled your ankle/stepped on an AP mine/ got fusili macaroni up your ass, etc and then they had to cut your precious boots, you wouldn't get reimbursed for your loss, and would get Mk III's as a replacement. Fine by me, as my $200 boots would probably be the last thing on my mind as I was in agony. But it's hard to beat that logic.

As my rant winds down, I can't help but think that one of the reasons we won't adopt the US system of "buy the boots you want" is sort of like the health care system: we would end up with a "two tier" clothing system, where only those that actually care about their feet would use the money for decent boots, and the remainder would squander their money on crap boots, and use the money for other pursuits, and then, at the end of their career, or in more likelihood, well before that, moan loudly about how "the system" destroyed their knees/back/ankles with shitty boots. It's a sad fact that "we" have to protect people from their own stupidity (ie. force people to wear seatbelts, wear bike helmets, warn them that hot coffee is in fact hot, etc) and cover everybody with the protective blanket of issued boots. To whit, I see people still wearing their issue running shoes, or better yet $15 Velcro "laced" WalMart specials,, WELL after the retirement age of the shoes was reached, saying that "If the army won't buy me new shoes, I'lll keep on wearing the old ones.....". Meanwhile, they spend $10 per day on coffin nails ($300 per month....) or eating the requisite $1.50 bag of Cheesies and $2.50 Extra-Loaded Sub every working day, and wouldn't ever think about spending $100-$150 every 4 to 6 months on a decent pair of PROPER running shoes for running in. Don't even think about getting me started on the people with knee and back problems, and blame the combat boots, and not the 50 (or more) extra pounds that they carry around on their frames.....  :rage:

Al

[Note: Edited for dumb-ass punctuation and spelling errors]


----------



## Infanteer (3 Mar 2005)

Well, I tried to read that rant, but I couldn't figure out what you were angry about, so I gave up....

I wore Danners because they sold them in the 1 VP kitshop, right at the front door.  Felt good so I wore them on ex, on tour, and on Parade for the LFWA commander and no one seemed to care.

I really wonder why some people put their energy into figuring out what kinds of boots people are wearing....


----------



## S McKee (3 Mar 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Well, I tried to read that rant, but I couldn't figure out what you were angry about, so I gave up....
> 
> I wore Danners because they sold them in the 1 VP kitshop, right at the front door.   Felt good so I wore them on ex, on tour, and on Parade for the LFWA commander and no one seemed to care.
> 
> I really wonder why some people put their energy into figuring out what kinds of boots people are wearing....



Me too, love my Danners never had a problem.


----------



## Britney Spears (3 Mar 2005)

Allan, you're a harder troop than I. 

If my MkIII boots were causing me injury to that extent, I would have simply gotten orthotics ( which I have, $400 out of my own after-tax pocket) and if need be, gotten a chit and different boots.  RSM or not, I am not doing the army any service by wearing incorrect boots and rendering myself ineffective, and me being able to do the job is more important than some mickey mouse garrision rule. The day I get called on it will be the day I 1)demand a court martial about the boots, and 2)sign my release.  There are some things that are worth getting hurt over, idiot RSMs and their garrision BS are not.


----------



## ZipperHead (3 Mar 2005)

My stream-of-(un)conscious rant IS a little hard to follow (gotta cater to the short attention span of people brainwashed by music-videos), but I suppose it could be boiled down to: buy your own boots, good; wear ill-fitting, but "let's all look alike, but be incapacitated down the road by crappy boots" bad.

Regardless if boots (or fleece, or toques) are sold in a kit shop, it is up to the hierachy whether or not they can be worn (even in the field). In '96, my Regt sold one of the first fleece jackets (OD green, very good quality, I forget the brand name), and we all snapped them up.... it was easily -254 degrees celcius (give or take 2 or 3 hundred degrees) and we bought them anyway..... next regime change "There shall not be any non-issue kit worn in field (fleece included)" So much for us being warm..... 

It's all about the leadership, and if I may digress, anybody who was on Roto 7 to Bosnia can nod along, I distinctly remember 3 things about that tour: 1) No fleece (issue, even) will be worn as an outer garment (in fact, it should be worn UNDER the combat shirt ....... try taking off your jacket, shirt, and fleece in a Coyote turret when it warms up) 2) no v-neck t-shirts, and 3) no long sideburns.  I actually agree with #3, but all things considered I think that there are more important things to worry about than having a jihad against those three things.....

If I were in power (the 5 most dangerous words in the world), this boot issue would be a non-issue, as I would allow people to wear pretty much whatever they wanted, as long as they looked more or less "military", were clean (not shiny, but clean), were kept in good order (good repair, laces not dangling willy-nilly, good tread on soles), but above all, were appropriate for the job at hand: the same person conducting the jihad against the 3 things I noted, had the good sense to decree that desert boots wouldn't be worn in the winter (a lot of the carpet commando's got upset) but it was shown that a good chunk of the lower leg injuries over there were attributed to the tan "slippers". Don't get me wrong, I think they serve their purpose, but they are useless in the winter time. Jungle boots in the winter would also be forbidden (unless of course, you were, you know, in the jungle).

Al


----------



## Infanteer (3 Mar 2005)

Makes sense to me Allan.


----------



## OLD F of S (3 Mar 2005)

It amazes me that this subject is being discussed in 2005, when I took basic in 1965 with
the 2nd PPCLI we had no combat boots. When the final 10 mile march came we wore running
shoes and snow boots. 40 years later still bithching about boots. God I feel OLD!!!




                      Regards OLD Fof S


----------



## Ghost (4 Mar 2005)

Why can't they just order new boots?


----------



## George Wallace (4 Mar 2005)

Ghost said:
			
		

> Why can't they just order new boots?



I see you are a general.....anyway....... They probably have ordered new boots......The Supply System is always running out of things.  It takes time to fill the orders.


----------



## RV (4 Mar 2005)

Hey Marauder,

I am pretty sure that Marsh wasn't taking a swipe at anyone for being young.  The concept of the "dumbing down" of the forces is akin to a 'brain drain' when the experienced people leave and not enough interraction has happened between the old guard and the new.

There was a long stretch of time when very little recruiting was done, relatively speaking and some trades received very few new troops to replace the old ones.  All of the sudden tons of recruits are coming in and no one is left to train them properly and completely before the next expected big wave of retirements will happen and that is the next few years.  For example a couple QL3 courses after mine in the FCS trade our trade was not recruited very much for 7 years.  In 2006 there will be quite a few FCS techs with 20 years in and that will not sign up for IPS.  This situation has created a generation gap in our trade that we may not ever recover from because our trade is already 30 percent short and getting older.  Right now they have doubled the size of QL3 courses to try to compensate but by the time they get through training systems it will be the start of the big exodus from my trade.

Perhaps he could have explained better what he meant by dumbing down.  This issue has been around for quite some time in the past few years, and Isure that the old hands on this site have even worse examples, i.e. what happens in war when recruiting and training can't keep up to loss of troops.

We will survive it like we always do.


Cheers,

R-V.




			
				Marauder said:
			
		

> <snip> And while Marsh did take a good sized swipe at us younger, "dumber" generation, he does have a point that this is just one symptom of something more systemic in today's force.


----------



## Goober (5 Mar 2005)

Half of my platoon at BMQ was issued thinsulate civvy boots, as they were all out of MKIII's in certain sizes.


----------



## CanadianGuy (25 Aug 2005)

Here's an update on the Mk III boot shortage; I was at ASU in London today( August 24th) to get all my kit issued after returning to the Primary Reserve after 1 1/2 years out in the Supp Reserve. Had everything issued except combat boots as they had NO size 9's for me, not even used ones and they had no idea when they may get new stock! The good news was they were able to issue me two brand new pairs of WWB's in my size but these boots do not cut it in warm weather. I'm seriously considering buying a pair of Danner Ft.Lewis (uninsulated) boots to use as combat boots as I don't really have many options here and I'm NOT going to go buy an overpriced ratty old pair of Mk III's at the local surplus shop. At least I have an old pair of Mk III's (no treads left) to use in garrison!


----------



## Savage (25 Aug 2005)

Its funny I have 7 pairs of boots thats right 7 I don't want half of them. Ideally I would like to return half of them to stores, but stores will not let me return them. They will let me exchange them. Is anyone else out there tired of some no hook private (no offence) saying tough luck. If I through the boots in question out then later on in life when I leave the military I will most likely have to pay for them. As it stands right now my entire closet is filled with size 12 and a half clod hoppers. Some of these boots I have only worn once like the WWB. 

WWB have so far been greatly criticized for there poor ability to perform in hot weather. I have a bigger complaint about them, in regards to there performance on snow. They do not perform at all on the snow and if it is packed snow your walking on with them then chances are your probably going for a fall.


----------



## geo (25 Aug 2005)

last order of Mk IIIs has gone out and will be delivered over the next little while... the shortage due to the delay in taking delivery of the new combat boot - temperate... problems with the new desigh.... so they were slow in picking up the fact that there weren't enough Mk IIIs to carry over... other bad news is that they also forecast that this "final" order won't carry us thru. Some plans for an alternative - interim boot - not sure what that will turn out to be... could be a Caddy.... could be a Lada.

on a personal note - have experienced old tank boots, Mk Is thru IIIs + WWBs over a long career. Am still using standard kit - never needed to consider GUCCI  lucky me


----------



## BDTyre (27 Aug 2005)

I got issued my two pairs of MkIIIs in June with no problems.  ASU Chilliwack had bin fulls of them.  No WWBs though; I was told the regiment would supply them (along with other newer stuff).


----------



## I_Drive_Planes (27 Aug 2005)

CanadianGuy said:
			
		

> Here's an update on the Mk III boot shortage; I was at ASU in London today( August 24th) to get all my kit issued after returning to the Primary Reserve after 1 1/2 years out in the Supp Reserve. Had everything issued except combat boots as they had NO size 9's for me, not even used ones and they had no idea when they may get new stock! The good news was they were able to issue me two brand new pairs of WWB's in my size but these boots do not cut it in warm weather. I'm seriously considering buying a pair of Danner Ft.Lewis (uninsulated) boots to use as combat boots as I don't really have many options here and I'm NOT going to go buy an overpriced ratty old pair of Mk III's at the local surplus shop. At least I have an old pair of Mk III's (no treads left) to use in garrison!



I have owned the WW boot, and I currently wear the Ft. Lewis.  You will find the WW boot to be cooler than the Ft. Lewis, the Ft. Lewis is a 10" boot vs. the 8" WW Boot.  The Ft. Lewis is an excellent boot, but it fills the exact same role as the WW boot.

Planes


----------



## CanadianGuy (31 Aug 2005)

I did go out and order the Danner Ft.Lewis (noninsulated) boot, tried it on in the store I ordered it at and what a great fitting boot! Of course the quality of Danner boots is well known and obvious in the boot I tried on. I didn't mind the WWB, when I was wearing it in my previous service but it is just much too warm for moderate to warm temps. Looking forward to my return as a 031 Sergeant.


----------



## mover1 (31 Aug 2005)

The WWB is not intended to be worn in warm weather. The sole had a defict in it where it froze at certain temeratures. That problem has been corrected.  
Try wearing safety boots year in and year out. There is no weat weather, cold weather, insulated, non insulated option. Just whats issued. Unless you buy your own.


----------

