# Boot, General Purpose (Mk III acting/interim replacement)



## RequiemVK (13 Sep 2006)

They are a lot of talk lately at the job that we are getting new combat boot to replace the Mk III. Was on the range all the week so tomorrow gonan check about this. Supposely they coming out in 1 month to 1 year i heard so far.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Sep 2006)

Never mind the idle speculation. When 'Tease the Soldier' is ready to launch them, we'll all find out. I'm sure some of our resident bin rats would know about it before anyone else. Wait for it. In the meantime, we're not going to get everyone worked up by letting your little rumour spin out of control. If anyone has anything they can substantiate, PM a Mod.

Well apparently, there is some sort of email out there. We'll reopen this and see where it goes. Please only post if you know something official for sure. Don't speculate, wonder outloud or make suggestions.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Sep 2006)

As recceguy said.. there is an email.. I received it at my unit from the TQ.  I am not sure if I can recover it since I deleted it noting that I wear Magnums and it was unimportant to me, but I will try to get it again tomorrow.

It was basically two PDF files with tech specs and detailed photos of the new boots.  They look identical to the "Boot, Wet Weather" all the way down to the tread pattern (hopefully not the "slip and slide" tread material though!).  They are made of the same MkIII looking leather and have speed laces as the WWBs do. They also have the nice little comfy padded top.

Hope that helps shed some light!!

(I am in 5 Bde if anyone cares, woohoo Valcatraz!!)


----------



## Franko (14 Sep 2006)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> They look identical to the "Boot, Wet Weather" all the way down to the tread pattern.....



I'll never wear them......POS boot.



> (I am in 5 Bde if anyone cares, woohoo Valcatraz!!)



Good to hear it Bzz.....   'bout time.      

Regards


----------



## Sig_Des (14 Sep 2006)

I work in the same building as the Clothe the soldier project. They've handed out a few pairs to guys in the building to "assess".

Ugly as sin, but apparently they're comfy. I dunno though, I've been happy with my Rothco's.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2006)

Hmmm,

I'lll send off an e-mail tommorrow for the details from the Clothe The Soldier cell itself.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Sep 2006)

Tanks Vern....
I'll try to get you the tech sheet we had..


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2006)

Well Bzz you know who I am so e-mail it to me.


----------



## Hunter (14 Sep 2006)

Why do they want to replace the Black Cadillac?  It's still my favourite boot.  Granted I'm not humping up and down the mountains in Afghanistan, but I have always found it to be a highly satisfactory piece of kit regardless of the weather, and still wear the MkIII instead of those black skates they issue us for cold & wet weather usage. 

I have really flat feet and always need to get running shoes with extra stability, but using Spenco footbeds in my MkIIIs i've never had an problems and always found it to be comfortable enough in all conditions.


----------



## RequiemVK (14 Sep 2006)

As mentionned before the lock of this thread, today at the job i got the email and the 2 pdf file. I tried to attach the 2 pdf file but i got a msg that my file are to big. Dont know if moderator have special right to allow bigger post, but if yes pm me and i will send you the file.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Sep 2006)

Voyons?? T'est au douzieme?? Moi too!!
PM me...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 Sep 2006)

Okay, here we go.. I forwarded the email to my home.. I will start with a few quotes from it:

"Pour votre info, la botte MKIII 21-872-4291 est en processus de remplacement par la BUG (Botte à usage général) 20-001-9296."

"Cette botte va être introduite cet automne en remplacement de la MKIII de façon graduelle (à mesure que les stks au dépôt ne suffisent plus). En plus cette botte sera offerte avec 72 grandeurs différentes comme la botte WWB."

Yes. it's in French, time to put your years of high school to work.

The PDF files are in english however.

I cannot cut and paste due to the file being copyrighted, but in a nutshell they give the whole kit and kaboodle about the new boots.  along with handy pictures in the second PDF.  You can PM for a copy of it... I assume after being distributed by email to the whole regiment, it shold be safe to release to others, correct?

Maybe just a quick copy of one pic might be safe...







Bzz


----------



## PhilB (15 Sep 2006)

So apparently the shitcanned the Cadpat/Green boots? Also wasnt the requirment for a non leather sided boots i.e. along the lines of magnums, jb's etc?


----------



## The_Falcon (15 Sep 2006)

PhilB said:
			
		

> So apparently the shitcanned the Cadpat/Green boots? Also wasnt the requirment for a non leather sided boots i.e. along the lines of magnums, jb's etc?



And piss off all the RSM's out there.


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Sep 2006)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> As recceguy said.. there is an email.. I received it at my unit from the TQ.  I am not sure if I can recover it since I deleted it noting that I wear Magnums and it was unimportant to me, but I will try to get it again tomorrow.
> 
> It was basically two PDF files with tech specs and detailed photos of the new boots.  They look identical to the "Boot, Wet Weather" all the way down to the tread pattern (hopefully not the "slip and slide" tread material though!).  They are made of the same MkIII looking leather and *have speed laces as the WWBs * do. They also have the nice little comfy padded top.
> 
> ...



Maybe its just me, but I don't consider that speed-lacing.  Harder than crap when you fingers are cold or you are in a hurry.  Or the laces are starting to fray at the ends too.  Its durable, the construction of those eyelets, but not speed lacing IMHO.

MRM


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Sep 2006)

Mud Recce Man said:
			
		

> Maybe its just me, but I don't consider that speed-lacing.  Harder than crap when you fingers are cold or you are in a hurry.  Or the laces are starting to fray at the ends too.  Its durable, the construction of those eyelets, but not speed lacing IMHO.
> 
> MRM



It's the same system we have on our desert boots. My laces are long enough that they don't have to come out of the eyelets at all. A knot in the end stops that, and a single pull of the laces cinches up the whole boot. I expect that the new boot will work similar, given that the eyelets are the same. However, I'll reserve judgement on the boot and it's lacing system until I've worn them and have received feedback from other users, not by what I see in a picture. It's like looking at a photograph of the ocean and saying the water is to cold to swim in.


----------



## WLSC (15 Sep 2006)

I hope the inside is not exacly like the WWB, the 13 km will be...fun for the feets...!  But no CADPAT...!  What will we do...?


----------



## 17thRecceSgt (15 Sep 2006)

Ref "speed lacing", I consider something like in this picture "speed lacing" with the open-eyelet you can wrap the lace around...I know I know, I am picking fly$hit out of pepper.  I just found them hard to lace at times, laces weren't long enough (like the ones I have in my Bates ones I wear now) to tie the end and "speed lace" that way, which works great.

If the WWB would have had speed lacing like the picture, I would have not cursed them so much.


----------



## medaid (23 Sep 2006)

This is merely a question...

   Why dont we learn from the USMC with regards to boots? My buddy's a SNCO with Force Reccon, and he says ppl rarely have any gripes with regards to their issued boots. They're comfortable, durable, and not bad on your knees.

   It seems to me that many of our soldiers develop lower limb injuries i.e. knees, ankles.... with prolonged wear of the MkIIIs....I dont know just my opinion... I could be full of...well what ever it is


----------



## ERIK2RCR (24 Sep 2006)

H-Coy 2RCR is trialing the boot right now, we were issued it just prior to summer leave and are wearing them through our rotation at CMTC. Some people love them and some hate them. Any other questions feel free to Pm me.


----------



## Trogdor (7 Dec 2006)

GUNNER2RCR said:
			
		

> H-Coy 2RCR is trialing the boot right now, we were issued it just prior to summer leave and are wearing them through our rotation at CMTC. Some people love them and some hate them. Any other questions feel free to Pm me.



What sort of boot is it?  Black all leather? or something new.  Any details you can give would be appreciated.


----------



## armyvern (7 Dec 2006)

Go to page one of the thread and start reading it from the beginning. Your questions will then be answered....why it's _almost_ magical how that happens.


----------



## inferno (9 Dec 2006)

Had a pair of Mk3s, and a pair of the new ones for IAP/BOTP.
Wore the new ones 90% of the time.

Cloth perferated liner inside means you don't sweat right into the leather/back into your socks.

Soles are nice and squishy.. unfortunately they dont sound all that great when marching.

long laces/metal loopy things are great for getting on/off in a hurry.

unfortunately the leather is soft.. not really great for the field as they provide little support, and stretch REALLY easily. I keep putting insoles in the boots to get my foot in tight, otherwise im floating around. They don't polish up as well as the Mk3 either.

Defintely saved me from more shinsplints and sore feet though.

I dunno about anoywhere else, but in St. Jean the QM is handing them out for the common sizes that they have run out of Mk3s for.. 9-9.5s.


----------



## armyvern (9 Dec 2006)

Inferno,

If you are floating around in your boots they are the wrong size. These boots come in 72 sizes, by the mm, get yours exchanged for proper fitting ones. They are not meant to be polished. They work the same as the WW Boots, use the paste they give you at clothing for them..NO KIWI POLISH...it WILL ruin them.

You've called it the "QM" below. Clothing Stores doesn't = QM.

QM = 1st Line Unit
Clothing Stores = 2nd Line Unit

I only point this out, because many times staff will tell their students to go to the "QM" and pick something up....and the kid ends up at Clothing looking for it...and we send him back to his Unit QM. Two totally different places and functions.


----------



## GO!!! (9 Dec 2006)

inferno said:
			
		

> unfortunately the leather is soft.. not really great for the field as they provide little support, and stretch REALLY easily. I keep putting insoles in the boots to get my foot in tight, otherwise im floating around. They don't polish up as well as the Mk3 either.



Not great for the field, stretch really easily... *and* don't polish well?

Unbelievably, DLR has once again hit the ball out of the park, producing something unsuitable for field as well as garrison wear! <applause>

Here's a thought - *buy Danners * - tried, tested and true, available in Gore-tex, thinsulate, vibram, desert..... and right off the shelf - where I got mine.

I suppose that would be too easy.


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Not great for the field, stretch really easily... *and* don't polish well?
> 
> Unbelievably, DLR has once again hit the ball out of the park, producing something unsuitable for field as well as garrison wear! <applause>
> 
> ...



GO!!!, Stop making sense, Dammit!!!


----------



## JSR OP (9 Dec 2006)

PhilB said:
			
		

> So apparently the shitcanned the Cadpat/Green boots? Also wasnt the requirment for a non leather sided boots i.e. along the lines of magnums, jb's etc?



A couple of weeks ago I actually saw someone wearing a pair of the CadPat Boots in Kingston.  I couldn't take my eyes off of them, they looked so strange.  I don't know who the guy was, or what unit he was with.   It was in the Sgt's and WO's Mess, during the "Bring your MCpl to the mess day"

Anyone else there see?


----------



## Sig_Des (9 Dec 2006)

I work in the same building as DLR, and there's several MWO's and a few Captains/Majors wearing them.

Are they "field" testing them? Maybe. Why are a bunch of cubicle residing headquarters types "field" testing them? I dunno. Not my place to ask

I can tell you the one guys Cadpat boots look ever so lovely against the backdrop of his Blue motorcycle when he's leaving work  >


----------



## inferno (9 Dec 2006)

When I was issued my boots, they fit great.. about 2 days later, i had to put on 2 pairs of socks to make up for the slack..
Next set of boots I get, I'll get the size that fits good with a really thin innersole.. and then I'll break them in, and then stick in a thicker innersole to get them nice and tight again.

As for the polish on them, it's basic, you polish everything. I wasn't issued the correct kind of paste, and the canex didn't have it. Additionally, if I'd turned up to the first class of the morning without polished boots, I'd get yelled at. So polish I did.
According to the card that came with my Mk3s, I belive I wasn't supposed to polish those either. C'est la vie.

On a side note, throughout 4 weeks in the field, I was the only person who never got my boots flooded in the swamp... so I can confidently say that for short exposure to an underwater environment, they are waterproof.


----------



## Pte_Martin (9 Dec 2006)

I went into clothing stores here in Petawawa, to exchange my size 11D boots and they said they didn't have any, when i asked for an approx. time to get them in she told me that in Jan we will start to get issued the CADPAT boots, I personal haven't seen them before so hopefully they will be better than the old ones.


----------



## Big Foot (9 Dec 2006)

inferno, I'm going to assume you weren't in Gagetown because in the swamps of Gagetown, EVERYONE'S boots get flooded, no exceptions  ;D. Mind you, i do like having dry boots. lol


----------



## Bomber (9 Dec 2006)

Infantry_ said:
			
		

> I went into clothing stores here in Petawawa, to exchange my size 11D boots and they said they didn't have any, when i asked for an approx. time to get them in she told me that in Jan we will start to get issued the CADPAT boots, I personal haven't seen them before so hopefully they will be better than the old ones.



I have a real bad feeling that you are going to be let down.

On the other hand, I went to the Government Auction this past week.  Tri-walls of boots, from danners to swats, to the new desert boot with tags still on them, BEW, NEW 5 man Arctic tents, NEW dry suits, wetsuits, winter whites, and even a pile of CADPAT items.  I put in a novelty bid of 5 bucks for a lot of 8 tri's worth.  If I get it, I'll be your boot guy from now on.  I also bid on a brand new HOnda Generator and an xbox 360.  There is also a nice Lexus and a Bimmer 540 that are still tied up in the courts, but hey, I got time to wait for them.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Dec 2006)

Bomber

Next time you go to an auction, do want some company?


----------



## Sig_Des (10 Dec 2006)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Bomber
> 
> Next time you go to an auction, do want some company?



Same here please...I'll even buy the first round


----------



## GO!!! (10 Dec 2006)

This is crap!

All the guv'mint auctions out here have are rusted out Ilti (plural of Iltis)!


----------



## Bomber (10 Dec 2006)

Next one is 4 and 5 January, I normally go before hockey.


----------



## Bomber (11 Dec 2006)

http://crownassets.pwgsc.gc.ca/text/ncrsale-e.cfm

Leeds Avenue off Walkley.


----------



## lostrover (14 Dec 2006)

Bomber, from past experience and also looking that the final bids on the closed auctions, mosts lots of textiles are going for about $800, but hey you never know, I got a lot of 6 tri-walls for $410.......but as you said..........new 5-man arctic tents, only got one out of it but well worth the money, and I have enough shop rags to last a lifetime.  At times you spy something that is worthwhile and you go for it, not like dealers whom will sell CF dress shirts at there "store" or on ebay  The worst part is hauling the tri-walls home and sifting trhought it all.


----------



## lawandorder (2 Feb 2007)

Any News on the new boots entering the system?


----------



## Bomber (5 Feb 2007)

Auction is coming this week, 8 and 9 Feb.  Army textiles and material are on the block.  If youfe thinks you have to much stuff now, image when you have 6 pallets of snowshoes or 8 tri-walls of boots delivered.


----------



## Sig_Des (5 Feb 2007)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Auction is coming this week, 8 and 9 Feb.  Army textiles and material are on the block.  If youfe thinks you have to much stuff now, image when you have 6 pallets of snowshoes or 8 tri-walls of boots delivered.



Sweet. I'm definitely gonna be there this weekend!


----------



## PteGDD (14 Feb 2007)

Danner forever.  They should just go DANNER!  

For all you new guys in the Army, espeically if you're going to be a lifer in the infantry.  Start treating your knees and backs with respect now, so you won't have bum joints later.  Get your soles done on your MkIII's.  Get a pair of Vibrams, and put in a nice cloud cushion of an insole.  You'll see results after a ruck march or a section attack at the end of the day.

PteG


----------



## armyvern (14 Feb 2007)

PteGDD said:
			
		

> Danner forever.  They should just go DANNER!



No. They shouldn't. For every one of you who likes them...there's one who doesn't.

Many threads going on boot preferences, your preferred boot is just one of the very few.


----------



## lawandorder (14 Feb 2007)

Hey Librarian any news on the new boots and when they'll start being issued?


----------



## brihard (16 Feb 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Hey Librarian any news on the new boots and when they'll start being issued?



RUMINT says they'll come as a Kinder Surprise toy inside the new rucksck.  ;D Find a buddy and trade for your size.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Feb 2007)

PteGDD said:
			
		

> For all you new guys in the Army,



 :rofl:

You are just a bucket of laughs aren't you......


----------



## lawandorder (16 Feb 2007)

But I don't like Kinder Surprises


----------



## NL_engineer (16 Feb 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> But I don't like Kinder Surprises



Looks like your out of luck then ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (16 Feb 2007)

As for the new Combat boot, they are being given out in 5 Bde instead of resoling the Mk III with Vibram soles.  I have two sets and brought one with me to Fort Bliss, TX where I am right now.  I just wore them for two days straight and had no problems.  They are comfy and fit well.  They look just like the Gortex boots but don't have the lining.


----------



## willy (17 Feb 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> As for the new Combat boot, they are being given out in 5 Bde instead of resoling the Mk III with Vibram soles.  I have two sets and brought one with me to Fort Bliss, TX where I am right now.  I just wore them for two days straight and had no problems.  They are comfy and fit well.  They look just like the Gortex boots but don't have the lining.



Please tell me they have the non-slip "blue dot" soles.


----------



## armyvern (17 Feb 2007)

willy said:
			
		

> Please tell me they have the non-slip "blue dot" soles.



Dude, they don't need to have the "blue dot" soles. I think those are reserved for readers of National Enquirer or whatever magaizine it is that is accompanied by the lucky "blue dot" that you need to rub for good luck.

The blue tabbed sole was used by the CF to distinguish between which old stock Wet Weather Boots had been resoled and which had not been.

All other boots coming into the system are already equipped with the proper vibram sole. Relax.


----------



## willy (17 Feb 2007)

Hey, what can I say, I worry about these things.  I'm clumsy, and that slippery old sole caused me to spend quite a bit of time on my butt.


----------



## armyvern (17 Feb 2007)

willy said:
			
		

> Hey, what can I say, I worry about these things.  I'm clumsy, and that slippery old sole caused me to spend quite a bit of time on my butt.



Glad I'm not the only one!!  ;D


----------



## a78jumper (23 Feb 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Dude, they don't need to have the "blue dot" soles. I think those are reserved for readers of National Enquirer or whatever magaizine it is that is accompanied by the lucky "blue dot" that you need to rub for good luck.
> 
> The blue tabbed sole was used by the CF to distinguish between which old stock Wet Weather Boots had been resoled and which had not been.
> 
> All other boots coming into the system are already equipped with the proper vibram sole. Relax.



Funny you mention that, I just bought a reduced pair($89.95) of Mark's Dakota waterproof/composite toe and sole boots that look like the new boot, albeit made in Vietnam, and they have a blue dot on the Vibram sole.


----------



## armyvern (23 Feb 2007)

a78jumper said:
			
		

> Funny you mention that, I just bought a reduced pair($89.95) of Mark's Dakota waterproof/composite toe and sole boots that look like the new boot, albeit made in Vietnam, and they have a blue dot on the Vibram sole.



Lovely. Then apparently the boots you bought have soles that are made by the same contractor who replaced the DND stocked boot soles. That means you know you won't end up on your ass unexpectedly!!

Please don't tell me you made your purchasing decisions based on that blue knob though. After all there are plenty of vibram soles from other manufacturer's that also meet the specs....PWGSC just contracts our stuff from the lowest bidder!!

And have you rubbed it yet? Has it brought you good luck?  >


----------



## a78jumper (23 Feb 2007)

I never noticed it until after the purchase was made....choice solely based on $$$$. They were $229.99 and reduced to $99.99, plus I had a $10 off coupon. I  really went in looking for something to keep my feet dry and warm at work in a winter boot, and these orphans on the reduced rack filled the bill. Composite safety to and plate as well. 

Hope the blue dot brings me good luck re the phone interview I had with Shell Canada yesterday; they want to see me in Fort Mcmurray in early March for a face to face regarding a Supply Chain position.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Mar 2007)

There's a contract on MERX right now for 42,035 pairs of Boots, Combat, General Purpose with a delivery date specified of Oct. 31, 2007.  
http://www.merx.com/English/SUPPLIER_Menu.Asp?WCE=Show&TAB=1&State=7&id=PW-%24%24PR-748-35341&FED_ONLY=0&hcode=%2fq16zltytUb11xk5C3oc3g%3d%3d

Interesting to note that:

-The interior of the boot will have a heel 'counter pocket' of exposed leather  1-1.2mm thick.  Essentially, it's the same piece of leather lining the inside of the heel area that's found on the new CF Desert Combat Boot.  Some people don't mind it, others find that it causes great irratation and chafing/blistering.






-The Vibram sole has been replaced with a DND developed/proprietary sole unit.  Does this mean that DND's relationship with Vibram is over?  What will be used for an outsole when the boots requiring resoling?  The contract doesn't mention anything about this, or whether these proprietary soles will be produced as resole spares on a separate contract.


----------



## armyvern (8 Mar 2007)

Two different types of boots Matt,

Combat Boots GP as per the MERX specs, WW Boots remain with the vibram. I've heard zero on any planning to resole the resoled vibram WWBoots into the porprietary sole.

Vern


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 Mar 2007)

Roger that Vern, but if you notice, the first run of the Boots, Combat, General Purpose used a Vibram sole.  It'll be interesting to note if the outsole spec for the WWB changes next time it's tendered.


----------



## armyvern (8 Mar 2007)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Roger that Vern, but if you notice, the first run of the Boots, Combat, General Purpose used a Vibram sole.  It'll be interesting to note if the outsole spec for the WWB changes next time it's tendered.



Entirely possible but I haven't heard any rumblings of it yet. Maybe they are waiting to see how these new soles work out. I believe that the Boots, GP (2nd run) were outfitted with the proprietary sole due to feedback from the user trials. So it's all interesting.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (8 Mar 2007)

Well my pair that I used in Texas worked fine.. did mountain hikes with 'em on and had no chafing issues.. will break in my other pair next week when I start my DP3A.


----------



## medaid (8 Mar 2007)

Hey Vern, is the Boots, GP the new WWB look alike? or is it something completely new?


----------



## margret (9 Mar 2007)

they look so comfertable that i want them lol but i have to start saving money to get them next year    :  ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (9 Mar 2007)

If you are in the military, they give you them for free!

Margret, welcome to Army.ca. I am sure someone will post about it soon, but please use proper punctuation and capitalization in your posts, it goes a long way to support any credibility.  I also suggest you put more details in your profile, as "was a sergeant" doesn't give much information.  I can assume you were a cadet by you mentioning 3133 as your unit.  Details make everyone happier here.


----------



## geo (9 Mar 2007)

from my perspective, the resoled job on my own WWB came out great.
at last, a winter without falling down on my a$$


----------



## RickG (10 Mar 2007)

RequiemVK said:
			
		

> They are a lot of talk lately at the job that we are getting new combat boot to replace the Mk III. Was on the range all the week so tomorrow gonan check about this. Supposely they coming out in 1 month to 1 year i heard so far.



Whatever new Combat Boots of ANY type (Mk IV, WW, etc) that we bring into the system SHOULD have a speed lacing system, as opposed to round eyelets.

Rick


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Mar 2007)

Okay ladies and gentleman.. here are pictures of the new Boots, general purpose and a pair of Boots, combat, wet weather.

You can take a look at the differences yourself, make assumptions if you'd like, but to me they look a heckuva lot alike.  Speed lacing IS included.

Cheers,
Bzz


----------



## TN2IC (10 Mar 2007)

Ah very nice. Do they have the same drop in soles like the Wet weather ones? Can you get a well lite photo of the inside please?


----------



## geo (10 Mar 2007)

I wonder if we can put in our own "gell" insoles in the new GP boots.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Mar 2007)

Here you go.. Goretex soles on top.. General purpose on bottom.

And a couple of closeups of the inside.. the little leather edge cause me no grief when I wore the boots in Texas recently.


----------



## TN2IC (10 Mar 2007)

That's what I am wondering...

Are you gelling?


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Mar 2007)

I'm so gellin' I'm Magellan!!  

Actually, they look okay.  I wore Boulets for desert boots and they were comfy.  Maybe I'll finally get a pair of CWWB.  :


----------



## lawandorder (10 Mar 2007)

any word on when the masses wil get them?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (10 Mar 2007)

Mine are issued to me in lieu of ordering vibram soled MkIIIs.. I have issued Magnum Stealth 1 and 2 though.. I suspect they might be getting returned soon, we'll see.


----------



## mudrecceman (10 Mar 2007)

Buzz do you know of anyone that has orthodics and if they were able to wear the boots with them in them??


----------



## Matt_Fisher (10 Mar 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> any word on when the masses wil get them?



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50234/post-538796.html#msg538796  If you go back, you'll see the delivery date that PWGSC is specifying.  From there, distribution to the various ASU clothing stores will probably be some 2-3 months after.  Also, if you factor in that every CF member has an entitlement of 2 pairs, the initial batch of some 42,000 boots will likely go to some 21,000 Reg F members, and with future conracts continuing to outfit the Reg F, then Res F.


----------



## geo (11 Mar 2007)

huh?  
I would have thought that the supply system would ensure that new boots were issued as the old ones wore out. There is no specific urgency to replace all of em - same as with the WWB and those slippery vibram soles.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (11 Mar 2007)

I think Vern would be able to provide a better answer regarding the fielding plans for these boots, rather than both of us 'stabbing in the dark'.


----------



## armyvern (11 Mar 2007)

I'm not going to post before I pull the PIP (Project Implementation Plan) to confirm the distribution priorities.

I seem to recall the details but will post once confirmed. (I can't pull everything off the top of my head!!   ) I'm on March break so I don't have access to my work computer until Tuesday and will post then. 

Vern


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Mar 2007)

To those that asked.. the boots are boots.. of course there is room for insoles in them.  And with the multiple sizings, I am sure you can find a size that will accommodate orthodics.


----------



## lawandorder (11 Mar 2007)

thanks for the info.


----------



## margret (2 Apr 2007)

i have saved some money but im not gonna get a pair of those nice boots because im not joining the reserves im doing co-op and working and my parents will not let me join the reserves like im 18 now i can do whatever i want !!


----------



## George Wallace (2 Apr 2007)

margret said:
			
		

> i have saved some money but im not gonna get a pair of those nice boots because im not joining the reserves im doing co-op and working and my parents will not let me join the reserves like im 18 now i can do whatever i want !!



OK margret

Time to clean up your act.  Some care in SPELLING, Capitalization, sentence structure, and grammar would be nice.  If you want to be taken seriously, then learn to communicate, or we will have to delete your posts as being unreadable and a waste of our time and bandwidth.  Unfortunately an attitude of "like im 18 now i can do whatever i want !!" doesn't go over very well here.


Your Freebee has been used up.  Next time you start up the Warning ladder.

George
Army.ca Staff


----------



## FEEOP042 (20 Apr 2007)

Well I have read that the CF CWO wants a have one boot for the CF and it said even if they are 250 a pr and I wonder if these are the boots. I had to get a pr of magnum stealth's and I don't like them  the sole is to thin or soft feel every stone. I have the Magnum steeltoe boots and they are great. I need a low cut boot I seen a pr of  Danners the Olympians and I would like to try a pair of them. Well there is my 2 cents

Scott


----------



## medaid (20 Apr 2007)

JEBUS! I hope not! I really hope the CFCWO isn't thinking about 1 type of boots C1A1 for everyone! I mean... really... COME ON!!! Doesn't ANYONE pay attention to the end user and the soldiers who say that the Mk III cbt boots are a POS?! and that a system like the US Army/ USMC with points are way better!?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (21 Apr 2007)

Med Tech... these boots are in NO way the MkIII.  They are very comfortable and I have taken to wearing them all the time.  I suspect I will to go back to my breathable magnums for the summer though.


----------



## medaid (21 Apr 2007)

Regardless Bzzliteyr, I am an advocate of the boot allowance system. As we have ALL discovered that no two feet are the same, and to say that one pair of boots WILL fit every soldier is just ridiculous! We've hashed it over and over again. It's just to be amazement and disappointment that once again no one listened.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 Apr 2007)

Nope.. they all have the vibram sole.. at least the two pairs I have and the two my buddy have do.


----------



## armyvern (25 Apr 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> One thing though, mine have Vibram soles. Unless I missed a post, I thought they were to be soled with a different non-Vibram one.



Nope that was the wet weather boots; and they were being _re-soled _from one type of vibram sole to another.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 Apr 2007)

Piper said:
			
		

> One thing though, mine have Vibram soles. Unless I missed a post, I thought they were to be soled with a different non-Vibram one. Either way, once the hot and sore spots from the natural progress of working in new boots end in the next bit, I think I'll be calling the Sup tech who helped me to thank him on my feet's behalf after my Phase 2 this summer.



I believe that the first production batch used a Vibram sole, however the following production runs have a Canadian produced outsole according to the spec sheet:
"3.5.15 Unit Sole – The unit sole shall be moulded using Mould DND 602-1, creating a rubber
unit sole with cavities. The tread pattern shall be in accordance with Figure 3, Appendix 1. Unit
soles that meet these requirements are available from United Last Inc., 101 Curé Labelle, Ste-
Thérèse, Québec, J7E 2X6."


----------



## DirtyDog (27 Apr 2007)

Still waiting on my pair to fit my orthotics.  Hopefully they don't come with the slippery Vibram sole of the WWB which I've been wearing the last few weeks.  I aslo hope they show up in the next few weeks before DP1 starts.  I'd rather not break new boots in/size them on course.


----------



## geo (29 Apr 2007)

DDog,
At this time of year, the old soles on the WWB should not be a problem.


----------



## brihard (1 May 2007)

I went in today to get a new pair of Mk 3s- my old ones had blown through - and they were out of my size, so I scored a pair of the new ones. I wore them around a bit; not enough to make any definite comments about comfort or construction of course, but the vibram soles and speed lace are both very nice features... Plus they're nice boots that I can wear on course,  ;D


----------



## lawandorder (17 May 2007)

I heard today while picking up some new kit that the Cadpat boots were a go and should be arriving this summer.   That could just be a dirty rumor though....but the person who said it had a pair on.


----------



## Mamma Bear (17 May 2007)

Well I, myself have been wearing the NEW GP boots since Jan 07 and truly enjoy them. They are comfortable and not like the slippery WWB. The lacing system works rather well and so far no fraying of the laces...I was issued them by my physiotherapist in Borden. And yes they do go nicely with all sorts of insoles. Mine are specially made for me. Just a hint when your fitted for you boots take ur insoles with you. And another slight hint, when fitting them have them slightly tight since they do stretch and mold to you feet. Borden has Foot/Boot Parade thru the Physio department and they are being issued mainly to soldiers with foot issues...Im no supply tech but from I`ve heard they are totally replacing the MK`s.....Just my two cents.


----------



## armyvern (17 May 2007)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> I heard today while picking up some new kit that the Cadpat boots were a go and should be arriving this summer.   That could just be a dirty rumor though....but the person who said it had a pair on.



No rumor.

Shortly us Army types will have so many damn pairs of footwear that we'll all need 3 extra barrack boxes issued just to keep them all in:

2pr Boots, Cbt MkIII;
2pr Boots, Cbt GP;
2pr Boots, WWB;
2pr Boots, Cadpat;
2pr Boots, Safety (if entitled);
2pr Boots, Desert (if one deployed); 
1pr Boots, Ankle; 
1pr Boots, Rubber Clumsy; and
1pr Shoes, Oxford.

Something tells me though...that I've forgotten some.


----------



## mysteriousmind (17 May 2007)

you forgot the supper pt shoes


----------



## MJP (17 May 2007)

mysteriousmind said:
			
		

> you forgot the supper pt shoes



Supper shoes....must be an armoured entitlement


----------



## medaid (17 May 2007)

Gimme the cool CADPAT Boots


----------



## PteGDD (17 May 2007)

You forgot shower thongs, Mucks, and the retarded rubber over boots.


----------



## armyvern (17 May 2007)

PteGDD said:
			
		

> You forgot shower thongs, Mucks, and the retarded rubber over boots.



I'll give you the mukluks...I did forget them. But I got the Boots, Rubber Clumsy to which you refer!!

But not the shower thongs...you buy them yourself


----------



## TN2IC (18 May 2007)

davidhmd said:
			
		

> Do snowshoes count? I do need new boots... I wonder if Halifax will give me anything fancy or if I should just wait until I get back to Ottawa...



Just go to Ottawa.... trust me.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (19 May 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> I'll give you the mukluks...I did forget them. But I got the Boots, Rubber Clumsy to which you refer!!



Which Boots, Rubber Clumsy, Shiney or Dull?  Or are the Shiney ones gone now?


----------



## geo (19 May 2007)

Anyone remember the wet weather boots they used to have in the late 60s and early 70s

Huge hunk of rubber that would weigh a ton - would not bend at the ankle - the only positive part would be that you only had to wiggle your toes while in a defensive position to generate heat.

Vern
you forgot the NBC booties

also - WRT the galoshes
there are the Combat galoshes for the Mk IIIs and there are the galoshes for the service shoes


----------



## DirtyDog (20 May 2007)

Don't forget arctic slippers as well.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (20 May 2007)

And dont forget the Desert Safety Combat Boot, or Boot Desert Safety Combat, or Combat Boot Safety Desert...

Anyway, tan ones with steel toes...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (20 May 2007)

Too lazy to look back.. did we mention the oxfords?


----------



## LordOsborne (24 May 2007)

And now for the whiny token reservist question- When do I get cadpat boots??  :blotto:


----------



## TN2IC (24 May 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> And now for the whiny token reservist question- When do I get cadpat boots??  :blotto:




I am Reg Force.. I don't even have these boots or even jacket in CADPAT.   ;D


Edit due I can't spell while even sober. That is really bad.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 May 2007)

Well, I saw a set of the cadpat boots in wainwright last week.  I don't know how the gentleman got them, but it must be true!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (24 May 2007)

Not sure if they are in the system or not.  Perhaps Librarian could shed some light on this.  Pers have been "trailing" them for years now though.


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> Not sure if they are in the system or not.  Perhaps Librarian could shed some light on this.  Pers have been "trailing" them for years now though.



I thought I had posted this somewhere already...but alas my Oldsheimers may be catching up with me (GAP....shhhh!!). 

Cadpat boots are a go. 2 pairs per soldier. Roll-out for initial issues begins this summer (mid-June is the more specific time-frame I recd 2 weeks ago from CTS). I have no idea what the pri Bases for initial distribution are as I've still not seen the official distribution plan. I imagine though it will be the normal RegF serving in Land Force positions (by Op Pri manning ), then ResF, then others within other enviornments.

I just checked the CTS Project site again...and still no update posted onto it but my info above does come from the project office of CTS.


----------



## Pampers (24 May 2007)

Librarian:

Does this mean that we will see a phase out of the Mark III?


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2007)

Big_Rifleman said:
			
		

> Does this mean that we will see a phase out of the Mark III?



Not yet. But I'd presume that eventually that will occur. We now officially have MkIII combat boots, cadpat boots, WW Boots, and combat boots General purpose.

That's 8 pair right there. I'd expect some sort of phase out of the MkIIIs will occur at some point in time, but nothing official to date.

Vern


----------



## Pampers (24 May 2007)

Whats the difference between "Combat Boots, General Purpose", and "Combat Boot, MkIII"?

I know what MK IIIs are, I thought they were one and the same.


----------



## armyvern (24 May 2007)

Big_Rifleman said:
			
		

> Whats the difference between "Combat Boots, General Purpose", and "Combat Boot, MkIII"?
> 
> I know what MK IIIs are, I thought they were one and the same.



Nope, different beasts all together.

Try page one of this thread, the GP Cbt Boots are what this thread is all about. There's even pics of them...and they resemble the WW Boot.

Vern


----------



## Pampers (24 May 2007)

Understanding....now.


----------



## LordOsborne (24 May 2007)

Hmmm... Maybe I can snag a pair while I'm in Gagetown for IODP 1.1 this summer  ^-^


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 May 2007)

Librarian, what's the chances of getting a set of those for me who's going out on tf 03-07?


----------



## armyvern (25 May 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Librarian, what's the chances of getting a set of those for me who's going out on tf 03-07?



Sorry, we haven't got your size!!  >

 ;D


----------



## Yrys (25 May 2007)

The Librarian said:
			
		

> Sorry, we haven't got your size!!



Are you talking about his foot   ?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 May 2007)

Yeah.. right.. I have heard that line before.

Speaking of which, if I am deploying and am supposed to have a cadpat sleeping bag liner but don't have one cause the guy at clothing stores Gagetown took it away when I got posted, how di I go about getting one?  Is it a "too bad, so sad" situation?


----------



## Pte_Martin (25 May 2007)

here in Pet I haven't been able to get one for over a year now would be nice to get one soon


----------



## armyvern (25 May 2007)

Bzz,

He took it away so they had enough to issue to TF1-07 pers as the TBs are in very short supply. Pers deploying on overseas ops are priority (that'd now be you)...

As you are slated for the upcoming TF...you should be able to go into your local clothing outlet to be issued a new TB and the GP Combat Boots. Now, I'd imagine that as you're at the mounting base for the next roto and are actually on the next roto, and I am assuming that they are the priority for issue...you shouldn't have any difficulty...

BUT...I've been wrong before....


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (25 May 2007)

Does it matter if its CADPAT or olive drab?  Are they short with both?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 May 2007)

I am set to deploy this fall with my gang..


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 May 2007)

more specifically I was asking are they short both kinds of bivvy bags or is it that you want the CADPAT one but olive drab is still available.


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2007)

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
			
		

> more specifically I was asking are they short both kinds of bivvy bags or is it that you want the CADPAT one but olive drab is still available.



Seen. Bivy bags are not the problem. It's the Thermal Blankets (TBs) that are. The TBs are the replacement for the old OG107 sleeping bag liners (even though I preferred the flannel...it kept me warm in -45!!).


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (26 May 2007)

Ah roger that I misread.


----------



## jaawod (27 May 2007)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Which Boots, Rubber Clumsy, Shiney or Dull?  Or are the Shiney ones gone now?



I recieved the shiny pair, the dull pair and the arctic slippers less than 2 years ago so I think they are all still being issued.


----------



## XMP (28 May 2007)

Ref Cadpat boots, these never got beyond the CTS definition stage. Good thing too.....


----------



## medaid (28 May 2007)

Oh wow! I want MY AR CADPAT platforms! It'll go well with my Cadpat disco suit!  :


----------



## Bomber (2 Jun 2007)

Those were a very early attempt by Terra that have since fallen by the way side.  The latst iteration has 1000 Denier sides, and a vibram sole.  Picture the Wet Weather boot, but cadpat leather and Cordura.  Green laces, and a green sole.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jun 2007)

Bomber said:
			
		

> Those were a very early attempt by Terra that have since fallen by the way side.  The latst iteration has 1000 Denier sides, and a vibram sole.  Picture the Wet Weather boot, but cadpat leather and Cordura.  Green laces, and a green sole.



Still expected to go to production mid-June?


----------



## XMP (2 Jun 2007)

The two boots by Terra evidently were simply pattern trials from 2002. The Cadpat AR boots were never really a starter, I think after the first two steps in the sand the camo pattern would dissapear under the dust.  I guess the current pattern desert boots made by Boulet were considered to be acceptable.
 There have been at least 3 other patterns of TW boots trialled in quantity, I believe these are the  boots referred to by Bomber :



















The last I heard was that the Cadpat boot project was on hold, possibly cancelled.


----------



## armyvern (2 Jun 2007)

XMP said:
			
		

> The last I heard was that the Cadpat boot project was on hold, possibly cancelled.



That's the boots. I was told by CTS last month that they were set to "go to production" in mid-June, thus my last post. They're not cancelled.


----------



## willy (2 Jun 2007)

What are these supposed to be for?  We already have the WWB, we're supposed to be getting the temperate combat boot, and now these as well?  What do these bring to the table that isn't covered by the other boots, and under what conditions are we supposed to wear them vice one of the other models?


----------



## armyvern (2 Jun 2007)

willy said:
			
		

> What are these supposed to be for?  We already have the WWB, we're supposed to be getting the temperate combat boot, and now these as well?  What do these bring to the table that isn't covered by the other boots, and under what conditions are we supposed to wear them vice one of the other models?



It's already covered earlier in this thread.

WW Boots,
Temperate Cbt Boots
Cbt boots, GP

....

It's a few posts back...too long to list again.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (2 Jun 2007)

They are camouflaged.. and if I remember correctly, during the development phases of the CADPAT trials is was noticed that the most visible part of a soldier is not the uniform nor the soldier himself but his weapon and boots!! That explains why Colt Canada has begun to put green items on our C7/C8 and we are going to be wearing CADPAT boots.


----------



## Trogdor (3 Jun 2007)

I kinda like the idea of the Cadpat combat boot.  Are we really going to have to wear it only for feild stuff and wear a black boot in garrison?  Soooo many types of boots now.  It seems a waste.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Jun 2007)

Wolfe117 said:
			
		

> I kinda like the idea of the Cadpat combat boot.  Are we really going to have to wear it only for feild stuff and wear a black boot in garrison?  Soooo many types of boots now.  It seems a waste.



From the impression I have so far got (from visits to 101 Col By in Ottawa) and seeing Supply Techs and others in NDHQ wearing them, it will turn out to be another case of "Garrison Dress".  We will wear them in Garrison, and black boots in the Field.   ;D


----------



## Bzzliteyr (3 Jun 2007)

That doesn't make sense....


----------



## Sig_Des (3 Jun 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> That doesn't make sense....



Nah, those people are "trialling" the boots. It blends well with the cubicles.


----------



## armyvern (3 Jun 2007)

Of course they are... it's always a conspiracy, and those Supply techs will decide.  

No worries, all word I've got so far is it's your choice and that they are not going to be restricted to Garrison.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (3 Jun 2007)

How does one clean and maintain the appearance of the CADPAT boots?  Are soldiers issued a little 'paint by numbers' set along with the boots?  Will RSMs (like kindergarten teachers) be judging soldiers on tendencies to 'paint outside the lines'?


----------



## armyvern (3 Jun 2007)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> How does one clean and maintain the appearance of the CADPAT boots?  Are soldiers issued a little 'paint by numbers' set along with the boots?  Will RSMs (like kindergarten teachers) be judging soldiers on tendencies to 'paint outside the lines'?



This question has been answered before, but in other threads running on the cadpat boots, vice this thread.

The boots will be issued with a paste that is tinted a green colour. The dye used in the leather of the boots is not just topical, but rather the leather has been dyed right through. You scuff your toe etc...it is still green leather underneath.

Vern


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jun 2007)

I wonder how much more it cost to make CADPAT boots vice a new black or brown colour of the same boot?


----------



## Bomber (4 Jun 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Still expected to go to production mid-June?



I'll confirm that Monday,


----------



## medaid (4 Jun 2007)

hahaha I want a pair of those neat AR CADPAT platforms, where can I get em? I'm looking for a size 7.5  ;D


----------



## geo (4 Jun 2007)

Cadpat leather comes from Cadpat cowhide, coming from a Cadpat cow 

FWIW, I figured that it would take all of 30 seconds to shuffling around on a dusty road to make my MkIIIs go from black to grey/brown.... 
But, what do I know.... guess I'll just have to knock down a wall to make room in the closet for the additional footwear.


----------



## Bintheredunthat (16 Jul 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's 8 pair right there. I'd expect some sort of phase out of the MkIIIs will occur at some point in time, but nothing official to date.
> Vern



Sorry to bring an old thread back to life - it's summer and I noticed the forums are a bit quiet.  

Anyway, not that this is anything official but I went to Supply to swap out some Mark 3s and since my size were not on the shelf - I was then sized for the GP Cbt boots to be ordered in for me.  So take from that what you will, but I have this funny feeling that the old black caddys aren't being restocked when they run out.  Plus shortages for these were not listed - so...............

Of course this is the part where I'm jumped all over for assuming - and I'm going to be slammed by someone who knows far more than I.

Let the jumping and slamming begin -  ;D

Bin


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2007)

Bintheredunthat said:
			
		

> Let the jumping and slamming begin -  ;D
> Bin



No jumping nor slamming need to occur...

as the phase-out has now begun!!


----------



## Bintheredunthat (16 Jul 2007)

Woo hoo

<commence self pat on back>

Goodbye old boots - we'll miss you.  This is so going to open up the flood gates on pro/con Mark 3s.  Let me be the first (in this thread anyway), no matter what studies and tests have said, the Mark 3s were ok for me.  

RIP Mark 3. 

Bin


----------



## Trogdor (16 Jul 2007)

well I for one will be happy to not have to pay for vibram soles on my boots.


----------



## geo (17 Jul 2007)

Wolfe...
If you had gotten a medical chit, the QM would have had it done for you at no cost.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Jul 2007)

If he had no medical issue, then he was right in saying he'd have to pay.  We wouldn't want people screwing the system now would we??


----------



## Trogdor (18 Jul 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Wolfe...
> If you had gotten a medical chit, the QM would have had it done for you at no cost.



I chose to get them before my knees got to the point that I needed a medical chit.


----------



## Barnes888 (20 Jul 2007)

been wearing my GP boots, for several months now, and my feet have been sooo much happier.

goodbye mark3's, i will not miss you


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Jul 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Still waiting on my pair to fit my orthotics.  Hopefully they don't come with the slippery Vibram sole of the WWB which I've been wearing the last few weeks.  I aslo hope they show up in the next few weeks before DP1 starts.  I'd rather not break new boots in/size them on course.



A bit of an update, I got a pair and wore them in between courses and thought I really liked them.  Once on course however (ie.marching, shuffling, rucking, uneven terrain, etc.) I discovered they didn't fit quite right and I got along fine with the Mark IIIs.  Infact, I grew to like Mark IIIs and didn't experience the leg pain that led to the chit for the GP's in the first place.

In the meantime I had ordered another set of GP's 1 size down.  Unfortunately I couldn't go down just in length (the problem) but also a reduction in width.   Within an hour of wearing the new ones I knew they were out of the question as my toes were completely squished and experiencing pain.

If I can't get a pair of GPs sized properly (The WWBs seemed to always fit fine) where does that leave me when the Mark III's are gone?  Does that now open the door to something like SWATs or Danners?  I survived a DP1 on 1 pair of Mark IIIs but I much rather join the 21rst century and get some decent footwear.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jul 2007)

The Boots, GP were to come in the very same range of sizes (width/depth/length) as the WW Boots.

It is entirely possible that your required size just hasn't made it's way to your location yet. They're coming, they're a brand new item into the system; it can't all be done overnight.

PS ... we've yet to receive a single pair of the new GP boots, any size, at this location.


----------



## Zoomie (28 Jul 2007)

Have these boots replaced the Mark 3's and the WW Boots - or are WW boots still issued? 

I have been wearing WW boots since they were issued to me 4 years ago - I wear them every season (albeit West Coast BC only has 2 seasons).

Looking forward to scrounging myself another pair of boots...


----------



## armyvern (28 Jul 2007)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Have these boots replaced the Mark 3's and the WW Boots - or are WW boots still issued?
> 
> I have been wearing WW boots since they were issued to me 4 years ago - I wear them every season (albeit West Coast BC only has 2 seasons).
> 
> Looking forward to scrounging myself another pair of boots...



Yes & no.

They are replacing the MkIII;

but are issued, in addition to, the WW Boot.


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Jul 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The Boots, GP were to come in the very same range of sizes (width/depth/length) as the WW Boots.
> 
> It is entirely possible that your required size just hasn't made it's way to your location yet. They're coming, they're a brand new item into the system; it can't all be done overnight.
> 
> PS ... we've yet to receive a single pair of the new GP boots, any size, at this location.



As far as the sizing, I was told that although the numbers are the same for the GP and WWB, the added insulation and internal construction of the WWB makes the sizing different and my exprience with the two seems to validate that.

I'm on my 3rd set of GPs (trying to find the right size) and had to wait a min. of 4 weeks for each pair.  I was told the pair I recently recieved was the next size down and the ones I had were definitely too big.  My past course officer wore Swats he said he was issued after being unable to get an appropiate size in the GPs.

Also, when you say they are brand new to the system, havn't they been available for some months now?  Unless of course I'm confused and were talking about a different GP boot that bears no resemblance to the WWB.


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Jul 2007)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Have these boots replaced the Mark 3's and the WW Boots - or are WW boots still issued?
> 
> I have been wearing WW boots since they were issued to me 4 years ago - I wear them every season (albeit West Coast BC only has 2 seasons).
> 
> Looking forward to scrounging myself another pair of boots...



I find the WWB to be comfortable, but from my limited experience, I find it just can't be practically worn by an Infanteer during the summer months.  Too hot, too heavy.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jul 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Also, when you say they are brand new to the system, havn't they been available for some months now?  Unless of course I'm confused and were talking about a different GP boot that bears no resemblance to the WWB.



They come in 62 sizes .... give it time.

Yes, they began coming into the system a couple of months ago. Priority for distribution being to pri 1 manned locations and on down the line as the contractor continues to deliver into the pipeline. Delivery from the contractor is ongoing.

It's pretty difficult to receive every size from contract, distribute and deliver to every Unit overnight. The implementation and distribution of new CFSS items takes times.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jul 2007)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I find the WWB to be comfortable, but from my limited experience, I find it just can't be practically worn by an Infanteer during the summer months.  Too hot, too heavy.



Ergo the GP Boot.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (4 Aug 2007)

Just got 2 pairs to replace my 10 year old mk III's and its like walking on pillows, of course hung over first thing in the morning I sometimes confuse them with the WWB.......until I take a step. Mike cure every geardo out there buying whatever they can from an army surplus store hoping it's better than the mk III.


----------



## brihard (5 Aug 2007)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Just got 2 pairs to replace my 10 year old mk III's and its like walking on pillows, of course hung over first thing in the morning I sometimes confuse them with the WWB.......until I take a step. Mike cure every geardo out there buying whatever they can from an army surplus store hoping it's better than the mk III.



I disagree. They're still much heavier than Magnums, SWATs, etc. I don't consider my GPs to be a be all and end all; merely my 'best' alternative for when I can't get away with non issued boots, or for rugger field use. For tromping around base while on course, or for doing OBUA I'll stick with my magnums.

That said, they are a notable improvement over the MKIIIs and WWBs. No argument there.


----------



## armyvern (5 Aug 2007)

And I still prefer my old MkIIIs. To each their own.


----------



## sgtdixon (16 Aug 2007)

Just Wondering Vern, since you are the Ninja SME on Supply, will it be at all possible being as Im a sick little man who enjoys his MkIII Caddies Immensly, to buy a triwall of unissued MkIII's at some point in my size.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (16 Aug 2007)

I'm just curios where would one store a triwall of boots


----------



## Sig_Des (16 Aug 2007)

http://crownassets.pwgsc.gc.ca/main-e.cfm?RegionCd=OT0&sidenavcmd=whatsforsale&subcmd=publicsales&PublicSaleRegion=ncrsales.cfm

I've heard of people going to some of the crown asset auctions, and finding triwalls of boots.


----------



## armyvern (16 Aug 2007)

Dixon said:
			
		

> Just Wondering Vern, since you are the Ninja SME on Supply, will it be at all possible being as Im a sick little man who enjoys his MkIII Caddies Immensly, to buy a triwall of unissued MkIII's at some point in my size.



Well,

All the leather is thrown into one triwall and is listed by CADC as "scrap leather." The description may go further and state "footwear." The description that you see on the bid lots at CADC is the one provided by whichever Base Supply's R&D Section.

But, we amalgamate at R&D Section before reporting the scrap to CADC. You'll get scrap leather. It may be an assortment of a whole bunch of different types of footwear that are being scrapped (they'll be punched through the tongue etc to prevent someone 'trading' them in at Clothing), or a whole mismash (real word??) of scrap leather items with a couple pairs of boots.

When you bid on a triwall ... it's usually like bidding on one of those little "surprise loot bags." You never never know what you'll get. There are NO guarantees (it even says that in the small print!!) ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2007)

I was going to make my own thread about this but I see someone beat me too it.

What the hell is with those boots? Did we even trial them or did someone just decide to buy them?

Apparently whoever decided to buy them ignored ALL the feedback about the wet weather boots.
Ie good for standing on a range, horrible for marching.

Seriously, could these 'new' boots just be an april fools joke or something?
I just did  a 13K ruck march followed by what amounted to a 20ish km day & night nav ex the next day with them. My first real test. I can't even stand, next week I'm going back to clothing stores and gonna try and sweet talk the supply techs into swaping me back the brand new mark 3's I traded in for these monsters  
Other wise their going in the closet with my boots ruber stupid.

Vern, wanna trade anything for a pair of 7Fs?  ;D


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2007)

Maybe that's the problem?? You were fine in Mk IIIs, but the WW boots have vibram soles!!  >

I am sooooo keeping my MkIIIs. I love those little black cadillacs.  

7Fs ... those are water skiis!! I wear a 5.5E buddy!!  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2007)

Naw I pay out of my pocket to get vibram soles thrown on the MK3s.


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2007)

Flawed Design said:
			
		

> Naw I pay out of my pocket to get vibram soles thrown on the MK3s.



Then yours should last you forever. Why do you need to trade?? Please do NOT tell me that they made you trade them in to get the new ones ... because that would NOT be on.  :-\


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Sep 2007)

They wore out.

I traded in my brand new MK3s because they were just a little small so I was going to try and get 7&1/2. They didn't have those and offered me the new boots. I caught shinny kit syndrome and took em. Serves me right I suppose.


----------



## HItorMiss (14 Sep 2007)

Hey Vern

In Pet even if you have a medical chit for vibram Mk 3's when your boots wear out and you want to exchange them you are not given a choice and must take Mk 4's which seeing as they are basicaly CWW Boot's are about as comfottable on my feet as knives into my toes and bricks on my soles I am less then happy with. Now I have a Physio chit to get Converses Boots (black) but it seems the new system does not like this Chit thing..... Any suggestions?


----------



## armyvern (14 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Hey Vern
> 
> In Pet even if you have a medical chit for vibram Mk 3's when your boots wear out and you want to exchange them you are not given a choice and must take Mk 4's which seeing as they are basicaly CWW Boot's are about as comfottable on my feet as knives into my toes and bricks on my soles I am less then happy with. Now I have a Physio chit to get Converses Boots (black) but it seems the new system does not like this Chit thing..... Any suggestions?



I see where they are going with this.

If your MkIIIs wear out and need to be resoled with the vibram sole ... they have to pay for that to be done. Ergo, they make you take the new boots instead (because your med chit simply reads "requires boot with vibram sole") because they already have vibram soles, are in stock, and won't cost that Crown money that hasn't already been spent.

Converse boots are canvas sided I think?? Can you confirm?? I can check for an update, but last I heard they had decided that mesh-sided boots (in lieu of *black combat * boots) could only be purchased for medical reasons such as rash etc (thus not a physio call ... but an MO call).

As I understood it,

Vibram soles: Physio jurisdiction.
Mesh sided: Medical jurisdiction.

I'd need to confirm what the current policy is.

There was something that came out in writing that said that "specific makes" of boots could NOT be prescribed ... as physio/medical have no way of determining that _only_ that "specific" boot will benefit you.

Edited to add: and that last part about the "specific make" was something on the medical side of the house, not the supply side.


----------



## riggermade (14 Sep 2007)

CWW boots have been a sore point with alot of people, I could never wear them as I never got a proper fit

Boots have been a sore point here in Pet as I am sure elsewhere because there was so many people getting a chit...I have a bone growth on top of my foot and when I was in the CoC didn't like the fact that I required different footwear and they didn't really care about comfort or well being, but I had to look like everybody else

I believe that if most soldiers could get Vibram soles on the MK 3 they would be satisfied, they are not the best boot out there but then what boot is good for everybody, the Vibram sole does make a big difference

As with anyplace one guy sees somebody wearing something different and they have to have them


----------



## DirtyDog (15 Sep 2007)

riggermade said:
			
		

> CWW boots have been a sore point with alot of people, I could never wear them as I never got a proper fit
> 
> Boots have been a sore point here in Pet as I am sure elsewhere because there was so many people getting a chit...I have a bone growth on top of my foot and when I was in the CoC didn't like the fact that I required different footwear and they didn't really care about comfort or well being, but I had to look like everybody else
> 
> ...



Well, as I've only been in Pet for a few months, I can't say much.... but it seems (atleast in my unit) that as long as it's black, and it looks like a military boot, you aren't going to get many hassles.  most people seem to wear the MkIII with Vibram soles and the rest are in Magnums or SWATS.  I personally exchanged my GP's because they didn't fit right and was given MkIIIs with Vibrams soles already fitted as that was all they had left in stock since the MKIII is being phased out.  I don't kow if it is a new concept in the CoC to allow decent footwear, or if nobody is noticing, but I haven't seen anybody be hasseld for their boots yet, nor do I expect them to be.  I think things really are changing.


----------



## riggermade (15 Sep 2007)

Dirty Dog

I agree that things are changing in the last couple of years.  The problem with footwear other than issued comes down to the cost as does most things, most of those other boots are in the $200-$250 range


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Sep 2007)

Vern, the only reason I got issued my boots with vibram soles (Magnums) was that I needed a "breathable" boot and they fit the part.  I originally tried to get the boots for my foot pain but ended up gettting shot down by physio... a WO medic helped me convince physio to recommend the mesh boots for my sweaty feet due to the fact I had to wear the CWWB as it was the only magnum boot I could get away with...

Like I have stated before, I am very happy with my Boots, Combat, general purpose.  I wear my desert HAIX P9 boots here in theater now.. special order for me as they didn't have any Boulet tans in stock for me before we deployed...


----------



## armyvern (15 Sep 2007)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Vern, the only reason I got issued my boots with vibram soles (Magnums) was that I needed a "breathable" boot and they fit the part.  I originally tried to get the boots for my foot pain but ended up gettting shot down by physio... a WO medic helped me convince physio to recommend the mesh boots for my sweaty feet due to the fact I had to wear the CWWB as it was the only magnum boot I could get away with...
> 
> Like I have stated before, I am very happy with my Boots, Combat, general purpose.  I wear my desert HAIX P9 boots here in theater now.. special order for me as they didn't have any Boulet tans in stock for me before we deployed...



Ahhh yes Bzzzz,

But, I once had you in my office  > ... a long time ago.

The written direction that I am speaking of has occured since that time.

The "breathable" bit on the chits from physio used to be OK for us to purchase you mesh-sided boots with ... then direction came down to us in Clothing that this was no longer deemed acceptable by the Med World (and a copy of whatever it was from them came down with it circa Spring '06 -- I believe) that said that: 

Specific boots (ie in *Manufacturer*) could no longer be prescribed (due to reason that I have noted below); and that 
Mesh-sided (canvas-sided) boots in lieu of *combat* boots were an MO resp to prescribe, and that vibrams were a Physio resp to prescribe.

We actually used to have people show up with chits reading:

"Buy this soldier some Danners, that's what he needs." Honest to Gawd ... _signed_ by MOs (I photocopied the best of them and sent them up the chain). Those times have changed and the written direction specifly stated that no medical authority could determine that only a specific manufacturer's footwear would correct (or mitigate) the medical problem. The written direction adressed problems like that.

The boot problem will be solved when:

All personnel are authorized and given an annual footwear allowance (like the girls get their annual BTU allowance) to put towards purchasing black footwear from whichever manufacturer and in whichever make & model number ... works for them.

Such is the nature of the beast ...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 Sep 2007)

And they should do the same with modular combat load bearing systems...


----------



## HItorMiss (15 Sep 2007)

Here is the thing that I kinda don't agree with and no not you Vern the system that says no manufacture names.

I got hit, sure no problem went back overseas but took 2 pair tan Converse Boots (personally purchased) 1 pair SWAT tan issued by QM (local purchase). Got back to Canada put my old Vibram MKIII's which I used to love, however they now cause me leg pain in my injured leg, that did not occur while wearing the Converse with full combat load over long dismounted patrols. So The MO said "yup go to Physio we don't do boot chits but you need them." Went to Physio they examined me and what the doctor wrote for my consult and they said "which boots did you wear when you went back over?" I replied Converse, they said " Well then why mess around with this boot and that if the Converse Bootswere great with all that walking and extra weight why get you to try and error some other boots" So they write the chit which states Member requires Converse Boots (black) due to injuries sustained while in theater. Makes sense to me as to why the chit says that but I guess I am going to have to fight the system and waste the CF money till I get a boot that doesn't cause me leg pain....

See that makes no sense to me.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Here is the thing that I kinda don't agree with and no not you Vern the system that says no manufacture names.
> 
> I got hit, sure no problem went back overseas but took 2 pair tan Converse Boots (personally purchased) 1 pair SWAT tan issued by QM (local purchase). Got back to Canada put my old Vibram MKIII's which I used to love, however they now cause me leg pain in my injured leg, that did not occur while wearing the Converse with full combat load over long dismounted patrols. So The MO said "yup go to Physio we don't do boot chits but you need them." Went to Physio they examined me and what the doctor wrote for my consult and they said "which boots did you wear when you went back over?" I replied Converse, they said " Well then why mess around with this boot and that if the Converse Bootswere great with all that walking and extra weight why get you to try and error some other boots" So they write the chit which states Member requires Converse Boots (black) due to injuries sustained while in theater. Makes sense to me as to why the chit says that but I guess I am going to have to fight the system and waste the CF money till I get a boot that doesn't cause me leg pain....
> 
> See that makes no sense to me.



HitorMiss,

I purposefully bolded "canvas sided in lieu of *combat* boots" in all of my previous posts. Your tan boots are NOT combat boots. Tan boots are *desert* boots; if your *desert* boots are being purchased locally for you, you should be experiencing ZERO problems with picking up a pair that are mesh or canvas sided as that IS the spec for those boots.

Canvas/Mesh-sided is _not_ the spec for for combat boots though. Combat boot specs are "black" and "all-leather," ergo the different requirement to meet the "in lieu of combat boot" specs. 

The problem with the MOs writing your chit for a specific type of footwear is that the boots will be purchased locally (thus LPO -- local purchase order). What types of boots (from which manufacturer's) are available locally, differs greatly from base to base, and from town to town.

You come here on course and ruin those LPOd "specifically prescribed boots", and they are a type that are not available here locally .. (we can't get Danners locally --perhaps they are available somewhere around here now, but they weren't a couple of years ago), guess what?? We can't buy you squat then. Because some MO has prescribed you "Danners" for example. We, as Sup Techs, have ZERO authority to purchase you anything BUT those Danners when they do that. But, we can't LPO you what isn't available here ... so now, your MO's chit is basically useless, you're on course, and you have no boots. Guess who gets bitched at (usually by the soldier and by various levels of his course staff)?? Not the MO who wrote the useless chit, but the Sup Tech who *must* (but *can't*) obey it. And, you'll have to take my word for it, but this occured an awful lot with the amount of candidiates from every Army base in Canada that go through the Schools here; it wasn't a rare occurance -- rather it was causing problems with career courses for those soldiers affected by those "specifically" written chits.

That means, time off from course to go to the MIR ... see the MO ... get a referral to physio again (if applicable), have a whole new chit written up ... and on and on ... (and MO appointments take a very long time to get around here ... and it's pretty hard to be doing a career course out in the field without boots to wear on your feet while you are waiting).

I know what you are saying about the boots you currently have working for you, but that doesn't mean there is not another type available locally (here for example) that will work for you. That's why the system works the way it does.

That's also why the system needs to be fixed to allow for members to receive an annual allowance which allows them to continue purchasing their own footwear that they already know works for them. 

The long and the short of it is, that "specific" type prescription ... limits any purchase for you to only that "specific" type ... and that just isn't feasible if you happen to be tasked, coursed, dom op'd to some small Saskatchewan town, or posted to another Base where that "specific" type is not available when you happen to need yours replaced.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

Vern You misread part of my post, I didn't say I haave issues getting Desert boots, in fact I had LPO SWAT's(1 pair) which though I don't like for outside the wire operations I thought were great for in KAF, where even the new Tan boots caused me serious foot issues. All I was saying is that I have a chit for Converse boots (Black) for work while in Canada but will now have to fight the system and do trial and error on all sorts of boots and waste peoples money simply because the Physio people cannot say which perticular style of boots is needed. Now I totaly see you point but how about if it was added to the chit "Or nearest matching style available" after the specific manufactures boot?would that not solve everyeons heart ache?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Now I totaly see you point but how about if it was added to the chit "Or nearest matching style available" after the specific manufactures boot?would that not solve everyeons heart ache?



Did you go back and ask for that on your chit?.....That might solve........


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

See Bruce you come up with a good idea on a Sunday and well ain't no one open today LMAO

Actually the system does not honor my chit so as such I have to go exchange my vibram MKIII's and get the new MKIV's which I can't wear as they are just CWW boots minus liner and then I will have to start the process over again and  through pain in my leg to acquire boot's which will both work for my feet over long march's and not cause me leg pain while wearing them all day. Rather a long tedious uncomfortable process for all involved in my mind anyway.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> See Bruce you come up with a good idea on a Sunday and well ain't no one open today LMAO
> 
> Actually the system does not honor my chit so as such I have to go exchange my vibram MKIII's and get the new MKIV's which I can't wear as they are just CWW boots minus liner and then I will have to start the process over again and  through pain in my leg to acquire boot's which will both work for my feet over long march's and not cause me leg pain while wearing them all day. Rather a long tedious uncomfortable process for all involved in my mind anyway.



But,

the system would honour a chit from you which was signed by an MO which read:

"This member requires LPOd footwear in lieu of stocked combat boots for medical reasons."


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

Alright I am confused Vern, I was instructed by the MO that the medical side of the house no longer does chits for Boots, that it was now done by Physio, so he booked a Physio consult for me and they made the chit for boots. If I am reading this right I know need to go back to the MO and get him to redo a chit to say mber requires LPO boots in lieu of Stocked Combat Boots?


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Sep 2007)

Even if that works to get you LPO'd boots, what kind of boots will they get you?

The problem here lies in the "L" of the LPO.  If you use the Converse, but no one in Pet sells them, well then you aint gonna get the boots that work for you.  Now, if the "L" for local wasn't used so literally this wouldn't be an issue, the internet is just a mouse click away.  There should be a way for clothing to go online, go to Dave's Surplus or wherever in Canada and order you your boots "LPO," the "L" now being local to Canada, and get you your boots in 2 or 3 business days.  Am I RTFOO on this or is that a viable solution?  This way, if you have to go to Gagetown or Wainwright, they can get you your boots without problems, maybe a slight delay but no problems.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Alright I am confused Vern, I was instructed by the MO that the medical side of the house no longer does chits for Boots, that it was now done by Physio, so he booked a Physio consult for me and they made the chit for boots. If I am reading this right I know need to go back to the MO and get him to redo a chit to say mber requires LPO boots in lieu of Stocked Combat Boots?



Like I said below, last direction that we had (written direction from the medical side of the house) was that:

Physio: Could only authorize vibram soles (ergo, a chit from them would be invalid as the stocked combat boots DO have vibram soles now).

Medical: Mesh-sided footwear or other due to medical condition. (Mesh sided footwear can now ONLY be purchased either in lieu of desert boots -- because that is the spec for them -- or due to a diagnosed *medical* condition if in lieu of combat boots -- which are NOT mesh sided).

Physiotherapists are NOT qualified to diagnose medical conditions of the skin which would require a mesh-sided boot to cure or mitigate. That is an MO area of expertise. 

If physio is "prescribing" you a "specific" boot with mesh-sides in lieu of a combat boot ... they are unqualified to do so (thus your chit being non-recognized). An MO authority must prescribe mesh-sided footwear due to a diagnosed medical condition, and the chit must be non-specific for maufacturer.

"This member requires mesh-sided footwear in lieu of stocked boots due to medical condition" will suffice -- and then what boots you choose to pick out are up to you. You could simply say to the Sup Tech at clothing "here's my chit for new boots -- can you just LPO me the same type, model & size as you did last time because they worked fine."

That, then, should be the end of it.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Even if that works to get you LPO'd boots, what kind of boots will they get you?
> 
> The problem here lies in the "L" of the LPO.  If you use the Converse, but no one in Pet sells them, well then you aint gonna get the boots that work for you.  Now, if the "L" for local wasn't used so literally this wouldn't be an issue, the internet is just a mouse click away.  There should be a way for clothing to go online, go to Dave's Surplus or wherever in Canada and order you your boots "LPO," the "L" now being local to Canada, and get you your boots in 2 or 3 business days.  Am I RTFOO on this or is that a viable solution?  This way, if you have to go to Gagetown of Wainwright, they can get you your boots without problems, maybe a slight delay but no problems.



They will gtet you something locally that you have tried on, and have found that works.

You have just highlighted perfectly the exact reason why the chits should not be written for a specific boot. Because if they are not available ... your chit is useless.

You have also just highlighted the exact reason why we need an annual allowance for footwear:

Then the troops get their money towards their footwear, and can buy the type that works for them via whatever means they see fit such as internet, at home on vacation, while in Toronto for the weekend etc). The troops know which type of boots work for them; give them the allotment of money -- and let them purchase them.


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They will gtet you something locally that you have tried on, and have found that works.
> 
> You have just highlighted perfectly the exact reason why the chits should not be written for a specific boot. Because if they are not available ... your chit is useless.
> 
> ...



[Sarcasm Alert!] But then what will the bin rats do?


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

Hey Ver

Sorry I am not making myself clear. My chit had nothing to do with Mesh sided or leather or whatever... It's because normal combat boots causes me pain in my leg. It has nothing to do with a rash or a sweaty foor problem but pain. Hence physio however the pain is due to a medical condition, being blown up. So now that I have made that clear WTF am I to do now? Do I go to the MO and geta  new chit or o I press the issue with Clothing to be told I can't have that and they give me MKIV's which don't work for me.

I am guess you are going to tell me to go to the MO and try and get this sorted somehow and I thinking that is my best bet. Unless you have a better idea?


Grunt,

You are not RTFOO I think thats the best idea I have heard reference this issue for a long time. No need to F**K around wth this and that, clothing has your size either running shoe or CF boot size and they place an orde 3-5 days later BAM! you have boots for the member no fuss no muss.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss,

Does your chit say Converse on it?? I believe that they are mesh-sided no?? Sup Techs know this. We purchase a hell of a lot of boots.

If your chit says "converse" then we can not purchase them for you in lieu of combat boots. We must purchase "all leather" boots to replace your combat boots by the specs, unless, of course, you have a chit signed by an MO which states that you "*need* mesh-sided" (it MUST say mesh-sided in order for us to buy you mesh-sided) in lieu of "all leather" (combat boots) boots due to a diagnosed medical condition.

Thus the problem. If the chit is for a mesh-sided boot (specificly named or not) ... (it should not state a specific make) ... it is the MO who has to be signing it to authorize their purchase.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

Right to the MO I go then....... Where I will get the same chit.

I'll make sure to tell you how all this turns out...... I have a sinking feeling about it all really they will send me to the Loal place which I know does not carry the boots I want and I will be forced to trial differents makes at the CF's expense till I find one that works..... Yup I wasting CF money and everyones time and sitting through my pain.


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Sep 2007)

Vern,

Can you define the "L" in LPO for us?  I know its local, but how local?  Within 25 clicks of the base?  50?  100?  1000?  Within Canada?  I think if a member has been prescribed a type of footwear, why should the supply chain decide if he is going to get his prescription filled or not?  If you can't purchase the product locally, expand the definition of local till you can.  Saves the CF money, because the member gets what he needs the first time around.  Saves the member time and pain, because he only has to deal with the system once to get his chit filled properly.  If its a matter of trying the boot on, then the system becomes necessary, every one makes a different size 9.  But if the soldier already has said boot, and knows his size, ordering outside the normal parameters of the word "local" should not be an issue.  The unwillingness of the supply chain to bend the rules to allow soldiers to carry on with their jobs seems ridiculous to me.  I mean no offense to anyone by this, it just seems silly is all.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I am guess you are going to tell me to go to the MO and try and get this sorted somehow and I thinking that is my best bet. Unless you have a better idea?



HitorMiss, go to see your MO and ask him to write one out that says:

"Requires mesh-sided boots due to medical condition." You should then not experience any problems. I have sent many pers back to the MIR here when they have been here on course (ask medicineman!!!) and require their boots exchanged for new LPOd footwear when they have stated that the ones they have (and that work for them) are mesh-sided. Usually they are back to us the same day, with a new chit reading "mesh-sided" signed off by an MO. If the style of boot they wear is available here locally, our Sup Tech calls down to the supplier, and our LPO driver runs into town to pick them up for the student. 

If the boot is not available locally, we try to obtain them as a "special-order" from one of the boot suppliers. Of course, this can't always be done, so sometimes we end up going to another Base where they are available and getting them shipped into us ... but that, of course, causes delays to the student.



> Grunt,
> 
> You are not RTFOO I think thats the best idea I have heard reference this issue for a long time. No need to F**K around wth this and that, clothing has your size either running shoe or CF boot size and they place an orde 3-5 days later BAM! you have boots for the member no fuss no muss.



No, he's not RTFOO. But, LPOd footwear is paid for by the members home unit, using home unit fin coding. For students here in Gagetown who present with new chits, we fire off an email to the Clothing Stores of their Home Unit asking for fin code to purchase. We'll do the purchasing, but your base needs to authorize us in writing to spend their money to do it. As soon as we've got that from them ... we place your order. We do our best to get you what you need, as quickly as we can. But, some bases have been known to come back with a "Nope, funding NOT authorized -- he should have came in to see us before he left for course to make sure his kit was good to go as per his joining instructions." We can fight back, sometimes we win the fight -- sometimes we don't.

(Now you know what the Sup Techs are doing behind the scenes of a process that all seems so simple to you ... sarcasm off. But when it's another Base Commanders money that he is accountable for ... well what can a mere Cpl Sup Tech working the CSG counter do?? )

In cases like that, our hands are tied. 

Which is exactly why:

(I say again over) Nothing short of an annual allowance given to each member to purchase their own properly fitting, and what works-for-them footwear will suffice.

This ensures that you, no matter where you are ... have that ability to order the boots you need, want, and require quickly and effeciently to enable you to accomplish your job; whether that be via the internet or in a local store, or whatever. 

You'll just get your money each year, no muss -- no fuss, and have the ability to get your own on-line within that 2 days or whatever (because when taxpayers money and other Base's money is getting spent it's just not as easy as it -- because you don't see the system red-tape that we Sup Techs need to chew at in the background of the whole process -- is for you sitting at home or in your room in the shacks).


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> Can you define the "L" in LPO for us?  I know its local, but how local?  Within 25 clicks of the base?  50?  100?  1000?  Within Canada?  I think if a member has been prescribed a type of footwear, why should the supply chain decide if he is going to get his prescription filled or not?  If you can't purchase the product locally, expand the definition of local till you can.  Saves the CF money, because the member gets what he needs the first time around.  Saves the member time and pain, because he only has to deal with the system once to get his chit filled properly.  If its a matter of trying the boot on, then the system becomes necessary, every one makes a different size 9.  But if the soldier already has said boot, and knows his size, ordering outside the normal parameters of the word "local" should not be an issue.  The unwillingness of the supply chain to bend the rules to allow soldiers to carry on with their jobs seems ridiculous to me.  I mean no offense to anyone by this, it just seems silly is all.



Re-read my posts. The Supply chain did not decide. It was medical direction from Ottawa that decided that physiotherapists ARE NOT QUALIFIED to prescribe (ie: CAN NOT prescribe) "mesh-sided" boots; it certainly isn't us mere Sup Techs refusing to get your "prescription" filled. Nor is it the Supply Chain refusing to bend the rules. It is Treasury Board Canada regulations -- ie The Law in this country (as auditable by the Auditor General) -- why can't some of you seem to be able to get past that fact and acknowledge that us Sup Techs are not just here to screw you over repeatedly, and that, as a matter of fact, some of us go to extreme lengths to try and look after soldiers??

LPO= Local Purchase Order: Local?? Why?? Because how can we order you something on-line and have it shipped in if you've never tried the darn thing on your foot to know if it's comfortable, fits properly etc. It's taxpayers money. The Crown demands that when we spend it, we ensure it is spent with all due process ensuring that it is not wasted (ie getting in a couple of pairs of 300 dollar boots you've never tried on your feet and walked around in -- only to find out when they arrive that they don't work for you).

If they are not available locally, and you have already tried them on/been LPO'd them at another base etc, we DO our best to get them here for you (if your Base says OK to give us the fin coding) ... but I've already said that, apparently you missed it.


----------



## RCR Grunt (16 Sep 2007)

I know LPO = Local Purcahse Order.

How local is local?

Its a serious question and I don't think it requires a sassy reply, I seriously want to know.  

By sassy I mean "... but I've already said that, apparently you missed it."


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

So how about this then Vern, I get the MO to sign off on MESH sided boots... But my Converse Boots which I know work for me are not available localy. Because I have tried them on and know my size and how they fit and the money is authorised to be spent clothing will go "Online" topurchase the boots I already know work? Or will they send me to the local boot store to get boots which I have not idea will work and they might again see me in 2 weeks to buy yet another set of boots.

I am hoping I am clear in what I am asking?


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> So how about this then Vern, I get the MO to sign off on MESH sided boots... But my Converse Boots which I know work for me are not available localy. Because I have tried them on and know my size and how they fit and the money is authorised to be spent clothing will go "Online" topurchase the boots I already know work? Or will they send me to the local boot store to get boots which I have not idea will work and they might again see me in 2 weeks to buy yet another set of boots.
> 
> I am hoping I am clear in what I am asking?



Yes go to the MO and get that chit.

Explain to clothing that you have already worn & used the Converse boots and that they worked for you. If you ordered them from the web, take them the web-address and give them the model number, style and size. They will probably contact local suppliers with those details to see if any of them can special order them for you, if not, they'll probably attempt to contact your given "Source of Supply" provided to obtain them for you.

At least, that's how we work here.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> I know LPO = Local Purcahse Order.
> 
> How local is local?
> 
> ...



Re-read my previous ... I've already stated that we will go out and attempt to get them for you via net, other Base etc. I've also explained why that can't be done if you've never used that boot before.

By sassy, do you mean like your "sarcasm off" comment earlier?? Ironic that.

Your points are all good. But we sup techs get to see what happens behind the scenes and deal with it, when it seems so straight forward to those not making it happen. The federal purchasing regulations are never fun to deal with at the best of times. All we can do, is our best to make it happen. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It is not for lack of trying, caring, or giving a shit though. 

99.9999% of Sup Techs I know are fully aware of the problems with footwear and the system red-tape involved that is well beyond our (or the CFs, actually) control. 

We managed to fix that with the BTU allowance, the same thing needs to occur with footwear.


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

And that answers what I needed to know in full reference buying them off the web and not simply being told nope we can't get those here so you have to go try other boots till you find some.

Thanks Vern I have my mission for Monday.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> And that answers what I needed to know in full reference buying them off the web and not simply being told nope we can't get those here so you have to go try other boots till you find some.
> 
> Thanks Vern I have my mission for Monday.



If the Sup Tech at the counter tells you "nope we can't get them here" so you can't have them, ask to see the Clothing Supervisor and explain the situation to them. 

I know what I'd do for you here, but I can't speak for what the CSG supervisors action would be there. It can be done. There's no reason for them not to attempt to do it; it's common sense. I wish you well.


----------



## armyvern (16 Sep 2007)

Ohh,

Thanks for that little vote you just gave me!!  

Please feel free to do so again in 5 hours.  ;D


----------



## HItorMiss (16 Sep 2007)

Vern 

Grunt asked a question and you never answered it and I really curious now too, How Local is the term local in LPO? 100km, 50km?


----------



## armyvern (17 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Vern
> 
> Grunt asked a question and you never answered it and I really curious now too, How Local is the term local in LPO? 100km, 50km?



I answered him via PM D.

But just for you ... local means purchased locally ... as close to home as possible.

Do we get things from across Canada, well we could, and we have.

Most things, however, have a source locally that can either provide or special order in when we require them.

Internet is a whole different ballgame. Government credit cards can not be used to pay online ... so, we'd have to set up whatever Online supplier with a vendor code in FMAS (thus "speak/talk" with an actual person at that online supplier) so that payment can me made to their authorized bank account after delivery of goods or service.

It's not like you and I Paypalin' or credit cardin' from home.

Vern


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Sep 2007)

Rgr Thanks you.


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Sep 2007)

Guess who is wearing MKIV's and fuming at the system???

Thankfuly the Clothing supervisor is understanding and I wont be wearing them long.....


----------



## armyvern (17 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> ......
> Thankfuly the Clothing supervisor is understanding and I wont be wearing them long.....



That's good news no??


----------



## HItorMiss (17 Sep 2007)

Well the end certainly was good news, but it came after having to discuss with certain people the circumstance of my chit. In the end it came down to a Cpl going around his immediate supervisor and getting the IC clothingand having me and him tell her the situation. Thankfully she was very in tune with the needs and how they could be met. Though she did seem perturbed that the MCpl had been less then understanding even after my situation was explained to him.

All is well that ends well I guess butnow having gone through this system to acquire boots I cannot see why the CF did not just continue with the MKIII's and simply Vibram sole them instead of this MKIV boot. The system that exist now is going to be one of serious frustration for both the issuers of the kit and the end users of the kit.


----------



## DirtyDog (17 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss, I suspect you might be the Cpl I overheard today talking about soon getting Converse boots issued.  If not, then there is somebody else here managing to get them.

In battle school, I got a physio chit for GPs (MK IVs).  I trialed several different sizes through battle school, and never mind hating the boots, never found a size that fit, despite going through several consecutive sizes, they were either too big or too small in either width or length.

So, when I got to Pet I immediately went down to clothing stores and traded in for some MKIIIs, which I've come to like.  I was lucky enough that they had a pair in my size (they said they had very few MKIIIs) left, and it just happened to have a Vibram sole.

Will I be able to get them resoled as they wear out?  What will I do if I can't be sized in a MkIV?


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (17 Sep 2007)

Last year, I started having a problem with my regular combat boots which resulted in a chit stating "member requires boots to fit orthotics". When I brought this chit to the supply section at NDHQ, all they did was prepare a work order for me and send me to a civilian company that sold all sorts of industrial products. I just went down to their store, picked out two pairs of boots that I liked and they billed the cost to the supply section. I thought this was pretty straight forward and simple and my feet certainly feel a lot better.


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2007)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> Last year, I started having a problem with my regular combat boots which resulted in a chit stating "member requires boots to fit orthotics". When I brought this chit to the supply section at NDHQ, all they did was prepare a work order for me and send me to a civilian company that sold all sorts of industrial products. I just went down to their store, picked out two pairs of boots that I liked and they billed the cost to the supply section. I thought this was pretty straight forward and simple and my feet certainly feel a lot better.



Orthotics and orthotic footwear is a whole other set of process'. Mind you, you may find yourself and your chit not quite so easy to be sent downtown these days. The MkIVs (like the WW Boot) have a removeable insert, thus the vast majority of per who do have orthotics which need to be placed inside their boots are able to be accomodated in the MKIVs.

Orthotics simply wouldn't fit into the MKIIIs combat boots; that's not the case anymore. Next time you go in for exchange, or for new orthotics -- don't be surprised to find yourself putting your inserts into MKIVs and walking out with a set of them.

Edit: As per your above, that's the very same process that's followed when a member walks in with a chit that says: "requires mesh-sided boots in lieu of combat boots due to medical condition". We send him to the local supplier (which is where NDHQ sent you -- to their local supplier), you try them on, pick them out, and we foot the bill via the Crown. 

The situation as described by HorM below, had them prescribing a boot that was not available through the local supplier ... thus that process would not work for him. By rights, he could be made to report to the local supplier and try/test out their boots the same as you did. The problem is, he already knows that the Converse work for him to ease the pain caused by his injuries ... common sense dictates that one would do what they can to obtain those boots for him again; the system nor Treasury Board regulations do not always make "common sense" though ...


----------



## LordOsborne (18 Sep 2007)

I've heard rumours that the Cadpat boots are now available at clothing stores in Esquimalt, although getting anything from those guys is like pulling teeth. I did see the general in charge of the reserves and cadets wearing a nice pair though. He was in town for the CFSAC award ceremony.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (18 Sep 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I've heard rumours that the Cadpat boots are now available at clothing stores in Esquimalt, although getting anything from those guys is like pulling teeth. I did see the general in charge of the reserves and cadets wearing a nice pair though. He was in town for the CFSAC award ceremony.



The fellow I talked to at supply in Shearwater said those were only be trialled and in the end they decided not to go with them. I hope he's right cause those things are damn ugly.


Thanks for setting me straight, Vern. I'm not too worried about who makes my boots as long as they don't bother my feet. I do agree with you that an allowance system would be an ideal way to solve everyone's problems. I remember working with some USN personnel on exchange and one of them mentioned that they're giving a sum every year to buy whatever items they see fit including boots. I think that would cut out a lot of the hassle.


----------



## geo (18 Sep 2007)

I read somewhere that in the UK, troops are provided an allowance for their footwear.
Given that everyone's feet are different from others, it only makes sense to offer a variety of choices (all black).
Instead of stocking em ourselves, have someone like "Logistik unicorp" carry same said variety on a national level.
Use your points to "buy" your boots, shoes and underwear.... it only makes sense.


----------



## medaid (18 Sep 2007)

PatrickO said:
			
		

> I've heard rumours that the Cadpat boots are now available at clothing stores in Esquimalt, although getting anything from those guys is like pulling teeth. I did see the general in charge of the reserves and cadets wearing a nice pair though. He was in town for the CFSAC award ceremony.



I want CADPAT boots  ;D I just like the thought of them, not necessarily the implementation of something so horrid. I wouldn't mind getting the AR CADPAT combat platforms either


----------



## sigtech (18 Sep 2007)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> Last year, I started having a problem with my regular combat boots which resulted in a chit stating "member requires boots to fit orthotics". When I brought this chit to the supply section at NDHQ, all they did was prepare a work order for me and send me to a civilian company that sold all sorts of industrial products. I just went down to their store, picked out two pairs of boots that I liked and they billed the cost to the supply section. I thought this was pretty straight forward and simple and my feet certainly feel a lot better.


Personal experience , I to have a chit that states "member requires boots to fit orthotics". I spent two years having them make me so called custom boots that tore the hell out of my feet. It took a shin splint operation and a ortho to write me a chit for Bates or Danner boots. 

When i went in to clothing they looked at me and said we can't get them for you. Now here is the secret , I had a quote with me showed it to the supervisor and said the custom boots you want to get for me cost how much. Replay near $1000.... I say well these cost $320 .... supervisor turns to the boot guy and says get them. Bin Rats understand saving a buck, wish I knew this flipping two years ago  ;D


----------



## geo (18 Sep 2007)

Office mate has problems with her feet.

Has RX for Orthonics & chit for boots.
QM types say, get the Orthonics & we'll fit them to boots
Ortho types say, get the boots & we'll fit them to the Orthonics

Catch 22!


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2007)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Personal experience , I to have a chit that states "member requires boots to fit orthotics". I spent two years having them make me so called custom boots that tore the hell out of my feet. It took a shin splint operation and a ortho to write me a chit for Bates or Danner boots.
> 
> When i went in to clothing they looked at me and said we can't get them for you. Now here is the secret , I had a quote with me showed it to the supervisor and said the custom boots you want to get for me cost how much. Replay near $1000.... I say well these cost $320 .... supervisor turns to the boot guy and says get them. Bin Rats understand saving a buck, wish I knew this flipping two years ago  ;D



Yep we understand it all right. And at this location (and most every other location I know) we wouldn't have made you custom boots for orthotics. We get custom combat boots made for people with irregular SIZED feet or feet that are too small, big, wide, narrow etc for the issued boot. Guess what?? You don't even NEED a chit for that!! If you don't fit, you get custom.

The guy with normal sized feet, but wearing orthotics, should always be sent downtown to the supplier to test theirs out. More common sense there eh??

Saying that, don't be shocked next time that you visit clothing stores either and fins yourself walking out of there with MkIVs that will accomodate your orthotics. 

Oh, and that chit with the specific manufacturer of boot listed ... ain't supposed to be happening any more as per that Ottawa medical direction I noted earlier. By the medical worlds own words ... they (as in physio or medical staff) do not have the authority to prescribe a "specific manufacturer's boot."


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Office mate has problems with her feet.
> 
> Has RX for Orthonics & chit for boots.
> QM types say, get the Orthonics & we'll fit them to boots
> ...



They prescribe and issue the orthotics, then we buy and issue the boots.

We can NOT buy you boots until you have the orthotics. Kind of silly wouldn't it be for us to send her downtown to try on and  buy boots to "accomodate her orthotics" when she doesn't have the damn orthotics yet.

It happens DAILY ... "Can I have the paperwork to go downtown and get boots to fit my orthotics please?? Here's my chit..."

Vern: "Where's your orthotics??"

"Well I don't get them for another 2 weeks but I need my boots now!!"

Vern (while beating head off wall for 3rd time that day): "Oh, so you want the Crown to spend 800 bucks or so, to get you boots to "accomodate" your orthotics ... NOW, but in 2 weeks when you get the orthotics how exactly do you know that the ones you pick will do that??" 

"But I need boots now."

Vern (by now having aneurysm): Good then, if you're willing to sign this little memo here (yes, I have a memo on file ... just add name and service number) stating that you'll re-imburse the Crown for the costs of that purchased footwear the day you get your orthotics and discovered that those boots don't work, I'll sign the 2227 to let you go downtown."

Sadly, no one ever takes me up on it.

They also make orthotics at the Base Hospital here, and the troops come over to clothing with the chit & the orthotics (well, as per above most of them wait until they have their orthotics - the ones that don't come back again when the actually have them). 

There's no Catch22 at all. Physio should be making orthotics based on the soldiers needs and foot requirements ... certainly not based upon the boot. What the hell is physio going to do in 6 months if buddy's boot is ruined and he needs a new pair that has been discontinued or is not available at the location where the soldier is on course or something?? If that's what physio at your location is doing ... I see the problem, and it's not in Supply.

Edited to add: I have seen orthotics that are a good 1.5-2 inchs deep in the instep, what if this girl bought boots that were not able to accomodate an orthotic that deep along with her foot?? If that's the orthotic that she needed that would fix her problem?? Physio just going to make them thinner (thus not really fixing anything then) to fit in the boot she bought?? This scenario baffles the shit out of me.

That makes no sense to me, and I've never seen it happen here.


----------



## geo (18 Sep 2007)

Don't dissagree with you Vern - but my partner was given THAT runaround.
to her - it was Catch 22

From a personal perspective, I agree with you, it makes 100% more sense to have the orthonics to adjust your feet - and then get a boot that can support & encase your foot - but then again, that's just me


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Don't dissagree with you Vern - but my partner was given THAT runaround.
> to her - it was Catch 22
> 
> From a personal perspective, I agree with you, it makes 100% more sense to have the orthonics to adjust your feet - and then get a boot that can support & encase your foot - but then again, that's just me



Thursday, when I get back to work Geo ... I'll send you the ref.

It states that once a member has been fitted with orthotics, from then on, the orthotic is to be considered as a permanent part of the members foot. The orthotic documentation shall be placed on the members clothing docs (forever!! - no more chit required -- just the orthotic -- to get boots), and all future sizings and fittings of footwear will be done with an orthotic being worn as that permanent part of the foot, and with caveat to accomodate it.

Something is _wrong_ at your location ...


----------



## geo (18 Sep 2007)

Thanks much Vern
will pass on the ref to my partner... It's her feet afterall


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2007)

Pas de problemo ... it's what I do.


----------



## Snaketnk (18 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We get custom combat boots made for people with irregular SIZED feet or feet that are too small, big, wide, narrow etc for the issued boot. Guess what?? You don't even NEED a chit for that!! If you don't fit, you get custom.



Would it be possible for you to let me know how this works exactly? I'm wearing 15 EEEE, and have to get my footwear from the states from a very few companies, with a very limited selection. I actually had to stop playing soccer because no-one would custom make shoes for me, so I'm a little worried about Boots once I get to St Jean.


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2007)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> Would it be possible for you to let me know how this works exactly? I'm wearing 15 EEEE, and have to get my footwear from the states from a very few companies, with a very limited selection. I actually had to stop playing soccer because no-one would custom make shoes for me, so I'm a little worried about Boots once I get to St Jean.



I'm not sure what Saint-Jean does with it's recruits and their footwear when they do not fit into a NATO standard sized item. I will contact them for you when I get back to work on Thursday to find out what their process is.

The custom boot is not going to suffice for you, as we mold your feet at Clothing Stores, then send them off to the contractor and they can take months to be made as the company needs to make the tool press dies custom for you to make the footwear with (thus the expense, initial though -- the die only has to be made once!!). Your mold is retained indefinitely so that each time you need footwear after that, we just order and they come in quite quickly. 

The National Contract is held by XXX XXXXXX in Montreal, so Saint-Jean may have a priority process set up with them. I suspect however, that you will find suitable footwear being purchased for you, given the circumstances of training.

Vern


----------



## Snaketnk (18 Sep 2007)

Thanks for shedding some light on the situation, Vern, I really appreciate it. I guess there really isn't much I can do at this point in time other than do some research on who carries boots in my size...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (19 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> They prescribe and issue the orthotics, then we buy and issue the boots.



Well that's one of the dumbest things I have read today [ though it is still young], its a lot easier to amend new orthotics to fit footwear, pretty much darned impossible to amend footwear to fit the orthotic.

I ordered my Bates from the catalogue _FROM THE ORTHOTIC PEOPLE_, which would make a whole lot more sense since they should know the characteristics of the footwear a lot better than anyone else, and then they make the orthotic to _fit the boot with me walking in it_.

EDIT:
Mind you, this is the civi system.......


----------



## armyvern (19 Sep 2007)

LOL.

Well,

They get their orthotics then they go out to the supplier to purchase combat boots that work for them (in some cases we get custom combat boots made -- some of the orthotics I've seen are not normal ... and there's no way they can be accomodated in a "stocked boot", either civvie or CF).

Then we make the mold of their feet with the orthotic, and get them custom made parade boots/ww boots/oxfords etc that are made to accomodate the orthotic as well if required. They make the footwear to work with the orthotic so that's it's interchangeable from one type of footwear to another. The molds are kept, the tool dies made ... and we just reorder new boots from those dies as required.


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (19 Sep 2007)

Any word if there's going to be an aircrew version of the new boots?


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Sep 2007)

Tried to get myself a fancy new pair of boots here in Winnipeg, and was told until all the size 11's (old ac combat boot) are exhausted I won't be getting any new ones....

Doesn't make sense to me, from my side of the fence if you have new improved kit why make guys wear the old stuff.....  Especially if the old stuff is no longer being acquired, and the new stuff is designed to replace the old stuff....  

I did manage to get a new fancy pair of wet cold weather boots (aircrew) though....


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (19 Sep 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I did manage to get a new fancy pair of wet cold weather boots (aircrew) though....



Do they still have the wide eyelets and non-existent tread?


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Sep 2007)

No... 

These are actually quite nice, made by terra, good soles (hopefully they won't be too slick here in winter happy land)


----------



## HItorMiss (20 Sep 2007)

Vern 

Is is possible for Clothing to authorize me to wear my Tan Converse until such time as my Black ones arrive?


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> Vern
> 
> Is is possible for Clothing to authorize me to wear my Tan Converse until such time as my Black ones arrive?



There is direction out that tan boots are not authorized for wear in Canada and shall be worn on Ops only.

That being said ... speak to your boss, you're a special circumstance I would think. It would be your CoC that authorized this.

Vern


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Sep 2007)

Thanks Vern I appreciate the answer.


----------



## McG (21 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> I cannot see why the CF did not just continue with the MKIII's ... instead of this MKIV boot.


Well, the GP boot is not the new combat boot.  It is an interim because we cannot get the old Mk III anymore (nobody makes the sole) and it will stay in the system as the first boot issued to new soldiers.  The GP is cheap so it seems this will be given to new soldiers until they show they can make it through trg.  Combat boots will be issued on first posting to a unit.

DLR knows the GP is not good for soldiers, but it is all that is in the system.


----------



## HItorMiss (21 Sep 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, the GP boot is not the new combat boot.  It is an interim because we cannot get the old Mk III anymore (nobody makes the sole) and it will stay in the system as the first boot issued to new soldiers.  The GP is cheap so it seems this will be given to new soldiers until they show they can make it through trg.  Combat boots will be issued on first posting to a unit.



McG it's the ONLY boot being issued to any soldiers now, not just new soldiers.


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> McG it's the ONLY boot being issued to any soldiers now, not just new soldiers.



Unless, of course, there is still some MKIIIs in your size on the shelf; we have to issue those out first ... until they're gone.  :-\

But, the MkIVs GPs were supposed to be an interim measure taken when the tool dies for making the MkIIIs broke down until new dies could be made. But, it seems that with the directives stating that the MkIIIs were to leave the shelves first, and when the particular size was depelted, then the MkIVs could be issued ... that they are not interim anymore.

Besides, the MkIVs have vibram soles ... that's what everybody wanted isn't it?? (Being sarcastic here ...)  ;D


----------



## medaid (21 Sep 2007)

I just want all my boots to fit properly... and none of them does!  . I went to ASU Chilliwack to get sized properly for WWB, that didn't work... still too big!  :rage:. The only boots that seem to fit me great straight off the shelf are Magnums and Danners... *sigh* this sucks.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> when the particular size was *depelted*, then the MkIVs could be issued



Do the boots have fur on them?  

Sorry, Vern, couldn't resist!! :


----------



## armyvern (21 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Do the boots have fur on them?
> 
> Sorry, Vern, couldn't resist!! :



We have to give them all a good wax job prior to wear ...     >


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> We have to give them all a good wax job prior to wear ...     >



And that's a whole other thread..... ;D


----------



## McG (22 Sep 2007)

HitorMiss said:
			
		

> McG it's the ONLY boot being issued to any soldiers now, not just new soldiers.


They are the only boots _now_ because the true next combat boot is not yet in the system.  The GPs are still interim but (sadly) there is still no end in sight to that interim period.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Sep 2007)

Like the "interim" 5/4 ton truck?  Or like the "interim"  ILTIS?   ;D


----------



## Yrys (22 Sep 2007)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> And that's a whole other thread..... ;D



yep, that one , that D2 resurrect yesterday with his own experience with a clipper  :

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/63218.0.html

I like to resurrect some worthy threads from time to time   .


----------



## Matt_Fisher (23 Sep 2007)

MCG said:
			
		

> Well, the GP boot is not the new combat boot.  It is an interim because we cannot get the old Mk III anymore (nobody makes the sole) and it will stay in the system as the first boot issued to new soldiers.  The GP is cheap so it seems this will be given to new soldiers until they show they can make it through trg.  Combat boots will be issued on first posting to a unit.
> 
> DLR knows the GP is not good for soldiers, but it is all that is in the system.



So are you saying that they'd issue Mk IIIs upon posting?  Seems kinda like one step forward and two steps backward.  Apart from the heel counter lining which seems to chew some people's ankles up, what are the other major shortcomings of the Boot, Combat, General Purpose/MK IV?  It seems that they've addressed the issue of cushioning with the Vibram/EVA midsole (newer production runs of the boot don't have Vibram outsoles, but still retain the EVA midsole which provides the cushioning factor), speed lacing system, and a last that seems built around the WWB style, which in turn was built around the popular Danner/Matterhorn type last.


----------



## McG (23 Sep 2007)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> So are you saying that they'd issue Mk IIIs upon posting?


No.  The next cbt boot does not yet exist.  Therefore, the GP is also the interim combat boot for everyone until the next generation is in the system.

A lot of people have referred to the GP as Mk IV Cbt Boot, but this is not quite the case.  The GP is a cheap first boot and (for now) an interim combat boot.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Sep 2007)

Official nomenclature for the 'MKIV' (the unofficial name) is Boot, Combat, General Purpose.  I don't know the NSN offhand though, but that's what the item was tendered on MERX as a few months ago.

If you're referring to the 'next' combat boot as the Cadpat boot, I don't know where that program is at in terms of development and procurement.


----------



## armyvern (24 Sep 2007)

Boot, Combat GP = Boot, Combat, General Purpose.

MkIV -- The MkIVs will be the next dedicated combat boot, _not _ a GP boot. They are still in development.

So, the GP cbt boot does not, is not = to the MkIV.

That's the point MCG is trying to make. They are two entirely different animals, people think they are the same thing and are using the terms interchangeably & incorrectly.


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Sep 2007)

What I don't understand is why a reg force infanteer is having trouble getting proper boots that suit his feet, when I see reservists (that work in offices nonetheless) wearing a wide array of boots that are far from standard issue...

BTW, thanks for clearing up the GP boot issue, most people are still referring to them as MkIV's...


----------



## armyvern (24 Sep 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> What I don't understand is why a reg force infanteer is having trouble getting proper boots that suit his feet, when I see reservists (that work in offices nonetheless) wearing a wide array of boots that are far from standard issue...



Search this forum using "boots" and you'll see the myriad of reasons for it. They all suck, each and every one of them. If the troops working in the offices are wearing civy footwear ... they've got a med chit that says they can; other than that, I can't explain it.

The wide aray of boots that you have mentioned above is another reason why the RegF bases try to stick to a single SOS; it cuts down on seeing hundreds of different pairs floating around.

That said ... we NEED an annual boot allowance. 



> BTW, thanks for clearing up the GP boot issue, most people are still referring to them as MkIV's...



Pas de problemo.


----------



## sigtech (25 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That said ... we NEED an annual boot allowance.



[Rant Begins]
I couldn't say it better my self Vern. Hell I would dish my own money out without a second thought for good boots. The yanks are aloud to do just that , as long as they are military in look they are aloud to wear what ever footwear they choose. I worked with a bunch of of them a few years ago and almost everone of them had a different set of boots on. 

We are all different thus certain items issued to the general soldier will not work for everone. I as a example have a high arch and a narrow foot, add in orthotics and man good luck getting a boot that works for me. I have found three Original Swat , Bates M-9 and Danner Acadia all not approved boots by the CF.

Like I said in a past post , I had around I think $2000 dollars in boots bought for me because no one would listen to me. I would tell them hey these boots work for my foot type, I was told those are not approved but have you tried the wet weather boot etc etc etc. I felt like slamming my head on the counter, but I guess the sup tech knew what was better for my feet.

Oh well have my boots now only took 3 years. I just hope the CF comes out with a good boot, I remember when the danners where going threw trials everyone loved them and we ended up with the wet weather boot that everyone hates. So I don't hold my breath when it comes to new GP boot just another quick fix that will end up messing up more feet......... 

[Rant Ends]


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

From 007:



> *Section G - Tailoring, measuring and fitting for footwear and clothing*
> 3-13G-001. Alterations and repairs
> 1.  Policy for repair of personal allotment clothing is as follows:
> 
> ...


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2007)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Thursday, when I get back to work Geo ... I'll send you the ref.
> 
> It states that once a member has been fitted with orthotics, from then on, the orthotic is to be considered as a permanent part of the members foot. The orthotic documentation shall be placed on the members clothing docs (forever!! - no more chit required -- just the orthotic -- to get boots), and all future sizings and fittings of footwear will be done with an orthotic being worn as that permanent part of the foot, and with caveat to accomodate it.
> 
> Something is _wrong_ at your location ...



Hey Vern,
My partner was just given some new boots.... and told to get her orthonics (after the fact).
Do you have that reference yet?


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Hey Vern,
> My partner was just given some new boots.... and told to get her orthonics (after the fact).
> Do you have that reference yet?



There is no "ref" such as the below from the books.

It was a letter/memo/msg/email down (it's been a year now ... I don't remember exactly how it came down ... it just did) the chain on the medical side of the house in Ottawa, that we recd at Clothing Stores in Gagetown. I've asked Gagetown to pull their copy and fax to me here ... I'll scan her in and upload.


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2007)

Thanks much
The way they did it is a$$ backwards - fitting an orthonics into a boot instead of developing an orthonics for the foot & then fitting a boot to the darned thing.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Thanks much
> The way they did it is a$$ backwards - fitting an orthonics into a boot instead of developing an orthonics for the foot & then fitting a boot to the darned thing.



Well, before that med one gets here that I'm waiting for, you will see that the below 007 "book" refs to members requiring special sized (ie purchased footwear) "to accomodate their orthotics." In order for Supply to ensure the boots/shoes "accomodate" their orthotics, the member should have them already?? No??


----------



## Munxcub (25 Sep 2007)

Isn't it sort of 6 of 1 half dozen of the other? Either way makes logical sense to me. You could make a whole boot to accommodate an insert, or adjust the insert to fit the boot while maintaining the right shape for the foot requirements...  Maybe I'm RTFO but shouldn't either way work? (keeping in mind that theres enough insert left after adjusting for the boot to be effective...)


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Well,

Look at that ...

I'll just scroll down the 007 a bit more and see this little tidbit:

Ref: ALM 007, vol 3, ch 13, sec G, para 15, subpara e.



> *3-13G-003. Measuring and fitting of footwear*
> 11.  This book details the responsibility of supply officers and the procedures to be followed at B/W/S to ensure that all personnel are issued with correctly measured and fitted footwear and clothing.
> 
> 12.  It is the responsibility of the B/W/S Sup O to ensure that the correct size footwear is issued to all personnel. Improperly fitted footwear affects the general well being of an individual, often to such an extent as to impair health, morale and efficiency. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that individuals wear footwear for which they have been measured and properly fitted.
> ...


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Munxcub said:
			
		

> Isn't it sort of 6 of 1 half dozen of the other? Either way makes logical sense to me. You could make a whole boot to accommodate an insert, or adjust the insert to fit the boot while maintaining the right shape for the foot requirements...  Maybe I'm RTFO but shouldn't either way work? (keeping in mind that theres enough insert left after adjusting for the boot to be effective...)



Because you'll get many different types of boots issued to you won't you?? Not just one type. Look at your own kit.

We get your footwear (or purchased if possible) made to accomodate your orthtic. You want to take 4 types of footweat to the field with you and the same number of sets of orthotics?? Or do you want to be able to switch your orthotics out from boot to boot, shoe to running shoe, to oxford etc as you require them?? Last time I checked people wore their orthtotics in most of their footwear. It'd be pretty silly to make them to fit into your combat boot when you also need to wear them in your oxford or parade boots no?


----------



## geo (25 Sep 2007)

Thanks for the Ref Vern


----------



## Munxcub (25 Sep 2007)

Ahh that makes sense. As for my own kit I currently only have 1 pair of too big for me boots so that's no help  I'll slink back into the shadows  now.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Munxcub said:
			
		

> Ahh that makes sense. As for my own kit I currently only have 1 pair of too big for me boots so that's no help  I'll slink back into the shadows  now.



Why only one pair?? And why too big?? And, where are you?? What was the story that you got??


----------



## Munxcub (25 Sep 2007)

Well I'm new and untrained so I only got 1 pair, and the size is being taken care of, got remeasured and should hopefully have boots that fit this week.  It's all good, I'm being well taken care of here in Kelowna.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

Munxcub said:
			
		

> Well I'm new and untrained so I only got 1 pair, and the size is being taken care of, got remeasured and should hopefully have boots that fit this week.  It's all good, I'm being well taken care of here in Kelowna.



Good to hear ... I was just checking ...


----------



## blacktriangle (25 Sep 2007)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Like I said in a past post , I had around I think $2000 dollars in boots bought for me because no one would listen to me. I would tell them hey these boots work for my foot type, I was told those are not approved but have you tried the wet weather boot etc etc etc. I felt like slamming my head on the counter, but I guess the sup tech knew what was better for my feet.



I know how you feel, my orthotics dont work in any boot size I've tried, and its getting stupid. I've tried a few other types of boots on, and they work better, but I have been told they are not allowed for wear. I think a boot allowance makes more sense then wasting money on countless different pairs of non-starters... until then i leave my orthotics at home when I train.


----------



## armyvern (25 Sep 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I know how you feel, my orthotics dont work in any boot size I've tried, and its getting stupid. I've tried a few other types of boots on, and they work better, but I have been told they are not allowed for wear. I think a boot allowance makes more sense then wasting money on countless different pairs of non-starters... until then i leave my orthotics at home when I train.



Then I suggest that you suggest to them that it's high time they molded your feet and got you custom made footwear ...

until (if ever) we get that freking boot allowance.


----------



## sigtech (26 Sep 2007)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> I know how you feel, my orthotics dont work in any boot size I've tried, and its getting stupid. I've tried a few other types of boots on, and they work better, but I have been told they are not allowed for wear. I think a boot allowance makes more sense then wasting money on countless different pairs of non-starters... until then i leave my orthotics at home when I train.


As vern suggested tell them to get you custom boots, but also get a quote or two for boots that work and show said quote to them. If the custom boots don't work go back to them with those quotes again and say look these only cost this and those boots cost this and they don't work so can we now just get me the boots that work. Sup Techs understand cost.......
Or if you have a chit stating boots that fix orthotics and your feet are taken a beating buy you own not the best but if your feet and or knees are paying the price I say be comfortable. It is easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.


----------



## armyvern (26 Sep 2007)

sigtech said:
			
		

> Or if you have a chit stating boots that fix orthotics and your feet are taken a beating buy you own not the best but if your feet and or knees are paying the price I say be comfortable. It is easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.



If the boots he gets purchased/made are NOT working ... then it's quite simple: tell them "these boots are not working." Ask for the supervisor if there's a problem. If you get no satisfaction from that:

Quote them this ref below, and then proceed to your supervisor (note the names of those you politely told at Clothing that the boots were NOT working):  

From the Supply Bible: (it's good for bumping back a little "common sense" into the system in times that there doesn't seem to be any being utilized ...  )

ALM007, Vol 3, ch 13, sec G, paras 11-12.



> 3-13G-003. Measuring and fitting of footwear
> 11.  This book details *the responsibility of supply officers* and the procedures to be followed at B/W/S *to ensure that all personnel are issued with correctly measured and fitted footwear* and clothing.
> 
> *12.  It is the responsibility of the B/W/S Sup O to ensure that the correct size footwear is issued to all personnel.** Improperly fitted footwear affects the general well being of an individual, often to such an extent as to impair health, morale and efficiency.* It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that individuals wear footwear for which they have been measured and properly fitted.


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2008)

- How 'interim' is the GP Boot? 

- I just traded in a pair of my beloved Mk IIIs (my heel wore a hole in the back of the boot) and I find the GP boots do not come in a 7 1/2 - 8C (264/96), but do come in a 265-100.  Oddly enough, the US made insole has a sticker on it listing the three sizes it fits: 265-104, 265-100 and 265-96.

- I find the boots, when flexed, to be tight across the small toes, possibly due to the forward-laced design.  Any other user comments?


----------



## joonrooj (3 Mar 2008)

To be clear, this is the boot that looks exactly like the CWWB?


----------



## TCBF (3 Mar 2008)

Almost, yup.


----------



## Dirty Patricia (3 Mar 2008)

I didn't realize they were an "interim" boot.  Is the way ahead still a CadPat boot, as trialled by 1VP?  I hope not.  The trend in the US now is a suede boot even in temperate climates.  The US Army and USMC have had tan for a few years with the introduction of their digital camouflage and the USAF has just gone to a green suede boot with their new uniforms.


----------



## joonrooj (3 Mar 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> I didn't realize they were an "interim" boot.  Is the way ahead still a CadPat boot, as trialled by 1VP?  I hope not.  The trend in the US now is a suede boot even in temperate climates.  The US Army and USMC have had tan for a few years with the introduction of their digital camouflage and the USAF has just gone to a green suede boot with their new uniforms.


I hope this is the way for us. I got to try out the USarmy's suede tan boot, (I'm not too sure if it was a desert boot, or just the regular tan boot, or even if there is a difference. The owner of the boots had just gotten back from Iraq a few months prior, they came down for Bison Warrior, or Buffalo soldier or Charging Bison Super Soldier) and after that amazingly long parentheses sentence beast, those boots are waaaay more comfortable than our CWWBs, Mk3s, and from what I've heard, these CWWB look-alike boots.


----------



## blacktriangle (3 Mar 2008)

I haven't heard any rave reviews about the new GP boots, but at least the standard sole looks to be more comfortable and functional. I'm still thankful I bought my own- the day they force me to wear POS issued boots will be the day I release.


----------



## medaid (3 Mar 2008)

Dirty Patricia said:
			
		

> USAF has just gone to a green suede boot with their new uniforms.



Those aqua marine coloured boots are HIDEOUS and hated by most if not all hands that have to wear them *shudder* 

I haven't seen the GP Boot yet... but so far I haven't heard many good reviews about them... weird eh?


----------



## Haggis (3 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - How 'interim' is the GP Boot?
> 
> - I just traded in a pair of my beloved Mk IIIs (my heel wore a hole in the back of the boot) and I find the GP boots do not come in a 7 1/2 - 8C (264/96), but do come in a 265-100.  Oddly enough, the US made insole has a sticker on it listing the three sizes it fits: 265-104, 265-100 and 265-96.
> 
> - I find the boots, when flexed, to be tight across the small toes, possibly due to the forward-laced design.  Any other user comments?



During a visit to NDMC Physio last month I was told that, since I am prescribed Vibram soles on my Mk IIIs, I would be issued the the GP boot when my current Mk IIIs wear out.

I think the GP boots may have been "interim" at one time but.... Hey VERN!?!?!


----------



## McG (3 Mar 2008)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I think the GP boots may have been "interim" at one time but....


They are still not the Combat Boot replacement.


----------



## Infanteer (3 Mar 2008)

So far, I don't mind them.  The sole is a bit harder than that of my MkIII with Vibrams, but I find they slip on and off alot easier.  They are fairly comfy.


----------



## BDTyre (4 Mar 2008)

We have yet to see them out west...one individual on course in WATC received a pair due to fit issues with the MkIIIs.  Said individual AND the staff referred to the GP boots as MkIVs...to me, that means they aren't interim but a true replacment.  I have heard others -including those who work in the supply system- refer to them as MkIVs and even go so far as to say they are filtering in as replacements for the MkIIIs (i.e. if you need new boots and the MkIIIs are unavailable in your size, but the GP is you get the GP).  Can't say how much of that is true though.


----------



## hammond (4 Mar 2008)

I've got a pair as Supply up here doesn't have any of the MkIII in my size. From the little I have used them so far, they are fair, appear to give good support. The soles are much like the CWWB in that they freeze fast and you start walking on pucks on ice. I haven't had the opportunity to really put them to the test yet but will in a week or so. Until then I will as you gentlemen state "stay in my lane".


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Mar 2008)

Petawawa has been issuing them for close to six months. They have been great for daily wear but not so wonderful (a little stiff with a harder toe cap) on the BFT-type marches, ergo I would keep a previous version for those marches. The sizing system makes for a better fit and the insoles are an improvement.


----------



## McG (4 Mar 2008)

CanadianTire said:
			
		

> Said individual AND the staff referred to the GP boots as MkIVs...to me, that means they aren't interim but a true replacment.


They are not Mk IV and they are not the next Combat Boot.  We've been over this before:


			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Well, the GP boot is not the new combat boot.  It is an interim because we cannot get the old Mk III anymore (nobody makes the sole) and it will stay in the system as the first boot issued to new soldiers.  The GP is cheap so it seems this will be given to new soldiers until they show they can make it through trg.  Combat boots will be issued on first posting to a unit.





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Matt_Fisher said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BDTyre (4 Mar 2008)

Seen.  Like I said, this is what the staff were referring to the boot as.  Isn't it possible simply to keep the MkIII but switch to a different type of sole?  Or is that too much paperwork/cost?


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2008)

I certainly hope they are better than the Mk IIIs. I can't wear MK III's anymore because my back will hurt within 30 minutes. I love my Original Swat black boots.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Mar 2008)

I managed to get a pair of these from supply before I left for Kandahar, and loved em for the garrison. Haven't had a chance to wander around in a training area for 2 weeks with them yet, but normally when I finish a day of work I need to lie down and let the pain subside from my feet for an hour. These boots didn't cause me any pain at all, and were very comfortable. Only thing is that they're as heavy (weight-wise) as the CWWB, but the upper part of the boot is quite thin for air circulation.


----------



## Gunner98 (4 Mar 2008)

There are desert and black 'Boulet' boots in the supply system - same sizing system.


----------



## GAP (4 Mar 2008)

Just to add some flavor to the thread....this just out on Defense News....

New British Boots Are Made for Walking
Article Link

The dreaded Ankle-height ammunition (“ammo”) boots with nailed soles were worn by generations of British Army soldiers, and as recently as the 1982 Falklands War, British soldiers were still using puttees – strips of cloth wound round the leg above low boots. The BCH (Boot Combat High) became standard issue a few years after the Falklands war, bringing the UK into line with other NATO forces. Now the bar has been raised again to keep up with developments in other militaries and civilian industry – and lessen the shock of putting on those “hard leather squarebashers,” as Britain’s Ministry of Defence calls them. Colonel Silas Suchanek, leader of the Defence Clothing project team, said:

“We were looking for boots that would minimise the impact of working in temperatures that can go as high as 50 [degrees] centigrade, that would provide support to the foot when carrying heavy loads, and that could withstand the rigours of operating in conditions ranging from sandy desert to very abrasive stony ground.”

Fllowing trials in Autumn 2007 that tested 22 different brands, Britain will offer 4 new kinds of boot: For winter yomping, the Prabos cold wet weather boot has a stiffer sole and is the one generally used for operations. While the Iturri cold wet weather boot has a softer sole and will be more widely used for recruit training. In warmer climes, the Meindl and Lowa heavy-duty desert boots are designed to cope with the desert heat, provide more support, and offer easier “break in” than traditional hard leather footwear. The Lowa boot also has a womens’ model, which avoids the unisex problem of being too wide at the heel. The Meindl combat boot is already being issued to all troops who require it, and the Lowa boots will be available to all combat troops. The UK MOD hasn’t yet built up the same stocks, however, so priority will go to those in the dismounted combat role
More on link


----------



## medaid (4 Mar 2008)

Okay thats it... were officially behind the curve ball now. If the Brit's who've for the most part pretty trashy uniform bobs and bits have got common sense to go OTS and we haven't? There's something terribly terribly wrong there.  :-\


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Mar 2008)

Little do you know that we are not allowed to Buy Off the Shelf. :rage:
As I've been told (correct me someone if I'm wrong) we have to buy "Canadian" therefore Original Swat, Danner etc are not even considered.
Am I correct?


----------



## Panzer Grenadier (6 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Little do you know that we are not allowed to Buy Off the Shelf. :rage:
> As I've been told (correct me someone if I'm wrong) we have to buy "Canadian" therefore Original Swat, Danner etc are not even considered.



Even with a Medical Chit?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (6 Mar 2008)

AFAIK, the medical personnel can only give you a chit saying "special footwear" or words to that effect, but not specifically "Danners" or what-have-you.  The procurement of special footwear is left to the people in the know of LPO procedures/regulations, namely Sup Techs...but I could be mistaken.


----------



## armyvern (6 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Little do you know that we are not allowed to Buy Off the Shelf. :rage:
> As I've been told (correct me someone if I'm wrong) we have to buy "Canadian" therefore Original Swat, Danner etc are not even considered.
> Am I correct?



They bring in their medical chit "member requires non-issued footwear due to medical reasons" ... and we go downtown and purchase. It may be Danners, it may be Swats -- it all depends on what footwear the local supplier carries, and it is all dependant upon what is available locally for purchase.

Contracting for the actual CF issued footwear is a whole other matter however, and federal contracting policies apply IAW Treasury Board and PWGSC regulations.


----------



## Redeye (6 Mar 2008)

So, are these boots "interim" in the sense that income tax is an "interim" measure to fund the Great War?  Or are they going to be around for a while?  I wouldn't mind getting my hands on a pair to try out to see if they're better than my warehouse full of Gucci boots that being Class A I only can seem to get "temporary" chits that let me get away with wearing Danners for a while.  If the system is supplying boots I can wear with my orthotics and be comfortable, I'd love it...


----------



## danchapps (6 Mar 2008)

Here in Borden if you have a chit that states you require "soft soled" boots, or "footwear to accommodate orthotics" we issue the GP in place of the MkIII. Or, if we are out of your size (currently anything between say 7 1/2 - 9 1/2) then you get the GP as well. The GP is more accommodating to the orthotics as they have a more flexible sizing system. The down side is you would now have to buy a different boot paste as you shouldn't use the Kiwi polish on them (this causes problems with the leather).


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Mar 2008)

Chapeski says,  "The down side is you would now have to buy a different boot paste as you shouldn't use the Kiwi polish on them (this causes problems with the leather)."

Elf's experience: Six months with same old Kiwi - no issues to-date. In fact they shine quite nicely with Kiwi.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 Mar 2008)

And, if you are not to use Kiwi polish, why don't they issue paste like they do with the CWWB?
I, for one, would love to try the GP boot, only because of the lacing (almost) down to the toes.  I have to unlace my combat boot past the ankle just to get it on or off.


----------



## big_castor (7 Mar 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> The down side is you would now have to buy a different boot paste as you shouldn't use the Kiwi polish on them (this causes problems with the leather).



I've been issued a pair of GP boots and I was wondering if there was a commercially available paste / care product that I could use on them ?


----------



## Gunner98 (7 Mar 2008)

Some folks prefer Dubbin to wax polish.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

DeweyDecimalSystem said:
			
		

> I've been issued a pair of GP boots and I was wondering if there was a commercially available paste / care product that I could use on them ?



Why don't you use the stuff that's made for them -- that you can pick up for free from your Clothing Stores or your QM?


----------



## big_castor (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Why don't you use the stuff that's made for them -- that you can pick up for free from your Clothing Stores or your QM?



I haven't received it.  I asked about it but was told I was to receive only the items on my kit list and nothing else.  So, no boot stuff...


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

DeweyDecimalSystem said:
			
		

> I haven't received it.  I asked about it but was told I was to receive only the items on my kit list and nothing else.  So, no boot stuff...



Go to your QM or to clothing and ask for the boot paste ...


----------



## big_castor (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Go to your QM or to clothing and ask for the boot paste ...



I guess I will have to do that now


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Go to your QM or to clothing and ask for the boot paste ...



EMU Boot Paste, Low Gloss, Black, NSN 7930-21-920-9465


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> EMU Boot Paste, Low Gloss, Black, NSN 7930-21-920-9465





Well, I kind of thought just asking for the boot paste would have done the trick for him; it's only people like me who ask for stock numbers from my troops so I get the order right and we don't end up with cases of cans of liquid "Repellant, silicone, black" on the darn shelves.


----------



## medaid (7 Mar 2008)

I really liked the prospector stuff  for the WWB... no seriously!

Are they still available? or is it just a generic boot paste now for both?


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, I kind of thought just asking for the boot paste would have done the trick for him; it's only people like me who ask for stock numbers from my troops so I get the order right and we don't end up with cases of cans of liquid "Repellant, silicone, black" on the darn shelves.



- You would not believe the stuff I put on a 2227.



- So, why no C width (96) for the GP Boot?  I've walked about 15 km in the D width (100), and I really miss the C wides.  The D wides are going to be 'hamburger helpers' on long ruck marches, by the feel of them.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - You would not believe the stuff I put on a 2227.
> ...



 >

You see, I have a great bunch of troops who fill in those 2227s ... and then just bring 'em in for my signature. Too simple (back in the day though -- I could cram an awful lot of UFI onto a 2302).  ;D

As for the boots and their available widths -- I can't answer your question -- I am a mere Supply Tech (besides I'm sticking with my MkIIIs ... which I love dearly and have never had a problem with, so I'm sticking with what works for _me_).


----------



## Boxkicker (7 Mar 2008)

I am wearing a pair this very moment. I have now worn the most of the winter in Edmonton and have had no major issues with them so far in the cold, they are much better than the CWWB's in that regard. After wearing them a grand total of 4 time I went on BFT, I did have a couple of hot spots though probably due to being poster to an airforce base previously. I did wear them for part of our winter EX and had only one issue and that was I could feel moisture starting to penetrate, it was very warm and slushy for us. I switch to CWWB, and was skating with them. We will have our spring EX coming up in may I will have them and my deserts. So we will see how they hold up then and I will report back.


----------



## 1feral1 (7 Mar 2008)

Anyone got a pic of these with the grips??


----------



## TCBF (7 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... I'm sticking with my MkIIIs ... which I love dearly and have never had a problem with, ...



- Well, my bony heels have worn away the insides of my Mk III's, so I had to try at least ONE pr of the Boots GP.  I like the speed lacing. I like the icy road performance. But would appreciate boots in my size.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

I managed to get myself some MkIIIs before they went (exchanged my old ones in), but I dread the day I wear those puppies out and have to "upgrade" to the GPs. It's a day I'm not looking forward to at all.


----------



## danchapps (7 Mar 2008)

Vern, feel free to correct me if I stray the wrong way, you are much more wise than I, as I am simply doing OJT at the moment. The width of the boot varies depending on the length. Hmm, a more clear way for me to put it (I'm about to confuse myself here). Depending on how long your boot is will determine the minimum width. For example (and I'm just making numbers up here, so please don't run in and quote them educational purposes only please) if you have a size tiny, 235 length then chances are you can get a really narrow boot, like maybe an 80 or so. However, the longer the foot, the wider the minimum becomes, so if you were blessed with a set of skis at birth in place of feet, and need a 300 or something like that, chances are the minimum will be wider, more like 100 or 102. So, depending on the length, you may not be able to get a more narrow boot. Also, the system gets weird for sizing too, My boots are 260/100, however if I wanted to go one size shorter, but the width was ok, then I'd have to decide if I want a 255/98 or a 255/102, because for some reason the width isn't standardized. Anyway, I hope this helps. Your friendly neighborhood Supply Tech should be able to hook you up with a pair that fit like a glove (If you are entitled or have a chit), they will however stretch as with any leather product.

Now, onto the boot paste.... Yes, most clothing stores carry the boot paste, unless they run out. If they don't give you a can right away, then they are just being mean. (We actually ran out for about a week, but had our own personal cans to show the customers what to buy.) Now, for those that are using Kiwi, this is why I stated you shouldn't. The leather used on the GP boot is the same as the CWWB, therefore, you are highly encouraged  to use the EMU paste, or prospector, it's the same thing, the green tin. It is available at the CANEX, and is the same cost as the Kiwi polish. The reason for using this is that the leather needs to breath, yes, these boots allow your feet to breath to an extent. Kiwi polish prevents this, and in the long run will damage the boot. Also, for the sake of your parade boots, keep the EMU stuff as far away from them as you can. use a different applicator, boot brush, cloth, the whole 9 yards, because all of the hard work you put into the parade boots will be for not if the EMU paste gets on them.


So Vern, for a newbie doing OJT waiting for my 3's, how'd I do?


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

Well, here's my take:

Situation: Some feet are long and narrow ... and some are short and fat (wide ... eh??).

The question is: why don't the damn boots come like that?? Short AND fat ... or long AND narrow.

They seem to have missed a width or two with the current generation of footwear ... and it's not like short & fat feet (or even long skinny ones) were just invented yesterday. I think that's the question here ... not whether or not feet actually do come short & fat etc, but why the boots do not.

Edited to add: Hope that you guys didn't run out due to stocking up on your personal supplies that you later showed the customer so that they'd know what to buy.


----------



## combatbuddha (7 Mar 2008)

I have been wearing the GP combat boot for about 4 months now and find that they are great. For me, they fit exactly like my WW boots and are just as comfortable. The soles are great and retain a respectable amount of trackion on the ice. Being in Shilo, we've seen our fair share of winter. They are not waterresistant and I don't believe that was the intent and no special care instructions are icluded in the box, or at least in the ones I got.
 The prospector paste works good with the WWs, but those are made by.......you guessed it, Prospector. Kiwi is working well and keeping the BSM off my back.
I had to try Danners in the summer and after wearing them for a week grew a profound hate for them. Went back to my WWs, ut up with the heat and was no longer in pain. No knee, hip, ankle or back pain while wearing the GPs.
IMHO these should be brought in as a 100% replacement for the Mk IIIs. If they has long ago, maybe we wouldn't have as many crippled up troops marchng around.


----------



## armyvern (7 Mar 2008)

combatbuddha said:
			
		

> IMHO these should be brought in as a 100% replacement for the Mk IIIs. If they has long ago, maybe we wouldn't have as many crippled up troops marchng around.



There's already plenty of posts here by members who have used the GP boots whom would "strenuously object" to your recommendation for 100% replacement of the MkIII with the GP boot (me being one).

What works for you, doesn't work for others; and, what works for me (the MkIII) obviously doesn't work for you.

One more time: Footwear is a critical item of individual kit and all feet are different ... the ONLY way to ensure 100% satisfaction and the only way to ensure each member gets footwear that suit their individual needs ... is by implementing a footwear allowance whereby each member receives an annual allowance that they then use to purchase footwear which is comfortable for them, works for them, and is suitable to performing their individual tasks and duties.

As long as we insist on a common "collective" pattern and make being used to clothe the millions of differences in INDIVIDUAL feet (critical to a soldier!!) ... we WILL continue to experience a myriad of medical problems associated with forcing someone's "non-standard" foot into a "collective and standard pattern" of footwear. 

We work with the almighty "80% satisfaction rate" for standard kit being the prerequisite ... but last time I checked, the CF could not afford to have 20% of their members outfitted in ill-fitting and/or crap boots that simply do NOT work for them.


----------



## danchapps (7 Mar 2008)

Actually Vern, I have only received 2 complimentary tins of paste. I received 1 when I got the boots, and grabbed another when I was on my way out of St-Jean. I have also purchased at least 2 tins myself. You can never have too much polish, or in this case paste, on hand. I keep one at the stores, one in the shacks, and I usually have the 3rd with me. (Note, use of paste should be sparingly so as not to clog the "pores" of the leather).

I agree with Vern as to the boot allowance as well, I'd love to be able to have a set of GP, CWWB, and a set of SWATs as well. I would use the total allowance and pay the rest out of pocket just to be able to have flexibility in my boot choice. I would probably only wear the SWATs in the warehouse due to my ankles, but I'd love the comfort. Anyway, I'm blabbering now, I'll shut up.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> One more time: Footwear is a critical item of individual kit and all feet are different ... the ONLY way to ensure 100% satisfaction and the only way to ensure each member gets footwear that suit their individual needs ... is by implementing a footwear allowance whereby each member receives an annual allowance that they then use to purchase footwear which is comfortable for them, works for them, and is suitable to performing their individual tasks and duties.



Not to mention that women could actually get boots that are more narrow towards the heel as men's boots are not.


----------



## TCBF (8 Mar 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Not to mention that women could actually get boots that are more narrow towards the heel as men's boots are not.



- Well, I need a narrow boot at he heel and I am NOT a girl.  The 7 1/2 - 8C Mk III by Sunbeam (the Greb's were too tight across the top) suited me just fine.  I put lots of miles on them.  I cannot properly assess the worth of the GP Boot unless I get the right size.


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Well, I need a narrow boot at he heel and I am NOT a girl.  The 7 1/2 - 8C Mk III by Sunbeam (the Greb's were too tight across the top) suited me just fine.  I put lots of miles on them.  I cannot properly assess the worth of the GP Boot unless I get the right size.



Oh,

I may have found the perfect pair for myself, yourself and Moe ...

(I already own these ones ... I could spend an "allowance" on some other type of uniform accessory!!)


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Mar 2008)

Geez, Vern, I'm already having enough problems with my feet!!


----------



## Yrys (9 Mar 2008)

At least those are wearable i.e. you can walk with them.

You should see the ones she post a pic of last year   !


----------



## rambo123 (9 Mar 2008)

I find there is no diffrence in appearance between the Intern replacement boots and the wet weather boots the both have the same sole and they are just as slippery as the wet weather boot, and what is it I hear with the introduction of the boot combat general purpose that any one who has foot problems are now not allowed to get a medical chit to purchase any other type of boot, and I find the new combat boot are very warm


----------



## combatbuddha (9 Mar 2008)

rambo123 said:
			
		

> I find there is no diffrence in appearance between the Intern replacement boots and the wet weather boots the both have the same sole and they are just as slippery as the wet weather boot, and what is it I hear with the introduction of the boot combat general purpose that any one who has foot problems are now not allowed to get a medical chit to purchase any other type of boot, and I find the new combat boot are very warm



I do not find them slippery at all, and I walk around CFB Shilo on days when it is -30 and below. The WW boots used to put me on my butt darned near every time I stepped outside. I was not in country for when the troops turned in their WW boots to be resoled.
What I've experienced here is that if you need a boot different from Mk IIIs, you initially get issued the CGCB. If those don't work out, it has to go higher.


----------



## combatbuddha (9 Mar 2008)

Again, IMHO and after 18 years, 3 operational deployments (two of them Roto 0s where we had next to nothing by means of support) countless exercises and job experience with all three services, 2 armoured regiments, 2 infantry battalions, six reserve units as direct reg force support, 1 Arty Regiment and a Svc Bn I think I have earned the right to that opinion.
Here goes.
Why do we have issued kit at all then? I'll tell ya why.
 There has to be one generic type of footwear for the combat functions of the army. If you are halfway around the world, the turn around time for a piece of kit like that, for replacement, can be up lengthy, depending on operational tempo and availability of transport. Easier for a Q to stock some various sizes of standard equipment. Anyone with a smeck of common sense can see that. Being a maintenance guy and part of various MRT crews both armoured and "soft skinned" I have cut, ripped, POL soaked, burned, and essentially ruined more pairs of boots while doing my job than I care to admit. Thank goodness that on exercises or deployments, no matter at what base, area or continent I have been able to get IMMEDIATE replacement of my essential kit so that I can do my job and help keep the troops at the pointy end doing theirs. Of all the boots i have been issued, including Danners, Mk IIIs, Kodiaks and the GPCB, I have found the GPCB to fit the best, easiest to maintain, best traction in the cold and provide the best support both in arch and ankle.
A boot allowance for those who would require it may be the way to go, but troops should be sized, and those sizes recorded on their docs, so that they could be issued the general standard if need be.
Some will agree, some will disagree. To me it doesn't matter
I've seen more guys twist their ankles in the field wearing the "gucci" stuff then while wearing any other kind.
Here's some food for thought......
How about a running shoe allowance as well, so that Pvt Bloggins with 3 kids will be able to purchase new runners every year, to replace worn out ones?
The Kms we put on running far outnumber the kms we put on marching. Maybe this is where the money should be spent.
I think this would


----------



## armyvern (9 Mar 2008)

combatbuddha said:
			
		

> Again, IMHO and after 18 years, 3 operational deployments (two of them Roto 0s where we had next to nothing by means of support) countless exercises and job experience with all three services, 2 armoured regiments, 2 infantry battalions, six reserve units as direct reg force support, 1 Arty Regiment and a Svc Bn I think I have earned the right to that opinion.
> Here goes.
> Why do we have issued kit at all then? I'll tell ya why.
> There has to be one generic type of footwear for the combat functions of the army. If you are halfway around the world, the turn around time for a piece of kit like that, for replacement, can be up lengthy, depending on operational tempo and availability of transport. Easier for a Q to stock some various sizes of standard equipment. Anyone with a smeck of common sense can see that. Being a maintenance guy and part of various MRT crews both armoured and "soft skinned" I have cut, ripped, POL soaked, burned, and essentially ruined more pairs of boots while doing my job than I care to admit. Thank goodness that on exercises or deployments, no matter at what base, area or continent I have been able to get IMMEDIATE replacement of my essential kit so that I can do my job and help keep the troops at the pointy end doing theirs. Of all the boots i have been issued, including Danners, Mk IIIs, Kodiaks and the GPCB, I have found the GPCB to fit the best, easiest to maintain, best traction in the cold and provide the best support both in arch and ankle.
> ...



Yep, and I'm entitled to mine after years of wear, many deployments etc etc.

And, as a caveat, I've got tonnes of experience working Clothing Stores (years actually) where all the complaints come in about the kit and the problems get heard -- especially the footwear ... and I will 150% tell you that an issued standard pattern of footwear (as per your recommendation for 100% issue replacement of GP Boot) will NOT work. 100% categoricly will NOT work. No ifs, no ands, no butts ... standard issued & standard patterned footwear is NOT good for those critical little soldiers' tools (ie the feet).

I can also tell you categoricly that footwear purchased via LPO for members CAN indeed be replaced in-theatre within one week, it is a simple matter of processing the LPO through the Canadian supplier via 3 CSG or support base and having shipped into theatre. It is LPOd for members -- the replacement is covered as well (that doesn't change simply because it's an LPOd item vice a "stocked" item). I've done it over there. Shit, I sent huge volumes of purchased footwear into Haiti for The 2RCR gents. This is not an issue --- getting the allowance & entitlement IS the issue. Once that's fixed -- there simply isn't an issue.

I've been advocating an annual footwear allowance for individuals for years now ... and I don't see me stopping until the troops can get what/when/pattern/make that works FOR them.


----------



## danchapps (9 Mar 2008)

Because we are stubborn.


----------



## medaid (9 Mar 2008)

Because it's the Garrison Army mentality...

It's slowly changing... but too slowly sometimes.

It's not all just the CF though, the politicians and the people of Canada has to accept the fact that we're a fighting military, rather then a peace keeping force. We are at war, all 3 services, not just the Army.

Once the politicians and the Canadian people accept that fact, then we can push forward and become better off.


----------



## McG (10 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I've been advocating an annual footwear allowance for individuals for years now ... and I don't see me stopping until the troops can get what/when/pattern/make that works FOR them.





			
				Piper said:
			
		

> ... why can't we manage with that kind of system, as per ArmyVern's suggestion.


Because PWGSC & TB also get a say in how we procure things, and they are worried about things like ensuring the government's money goes into Canadian industry (or at least as much as possible).


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Mar 2008)

And therein lies the problem with giving the troops a boot allowance. The troops will buy what works for them even if its American, Brit or Martian manufacture. This will surely upset politicians and big shoe makers.
There has to be fundamental attitude shift on the part of some of our maunufacturers and politicians when it comes to defence contracts. Defence contracts (government contracts) are not meant to reward friends or ensure a Canadian company stays afloat.

A runner allowance for all members is a great idea!!


----------



## TCBF (10 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> ... Defence contracts (government contracts) are not meant to reward friends or ensure a Canadian company stays afloat....



- Of course they are, just like any other guvmint contract.

- Solution:  Stock "Alternate Standard" runners and Cbt Boots through the Logistek DEU points system. Release extra points to all pers for the runners, and only those pers medically chitted for commercial combat boot replacement.  Do NOT provide it as an option to all, otherwise some units will enforce standardization of non-standard footwear on their soldiers.


----------



## armyvern (10 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> Because PWGSC & TB also get a say in how we procure things, and they are worried about things like ensuring the government's money goes into Canadian industry (or at least as much as possible).



You are preaching to the choir -- I know how it works.

But, the fact of the matter is that even though some of the footwear we do purchase is "made in the USA" ... we are buying it from Canadian Suppliers and they certainly aren't selling it at a zero profit margin; not if they want to stay in business. Business ... hmmm there's a fine word (compete or get out of business).

Canadian companies complain when the feds go "outside", but the fact is we only go "outside" when we can not get an appropriate and suitable item which is manufacturered here in good old Canada.

This reasoning as it relates to a "footwear allowance" is flawed, in that Canadian companies selling American manufactured items would STILL get our business if that happens to be the boot that works best for "that" particular soldier. 

There is absolutely zero difference between this "footwear allowance" proposal and that "annual BTU allowance" that female members already currently receive which goes towards purchasing bras at your friendly neighbourhood WalMart, Fredericks, Victoria's Secret Store ... bras that are, most often, manufactured outside of this nation, but sold in Canadian Stores and purchased by us women in those Canadian Stores. It may not be made here, but Canadian suppliers are still raking in the bucks.

Just like every set of boobs is different -- so is every set of feet. We need to get over this (set of) hump(s) already.


----------



## armyvern (11 Mar 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Of course they are, just like any other guvmint contract.
> 
> - Solution:  Stock "Alternate Standard" runners and Cbt Boots through the Logistek DEU points system. Release extra points to all pers for the runners, and only those pers medically chitted for commercial combat boot replacement.  Do NOT provide it as an option to all, otherwise some units will enforce standardization of non-standard footwear on their soldiers.



This won't fly. Logistik-Unicorp IS a civilian company which just happens to be the current contractor to supply DEU.

No civilian company that I know wants to stock their shelves (and thus incur overhead costs) for some other companies materials -- that's just bad business (and why would we pay them extra to do this ... when stores that make/sell footwear that works are already doing so at NO cost to the CF until we actually purchase for someone who needs the boots from them??) That's exactly the reason that Logistik doesn't do buttons, badges, collar dogs etc and why you still get those items from Clothing Stores. They simply are not the contractor who manufacturer's those items, thus they don't stock or carry them. And, the CF is one of Logistiks smallest customers ... a mere drop in their bucket.


----------



## Yrys (11 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> "annual BTU allowance"



I have to ask (it's not in the military database). What does BTU stand for ?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (11 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> I have to ask (it's not in the military database). What does BTU stand for ?



Brassiere Temperate Underwear, only reason I know what it is, is  that I have to inform the female members of my section about it.


----------



## Yrys (11 Mar 2008)

Thanks



			
				NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Brassiere Temperate Underwear, only reason I know what it is, is  that I have to inform the female members of my section about it.



If you say so  .


----------



## armyvern (11 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Thanks
> 
> If you say so  .



He's right. Here I thought my references to "bras & boobs" would make it obvious!!  ;D

CTS BTU webpage


----------



## Yrys (11 Mar 2008)

Well, I guessed that "B" was breasts related but TU was a mystery to me... So that "next-to-skin garment" is
a sport bra.


----------



## armyvern (11 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> Well, I guessed that "B" was breasts related but TU was a mystery to me... So that "next-to-skin garment" is
> a sport bra.



That about sums it up, yes. And, someone has now added "BTU" to the acronyms listing.


----------



## Yrys (11 Mar 2008)

:king:

Add : Oups, it's not a "+1" post but almost...

I add acronyms in the database when I don't get it, it's not there and someone explain a TLA...


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Mar 2008)

Back to the boots.....someone said each pair of feet are different. What will work for me will not necessarily work for one of my soldiers. I prefer Original Swat, while many prefer the Mark IIIs. I think that as long as the boot is black and combat style, and that they work, use em!


----------



## Gunner98 (11 Mar 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> :king:
> I add acronyms in the database when I don't get it, it's not there and someone explain a TLA...



TLA as in Three-Letter Acronym - examples CIA, FBI, CBC, RAF?


----------



## BinRat55 (12 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Back to the boots.....someone said each pair of feet are different. What will work for me will not necessarily work for one of my soldiers. I prefer Original Swat, while many prefer the Mark IIIs. I think that as long as the boot is black and combat style, and that they work, use em!



I have been wearing Magnum II's for the past 4 years.  Best boots i've ever worn for MY feet - blisters are a thing of the past (may have something to do with the socks too...) and MAN are they light!!  My sneakers are heavier - and they are a composite toe (CSA approved).  But the only problem with the "As long as..." theory, there still has to be some measure of conformity as well as value.  For example, OS - your Swat's are a little shorter than my Magnums, but your Swats will last a helluva lot longer than my Magnums.  If the CF decided to allow the purchase of boots at will, controls have to be put in place to ensure i'm not going through a pair of boots every 6 months.  I really believe this CAN be done if it were seriously addressed (lots of red tape there...) I was on the special orders desk in Clothing Stores in Gag'town and I had to ensure the nurses and dental assistants were getting the "proper" sneaker, not to mention I actually had to "inspect" an extremely questionable BTU claim...


----------



## Yrys (12 Mar 2008)

Frostnipped Elf said:
			
		

> TLA as in Three-Letter Acronym



Yes. I like the TLA for TLA   ...


----------



## Ecco (12 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But, the fact of the matter is that even though some of the footwear we do purchase is "made in the USA" ... we are buying it from Canadian Suppliers and they certainly aren't selling it at a zero profit margin; not if they want to stay in business. Business ... hmmm there's a fine word (compete or get out of business).
> 
> Canadian companies complain when the feds go "outside", but the fact is we only go "outside" when we can not get an appropriate and suitable item which is manufacturered here in good old Canada.



Can you name an example of a "nationally procured" land forces footwear that is not manufactured in Canada?  As far as I know, there is none.  The closest was the Altama-designed Desert Combat Boot, which we stopped procuring pre-2004 because of that specific reason.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There is absolutely zero difference between this "footwear allowance" proposal and that "annual BTU allowance" that female members already currently receive which goes towards purchasing bras at your friendly neighbourhood WalMart, Fredericks, Victoria's Secret Store ... bras that are, most often, manufactured outside of this nation, but sold in Canadian Stores and purchased by us women in those Canadian Stores. It may not be made here, but Canadian suppliers are still raking in the bucks.
> 
> Just like every set of boobs is different -- so is every set of feet. We need to get over this (set of) hump(s) already.



There is one difference:
Can you name a Canadian manufacturer of female undergarments?  As far as I know, there are none, which is the reason why allowance is allowed by PWGSC for the BTU.


----------



## armyvern (12 Mar 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> Can you name an example of a "nationally procured" land forces footwear that is not manufactured in Canada?  As far as I know, there is none.  The closest was the Altama-designed Desert Combat Boot, which we stopped procuring pre-2004 because of that specific reason.
> 
> There is one difference:
> Can you name a Canadian manufacturer of female undergarments?  As far as I know, there are none, which is the reason why allowance is allowed by PWGSC for the BTU.



Mother of Gawd ...

Para 1: I wasn't talking about contracted boots --- I was talking about LPOd boots. WE Sup Techs purchase footwear for personnel who are so-entitled by reason of valid medical chit each and every day that, quite often, is footwear that is manufactured in the USA. No where in my post did I refer to issued and stocked footwear as being the "purchased footwear" that I was talking about -- rather issues & stocked footwear is "contracted footwear", NOT purchased (LPOd - if that makes it easier for you to understand) footwear.

The concern is that if we go from a "contracted" (ie stocked & issued footwear) to a footwear allowance which allows pers to purchase their own footwear -- that pers will NOT buy Canadian. That is bogus ... and that is the point of my post below.

Para two: 
Phantom Industries
Snob Club
Cindy Ann Creations
Coquette International
Lieasured Lingerie Inc
Sherling
Third Floor Design
Coconut Grove
Christine Designs Ltd
Cozumel Fashion Inc
Montelle Intimates Inc
Creations Robo Inc
Donna Fashions Manufacturing
Elegant Brassiere Inc

Just to name a few --

oh and, of course, let us not forget this one ...

Canadelle Inc -- makers of Wonderbra

And your statement regarding why there is a BTU allowance is total fallacy. A lack of Canadian Manufacturer's has SFA to do with why we have the BTU. The BTU came into force exactly because NO standard pattern/design/make of bra could be found or was identified during the BTU Trials (of which I was a part) that could satisfy the needs/requirements or different anatomical features of boobs. Period. Each set is different and NO standard pattern or type would suffice. Now, what's the difference with feet!!?? They are the most important tool that an infanteer has to look after, closely followed by the shit he needs to carry using those well-looked after feet. There is NO difference between my differing needs from another female's needs with our bras ... or soldiers differing needs with their boots. None whatsoever.

Hmmm ... sounds just like feet -- and is exactly what I said in the other post.


----------



## danchapps (12 Mar 2008)

Vern why do people doubt you? I just don't understand this. Sigh.


----------



## Ecco (12 Mar 2008)

Local purchases are not "national procurement".  My point exactly.  Local purchases use retailers.  National Procurement works somewhat differently.  Sup techs can buy at retailers because they do small, specialized buys for specific purposes (med chits).  PWGSC will never allow you to buy 3 millions dollars worth of US made boots at a retailer.

Para 2:  The point is that no Canadian manufacturer could do the BTU in such a way that made sense.  CTS tried, but no Canadian manufacturer of female undergarments could or was interested in manufacturing the BTU.  It made no business sense.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Mar 2008)

Trying to educate Vern there? 

I think she would know how the supply system works, she our SME for that.

With 2 posts me thinks you are on the radar, tread carefully.


----------



## armyvern (12 Mar 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> Local purchases are not "national procurement".  My point exactly.  Local purchases use retailers.  National Procurement works somewhat differently.  Sup techs can buy at retailers because they do small, specialized buys for specific purposes (med chits).  PWGSC will never allow you to buy 3 millions dollars worth of US made boots at a retailer.
> 
> Para 2:  The point is that no Canadian manufacturer could do the BTU in such a way that made sense.  CTS tried, but no Canadian manufacturer of female undergarments could or was interested in manufacturing the BTU.  It made no business sense.



Understand this (I can't believe that they pay me at work for this!!)

We pay an allowance that covers bras for females at that rate each and every year ... and those bras are for the most part NOT made in Canada, but ARE purchased in Canadian stores and thus DO support the Canadian economy. 

WHY can't this be done for boots an even more CRITICAL and ESSENTIAL tool for soldiers?? It is ALREADY done (and ALLOWED/APPROVED by TB & PWGSC) for bras ... why not boots??

And, NEWSFLASH for you (you obviously haven't noticed) that so far ... NO ONE Canadian Manufacturer can come up with a boot either!! 

There is NO difference. None. Zilch. Zero. Nada. Nein.


----------



## armyvern (12 Mar 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> PWGSC will never allow you to buy 3 millions dollars worth of US made boots at a retailer.



Really?? I guess you've never heard of Belleville Boot Company?? I've shopped there while deployed and some of the folks on this forum benefitted by that particular mass buy. I could even post pics for you of the huge shipment coming in and being issued out to the Apollo II/Athena TAT/Athena Zero pers in the midst of our no so BAT.


----------



## Ecco (12 Mar 2008)

I am not trying to educate Vern on the supply system, but on the procurement process, something I am closely familiar with.  
I have to disagree on the comparison between BTU and GPB.

The difference is one of scale.  Local purchases (medical shits, mission-specific items, etc...) are small numbers (in terms of number of pairs of boots and in terms of money).  Those can be done a variety of ways, using local retailers (LPO by local Sup Tech, or in theater).  The intent is to deliver something small, specific and quickly.  The CF uses this process for some theater-specific requirements, like the Belleville-acquisition that you are referring to.  Typically, LPO are not life-cycle supported.  They will disappear from inventory when we stop to buy them.

On the contrary, national procurement buys fleet of boots, for example, about 200 000 pairs of Wet Weather Boots.  This cannot be done quickly, because it is a significant contract with a lot of money involved.  The government expects regional benefits from national procurement.  It's the law.  It's enforced on the CF by Industry Canada, by PWGSC, by the members of Parliement.  National procurement items are life-cycle supported.  The CF will build an inventory and try to prevent shortages (with limited success I must admit).

In your example, the BTU is a small scale procurement.  The numbers of BTU and their value is small.  It would not make sense to buy them in bulk.  It would not make sense to keep inventory of bras in local supply stores.  For example, there would be only a couple hundreds of a specific size of bra at the national level.  Although it is done at the national level, the regional benefits would be almost nil.  

The United States Army can offer different choices, but all of their footwear allowed in PX are form US manufacturers.  Last time I checked, in Bliss, there was some Danners, some Altamas, Converse etc...  all US companies.  

Don't get me wrong, I also believe that having a choice of footwear would be the best solution.  Footwear is of the utmost importance and there is a lot of personal preferences involved, because we have different feet.  I just know from experience that the BTU procurement cannot be compared to footwear procurement.


----------



## BinRat55 (13 Mar 2008)

Vern - let me try...

With close to 15,000 females (all of which are entitled to the BTU) the cost per year would be $2.5M - that's per year and assuming NO ONE's entitlement doubled because of deployment. That's all LPO.  As Vern stated, the ACTUAL reason for the BTU is not so different from why one would go out and find a pair of boots that worked with whatever foot complication they have - as long as the checks and balances were in place - criteria as it were. 

The way you're comparing the BTU to Vern's crusade is no wonder there is no comparison - you are LITERALLY comparing LPO to NMSO / RMSO.  Apples compared to apples leave you with - you guessed it - BTU CAN be the same as boots!!!

Did I pass Vern??


----------



## TCBF (13 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> .. that so far ... NO ONE Canadian Manufacturer can come up with a boot either!!



- The Mk IIs that I was issued in the early 70s were about the most comfortable boots I was ever issued.  They seemed to break in immediately, used the old standard sizing system (none of the Mondo-Point B.S) and I heard very few complaints about them, when we complained about everything else (except our weapons).  

- They were made by Greb, and we thought them to be a 'militarized' Greb Kodiak (minus the insulation).  Well, our boot companies could do a good job back then.  Have all of their experts died or retired?


----------



## Loachman (13 Mar 2008)

The soles kept falling off of the early ones, though. I took a brand new pair on a weekend Militia ex, and the heel was starting to peel off by the end of the Friday night. Throughout a series of section attacks on Saturday, the peeling continued towards the toe. By the end of the last attack, I was down to about two inches still attached with a spare lace wrapped around the instep to hold it on. I had several other pairs over time exhibit lesser levels of boot-sole separation, as did others.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2008)

Weren't those also the ones with the speed lace system that didn't work and kept tearing out of the holes?


----------



## Loachman (13 Mar 2008)

Yup. That too. I still carry a severe distrust of speedlacing today - mentally scarred for life by my Mk IIs during my formative years.


----------



## TCBF (14 Mar 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Yup. That too. I still carry a severe distrust of speedlacing today - mentally scarred for life by my Mk IIs during my formative years.



- The fit was superb (for me!).  The speed lacing ringlet system was fragile.  The metal loops holding the ringlets in reacted poorly to field conditions and opened up - releasing the ringlets.  "For want of a nail the shoe was lost", etc.


----------



## McG (15 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Vern - let me try...
> 
> With close to 15,000 females (all of which are entitled to the BTU) the cost per year would be $2.5M - that's per year ...


So, I suppose you can tell us the annual cost of boots as well and I suppose you know how the numbers as a percentage of each manufacturing industry's annual market?


----------



## BinRat55 (15 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, I suppose you can tell us the annual cost of boots as well and I suppose you know how the numbers as a percentage of each manufacturing industry's annual market?



Now you're just being a smart ass. But, if you wanna go there, the first question should be fairly easy - proceed to the PWGSC site and look up the National Master Standing Offer and check the value of it.  I don't have access to this info at home, so if you'd be so kind as to wait for Monday, i'll get you an exact figure.  As for the annual marketing percentage, do you mean within DND or their percentage regarding each other?  The latter would be quite difficult as there is only one winner to NMSO's...

I wasn't being pompous there, really - I just Googled the lady count in the CF, came up with 15000 and multiplied that number by their entitlement - If you happen to be a member of the fairer sex, you are entitled to $160.00 before tax or 4 brassieres, whichever comes first.  This entitlement is annual (every 12 months - not once in Feb and again in Apr) and the entitlement doubles once you are nominated in MITE for a deployment.  Easy math - even for a supply tech.


----------



## armyvern (15 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> So, I suppose you can tell us the annual cost of boots as well and I suppose you know how the numbers as a percentage of each manufacturing industry's annual market?



I think that the point is that the circumstances are the same. The reasonings for the BTU being instituted are really no different than the problems being experienced for footwear. (Regardless, I know of one girl who gets re-imbursed well over the 160.00 dollar limit because she requires custom made bras --- well over).

The difference in dollar values is the only difference.

We already are aware that the CF attempted to have a footwear allowance brought in, but that this was rejected by PWGSC et al due to the impact upon the "Big 4" (<--- that would be the Big 4 Canadian footwear manufacturers ... who complained loudly when the attempt was made because federal contracts make up a huge part of their business [I'd complain too were I those companies when my livelihood is threatened]).

I will re-iterate once again: I HAVE NEVER COMPARED the BTU allowance to the NATIONAL CONTRACTING of footwear. I have stated that the BTU should be used as a presedence FOR PWGSC/GOVERNMENT approval of a footwear allowance because ... exactly like boobs --- each set of feet is also different.

No one Canadian manufacturer could supply different styles/types/spec of bra that was suitable for wear by all females serving in the CF ergo we got the BTU. YES --- I realize the "scale" of economy is different, yet that does not change the fact that it is because no one style could be found suitable to all and that differing chest sizes/types resulted in an annual allowance.

Fact: No one Canadian Boot manufacturer has been able to do this either for footwear.

Fact: CF females now buy their bras downtown with that allowance. Some buy Canadian made bras and others do not. Regardless of where that bra was made though, serving CF females are purchasing those bras in Canadian retail outlets and are therefore STILL SUPPORTING the Canadian economy. 

Fact: Were a boot allowance actually approved, serving CF members would be buying those boots themselves too. Some would be "made in Canada" and some would not be, exactly as with the bras. Regardless of what boot was purchased though, serving CF members would be, for the vast majority of the part [just like the bras] purchasing those boots in Canadian retail outlets and would therefore be STILL SUPPORTING the Canadian economy. <--- Caveat: I DO realize that this would not necessarily be from the very vocal "Big 4" and thus their concern that those guaranteed shareholder profits based on government contracts that they currently enjoy would be in jeopardy (simply put, it sure does NOT make business sense at all for those "Big 4" NOT to complain when talk is heard of CF footwear allowances but that doesn't change the opinion that the footwear allowance is one of the best options out there which would enable our troops to have the type/style/best boot for THEIR foot such as we women currently enjoy with our boobs. And, I'd argue, that our feet are a critical soldiering tool which are much more important to look after properly than our boobs).

It's economy of scale --- and it is ALL POLITICS.

So, do we institute a system by which the soldier has a "choice" of stocked/contracted boots from a couple of the "Big 4"? But, won't doing that piss off the others of the "Big 4" who are left out?? Or do PWGSC et al continue to cater to keeping business' in business by giving Canadian soldiers a "choice" of contracted/stocked footwear from ANY of the "Big 4" just to keep them all happy? If we are going to do this ... then why not save ourselves a fortune on stocking/contracting fees by asking that PWGSC approve a "footwear allowance whereby members purchase the boots of their choosing from any of the "Big 4" Canadian manufacturer's. Troops then bring in their receipts to clothing stores who will stamp and initiate the claim for re-imbursement of the costs to the member --- provided that the purchase is made from one of the "approved" "Big 4" suppliers (this can also be done for bras by the way, no difference there. But, we haven't which tells me a lot about big business' protection by federal purchasing regulations which doesn't extend to small Canadian business). <--- note also that the insitution of something along these lines might actually serve as an impetus for those Canadian Boot manufactuers to design footwear that IS compatible with our troops' feet and getting the job done and therefore will be purchased, perhaps even sought out (!!) by our troops and those from other nations. Other non-Canadian footwear manufactuers certainly seem capable of doing so. Perhaps it is exactly the fact, that under the current guidelines and federal requirements for purchasing, that those footwear manufactuers do not need to expend shareholder monies in any great amount to come up with suitable and acceptable products which meet the needs of soldiers because their business is currently "guaranteed for them" under current rules. It would just make bad business sense once again ... and they are all about business. And, they would see some of their business heading off to Mark's Workwearhouse instead etc ... (but heck, I'm pretty sure it's Canadians working and benfitting from troops buying boots in that little store too and I really don't see the validity in the arguement that allowing troops to do this will "negatively impact" the Canadian economy --- rather it would negatively impact the Big 4 and their "guaranteed" sales).

What about all the mom & pop Canadian boot makers (many of whom DO make boots which some of our soldiers find to be acceptable tools) who are overlooked in the above scenario? Do they not have just as much right to survive (and have their business "protected" by federal contracting guidelines) or is that "guaranteed Canadian suppliers" only applicable to big and vocal companies? I already listed a whole bunch of some mom & pop Canadian bra manufactuer's that this rule was NOT applied for. Again, it's a matter of scale. 

In short, I agree 110% agree with Ecco that the costs for BTU are not comparable to boots, but I have never tried to compare the costs. Again, that doesn't change the fact that the only difference in the situations is SCALE of economy and that the need exists. I have tried to compare the "critical needs based requirement for non-standard pattern for boots/bras [it IS the same]". We need a footwear allowance for the exact same "standard pattern/make manufacturer does not work for body parts which differ so vastly" reasons that a BTU allowance was approved by PWGSC and therfore instituted by the CF; and, scale of economy does not make that disappear or become invalid.

It just makes it a tougher fight and a much more political hot-potato ... and a purely political issue.

I'm not going to sit here and be told that "I am misleading" or that I am being "dishonest". I have NEVER said that LPO was the same as contracting -- quite the opposite actually. I have NEVER said that contracting boots was the same as buying bras. I NEVER brought up cost ... until someone ELSE brought up costs whereby I pointed out that I was not comparing contracting/LPOing, but was comparing PHYSICAL factors for the requirement FOR a Boot Allowance. I have said that the physical reasons/requirements that a boot allowance was required matched those of bras. That is still the case, despite protestations otherwise. And the only difference is scale. My boots could be worth a million bucks a pair and my bra a mere one doller -- it does NOT change the fact that feet differ from everyone else's and that I need boots that work FOR me just like I need a bra that works FOR me, not a bra or a boot that I am forced into which does NOT work for me, or is NOT suitable to the task, and in fact is hurting some soldiers and rendering them incapable of performing their primary SOLDIERING duties (there's enough threads from those people here already).

What's good and best for my boobs --- is still what's good and best for my feet. And the only reason we have one allowance and not the other is "politcial and economical scale". Sometimes, political/economical & business protection is NOT in the best interest of the troops.


----------



## McG (15 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Now you're just being a smart ass.


No I'm not, because cost & size of market are exactly what make these issues different at the level of TB, PWGSC and in the eyes of the Canadian manufactures.  Should one industry see the military market as so small that it is not worth the effort while another industry sees the military market as essential to its survival, then government will impose very different constraints on how the military is allowed to approach each industry.

Vern is right.  At the level of the end user these two issues are exactly the same: getting an item of clothing that meets individual needs.  At the political level, they are polar opposites.   So, unless you, BinRat55, want to answer my previous question then your analysis, of absolute dollars toward BTU in a vacuum (ie: no comparison to the non-military market), does not add value toward understanding the issue.

If you want a boot allowance, then you must cause a fundamental change in mindset at PWGSC or TB (which likely nobody in uniform can). So, how does one do that?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (15 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> If you want a boot allowance, then you must cause a fundamental change in mindset at PWGSC or TB (which likely nobody in uniform can). So, how does one do that?



If DND doesn't have the power or desire to lobby for this, then it's ultimately up to the individual members of the CF who would like to institute such a program to contact their respective MP, address their concern about how a system of 1 type of boot doesn't work for their comfort and operational effectiveness, and how they'd like a boot allowance setup, similar to the BTU allowance, so that they can find the boot which works best for them.

You can find your MP here:  http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC


----------



## BinRat55 (15 Mar 2008)

> No I'm not



Fair enough - but I do believe you misunderstood the intention of that statement (the 2.5M BTU post).  Ecco had stated earlier that PWGSC would never allow millions of dollars to be purchased LPO - which is exactly what is being done with the BTU - to the tune of about 2.5 Mil.  That was it - no other reason.  I am not, and absolutely cannot justify contractual obligations regarding the "political agendas" of DND.  These are boots.  While I very much agree that the _cost _ does not compare to the BTU project, the _principal _ of what Vern is suggestion is identical.  The size of the market, industrial forsight, manufacturing concerns and tie-ups are all matters of contractual supply, not scales of issue.  PWGSC would not factor in and you would think that TB would be ecstatic that there is one less headache on their horizons.  As far as the manufacturers are concerned, they will always operate under the laws of supply and demand, and I don't think that the convergence of 40,000 CF pers descending upon them will create a huge boot deficit in Canada. 



> Vern is right.


  

She usually is.  If more people actually read what she wrote, there would be less arguing in here. 



> If you want a boot allowance, then you must cause a fundamental change in mindset at PWGSC or TB (which likely nobody in uniform can). So, how does one do that?



Now this one I am completely unsure about.  Vern, can you explain this one to me?  What would PWGSC have to do with a boot allowance?


----------



## armyvern (15 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> Now this one I am completely unsure about.  Vern, can you explain this one to me?  What would PWGSC have to do with a boot allowance?



One: I am *NO* God and have actually been known to be wrong frequently.

CF kit is purchased via National Contract through PWGSC in accordance with Federal Law. If the CF wants to implement a boot allowance (thus circumventing federal contracting policy), then PWGSC is going to have to be involved in that process --- but even at that, the involvement goes much deeper ... Federal Policy will be affected and that requires action & blessing by the Government. 

As Matt pointed out, it is not a simple matter of DND, the CF or even PWGSC "changing" things -- it will require official political consent. Ergo his recomendation to speak with local MPs.


----------



## McG (17 Mar 2008)

BinRat55 said:
			
		

> As far as the manufacturers are concerned, they will always operate under the laws of supply and demand, and I don't think that the convergence of 40,000 CF pers descending upon them will create a huge boot deficit in Canada.


This has nothing to do with a supply stock out at retailers & everything to do with Canadian manufactures loosing the income (no more DND contracts) and the impact on jobs & local economies. TB ecstatics?  No.  They will be worried about regional industrial benefits and the fallout described.  TB & MPs will be more sympathetic toward calls to protect an industry, jobs & local economies than they will be sympathetic toward soldiers' requests to be given the money to buy their own boots (regardless of reason).

I'm not saying it's impossible, but I think it is unlikely.  It is also most certainly outside the scope of the Army to achieve, and so I would personally want the Army to be putting its effort into achieving the best alternative to a boot allowance (although, I'd be open to suggestions as to what this might be).

Vern,
I know you're a fan of the UCR.  When soldiers come in to the custom orders desk because the issue boots just will not work for them, do they fill out a UCR?  Narrative something to the effect of "Issue boot X does not work for me because _some kind of problem_.  This illustrates that no one boot will meet the need of all soldiers and more selection/choice is required.  This greater variety of footwear options could be provided by a boot allowance or by providing more combat boot styles within the supply system."


----------



## Gunner98 (17 Mar 2008)

Or we could just go to the 'Glass Slipper' approach at the Recruiting Centres in the near future.


----------



## a78jumper (17 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> One: I am *NO* God and have actually been known to be wrong frequently.
> 
> CF kit is purchased via National Contract through PWGSC in accordance with Federal Law. If the CF wants to implement a boot allowance (thus circumventing federal contracting policy), then PWGSC is going to have to be involved in that process --- but even at that, the involvement goes much deeper ... Federal Policy will be affected and that requires action & blessing by the Government.
> 
> As Matt pointed out, it is not a simple matter of DND, the CF or even PWGSC "changing" things -- it will require official political consent. Ergo his recomendation to speak with local MPs.



Vern, not to piss on your parade, but was or is there not a civilian clothing allowance for CF members who are required to wear civies in the course of their duties? Why could this not be extended to boots? There was a clothing allowance in 1988 for sure, as I put in for it given my civy boss at NDHQ was insisting I wear civies(in those days business attire was a jacket and tie at a min) to Initial Provisioning Conferences at contractor sites after the first day. The answer was no, so I ignored the direction and used my old but little used CF's instead as I also had a closet of new DEU's. It was sort of beyond me why I would wear civies as I was a Logistics Officer, and why wear out my good suits in lieu of the clothing that was provided for me to wear. I did not last long there.........

With the company I work for at present, simple matter, you present yourself with a signed form at Work Authority, choose the boot you want, pay the difference if it is more than the $180 allowed. We have the equivalent of a standing offer with this company. We had something similar with Marks in the mid 90s when I was MCO in Gagetown and the system ran out of combat boots when everyone started to wear combats instead of Garrison Dress. Most people we just bought black safety boots for.


----------



## armyvern (17 Mar 2008)

a78jumper said:
			
		

> Vern, not to piss on your parade, but was or is there not a civilian clothing allowance for CF members who are required to wear civies in the course of their duties? Why could this not be extended to boots? There was a clothing allowance in 1988 for sure, as I put in for it given my civy boss at NDHQ was insisting I wear civies(in those days business attire was a jacket and tie at a min) to Initial Provisioning Conferences at contractor sites after the first day. The answer was no, so I ignored the direction and used my old but little used CF's instead as I also had a closet of new DEU's. It was sort of beyond me why I would wear civies as I was a Logistics Officer, and why wear out my good suits in lieu of the clothing that was provided for me to wear. I did not last long there.........
> 
> With the company I work for at present, simple matter, you present yourself with a signed form at Work Authority, choose the boot you want, pay the difference if it is more than the $180 allowed. We have the equivalent of a standing offer with this company. We had something similar with Marks in the mid 90s when I was MCO in Gagetown and the system ran out of combat boots when everyone started to wear combats instead of Garrison Dress. Most people we just bought black safety boots for.



There is such thing as a civilian clothing allowance for members who are required to wear civilian clothing in the daily performance of their duties. It is applicable only to a very select few positions (some of which are deployed posns).

That allowance is not applicable to purchase of a civilian pattern footwear ... that is a national stocked item and therefore is not required to be purchased downtown. Unlike business suits etc. Apples/oranges. For those who do need footwear purchased downtown, the system does pay for a bonified medical requirement. WANTING to buy boots downtown is quite different from "requiring" to buy boots downtown.

Business suits etc are not CF national stock items and therefore those select few who must wear them --- receive an allowance to do so. That allowance was approved by TB/PWGSC and so it stands.

Again, if you want to move boots to the allowance -- then the scenario already laid out becomes applicable. It is a politcal/economical and SCALE (cost factor) issue ... quite simply put ... the select few posns (such as Sup LPO clerk and EME LPO clerk at CM who must wear civilian clothing when out purchasing off the local economy) receiving that bonified allowance for "civilian clothing" would be a mere drop in the bucket of what it would cost to implement this for footwear. Scale.

Gagetown still has a SO with Marks for footwear --- but that is only applicable to those medical or special sized requirements as per regulations (and if you were the MCO there in the mid-90s --- I think you gave me some extras when I worked in 7C1  > !!)


----------



## a78jumper (19 Mar 2008)

Believe we have met, but I handed out no extras!

This whole boot issue would go away if someone at a suitable level would recognize not everyone wants to wear the generic boot for whatever reason. Add some weany people from Ottawa in DG Buttons and Bows or whatever they call it today and you have a real mess. I had my fill dealing with those people trying to get the CF Safety boots for my instructors on the floor in Edmonton. (Some twit suggested the ankle boot would do just fine-our DOD was combats and para smock in those days)I realize that a "uniform" is precisely that, but to most a black high top boot is a black high top boot, however this drives some luddite RSMs nuts I am sure.

BTW we have the exact same problem where I work in the Oil Sands (still kicking boxes). We have a standing offer with Work Authority to provide a $180 pair of summer summer boots and a winter pair as well, a choice of dozens of types, soles, colours, features etc and people are still not happy because the model they really want is at Marks or where ever. And yes clothing is still one of our biggest hassles as we provide it all for workers in the plant and mine, and pay to have it washed as well.


----------



## armyvern (19 Mar 2008)

a78jumper said:
			
		

> Believe we have met, but I handed out no extras!
> 
> This whole boot issue would go away if someone at a suitable level would recognize not everyone wants to wear the generic boot for whatever reason. Add some weany people from Ottawa in DG Buttons and Bows or whatever they call it today and you have a real mess. I had my fill dealing with those people trying to get the CF Safety boots for my instructors on the floor in Edmonton. (Some twit suggested the ankle boot would do just fine-our DOD was combats and para smock in those days)I realize that a "uniform" is precisely that, but to most a black high top boot is a black high top boot, however this drives some luddite RSMs nuts I am sure.
> 
> BTW we have the exact same problem where I work in the Oil Sands (still kicking boxes). We have a standing offer with Work Authority to provide a $180 pair of summer summer boots and a winter pair as well, a choice of dozens of types, soles, colours, features etc and people are still not happy because the model they really want is at Marks or where ever. And yes clothing is still one of our biggest hassles as we provide it all for workers in the plant and mine, and pay to have it washed as well.



No, after I posted yesterday I realized that it was M.W. who gave me the extras -- he was the MCS not the MCO.

DND/CF _*has*_ tried to bring in a boot allowance, but it was rejected at the higher level outside of our department due to the reasons already noted previously by some posters involved. I can't say it enough, *this is a political/regualtory issue * and the changes need to be made at that level, not ours -- the CF has tried and was rebuffed, so let's put the blame for the problem squarely where it lies ---


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Mar 2008)

I have a question for the Supply techs - When are they going to be general issue? If this question has been answered please steer me in the right directions!! 
Merci Beaucoup!!


----------



## McG (19 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> When are they going to be general issue?


Which boot do you refer to by "they."


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Mar 2008)

The interim MkIII replacement......sorry for not clarifying


----------



## Nfld Sapper (19 Mar 2008)

AFAIK they are currently being issued when certain sizes of Mk III are no longer avail.


----------



## NL_engineer (19 Mar 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> AFAIK they are currently being issued when certain sizes of Mk III are no longer avail.



or by request, or maybe I got lucky in Sept when I exchanged one set of my MKIII's  ;D


----------



## McG (19 Mar 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> The interim MkIII replacement......sorry for not clarifying


Okay.  I think a clarification of sorts is required.  It is a little miss leading to refer to the GP as the "interim Mk III replacement" because the GP exists in the system to fill a purpose of its own.  However, there is a vacuum as the Mk III is no longer produced & the Mk IV (if it will be called that) does not yet exist.  The GP is backfilling this vacuum where new boots are required to be issued.  All this to say, if you have Mk III boots you should expect to wear them as long as they are 'meeting the needs' of your feet & until such time as the actual replacement boot makes its way into the system.


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Mar 2008)

Vern,

I saw a memo posted in my local ASU clothing stores stating that with the introduction of these new GP boots, they will not be doing the whole LPO deal for people who need alternative footwear related to orthotics. The reason cited was that the GP boots come in a larger array of sizes, so there should be no fitting problems. 

My question is...does this mean if they can physically jam our insoles into these new boots that we will be forced to wear them? I have a medical chit right now, and as a reservist, I simply pay out of pocket for boots that suit me. 

I bring this up also because people in my unit are starting to get jacked for having non mark III/GP's and some higher ups dont seem to really care about medical chits. I've tried to exchange my Mk III's for GP's and can't because they aren't worn out, and well, I don't ever wear them so why would they be.  ???
Sorry it's long winded


----------



## armyvern (20 Mar 2008)

popnfresh said:
			
		

> Vern,
> 
> I saw a memo posted in my local ASU clothing stores stating that with the introduction of these new GP boots, they will not be doing the whole LPO deal for people who need alternative footwear related to orthotics. The reason cited was that the GP boots come in a larger array of sizes, so there should be no fitting problems.
> 
> ...



OK,

If the stocked boots (ie the WWB and the GP Boots) accommodate your insoles/orthotics along with your foot --- you WILL be issued them and no boots will be purchased for you downtown. Why should they be?

If the stocked boots (WWB & Boot, GP) do NOT accommodate your orthotic and foot ... boots WILL (still!!) be LPOd for you downtown. <--- You DO still need boots to wear and the CF MUST still provide them to accommodate your foot & orthotic.

Those rules have not changed; that's always been the rule. Pers with orthotics must be fitted with stocked footwear, if stocked footwear can NOT accommodate orthotic with foot, then boots were LPOd for member that could accommodate.

The WW Boots and the GP Boots come in a very large variety of widths and are much deeper than previously stocked footwear. These new boots DO accommodate the vast majority of orthotics with no problem (along with the members foot).

Essentially, because MKIIIs could not accommodate your orthotics ... next time you need to exchange boots ... you will be expected to size into the new boots which are more than capable of accommodating those orthotics (well into the 90% range). There have been an extremely few instances where the new boots could not accommodate and LPO had to be made.

Re the members in your Unit ... if those were the boots they were issued by clothing stores then they most certainly ARE entitled to wear them, and they should have a copy of their chit on both themselves AND their clothing docs. As you have also stated ... clothing stores will NOT exchange those System LPOd boots (or other issued footwear) for them if those LPOd (or other issued) boots are NOT 50% worn, ergo member is NOT entitled to have them exchanged. Member will be switched to Boots GP when his current footwear is worn out and requires exchange.

If your CoC is continuing to give pers grief over this, then the member can always go to clothing stores and have them issue him a "Not Issued Chit" (attached copy below as a sample); that way your CoC can address it's rants about "different footwear and members not in GP Boots" to the appropriate person <--- the Clothing Stores Supervisor, vice the member who is doing absolutely NOTHING wrong. We have chits here that we keep for when troops come in to get something that they require that we will fill out when we can not give them the item (this really helps for kit inspections when supply didn't have an item you were entitled to --- saves on the extras). Perhaps members of your unit will benefit by a trip to clothing to have one done up for them ... (Some supervisors do forget that other rules are at play when it comes to kit which still need to be adhered to, therefore everyone will not magically switch to GPs overnight --- despite their best wishes for them to). There are also cases where members who wear orthotics also wear the MKIII sizes which are still within the system, yet those MKIIIs will not accomodate the orthotics ... and the Boots GP for those sizes will not be sent to clothing for stock until after all the MkIIIs in that size have been depleted. What the hell does your CoC expect a member in this situation to do?? Sometimes --- some people amaze me when they do not consider ALL the circumstances and regulations at play.

As for your CoC not giving two-shits about medical chits -- I can only suggest that the members in question advise the BSurg of that little tidbit to see what he/she thinks about it ... and has to say about it to the CoC.

I've attached a sample chit like the one we hand out here below ...


----------



## McG (22 Mar 2008)

... & when these custom orders are done, is there a matching UCR on the in-stock boot type?  In order to push the message: "This illustrates that no one boot will meet the need of all soldiers and more selection/choice is required.  This greater variety of footwear options could be provided by a boot allowance or by providing more combat boot styles within the supply system."


----------



## geo (23 Mar 2008)

... boots should be part of the Logistik supply & distribution system.  Give the soldier a bunch of points with which to dress himself and let him make an informed decision from the equipment available.

Would save lots of headaches IMHO


----------



## Gunner98 (23 Mar 2008)

I recently purchased one pair each of black SWAT and tan SWATs while on TD in the states, price per pair was $69.99 (vice $100+ in Canada), a small price for comfort and relief.


----------



## McG (23 Mar 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> Give the soldier a bunch of points with which to dress himself and let him make an informed decision from the equipment available.


But, have you ever sent in a UCR saying that the boot problem requires a selection of boots against which a soldier could make a decision?


----------



## blacktriangle (24 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> OK,
> 
> If the stocked boots (ie the WWB and the GP Boots) accommodate your insoles/orthotics along with your foot --- you WILL be issued them and no boots will be purchased for you downtown. Why should they be?
> 
> ...



Thanks Vern, it is appreciated.


----------



## geo (25 Mar 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> But, have you ever sent in a UCR saying that the boot problem requires a selection of boots against which a soldier could make a decision?


Me, WRT the MkIIIs ... nope! Then again, I never had a problem with the MkIIIs.
Me WRT the WWB­.... You Betcha!  I also have a nice 8 inch scar on my right knee to show for it.

Different feet, different arches, different everything should signify that any one product won't work for everyone... 

While still in the units, I had many a sapper who had problems with the issued footwear.  We tried to work with the system inasmuch as the system could work.....


----------



## AirCanuck (28 Mar 2008)

> Make sure that you have someone reputable and experienced perform the modification (or hell, at least make them guarantee that if they ruin 'em ... THEY'LL replace them). There's an awesome Mat Tech here in Gagetown Clothing who could do this in a heartbeat, but of course he's here & you're there!!  Tongue



That's a great point.

On a (slightly) related note, what do you guys think of the new combat boots?  I just switched in my MarkIIIs for em (I hope I'm not frigging up the names of these things, I always forget) and they are comfortable as hell but I just think they look so damned Mickey Mouse.  I got em because I had knee trouble and they come with the vibram soles standard, but I find myself wishing I had kept my trusty old ones and gotten the soles put on.

I know, I know, boots aren't fashion, it's function that matters, but still.

Point is, opinions on the new ones?


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> That's a great point.
> 
> On a (slightly) related note, what do you guys think of the new combat boots?  I just switched in my MarkIIIs for em (I hope I'm not frigging up the names of these things, I always forget) and they are comfortable as hell but I just think they look so damned Mickey Mouse.  I got em because I had knee trouble and they come with the vibram soles standard, but I find myself wishing I had kept my trusty old ones and gotten the soles put on.
> 
> ...



Yeah, you got the names f'd up.

Everyone is calling them the "new combat boot", but that's a wee bit off.

These boots (Boots, General Purpose [Boots, GP]) are currently being issued as an interim (temporary) replacement for combat boots.

The Boot, Cbt MkIII is eventually being replaced by a Boot, Cbt MkIV --- thus the boots GP are better/usually referred to (in Sup circles) as the "interim combat boot". They are a temp replacement for the Cbt Boot, not the permanent replacement. Hope that makes sense.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yeah, you got the names f'd up.
> 
> Everyone is calling them the "new combat boot", but that's a wee bit off.
> 
> ...



I'll bet they are still the 'interm boot' when I retire in six more years  ;D


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll bet they are still the 'interm boot' when I retire in six more years  ;D



Bet you a beer on it next time we are in the same local vicinty ...




Guess that I owe you one ...


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (28 Mar 2008)

Hey Vern, 

I'm a navy type coming out your way this summer for CAP.  I currently have the Mk III's with the vibrum, although it's not the solid sole, just a layer of the cushion was added.  

From your experience would I be better off turning in my Mk III's here (as I have no other army kit) and drawing the interm boots when I get the rest of my kit for the summer over in your shop - or am I better off keeping my III's?

Is the difference more in preference, or are the interm boots better?  Do they have a solid (non stepped) sole?

Thanks in advance for your input.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Mar 2008)

The interim boots are heaver if that matters to you at all.  Do you have the WWB? if so they are the same mus the gortex


----------



## davidk (28 Mar 2008)

SweetNavyJustice, there's a ginormous thread discussing the GP boot at great lengths right here:http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50234.0.html


----------



## SweetNavyJustice (28 Mar 2008)

I've had them in the past, and they are heavy.  Generally, not a huge issue, and I found them comfortable, but given the choice, I think that the Mk III's would be better for a course like CAP.  Lots of km's on the feet.

Thanks for the input, and I'll start reading up on the GP thread.


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

SweetNavyJustice said:
			
		

> Hey Vern,
> 
> I'm a navy type coming out your way this summer for CAP.  I currently have the Mk III's with the vibrum, although it's not the solid sole, just a layer of the cushion was added.
> 
> ...



If your MkIIIs are working for you ... keep them. If they aren't working for you ... exchange them (hoping of course that the GPs end up working for you).

If you aren't experiencing any problems with your boots ... I'd stay with them. If it isn't broke ... (especially when you have no idea as to whether or not the GPs will work for you -- gamble/gamble -- some people love them & some people hate them, just like the MkIIIs).

Edited: You've had GPs in the past!!?? But then reverted to MkIIIs?? How did you manage to pull that off seeing as how the GPs weren't being issued out until the MkIIIs like-sizes were depleted from the system? Or did you have the Wet Weather Boots before <--- different boot altogether which has been out for a couple of years now?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Bet you a beer on it next time we are in the same local vicinty ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're on! I just got two brand new pair of the 'interm'. Given how much walking this crewman does, I expect one pair may still be in the box, when I'm all done ;D


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You're on! I just got two brand new pair of the 'interm'. Given how much walking this crewman does, I expect one pair may still be in the box, when I'm all done ;D



No no. Wear both pairs a few times and make sure you get both pairs broken in --- thus earning you that good old "_non-reissuable-due-to-being-broken-in-hole-punch-through-the-tongue-upon-your-release-thing_" which thereby = retention of said footwear when you retire [for hunting, fishing, gathering etc].


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No no. Wear both pairs a few times and make sure you get both pairs broken in --- thus earning you that good old "_non-reissuable-due-to-being-broken-in-hole-punch-through-the-tongue-upon-your-release-thing_" which thereby = retention of said footwear when you retire [for hunting, fishing, gathering etc].



I'd have to wear them without insoles so my toes would leave imprints, no? The guy here won't even give me my yearly underwear and t-shirts without giving him my worn out rags.


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'd have to wear them without insoles so my toes would leave imprints, no? The guy here won't even give me my yearly underwear and t-shirts without giving him my worn out rags.



If they are well broken in, they can't be re-issued.


----------



## AirCanuck (28 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If your MkIIIs are working for you ... keep them. If they aren't working for you ... exchange them (hoping of course that the GPs end up working for you).
> 
> If you aren't experiencing any problems with your boots ... I'd stay with them. If it isn't broke ... (especially when you have no idea as to whether or not the GPs will work for you -- gamble/gamble -- some people love them & some people hate them, just like the MkIIIs).
> 
> Edited: You've had GPs in the past!!?? But then reverted to MkIIIs?? How did you manage to pull that off seeing as how the GPs weren't being issued out until the MkIIIs like-sizes were depleted from the system? Or did you have the Wet Weather Boots before <--- different boot altogether which has been out for a couple of years now?



may I ask, how exactly did Vern become such a boot Guru?

So.  I have had both - and honestly, I wish I still had my MkIIIs.   I find the 'interem' GP boots to be heavy and almost clumsy, as they are a bit more unwieldy - very comfortable though, and dry out a HELL of a lot faster I found.  

But honestly, being done IAP/BOTP, it really doesn't matter for me as for the next few courses (other than survival courses) I'll be in a flight suit.


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> may I ask, how exactly did Vern become such a boot Guru?



20 years; 3 of it as the Clothing Stores Supervisor dealing with, sorting out, and attempting to handle every Supply Techs nightmare when working in Clothing Stores. By far, THE biggest subject of complaints/problems/medical issues & chits/& special order spending that we deal with on a daily basis (and for multitudes of personnel every day at this particular Home of the Army) is ... footwear. Not limited to this location -- of course -- but this location sees hundreds of customers a day (a heck of a lot of them because of footwear problems) due to the sheer volume of course candidates etc going through here, quite unlike most.


----------



## AirCanuck (28 Mar 2008)

sorry, where is 'this location', if I may ask?


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> sorry, where is 'this location', if I may ask?



The Home of the Army ...

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/cfb_gagetown/english/base/cwelcome/index.asp


----------



## dimsum (28 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> But honestly, being done IAP/BOTP, it really doesn't matter for me as for the next few courses (other than survival courses) I'll be in a flight suit.



I wouldn't count on that.  If the aircrew boots aren't available in your size, Mk IIIs are used instead (and probably 2 more pairs are issued to you.)


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I wouldn't count on that.  If the aircrew boots aren't available in your size, Mk IIIs are used instead (and probably 2 more pairs are issued to you.)



Well, they can only issue him MkIIIs if there's any left in the system (and there isn't many of them left in the system -- especially the common sizes <---MkIIIs are essentially gone, done away with, history, toast) in his size, otherwise it's Boots GP in the interim until the MkIVs make their way into and around the Supply Chain.


----------



## NL_engineer (28 Mar 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Edited: You've had GPs in the past!!?? But then reverted to MkIIIs?? How did you manage to pull that off seeing as how the GPs weren't being issued out until the MkIIIs like-sizes were depleted from the system? Or did you have the Wet Weather Boots before <--- different boot altogether which has been out for a couple of years now?



Vern wouldn't it work something like: clothing A only has GP's in size XX, but member is posted, and goes to exchange his/her GP boots at clothing B that has MKIII's in that size and gives those to said member?


----------



## armyvern (28 Mar 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Vern wouldn't it work something like: clothing A only has GP's in size XX, but member is posted, and goes to exchange his/her GP boots at clothing B that has MKIII's in that size and gives those to said member?



It could ---

But not if he's a popular size, and even unpopular sizes have been Nil Natl Stock for the past couple of years.


----------



## AirCanuck (28 Mar 2008)

haha yeah I think I did my last post in this one around 4.  TGIF indeed.

I actually found they had a decent amount of MKIIIs still in St Jean, up until this past summer.


----------



## the 48th regulator (29 Mar 2008)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> may I ask, how exactly did Vern become such a boot Guru?



And may I ask, when were you nominted as the hall monitor?

I advise you not to stray from your lanes, as I am sure Vern has boots that have more T.I than you, to make such an assinine statement.

Show some respect to the members, and do some research before firing from the hip there "zoomie"

dileas

tess

army.ca staff


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The Boot, Cbt MkIII is eventually being replaced by a Boot, Cbt MkIV --- thus the boots GP are better/usually referred to (in Sup circles) as the "interim combat boot". They are a temp replacement for the Cbt Boot, not the permanent replacement. Hope that makes sense.


I've recently learned that the term "Mk IV" will never be used.  The MK III replacement will be the Temperate Combat Boot (TCB).



			
				AirCanuck said:
			
		

> may I ask, how exactly did Vern become such a boot Guru?


I don't know that I'd call Vern a boot guru so much as a clothing stores guru (with all the corresponding knowledge of in-service equipment, the supply system, entitlements, etc).


----------



## Bzzliteyr (6 Apr 2008)

Have you seen the boots she wears in civvies?? I'd say she is a boot QUEEN!!


----------



## armyvern (6 Apr 2008)

I prefer the term shoe slut, much as you gentlemen are referred to as kit sluts.

My mother affectionately calls me Imelda -- I have a walk-in closet to prove it. I do soooo love shoes ... and boots. Black, leather, heeled. Not always black, but always well-heeled.


----------



## dimsum (7 Apr 2008)

Got issued a set of TCBs when I turned in a Mk III, and when the lady at the counter looked at my flight suit, she warns me about 5 times not to wear them flying b/c of the non-steel toes and shanks.  Now, call me crazy, but the Mk IIIs don't have them either, and aircrew get those issued if Supply runs out of aircrew boots, right?   ???


----------



## armyvern (7 Apr 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Got issued a set of TCBs when I turned in a Mk III, and when the lady at the counter looked at my flight suit, she warns me about 5 times not to wear them flying b/c of the non-steel toes and shanks.  Now, call me crazy, but the Mk IIIs don't have them either, and aircrew get those issued if Supply runs out of aircrew boots, right?   ???



Please clarify that you were issued TCBs?? Cadpat boots??

Or, were you issued Boots, GP?? Black, look quite like the Wet Weather Boot, but aren't!! <--- highly suspect these GP Boots are what you were issued as an in lieu of item. And yes, the MkIIIs have no steel toes either (and yes -- they are authorized for issue as an in lieu of boot when stock of air crew boots are depleted).


----------



## dimsum (7 Apr 2008)

Oops, I meant GPB.  TCB, GPB...so close together...  :-[


----------



## armyvern (7 Apr 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Oops, I meant GPB.  TCB, GPB...so close together...  :-[



Ha!! Try working where I work where we get to deal with every kind of boot out there ... holy crap over ... I say again ...  

...

MkIIIs
WWBs
BGPs
TCBs
ACBs
STBs
LMBs
FFBs
DBs
STDBs
BRCs
VHHBs
...

to name a few.


----------



## Yrys (7 Apr 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> TCB, GPB...so close together...  :-[



... and I was going to say : "Not for her ! ".


(Question of ignorant civy)
Gee, ArmyVern, are  you sure an allowance for boots would work, with so many type ?


----------



## armyvern (7 Apr 2008)

Yrys said:
			
		

> ... and I was going to say : "Not for her ! ".
> 
> 
> (Question of ignorant civy)
> Gee, ArmyVern, are  you sure an allowance for boots would work, with so many type ?



Yes, I am. We already purchase all of them (especially the VHHBs) downtown for purposes of medical chits/custom sizes.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 May 2008)

I was issued 2 pair of the Interim Boot....if thats' what its called.
Very comfortable, and takes the orthodics very well. I think we got it right this time


----------



## geo (7 May 2008)

I'm informed by my staff that the interim boots (and the WWB) are a problem for people with small feet.  The upper comes out too far on the toe and limits the amount of bend you can get on the front of your foot....


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> I'm informed by my staff that the interim boots (and the WWB) are a problem for people with small feet.  The upper comes out too far on the toe and limits the amount of bend you can get on the front of your foot....



Also, there's no allowance for different foot sizes (as usual).  For example, if you look at the new ankle boots, on Clothing on Line, some sizes are:

LENGTH  WIDTH  
215          88  
220          90  
225          84  
225          88  
225          92  
225          96  
230          86  
230          90  
230          94  
230          98  


Note that the two smallest lengths have no width variations.  What if I have a 215mm length but only a 84mm width?  I realize they will still get special order boots for people who do not fit the ones in the system, but I tried three different sizes of the WWB and they were all so uncomfortable, I couldn't wear them.  I have heard the interim boot is pretty much the same.  I told the Sup Tech at Clothing stores that I have enough boots anyway.....


----------



## geo (7 May 2008)

Heh... I still have my 38+ year old ankle boots.... resoled & doublesoled + reshod every umpteen years...


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Also, there's no allowance for different foot sizes (as usual).  For example, if you look at the new ankle boots, on Clothing on Line, some sizes are:
> 
> LENGTH  WIDTH
> 215          88
> ...



How about I scrounge up the complete list and post it?

In actuality, these things come in 92 sizes -- each length has multiple mm variences in width available. Your sizes that default into Logistikunicorp are the last size of footwear that you were issued via "the system". Ergo the 230/98 size defaults in if you have never before been issued footwear via the system in applicable sizing scale.

If you been issued wet weather boots -- AND they fit you fine ... it'll be the exact same XXX/XX that you'll wear for other footwear.

Gone are the days of 9.5E, 9.5F for example. We now go by mm's and the ranges of sizes available are very much greater than before. 

If you fit into stocked boots before -- you most certainly do now.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

Actually, Vern, I got those sizes from the entire size list, not just the default list.  
None of the boots I have ever got issued fit properly.  The only ones I ever worried about were the regular combat boots because that's what I wear for the BFT.  They still don't fit well and I make sure to wear proper socks (polypro under and a thick wool sock over) to reduce foot movement and chafing.  I usually get blisters (not always) but have learned to live with it.  Not to mention the addition of Vibram soles at my own expense, but hey, they're my feet, so I want to look after them!
As I said, I have not been issued WWB and don't give a rat's a** if I ever do get them.  I realize there is a "breaking in" period for boots but all three sizes I had on were more like torture tests.

I don't see how they can figure out your size, since almost every boot I have is a different size.  For example:

Combat boot size 2-2.5E
Ankle boot (old) size 5
Mukluks size 4
Nurse's shoes size 6 (never wore 'em, thankfully, they are ugly!)

I'm happy with the three pairs of boots I have and hope they'll last a while.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Actually, Vern, I got those sizes from the entire size list, not just the default list.
> None of the boots I have ever got issued fit properly.  The only ones I ever worried about were the regular combat boots because that's what I had for the BFT.  They still don't fit well and I make sure to wear proper socks (polypro under and a thick wool sock over) to reduce foot movement and chafing.  I usually get blisters (not always) but have learned to live with it.  Not to mention the addition of Vibram soles at my own expense, but hey, they're my feet, so I want to look after them!
> As I said, I have not been issued WWB and don't give a rat's a** if I ever do get them.  I realize there is a "breaking in" period for boots but all three sizes I had on were more like torture tests.
> 
> ...



What defaults in would have been the last "standard" size that you were issued electronicly converted to a near millimeter size, but there may be a millimeter size that is more appropriate for you. Logistikunicorp pulls data from _peoplesoft _ and the _CFSS_.

Because all of the standard sizes such as 2-2.5E or 5 etc that you've listed above differed from manufacturer to manufacturer, there WAS no standard size for any individual. Much like going to the mall for running shoes. A ladies 9 in Nike = a ladies size 8 in New Balance etc.

That's why we are moving to the millimeter sizing system. There are 92 sizes now -- a much larger range than we had with the old sizing system. Boots vary by mere millimeters.

You should go into clothing stores and have them measure your foot using the millimeter scale, and from there they will give you your appropriate size for use when ordering from Logistikunicorp etc.

For example, if your WWB are a size "41" (the last 4 numbers of the NATO stock number are 00*41*), call clothing stores and ask them what "0041" converts to in millimeter reading and they will give it to you. 

*If your WWB fit you properly*, you can tell which size to order from Logistik by looking at the tongue of your WWB. My WWB are NSN: 8430-21-918-0018. This equals size 18. On the very bottom of the tongue tag is their mm sizing, which is: 240/90. That is the size that I would order ankle boots from Logistik in. Likewise, if I ever do go to clothing stores to get those dastardly Boots, Interim GP -- I'd walk up to the counter and say "I need a 240/90" -- even if I've never had them issued before because the width and length of my foot in millimeters is not going to change.

If your WWB do not fit you properly: go to clothing and get re-sized and get ones that do. Bottom line is: IF you fit into standard stocked sizes before -- you certainly do now ... they are *all* covered with the new sizing system, plus more.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

I *did* get sized at clothing stores.  The boots (the three sizes I tried) just don't fit.  Maybe I'm really narrow at the heel, because that's where I find the problem is.  That's also where I get blisters after a ruck march.  :-\
Of course, it doesn't help that clothing stores (where I am) doesn't have all the sizes to try on, either.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I *did* get sized at clothing stores.  The boots (the three sizes I tried) just don't fit.  Maybe I'm really narrow at the heel, because that's where I find the problem is.  That's also where I get blisters after a ruck march.  :-\
> Of course, it doesn't help that clothing stores (where I am) doesn't have all the sizes to try on, either.



Or did your boots stretch? They should be very snug when first issued because they will stretch as broken in. Looseness around the heel can usually be lessened by ensuring you pull the laces nice and tight at the arch and then all the way up to the top. Remember that with the speed lacing -- any looseness at the top of your lacing will travel downwards towards the arch of the foot as you move.

All clothing stores were supposed to have 100% sizing kits 3 years ago -- and if your loc still doesn't ... ... ...   something is _dreadfully_ wrong.

I hope you're not wearing WWB for ruck marchs!! Ouch.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

Nope, the boots never stretched, I couldn't wear them long enough for that to occur.

I would *never* wear WWB for a BFT but I know people that do.   

Most people I know got the boots and said they were really comfortable.  Not I.  As I said in an earlier post, I'm not too concerned.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Nope, the boots never stretched, I couldn't wear them long enough for that to occur.
> 
> I would *never* wear WWB for a BFT but I know people that do.
> 
> Most people I know got the boots and said they were really comfortable.  Not I.  As I said in an earlier post, I'm not too concerned.



Go ask for a TD trip from your location to mine. I'll get you into boots that fit --- _and_ spring for a brewskie!!  ;D


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Go ask for a TD trip from your location to mine. I'll get you into boots that fit --- _and_ spring for a brewskie!!  ;D



I wish!!!


----------



## McG (7 May 2008)

PMedMoe,
You have indicated the boot sizes that you've listed are for ankle boots and not the GP Boot being discussed.


			
				PMedMoe said:
			
		

> None of the boots I have ever got issued fit properly.


Have you been issued GP Boots or is your concern with them hypothetical?


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> PMedMoe,
> You have indicated the boot sizes that you've listed are for ankle boots and not the GP Boot being discussed.Have you been issued GP Boots or is your concern with them hypothetical?



The sizes for the new ankle boots are the same as the WWB and the new GP boots.  I have been issued neither WWB or GP so I guess my concern is hypothetical, as you say.  I understand the sizing is the same, so I'm thinking I would have the same problem with the GP as I have had with the WWB.  I have two pairs of combat boots, still in good shape, so no need for the GP boots.


----------



## Ecco (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> In actuality, these things come in 92 sizes -- each length has multiple mm variences in width available.



Actually, the Mondopoint system has 72 sizes.  Some people argue we should go to 74 sizes.  Watch and shoot on that one.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> If you been issued wet weather boots -- AND they fit you fine ... it'll be the exact same XXX/XX that you'll wear for other footwear.



In theory yes.  In practice, it's more complicated, but the WWb size should be the starting point.  Trying the boot with the sock you intend to wear it with is an absolute requirement to ensure proper fitting.  Some people will have the same size in all their footwear, some will have slightly different sizes:  Different manufacturers have different method of creating the boot around the last, materials differ, etc...


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> Actually, the Mondopoint system has 72 sizes.  Some people argue we should go to 74 sizes.  Watch and shoot on that one.



Sorry, 92 -- 72 -- typo.  :-\

The mm from the mondopoint is supposed to be the millimeter widths of the "free space" inside the boots isn't it? One would think that XXX mm of "freespace" = XXX mm of "freespace" even from manufacturer to manufacturer. Materials may change, but the actual size of a millimeter isn't supposed to. No wonder I failed math.  ;D


----------



## McG (7 May 2008)

If our feet were only two dimensional, this would be so much easier.


----------



## PMedMoe (7 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> If our feet were only two dimensional, this would be so much easier.



 :rofl:  Yes, because my feet are square!


----------



## Farmboy (7 May 2008)

Similar to clothing from different companies, one size might fit perfectly but the same size by another maker might not fit at all.

 Boots and shoes are very different, as said each mfg has a last that they are made on.  Some are hand made while others are machine made.  Even lasts from the same mfg can be different for each style of boot or shoe they make.  

 Retailers, distributors and mfg have major problems with supplying footwear, so this is one area where the CF can't be faulted in any way.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> If our feet were only two dimensional, this would be so much easier.



It is also so much cheaper to dress paper dolls.  ;D

But I still fail to understand how exactly:

240 mm "freespace" in length does _not_ equal 240 mm "freespace" in length in another boot regardless of manufacturer. Freespace = room to accomodate foot "inside" the boot from material covering at the heel to material covering at the toe. 240mm of space for your foot. Not 238mm of space for your foot because material is taking up 2mm, else it's only a size 238, not 240.  ???

That is supposed to be how the specs work ... or so we've always been led to believe.  :-\

(And, yes, we understand that socks make a difference -- which is exactly why we tell all personnel whom we are sizing, to wear the socks or combination of socks that they will be wearing daily _in_ the boots _while_ being sized.)


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> (And, yes, we understand that socks make a difference -- which is exactly why we tell all personnel whom we are sizing, to wear the socks or combination of socks that they will be wearing daily _in_ the boots _while_ being sized.)



I heard that. Young Pte at supply tried to tell me he could only size me if I wore the "sock system" black and green socks, not the Thorlos I normally wear. I politely told said Pte that I have never EVER worn the green socks and now choose to only wear the socks I have on.

Needless to say I don't think I have a pr of these new Boot GPs that fit. (I love how the quick laces touch each other above the ankle)


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> I heard that. Young Pte at supply tried to tell me he could only size me if I wore the "sock system" black and green socks, not the Thorlos I normally wear. I politely told said Pte that I have never EVER worn the green socks and now choose to only wear the socks I have on.
> 
> Needless to say I don't think I have a pr of these new Boot GPs that fit. (I love how the quick laces touch each other above the ankle)



We'd have let you wear the socks that you wear daily here -- that only makes ... (ugghhh here's that word again) "sense".

Some people must _really_ learn to inject it more often than not.

My laces don't touch -- I have fat calves!!  :-\


----------



## Bzzliteyr (7 May 2008)

I have a 2 pairs.  I just put on the second pair for the first time the other day and I must say, the breaking in period for me (NONE!!!) was great!


----------



## Armymedic (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> that only makes ... (ugghhh here's that word again) "sense".
> 
> Some people must _really_ learn to inject it more often than not.


Well Vern, until QM starts issuing out Sense to the entire CF, it will just be another piece of unauthorized kit nobody will be legally allowed to use.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Well Vern, until QM starts issuing out Sense to the entire CF, it will just be another piece of unauthorized kit nobody will be legally allowed to use.



Contrary to popular belief "common sense" is an entitlement item on the D01 scale series. Way too many folks have yet to stop buy and pick up their allotment of it though.


----------



## MamaBear (7 May 2008)

Vern, I have a question for you.

My daughter is currently wearing size 21588 boots.  They are too big on her (supply told her they were the smallest) but she's muddled through her BMQ in them with extra socks.  Is that size the smallest made, or could it be just the smallest left in the St. Jean supply (now that they are changing boots)?  She's moving to Borden on Friday, so perhaps she should see whay they have there?? Yes? No?  Advice?

P.S.  I know she's a big girl and can ask these questions on her own, but being a MamaBear and now suffering the empty nest syndrome  :'(     I have to meddle just a little


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

MamaBear said:
			
		

> Vern, I have a question for you.
> 
> My daughter is currently wearing size 21588 boots.  They are too big on her (supply told her they were the smallest) but she's muddled through her BMQ in them with extra socks.  Is that size the smallest made, or could it be just the smallest left in the St. Jean supply (now that they are changing boots)?  She's moving to Borden on Friday, so perhaps she should see whay they have there?? Yes? No?  Advice?
> 
> P.S.  I know she's a big girl and can ask these questions on her own, but being a MamaBear and now suffering the empty nest syndrome  :'(     I have to meddle just a little



215/88 ... have no idea off the top of my head if they are the smallest size or not. I can check for you on Monday (I'm on course this week) and get back to you. Adding more socks just makes for ... blisters and foot problems. Not good.

Bottom line though, if they ARE the smallest size and they ARE too big for her -- she needs (and IS entitled to) customs.


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Actually -- I'll pop over to Clothing tomorrow at lunch to find out what the smallest size is. If they are the smallest, I'll post that up and I'll post up the ref for customs for you to pass along to her ... mom (I'm a mom too -- I know how it works, sometimes you just can't sit back and watch no matter how much you know you should; that's acceptable  ;D).


----------



## MamaBear (7 May 2008)

Thanks Vern, that's much appreciated.... AND the comment about Mom's rights!  I will pass along any info to her, but as you probably know THAT will have to be handled delicately so as not to alert her "Mother's being a PITA senses".

One Mom to Another.


----------



## Ecco (7 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> But I still fail to understand how exactly:
> (...)
> That is supposed to be how the specs work ... or so we've always been led to believe.  :-\



Let me try an explication, it might not make much "sense", but it explains the challenge. In summary, the sizes refer to the lasts, not to the freespace in the boot.

In 1997, DRDC Toronto conducted a CF anthropometric survey: They took hundreds of body dimensions measurements from more than 5000 CF members, reg and reserve, from all trades and all part of the country.  They wrote a thick report giving average sizes of CF personnel, including foot sizes.

The Mondopoint sizing system was used to measure the foot (it's metric and more accurate than US/UK measures) in a graph, horizontal is length, vertical is width, forming an oval cloud of sizes.  The 98% of the population was divided in little boxes and they needed 72 of those boxes.  Afterwards, they took the 72 sizes, added the thickness of the CTS Combat Sock System (black liner and green sock) and created 288 (72 left and 72 right, 72 left safety toed and 72 right safety toed) anatomically correct shapes of the typical CF foot. They are yellow plastic foot shapes.  The last system is called DND 601.

The manufacturers of nationally procured CF footwear have to buy and use the DND 601 lasts to build their footwear.  The boot is built around a last of a certain size.  Now, a 215/88 DND 601 last is the same exact 3D shape for all manufacturers (same width and length and height...), however, each manufacturer builds the footwear differently.  Sometimes, they stretch the box toe covering material by hand and sew it to the insole.  Other manufacturers use a machine to stretch the material in place.  The second manufacturer will make a tighter boot around the last than the first one, etc...  The glues that are used to hold pieces together have different drying rates, etc...   Some manufacturers build the complete upper and than attach it to the insole, while others build the boot from the outsole up, piece by piece.  At the end of the 100-odd manufacturing steps, before finishing and QA, the last is broken out of the boot and used again.  

In theory, using the same lasts should provide same sizes of boots, however, as you will most likely agree, the fitting of a boot is different between users, some like it tight, some prefer looser, etc...  It's the same for manufacturers...

_Edited for spelling_


----------



## armyvern (7 May 2008)

Oh gawd -- 20 years to hear that _now_. Time to retire I guess and ride off into the sunset -- where I'll still fail math no doubt.


----------



## TCBF (7 May 2008)

Ecco,

Thanks for that post - very informative.


----------



## PMedMoe (8 May 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> In 1997, DRDC Toronto conducted a CF anthropomorphic survey: They took hundreds of body dimensions measurements from more than 5000 CF members, reg and reserve, from all trades and all part of the country.  They wrote a thick report giving average sizes of CF personnel, including foot sizes.



I was one of those people measured.  Our unit deliberately sent the smaller and larger people to represent the different ends of the scale.
Your mention of "average" sizes, leads me to believe that other people measured were of "average" size.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (8 May 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> Let me try an explication, it might not make much "sense", but it explains the challenge. In summary, the sizes refer to the lasts, not to the freespace in the boot.
> 
> In 1997, DRDC Toronto conducted a CF anthropometric survey: They took hundreds of body dimensions measurements from more than 5000 CF members, reg and reserve, from all trades and all part of the country.  They wrote a thick report giving average sizes of CF personnel, including foot sizes.
> 
> ...



This indeed is very informative.  I find it interesting though, that despite great effort given to build a set of metrics for a set of boot lasts which are now CF standards, the variations in manufacturing techniques can greatly alter the overall fit of the boot.


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2008)

MamaBear said:
			
		

> Thanks Vern, that's much appreciated.... AND the comment about Mom's rights!  I will pass along any info to her, but as you probably know THAT will have to be handled delicately so as not to alert her "Mother's being a PITA senses".
> 
> One Mom to Another.



All righty, here we go:

Boots, Wet Weather:
Smallest size:  *215/88*
Largest size:  *300/114*

Boots, Interim GP:
Smallest size:  *215/88*
Largest size:  *305/116*  

Pers who do not fit into these stocked size ranges are entitled to custom footwear. They do NOT need a medical chit -- this is a sizing issue, not a medical one. The Crown is obligated to pay the expense for such instances. Entitlement is to two (2) pair of each boot type.

Once placed into custom (or LPOd from downtown footwear), the purchased/custom footwear is put onto the member's charge on their clothing docs utilizing the two below NSNs:

Wet Weather Boots:   *21-921-3532 * Boots, WW, S/S
Boots, Interim, GP:  *20-001-9369* Boots, Interim GP S/S

From the CFSM (Canadian Forces Supply Manual) Vol 3, Ch 13, Sec G, Art 002, para 5b:
*Ref: CFSM 3-13G-002.5b  * 

Hyper link to CFSM



> 3-13G-002. Special size personal allotment clothing, footwear and orthopaedic furniture
> 
> 4.  Special size clothing:
> 
> ...



Also, please note that I have highlighted para 5e in red font: This para is the authority for personnel who do not wish to wear issued boots to procure and wear civilian pattern footwear using their own monies provided that those purchased boots generally resemble issued boots (ie are black/leather etc).


----------



## MamaBear (8 May 2008)

Thanks Vern.  I will pass this information along so that she makes a point of approaching supply in Borden.  I know she has small feet, but I figured it was just a matter of all the small sizes being gone (it happens a lot to her in shoe stores).

I owe you one....correction....SHE owes you one.  And if she's ever in Gagetown, I'll make sure she buys the appropriate liquid nutrients (just please promise me you won't be in a bathroom stall yelling "Help, I can't find my skirt"!)   :rofl:


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2008)

No drinks required -- they pay me 24/7 to do my job.


----------



## NL_engineer (8 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Also, please note that I have highlighted para 5e in red font: This para is the authority for personnel who do not wish to wear issued boots to procure and wear civilian pattern footwear using their own monies provided that those purchased boots generally resemble issued boots (ie are black/leather etc).



I don't think I'll be testing that one out, until I start work-up training ;D





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> No drinks required -- they pay me 24/7 to do my job.



But you posted during work hours  ;D


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> I don't think I'll be testing that one out, until I start work-up training ;D
> But you posted during work hours  ;D



Ahem .. I posted earlier in this thread that I am on course this week. I posted at 1215hrs (or thereabouts) ... squarely during my lunch hour today (which actually ended up being from 1115ish until 1300hrs so we could "re-ghost" our machines ;D) just as I promised I would.

MITE course ..._ jammy_.


----------



## armyvern (8 May 2008)

The mono sizes run from an equivelant of 2.5C (womens) to 13.5F (males). If you wore any footwear within those size ranges previously -- there's boots in the mono sizes to accomodate you.


----------



## TCBF (11 May 2008)

Mark III:  7 1/2 - 8C was 264/92.

Current GP is 265/100, waiting for a GP 265/96


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Ahem .. I posted earlier in this thread that I am on course this week. I posted at 1215hrs (or thereabouts) ... squarely during my lunch hour today (which actually ended up being from 1115ish until 1300hrs so we could "re-ghost" our machines ;D) just as I promised I would.
> 
> MITE course ..._ jammy_.



Nicely done. Touche.


----------



## joonrooj (11 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> From the CFSM (Canadian Forces Supply Manual) Vol 3, Ch 13, Sec G, Art 002, para 5b:
> 
> Also, please note that I have highlighted para 5e in red font: This para is the authority for personnel who do not wish to wear issued boots to procure and wear civilian pattern footwear using their own monies provided that those purchased boots generally resemble issued boots (ie are black/leather etc).


Does this mean what I think it means?
Or would this just get me in a load of shit?


----------



## blacktriangle (11 May 2008)

Joonrooj said:
			
		

> Does this mean what I think it means?
> Or would this just get me in a load of crap?



Yea another Pte wondering the same here...


----------



## McG (11 May 2008)

Joonrooj said:
			
		

> Does this mean what I think it means?  Or would this just get me in a load of shit?


When one want's to know if their CoC will allow something, then one is best served by asking their CoC.


----------



## medaid (11 May 2008)

If it's in the manual... Isn't it good to go? Now that would just make sense.


----------



## McG (11 May 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> If it's in the manual... Isn't it good to go?


Well, your RSM's dress manual will tell him that you cannot choose to replace any item of dress because you don't agree with said item.  
He will win in a contest of wills when determining which manual will be heeded.  Therefore, check with your CoC.


----------



## armyvern (11 May 2008)

Joonrooj said:
			
		

> Does this mean what I think it means?
> Or would this just get me in a load of shit?



Like MCG pointed out, your Unit RSM (with an aside from the CO) will be the deciding factor for what dress is acceptable for Unit pers on a daily basis.

I highlighted that ref because it is one of the most requested references to policy that I receive here on the site. Some pers ask for it because at their home Unit, their own civ pattern purchased boots are allowed, but as soon as they wander away from Home Unit lines they have been questioned about their footwear -- and they wanted to have the ref handy.

I have also had an RSM ask me for the ref, so he'd have a ref to give all the "visitors" to his Unit who were spending "too much time bitching about their being 4 or 5 styles of boots being worn" (although all were black, most were issued styles and only 1 pair was individually procured) instead of the "important" stuff.

I have also had people ask for it because their RSM wasn't sure wheter or not it was actually "authorized" to wear civ pattern purchased footwear despite them having heard "rumours" of it. One of them passed the ref on to his RSM and it ended up being passed on to his pers "officially" at an O Gp.

But, I also know of at least one RSM who interpreted "and who do not accept service footwear" to mean that you'd better not have issued footwear on your docs.

You'll have to ask yours what your Unit policy is.

RSMs, they are a quirky bunch.  >

Either way it works out for you, I've got the ref up here now so I don't have to tell everyone who asks ... "I'll send it to you from work tomorrow" anymore. Now -- I can just say "do a search!!"  ;D


----------



## geo (12 May 2008)

> RSMs, they are a quirky bunch.  >



I am was  not!


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2008)

Not an RSM here,,,,,CSM and  yes I'm a bit quirky too. It comes with the territory. I don't like issue fleece being worn as an outer garment.

BTW the new issue boots are OK by me. I find them to very comfortable.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Not an RSM here,,,,,CSM and  yes I'm a bit quirky too. It comes with the territory. I don't like issue fleece being worn as an outer garment.
> 
> BTW the new issue boots are OK by me. I find them to very comfortable.



My 2 cents (and this debate has gone on before) why would the put a place for a slip on it if it wasn't meant for use as outerwear?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2008)

SAPPER I have no idea why they did this. ALl I know is when fleece was first issued, it was not to be worn as an outer garment. I still ahven't seen any directives to the contrary. Maybe I'm just old school that way...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 May 2008)

I know, just seeing if you had more insight than us lower on the pole  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2008)

Sometimes I get told less than you..... :blotto:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 May 2008)

LOL :cheers:

Now back to our regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## armyvern (12 May 2008)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> My 2 cents (and this debate has gone on before) why would the put a place for a slip on it if it wasn't meant for use as outerwear?



I think, and I could be wrong here -- it's been a few years, the original PIP stated that it was "not intended to be worn as an outer garment_ in garrison_."

Oldheimers (sometimes forgetting the smaller details of past directives) ... good thing I'm on course in Halifax next week; I need beers.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 May 2008)

Vern:
Oldheimers is also known as Aluminum Pot Syndrome (APS). Thought you'd like to know. Love the picture.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (12 May 2008)

I told her to take my picture off her profile.. geez..


----------



## tpr mcgregor (14 May 2008)

Ok what kind of polish do i put on the GPB's. I heard it wasnt gortex so i can put parade polish on them right?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 May 2008)

:


----------



## Bzzliteyr (14 May 2008)

I have never hesitated to put everyday Kiwi polish on any of my boots.  I took that stance back in 2000 when I was issued Matterhorn boots to fit my orthodics and I called the company directly to ensure that I could put polish on the boots, because the military had always told me not to do that.

The Company assured me that even though they were Goretex lined the polish affects the leather and not the Goretex liner.

Anyone else have insight on this?


----------



## TCBF (15 May 2008)

TPR MCG said:
			
		

> Ok what kind of polish do i put on the GPB's. I heard it wasnt gortex so i can put parade polish on them right?



NSN 7390-21-920-9465 EMU Boot Paste, Low Gloss, Black

Pick up a can where you got the boots.


----------



## medaid (15 May 2008)

They're free too! Booooya!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (15 May 2008)

Be aware, those little cans of paste have issues with the hot Afghani sun. I just opened mine yesterday and it has jellified in to a black and brown blob..


----------



## TCBF (16 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Be aware, those little cans of paste have issues with the hot Afghani sun. I just opened mine yesterday and it has jellified in to a black and brown blob..



- Same place, same sun, melted the handle of one of my plastic disposable razors into a bow.


----------



## Specter77 (25 May 2008)

Sorry if this is already a topic somewhere,  i've searched quite a bit and nothing came up.
Im wondering if anyone knows where I can find *prospector boot paste, low gloss*.  It's what 
came with my boots, and i've been told that polish will ruin the boots.  Thanks for any info anyone has.

Cheers.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (25 May 2008)

WOW you really didn't search well:

Topic: Boot, General Purpose (Mk III acting/interim replacement)  33 pages of stuff 

try there, an answer is in there.


----------



## McG (25 May 2008)

Something that you will find in that thread is that there is no such thing as Mk IV boots.


----------



## Dominus (26 May 2008)

Regular kiwi polish works fine for me.


----------



## joonrooj (26 May 2008)

As told by Supply Tech:
"You use the regular kiwi polish on your GP's,"


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2008)

Yeah, it (regualr polish) works fine to blacken them -- but it clogs up the pores so that the gortex barriers etc don't work properly and the boots can't "breathe" and perform properly as they should.

As long as they look good though ...  :

There is a reason we have the paste and give it to you for free at Clothing/QMs.


----------



## joonrooj (26 May 2008)

So I do use the Prospector paste?
The Sergeant at Stores specifically told me I should use Kiwi on the GP's, and when I asked if I was supposed to use Prospector like the WWB, he gave me the biggest "no" ever.
EDIT: followed by "[you] are the reason I drink"


----------



## OldSolduer (26 May 2008)

Why do so many of you insist on using good old KIWI shoe polish on boots that were not intended to be polished? KIWI is for ankle boots and low dress shoes, NOT for Mark III combat boots nor these Interim boots or WWB.
Please join the 21sy century!!


----------



## davidk (26 May 2008)

Kiwi not for MkIIIs? This is news to me...


----------



## OldSolduer (26 May 2008)

Many years ago there was a black liquid silicone compound that you dabbed on your cbt boots. That was supposed to be the only thing used to blacken boots. Not Kiwi or any other type of polish.


----------



## davidk (26 May 2008)

Long before my time I think...

Is this silicone still issued anymore? And did it have any real advantages over Kiwi?


----------



## OldSolduer (26 May 2008)

I'm not sure if silicone dompund is issued any more.
The advantage of the silicone was that it made your boots water resistant, and the life of the boot was prolonged.
By using Kiwi et al, the life of the boot was reduced.
Army Vern is right. Use the issue can of paste.


----------



## armyvern (26 May 2008)

HighlandIslander said:
			
		

> Kiwi not for MkIIIs? This is news to me...



Thread title:* Boot, GP* (as in the MkIII interim replacement - NOT the MkIII)

The devil_ is_, I guess, in the details no?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 May 2008)

Last time I saw a tin of that stuff was around 2000 or so, I still got said tin and works great.


----------



## davidk (26 May 2008)

Yeah, I caught the title of the thread   Just responding to what OldSolduer said here 





			
				OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Why do so many of you insist on using good old KIWI shoe polish on boots that were not intended to be polished? KIWI is for ankle boots and low dress shoes, *NOT for Mark III combat boots* nor these Interim boots or WWB.
> Please join the 21sy century!!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 May 2008)

I used the black stuff for the longest time.. didn't do much for me.. 

don't mistake it for the light blue silicone that comes in the same shape container.

Old solduer, the reason we use it is because it IS leather polish and as most of the boots we use are leather, it seems to make sense.  Of course, there are many people that use it because "that's what we've always done".


----------



## NL_engineer (26 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Why do so many of you insist on using good old KIWI shoe polish on boots that were not intended to be polished? KIWI is for ankle boots and low dress shoes, NOT for Mark III combat boots nor these Interim boots or WWB.
> Please join the 21sy century!!



Do you really want an answer???


----------



## OldSolduer (27 May 2008)

NL_ENGINEER
Please enlighten me. I'm a big boy, I can take it.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 May 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> NL_ENGINEER
> Please enlighten me. I'm a big boy, I can take it.



well someone well above my pay grade decided that blacknd meant shiny  :  Then the current lever of X rank keeps enforcing it, so the people at Y, and Z rank enforce it; ending up with sayings like: "why don't they shine like Bloggons over there; quickly followed by fix it"  :.  



Thats just my 2 cents

At least I won't have to polish boots come the winter  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2008)

I can wade in, taking no sides, just offering my own experiences of Basic Training, Cornwallis, summer 1989.  Our instructors, upon being issued our kit in Thurday of Week 1, did the standard "here's how to dress/iron/polish/etc" demos.  One of our MCpl's, from the PPCLI, demo'd how to polish the combat boots with boot polish, purchased from the Canex, Kiwi brand, black.  The same polish was used to demo how to apply the base coats to our 2 x pairs of ankle boots, and oxfords.  Only later (3 years) did I discover the cans of silicon and boot blackener in the SQMS shop while poking around for Troop stores as the Echo c/s prep'ing for an ex.  From 1989 until I was issued the CWWB in 2002 and received the 'paste' that came with these boots, I polished my combat boots with purchased Kiwi polish.  This includes the pair of Matterhorns I purchased at the US Calvary shop outside Fort Knox in 1995; despite the instructions that stated to use only mink oil, my Sgt-Major said "I don't care if you wear the boots outside garrison, but they WILL be polished, or I will see issued sneakers on your paws MCpl".   

I never have seen the silicone and boot blackener used except for those of us that had a seperate pair of "field boots" that we soaked in the silicone with hopes that our feet would not be *as* wet after the first early morning defile drill as with the kiwi-polished ones....


----------



## TCBF (28 May 2008)

- I have not drawn a pair of Mk III's for four years, but does the big white paper attached to new boots say "... use only silicone T-3000 and blackener, do NOT polish..." on it?  Or words to that effect?

- At one time, before an exchange at Base Clothing, we T-3000 siliconed the Mark IIs/IIIs so it would LOOK like we never spit shone them with KiWi.

- So I, and 100,000 others, used Kiwi on the Greb/Sunbeam Mark II/III boots, and Emu paste on the CWWBs and GPCBs.


----------



## medaid (28 May 2008)

polishing any form of combat boots = dumb. 

It is, and I think so, and I'm sure many of you think so as well. The idiocy that goes behind polishing your damn combat boots is mind boggling. If you want a shiny pair of boots while in garrison wear garrison boots. Oh yeah... remember those? The Corcoran Jump Boots that they decided would be really really great addition to the fold?! Let's bring THOOOSE back shall we? 

If not... no polishing boots while in combat clothing. Makes no damn sense a tall.


----------



## RCR Grunt (28 May 2008)

Then are you suggesting a return to garrison dress?

We polish our boots in garrison to show that we have the initiative to carry out implied orders and that we can maintain our personal equipment with no supervision.  

Garrison life transltes into field life.  We only go to the field for a small amount of time every year.  (Not counting work up training)  A soldier who polishes his boots, gets his hair cut every pay day, and generaly has his stuff squared away in garrison translates into a squared away field soldier.  These troops that roam around the unit saying "oh, I'm a field soldier, this garrison crap ain't for me" are idiots.  Your in the field for a max 20% of the year, and garrison the rest.  Does that mean you are 80% sh*t bird?  Cutting your hair in garrison = personal hygiene in the field.  Polishing your boots in garrison = cleaning your weapon in the field.  Not looking like a bag of hammers in garrison = maintaining your personal kit in the field.  See where I'm going?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (28 May 2008)

I just noticed a slight bit of differing here.. some people are referring to polishing (as in make shiny) and others are referring to polishing (as in blackening).

I use kiwi polish on my boots to blacken them. I find using a cheap, stiff dollarama brush makes them nice and black and leaves no residue, it can also be used before the polish to remove any dirt.. 

If I remember correctly, when using the black T-3000 it had a tendency to stay moist for the morning and if it would rain, it would tend to seep if not fully dried.. sometimes leaving marks on a leg if you ever took the time to cross your legs, etc...


----------



## TCBF (28 May 2008)

- Also, the tag warned that using T-3000 on the boots then going outside in cold weather would cause discomfort, as the evapouration of the T-3000 would have a cooling effect on the boots.  Worked nice in the summer, though.


----------



## medaid (28 May 2008)

RCR Grunt said:
			
		

> Then are you suggesting a return to garrison dress?
> 
> We polish our boots in garrison to show that we have the initiative to carry out implied orders and that we can maintain our personal equipment with no supervision.



No way. CADPAT in the garrison is just fine, along with BLACKENED not POLISHED combat boots. I'm sure a soldier can demonstrate initiative to carry out orders by merely blackening their boots and thus fulfilling their requirement in maintaining their personal kit.


----------



## Armymedic (28 May 2008)

Here you go Vern, question to you, but answerable by anyone with an educated comment:


			
				St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> I heard that. Young Pte at supply tried to tell me he could only size me if I wore the "sock system" black and green socks, not the Thorlos I normally wear. I politely told said Pte that I have never EVER worn the green socks and now choose to only wear the socks I have on.
> 
> Needless to say I don't think I have a pr of these new Boot GPs that fit. (I love how the quick laces touch each other above the ankle)



My boots are too loose for width, my heel travels up and down in the boot, even when I sucumbed to the system and put on the sock system of green and black socks. All the quick lacing loops touch each other right to the top of my foot. A traveling heel would make for wonderful blisters if I ever tried to march with these on.

So today I took in my boots for exchange, only to find that my size 260/94 is the narrowest width provided in these boots. The young Cpl shows me in the sizing book that they do not make any 260's any narrower. So I ask what should I do. He tells me to get a medical chit. But remembering the article below (which does not quote over), I say, Med chit? but I don't have orthotics. He says it does not matter, I need a med chit to get proper fitting boots. 

Not one to argue when I am not sure, I thank him, and go on my way...To find, from the ref that I was right.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> All righty, here we go:
> 
> Boots, Wet Weather:
> Smallest size:  *215/88*
> ...



So if the Mk 3's fit me (wore them for yrs), how do I convince them that these don't fit properly despite the fact the sizing template says my feet should?  And that I should not need a med chit to get proper fitting boots?


----------



## Ecco (28 May 2008)

Vern provided the reference from
From the CFSM (Canadian Forces Supply Manual) Vol 3, Ch 13, Sec G, Art 002, para 5b:

b.  If after being fitted IAW Measuring and fitting of footwear (3-13G-003) an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear. B/W/S are responsible to fund these requirements through their Command allotments. All special size boots are free issue to all Regular and Reserve force members. Supply sections shall ensure the member receives footwear that fits properly and that meets performance and quality standards equivalent to the authorized CF footwear to which the member is entitled as defined in the applicable scales of issue. Special size safety footwear must meet the safety standards of the regulation footwear. Supply sections are under no obligation to procure brand name footwear. The procedures for Special size shoes/oxfords is covered at para 7. 

What more do you expect Vern to say?

You need special sizing footwear, not a medical chit.


----------



## Armymedic (28 May 2008)

Hey rookie,


			
				Ecco said:
			
		

> an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear.
> 
> What more do you expect Vern to say?
> 
> You need special sizing footwear, not a medical chit.



But my foot size DOES fit in the standard foot size by the sizing tool that they use to size boots. And in fact was sized two sizes wider than the ones I have now. Also if you read from the top of my post, you will see I was sized while wearing non issued (and thinner) socks.


----------



## McG (28 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> But my foot size DOES fit in the standard foot size by the sizing tool that they use to size boots.





			
				St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> My boots are too loose for width


Does one of the available boot sizes fit you or not?  You are telling us both answers here.  If there is no size that fits (as you initially suggested) then you are entitled to free pair special size footwear (as per ref).

Note: fitting implies how the actual boot fits your foot & not just the opinion of the measuring tool.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (28 May 2008)

His OLD boots fit, the new REPLACEMENT boot doesn't.  This has given him cause for concern.


----------



## Armymedic (28 May 2008)

Fact: My foot size fits within the sizing template. Mk 3s fit me.

Opinion: my new boots (which are the narrowest size) feel too big in the heel.

With the ref given, is my opinion enough vs the fact that my foot still fits inside the sizing template?

ps- not like getting a chit for boots is difficult for me...I want ducks in a row here before I jump into a puddle.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 May 2008)

SMMT, my problem seems to be the same.  Although, I must say that my MKIII boots don't fit me perfectly, but my heel is not sliding up and down, either.


----------



## Ecco (28 May 2008)

SMMT,

If, when wearing the narrowest sized GPB and the CSS, the speed lacing loopholes touch, or if your foot travels, then you need and deserve special sizing footwear.  It's not a matter of opinion.

If the boots don't fit because you wear non-issued socks, then it's not the system responsibility.


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> polishing any form of combat boots = dumb.
> 
> It is, and I think so, and I'm sure many of you think so as well. The idiocy that goes behind polishing your damn combat boots is mind boggling. If you want a shiny pair of boots while in garrison wear garrison boots. Oh yeah... remember those? The Corcoran Jump Boots that they decided would be really really great addition to the fold?! Let's bring THOOOSE back shall we?
> 
> If not... no polishing boots while in combat clothing. Makes no damn sense a tall.



I want to know if you're talking the old garrison boots (which sucked royally), or the SSF boots (which rocked and made many a guy look even hotter than I already saw them to be)? Vern's getting visuals and having flashbacks ...  >


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> So today I took in my boots for exchange, only to find that my size 260/94 is the narrowest width provided in these boots. The young Cpl shows me in the sizing book that they do not make any 260's any narrower. So I ask what should I do. He tells me to get a medical chit. But remembering the article below (which does not quote over), I say, Med chit? but I don't have orthotics. He says it does not matter, I need a med chit to get proper fitting boots.
> 
> Not one to argue when I am not sure, I thank him, and go on my way...To find, from the ref that I was right.



Young Pte is wrong. It is a sizing issue. No medical chit is required. Just copy that ref onto a word doc and take it in with you next trip ...  

Seems that there are a great MANY people having the same issue with the boots, GP as yourself.

At least 5 members of this site have PMd me noting that the GP boots were fitting quite nicely up at the toe/arch, but that the heels were way too wide and that their feet were riding up/down and sideways. All that I could recommend to try was to ensure that (because the boots ARE speed lacing) that one ensured the laces were very snug from the arch all the way to the top and that they were knotted tightly. With speed lacing, any looseness in the laces up top on the shin area WILL travel downwards and loosen up over the heel/arch area. Boot laces will also loosen themselves up over the course of the day, so make sure they are very nice and tight at the start of the day. I've told them, that if trying that doesn't solve the problem ... then head back in to clothing for either narrower boots (and if none narrower in your length size) ... the below ref becomes applicable.

Given that you're the 6th person just from this site to mention the same problem -- it seems there may indeed be a problem with the GPs that may need to be addressed.

I'll have to check to see if anyone's UCRd this one already.

Vern

Edited to add:

It seems that the problem is that in giving us MORE leeway and room at the arch/ankle curve of the new GP boot, they have given us TOO much room for play. As the GP boots are being worn and the leather stretches - it is stretching out at the ankles/heels/arch area where ones foot is constantly bending/stretching the leather with each step they take. That's what I see the problem to be with these boots given the PMs I've received about them and from comments at work. Perhaps, some of the leeway they've given us with this design -- is the issue and these boots need to be "narrowed down" through the arch/heel curvature are.

I'm going to have to head over to clothing and try a pair out ... my own foot is much wider up front than it is in the heel area and my archs aren't very high either, so I suspect I will experience the same problems noted ... 

Vern


----------



## Bzzliteyr (28 May 2008)

But will they go well with chaps?


----------



## armyvern (28 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> But will they go well with chaps?



Yuck.

Black. Leather. Knee High. 4 inch heels. That's the boots that go with the chaps -- perhaps next time I'm dressed up ... I'll snap a pic for you as proof.


----------



## TCBF (29 May 2008)

- I also have found a bit of heel slip in the GPCBs.  My best fit occurs when I leave in the issue insoles and put my orthotics on top of them.


----------



## medaid (29 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I want to know if you're talking the old garrison boots (which sucked royally), or the SSF boots (which rocked and made many a guy look even hotter than I already saw them to be)? Vern's getting visuals and having flashbacks ...  >



The UBER UGLY Garrisons... the SSF boots would just cause an influx of boot lovers into the CF


----------



## Bzzliteyr (29 May 2008)

Vern, that's odd.. that's the boot I am going to try to wear with my CFs today on parade, think anyone will notice?


----------



## armyvern (29 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Vern, that's odd.. that's the boot I am going to try to wear with my CFs today on parade, think anyone will notice?



You have been issued VHHBs!!??  

Post pics -- for sure.  >


----------



## NL_engineer (29 May 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> The UBER UGLY Garrisons... the SSF boots would just cause an influx of boot lovers into the CF



Well that would be a funny addition to my boot shoe collection.  I said that once and had the commissioners at accommodation's (Gagetown) look at me like I had 4 heads; till I started naming off all the different boots  :)


----------



## Armymedic (29 May 2008)

And so the saga continues:

Went back to Supply and luck of the draw, was fortunate to encounter the same young Pte as I seen yesterday. Armed with the ref provided, he saw that it was not a chit I required, and that correctly he needed to get me special boots.

Unsure what the next step is, he seeks advice from his MCpl. The MCpl gets me to step on the sizing template. *Because my feet fit inside the template, I do not require special boots as the template says that these boots will fit.* My templated size is 260/100. Obviously that size is too big as my boots I have been wearing is 260/96. So he get the young Pte to get me size 255/100 and 255/92. I can even get my foot into the 255/92. But my foot easily slid into the 255/100, but was still too wide.

Then the Pte brings out a 255/96. That pair fits the best so far. Unfortunately, I still have the speed lacing touching. So he has me try 250/100. Too short.

So the MCpl states that that 255/96 is the size I need. Of course there are none on the shelf so they have to order me 2 pr in.  

Time line until I get boots...unknown. 
time spent in line at clothing stores....50 mins
time spent sizing boots......45 mins
1 pr of SWATS.....$105
Working in a unit that does not care what you got on your feet as long as its black....priceless


----------



## HItorMiss (29 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> Time line until I get boots...unknown.
> time spent in line at clothing stores....50 mins
> time spent sizing boots......45 mins
> 1 pr of SWATS.....$105
> *Working in a unit * that does not care what you got on your feet as long as its black....priceless




Enjoy the School LMAO ;D


----------



## Fusaki (29 May 2008)

> Because my feet fit inside the template, I do not require special boots as the template says that these boots will fit.



I hate it! :'(



> Time line until I get boots...unknown.
> time spent in line at clothing stores....50 mins
> time spent sizing boots......45 mins
> 1 pr of SWATS.....$105
> Working in a unit that does not care what you got on your feet as long as its black....priceless



I love it! ;D


----------



## TCBF (30 May 2008)

- A long in the tooth Clothing Stores civ told me those sizing templates were garbage.  Basically, they tell you which boot to try on first, not which size actually fits you.

- So, you are replacing a 260/96 with a 255/96?  Too wide at the heel, so they give you shorter boots?  Sure, why not add a case of "Hammer Toe" to blistered heels?

- If they do not re-issue the boots that you are trying out for a week at a time to someone else, they are wasting a lot more money than a pair of COTS boots is worth.


----------



## armyvern (30 May 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - So, you are replacing a 260/96 with a 255/96?  Too wide at the heel, so they give you shorter boots?  Sure, why not add a case of "Hammer Toe" to blistered heels?



Exactly what I'm thinking as I read this.

If a 260(length)/96(width) is too wide for you, but fits in the length ... then you need narrower boots. Period. The template *IS* only a guide showing the Sup Tech where to *begin* trying you for size. If the boot's too long, we move you down in length. If the boot's too wide - we move you down in width. Etc. We don't move you down in length when the boot's length is FINE. At least, that's NOT supposed to be what happens ... did they read the instructions that tell them how to use the template? Should anyone really _need_ instructions to know this?  :

So the MCpls move is to put you into a 255(shorter)/96(same width) boot? When your boot was fine in length, but too wide at the heel. Ni-iiice.



*THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.* Don't be afraid to tell the Clothing Stores Supervisor that either.


----------



## Armymedic (30 May 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> *THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.* Don't be afraid to tell the Clothing Stores Supervisor that either.



The wording I used was something like "this boot sizing is ......". But this discussion is with the MCpl. 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So the MCpls move is to put you into a 255(shorter)/96(same width) boot? When your boot was fine in length, but too wide at the heel. Ni-iiice.



These (255/96) boots actually fit me the best. My heel does not slip, albeit the lacing touch, as mentioned above. But until I can get them and wear them for a full day, I won't know if they are good or not.   :-\
Either way, the next time I need to exchange boots, it will be in Borden.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 May 2008)

Looking down at the boots I have on my feet (GP) I see that my speedlaces are touching.  Does this mean they aren't fitting me correctly?  Over my years in the military I have seen all kinds of people, some with thick ankles and some with thin.  I can't see how that is related to foot size?  Or am I not following the link between the two in this case?


----------



## armyvern (30 May 2008)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Looking down at the boots I have on my feet (GP) I see that my speedlaces are touching.  Does this mean they aren't fitting me correctly?  Over my years in the military I have seen all kinds of people, some with thick ankles and some with thin.  I can't see how that is related to foot size?  Or am I not following the link between the two in this case?



You're not following the link.

He has the narrowest width issued to him, but the proper length.

He's got his speed laces tightened as much as he possibly can (their eyelets are touching each other), yet the boot is still way too wide for his foot and his heel is still rising up and moving left to right quite loosely. If you aren't experiencing that -- your boots are fine.

His boots are too wide. They don't come narrower; he needs LPOd boots as he is not fitting into the stocked sizes.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (30 May 2008)

I got that part Vern, I totally understand he needs those boots.  I was just worried that if I had MY eyelets touching that I would need to pay more attention to my foot comfort.  I know I have been wearing them for a while and am still breaking them in but I do have the odd ankle issue.. I'll have to keep under observation it seems...


----------



## Armymedic (30 May 2008)

If the laces are touching before you get the boots broke in, there will be no space to take up the expansion of the leather.

I do not know why the upper portion of those boots are made so generously. Is it to speed donnng and doffing?


----------



## TCBF (31 May 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> If the laces are touching before you get the boots broke in, there will be no space to take up the expansion of the leather.
> 
> I do not know why the upper portion of those boots are made so generously. Is it to speed donnng and doffing?



- Getting ready for that new generation of fat teenagers to squeeze through the doors of the recruiting centers.


----------



## medaid (5 Jun 2008)

St. Micheals Medical Team said:
			
		

> I do not know why the upper portion of those boots are made so generously. Is it to speed donnng and doffing?



Neither do I... but my problem has always been that I couldn't get my foot into the boots to begin with. I mean they'll be my size, but I can't get my foot into the boot! Or when it's finally in that the lacing and knotting of the boots themselves hurt the hell out of my calf because they were just messed up! I've had that problem with all my MkIIIs, to the point where I always go for the larger size that allows my calf and foot to slide easily in, but then the boot's too big so I get blisters when I do ruck marches... 

Funny thing though... no problem at all with Magnums


----------



## armyvern (5 Jun 2008)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Neither do I... but my problem has always been that I couldn't get my foot into the boots to begin with. I mean they'll be my size, but I can't get my foot into the boot! Or when it's finally in that the lacing and knotting of the boots themselves hurt the hell out of my calf because they were just messed up! I've had that problem with all my MkIIIs, to the point where I always go for the larger size that allows my calf and foot to slide easily in, but then the boot's too big so I get blisters when I do ruck marches...
> 
> Funny thing though... no problem at all with Magnums



Eerily, his post is about the GP Boots ... which have the same tongue/spacing as the WWBoot ...

Which do not resemble at _*ALL*_ the tongue/lack of space of MkIII boot of which you complain above. If you can fit your arch into a magnum -- you can fit it into the GP or WWB. Funny thing that.  

Apples / oranges


----------



## medaid (5 Jun 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Eerily, his post is about the GP Boots ... which have the same tongue/spacing as the WWBoot ...
> 
> Which do not resemble at _*ALL*_ the tongue/lack of space of MkIII boot of which you complain above. If you can fit your arch into a magnum -- you can fit it into the GP or WWB. Funny thing that.
> 
> Apples / oranges



D'oh, d'oh, d'oh, d'oh, d'oh! 

I haven't been able to find my right size in WWB... but I will try harder  and yes I've taken notes from all your posts Vern


----------



## Harris (16 Jun 2008)

It appears the "Buy your own boots if you don't like the issued ones.", exemption is no longer available.  I just looked at the Supply Manual (http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dmpp_apps/SupplyManual/WebHelp/index.htm) today and the para relating to that is gone:

d.     When special size footwear is ordered for an individual Supply Customer Maintenance MSO014 shall be used to annotate the member’s IA (special instructions) with the special size requirements. Item(s) should be brought on charge using the stock code of the closest size, taking caution to ensure that the total quantity (comprised of current balance, dues-in and special size items) does not exceed the district ROP/ROQ, which in turn could result in redistribution. Each time the individual requires footwear; the IA shall be checked to ascertain when the item was previously issued. Normally, special size footwear shall not be ordered for individuals during their last six months of service.

e.    Special size footwear issued to an individual shall not be withdrawn when the employment justifying its issue ceases. The individual retains the footwear during his entire period of service.

That being the case, I wonder if anyone who took advantage of that "loophole" is now eligible to claim back the costs?  Since there is no mention of a grandfathering clause, I assume they have to now either get issued boots, or get a chit of some kind.


----------



## Crisco (1 Jul 2008)

Is it okay to use the old hotwater soak trick with these boots?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Jul 2008)

I think with the liner you'd be screwed.  They aren't just leather anymore.  But I must admit I have never tried.


----------



## Crisco (1 Jul 2008)

Yeah since they're like the gortex thats what I thought  If there's anyone whos tried please let me know  I like my boots formed the easy way haha


----------



## danchapps (1 Jul 2008)

These boots form easy regardless. The leather is much more malleable than the leather on the MKIII's. Shouldn't be a problem if you wear them around for a day or two.


----------



## TCBF (5 Jul 2008)

- Spray Pam works wonders as well on leather.  An old baseball glove trick.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Jul 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - Spray Pam works wonders as well on leather.  An old baseball glove trick.



That's a great idea. I'm always putting my foot in my mouth so it might as well taste good.


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Eerily, his post is about the GP Boots ... which have the same tongue/spacing as the WWBoot ...
> 
> Which do not resemble at _*ALL*_ the tongue/lack of space of MkIII boot of which you complain above. If you can fit your arch into a magnum -- you can fit it into the GP or WWB. Funny thing that.



But the Magnums are 10 times more comfertable then the GP boot.  And in my case no lower back pain at the end of the work day. 

Apples / oranges


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2008)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> But the Magnums are 10 times more comfertable then the GP boot.  And in my case no lower back pain at the end of the work day.
> 
> Apples / oranges



Well, they are for YOU. And, that lower back pain bit would make it seem like something "medical" ... 

Yet again: Apples/Oranges  

(And, knowing that you are here right now, hoping that you are addressing the footwear item as a "medical" during your B Class time ... what a difference that makes too in the world that is the supply system [over A Class]).


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Jul 2008)

I find the GP boot ot break in easily and are comfy. THey take the orthodics and I have no issues wearing issue boots now (pun intended!)
I will not wear MK IIIs though.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2008)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I find the GP boot ot break in easily and are comfy. THey take the orthodics and I have no issues wearing issue boots now (pun intended!)



Agreed.  I use them while flying (shh...don't tell anyone!) especially since the flying boots are re-treaded Mk IIIs with bigger eyelets.  Speaking of which, how come the GPB isn't "allowed" for flight ops when they also issue Mk IIIs if flying boot stocks run low  ???


----------



## danchapps (8 Jul 2008)

I believe it's the anti-fod issue, however I could be off on this. I'm sure Vern will correct me if I'm wrong though.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I use them while flying (shh...don't tell anyone!) especially since the flying boots are re-treaded Mk IIIs with bigger eyelets.  Speaking of which, how come the GPB isn't "allowed" for flight ops when they also issue Mk IIIs if flying boot stocks run low  ???



The MkIII is an unlined, plain leather boot (just as the "flying boots" [the re-treaded combat MkIII boot as you pointed out]) with no static producing lining.

The same *can not * be said about the Boot, GP; it does have a staticy lining (or at least has a lining not yet certified to be anti-static). 

Big Flight Safety "OOOOPs" on your part.


----------



## armyvern (8 Jul 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I believe it's the anti-fod issue, however I could be off on this. I'm sure Vern will correct me if I'm wrong though.


I'm sure you meant "anti-static" vice "anti-fod".


----------



## dimsum (8 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The MkIII is an unlined, plain leather boot (just as the "flying boots" [the re-treaded combat MkIII boot as you pointed out]) with no static producing lining.
> 
> The same *can not * be said about the Boot, GP; it does have a staticy lining (or at least has a lining not yet certified to be anti-static).
> 
> Big Flight Safety "OOOOPs" on your part.



Interesting...first I've heard of that.  Thanks!


----------



## danchapps (8 Jul 2008)

I did actually mean anti-fod. I was thinking with regards to the soles and the various "others" that the GP pick up compared to the MkIII. As I said, and you held true Vern to the rescue again! (Thanks for the bail Vern.) See, this just goes to show even suppies learn something new about their job every day! (You guys thought it was an easy one )


----------



## NL_engineer (8 Jul 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Well, they are for YOU. And, that lower back pain bit would make it seem like something "medical" ...
> 
> Yet again: Apples/Oranges
> 
> (And, knowing that you are here right now, hoping that you are addressing the footwear item as a "medical" during your B Class time ... what a difference that makes too in the world that is the supply system [over A Class]).



Well I may just try it again, but last time I got told that I didn't have back pain  :


Well I am on class C for the next wile till I get back from overseas  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jul 2008)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I use them while flying (shh...don't tell anyone!) especially since the flying boots are re-treaded Mk IIIs with bigger eyelets.  Speaking of which, how come the GPB isn't "allowed" for flight ops when they also issue Mk IIIs if flying boot stocks run low  ???



Maybe because the Air Force is getting issued boots that ARE authorized for flight ops from the CEMS Project, namely the CWWB.  Aircrew are wearing them here at CYAW, and I believe there is a msg out about them.  Initially, 1 pair was issued per airman/woman or entitled member of the Army/Navy DEU variety.  I have received my 2nd pair just last month.  They are CWWBs, so I still wear my Magnum Stealth IIs in the summer months, as the Temperate Combat Boots aren't issued yet.

CEMS answered some questions on the Air Force issued boots here.  Hope that helps some.

Could be you are mixing up the CTS GP combat boot and the CEMS CWWB?  (The CEMS Temperate Combat Boot aren't even in stock yet, so you can't be getting issued them.)

I notice, from the CTS and CEMS project standpoint, the WWB is "army" and the CWWB is "Air Force".  I know this is about the GPB (army) which the CTS site refers to as the Temperate Combat Boot, or is the TCB and GPB different pieces of kit?

Now, I wonder what the new kit our sailor comrades will receive from the NICE project will be called?   ;D


----------



## Jorkapp (13 Jul 2008)

> They are CWWBs, so I still wear my Magnum Stealth IIs in the summer months, as the Temperate Combat Boots aren't issued yet.



Personally, I've found the CWWB's combined with the Combat Sock system to be plenty comfortable in summer months. The mesh lining is plenty forgiving and I've heard they break in quicker in warmer weather (took only a week for mine to break in), and compared to the old MK3's, they're like walking on clouds.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jul 2008)

They are comfortable enough but a little too hot for my paws.  But the green machine types don't care about our boots.   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Jul 2008)

AEC Kapp said:
			
		

> Personally, I've found the CWWB's combined with the Combat Sock system to be plenty comfortable in summer months. The mesh lining is plenty forgiving and I've heard they break in quicker in warmer weather (took only a week for mine to break in), and compared to the old MK3's, they're like walking on clouds.



They are called Cold Wet Weather Boots for a reason.


----------



## geo (13 Jul 2008)

recceguy said:
			
		

> They are called Cold Wet Weather Boots for a reason.



They are also called...."Skates"


----------



## McG (17 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know this is about the GPB (army) which the CTS site refers to as the Temperate Combat Boot, or is the TCB and GPB different pieces of kit?


The GPB & TCB are different things.  If you dig back through this thread, you can find that the GPB is only acting as the new Cbt boot because the TCB has not yet been bought.

The role of the GPB will be the low cost first boot issued to all pers on joining for training and before more expensive enviromental specific boots are issued.


----------



## Ecco (17 Jul 2008)

geo said:
			
		

> > They are called Cold Wet Weather Boots for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> They are also called...."Skates"



Cold Wet Weather Boots are a CEMS (Air Force) item.  They are not slippery on cold surfaces.   ???
http://www.forces.gc.ca/cems/ItemsAndClothing/Footwear/CWWB_e.htm


----------



## Teeps74 (17 Jul 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> They are also called...."Skates"
> 
> 
> Cold Wet Weather Boots are a CEMS (Air Force) item.  They are not slippery on cold surfaces.   ???
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/cems/ItemsAndClothing/Footwear/CWWB_e.htm



Must be a different Cold Wet Weather Boot that is the cause of this nice big scar on my face. Not sliippery at all. I do not even remember my feet flying out from under me... Only picking myself up to carry on with my mission (soft knock cordon search op in BiH, FD was there... FD was it not you that got my pic sitting in the Iltis holding 3 inches thick of gauze against my face?).

"Ahhh Sgt, you are bleeding..."

The ones I was issued, I will never wear again. I hope to someday meet the penny pinching knob that decided a hard sole is good for a boot being exposed to below zero temperatures.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Jul 2008)

The CTS project is providing the Army the WWB, and the CEMS project is providing the Air Force and other entitled mbrs with CWWBs.  They are not the same piece of kit.  I've worn both.

From the CEMS site:  

10. Each of the AF boot types has been designed for a specific environment and temperature range (see the individual boot descriptions on this site). This includes the rubber compound used in the outsoles. Much like the rubber on your automobile tires, wear is better on the summer tires that are constructed of a harder rubber. This said, we all change to softer winter tires during the winter months to ensure traction and collision avoidance. The same principle holds true for your boots. If, for example, you were to wear the DCB or the TCB during a mid- winter freeze, the force with which your backside would repeatedly hit the ice may well bring the rosy color of your face to an even brighter shade of scarlet. Outsoles are designed for specific temperature ranges which must be taken into account by users, based on their environment. (I should say at this point that this paragraph falls into the "gay" catagory for me, who was the bimbo that wrote the last part ffs?)

IIRC, the Army WWB sole issue is being looked after with the resoling of the boots, and the new boots coming online won't have the same issue.


----------



## Teeps74 (17 Jul 2008)

Good news indeed. I remember my excitement getting the WWB, thinking to myself, "Vibram soles, finally we are making sense." at the time, I did not realise the soles were hockey pucks in the cold, with all the same characteristics. Vibram is still the best company for making soles on the market... However with contracts, they give what is purchased, like anyone else.

'Course, for my "beauty mark" it is 5 years too late.


----------



## Loachman (21 Jul 2008)

Ecco said:
			
		

> Cold Wet Weather Boots are a CEMS (Air Force) item.



These are the absolute _*WORST*_ boots that I have ever worn.

I gave them three weeks' chance in Wainwright in late March/early April, and finally gave up.

I could not walk in them in the field, probably due to the safety toe and shank. They were simply too stiff, and showed no sign of improvement. The tops of my feet, just behind the toes, hurt by the end of the day and I could not walk normally, even in bare feet. It took over two weeks, probably closer to three, before my feet were back to normal and I shall not ever wear these things again.

I bought a pair of Magnums in the Wainwright kit shop instead, and am quite happy with them.

I have never had a problem with the standard combat boot, from Mk I to Mk III.

I have learned, over the past couple of decades, to avoid anything that has "a** f**ce in the name, and pick the Army version if there is one. The latter may not be perfect, but it's generally a whole lot better.


----------



## geo (29 Jul 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> IIRC, the Army WWB sole issue is being looked after with the resoling of the boots, and the new boots coming online won't have the same issue.



Umm.... have you had your WWB soles looked after with that resoling project ???

I did... AND I HAVE A SEVERED QUAD TO SHOW FOR IT
Not to mention the two surgeries AND a probable third looming in the wings !!!

Lousiest hunk of junk that I have ever had the misfortune to wear.  Considering that I've been in for 35+ years - that's saying a whole lot


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jul 2008)

Geo,

No I didn't.  When I was still 'green', I was issued the first version of the boot, and they sucked for anything other than standing/sitting.   (Noteably, when I was issused my 2 pair of WWBs, the person at supply said I wasn't entitled to my Mk IIIs so I turned them in and only had 2 x pair of WWBs).  Shortly after that, I was in Wainwright for my 6B in May/June and my feet were hamburger at the end of it between overheating and blisters.  I absolutely HATED those boots.  Fall '03 I was assessed for orthotics and received LPO boots (Magnums Stealths for summer and Bates M-9 Assault for cold weather) so I turned in my WWBs and was never happier to turn in a piece of kit.  The Magnums were comfy but not durable, and the Bates M-9s were a very good boot.

Since going "blue" I've been issued 2 x pair of the Air Force CWWBs, but haven't worn them much as the weather is warm, and my feet are comfy in my Magnums for now.  I did wear the CWWBs one week when we were on the airfield doing reflectors and junk like that, and they are ok if you don't have to walk around alot, or so they seemed.  I definitely wouldn't want to try a BFT or field training in them though.

I'd still love to be given a $ amount per year to purchase a good pair of boots that fit my feet the best, which for me would be these boots.


----------



## geo (29 Jul 2008)

Have gone thru Mk 1 thru 3 and have not had much problems with any of them.... though the Mk 2s had a tendency to have the quick lace rings pulled out.
Have seen the Magnums and they're overgrown sneakers - they just wear out too darned fast IMHO.
The Bates look +/- like them - did they wear out quickly ?

Matterhorns look like a nice pair of boots (though I don't need much in the way of footwear to fly my desk)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 Jul 2008)

I found the Bates M-9s very very durable.  Barely any wear on the soles after a few years of wear.  The Vibram sole caused me no issues in the winter, either here in the Martimes or at St-Jean Garrison a few winters ago.  They are Gortex as well, so even in slush etc I had warm and dry feet.  For comfort, field, garrison, crappy wet day on the range, whatever, the Matterhorns I bought at the US Calvary store just off post in Fort Knox are the best boots I've ever worn.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Sep 2008)

Loachman said:
			
		

> These are the absolute _*WORST*_ boots that I have ever worn.
> 
> I gave them three weeks' chance in Wainwright in late March/early April, and finally gave up.
> 
> ...



Well.  I got issued a pair in July.  Comfortable.  Love the speed lacing.  Nice pair of slippers............Been wearing them for three months.  Now that all ends.  Went for a 13 km practice for the BFT last Thursday, with light load, and my feet are a mess.  I have blisters on the balls of both feet that are three inches long; both heals are ripped to s*#@; and I have blisters on the tops of two toes on my right foot.  

These boots are not made for walking (any great distance).  Don't think I'll go get my second set.

I'll do the BFT in my old Mk III's with Vibram soles.


----------



## armyvern (20 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Went for a 13 km practice for the BFT, with light load, and my feet are a mess.  I have blisters on the balls of both feet that are three inches long; both heals are ripped to s*#@; and I have blisters on the tops of two toes on my right foot.
> 
> These boots are not made for walking (any great distance).  Don't think I'll go get my second set.



Seems to be the general consensus around here too.

Formation March of a mere 5km last Friday morning (I missed it - I was standing outside in the smoking area of CFSAL shaking my head in amazement at the complete gaggle-fuck [and shitty treatment of the troops in it] that is called "PretC"- that 'lil Unit has GOT to sort itself out and get a grip) sees a very high percentage of personnel who wore those boots with very screwed up feet this week due to blistering etc. 

Eerily, their feet were fine after their 13km Marches in May in June when not wearing the GPs.


----------



## danchapps (20 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Don't think I'll go get my second set.



When I was running some errands this week I asked clothing what the chances were of getting my second set of GP's. Apparently we can only have 1 set on charge for the time being because they are still coming into the system. So looks like I'm stuck with only one pair. Oh, and I did my BFT yesterday, with orthotics in. Oh tell me about hamburger. Hot spots all over the bottoms, blisters. As much as I like the GP for everyday wear I do miss having a nice set of MKIII's.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Sep 2008)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.  I got issued a pair in July.  Comfortable.  Love the speed lacing.  Nice pair of slippers............Been wearing them for three months.  Now that all ends.  Went for a 13 km practice for the BFT last Thursday, with light load, and my feet are a mess.  I have blisters on the balls of both feet that are three inches long; both heals are ripped to s*#@; and I have blisters on the tops of two toes on my right foot.
> 
> These boots are not made for walking (any great distance).  Don't think I'll go get my second set.
> 
> I'll do the BFT in my old Mk III's with Vibram soles.




Me too. 

Last Wednesday we did the BFT in 2:15 and I wore the dreaded 'blister raisers' for the first time just to see what would happen (NTS - you idiot). The pace was fine, and all on flat trails and paved paths as well. The weather was perfect.

The balls of both feet are now toasted and both big toes are smashed with toenails starting to shed like the leaves off my big maple tree out front. In my time on this earth I've covered several thousand miles of it on foot, in one type of army boot or another mostly, and I can honestly say that these are the worst I've ever worn for any kind of distance marching (left hand on heart, right hand raised palm outwards now). Thank God we didn't do anythiing like a hill session, or in wet conditions, or the rest of my feet would be fit for Hamburger Helper too.

Unfortuantely they're the only issued boots, apart from the CWW boot, that fit my orthotics. My good ol' Mk IIIs just don't work anymore with the orthotics fitted. 

20-20 hindsight - I should have worn my $250 Danners.

By the left, quick... limp!


----------



## danchapps (22 Sep 2008)

Now that I'm thinking of it, I might just get that pair of MkIII's, and start learning to go without the orthotics sometimes. It would be really nice to have a pair of boots that are comfortable on the Big F***ing Trek.


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2008)

-Ah-yup: Did BFT on Friday with GPCBs and had a bloody right SockWoolGrey to show for it.  Foot sliding all over the place inside the boot.  Too loose at the sides of the heel.

- As of last spring, my Mk. IIIs had worn out.  They had been Vibram soled four years ago and then Wainwright Clo Stores had soaked the upper in alcohol and put the turnscrews inside the boots to raise the upper over the instep.  I then asked for the orthotics WITHOUT PADDING to make them thinner.  With black 'white line' socks I could ruck for miles with them.  

- But once they wore out, Base Clo said there was no local contractor in Wx to Vibram new Mk. IIIs, so I ended up with two pair of GPCBs, which come in my length, but not my width.

- The saga continues...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (22 Sep 2008)

OK, we all know the drill, we bitch about the stuff we hate but stay quiet on good things, so......


Does anybody actually have good stories about the GP Boot?
[ for those of us whom only know what we read]


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Sep 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OK, we all know the drill, we ***** about the stuff we hate but stay quiet on good things, so......
> 
> 
> Does anybody actually have good stories about the GP Boot?
> [ for those of us whom only know what we read]



Mine stretched out nicely. Over the span of two weeks. I purposely got them three sizes to short and narrow (remember the sizing is different in these, so three sizes is not that much at all). Now they are too big. No water required.

Oh, they lace up fast, so getting out the door in the morning is a breeze (just no running, feet move around in them too much).

They are still comfortable in my office/lecture room setting. I wear my Magnums for marching/field training.


----------



## BinRat55 (22 Sep 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OK, we all know the drill, we ***** about the stuff we hate but stay quiet on good things, so......
> 
> 
> Does anybody actually have good stories about the GP Boot?
> [ for those of us whom only know what we read]



Well, there was this robber once. He was running away so I picked up the boot and proceeded to throw it at him. The boot itself actually fell short of it's mark by about 15 feet. The good news is that because the boot was so heavy, I strained my shoulder when I picked it up and finally tore a ligament when I went to retreive it - now I receive a big pension!! On another note, the theif got away with 3 blue pens and my calculator. I really miss that calculator.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I work in Supply and can find absolutely nothing good about this boot. I'm still pushing for Vern's infamous "Boot Allowance".


----------



## danchapps (22 Sep 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OK, we all know the drill, we ***** about the stuff we hate but stay quiet on good things, so......
> 
> 
> Does anybody actually have good stories about the GP Boot?
> [ for those of us whom only know what we read]



I enjoy the boot for every day wear, it broke in very well, love the speed lacing, and the sizing variations are marvelous. I just don't ever want to do a BFT with them again is all.


----------



## TCBF (22 Sep 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> I enjoy the boot for every day wear, it broke in very well, love the speed lacing, and the sizing variations are marvelous. I just don't ever want to do a BFT with them again is all.



- I am in the same boat.  BUT...  If not for BFTs/field/etc we wouldn't need boots at all.  So if they give us boots GP, they should be GP and not just "Boots, Office."


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2008)

What with the boots, office, will we now also get Pants, CADPAT, Office, with Ass, Reinforced, for Chair sitting, extended?  Here in Ottawa there are a considerable number of people who seem to be wearing out something other than the knees of their uniforms.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> What with the boots, office, will we now also get Pants, CADPAT, Office, with Ass, Reinforced, for Chair sitting, extended?  Here in Ottawa there are a considerable number of people who seem to be wearing out something other than the knees of their uniforms.



Don't forget the reinforced elbows.  It provides padding as well as extra reinforcement for those who lean forward and use their elbows to prop their heads up as they doze monitor their screens or just watch the world go by.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Sep 2008)

You could also add SHIRT, CADPAT, BROWN-NOSER w/reinforced, lubricated collar and shoulders for those who constantly seem to have their head up their superiors a**, which would be issued along with PANTS, CADPAT, ARSE-KISSER w/reinforced padded knees [only to be worn immediately preceding PER and/or posting season].  Emergency issue would be limited to temp loan the day of Career Mngr meetings, CRBs and Summary Trials.


----------



## Teeps74 (22 Sep 2008)

Ok, you guys owe me a coffee now. Coffee out nose. OUCH!


----------



## danchapps (22 Sep 2008)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - I am in the same boat.  BUT...  If not for BFTs/field/etc we wouldn't need boots at all.  So if they give us boots GP, they should be GP and not just "Boots, Office."



Not really an office Rat. I'm in the warehouse most of the time, or POL compound. When not in those places you can often find my boots sticking out from under a truck. I do not spend my day walking 13 km with a ruck on. I use my boots very well, I enjoy them, but on the really long walks, they hurt, especially the orthotics part. If it wasn't for those I'd still have the MkIII's as I've stated before.


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> PANTS, CADPAT, ARSE-KISSER w/reinforced padded knees [only to be worn immediately preceding PER and/or posting season].



Nah, that'd be:

Pads, knee, cadpat TW, adjustable, with side pocket, stowage; issued with Towlette, moist, chin.
P/O CL IOU12 Carrier, PER Kit.

UI Kt


----------



## medaid (22 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nah, that'd be:
> 
> Pads, knee, cadpat TW, adjustable, with side pocket, stowage; issued with Towlette, moist, chin.
> P/O CL IOU12 Carrier, PER Kit.
> ...





 :rofl:


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nah, that'd be:
> 
> Pads, knee, cadpat TW, adjustable, with side pocket, stowage; issued with Towlette, moist, chin.
> P/O CL IOU12 Carrier, PER Kit.
> ...



Typical supply system.  Folks need them in CADPAT AR now, and you're still shipping CADPAT TW.

Geeze...


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2008)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Typical supply system.  Folks need them in CADPAT AR now, and you're still shipping CADPAT TW.
> 
> Geeze...



Different kit altogether;  

Pads, knee, cadpat AR, adjustable, with side pocket, stowage. Issued with: Tube, chapstick, retractable; 2 ea Towlette, moist, facial; Googles, sun, wind, dust, moistureproof.
P/O CL ICU812 Carrier, Kit, Theatre-PER.

UI Kt


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Sep 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Nah, that'd be:
> 
> Pads, knee, cadpat TW, adjustable, with side pocket, stowage; issued with Towlette, moist, chin.
> P/O CL IOU12 Carrier, *PER Kit*.
> ...



HAHAHHAHAHAHAA!  That's a classic  :rofl:


----------



## armyvern (22 Sep 2008)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> HAHAHHAHAHAHAA!  That's a classic  :rofl:



I've been calling those damn kneepads "PER Kits" for years now (well at least 3 years now) ...

They do make for some wonderful moments  when people are least expecting them.


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 Sep 2008)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> OK, we all know the drill, we ***** about the stuff we hate but stay quiet on good things, so......
> 
> 
> Does anybody actually have good stories about the GP Boot?
> [ for those of us whom only know what we read]



Well, if you insist: they're the same colour as most of the boot polish I already have.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2008)

I did a BFT in the GP boots, didn't have too much of a problem. One small hotspot, but that was about it. They are significantly better for my feet than the MK IIIs were, but by no means perfect.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2008)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I did a BFT in the GP boots, didn't have too much of a problem. One small hotspot, but that was about it. They are significantly better for my feet than the MK IIIs were, but by no means perfect.



Two points:

1) You're crazy; and

2) You're also one of the rare lucky ones apparently.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Sep 2008)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I did a BFT in the GP boots, didn't have too much of a problem. One small hotspot, but that was about it. They are significantly better for my feet than the MK IIIs were, but by no means perfect.



Must be a pirate with two wooden legs? Yarrrrrr!


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2008)

I already have problems with my feet, that the Physio department here dubbed as a "comfort issue", so I figured if I really screwed up my feet, they'd listen. Kinda backfired, I guess. Keep in mind I also have the special blue insoles that Physio in Kingston gives out on foot parade, so it snugs the boots up a fair bit for me. Without them, I can definately see the problems people have been having, there is a lot of play in those boots.


----------



## Snaketnk (24 Jan 2009)

I must be one of the only guys I know in my Coy who has no complaints about the GPs. I've been wearing them every day for over a year now, and I've only ever once had a blister from them... because I got dressed in a real hurry and somehow got a small rock in the bottom of my boot. I don't use the issued insoles though, I have some green ones (the name escapes me ATM) I bought at Sportcheck for 20-some dollars. I've not once had a problem with my feet in those boots. All the guys I did my DP-1 with bought SWATs or whatever within a couple weeks of getting to Btn, while I get 112$ of extra booze.

Well, I'm at least one satisfied customer. As a side note, The Civvie Supp tech told me that the size I was issued is the largest they manufacture (305/116), which is why it took about 6 months for me to receive my second pair. Vern, can you confirm/deny this?


----------



## AmmoTech90 (24 Jan 2009)

Just got my old pair of Mk III back from being resoled.  The cobbler said something interesting about the GPs.  Apparently the heel cup uses paper or cardboard as a support.  Once this get wet, either from the outside or inside the support is pretty much gone.

Anyone ripped a pair apart in anger or actually knows if this is correct?


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (24 Jan 2009)

Sounds like a Single-serving boot to me. Open wrapper, wear boot for a day, toss, unwrap a new one...


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jan 2009)

Maybe it would be easier for the army to just issue new feet vs. withdraw the GP crippler from service and replace it with a proper, non casualty inducing boot? ;D


----------



## AirCanuck (24 Jan 2009)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I did a BFT in the GP boots, didn't have too much of a problem. One small hotspot, but that was about it. They are significantly better for my feet than the MK IIIs were, but by no means perfect.



I had the MkIII on IAP and the GP on  BOTP.  While the vibrum soles were heaven on my knees, the boot was murder on my feet.

In my experience:
MkIII pros:  almost NO blisters, hot spots.
cons: NEVER dry

GP pros: for just walking around garrison, very comfortable, vibrum soles are great, dry extremely well
cons: blisters like effing crazy.  while fine for garrison, after about 3 days in Farnham my feet were hamburger held together by second skin and tape.

plus.  IMHO, the GP's are a little mickey mouse looking compared to the MkIII's.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Jan 2009)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> I..............
> 
> plus.  IMHO, the GP's are a little mickey mouse looking compared to the MkIII's.



It is just a matter of "Acquired Taste".


----------



## dimsum (25 Jan 2009)

In a weird ironic twist, I should never have given back my Mk IIIs and one set of Aircrew boots.  I ended up with Matterhorns, Magnums and kept a set of Aircrews, but when dealing with Winnipeg winter (and the ice-skate properties of Matterhorn/Magnum soles), I'm back to wearing Aircrew boots and wishing for Mk IIIs.   :-[


----------



## geo (25 Jan 2009)

Have you thought of these ?

http://www.polarcleats.com/products/

http://www.shoechain.com/prodIceTrekkers.htm


----------



## Matt_Fisher (26 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Have you thought of these ?
> 
> http://www.polarcleats.com/products/
> 
> http://www.shoechain.com/prodIceTrekkers.htm



Whilst I've never used either of those, I'm currently using a set of Yaktrax on a set of old Marine Corps 'Infantry Combat Boots' which have the same Vibram Sierra outsole as the CF Wet Weather Boot (pre-resole project) and the difference in terms of grip and traction is night and day.  I was constantly slipping and falling as the Vibram sole became like hockey pucks. With the Yaktrax on, I'd be hard pressed to fall due to slipping on ice or compact snow.


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2009)

Have been using the ice trekkers.... great piece of kit - keeps my a$$ wher it's supposed to be.... off the ground.
Bit of a problem slipping em on in the morning in my present condition - 3rd try at Quad repair after having a bad fall with CF WWB (with post-resoled vibram) - completely sectioned the quad...

They,re rough on the hardwood floors.


----------



## AirCanuck (26 Jan 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> They,re rough on the hardwood floors.



lmao.


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2009)

AirCanuck said:
			
		

> :lmao:


The traction aids have carbide tips.  
Having a trashed knee, I have to be seated to get anywhere near my foot & put the darned thing on - THEN & only then am I ready to head out the door.
Clitty clack, clitty clack, clitty clack... Have resorted to laying a towel on the floor to spare my floor


----------



## AirCanuck (26 Jan 2009)

forgive me for laughing, it just paints a funny image.  Certainly not laughing at your pain


----------



## geo (26 Jan 2009)

... seeing what I did to MY kitchen floor really hurts !!!
Now my wife will want me to refinish the floors.....


----------



## AirCanuck (26 Jan 2009)

oh geeze.  That'll be a delight given that you struggle to put these things on!

*EDIT:  better stock up on the combat candy


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (26 Jan 2009)

What's the no BS final cost to the system for a pair of the new GP boots (if one could buy a pair of the shelf)? Anyone hazard a guess or does someone have a fairly good idea?

Had a debate today about the cost of a boot allowance over medical checkups leading to a chit & reinbursment for a bought pair. Just wondering what the new boots are costing the system (and realising that a LOT of people seem to be getting hurt wearing them)...

Cheers.


----------



## armyvern (27 Jan 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> What's the no BS final cost to the system for a pair of the new GP boots (if one could buy a pair of the shelf)? Anyone hazard a guess or does someone have a fairly good idea?
> 
> Had a debate today about the cost of a boot allowance over medical checkups leading to a chit & reinbursment for a bought pair. Just wondering what the new boots are costing the system (and realising that a LOT of people seem to be getting hurt wearing them)...
> 
> Cheers.



The final "no BS" cost that's limited to their "dollar value" on your clothing docs should you lose them and have to replace them?? ... OR

The final "no BS" cost once we figure in the cost of O&M to store, ship, handle, distribute, replace, resole, medical appointments ... and the PY's spent doing all of the aforementioned?

If option 2 ... the cost is far higher than a boot allowance. And the mere space rationalization that could occur as a result of going with a boot allowance would save untold sums in associated maintenance costs as well ... overhead warehouse heating costs etc etc. If it weren't for the sheer volume of footwear styles and types we need to maintain in each CSG ... we' need a building at this particluar location that is half the size of the one the taxpayers are paying to maintain now.


----------



## TCBF (27 Jan 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> What's the no BS final cost to the system for a pair of the new GP boots (if one could buy a pair of the shelf)? Anyone hazard a guess or does someone have a fairly good idea?
> 
> Had a debate today about the cost of a boot allowance over medical checkups leading to a chit & reinbursment for a bought pair. Just wondering what the new boots are costing the system (and realising that a LOT of people seem to be getting hurt wearing them)...
> 
> Cheers.



- My 13 Jun 08 Individual Account Holdings print-out has: 

Boots Combat, $158.16, (GP) 
Boots, Hot Weather, $45.00 (old Jungle Boots, green and black)
Boots, Hot Weather, $77.69, (old patten desert - not Mondopoint)
Boots, Extreme Cold Weather, $85.15 (Muckluk outers)
Boots, Cold Weather, $126.15 (Bosnia era Goretex)
Boots, Combat, $109.28 (Wet Weather)


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 Jan 2009)

TCBF said:
			
		

> - My 13 Jun 08 Individual Account Holdings print-out has:
> 
> Boots Combat, $158.16, (GP)
> Boots, Hot Weather, $45.00 (old Jungle Boots, green and black)
> ...



That's awesome. The worst boots cost the most, correct?


----------



## AirCanuck (27 Jan 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> That's awesome. The worst boots cost the most, correct?



no surprise there.  You gotta PAY for that kind of 'comfort'.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (27 Jan 2009)

Thanks for the answers... I don't get to Clothing Stores often enough to check the actual on-paper price for our kit. Scary that the GP Boot is in fact the most expensive, and in line with most COTS boots out there that actually fit individual feet without making the soldier combat ineffective.

I will likely get a pair of GPs just to spare my Mk IIIs (for "non-General Purpose activities").

Until common sense prevails where-ever these boots and other such monstrosities are tested and approved, I will stick to Mk IIIs and third-party (I believe in the Preventative in PMed), chit or no chit.


----------



## Warren12 (24 Feb 2009)

Is there a suitable brand of over the counter paste for the wet weather boots?  I need to get mine in shape before my unit will have the paste in.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Feb 2009)

The brand is Emu, I've seen it at the CANEX, not sure about civvie side.


----------



## armyvern (24 Feb 2009)

Beadwindow said:
			
		

> Is there a suitable brand of over the counter paste for the wet weather boots?  I need to get mine in shape before my unit will have the paste in.



Your QM or Clothing should carry paste for the WW Boots.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Feb 2009)

I have seen the same tins being sold in the Canex at either Pet or Kingston......perhaps both.....Damn mess tins.


----------



## armyvern (24 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I have seen the same tins being sold in the Canex at either Pet or Kingston......perhaps both.....Damn mess tins.



You probably have George because they sell them in the Canex here too; still, they're free at the QM shop or clothing stores.


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Feb 2009)

But if you read Beadwindow's post, he says the unit *doesn't* have the paste in.


----------



## armyvern (24 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> But if you read Beadwindow's post, he says the unit *doesn't* have the paste in.



Perhaps they should order some?

There's no shortage of it according to MiMs.


----------



## PMedMoe (24 Feb 2009)

Perhaps they should.  

Beadwindow, I'm sure if you go to a good shoe store, you can probably find shoe paste that is not polish.


----------



## Warren12 (25 Feb 2009)

Thanks I will ask at a local shoe store.  My QM didn't have any and I've asked for it, but sometimes it takes a while and I really need to get my boots cleaned up quick.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Feb 2009)

Beadwindow said:
			
		

> Thanks I will ask at a local shoe store.  My QM didn't have any and I've asked for it, but sometimes it takes a while and I really need to get my boots cleaned up quick.



Call me crazy, but you could just stick your neck wayyyyy out there and use boot polish  :


----------



## the_man06 (25 Feb 2009)

O.k. I've been accused many times of having the wet weather boot, asked why are they shiny a then had to march my ass down to the supp tech where i received the emu boot paste. However, boot paste is for the wet weather boot, because it helps water proof the gore-tex, and regular boot polish ruins gore-tex.  

Seeing as i am brand new, I could be so completely wrong, but I'm just sharing what I've been told by a Sgt.

I have the GPs by the way.


----------



## medaid (25 Feb 2009)

Who? What? Maybe... said:
			
		

> helps water proof the gore-tex, and regular boot polish ruins gore-tex.



uh.... anything applied to the gore-tex membrane will ruin it. The lining is on the INSIDE of the boots. The OUTSIDE is LEATHER.


----------



## geo (25 Feb 2009)

Medtech,  WWBs have two membranes of sorts. 1 Goretex & 1 Leather. If 1 can breathe & the other can't.... it doesn't work.


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

MedTech said:
			
		

> uh.... anything applied to the gore-tex membrane will ruin it. The lining is on the INSIDE of the boots. The OUTSIDE is LEATHER.



Applying polish to the outside of the WWB's affects the boot as much as applying polish to the membrane itself.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 Feb 2009)

I have stated this somewhere on the site before, maybe even in this thread:

When I got issued Matterhorns in 2000 (leather over goretex) the instructions dictated that boot polish was to be used on them.  I called the company's 1-800 number because I thought there might be a mistake and they confirmed that it did not affect the membrane nor the properties of the boots.

I imagine the same rules should apply for the WWB.  

I suspect the only reason paste is used on the boots instead of polish is for the gloss vs. matte factors that became important when they started to trial the new combat uniform and realized boots can be seen from very far away when they are nice and shiny and black.

My 2 cents.


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I have stated this somewhere on the site before, maybe even in this thread:
> 
> When I got issued Matterhorns in 2000 (leather over goretex) the instructions dictated that boot polish was to be used on them.  I called the company's 1-800 number because I thought there might be a mistake and they confirmed that it did not affect the membrane nor the properties of the boots.
> 
> ...



I was told in no uncertain terms, by the sup tech who issued them to me, that only paste was to be used as it affected the performance of the boot. I believe there is also a tag on the boot that says the same. 

It could have something to do with the leather used. I know people who used the paste as well as people who used the polish. I can't recall if anyone had any problems and I don't have them issued anymore anyways (gave 'em back).


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I was told in no uncertain terms, by the sup tech who issued them to me, that only paste was to be used as it affected the performance of the boot. I believe there is also a tag on the boot that says the same.
> 
> It could have something to do with the leather used. I know people who used the paste as well as people who used the polish. I can't recall if anyone had any problems and I don't have them issued anymore anyways (gave 'em back).



Are these the same people who told us that we were to NEVER use boot polish on the Mk IIIs, but to only use that wonderful black glossy boot paint in a can?


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Are these the same people who told us that we were to NEVER use boot polish on the Mk IIIs, but to only use that wonderful black glossy boot paint in a can?



Boot polish actually serves to waterproof the MK III's.....somewhat. The WWB's need to 'breath' hence no polish. 

I'm just sayin'....they're crummy boots anyways.


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2009)

Holy cow people:

THE MANUFACTURER states that paste only should be used as polish will degrade and impede the function of the boot.

It's written right ON the MANUFACTURER'S label when you receive the boot.

We Sup techs only pass on what the MANUFACTURER'S recommendations are.

Don't listen to them  ... don't be surprised if you find your boot doesn't function as per your expectations. It really is that simple.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Feb 2009)

I will have to agree with MWO Vern ( btw congrats! When are you coming to 17 WIng to sort them out?..joking)
Use what you're told to. Polish will gum up the leather on the WWB and GP.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Feb 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I will have to agree with *MWO Vern*



Something we haven't heard yet?


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Something we haven't heard yet?



I think it has to do with with comments Binrat55 made over in the Sup Tech thread.

Promoted, not posted. But, not yet. How's that for delivery?


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Feb 2009)

Well, congrats in advance!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (25 Feb 2009)

But inquiring minds want to know, what do YOU use on your boots Vern??


----------



## Journeyman (25 Feb 2009)

Yes Vern, do tell


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> But inquiring minds want to know, what do YOU use on your boots Vern??



WW Boots - I use the boot paste that's issued.

Boots, Interim GP --- I use nothing on them as they fit like crap, so I didn't take my issue of them.

I've got my trusty little MkIII combat boots on my feet right now (sans vibram sole) ... shone with Kiwi polish.

How's that for an answer?


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> I will have to agree with MWO Vern ( btw congrats! When are you coming to 17 WIng to sort them out?..joking)
> *Use what you're told to*. Polish will gum up the leather on the WWB and GP.



What happens when you're told otherwise? I.e. some poor kid on CAP wearing his WWB's who gets a blast from ALL the staff (i.e. they all lined up for a turn) for using the paste (which doesn't give a shine). Poor kid had a nice thick layer of paste on his boots by the end of the course and was dreading having to go explain to stores why his boots were like that.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (25 Feb 2009)

Since when are the CAP instructors giving a rats arse about WW boots,  I was there a year ago, and since have had 5 or six of my guys go through there and never been a problem.  GP Boots tend to get kiwi polished,  and I won't lie I kiwi my GP boots, but then I don't wear them in the field either.  I gotta go with vern on the prospector paste on the WWB


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> *Since when are the CAP instructors giving a rats arse about WW boots*,  I was there a year ago, and since have had 5 or six of my guys go through there and never been a problem.  GP Boots tend to get kiwi polished,  and I won't lie I kiwi my GP boots, but then I don't wear them in the field either.  I gotta go with vern on the prospector paste on the WWB



I dunno...since they inspect your little booties every morning. I've seen lots of kit ruined during a course because of an instructor's temper-tantrum or 'this is how we did it 20 years ago and that's how you'll do it' attitude.


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (25 Feb 2009)

Now that I have seen, as for the whole WWB issue, its easy to avoid,   wear combat boots unless playing hockey,  in which case the wet weather puck is more than sufficient.


----------



## PMedMoe (25 Feb 2009)

I am so glad that there isn't a size of WWB that fits me.  Of course, if the new boots are based on the same sizing system, I guess I'd better make sure my combat boots stay in good shape for the next four and a half years.


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> What happens when you're told otherwise? I.e. some poor kid on CAP wearing his WWB's who gets a blast from ALL the staff (i.e. they all lined up for a turn) for using the paste (which doesn't give a shine). Poor kid had a nice thick layer of paste on his boots by the end of the course and was dreading having to go explain to stores why his boots were like that.



Or the kid can obtain the proper information and present it to those outstanding leaders, to better educate them on proper boot care.  Then he can ask them who should supply send the bill to for ruining the boots.

What a bunch of douchebags.


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Or the kid can obtain the proper information and present it to those outstanding leaders, to better educate them on proper boot care.  Then he can ask them who should supply send the bill to for ruining the boots.
> 
> What a bunch of douchebags.



Heh, after a little 'incident' with a certain someone playing barrack room lawyer, no one dared pipe up to the staff (well except for one...sort of...it's quite the story but probably best not posted here). They weren't bad people (well, not all of them, the jury is out in some cases) but it is very much a personality driven affair in Gagetown....what they say goes. If they are aware of things, then they happen. If not, tough luck. 

In their defence though, they were somewhat lenient with kit..especially with non-issue boots. Anyways, I've gone off on a tangent now.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Feb 2009)

Speaking of tangents...

If 'they' issue us with paste for the WWB, why don't 'they' issue us with Kiwi (Parade Gloss of course) for all our other boots (and boots bands too goldurn it!).

I like talking about 'they' as if I wasn't part of 'them'  ;D


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2009)

Piper said:
			
		

> I dunno...since they inspect your little booties every morning. I've seen lots of kit ruined during a course because of an instructor's temper-tantrum or 'this is how we did it 20 years ago and that's how you'll do it' attitude.



Sounds quite like an instructor problem rather than a paste problem.  

An instructor problem; which, in this case (GP & WW Boots), can lead to the degradation and non-performance of the boot as intended by manufacturer's specifications. Oh _goody_ on those dinosaur instructors.


----------



## armyvern (25 Feb 2009)

ArtyNewbie said:
			
		

> Now that I have seen, as for the whole WWB issue, its easy to avoid,   wear combat boots unless playing hockey,  in which case the wet weather puck is more than sufficient.



There's a huge project underway right now to re-sole all WW Boots into more appropraite vibram soles. Stocked WW boots and all WW boots already issued to individuals. Wait for it ... we're only awaiting the dates here in this location that the contractor will be able to take them all back.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> There's a huge project underway right now to re-sole all WW Boots into more appropraite vibram soles. Stocked WW boots and all WW boots already issued to individuals. Wait for it ... we're only awaiting the dates here in this location that the contractor will be able to take them all back.


Still won't wear them likely. I'll just use my gortex socks. It's so much easier and comfortable.


----------



## chris_log (25 Feb 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Still won't wear them likely. I'll just use my gortex socks. It's so much easier and comfortable.



Or just get a chit.  ;D

Although my base's local supplier doesn't have any good gortex boots (everyone in London wears Rocky boots for a reason) so I'm gortex-boot less (and sock-less too). Sigh, hopefuly my next base has better suppliers.


----------



## geo (25 Feb 2009)

Vern... that new project is an old project - I had 1 pr resoled in 2007.

Those are the ones I trashed my Right knee with.... Grrr


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Feb 2009)

"or get a chit"

Not here at Longue Pointe.  The latest LFQA RSM passed the word (geo can confirm) that NO boots aside from the issued ones would be worn.  Tear up the chits is what we were passed on from our Bde RSM.

As for the issued polish for the boots we have, if I remember correctly the 265 doesn't specify putting any polish on the parade boots for a gloss effect but try telling that to any higher rank when they tell you to "work harder on your boots".  

geo, it doesn't matter what boots you were wearing.. you shouldn't have been dancing on that table anyhow!!


----------



## dangerboy (26 Feb 2009)

Can an RSM override a medical chit? Am not doubting that is what happened Bzzliteyr am just curious if an RSM even an Area RSM can over rule a medical decision made by the MO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> "or get a chit"
> 
> Not here at Longue Pointe.  The latest LFQA RSM passed the word (geo can confirm) that NO boots aside from the issued ones would be worn.  Tear up the chits is what we were passed on from our Bde RSM.



So, if you have a chit signed by a MO that you require 'special footwear' for reason X,Y or Z.  I am one of those with a Chit for footwear to accomodate my orthodics (also ordered by a MO...) so I don't think I'd be tearing up my chit.  

But thats just me.  Interesting to see what happens when the first soldier returns to the MIR with an injury that has been compounded from this 'order'.

Whats next up your way?  "I don't care if you just had surgery and are on 2 weeks Medical Leave.  Rip that Leave Pass up and report for duty"?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Can an RSM override a medical chit? Am not doubting that is what happened Bzzliteyr am just curious if an RSM even an Area RSM can over rule a medical decision made by the MO.



No.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (26 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> "or get a chit"
> 
> Not here at Longue Pointe.  The latest LFQA RSM passed the word (geo can confirm) that NO boots aside from the issued ones would be worn.  Tear up the chits is what we were passed on from our Bde RSM.



Did someone cry "chickenhawk"?


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

Can an CWO overide an MO? Somehow I doubt that. Seems to me that someone thinks he knows better than a Medical Officer.

As for maintenance of boots, I had a pair of Rockies that never saw a lick of Kiwi. Danner boot dressing only.
To the "donosaur instructors" the days of spit and polish are now reserved for DEU parades.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2009)

Maybe SQFT is known as 'squarefoot' for a reason


----------



## reccecrewman (26 Feb 2009)

Well, I know of a soldier who has size 16 boots, and they don't (or didn't in 2003) exist in the system. In Gagetown while in the training system, they forced him to wear 14's (Largest size they had) and after a year of that, his feet are now ****ed up. After arrival in Petawawa, he was given a perma-chit for civvy boots and ended up getting a nice chunk of change from VA. Since I've been posted to Gagetown last APS, I've noticed a much more ana.... errr.... rigid policy on footwear. The Mark III's destroyed my feet and knees, and I have had a chit for Magnums for years now...... but I genuinely don't see the issue with soldiers willing to pay money themselves to get good footwear. The soldier is comfortable and won't become a burden on the medical system. Why force troops to use substandard boots?


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Well, I know of a soldier who has size 16 boots, and they don't (or didn't in 2003) exist in the system. In Gagetown while in the training system, they forced him to wear 14's (Largest size they had) and after a year of that, his feet are now ****ed up. After arrival in Petawawa, he was given a perma-chit for civvy boots and ended up getting a nice chunk of change from VA. Since I've been posted to Gagetown last APS, I've noticed a much more ana.... errr.... rigid policy on footwear. The Mark III's destroyed my feet and knees, and I have had a chit for Magnums for years now...... but I genuinely don't see the issue with soldiers willing to pay money themselves to get good footwear. The soldier is comfortable and won't become a burden on the medical system. Why force troops to use substandard boots?



Why? Because I said so! and that's the answer you get a lot of the time. 
I did seven "Corrective Training" days for wearing boots that were far superior to the Mk III boot.
The reasoning was that only Snr NCOs and officers could afford Danners etc, while the troops couldn't, so therefore we all had to suffer equally. 
The problem, as I see it, is that some people are stuck in the past.


----------



## Sub_Guy (26 Feb 2009)

I am baffled, how on earth could someone let themselves be forced into a boot two sizes smaller?  Didn't he think about going to the MO?  What kind of leadership is that anyway?

The more I read through this thread, the more I shake my head.  No CWO can override a MO chit, thank god these guys seemed to be confined to one element.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Feb 2009)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Why force troops to use substandard boots?


Cause it's what the D-I-N-O-S-A-U-R-S wear.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I am baffled, how on earth could someone let themselves be forced into a boot two sizes smaller?  Didn't he think about going to the MO?  What kind of leadership is that anyway?
> 
> The more I read through this thread, the more I shake my head.  No CWO can override a MO chit, thank god these guys seemed to be confined to one element.



I can provide some insight: "Because that is what the RSM (or whoever)[[/quote] said to do." I agree with you ....this pure unadulterated garbage. Our troops are our future in this Army, and if one gets treated this way it reflects on all NCOs and Officers.....painting us as incompetent, uncaring, uneducated fools.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Cause it's what the D-I-N-O-S-A-U-R-S wear.



And they can't get over the advances in footwear etc. If it was up to some people we'd still be in Battledress wearing ties on exercise.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2009)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> Well, I know of a soldier who has size 16 boots, and they don't (or didn't in 2003) exist in the system. In Gagetown while in the training system, they forced him to wear 14's (Largest size they had) and after a year of that, his feet are now ****ed up. After arrival in Petawawa, he was given a perma-chit for civvy boots and ended up getting a nice chunk of change from VA.



I've heard of it both ways, people wearing ones that are too small/too big because of shortages.

I can see the issue with troops just buying "whatever they like" as certain standards have to be met (materials, construction, safety, etc).  That is where Base Supply kicks in after the Medical folks assess your properly.  It shouldn't be based on LCF.

If a soldier/sailor/air*person* cannot wear the issued ones for whatever ~legitimate~ reason, and the CF medical system identifies that, and the CF supply system provides suitable boots, that should be the end of it.

Hopefully Commanders at all levels will squash things like "rip up your chits for special footwear troops!" and make it known that MOs orders are MO orders. 

I'd be curious to see what the BSurg/Snr MO at Lounge-Pointe thinks of this *directive* as well.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Feb 2009)

The other thing that happens as I was just discussing with a fellow worker is that people never challenge the decisions.  The RSM "gets away" with it by suggesting a "transition phase" in effect allowing for some leniency on his decision should anyone actually try to complain.

This rule came in to effect not long after the RSM returned from tour in Afghanistan, where he directly impacted dress regulations there as well.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

If you will indulge me for a moment, I' ve not had a very good week. Excuse me if I seem abrupt and rude. :rage:

I get rather worked up when Snr NCO's who should be using their heads for something other than a place to put their berets. 
Loyalty in the Army works both ways. Up and down. You owe to your troops to look after them, physically and mentally. That is what we get paid for.
We, as Snr NCOs and Warrant Officers owe it to our officers to advise them of issues that affect the troops, like the proper sizing and maintenance of footwear.

Thank you!


----------



## reccecrewman (26 Feb 2009)

The reason how his size 16 feet fit into the 14's was simple..... he was a new recruit in the training system and knew squat about squat. He was told those were the biggest they had and he WOULD wear them.... so... he jammed his feet in them day after day for months with his toes curled under his feet and "soldiered on".... albeit in a painful fashion....

Soon enough, these old crusty dinosaurs should be out the door..... Off topic, speaking on a similar topic of "wear this, don't wear that"...... I remember reading a book on the Pats and it recounted a tale of a gas attack.... the troops donned their respirators only to have an officer scream at them to "Take those damned masks off, you can't see the Germans attacking with them on"..... end result.... 17 severe gas casualties with 3 of them being treated for decades after the war ended.... *sigh*


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

Yes one day those dinosaurs will be out the door, but not before they have trained a new generation of dinosaurs....who are more concerned with uniformity (albeit that is important on DEU pdes) and how you look and are you wearing issued kit vice performance where it counts. 
Once again, its the job of the Sect Comd and his 2I/C to ensure the troops are doing the 4 Ps' - in the Proper Place, Properly Dressed, Prepared to do whatever it is they are tasked with, and at the Proper Time.
This includes the footwear issue.

Sorry if I'm telling you how to suck eggs.... :blotto:


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Can an RSM override a medical chit? Am not doubting that is what happened Bzzliteyr am just curious if an RSM even an Area RSM can over rule a medical decision made by the MO.



Of course he can.  Everyone knows that all army NCOs get a medical degree on their 6As.  "There's nothing wrong with you, private, walk it off and catch up with the group."


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2009)

reccecrewman said:
			
		

> The reason how his size 16 feet fit into the 14's was simple..... he was a new recruit in the training system and knew squat about squat. He was told those were the biggest they had and he WOULD wear them.... so... he jammed his feet in them day after day for months with his toes curled under his feet and "soldiered on".... albeit in a painful fashion....



Hmmm, 2003?? Here eh? Funny, I was the Sgt at Clothing Stores (and that IS the highest ranking soldier in that section in this location) here then and:

1) I've never in my entire life said anything of the sort above to anyone;
2) I'd have sent him down to purchase boots (SIZE is a SUPPLY resp - NOT a Medical resp, thus NO CHIT was required) just like I did for the others; and
3) I'd even have molded his feet to have customs made for his parade boots etc.

Or can I presume that you're actually talking about BMQ/BOTC in Saint Jean circa that time period? Because I've seen them come out of Saint jean like that before, but we've sent them right down to purchase boots that fit once they hit here.

PS: I too may be considered a "dinosaur" by some, I had 20 in last month ... heeee haw.


----------



## chris_log (26 Feb 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> If you will indulge me for a moment, I' ve not had a very good week. Excuse me if I seem abrupt and rude. :rage:
> 
> I get rather worked up when Snr NCO's who should be using their heads for something other than a place to put their berets.
> Loyalty in the Army works both ways. Up and down. You owe to your troops to look after them, physically and mentally. That is what we get paid for.
> ...



That's why my chit is in my wallet whenever I wear my uniform, in case I meet a dinosaur (although believe it or not, didn't have a single problem in Borden last summer wearing Magnums). 

You can't be afraid to tell someone to bugger off, you just need to learn to do it properly (as I am slowly learning how to do).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2009)

I don't have a chit in my wallet, I have never had one.  I've worn my boots all over Halifax, Gagetown, St-Jean, Lounge-Pointe, Shearwater...and have never been asked to produce a chit.  Nor would I be able to if asked, because CF HS C (A) never provided me one.  However, my Clothing Docs are annotated with whatever they need to be for me to see the Special Footwear section at FLOG, and my Med File would have the proper paperwork in it from the Foot Clinic in Halifax that I was told to report to following my Part II.

However, I am not likely to haul my Magnums off my feet "when ordered" because I am not carrying this chit.  

I have really never understood this obsession with the 'cookie cutter' look other than on parade, inspections on course, etc.  Looking the same as my superiors/peers/subordinates never had a single thing to do with how good I was, or wasn't, at what I was doing.  

*shrugs*


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Feb 2009)

Okay, from the "horses mouth".

I questioned the Brigade RSM about the boot policy and he showed me what came down the pipes from LFQA.

It is a paper titled "Bottes de combat et autres" and I will translate it to the best of my ability:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It has NOW been prohibited by Ottawa (DSCO 2-5-3 Clothing policy and procedures) to permit members to wear boots other than those issued by the QM, even if the cost was absorbed by the member.

It is now equally prohibited to replace a made to measure orthopedic boot with the purchase of a civilian style (Magnum, Danners, etc) Ref 4090-20 MSI 7000-011.

In resumé:

NO prescriptions should be made for magnum style boots, etc.

a MO can:

    1. evaluate a food problem
    2. offer a treatment
    3. refer to a physiotherapist for treatments
    4. refer you to an orthopedist to be evaluated for "made to measure" boots (no magnums, nor danners, etc.) only if you have a foot or ankle that is deformed due to sickness or injury.

Patients that find themselves uncomfortable in their boots or have feet too long, too wide, too skinny, too high should address the QM.  It is an adjustment issue and not a medical problem due to injury or disease.

For members who have already received in the past a medical chit authorizing them to wear magnum style boots at their expense or by military expense, this medical chit is REVOKED.

1. you need to address you CoC to receive authorization to wear them
2. you need to wear regular military boots
3. reconsult your omnipractician if this boot was issued as a replacement for a "made to measure" boot due to a DEFORMATION.
4. revisit your doctor if this boot was prescribed to increase shock absorption (vibram soled) related to a medical problem.

I have tried for the past 6 years to have other style boots accepted by the CF or to at least allow soldiers to purchase their own boots but this was REFUSED by Ottawa recently.  We now have to follow the rules in place.

If you feel that the boots you have been issued are non satisfactory, fill out a "rapport d'etat non satisfaisant" and pass it up your chain of command or QM.

Chief MO, Montreal Garrison.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So there you have it.  I guess it wasn't the RSM who "over rode" an MOs decision but an order from Ottawa that should be applied Forces wide.  There is another page with an email between RSMs but I did not copy that one.


----------



## chris_log (26 Feb 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I don't have a chit in my wallet, I have never had one.  I've worn my boots all over Halifax, Gagetown, St-Jean, Lounge-Pointe, Shearwater...and have never been asked to produce a chit.  Nor would I be able to if asked, because CF HS C (A) never provided me one.  However, my Clothing Docs are annotated with whatever they need to be for me to see the Special Footwear section at FLOG, and my Med File would have the proper paperwork in it from the Foot Clinic in Halifax that I was told to report to following my Part II.
> 
> However, I am not likely to haul my Magnums off my feet "when ordered" because I am not carrying this chit.
> 
> ...



I got an orthotics chit, then stores bought me boots without a 'boot chit' since the orthotics didn't fit in the issued boots. However, as a  CYA thing I went back to the MIR and the doc gave me a 'member is entitled to wear specialized footwear to accomodate orthotic inserts' . 

When all you have on your chest is a spaghetti strap, it makes life easier to have a nice official document you can present to someone if they decide to hassle you.


----------



## chrisf (26 Feb 2009)

Congratulations Ottawa!

Having the squadron spend entire training days sitting down and filling out UCRs is now a justifiable use of our time!


----------



## helpup (26 Feb 2009)

This thread is a fun read.  I personally cant stand the CWB, it does not fit my feet properly and tends to tear them to ratsh%*t if I dont wear the thick wool socks over the green. I am also not a fan of gortex boots.  My own experience with them is once the lether is wet the gortex will not work. Your feet get wet.  Step in a puddle over the tops of the boots, your feet get wet and stay wet. Gortex boots also take alot longer to dry out. So your feet are wet longer.  With the Gortex socks though never a problem, your protected from higher water levels. and if you do get the insides soaked take them off shake out gortex socks put on a new pair of socks and your feet are GTG.
       I am also a person who didnt mind the Mark III hockey puck soles or not.  A vibram sole on it though did help alot!  I am currently awaiting my Mark IV's and will have to experience them before I comment.  Currently I do wear Rocky's ( insulated no gortex ) and find them comfortable although they tend to chew through boot laces unless you fix the eyelet in the instep.  After 3 years they are starting to split at the heel ( sole from boot )
      I dont have a big issue with troops wearing thier own boots ( I am a cheap one and want the army to provide my working footwear) But I do take issue with Young-uns who base wearing a boot on LCF or it felt great in garrison ( dry ) I have watched too many get chewed up feet or rolled ankles due to not choosing the right boot based on experience. I get the uniformity issue, and I get the my feet need this issue ( I mentioned I have Rockie's ) I personally dont think the wear what you want program is a solution, and I also know you must wear this is not a option either ( especially with the types of boots we have now or are wearing now) but there must be a happy medium.  I dont have the answer outside of following and enforcing what is directed to me ( and pointing out to the troops what thier rights are if I think higher is being a tad "high")

As for care of the boots, This Dinosaur started in the days of hot spooning your toes to allow that parade look shine.  Now I keep them only blackend with the issued paste.  If I don't have that then sure I use Kiwi ( hate parade gloss as it doesnt shine as well for me ) I never worry about ruining a boot with Kiwi as by day two in the Ex I have no polish left on the boot, and since I never had a problem with the oils penitrating to my gortex socks I dont worry about it.  Even if my boots were gortex I would still wear the socks and I dont turn in boots that would be worn by anyone else.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Feb 2009)

I had originally gotten Matterhorns issued to me in 2000, then grew out of them somehow.  I have had orthodics issued at different times over the years as well.  I posess no more MkIIIs as I turned them in to clothing in Gagetown when i got issued my Magnums a couple of years back.

How did I get Magnums?  The doc knew I couldn't get them for the reasons in the letter above, but seeing as I have very sweaty feet, "breathable boots" (read: fungus = disease) were requested through clothing at Gagetown and a local purchase was made.  Magnums fit the bill.  My feet still look like hamburger most of the time but I think that is in part due to the fact that I wear the boots, GP now for my fallen arches and I live with the nastiness that is my feet without pain.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2009)

I think the whole issue about the Magnum (brand name) boots was that they didn't offer enough ankle support.  I have a pair and I wouldn't recommend doing a 13 km in them (I speak from experience) however, for everyday use?  Sure.  I know in Kingston they weren't issuing Magnums anymore (regardless of the reason for LPO boots) but since I have a pair, purchased by the military, that are still in great condition, I wear them.

On a side note, the message out of Ottawa is sort of funny considering half the people here don't dress properly anyway......


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> On a side note, the message out of Ottawa is sort of funny considering half the people here don't dress properly anyway......



Nor have some of them been to the field in quite a while.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Nor have some of them been to the field in quite a while.



Please!  Try NEVER for some of them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2009)

Maybe the folks making these decisions should ante up, and go do some time in the sandbox, Gagetown, a BTE, etc wearing the kit they are directing be worn, under the same conditions as the troops who are on the receiving end of these directions...just a thought.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Maybe the folks making these decisions should ante up, and go do some time in the sandbox, Gagetown, a BTE, etc wearing the kit they are directing be worn, under the same conditions as the troops who are on the receiving end of these directions...just a thought.



I've always said that and not just on the personal kit side, either.  I remember working in Bde Pharmacy when we got the new (at the time) Combi-Tubes (intubation tubes).  They were at least half a foot too long (and you can't fold them) for the pannier Ottawa directed them to go in.  I was wondering if the people making the directive had ever seen a pannier.....

......but I digress.


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I've always said that and not just on the personal kit side, either.  I remember working in Bde Pharmacy when we got the new (at the time) Combi-Tubes (intubation tubes).  They were at least half a foot too long (and you can't fold them) for the pannier Ottawa directed them to go in.  I was wondering if the people making the directive had ever seen a pannier.....



Uh,,,sorry.,...simple infantry guy here with a Ralph Wiggums question: What's a pannier?

I think it behooves the WOs and Snr NCO's on this forum to inform the the chain of command when required on this issue of boots etc.


----------



## Harris (26 Feb 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Uh,,,sorry.,...simple infantry guy here with a Ralph Wiggums question: What's a pannier?



That's easy.  It a noodle that tastes good with a cream sauce.  ;-)  Did I mention I'm in the Infantry too?


----------



## OldSolduer (26 Feb 2009)

Harris said:
			
		

> That's easy.  It a noodle that tastes good with a cream sauce.  ;-)  Did I mention I'm in the Infantry too?



No but you may be a complicated infantry guy while I am a simple one. ;D


----------



## helpup (26 Feb 2009)

A panier is the " baracks box " for medics has 101+1 drawrs and pull outs in it, normally is a top loading lid with differant shelving boxes in them.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> A panier is the " baracks box " for medics has 101+1 drawrs and pull outs in it, normally is a top loading lid with differant shelving boxes in them.



Almost, but not quite.  That's a battle box.  Here is a picture (albeit small) of a medical set up.  If you look at the lower left side, you will see a battle box on top of a pannier. But yes, a pannier is a metal "barrack box" in which the med section would store their medical kit and supplies.  Usually they had a set of seven plus the battle box.  Bde Pharm is the resupply for the medical units in a brigade and they had two sets of 33, IIRC.


----------



## McG (26 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> It has NOW been prohibited by Ottawa (DSCO 2-5-3 Clothing policy and procedures) to permit members to wear boots other than those issued by the QM, even if the cost was absorbed by the member.


Some of this makes sense.  It is not the responsibility of the health services community to validate that your boots fit.  That is the responsibility of the supply system (either through LPO or “made to measure” versions of what is in service).  Instead of burdening the supply system with a constant stream of individuals looking for unnecessary medical authorization for fitting boots (you are entitled to fitting boots even without asking a doctor).  The only time footwear should be a medical issue is when the source of the problem is the foot.

In those instances where a medical problem does require sourcing special boots, the sited reference states that it is not the job of health services to identify that soldier needs brand ‘X.’  Once the medical decision is made, it is again the job of the supply system to get the right solution (within whatever guidelines exist for LPO or ordering custom builds of issue boots).



> Requests specifically for civilian pattern boots from HCPs should be very rare as their role in most cases will be to determine if the member's current CF footwear is adequate and to then make recommendations for special size footwear or vibram soling which would allow the CFSS to determine the most adequate footwear for the member.


 http://hr.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/health-sante/pd/pol/word/4090-20-eng.doc

I don’t think there is one style boot that will meet the requirements of all Army users.  We might be able to come close by giving soldiers a few options, but that still remains a requirements & supply problem (not medical).

Something is off here though ...


----------



## helpup (26 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Almost, but not quite.  That's a battle box.  Here is a picture (albeit small) of a medical set up.  If you look at the lower left side, you will see a battle box on top of a pannier. But yes, a pannier is a metal "barrack box" in which the med section would store their medical kit and supplies.  Usually they had a set of seven plus the battle box.  Bde Pharm is the resupply for the medical units in a brigade and they had two sets of 33, IIRC.


 Hence My " " on the term baracks box,  it still comes with a lid is stackable and to us 031's is a loose equivelent to our "baracks box" with shelves. in it


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2009)

Section G - Tailoring, measuring and fitting for footwear and clothing
3-13G-001. Alterations and repairs
1.  Policy for repair of personal allotment clothing is as follows:

Repairs are made at public expense. Repairs are limited to that of rendering the item serviceable to fulfill its designed function and do not involve extensive uneconomical repair or alterations. 

Minor repairs are the responsibility of the individual, i.e., replacement of button, small tears, etc. The supply staff ensure that the best interests have the individual and department are served when determining repair vice replacement. 

2.  Alterations to loan clothing should be the exception rather than the rule since most personal and temporary allotment clothing has a functional rather than an appearance purpose. 

3.  District tailoring facilities or local contract shall normally be used to effect alterations and repairs. If neither facility is available, B/W/S Sup O may arrange to have the alterations effected through petty cash as authorized by procurement.

3-13G-002. Special size personal allotment clothing, footwear and orthopaedic furniture 
4.  Special size clothing:

Except for those non-stocked items, which are normally issued as made-to-measure, every effort shall be made to equip personnel from standard or peripheral stock sizes. This includes carrying out minor alterations and adjustments to obtain a reasonable fit. Because of the tolerances allowed in the production of garments, attempts should be made to fit personnel before resorting to Special Clothing Size Roll procedures.

Personnel who cannot be equipped with standard or peripheral size garments are entitled to the issue of special size items for actual requirements, not exceeding the quantity authorized by the applicable EGC.

When uniforms or other articles of clothing require special procurement. For example, a size not stocked at any level, B/W/S Sup O shall confirm all requests prior to initiating procurement action. Prices are obtained from local manufacturers and procurement action is taken IAW DAOD 3004. Bases, stations, and wings fund special size requirements from Command allotments. If an individual is undergoing training at a unit other than his home unit, funding for special size clothing, footwear, and equipment should be requested from the individual’s home unit.

Under no circumstances shall personnel be permitted to provide materiel for manufacture of special size clothing. The base/station/wing requisition materiel in the normal manner if available from the system, it must be ordered from Logistik Unicorp after obtaining a valid stock number from the C3-01 Coordinator. Uniform specifications must also be obtained from Director Soldier Systems Program Management (DSSPM C3-01 Contract Coordinator) and obtain uniform specifications from Director Soldier Systems Program Management (DSSPM C3 Contract Coordinator) for guidance to manufacturers. The supply of materiel and specifications to the manufacturer from the system ensures a high standard of uniformity in dress. Normally, special size clothing shall not be ordered for individuals during their last six months of service.

To obtain special size clothing, form DND 2160 (21-883-2991), Special Clothing Size Roll (men) or form DND 2159 (21-870-7580), Special Clothing Size Roll (women), as applicable, shall be prepared in 3 copies with distribution as follows:

i.  Two copies to manufacturer
ii. One copy to be filed in individuals CF 892

Note: Manufacturers may elect to use their own sizing forms. In this case, sufficient copies are obtained to meet distribution requirements.

Where there is a major discrepancy between the garment and the size roll, the following standardized procedure is implemented:

i. The unit tailor or qualified service personnel measure the individual, check the size roll for correctness, chalk mark the garment where incorrect and detail the alterations required for a proper fit.
ii. The contractor verifies the discrepancies between the garment and size roll and if it cannot be satisfactorily altered, the contractor is requested to manufacture a new garment.
iii. Invoices are held pending receipt of a satisfactory garment.

Where garments are received and rejected for reasons other than a   contractor’s deficiency, disposal action is to be initiated. A new order shall be initiated to satisfy the individual.

When a contractor is not available in the vicinity of the base/station/wing, orders are placed directly to the nearest available manufacturer. B/W/S Sup O shall ensure that only unit civilian tailors or qualified service personnel measure individuals for special size clothing using the guidelines detailed. These measurements must be typed or legibly written on the Special Size Roll. Districts carry out minor alterations upon receipt to ensure a satisfactory fit. However, where there is an obvious discrepancy between the garment and the size roll, items are returned collect to the manufacturer accompanied by a letter detailing the reason for return.

When special size clothing is ordered for an individual MSO014 Supply Customer Maintenance shall be used to annotate the member’s IA (special instructions) with the special size requirements. Item(s) should be brought on charge using special size NSN for that particular garment.

Except in the case of an occupational transfer, special size roll public clothing issued to an individual shall not be withdrawn when the employment justifying its issue ceases; the individual retains that clothing, if serviceable, during his period of service.

5.  Special size footwear:

The following definitions are provided for the purpose of this article:


Orthoses: Is an orthopaedic appliance or apparatus used to support, align, prevent or correct deformities or to improve function of moveable parts of the body. One common example is a custom foot insole.  

Orthopaedic Footwear: Is custom footwear required by individuals with deformed or surgically treated feet. This includes custom-made military pattern footwear, and internal or external modifications to military and civilian footwear. Orthopaedic footwear is funded by the Command Surgeon.


If after being fitted IAW Measuring and fitting of footwear (3-13G-003) an individual is found to have a foot size, which does not fall within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes and does not require orthopaedic footwear, the individual will be provided with special size footwear. B/W/S are responsible to fund these requirements through their Command allotments. All special size boots are free issue to all Regular and Reserve force members. Supply sections shall ensure the member receives footwear that fits properly and that meets performance and quality standards equivalent to the authorized CF footwear to which the member is entitled as defined in the applicable scales of issue. Special size safety footwear must meet the safety standards of the regulation footwear. Supply sections are under no obligation to procure brand name footwear. The procedures for Special size shoes/oxfords is covered at para 7. 

Athletic Shoes will only be issued to recruits on a one time basis and will not be exchangeable or available for purchase.  CF members Regular and Reserve force are responsible for the purchase of athletic shoes upon completion of recruit training.   The only exception would be for a member who has suffered a CF related injury or has surgically treated feet and requires a custom build athletic shoe.  In these rare cases the athletic shoe would be purchased by supply and funded by the Command Surgeon. 

Note:  Class “A” Reservists shall only be issued one pair of Special Size Boots or Oxfords/Shoes as applicable. For example if an individual is entitled to one pair of shoes and two pair of boots the individual shall be issued one pair of shoes and one pair of boots. If the individual is converted to “B” or “C” class they shall be issued their full entitlement.

When special size footwear is ordered for an individual Supply Customer Maintenance MSO014 shall be used to annotate the member’s IA (special instructions) with the special size requirements. Item(s) should be brought on charge using the stock code of the closest size, taking caution to ensure that the total quantity (comprised of current balance, dues-in and special size items) does not exceed the district ROP/ROQ, which in turn could result in redistribution. Each time the individual requires footwear; the IA shall be checked to ascertain when the item was previously issued. Normally, special size footwear shall not be ordered for individuals during their last six months of service.

Special size footwear issued to an individual shall not be withdrawn when the employment justifying its issue ceases. The individual retains the footwear during his entire period of service.

6.  Orthopaedic and modified footwear:

When recommended by a medical board or specialist, individuals with deformed or surgically treated feet shall be provided with specially made or modified footwear in lieu of regulation boots and shoes.

Orthopaedic footwear shall be obtained through a Federal, Provincial or local orthopaedic and prosthetic facility IAW MSI 7000-011 Footwear requiring modification shall be altered as required by the same orthopaedic facility or by local procurement when authorized by the base medical officer, at no expense to the individual.

Special Size Orthopaedic boots and modification to boots are always at no cost to the member.  Special Size Orthopaedic Boots shall be brought on charge by CRV and entered on the individual’s IA.  Only the initial issue of Orthopaedic shoes/oxfords are free issue, procedures are detailed in para 7 of this article.  

Normally orthopaedic footwear shall not be ordered for individuals during their last six months of service.

Orthopaedic footwear obtained as per MSI 7000-011 is paid for by the appropriate Command Surgeon.

7.  Special Size Shoes/Oxfords

Special size shoes/oxfords are free issue upon enrolment.  Following enrolment special size shoe requirements must be purchased using applicable points for shoes/oxfords. If points are not available, member is required to purchase the shoes as per the price indicated using MSO101, option 1, action code “9.”  There are only two exceptions, which allow the free issue of shoes/oxfords following an individual’s enrolment:

The initial issue of shoes/oxfords as a result of a change in medical condition which requires shoes to accommodate orthoses such as arch supports, special insoles etc. The member must present the prescription or medical chit to Clothing Stores to be entitled to the initial free issue. The initial issue is funded by the supporting supply section through Command allotments. All subsequent requirements must be paid for using the applicable points for shoes/oxfords or funded by the member as per the price indicated using MSO101, option 1, action code “9” Clothing Stores must forward details of special size shoe purchases including members name, SN, item purchased to DSSPM email who will have the applicable number of points removed from the members account. 

The initial issue of Orthopaedic or modified shoes/oxfords are free issue, and funded by the Command Surgeon. Any subsequent issues must be paid for using the applicable number of points for shoes/oxfords or funded by the member with the price indicated using MSO101 option “9." Orthopaedic footwear is defined at Para 5a. Clothing Stores must forward details of purchase to DSSPM so points can be removed, same procedure as for special size shoes. A copy of the medical officer’s recommendation is to be filed in the individual’s CF 892, and Supply Customer Maintenance MSO014 shall be used to annotate the member’s IA (special instructions) with the appropriate information.

8.  Resoling of MKIII combat boots NSN 8430-21-872-4291

Resoling is limited to the MKIII combat boot only, Medical Specialist Officers and GDMO are the only authority that can prescribe replacement of the insole and outsole components. Funding for the replacement of components is the responsibility of the supporting supply section through their command allotments as per the special funding requirements.

In the event that resoling of the MKIII is prescribed alteration specifications should be coordinated between the Medical Officer and the physiotherapist. NDHQ/DSSPM 2-3 is available to provide technical assistance, as required.  

In the event that resoling is prescribed to alleviate a medical condition diagnosed IAW policies established in MSI 7000-011, the following specifications should be followed:


Materiel - Vibram “Sierra” (Model #1276) or Vibram “Kletterlift” (Model #148) outsole with a cushion midsole of polyurethane.

Thickness - The thickness of the polyurethane should be sufficient to maintain the original heel elevation of the boot. It should generally run from approximately 1 inch thick at the heel to a third of an inch - to half an inch at the ball and toe.

9. Orthopaedic furniture. Orthopaedic furniture shall only be procured for individuals whose requirements have been given a prognosis and have been identified on an appropriate certificate signed by a medical doctor or chiropractor. A copy of the medical certificate shall be filed in the member's CF 892.  It is a unit responsibility to fund orthopaedic furniture requirements. Issues of orthopaedic chairs or furniture shall be classified as personal allotments and shall be documented on the individual’s IA special instructions using Supply Customer Maintenance MSO014. Stock number 21AAE4895 shall be used to issue orthopaedic chairs to a member’s IA.  

10.  Retention on posting of special size/orthopaedic clothing, footwear and equipment. When an individual is posted, transferred or seconded to another department the base/station/wing shall ensure that special size/orthopaedic items accompany the individual. In the case of furniture, these items may accompany individuals provided that there is departmental agreement that such transfers are cost beneficial.


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2009)

3-13G-003. Measuring and fitting of footwear
11.  This book details the responsibility of supply officers and the procedures to be followed at B/W/S to ensure that all personnel are issued with correctly measured and fitted footwear and clothing.

12.  It is the responsibility of the B/W/S Sup O to ensure that the correct size footwear is issued to all personnel. Improperly fitted footwear affects the general well being of an individual, often to such an extent as to impair health, morale and efficiency. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that individuals wear footwear for which they have been measured and properly fitted.

13.  Each individual shall be measured using Scholls, Ritz or Korrecto foot-measuring devices. The instructions for use are found on the reverse side of the device. Both feet must be measured, and the longer foot shall take precedence in determining size.

14.  When measured IAW the above paragraph, the individual shape of the foot, which affects comfort, is not taken into account, therefore, a test for overall fit of the selected size of footwear is necessary.

15.  After a size has been determined by means of the foot-measuring device, a fitting test shall be made on both feet, ensuring that, when fitting boots, combat, GS Mk 111 (modified), the saran mesh insoles are the correct size and in place with the nylon layer next to the foot. It shall be ensured that individuals:

are wearing the type of hose which complies with regulations for the type of footwear being fitted are standing erect for combat boots have their weight evenly distributed on both feet have their heels well back in the footwear, with the footwear fully laced up who normally wear arch supports or other orthopaedic aids are wearing these appliances at the time of fitting.

16.  The following four tests are performed when checking the fit of all types of military boots and shoes:

Test 1 - Snug fit under the arch is determined by grasping both shoes over the instep with the thumbs on the outside and the fingers pressing firmly against the under arch, close to the outer soles on the inner side of the shoes. The leather should lie snugly against the under arch and should be free from excessive wrinkles and fullness.

Test 2 - Proper position of the ball joint is determined by locating the ball joint with the thumb of each hand. The ball joint should lie approximately in the widest portion of the shoe, just ahead of the area where the sole curves into the shank under the arch.

Test 3 - placing a thumb low on either side of the vamp, at the widest part of the shoe, and gradually working each thumb slowly upwards towards the centre until the thumbs nearly meet determine proper width across the ball of the shoe. The foot without apparent tightness or excessive fullness should fill the shoe. Each shoe must be checked separately for width.

Test 4 - Proper length is determined by pressing each shoe at the toe with both thumbs. The proper length of footwear manufactured with hard box toes shall be determined by the position of the ball of the foot in relation to the ball of the shoe and the foot under the arch. Toe room in boots or shoes not having hard box toes may be determined by having the person being fitted move his toes while the fitter feels the upper area of the shoe or boot to determine the amount of free space. There should be a clearance or space of approximately one-half inch between the end of the longest toe and the end of the shoe. Each shoe must be tested separately for length.

17.  If fitting indicates that an individual’s foot size is not within the range of standard catalogue footwear sizes, the individual is provided with locally purchased special size footwear IAW Special size footwear.

3-13G-004. Measuring and fitting of stocked clothing
18.  The importance of supplying uniforms that fit correctly cannot be over-emphasized. Proper fit is necessary for smart military appearance and is an important factor in creating and maintaining high morale, which accompanies the assurance of being well dressed. The responsibilities for ensuring personnel are well-dressed rests with the B/W/S Sup O and staff who carry out the actual issue and fitting of garments.

19.  Outer garments should be fitted over any garment that is intended for wear under that garment. For example, an individual should be wearing a jacket when being fitted for an overcoat. The detailed fitting instruction lists the garments that should be worn when fitting a specific garment.

20.  All outer garments must be tried on by the individual at the time of issue to ensure a correct fit ensured by the supply staff. Under no circumstances is an individual advised to, required or permitted to accept poorly fitting garments with the understanding that he or she can exchange them at a later date or at another supply section.

21.  The predominant consideration for fitting garments that fit the upper part of the body is that they should be the fit through the shoulders, neckline and armhole. Alterations are very difficult and expensive in these areas. Length to waist and the full length of the garment should be the secondary consideration. All dress jackets, coats, overcoats, etc for men and women are provided with outlet allowances on side seams to facilitate circumference alterations. In addition, sleeve and bottom hems are generous to allow increases in length. It is inadvisable to issue a size merely to obtain the correct sleeve length.

22.  For men’s trousers and women’s slacks choose the size to fit the hip and rise, then adjust the waistline.

23.  The following measurements should be taken to issue the proper size:

Men’s trousers - height and waist. The out seam measurement minus the inseam measurement gives the rise.
Men’s coats, all weather coat, raincoat - height, chest and cross back width.
Men’s shirts - neck (plus sleeve length for long sleeve styles).
Women’s slacks - height, waist and hip.
Women’s jackets - height and bust. 
Women’s shirts - neck and bust (plus sleeve length for long sleeve styles).

24.  To ensure a correct fit, the supply staff shall:

Take the individual’s measurements which are appropriate for the garment being fitted; forms CF 764, Special Clothing Size Roll (men) or CF 859, Special Clothing Size Roll (women) may be used as a guideline to measuring.

Select the appropriate stock size by comparing the individual’s measurements to the size chart for the garment being fitted. 

When dimensions taken are in between sizes, round out the numbers to the next higher number.

Try the garment on the individual to be fitted to determine that the size selected is an appropriate fit IAW the detailed fitting instructions. Care should be taken to check the fit from front, back and side views. An individual may have to try on several sizes before the best fit is found.

Only after the best fitting garment has been found, determine what alterations, if any, are needed in consultation with the base tailor if possible. 

After alterations have been made, fit the garment on the individual again to ensure a correct fit.

25.  When a correct fit cannot be achieved from the stock size range, arrange for special size garments to be issued as outlined in Special size clothing.

26.  The following guidelines shall be observed in the measuring and fitting of personnel with garments from stock:

When issuing combat clothing, ensure that the coat and liner are the same size. The coat must be fitted on the individual with the liner installed.

The individual shall not wear shoes or boots while being measured for height. Height dimensions on size scales are for subjects standing erect in stocking feet, taken from the floor to the top of the head.

To determine headdress sizes for men, the following procedure shall apply:

i. measure around the largest portion of the individual’s head and midway on the depth of the forehead
ii. deduct one inch from the measurement obtained
iii. divide the remainder by three
iv. the result provides the correct headdress size required.

To determine hat sizes for women, the following procedures shall apply:

i. measure around the largest portion of the individuals head and midway on the depth of the forehead
ii. the result provides give the correct hat size required.

For coats and jackets the predominant factors for fit should be the fit at the shoulders and neckline, the depth of armhole, back length to waist and full length of garment. Once the correct chest and shoulder fit have been determined it may be necessary to select the same chest measurements from another height group to obtain a garment with the correct body and sleeve length. Selection of the best fitting garment at the initial stages will reduce the number of alterations required, loss of time and administrative costs due to alterations.

Sizes should be chosen to keep alterations to a minimum. Alterations should be made only when the correct fit cannot be obtained from the size scale. Any alteration made must not:

i. change the design from that approved for wear
ii. be greater than the replacement cost of the garment. 

3-13G-005. Measuring for special size clothing 
27.  Forms CF 764 or CF 859 shall not be submitted unless it is impossible to fit from standard stock sizes or by altering standard sizes. Special size roll garments are not tailor-made garments in the traditional sense, and personnel are better served by the alteration of an existing size rather than the procurement of a special size.

28.  Once it is established that an individual cannot be fitted from stock, forms CF 764 or CF 859 shall be prepared ensuring the following points are observed:

It is essential that all measurements called up on forms CF 764 or CF 859 for a particular garment be taken exactly as directed on these forms and accurately recorded in the spaces provided.

Unless directed otherwise on forms CF 764 or CF 859, personnel being measured should stand in a comfortable position, without shoes, with feet together and arms at sides, but not in a position of attention.

Chest, bust, cross back, neck to waist, sleeve and waist measurements shall be taken with coat off, over the shirt.

Any peculiarity in an individual’s figure shall be recorded in the space for remarks on forms CF 764 or CF 859.

Once completed, these forms shall be submitted IAW Special size clothing.

29.  Uniforms currently in use by individuals are not authorized for alterations to meet the specifications contained in this instruction. New issues conform to the new fitting instructions.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2009)

Holy crap, Vern!  I have never been fitted for boots like that.  We'd need a lot more supply techs, wouldn't we?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




However, I will say that my boot requirement is not medical in that there is nothing wrong with my feet, the boots just don't fit (that's after trying three different sizes).


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Holy crap, Vern!  I have never been fitted for boots like that.  We'd need a lot more supply techs, wouldn't we?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Then Para 4 in the second post down becomes applicable to you.

SIZE = Supply system with NO chit necessary.

MEDICAL = Chit from Med System, then Supply action to fill requirement.


----------



## PMedMoe (26 Feb 2009)

Yeah, I get that, I've just never been able to exercise it.  They (Kingston) just kept throwing different sizes of boots at me and told me to try them, which is why I gave up on the WWB.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2009)

AV,

I tried reading all that...my eyes are now crossed and I think I pissed my pants.  Tks!


----------



## armyvern (26 Feb 2009)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> AV,
> 
> I tried reading all that...my eyes are now crossed and I think I pissed my pants.  Tks!



This ought to really do it for you then.  :-*   >

Army.ca Calendar Miss July


----------



## Eye In The Sky (26 Feb 2009)

Great..with my eyes crossed from your previous post, I saw 2 of them!   :-X


----------



## McG (26 Feb 2009)

Something is off.


			
				Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> It has NOW been prohibited by Ottawa (DSCO 2-5-3 Clothing policy and procedures) to permit members to wear boots other than those issued by the QM, even if the cost was absorbed by the member.


DSCO 2 is the same section which is responsible for the Canadian Forces Supply Manual.  Last spring, that manual contained a paragraph authorizing service personnel to purchase their own boots if they did not like what was available in the system:


			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> From the CFSM (Canadian Forces Supply Manual) Vol 3, Ch 13, Sec G, Art 002, para 5e:
> *Ref: CFSM 3-13G-002.5e  *
> 
> e.  Individuals whose foot size falls within the range of standard catalogue sizes and who do not accept the service footwear shall be advised to obtain footwear from other sources at their own expense. To ensure uniformity and quality of dress, CF personnel shall select commercial footwear that conforms as closely as possible to the standards of the regulation footwear.


... but then that para suddenly disappeared:  


			
				Harris said:
			
		

> It appears the "Buy your own boots if you don't like the issued ones.", exemption is no longer available.  I just looked at the Supply Manual (http://dgmssc.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/dmpp_apps/SupplyManual/WebHelp/index.htm) today and the para relating to that is gone


So, I asked some questions when this popped-up back in the summer.  Director Supply Chain Operations (DSCO) does not have responsibility for dress regulations, does not establish footwear requirements, and is not the footwear technical authority.  It seems the paragraph did not disappear due to a change in heart; it disappeared because DSCO did not have the authority to authorize soldiers to wear what they want.

If DSCO cannot authorize a buy-your-own policy, then I am skeptical that DSCO could prohibit the same.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Something is off...



I'll wager that the quote Bzzzz is using would more properly interpreted as this:



> It has NOW been prohibited by Ottawa (DSCO 2-5-3 Clothing policy and procedures) to permit members to wear boots other than those issued by the QM, even if the cost was absorbed by the member.



Boots we purchase for members due to SIZE & MEDICAL requirements are indeed bought by the QM and then ISSUED to the member by the QM.  They STILL qualify and are authorized for wear IAW the above quote - they ARE issued boots that show up on the member's docs.

And, according to the CFSM I've posted below ... purchase of special size or LPOd for medical or size needs is STILL legal and authorized.

Someone out there thinks "special sized or medical boots" aren't "issued by the QM". <--- They are wrong.

Bzzzz quote means members can no longer purchase their own boots and wear them about in uniform, it's got SFA to do with medical or sized boots which are bought and issued by the QM (Clothing actually, clothing stores is _not_ the QM).


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Bzzzz quote means members can no longer purchase their own boots and wear them about in uniform, it's got SFA to do with medical or sized boots which are bought and issued by the QM (Clothing actually, clothing stores is _not_ the QM).


That is how I read the paragraph.  DSCO did not have the authority to say that members could purchase their own boots and wear them in uniform, and they do not have the authority to say that members cannot purchase their own boots and wear them in uniform.  

If DSCO was involved, then it might have been in telling the medical community to stop producing brand-name chits & buy your own chits. It would have been a "you HSS stick to your job of identifying those special medically related footwear requirements, and stay out of supply's job of then providing the footwear."   ... and that would be the limit of DSCO's authority in the area.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> If DSCO was involved, then it might have been in telling the medical community to stop producing brand-name chits & buy your own chits. It would have been a "you HSS stick to your job of identifying those special medically related footwear requirements, and stay out of supply's job of then providing the footwear."   ... and that would be the limit of DSCO's authority in the area.



And that's exactly the point that was intended with the message. The message (and a letter sent throughout Hlth Svcs saying the same thing) is at least 2 years old now. It was sent before "DCSO" actually re-named to "DCSO". It noted that MOs did not have authority to prescribe "a specific brand", nor was Supply under any obligation to procur a "specific brand" of footwear.

That is also re-itterated in the paste from the sup manual that I included yesterday. I've wrote about that message on this forum before ....

it seems that someone is interpreting it wrongly ... but it's years old now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2009)

So, the Snr MO for Montreal Garrison needs a kick in the junk?


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2009)

While some of her background information is misleading, the core message is true.  If you have a medical chit authorizing you to wear a specific brand name or to buy your own, then that medical chit is invalid.  If you want to wear boots that you have purchsed, talk to your chain of command & not to someone in Health Services.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

I will quote the text word for word to avoid any misinterpretations on my translation:

Il nous a MAINTENANT été interdit par Ottawa (DSCO 2-5-3 Clothing Policy and Procedures) de permettre aux militaires de porter d'autres bottes que celles fournies par le Quartier Maitre, meme si ceci était aux frais du militaire.  (ex. Danners, Magnum).

My read on this is, if the QM gave me the boots then I am good to go.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> My read on this is, if the QM gave me the boots then I am good to go.



Exactly.

If stocked boots we issue don't fit you, we (QM) buy you boots that do and then issue them to you - these are AUTHORIZED and LEGAL for wear. And, if some dinosaur tells you that you aren't authorized to wear them - you say "these ARE the boots that the Supply system issued me, call them and ask." I HAVE been called by RSMs before who were checking to see if a troops' story was true and I have zero problems with telling RSMs "Yes indeed Sir, we had to purchase him footwear due to sizing requirements" (in the case of medical boots ... you should be carrying a copy of your chit around with you anyway to show said RSM).

If you have a medical chit for footwear for medical requirements, we (QM) file that chit onto your docs and then buy you boots that satisfy the medical requirement and then issue them to you - these are AUTHORIZED and LEGAL for wear.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2009)

Perfect.  Tks for that!


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

Except that the MO can no longer just simply write you a chit that says "must wear ballet slippers" without having proper medical/disease reasons for it.

It's funny how that doesn't come across as how it's written when the RSM says "no magnums will be worn".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

Tyrannosaurus rex
the "Tyrant lizard king"


----------



## davidk (27 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I will quote the text word for word to avoid any misinterpretations on my translation:
> 
> Il nous a MAINTENANT été interdit par Ottawa (DSCO 2-5-3 Clothing Policy and Procedures) de permettre aux militaires de porter d'autres bottes que celles fournies par le Quartier Maitre, meme si ceci était aux frais du militaire.  (ex. Danners, Magnum).
> 
> My read on this is, if the QM gave me the boots then I am good to go.



How does that work for class A reservists who are responsible for the purchase of their own LPO footwear?

I brought up the contradictions in this policy to my CoC the other day - I still wear MkIII's but there are other guys who had boot chits and are now forced into GP boots - the response was basically "There's nothing any of us can do about it, it's too far above our level, so wear the new boots and soldier on." Something is wrong here...


----------



## George Wallace (27 Feb 2009)

HighlandIslander said:
			
		

> How does that work for class A reservists who are responsible for the purchase of their own LPO footwear?
> 
> I brought up the contradictions in this policy to my CoC the other day - I still wear MkIII's but there are other guys who had boot chits and are now forced into GP boots - the response was basically "There's nothing any of us can do about it, it's too far above our level, so wear the new boots and soldier on." Something is wrong here...



It may boiled down to a matter of timing.  When was 'said' chit issued?  Did the CF come out with an improved boot after the chit was issued?  How long is the chit good for?  I had a chit for Vibram soles (on my two new pair of Mk III's through Base Clothing) and orthotic inserts while in Petawawa.  Now that is no longer on my docs.  Was it "Time sensitive"?


----------



## reccecrewman (27 Feb 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hmmm, 2003?? Here eh? Funny, I was the Sgt at Clothing Stores (and that IS the highest ranking soldier in that section in this location) here then and:
> 
> 1) I've never in my entire life said anything of the sort above to anyone;
> 2) I'd have sent him down to purchase boots (SIZE is a SUPPLY resp - NOT a Medical resp, thus NO CHIT was required) just like I did for the others; and
> ...



Vern, 

I wasn't implying that evil forces were at work at the Gagetown clothing depot.... his initial issue WAS, as you stated, given at CFLRS.... the size 14 boots were the biggest they had. When he got to Gagetown, he asked his instructors on his course about getting new boots and was told to use what he had. This is what was told to me. Apologize for any implied notion that Gagetown clothing staff was at fault.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

OOh, a quick heated discussion with my G4 section on the other side of my cubicle had them in knots!!

According to their interpretation of the paragraph, NO other boots aside from what is CURRENTLY issued by the QM are allowed.  Example given was older obsolete kit such as Garrison dress etc which WAS issued but is no longer in use.  That actually kind of makes sense. 

I did not bring my approach of the breathable boots, but I plan to when they get back from their coffee run.


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

> NO other boots aside from what is CURRENTLY issued by the QM are allowed.


So, if QM is unable to provide you with a pair of boots from the system (GP or Mk IIIs) then they will LPO some other sort of boot from outside of the system... and THEY would be issued to the soldier with the Odd feet.

In that way the odd boots would be "currently" issued by QM


----------



## dapaterson (27 Feb 2009)

HighlandIslander said:
			
		

> How does that work for class A reservists who are responsible for the purchase of their own LPO footwear?
> 
> I brought up the contradictions in this policy to my CoC the other day - I still wear MkIII's but there are other guys who had boot chits and are now forced into GP boots - the response was basically "There's nothing any of us can do about it, it's too far above our level, so wear the new boots and soldier on." Something is wrong here...



Local purchase, paid by the Crown?  Those boots should then be on the member's clothing docs, and are issued.

Methinks someone needs to issue a soldier-level guide to boots:

(1) If they came from clothing stores, they can be worn.

(2) If clothing stores had them custom made for you, they can be worn.

(3) If clothing stores bought them for you (including an LPO that you did yourself), they can be worn.

(4) If you bought them yourself because you're a ninja-sniper-SOF-Rambo, put on the damn Mk IIIs.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> OOh, a quick heated discussion with my G4 section on the other side of my cubicle had them in knots!!
> 
> According to their interpretation of the paragraph, NO other boots aside from what is CURRENTLY issued by the QM are allowed.  Example given was older obsolete kit such as Garrison dress etc which WAS issued but is no longer in use.  That actually kind of makes sense.
> 
> I did not bring my approach of the breathable boots, but I plan to when they get back from their coffee run.



Except that for sizing and medical reasons as given in the CFSM reference below, those boots LPOd by the QM IAW med & sizing policy ARE CONSIDERED ISSUED boots, they just aren't stocked; they are LPOd IAW policy per CFSM and then ISSUED. They are authorized.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2009)

I've heard that a good soldier knows which orders to obey and which ones to ignore.

We've chosen to ignore "You can only wear the issue boots" order. As long as the boots are black and of a combat boot nature, we're happy with it.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

I just tried reasoning with G4 and got nowhere.  According to them, it's only CURRENT issued boots that can be worn.  Though my Magnums are on me docs, they are suggesting I have to go through the MO to get authority to wear them.

Wait out... my head hurts.


----------



## geo (27 Feb 2009)

As long as the boots are black and of a combat boot nature

Works for me...... 
Unfortunately for folks around here... I am not in a position to offer that "largesse" in interpretation.


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I just tried reasoning with G4 and got nowhere.  According to them, it's only CURRENT issued boots that can be worn.  Though my Magnums are on me docs, they are suggesting I have to go through the MO to get authority to wear them.
> 
> Wait out... my head hurts.



Ask your QM staff to print a copy of your IA. Actually, G4 staff should be able to log in to CFSS and review your SCA. Give them your SN (that is your SCA #), tell them to look at their computer screen and review your "OFFICIAL CURRENTLY ISSUED" clothing items on their supply system.

They will eventually come to a stock number which reads:

#### ## AAA ####, boots combat

The "3 letters" in that mean that YOUR CURRENTLY ISSUED CBT BOOTS are LPOd footwear which have been determined to be 1) required, and 2) purchased, and 3) issued to you currently IAW Supply regulations and policy.


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I just tried reasoning with G4 and got nowhere.  According to them, it's only CURRENT issued boots that can be worn.  Though my Magnums are on me docs, they are suggesting I have to go through the MO to get authority to wear them.


Why is your G4 apparently defering to an MO for direction on supply policy?


----------



## McG (27 Feb 2009)

... and, it would seem, misinterpreting that direction too.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (27 Feb 2009)

I have given up.  I have Magnums I don't wear because I feel the boots, GP are comfortable enough for me.  I will look into my docs as I have very dry/mangled feet of late and I want to see if airing them out will help matters or not.

In any case, whether it is written in black and white or not, I feel that the people here in LFQA have the fear instilled in them to not wear the boots, even if they may be entitled to do so.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

Just came back from SQFT last week and there was a whole bunch of us MWO & WOs wearing Magnums, Swats, etc. Not a word was said to anyone.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just came back from SQFT last week and there was a whole bunch of us MWO & WOs wearing Magnums, Swats, etc. Not a word was said to anyone.



You think anyone will jack us MWOs or WOs? Not a soul, excpet for a few CWOs.
Its different when you're cpl/pte.....then you are fair game for pretty much anyone.

What were you doing in SQFT?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Feb 2009)

I don't think I'll be getting jacked up by anyone.  If they aren't professional and keen enough to know the policy, and they are a higher rank than me, well I guess they'll have to suck back some of their own BS.

Not my fault if higher ranking people embarass themselves and I point it out for them.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It may boiled down to a matter of timing.  When was 'said' chit issued?  Did the CF come out with an improved boot after the chit was issued?  How long is the chit good for?  I had a chit for Vibram soles (on my two new pair of Mk III's through Base Clothing) and orthotic inserts while in Petawawa.  Now that is no longer on my docs.  Was it "Time sensitive"?



I'll be glad when the CF comes out with an "improved" boot, although pretty much anything would be an improvement over the WWB, for me at least.

The medical chit on my clothing docs disappeared between Petawawa and Kingston.  I just figured it was like Mission Impossible....."This chit will self destruct in 5 years, 4, 3, 2....." ;D


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (27 Feb 2009)

Ok, we're dealing with a couple of issues here, clearly. First, the policy/directive (hate/love it) is either not posted clearly, promulgated properly, or acknowledged by those in position to enforce said policies. This forum should, in lieu of any other means, allow for all ranks on this board to get the latest info on current policy and where to find it on DWAN/CANFORGEN etc. Obviously, some members/entire garrisons have nothing to arm themselves with WRT something black and white when challenged by higher ranks who have nothing better to do than check for boot uniformity. If someone in the know could consolidate a list of the current policy and/or directives found on DWAN, I am sure a number of pers would be better off across the CF.

Second, it is still unclear what most soldiers are to do who fall in the middle of the bell curve when it comes to boot sizes and general fitness (ie no clear injuries/chronic issues with lower extremities) but who find that the current batch of issued boots do not fit right, cause blisters/chafing/bloody sores, regardless of socks, insoles, and conditioning of the feet (one could argue that feet will be blister-proof given enough time on the trail with a ruck, but...). The current system caters to the lowest common denominator, hitting a select few for satisfaction. Also, it seems in most cases injury prevention is something not even entertained as an option (beyond what is expected to be suffered in the line of duty for most CA and some CSS trades, given what they do). Great example the individual who was told to operate in boots two sizes too small - unforgivable. Only when the feet/ankles/knees/hips are beat up enough does the system kick in to help out the individual with a "fix".
So coming back to the original question - while the policy seems pretty clear on who is entitled to wear COTS boots, what about a good number of soldiers who are shredding up their feet with the current selection of boots (GP) (seems even those who are on their feet a lot eg. inf types)?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> What were you doing in SQFT?



ALQ Residency


----------



## armyvern (27 Feb 2009)

Soldier1stTradesman2nd said:
			
		

> The current system caters to the lowest common denominator, hitting a select few for satisfaction. Also, it seems in most cases injury prevention is something not even entertained as an option (beyond what is expected to be suffered in the line of duty for most CA and some CSS trades, given what they do). *Great example the individual who was told to operate in boots two sizes too small - unforgivable. Only when the feet/ankles/knees/hips are beat up enough does the system kick in to help out the individual with a "fix".*



A "select few" = 80% - there's that old 80% satisfaction ratio once again.

Let's clear up this example right now. The system, in this member's case, CLEARLY is in favour of injury prevention. HE WAS/IS entitled to LPOd boots that fit WITHOUT question or chit as it says in the CFSM (policy).

The problem here was not the "system"; it IS dinosaur instructors who disregard what the system says WILL occur and ordered him to "carry on" without availing him of the system that's there to look after people like him. And, believe you me, the instructors are aware that system exists.

Unforgiveable yes. A system problem ... no. More a problem of "dinosaur" mentality which is costing more than this member the health of his feet/knees/ankles/back. Which I can NEVER understand ... after all ...

"A soldier marches on his stomach ... WITH his damned feet." Look after them for cripes sake.
Those feet are CRITICAL to mission success.


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (27 Feb 2009)

AV,

Ack your points. You may have misunderstood the intent of my previous post - I didn't intend to lump the one example of the troop who was forced to wear smaller boots into the bigger context here. That example and incident is just outrageous, full stop - and the system is there to prevent such an occurrence from happening. I never said it didn't. It clearly was great fault with the leadership in this particular case. But I doubt, while this one was extreme, it was an isolated case in the bigger scheme of things. I.e. back to the new GP boots and for a number of cases, the WWB as well - here we have boots that are causing injuries even when otherwise properly fitted, and thus are having an impact on a soldier's effectiveness. However, in most cases, said soldiers have no recourse, as the boots fit size-wise and the indvs do not otherwise have chronic injuries that would warrant a visit to the MO. Thus, a couple COAs present themselves: suck it up, buttercup and hope that your feet heal up; fake chronic pain and hope for a diagnosis (not endorsing this one); or circumvent policy (and perhaps CoC orders) and acquire third-party boots at own expense. This is what I was driving at before.


----------



## opie_cic (30 Mar 2009)

I was just issued a pair of the GP boots, and I had a couple of questions about them.  And I did read through the entire thread (no small feat) so I am fairly confident I won't be asking something that has already been answered.

That said,

The boots came with two sets of insoles, but they are the same, with blue on the bottom of the heel.  I notice that someone had posted pictures of the boots with the insoles, one set was blue on the bottom, the other had red.  So am I to wear both sets of insoles, or is one a replacement after the first wears out?

I also see that they stretch a lot, my eyelets were touching after the second time putting them on.  With that in mind, would it be best to wear just the one pair of insoles until they stretch out more, and then put the second set in in order to make the boot a little more snug?

And finally, the feel really nice, but I noticed they put a lot of pressure on my heel, not something that feels like it will develop into a blister, just.. pressure.  I understand this could be due to that chuck of leather around the heel that people have mentioned.  And since they boots allegedly have no breaking in period, am I stuck with this.

My Mk III's were 10/10-1/2 E, same as these ones, should I take them back and go a size down, to avoid this stretching?

Thanks for your help folks!


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (30 Mar 2009)

My $0.02. The boots have a break-in period. I had to uncross the laces (straight up two speedlace loops) at the ankle to allow the thick leather to move out, and not in into my ankle. The boots have not been in the field, so the break-in period is slower, but they are softening up bit by bit. Good news is that they should last a good while ( all things being equal).
The extra set of insoles are a spare, to be swapped when the boots get wet (from outside elements or perspiration). The instructions go further into the use and care of the insoles. If you have to use two sets on on top of the other for the boots to fit, somehow get the system to fit you a new set of boots that actually work with one pair of insoles, or pay up for e.g. Custom SOLE Ultras (extra-thick workboot insoles).
Does your heel feel like it is 'cupped' inside the boot or not seating properly? If the pressure means that the heel is securely seated in the back of the boot with no significant movement, you should be good to go. Those with experience (good and bad) with the GP Boot in the field and/or BFTs should be able to tell you how the heel should/shouldn't feel.
Are you wearing the black/green or black/wool sock system?


----------



## chris_log (30 Mar 2009)

opie_cic said:
			
		

> I was just issued a pair of the GP boots, and I had a couple of questions about them.  And I did read through the entire thread (no small feat) so I am fairly confident I won't be asking something that has already been answered.
> 
> That said,
> 
> ...



Only wear the one set of insoles, the second is an extra pair. Honestly, go buy your own as the issued ones are garbage. I wear orthotics courtesy of her most gracious majesty the Queen, however there are plenty of good ones out there. I know you're CIC and won't be doing a heckuva lot of marching/rucking etc however I suggest you invest in some good insoles, your feet, knees and back will thank you. Check out Marks Work Wearhouse, they have a wide selection.

Also, the boots do stretch quite a bit. I had that problem, got a good fitting fair then they ended up so loose my feet we slipping around in them. The eyelets shouldn't be touching, however, so it sounds like your boots are way too big (unless you have small calves).

As for the heel pressure, yeah, they are blister-makers. The boots do have a break in period and the leather heel thingy will soften a bit, but if you feel it now and it is noticeable you will end up with a nasty blister the first time you walk a distance in them.

Again, I know you're a CIC type and the GP boots suit your needs....but I would suggest going out and purchasing a pair of your own boots and just wear those (if you can get away with it). The issued boots generaly are junk and if you're having issues now....it'll only get worse.


----------



## danchapps (30 Mar 2009)

Opie, I would suggest just wearing 1 set of insoles. As well, even though the eyelets are touching there will still be some stretch in the leather, this is unavoidable unfortunately. I have the same issue with mine, and I've had them for about 18 months now. After some time you'll get used to it. As well, the little pressure you feel in the back, same thing happened to me when I had my ankle injury. The way I ended up solving it (my case only, won't happen for everyone I'm sure of that much) was to have a wedge added onto my orthotics. As not everyone has orthotics (and I really hope you will never need them either, they suck) Best bet would be to try and play with the tension on the laces in certain spots. I found (prior to my orthotics) that having the part where the little "V" is notched out a little looser helped, and having a very tight upper. Again, it's something you might have to play with to get just right. Overall I like the boots, and after some time you won't notice these issues. If after a long time you still notice some problems with them feel free to drop by clothing and ask if you can try another size on and compare.

Just a quick question, when you are wearing your GP's are you wearing the green and black sock system, or have you elected to go with a cotton sock with grey wool, or just cotton socks? Sometimes the socks you wear affect the feel of the boot as well.

Regards,

Chapeski


----------



## Snaketnk (30 Mar 2009)

When trying on boots, you definitely should (I dare say must) allow for the stretch of the boot by leaving an inch or so between the eyelets. Also, compensating for stretch throughout the life of the boot allows you to wear whatever type of sock you'd like while keeping circulation to your feet. On that note, you're probably best off trying the boots on with the thicker of the socks you intend to wear.

I took none of this into consideration when I got sized, but the good people at clothing enlightened me.


----------



## danchapps (30 Mar 2009)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> When trying on boots, you definitely should (I dare say must) allow for the stretch of the boot by leaving an inch or so between the eyelets. Also, compensating for stretch throughout the life of the boot allows you to wear whatever type of sock you'd like while keeping circulation to your feet. On that note, you're probably best off trying the boots on with the thicker of the socks you intend to wear.
> 
> I took none of this into consideration when I got sized, but the good people at clothing enlightened me.



I feel part of the issue with the eyelets being snug together is that the manufacturer may or may not have taken into consideration that some of us have smaller calves than others. In my personal opinion they should have reduced the amount of material on the uppers of the boot to allow this to happen. Surely they provide us with enough lace to be able to make it snug, why not have less leather to better make use of the lace. Just my thought. (Snaketnk, I was also in Clothing for a while, so I know where you are coming from when they suggested the thicker sock deal.)


----------



## opie_cic (30 Mar 2009)

> Are you wearing the black/green or black/wool sock system?



and 



> Just a quick question, when you are wearing your GP's are you wearing the green and black sock system, or have you elected to go with a cotton sock with grey wool, or just cotton socks? Sometimes the socks you wear affect the feel of the boot as well.



WRT those asking about my socks, the first time I wore my Mk III's for any length of time was on my MOC, because before that not all of CIC was in CADPAT, I think we were one of the first times an entire course was in CADPAT, at least in Central region.  Anyway, I'm digressing.  Before then I used to wear a pair of white sport socks underneath my grey wool socks (can't stand the itch) but i noticed about midway through the course I was getting a lot of pain in my shins, so I switched out the sport socks with the black dress socks (much thinner), and the pain was gone within a day, I'm guessing due to the pressure difference, as the previous combination actually left indents in my legs for a week afterward.

Since then I've gotten a hold of the sock system, and its much better, although I've never worn the thermal socks, just the liner and the green one, even on my cold weather course, I never had a problem.

So in response to the question, yes I wear the sock system.



> I know you're CIC and won't be doing a heckuva lot of marching/rucking etc



294 Squadron in Chatham, my old unit, actually does a lot... they've done Nijmegan twice, Washington twice, and they're headed to Holland again this year.  I hope to go with them one of these times.  But I agree, CIC doesn't do a whole of it, and I'm probably splitting hairs, but I had to make sure you knew we're not ALL lazy   but I thought you would be interested in such a fact.



> I feel part of the issue with the eyelets being snug together is that the manufacturer may or may not have taken into consideration that some of us have smaller calves than others.



I'm frequently told I have chicken legs.  After six years of wear my Mk III's (which I skillfully acquired from Blackdown) also have the eyelets touching, but they were still snug.  My main concern is if I work at a CSTC this summer, having my boots become looser over the course of 2 months.  I'm thinking I should just bring along my Mk III's in case, but damnit this GP's are easy to get in and out of.



> I would suggest going out and purchasing a pair of your own boots and just wear those (if you can get away with it).



I was looking pretty closely at a pair of the 5.11 Tactical boots, and was pleased when I saw the quote regarding purchasing your own footwear, and subsequently disappointed when I saw that it had been removed.

So all in all, it sounds like perhaps I should go in and a pair that is not as wide? a 10-10 1/2D as opposed to E?  Or just throw these in the closet and stick with the Mk III's?


----------



## chris_log (30 Mar 2009)

> 294 Squadron in Chatham, my old unit, actually does a lot... they've done Nijmegan twice, Washington twice, and they're headed to Holland again this year.  I hope to go with them one of these times.  But I agree, CIC doesn't do a whole of it, and I'm probably splitting hairs, but I had to make sure you knew we're not ALL lazy   but I thought you would be interested in such a fact.



I was worried someone might take that the wrong way. I know you guys did do that kinda stuff just not to the extent other people in the CF do. Kinda neat to hear that you guys send people to Nijmegan, is it a generic 'CIC' team or a corp team composed of cadets? And IMHO, I wouldn't want to do a march like Nijmegan in the GP's. No way.



> I was looking pretty closely at a pair of the 5.11 Tactical boots, and was pleased when I saw the quote regarding purchasing your own footwear, and subsequently disappointed when I saw that it had been removed.



Try on a bunch of different pairs and styles, don't go for LCF. I had three pairs of Rocky's courtesy of the CF, hated them and they sit gathering dust in a basement forever to remain unused. I have a pair of Magnums and a pair of SWATS now and they work well for what I need them for.


----------



## opie_cic (31 Mar 2009)

> I was worried someone might take that the wrong way. I know you guys did do that kinda stuff just not to the extent other people in the CF do. Kinda neat to hear that you guys send people to Nijmegan, is it a generic 'CIC' team or a corp team composed of cadets? And IMHO, I wouldn't want to do a march like Nijmegan in the GP's. No way.



Don't worry, no offense was taken.. I am well aware that not all CIC officers represent the CF in the way we'd like.  There is talk of that being taken care of, but who knows...

As for the march, it was made up of.. 10 I think?  Two officers, one female CI and the rest were cadets.  The first year they did it was the one where the march was canceled after 1 day (and two deaths) due to the extreme heat.  They went again the following year and finished the march.  They were part of the Canadian contingent, and as I understand only one cadet unit is allowed to go.  I guess there isn't a lot of interest for it.



> don't go for LCF



Forgive my ignorance, but what does LCF mean?


----------



## chris_log (31 Mar 2009)

opie_cic said:
			
		

> As for the march, it was made up of.. 10 I think?  Two officers, one female CI and the rest were cadets.  The first year they did it was the one where the march was canceled after 1 day (and two deaths) due to the extreme heat.  They went again the following year and finished the march.  They were part of the Canadian contingent, and as I understand only one cadet unit is allowed to go.  I guess there isn't a lot of interest for it.



Neato.



> Forgive my ignorance, but what does LCF mean?



Look Cool Factor.


----------



## danchapps (31 Mar 2009)

Opie, I'm glad to hear you are wearing the sock system. many people don't, and that's their choice, but the system does in fact work. The only time I've worn the extreme cold weather sock was on my SQ, and it was -40 or so out, plus the muckluck. I had some chilly feet until I started moving (but alas the muckluck isn't the GP so that's the end of that bit.)

If you are at Blackdown again this summer and have issues with your boots then by all means stop in at Borden Clothing and they will help you out. They are used to seeing CIC come in looking for stuff (that was where I was at clothing in case you are interested.) Contrary to some popular belief Borden's Clothing Stores is pretty good at getting peoples needs sorted out. They are your fet, and you need to take care of them. Give the GP's a shot this summer, as I said, I've had mine for about 18 or 19 months now and they seem to be doing the job for me. Worse comes to worse you could switch back to the MK III's if you really need to for the rest of the summer.


----------



## opie_cic (31 Mar 2009)

> Look Cool Factor.



Ah shit I knew that, too.  

Does anyone have experience with the 5.11's that they look cool but suck for anything besides that?  The video certainly made some strong arguments for the boots.


----------



## chris_log (31 Mar 2009)

opie_cic said:
			
		

> Ah crap I knew that, too.
> 
> Does anyone have experience with the 5.11's that they look cool but suck for anything besides that?  The video certainly made some strong arguments for the boots.



There are a couple of boot threads on the site and a couple of geardos. Search for those threads and give them a gander, may help. I give the Magnums a thumbs up, and so far the SWATS are comfy do. Went for a 'nature' walk with my ruck with them out of the box, only one very minor red spot. Thats never happened for me before.


----------



## medaid (31 Mar 2009)

Don't go 5.11 they'll blow out. 

Magnum, Danner, Belleville... Altama... what ever else. Your feet, you wear it, and you decide.


----------



## chris_log (31 Mar 2009)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Don't go 5.11 they'll blow out.
> 
> Magnum, Danner, Belleville... Altama... what ever else. Your feet, you wear it, and you decide.



I don't often agree with MedTech, but here I will. 5.11's are NOT designed for any kind of 'army' use and will fall apart on you (they aren't well made either, I was not impressed with them). Magnums and SWATs are also more 'police' boots then 'army' boots but they hold up better. I prefer boots that feel like athletic shoes, some others prefer heavier and sturdier boots, it's really a personal thing.


----------



## NL_engineer (31 Mar 2009)

opie_cic said:
			
		

> Ah crap I knew that, too.
> 
> Does anyone have experience with the 5.11's that they look cool but suck for anything besides that?  The video certainly made some strong arguments for the boots.



5.11's are hit or miss, I had a pair of 8" strikes that fell apart in less then a year (the Company replaced them for me) The new ones are doing good, and I've had them for about a year now; they were getting worn 2-3 days a week (alternating with my magnums) till we were told issued only.  my HRT's are are about 2 years old and doing good, I had a piece of rubber fall off, but that was due to drying them is the air hose running into a tent (only happened last month, I have worn them since, and it doesn't affect anything).

If anything go with magnums, they are higher, and don't stand out as much (more people wear them), and for some reason your pants will stay bloused much better with them then 5.11's.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Mar 2009)

The thread is about the GP boots. There's plenty of threads on high speed. low drag footwear already. Go there for discussion on them. 

Back on topic.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## helpup (2 Apr 2009)

I have had my new MarkIV's for a month now. Due to being on Crse I have not been able to really test them in the field yet or major humps.  From what I can tell though they are holding up pretty good and once I chop back the extra lace they will work pretty good. 

I am anticipating a bit of trouble on major humps though unless I go thick socks.  
I am one of those who cannot wear the black nylon sock and for my troops dont recommend it if they are prone to blisters wearing it.  I need and recommend a sport sock to absorb sweat and either green, or grey sock over it.  Foot powder is also a must


----------



## geo (2 Apr 2009)

You can find silk socks in the sporting goods stores.  Wearing these under the green or grey socks will do the same thing as the black nylon ones we receive.

(I got mine prior to the CF issuing - they work just fine - keep your feet cool and dry


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (2 Apr 2009)

Four variables that make the GP Boot (and any other boot for that matter) work or not work
1. Individual foot (shape, length, width, arch, injuries)
2. Sizing to fit the above (in this case Mondopoint - pretty exacting fit to be had with some experimentation
3. Insoles - stock ones are OK (and miles ahead of the old waferboard contraptions) and
4. Socks/sock system

Personally, once you figure out point #1, point #2 becomes easy (and take the time to check the length/width combos). I had to recently exchange to 5-points longer, 2-points more narrow for exacting fit.
But points #3 and #4 are often overlooked. I find the black/grey sock system actually works as advertised (two layers for friction control, and sweat actually is moved away from the foot to the top surface of the sock. Inside of the boot may be moist, but the feet are dry. Not sure if the black socks are polypro.
The issued insoles are OK, but I have found that by experimenting with aftermarket insoles (Superfeet and Custom SOLE) of varying thicknesses, the foot can be made to seat itself perfectly into the heel cup area, to prevent too much movement that could result in blisters.
So the volume of the inside of the boot and ways to fill it in with your foot, sock system and the right kind of insole all make up for decent boot (whatever the make).
The GPs are just heavy and on the "clunky" side, but are likely to hold up to abuse.

Those with bad experiences, did the boots fail to preserve the feet even after good fit, good socks, and good insoles were taken into account?


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (18 May 2009)

opie_cic said:
			
		

> As for the march, it was made up of.. 10 I think?  Two officers, one female CI and the rest were cadets.  The first year they did it was the one where the march was canceled after 1 day (and two deaths) due to the extreme heat.  They went again the following year and finished the march.  They were part of the Canadian contingent, and as I understand only one cadet unit is allowed to go.  I guess there isn't a lot of interest for it.


Not true, the first year for a cadet team was 2001 the trg NCO was the ACA from RCSU(P), the next year there was no national level involvment, until 2006 the year 2 folks passed due to heat injuries and carried on in 2007.


----------



## armyvern (19 May 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> You can find silk socks ...



Mmmmmmmmmmm, silk stockings (it had to be said). 

On topic, I know plenty of guys (& gals like me too) who wear knee-high panty hose under their socks for marchs ... I've never had a problem, nor have most of the guys (that's why they wear 'em --- so they say ).


----------



## Disenchantedsailor (19 May 2009)

I just like the way they feel on my legs, just kidding,  but no blisters or burger feet for this guy


----------



## McG (19 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> On topic, I know plenty of guys (& gals like me too) who wear knee-high panty hose under their socks for marchs ... I've never had a problem, nor have most of the guys (that's why they wear 'em --- so they say ).


Is that not the intent of the CTS two sock system?

... and the fancy Running Room blister-proof socks too for that matter.


----------



## PMedMoe (19 May 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is that not the intent of the CTS two sock system?
> 
> ... and the fancy Running Room blister-proof socks too for that matter.



The black nylon sock is okay, as long as you turn it inside out to avoid the seams rubbing on your toes.  I also find it doesn't help that the heel is halfway up my calf.   :  I usually go to a sports store and buy a good pair of polypro socks.  Children's size if I can find it.


----------



## geo (19 May 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Mmmmmmmmmmm, silk stockings (it had to be said).
> On topic, I know plenty of guys (& gals like me too) who wear knee-high panty hose under their socks for marchs ... I've never had a problem, nor have most of the guys (that's why they wear 'em --- so they say ).



Knee high pantyhose?
I thought pantyhose was the full deal all the way up to the crotch - panties included....
Can't visualise fellas running around with the crotch around their knees  iper: it would look kinda silly - no ???


----------



## armyvern (19 May 2009)

geo said:
			
		

> Knee high pantyhose?
> I thought pantyhose was the full deal all the way up to the crotch - panties included....
> Can't visualise fellas running around with the crotch around their knees :bagpipes: it would look kinda silly - no ???



Knee-highs ... 

Ask your 9er; perhaps there'll be a demo in it for you by her.


----------



## Brasidas (25 May 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> Is that not the intent of the CTS two sock system?
> 
> ... and the fancy Running Room blister-proof socks too for that matter.



I experimented with the Running Room crap after I got back in a couple years ago. Couldn't find my old mark III's, and they issued me the IV's or whatever you want to call them. Broke them in with the black and greens. My buddy and I were going on course, I had a coupon, and we thought we'd be smart and load up on RR blister-proof socks before we left. 

Worked fine with runners during PT, but marches were a trainwreck. Bunched up inside the green socks.


----------



## NL_engineer (27 May 2009)

I find the black socks work by them selves, but than again, I am working in 60 plus temperatures.


----------



## Canuck-Errant (14 Dec 2009)

When I was getting my initial kit this morning, the supply clerk told me there's been incredible trouble finding any combat boots - Mk III *or* GP - in sizes 9-10; he's backordered 26 pairs since 1 Nov. Maybe this is specific to LFWA, but it still sucks to be issued only Goretex in the winter due to short stores.


----------



## armyvern (14 Dec 2009)

Canuck-Errant said:
			
		

> When I was getting my initial kit this morning, the supply clerk told me there's been incredible trouble finding any combat boots - Mk III *or* GP - in sizes 9-10; he's backordered 26 pairs since 1 Nov. Maybe this is specific to LFWA, but it still sucks to be issued only Goretex in the winter due to short stores.



MkIIIs are obsolete now; they'd be an extreme rarity to find in a clothing stores (nil natl stock); And, I believe the sit with the GPs is a current ntnl shortage - so it's not specific to LFWA.

Why? I don't know ... but the GP were only an interim measure ... perhaps someone has already pushed the button/earmarked them for their pending "goodbye" from the CF.  ???


----------



## meni0n (15 Dec 2009)

Will the replacement be any better? If there is one I hope.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2009)

Canuck-Errant said:
			
		

> When I was getting my initial kit this morning, the supply clerk told me there's been incredible trouble finding any combat boots - Mk III *or* GP - in sizes 9-10; he's backordered 26 pairs since 1 Nov. Maybe this is specific to LFWA, but it still sucks to be issued only Goretex in the winter due to short stores.



Supply Tech...clerks are RMS Clerks.  Just to keep it straight.

Sucks to be issued only Gortex in the winter?  Why?  You'd think different if you ever did an ex where it was just above freezing, wet snow melting and you're slogging around in it.  Then it was cmbt boots or mukluks, and before the days of the gucci gortex socks that are issued now.  I remember using these on my Pre-CLC course in '92 as *gortex socks*.   ;D

The grass wasn't necessarily greener before the gortex boots issued now.


----------



## McG (15 Dec 2009)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Will the replacement be any better? If there is one I hope.


That boot (the "real" replacement) is discussed here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/450.0


----------



## meni0n (16 Dec 2009)

It's been more than 7 years of talk about that boot and nothing has come out of it. Does anyone actually believe that it will be coming out. It might be even worse than this boot, as that project started way before the GP and boot technology has advanced quiet a bit in that time.


----------



## Canuck-Errant (18 Mar 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Then it was cmbt boots or mukluks, and before the days of the gucci gortex socks that are issued now.




Ah, see, I only got the old-issue WWBs, the ones they're supposed to be bringing back in for resoleing; since they're the old-issue, I also only have the grey wool socks, and not the Gortex / polyprop ones. 


Doesn't help much that I have low arches and no medical office closer than Dundurn. Ah, well, so long as I get *something* before Basic...


----------



## Birdeze (25 Mar 2010)

Anyone know exactly where I could get some T3000 silicone for the GS MK III Combat Boots in WINNIPEG?


----------



## TCBF (22 Dec 2010)

Birdeze said:
			
		

> Anyone know exactly where I could get some T3000 silicone for the GS MK III Combat Boots in WINNIPEG?



- T3000? Clear or Black?  Good luck either way.


----------



## chrisf (22 Dec 2010)

If it's for boots the army issued you, go to QM, there's still tons of it floating around.

If it's for boots you bought at a surplus store, it's just liquid silicone. Any sort of boot waterproofing spray will do.


----------

