# Air Force Temperate Combat Boot - Initial Issue



## Eye In The Sky (9 Sep 2008)

For those that are interested  :blotto:, the Air Force TCB is now being issued, atleast here in Shearwater.  As with the CWWBs, initial issue is 1 pair, with a 2nd to follow.  We weren't told about them, I just happened to be over at Supply and saw someone trying on a pair.  The noticeable difference with the TCB is the inside lining is black in the TCBs vice the grey in the CWWBs.

I haven't put them on my feet yet, but am going to give them a whirl tomorrow in lieu of my Magnum Stealth IIs.  More to follow.

*editted to include the pic.  TCBs on the left, CWWBs on the right.


----------



## Adamant (9 Sep 2008)

I picked mine up the other day.

I kinda like my old combat boots better.  I find with the lining they are almost as warm as the Cold/Wet Weather boot.  

But as per, I'll wear them and continue to do so until the next new boot comes out.


----------



## navymich (9 Sep 2008)

I'm so confused with boot names anymore, but from the link you gave Eye, they look like the ones I have.  But I've had mine (both pair) for almost a year now.  I don't have them handy to look at them to compare.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Sep 2008)

airmich said:
			
		

> I'm so confused with boot names anymore, but from the link you gave Eye, they look like the ones I have.  But I've had mine (both pair) for almost a year now.  I don't have them handy to look at them to compare.



Well oddly enough...the pictures on the CEMS site for the TCB, CWWB and ECWB...all look the EXACT same!   :blotto:.  On a side note, what do you think of the TCBs?  Junk or no?  I am wondering if you actually wore them on your work-up training and the BFT, or did you get issued the army stuff?

I am glad they changed the color of the lining to be honest...I'd have them all mixed the f**K up and be cursing when I had a really HOT foot in the summer and a really COLD one in the winter at some point.


----------



## Spring_bok (9 Sep 2008)

This sounds alot like the new General purpose boot.  Interesting thing about those is that they don't all come with a vibram sole.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Sep 2008)

Spring_bok said:
			
		

> This sounds alot like the new General purpose boot.  Interesting thing about those is that *they don't all come with a vibram sole*.



Neither the CWWB or the TCB have Vibram soles...and they have an explaination here, Para's 9 and 10.


----------



## navymich (9 Sep 2008)

I had no problems with them day-to-day stuff.  Sometimes used the green/black sock system, other times just a white sport sock and grey woolies.  Comfortable.  Then I hit workup training.  Still doing ok with regular stuff, until I put weight on my back.

We did three 5-6km ruck marches in 4 days while finishing up at Wainwright.  Hot spots on the soles the first day, and then just a few blisters at the base of the toes the 2nd.  By the 3rd march, I was hobbling.  Lots of suggestions from everyone on what to do differently between taping up feet and using different socks.  Only problem with that, was that my feet weren't healed yet and I didn't have anything different supply-wise with me.

A week later, we did the BFT.  This was my first ever BFT, with only those 3 marches prior as my workup to them.  Needless to say, I was hurting.  Got through it in 2:02 and could barely stand at the end.  Was doing it with 3RCR and many of them came up to me and said "you did the BFT in THOSE boots?!?!" with a look of shock on their faces.  Figured I had hot spots and a couple of new blisters on top of what was already there.  Took my boots off when I got back to my room to find the insoles pink with blood, loose skin along both soles and a very tender big toe (nail is almost fully grown back now!)

Once my feet healed, I was able to play around with different ways of working with the boots.  Went back to wearing the grey woolies but with a white "blister" sock under them.  Put a new insole in the boots and I also wrap my feet before a march.  Some of the others in my group have gotten theirs since then, and are also having troubles here and there, but mostly on the soles.

I am curious to know how yours work out Eye....I know you're good for the rucking!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (9 Sep 2008)

airmich said:
			
		

> I am curious to know how yours work out Eye....I know you're good for the rucking!



There is no way I'll wear these other than for workin' around the Wing.  I'd not want to even think about ruckin' in these, I tried that with the Army WWBs on a BFT and following the BFT, the Medic took me to the hospital to have all the rolled-up skin cut off my feet.  I'll stick to my Magnums for that stuff  

The AF boots (TCB, CWWB) issued under the CEMS project were never designed for 'ruckmarching' and other 'green-type' work.  They as much as say it on the Understanding CEMS Boots page:


*1. In an attempt to address the many misunderstandings and the resulting concerns by Air Force personnel, the following explanation of policy and technical advances included in all CEMS boots (Cold Wet Weather, Temperate, Desert and Extreme Cold) is provided.

Firstly, why is the AF boot so different from the Army boots? 

2. Quite simply, our role is significantly different. Typically, the average Army personnel walk over much longer distances, carrying various weight loads, and historically have not concerned themselves with garments being Flame Resistant (FR) or Shock Resistant. Thus their emphasis has been on lighter weight construction with limited if any need to meet safety concerns such as those met by the CSA standards. CAS endorsed the decision that the four AF boots would meet CSA standards to ensure safety to personnel. * 


You'd have been much better off with COTS/LPO boots or the interim combat boot the army is giving out until their version of the TCB is issued.  I am actually surprised no one in green thought of that before you left, or when you got there.  (but they probably don't realize the AF boots are "safety boots" more than they are "combat boots")


----------



## dimsum (10 Sep 2008)

So to get those, do we turn in the Mk IIIs/Aircrew Boots/any boots?


----------



## Adamant (10 Sep 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So to get those, do we turn in the Mk IIIs/Aircrew Boots/any boots?



I didn't have to, or at least no one asked for them.  It just added to my growing assortment of boots... ;D


----------



## navymich (10 Sep 2008)

I had to turn in my other boots, so this is now all I have.  Like I mentioned, I've figured out how to make them work for me.  This was after several visits to MIR and supply.  They couldn't give me a chit for boots and supply could only change sizes for me if 'things aren't working out'.  No concern now, as I'm in tans for the next while.  But when I get back to my home unit next year, I'll be pushing for something else.  Of course, I'll be back to a cushy chair job, so it won't be a big deal.


----------



## armyvern (10 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> There is no way I'll wear these other than for workin' around the Wing.  I'd not want to even think about ruckin' in these, I tried that with the Army WWBs on a BFT and following the BFT, the Medic took me to the hospital to have all the rolled-up skin cut off my feet.  I'll stick to my Magnums for that stuff
> 
> The AF boots (TCB, CWWB) issued under the CEMS project were never designed for 'ruckmarching' and other 'green-type' work.  They as much as say it on the Understanding CEMS Boots page:



Note to Mich:

You may be Air Force, but if you're deploying overseas into a position directly supporting Land Force Operations --- you are then entitled to the D01301 Land Force Operational Field Clothing and equipment scale ... that would include the boots made for rucking ...

Just saying is all ...


----------



## navymich (10 Sep 2008)

Thanks Vern.  Not overly concerned about it now , but good to know to pass on to others from my unit that will be going over.  The system bought me tan boots with no questions or problems.  When I get home next year, I'm going to work on them getting me black ones too.  I might even miss rucking when I get home....naaaaa.   ;D


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Sep 2008)

I got them, tried them for a week and went back to the Gore-Tex Terra Boots.  They are now sitting somewhere in my basement along with my combat boots.


----------



## belka (10 Sep 2008)

I've had those things since last year, winter and summer pair. They were uncomfortable for awhile, but after a few months they fit nicely.


----------



## navymich (10 Sep 2008)

NINJA said:
			
		

> I've had those things since last year, winter and summer pair. They were uncomfortable for awhile, but after a few months they fit nicely.



What have you done in them?  Just basic walking and sitting around, or have you done any marching or rucking in them?

Myself, and people that I work with, found that the uncomfortable spot in them was at the back of the heel.  Only took a few wearings to soften the leather up there, but that is where they seem to rub most.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Sep 2008)

I had to exchange my fist pair at Supply this morning.  The right portion of the steel/safety toe on the right boot wasn't shaped properly and every stride I took it was diggin' into my toe.  I was chicken-walking before I got to the car.

I took them back and asked to try on a new pair as they were not wearable.  The civie at the counter stuck his hand in them and said "they feel fine to me".   :  My reply was "well unfortunately my foot and your hand aren't the same shape".      

I got a new pair and they seem fine.  I have to keep in mind, these aren't combat boots, they are more geared towards safety boots, despite the name T*C*Bs.  Not a chance, given the choice, that I will wear these on anything like BSERE or anything other than general duties around the Wing.  I'll wear Pair #2 the rest of this week.  First thoughts are they are somewhat lighter than but not as comfortable as the CWWBs.

As far as military-looking safety boots go, they do the job but Airmich, I have to say, I feel for you knowing you did your first ever work-up trng and BFT in these clunkers.     I hope other AF types deploying are aware or find out they can get the CTS issue boots; while they aren't Magnums or Matterhorns, they gotta be better for 'green work' than these Temperate Combat Safety Boots are.

However, as a general utility boot for most of the Air Force, they should do fine.  Hopefully Joe and Jane Taxpayer are getting a good bang for their buck for them.


----------



## dimsum (10 Sep 2008)

airmich said:
			
		

> I might even miss rucking when I get home....naaaaa.   ;D



Miss them as much as duty watch on the MCDVs?  :


----------



## belka (10 Sep 2008)

airmich said:
			
		

> What have you done in them?  Just basic walking and sitting around, or have you done any marching or rucking in them?
> 
> Myself, and people that I work with, found that the uncomfortable spot in them was at the back of the heel.  Only took a few wearings to soften the leather up there, but that is where they seem to rub most.



I'd definitely not use them for any kind of marching with heavy loads. For basic things like walking around on the flight line or standing in-line at Timmie's, they do the job well.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Sep 2008)

After a week of wearing these boots:

- they fit my brand new orhotics (barely);
- the steel/safety toe seems to 'stick down' or something, maybe its the lack of padding due to the lower amounts of thinsulate or whatever they are using in the CWWBs, but it starts to bother me come the end of the day;
- the heel cup seems to be different from the CWWBs and I had friction spots from them;
- I would not want to use these for any kind of 'field boots'.  They are fine around the shop, around the helipad/runways/etc but any amount of walking and I would be looking for combat boots;
- the lace up easily and are comfortable for GP use; and
- I can feel a difference in the harder sole/heel on the TCBs from the CWWBs.  

* My 'toe' issue is likely from the orthotics I have.  When I wear them with the issued insole, I don't have the same thing happening.  I tried my new orthotics in the CWWBs and didn't notice the toe at all.  

All in all, for the non-flying types, they seem fine.  Most of the people I have chatted with that have them here on the Wing are happy to have them, they are noticeably cooler than the CWWBs are.  After wearing my Magnum Stealth IIs all summer they are pretty clunky to get used to at first.

They still don't come close to being a pair of Matterhorn 10" field boots though.  But the price is right.  I should have my 2nd pair issued...hmm probably around the first snowfall.  :blotto:


----------



## dimsum (25 Sep 2008)

I got a pair of these today to replace one of my pairs of aircrew boots.  While the "speed" lacing and the soft soles are nice, the dreaded heel cup gave me blisters after walking around for 20 min.  I'm not sure whether that's because they are narrower than my GPB and CWWBs (but not by much) or because there's a defect in both heel cups, but I was hobbling by the time I got to where I was going.  

Since everything else fits fine (much better than the GPB actually), is there a heel insert that I can get to reduce the chafing from the metal (?) heel cup?  Or, is there a way of breaking it in (hopefully without destroying my feet in the process)?  And, to top it off, are stores actually not issuing the old-school aircrew boots anymore?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I got a pair of these today to replace one of my pairs of aircrew boots.  While the "speed" lacing and the soft soles are nice, the dreaded heel cup gave me blisters after walking around for 20 min.  I'm not sure whether that's because they are narrower than my GPB and CWWBs (but not by much) or because there's a defect in both heel cups, but I was hobbling by the time I got to where I was going.
> 
> Since everything else fits fine (much better than the GPB actually), is there a heel insert that I can get to reduce the chafing from the metal (?) heel cup?  Or, is there a way of breaking it in (hopefully without destroying my feet in the process)?  And, to top it off, are stores actually not issuing the old-school aircrew boots anymore?



I don't know about the old aircrew boots.  I don't think they are issuing anymore "old" style out at YAW anymore...its all the 'new stuff'.  The heel is a leather 'heel counter pocket' one if you look inside, same as the last picture Matt Fisher posted in this thread.  Blistering/discomfort seems to be a common problem with most people, not only with our Air Force TCBs but with the stuff the army is getting out of the CTS Project as well.


----------



## dimsum (25 Sep 2008)

Can you cut it out, by any chance?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Can you cut it out, by any chance?



That I don't know.  If that starts to be a trend though, I can see the folks at Wing Supply start checking for that when people want to ummmmm "exchange them"  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Can you cut it out, by any chance?



I am sure you can, but what will that do to improve the boot?  Nothing.  The results of your cutting it out will cause an uneven fit to boot, with the cloth fraying and bunching up causing even worse damage to your feet.  So, in the end, it will only cause more foot discomfort and injury.


----------



## dimsum (25 Sep 2008)

Understood.  Does anyone know if you can "soften" the heel counter pocket, whether by the old "soak in hot water" method or otherwise?


----------



## medaid (26 Sep 2008)

Um... Just a question for those who know, isn't it against the law (Occupation Safety and Hazards) to supply defective equipment to your employees that causes injury to them?

I'd say the CF's done that with almost every pair of boots I've gotten so far. Doesn't matter if it's small injury or large injury, it's still an injury. If a persistent problem occurs or complications develop as a result of the initial injury no matter how small, the CF would have a huge problem on its hands.

Just wondering that's all.


----------



## armyvern (26 Sep 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Um... Just a question for those who know, isn't it against the law (Occupation Safety and Hazards) to supply defective equipment to your employees that causes injury to them?
> 
> I'd say the CF's done that with almost every pair of boots I've gotten so far. Doesn't matter if it's small injury or large injury, it's still an injury. If a persistent problem occurs or complications develop as a result of the initial injury no matter how small, the CF would have a huge problem on its hands.
> 
> Just wondering that's all.



But that's where you run into the 80% ratio ... and fact of it is --- most of our footwear is acceptable to that greater margin.

The error in this ratio is that it is inclusive of many folks doing many different jobs ... and while the MkIIIs were fine for me for 80% of my job, they aren't fine for an infantry guy in 80% of his job.

That's where trials err. Trials include a wide variety of personnel doing a wide variety of everyday "tasks". If the infantry guys on the trial see only 70% deeming the boots "acceptable" (because of course the infantry guys on the trial are humping rucks with them etc) but the others on the trials see a 90% statisfaction/acceptability rate during the trials (because of course those people just wore them around a "normal" workplace stocking shelves, sitting at a desk etc) - that equals an 80% overall satisfaction rating (the margin they have to meet to bring something "into service"), thus they are deemed to be "good to go".

This logic is flawed - in that the only figures that should be considered for the "getting down and dirty" jobs are those that involved "down and dirty" tasks during trials. Having the infantry forced into boot XXX because the vast majority of desk workers partaking in trials deemed the "boots OK for my daily workload" ... is just NOT on.

Just look at the cadpat boots wandering around on feet of NDHQ "trial" people - if you think their comments/satisfaction rate is not going to impact upon the trial outcome ... guess again. Should it? Absolutely not. Even the new MWO in CTS is now wearing a pair of the cadpat boots. Why? Is he now mysteriously somehow part of the trials? I'd imagine that '_must_' be the case seeing as how this item of kit is not even authorized for issue or even "brought into force" as of yet.

If something is not acceptable to the troops on the pointy end of the post who don't enjoy the benfit of "trialling" something while perched quite comfortably upon their butt behind a desk (because that's NOT how it is out here in the real world where the kit actually HAS TO matter and work) it shouldn't be deemed acceptable by the CF. But right now, it is.

And, even if the kept pointy end "satisfaction rates" seperate from the rest - there'd never be one style of boot that met the standard for those down and dirty jobs and that was found to be acceptable by 80% of them precisely because fully 100% of our feet are all different.

Footwear Allowance. Now.


----------



## navymich (26 Sep 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Understood.  Does anyone know if you can "soften" the heel counter pocket, whether by the old "soak in hot water" method or otherwise?



They do soften on their own, honestly.  The time allowance for it is different for everyone though.  Mine only took a couple of wearings, luckily.  You might try pushing back and forth on the top of the heel area (from inside out and vice versa) to work it in a bit.  Good luck, and remember...you could always go back to sleeping with one eye open during workups!!  ;D


----------



## medaid (26 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Footwear Allowance. Now.



Yup!


----------



## dimsum (1 Oct 2008)

airmich said:
			
		

> Good luck, and remember...you could always go back to sleeping with one eye open during workups!!  ;D



I might end up on Sea Kings...what makes you think I won't?    :'(


----------



## CLOTJunkie (30 Oct 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Note to Mich:
> 
> You may be Air Force, but if you're deploying overseas into a position directly supporting Land Force Operations --- you are then entitled to the D01301 Land Force Operational Field Clothing and equipment scale ... that would include the boots made for rucking ...
> 
> Just saying is all ...



 D01301 (Land Force Operational) and D01341AJ (Air Force deployment) have been superceded by D11115; I thought. Vern please correct me if I am mistaken.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I had to exchange my fist pair at Supply this morning.  The right portion of the steel/safety toe on the right boot wasn't shaped properly and every stride I took it was diggin' into my toe.  I was chicken-walking before I got to the car.
> 
> I took them back and asked to try on a new pair as they were not wearable.  The civie at the counter stuck his hand in them and said "they feel fine to me".   :  My reply was "well unfortunately my foot and your hand aren't the same shape".
> 
> ...



The issue on the boots is becoming well known... We've been returning them left right and center. Good thing they have a two year warranty from the manufacturer. This also is now the boot that the entire Air Force is wearing; aircrew and SAR TECHs included. God knows many members aren't happy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 Oct 2008)

Not that this matters much but, just dealing with the weight of these clunkers alone...one TCB boot weighs more than a set of my "special issue" boots I have for my orthodics (1 x pair of Magnum Stealth IIs for summer, 1 x pair of Bates M-9 Assaults for winter).


----------



## aesop081 (30 Oct 2008)

I got my first pair and i am returning it as soon as i get back to home base. Every step i take the left boot makes a loud clicking sound coming from just under my heel.

POS


----------



## Eric_911 (2 Nov 2008)

I heard a dirty little rumour that members of Army DEU who are entitled to Steel-Toe footwear may also be entitled to these new Air Force boots. 

The way it was explained to me had something to do with the Army not having an in-service safety boot with water-resistant vapour-permeable liner. Seems kinda sketchy to me.

Can anyone confirm/disprove?

The last thing I need is two more pairs of boots, but it'd be worth a shot to see if they're any better then the old style "Boot, General Safety" that I'm rocking right now.

_(Edit to clarify)_


----------



## Loachman (2 Nov 2008)

CLOTJunkie said:
			
		

> This also is now the boot that the entire Air Force is wearing; aircrew and SAR TECHs included.



Not that I am a** f**ce, but no, I am not wearing these things.

And resistance is not futile...


----------



## dimsum (2 Nov 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Not that I am a** f**ce, but no, I am not wearing these things.
> 
> And resistance is not futile...



I could be wrong, but I think he means that if you are getting boots issued, they will be the TCB (no more Aircrew Boots.)  Come to think of it, that's a lot of new stuff for the surplus stores.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Nov 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> (no more Aircrew Boots.)



Dont be so quick to jump to conclusions.

Further to that, the brown ones are still on trial.


----------



## Loachman (2 Nov 2008)

I never bothered to get the aircrew boot in the first place. I stuck with the regular combat boot. I have learned to avoid as much a** f**ce-specific equipment as I can if there is an Army equivalent, as the latter usually works much better.

After suffering the CWWBs for a couple of weeks in Wainwright in March I bought a pair of Magnum Stealths at the Wainwright kitshop. Those, with Gore-Tex socks when required, are far superior. It took me several weeks to get over the effects of the CWWBs, which I didn't like from the moment that I tried on. I exchanged them for a pair of Army WWBs later, but I am not likely to ever wear those either.


----------



## CLOTJunkie (3 Nov 2008)

It's all position driven obviously; personnel holding a CC3 position; regardless of element will be issued these boots... It's got a lot of Army folk pissed off; especially units that do the BFT for unit PT. There is a lot of direction coming down the line lately with regards to the CEMs boots; most of it coming recommendation from CEMS with authority of A4. It's a shame they're turning out to be such a terrible procurement. I am fully in agreement with a footwear allowance... It would make SO much more sense.


----------



## Loachman (3 Nov 2008)

CLOTJunkie said:
			
		

> personnel holding a CC3 position; regardless of element will be issued these boots...



Perhaps, in order to do my own evaluation. If they fail, as the CWWBs did, they will go right back to supply.



			
				CLOTJunkie said:
			
		

> There is a lot of direction coming down the line lately with regards to the CEMs boots;



Such as?


----------



## aesop081 (3 Nov 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> if they fail, as the CWWBs did, they will go right back to supply.



Mine have indeed failed and are being returned as soon as i get home. They are UNSAT , plain and simple.


----------



## dimsum (3 Nov 2008)

I've thrown in the towel with the TCB as well and the other Bs that are associated with it.  After a month of calloussing my left heel, I've decided to go back to the Aircrew Boot (but keeping the sweet, sweet long nylon laces!)  The moment I can get to Supply, I'm asking for custom footwear b/c the "speed lace" rings touch each other at my ankles.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Nov 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've thrown in the towel with the TCB as well and the other Bs that are associated with it.  After a month of calloussing my left heel, I've decided to go back to the Aircrew Boot (but keeping the sweet, sweet long nylon laces!)  The moment I can get to Supply, I'm asking for custom footwear b/c the "speed lace" rings touch each other at my ankles.



You might have hear me walking down the hallway already.....click......click.......click...... :


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Nov 2008)

As I posted earlier, I exchanged my first pair.  I gave up on my 2nd pair after 2 weeks of wear.  They claim they are able to fit orthodics...sure, but not comfortably.  I have gone back to my Magnums and have my TCBs ready for return.  I just got 2 new sets of orthodics that can't be worn in these boots.  I asked if they had ones that were "deeper".  The Supply guy said no, to make them fit orthodics they give ones that are wider, longer, or both.  But my foot isn't wider or longer.  So...they can have 'em back.  If I have to, I'll buy my own boots before I have my foot on top of an orthodic, banging around the inside of boots that are too wide, too long, or both.

The only positive thing I can say about these boots is they lace up easily.

Dimsum, you can get the laces at supply, thats what they were giving out here in YAW and they told me that was the only laces they stock now.


----------



## dimsum (6 Nov 2008)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You might have hear me walking down the hallway already.....click......click.......click...... :



I probably would have, if I didn't spend the last few days frantically flight planning and staring at the screens in the Trainer   :crybaby:

I also probably would have remembered what life was like before this "Groundhog Day"  schedule  ;D    j/k


----------



## McG (6 Nov 2008)

Eric_911 said:
			
		

> The way it was explained to me had something to do with the Army not having an in-service safety boot with water-resistant vapour-permeable liner.


The previous safety boot issued to the Army did not have a very broad selection of sizes ... I belive there was only one width: narrow.  Using this boot for the Army's steel toe requirement will provide something that fits more feet.

I avoid wearing my issued safety boots because to fit my foot width the toe was so long it was like clown shoes that were more likely to cause me to trip than do anything protective.  If the change to the scales has been made (and I know it was being looked at), then I will at some point be switching out my old safety boots to give these new ones a try.


----------



## dimsum (7 Nov 2008)

Finally got rid of the TCBs, GPBs and CWWBs for a pair of Magnum Stealths and Matterhorn Gore-tex boots yesterday, and had a great time running around Winnipeg (especially today) in both pairs.  So far, my only regret was why I didn't do it before I started limping on my TCBs?   :'(


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Nov 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Finally got rid of the TCBs, GPBs and CWWBs for a pair of Magnum Stealths and Matterhorn Gore-tex boots yesterday, and had a great time running around Winnipeg (especially today) in both pairs.  So far, my only regret was why I didn't do it before I started limping on my TCBs?   :'(



Matterhorns?  Did you get them LPO or did you pay yourself?  I LOVE Matterhorns!  I had a pair of the 10" full leather field boots.  Best boots I've ever had on my feet.  (although I am interested in trying the 8" lighter ones for the same use you have them for....).


----------



## dimsum (8 Nov 2008)

LPO'd both sets.  Wing Supply was very easygoing about that, actually.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Nov 2009)

Reviving a dead one here.

Well after much mucking about, I am finally getting a decent LPO replacement for the CEMS TCBs and thought others might want to take a look at them.  After taking a look at them, Supply approved them for the TCB LPO replacements.  I found it hard to find decent full leather, CSA-certified ones that didn't weigh a ton.

Magnum Stealth Force 8.0 Leather WP CT/CP.

CSA-certified composite (read *lightweight*) toe/plate/shank, full leather upper.  A pair of these weigh in at about 630g's.  Feather-light compared to the 5.6lbs my CEMS TCBs weighed in at. 

I am supposed to be picking them up today, so other than trying them on with my orthodics at the store, I haven't worn them yet but they felt like a pair of sneakers that day.  

The reference I used with the folks at Special Sizes for the TCB requirements is below, as well as MA Doc No D01341CFS, Sub_CFS D03141AA (item # 038 on page 6) for the actual entitlement:

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/DFS/publications/fc/08-3/d/d4-eng.asp


----------



## Occam (13 Nov 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Magnum Stealth Force 8.0 Leather WP CT/CP.
> 
> CSA-certified composite (read *lightweight*) toe/plate/shank, full leather upper.  A pair of these weigh in at about 630g's.  Feather-light compared to the 5.6lbs my CEMS TCBs weighed in at.





That's an impressive reduction in weight that Magnum has achieved.  I've been having a real problem getting TCB that will accommodate my orthotics and my feet at the same time, so if the next pair I try out don't work (and all we did was go up one size in width), then I may have to investigate these Magnums.


----------

