# The brown Temperate Combat Boot (AKA: Mk IV Cbt Boot) -  No longer CADPAT



## petoth (27 Feb 2001)

Due to the nature of my profession, I spend a great deal
of time on my feet traversing some of the most difficult
terrain that this country has to offer.  I have also
spent a significant amount of time in the jungles of
Central America so it is no wonder that I must have
excellent boots.  For several years, I have been wearing
American issue jungle boots.  Although they are light weight and
have drain ports, they are not the most comfortable
boots to be walking in all day long.  Until now, they were
my only option.  I have been to the "Clothe the Soldier"
website and viewed the information about the "Temperate Combat
Boot" with much excitement.  I would very much like to purchase
a pair or two and put them through the "wringer" so to speak.

My question is twofold: First, I would like to know who has the
contract to manufacture them and second; can I purchase them.
If anyone knows the answers to my questions, help of any
type would be greatly appreciated.  Also I would like to
hear some first hand accounts of these boots as well as any
for the "Wet Weather Boots.  Thanks for the help.

Sincerely,

Patrick Toth
patrick_toth@sympatico.ca


----------



## toms3 (27 Aug 2002)

Have you guys seen the CADPAT boots?  Whats the general thought?  I think they would take some getting use to.


----------



## Sharpey (27 Aug 2002)

I‘ve seen a picture of them. Fashionable I might add. Getting used to yes I can understand that. Ugly, yes that to. But, I can see them being effective. Depending on the terrain, I can see a big ‘ol pair of black Cadillac‘s sticking out more than a pair of CADPAT boots. Yet to try on and test out a set of CADPATS (Reservist ‘ya know    ), but the pattern I am sure is tested and proven.


----------



## toms3 (27 Aug 2002)

tell ya what.   How about black for Garrison and CADPAT for the field...want to keep up with the fashions...


----------



## Sharpey (27 Aug 2002)

Makes sence. I just don‘t understand that we get CADPAT Helmets, then new Green Gortex, then CADPAT Boony hat, then new black boots, then CADPATS. Then they take away the Gortex or issue some sort of poncho, then CADPAT Boots. All great equipment, just bad timing I think.

As for garrison, why not ressurect a Garrison uniform? Mabye not quite as uncomfortable as the last issue, but would this not make sence or just a waste of money? Mabye keep the presant Fatigues for Garisson? (sorry, getting off topic here)


----------



## Linc (28 Aug 2002)

Personally, I think Garisson Uniforms are a waste of money.


----------



## toms3 (28 Aug 2002)

I thought the original idea was for the OD green uniform to be for Garrison and CADPAT for the field.   It appears that changed fast.  I bet you the bean counters s**t themselves when they realized how much it would cost to maintain two uniforms.


----------



## Sharpey (28 Aug 2002)

Yeah I heard that as well. I also heard that new recruits would still were the OD‘s and after MOC or whatever it is now, they would be issued CADPAT. Still a money thing though. Probably not to many good sets of OD Combats left in the system.


----------



## silverhorse86 (28 Aug 2002)

kind of off topic but what unforms do reservist‘s get? cadpat or the reg olive drab or both?


----------



## rolandstrong (28 Aug 2002)

The recruiting officer at my regiment was telling me that reservists will be getting all the same cadpat issue as the regs, but with the budget stuff going down now, I wouldn‘t hold my breath.

by the way, does anyone have pictures of the boots?


----------



## toms3 (28 Aug 2002)

Evergreen is correct.  The reserves will be issued CADPAT.  In a way, its only right and should never be any question.  Personally...if they did not issue reservists the same uniform...it would be a slap in the face...and perpetuate the "us and them" attitude..that‘s my opinion.  Also, if its of any comfort, there are already members of my unit that have recieved their CADPAT and were told to turn in there OD.

   :warstory:


----------



## rolandstrong (28 Aug 2002)

That‘s nice to hear Digger. Out west I have only seen a couple of recruiting officers wearing it. If some of you guys have it, it must be coming down...

  :flame:  Ducimus


----------



## BillP (28 Aug 2002)

CADPAT boots! I hope this is just an example of the CTS going CADPAT crazy, and not something that will be seriously considered. I mean the new CWWB is all black, does that mean the next run of them will be in CADPAT leather? :^)  Does this mean we‘ll have to have 4 tins of boot polish(L. Green, D. green, black,and that light brown) and apply each colour carefully w/ a q-tip!! Still looking at the boots though, it probably woyuld have been more practical to make them in black leather, w/ cadpat cordura panels like Danner Acadias. That‘s just my call on the matter, on the other hand any further details on CADPAT clothing (what in particular??)allotment/distribution to us poor slobs out here in the West! :^)


----------



## Doug VT (29 Aug 2002)

They‘re testint the durability and the leather‘s retention of the pattern now but I don‘t think that the results will be positive.  The "paste" that is used on the boots is the same as the Prospector black paste, only it‘s clear.


----------



## rolandstrong (29 Aug 2002)

Although I can see the benefits to a "total Cam" outfit, sounds like a pricey, hard to maintain item. Are there any other armies in the world using these on a regular basis?


----------



## Linc (30 Aug 2002)

Im sure the CADPAT boots can only add to the effectiveness in the field, but I‘m not sure Id like to see them on parade.  There‘s something about seeing your reflection in shiny black boots that seems fundamental to military life.  When I was in the militia, I took alot of pride in getting dirty worn-in boots to shine like the sun (even though I used to burn-shine them, something  I heard was ‘illegal‘ -any truth to this?).  I used an old peice of pantyhose that got the shine out really nice.


----------



## combat_medic (3 Sep 2002)

Those boots are NASTY!!!

OK, type for the 2 cents from the West Coast reservist
Yes, the reserves will be getting the CADPAT uniforms... distribution is "supposed" to be finished by spring 2003, but it may take longer considering the breadth of distribution. The rest of the Gucci kit; load bearing vests, new rucksacks etc. are WAY further down the line, but yes, we are supposed to be getting those too...... eventually, like with everything else in the reserves. Of course, if you‘re in a recruiting position, near a major reg force base, or are on an operation, you get the new kit much, much sooner.

By the way, why can‘t we use jungle boots or desert boots in the field? Those boots are FAR superior to combat boots, and don‘t look horrible.

Also, this whole "rank in the front on a CADPAT background" thing is very annoying, especially as an NCM. By the time you figure out you‘re near an officer, you barely have enough time to get you arm up for the high five. Bloody eye sore if you ask me.


----------



## Nunquam Retrorsum (3 Sep 2002)

I‘m a "Maggot" from Montreal, and we got our CADPAT at the end of July...the whole regiment if wearing relish now...


----------



## Korus (3 Sep 2002)

So everyone (everyone Reserve, that is) way down east is wearing CADPAT already?

I‘ve been hearing rumors about it being issued out to us in the west (41 CBG) by the end of September or October, but I‘m quite weary of those rumors.


----------



## USMCMatt (6 Sep 2002)

Saw the pic‘s of the Cadpat boots.  Seems pretty stupid to me.  The cost of dying the leather cadpat has got to be pretty pricey.

CTS should have a look at the new boots that the Marine Corps is getting.

 http://www.marcorsyscom.usmc.mil/sites/mcub/utility/index.html 

Check out the boot icon for more details.

You can also check out  http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2137134075  
For a look at the Jungle/Desert version.


----------



## combat_medic (6 Sep 2002)

That first link looks and awful lot like the Canadian issue Desert Boots... same colour, materials, even the speed lacing


----------



## Doug VT (6 Sep 2002)

Since the Canadian issue desert boots are of American origin and manufacture(off the shelf) these new boots are an improvement.  The desert boots were just a spin-off of the jungle boots which we also bought from the states.  It would be good to have a non-black field boot (not the current desert boot though)


----------



## toms3 (12 Sep 2002)

Just an update to those reservist wondering about whether they will ever see CADPAT.  My unit will be recieving our issue in 3 weeks....confirmed.  Only thing is...if you miss that parade night....you will have to wait months to get it after that.


----------



## combat_medic (12 Sep 2002)

What unit is that? I think way out west here (Vancouver), it might be a while longer. I know they‘re distributing east to west, so it may take a few more months. Then again, being in an infantry unit, we manage to get things pretty quick. Heck we have our goretex kit, the new wet weather boots and our M203s already, and a lot of people are still waiting for them.


----------



## Korus (12 Sep 2002)

I‘m assuming you‘ve already been sized up for CADPAT, Digger?

I‘m an FNG fresh off BMQ so I haven‘t even been sized up for CADPAT yet... I‘m not expecting to get it for a while. (I‘m not even eligable for the goretex kit until next summer after my 3‘s.. No biggy, though.. I‘ll just (obviously) use the old stuff that until I can get the new stuff)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Sep 2002)

Combat Medic,
First off, the boots that your talking about ARE United States issue, not ours, we got them from the States as an off the shelf item. The QM calls them Boot, Warm, Weather. Second, they are not technically desert boots. The CF Desert Boot is actually a knock off of the original Hush Puppy desert boot (worn by many high school kids in the late 60‘ early 70‘s). And yes, they are an actual issue item.


----------



## toms3 (13 Sep 2002)

I guess its LFCA‘s turn to receive its issue.  In my case they will just use the same sizing as my gortex due to the fact that they are the same.  However, new guys, (with out gortex) will have to be sized.  

I like the new (relish coloured) uniform.  I know it takes some time to get use to but I think we finally look like modern soldiers instead of something out of the Vietnam war.  We did some testing (just for fun) during CAC this summer.  We had 2 guys hide in the woods in the same general area....one with CADPAT one with the old combats.  CADPAT blends into the back ground much better.   I also think the fact that the US Marines are using basically the same pattern (slight differences) is a further endorsment of its effectiveness.  I think the BIG question will be in durablitly.


----------



## Sharpey (13 Sep 2002)

I‘m hearing rumours that the CADPAT fray easier and don‘t breath as well. Any truth to this?


----------



## toms3 (13 Sep 2002)

I have not heard that.  The only thing I have heard is that they fade fast.  I will let you know.  I saw them being tested in Pet back in 1999.  So I hope they addressed some of those bugs.  I guess every new thing will have its good and bad points.


----------



## Pikache (13 Sep 2002)

My unit is suppose to get them in mid oct.


----------



## Nunquam Retrorsum (13 Sep 2002)

To the issue about the fading, it‘s totally true, however, the ones being issued are colored differently and the problem is solved.  On the matter of durability well, first off, you can‘t burn those threads anymore, you gotta cut them.  This is so because many users came back with a burnt uniform.  I still burn them but I make sure i‘m extra carefull...If you aren‘t an idiot, you shouldn‘t burn it.  Also, (this is just the way I experience it), I think it‘s a little heavier than the previous, and it‘s certainly hotter too.
We should get a field exercice any weekend soon so I may be able to comment on durability vs wood, dirt, rocks, etc...
Still, even with those problems (durability, weight, hotter), after wearing them a bit, I still think it‘s better than the previous.  Like the guy who wrote just before said, you can be suprised at how well you blend into woodland and you just appear hazier in general, wherever you stand.


----------



## Doug VT (13 Sep 2002)

Sure the pattern is great, it works.  The material is crap, it tears too easily.  It still fades a lot but that‘s to be expected.  The quality of the overall worksmanship is also total garbage.  Just like the gortex which comes apart at the seams all the time.  This equipment was made just to look pretty, but for god‘s sake, don‘t actually use it!


----------



## Recce41 (14 Sep 2002)

The Cadpat sucks, it doesn‘t dry well. the Cadpat made in Montreal Fades, the stuff from Winnipeg is more fade prove. 
 As for the Cadpat boots its to brake up the feet. Like the gloves we‘ ll get, and more damn gortex. The Desert Boot is American, but is made in Quebec. They are a Boot, Recce guy your thinking about the Desert shoes we had in Cyprus and my Dad was issued with those Combat Shorts. We got ride of the jungle boots and when with the desert boot, why we bought too many on a contract for Somalia.


----------



## Korus (14 Sep 2002)

> The Cadpat sucks, it doesn‘t dry well.


But the pattern does make it harder to see the wet spot...


----------



## Harry (14 Sep 2002)

Before this turns into another War Diary he said, they said based upon hearsay and what not.

The new USMC is nothing like our US issue jungle (green, black and desert) boots of so called Somalia fame.  The desert boots initially where mass bought for the Gulf War, not Somalia, but found their way into Canadian troops hearts tour over (still got all 6 pr. of mine).

The USMC kit is produced by none other than the  Cove Shoe Company, aka-Matterhorn.  For those with some TI, these are similar to the Fort Lewis and Acadia boots that Danner put out.

The USMC boot is similar in design to the Acadia‘s by Danner.


----------



## toms3 (16 Sep 2002)

Wow...this is frustrating.  What do they do when they trial these items.  Who are these people that did the testing.....NDHQ types.   I would think that if the uniform does not dry quick, that would be a big strike against it....with the proper feedback something should have been done.  That is the same for durablity...surely during the testing this was noticed.  Maybe the companies biding on the contracts suppled great, high quality samples to get the buisness, then reverted to their normal low quality production standards....i am just guessing here, but I thought these problems would be on the top on the list of "don‘t wants"

   :mg:


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (2 Oct 2002)

As far as when people are getting it, my unit 26 Service Battalion in North Bay, On. are gettign our official issue on Oct 10th 2002. There are some stipulations that you have to be QL3 qualified or have enough time in with the unit. Question is what qualifies as enough time. I‘ll post again after it‘s issued and let you all know how it goes. As well we were all told to bring in our old OD combats (2pair) and exchange them for 3 pairs of CADPAT combats. 

Stay tuned ....


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2002)

I hope they make cadpat boots more durable then the new goretex wet weather boot. Kick something hard with the bottom of your foot (heel) and your crack the rubber seal around the boot making a hole exposing the insides of the soles. It also crushes the heel support at the back of the boot and when you try to walk it will dig into your foot.


----------



## toms3 (11 Oct 2002)

I promised an update.

CADPAT was issued to my unit this week.  I would say only 1/3 received their issue.  Sadly...I did not.  We have to wait until later in the year and go in on our own.


----------



## Korus (11 Oct 2002)

Personally, I‘m not gonna hold my breath.. 
Res FNG, boo-yah, high on the list of priorities..   

At least my OD combats where new when I got them..


----------



## 2Lt_Martin (25 Oct 2002)

Got the three sets of CADPAT issued. It seems OK , though I haven‘t been in the field with it yet. Going to Pet. Nov 1st - 3rd so we‘ll see how it performs down there. Spent about an hour per set burning the threads off of it.


----------



## Sharpey (28 Oct 2002)

Most in our Regiment got their CADPAT issue now, the tiny people being the exception. They take some getting used to, the cardboard feel is almost gone now. Put them to the test this past weekend. Seem to repel mist and light rain pretty well. the design seems to work well in the terrain we were in. Don‘t like the upper drawstring setup, but no biggy. Comparing the brand new uniform to someone who has worn them for a couple of months, you can really see how fast they fade. I noticed my knees are starting to already look a little lighter then the rest of the pants, and thats just from one weekend!


----------



## combat_medic (28 Oct 2002)

I (and the rest of the Vancouver area) are still without CADPAT. No change in sight... ever.

That is all.


----------



## Marauder (29 Oct 2002)

Got mine last Tues., was at the same ex as Sharpey this weekend. So far so good from what I see. Came out of the wash both times looking OK.
Time will tell I guess.

Hey Sharpey, whereinell were you guys? Were you the pack of Illti (I think that‘s the plural) for that last attack just before ENDEX? Seemed every other platoon got hit three or four times, but we only had one good probe of the lines and then that last attack some of our guys fired some shots but the bulk of the hit was on the two platoons ahead of us.

We were all freezing, even bundled up in thermals and Goretex. Guess next time we‘ll have to bring out the friggin artic kit. LMAO Ah well, what can‘t kill ya...


----------



## Sharpey (29 Oct 2002)

Yeah, we were the Ilti (that was correct) guys. Well, I was one of the schmuks moving up the hill behind our MLVW / make beleive APC. Took out a trench with our Militia bullets. Yes, we got shafted for ammo! Sux. Good weekend all in all. From what I saw, that final attack went well, apart from the vehicles getting stuck at the top of the hill. Grayling is nice, just to much freakn sand!


----------



## imacoy (1 Jul 2003)

Anyone know if the contract has been awarded for the new temperate boots and when these might actually enter service?

Perhaps more importantly, anyone know whether logic and taste have prevailed and that G-D-awful cadpat design has been ditched in favour of black (or green or tan)?

P.S. Happy Canada Day


----------



## Etown (1 Jul 2003)

Perhaps you can explain how logic and taste dictate black boots, since obviously I have neither.   :evil:


----------



## imacoy (3 Jul 2003)

Black seems to work well for virtyually every other army under the sun (though I believe Aussies‘ are brown, another good color).  :mg:


----------



## Gunnar (3 Jul 2003)

Yeah, but the point is, we‘re better than that....

 

Mind you, the US Marines, even wearing MarPat, still have black boots, if the Incredible Hulk is any indication of military style...   

Seriously though, I‘ve been told by more than one person that when you‘re up against guys wearing CadPat, you watch for the boots.  So if you change the boots, you can‘t watch for them any more.  Black may look spiff, but CadPat is the wave of the future.

Just be glad you don‘t have to polish the CadPat ones...you‘d need CadPat boot polish...


----------



## Danjanou (3 Jul 2003)

> you‘d need CadPat boot polish...


Careful, at this vey minute somewhere in NDHQ a special committee of 7 General Officers, 27 assorted Colonels and a a couple of dozen civilian employees are involved in a full time think tank project on how to develop, procure and issue in the most inefficient manner possible cadpat boot polish.


----------



## MikeM (3 Jul 2003)

I wouldn‘t doubt it, lol.


----------



## Troopasaurus (3 Jul 2003)

according to clothe the soldier they will be Cadpat 

 http://www.army.dnd.ca/lf/equip/hab/2/261_e.asp 

look under colour and the pic   :blotto:


----------



## Etown (4 Jul 2003)

> Originally posted by imacoy:
> [qb] Black seems to work well for virtyually every other army under the sun[/qb]


I‘d say it was more a matter that the technology to efficiently print complex patterns on to boots hasn‘t beeen availiable that long. Don‘t worry, others will catch on.  :cam:


----------



## imacoy (6 Jul 2003)

Still like the black, or at least green or tan.

Call me a traditionalist, but camo boots sounds too Gucci.


----------



## Etown (7 Jul 2003)

Traditionalist


----------



## henleykg (6 Nov 2003)

US Marines dont wear black boots with MARPAT. They wear Coyote Brown suede boots. It is a part of the new uniform program. They have two different types. One for desert/jungle and one standard infantry combat boot that has Gore-Tex in it.


----------



## chrisp1j (7 Nov 2003)

Thanks 8541, I was just about to say that. 8451 knows his ****.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (7 Nov 2003)

The CADPAT fleece is a site to behold.


----------



## Gill557 (23 Mar 2005)

I heard that they are in the process of replacing the Mk. 3 Combat boot.  A buddy of mine told me that 2RCR did the trials.

Anyone hear anything about this? Or can it be confirmed?


----------



## Gunner (24 Mar 2005)

Go to the Clothe the soldier website and you will learn everything you want to know about our new boots and other kit in the pipeline.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/chief_land_staff/clothe_the_soldier/hab/index_e.asp


----------



## McInnes (26 Mar 2005)

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/261_e.asp


----------



## Gill557 (27 Mar 2005)

Ok, thanks.

Next question is, how are they compared to the Mk 3s?  Better, worse or about the same.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2005)

Hard to say, until they're issued out and have some extensive use from the end user in the Cbt Arms. Remember how we all thought the TacVest was the greatest thing since sliced bread? Until it actually got used on Ops?


----------



## Forgotten_Hero (27 Mar 2005)

Huh? Whats wrong with the tacvest? The soldiers around me say that, although there are a few flaws, its much better than webbing...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2005)

Forgotten_Hero said:
			
		

> Huh? Whats wrong with the tacvest? The soldiers around me say that, although there are a few flaws, its much better than webbing...




Do a search. There's a VERY long thread on it. Just saying we won't know if there are problems, with the boots, till they get used on a daily basis by a large cross section of troops, specifically those in the Cbt Arms.


----------



## Jason902 (18 Apr 2005)

Dam the polish for those babies are gonna be sweet.  ^-^


----------



## Maclimius (19 Apr 2005)

Ok, so if I understand this correctly, instead of just black boot polish, we're going to have to carry around a tin of CADPAT polish with all the colours to "polish by numbers"?    8)


----------



## Redeye (19 Apr 2005)

G-Man said:
			
		

> Ok, thanks.
> 
> Next question is, how are they compared to the Mk 3s?   Better, worse or about the same.



I'd be stunned if anything could be worse than Mk. III boots.  I don't think they would take so long to field in that case.

It'd be nice if they had rolled out the new boots first, since the Mk. III was obsolete so long ago.  I'm not sure how CTS's priorities work, but it seems that would have been more logical.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Apr 2005)

The new  boot will look like the wet weather boot minus the insulation as far as I understand.  That includes all 72 size variations.  As far as CADPAT I think they are doing away with that but may keep the green sole.


----------



## jjronnie (19 Apr 2005)

Does everyone here hate the MK III's? I actually don't mind them, as long as you get a quality foot liner. They can't be beat in terms of durability.


----------



## aesop081 (19 Apr 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> The new   boot will look like the wet weather boot minus the insulation as far as I understand.   That includes all 72 size variations.   As far as CADPAT I think they are doing away with that but may keep the green sole.



Just before i remustered, a Maj from ottawa was at CFSME with examples of the new kit and the new cobat boots were there.  They were in fact solid green with a gree sole.  He went on to explain that making them CADPAT had proved to be to much maintenance ( something to that effect) and that solid green had been deemed a workable compromise.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Apr 2005)

I like the MK 3 with the vibram sole.


----------



## Bomber (19 Apr 2005)

TCB will be CADPAT.  I just stood at the display table for 12 hours next to them.  Trust me, they are CADPAT complete, the sole is green though.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (19 Apr 2005)

I agree with CFL.  The Mk III is an excellent boot, with the exception of the sole.  I swear by the flat foot vibram sole with the extra wedge cushion.  If only I could get the army to subsidize it.


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Apr 2005)

PPCLI MCpl said:
			
		

> If only I could get the army to subsidize it.



They didn't pay for yours?


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (19 Apr 2005)

The only people who get them paid for(in my unit at least) are those with medical chits.  Now it's more common for those with foot problems to be issued Fort Lewis Danners.  I still don't mind paying the $60 for a comfy pair of boots.


----------



## PhilB (19 Apr 2005)

+1 for MK 111's with the vibram. Add in a SOLE insole and some ingenious socks and your feet will be loving you. 

The only thing I dislike with the MK111's is how hot they get in then sun. Nothing like feeling your feet cook standing on the boilng hot WATC parade square!


----------



## COBRA-6 (19 Apr 2005)

Well you still shouldn't have to pay out of pocket. It was worth the wait to see the doc and get 2 sets of superfeet insoles and vibram soles put on. They should come issued like that anyways, save a lot of money on physio down the road...

PhilB - I also am a huge fan of the Ingenious socks, excellent kit...


----------



## jjronnie (20 Apr 2005)

Just curious to know what makes the Vibram's so much better than the Grebb's? I have the MK III's as well as expensive work boots with the Vibram lug sole, they are both hard as a rock. Or is that you guys like the Vibrams with no visible heel, the ones that are completely flat soled?


----------



## George Wallace (20 Apr 2005)

jjronnie said:
			
		

> Just curious to know what makes the Vibram's so much better than the Grebb's? I have the MK III's as well as expensive work boots with the Vibram lug sole, they are both hard as a rock. Or is that you guys like the Vibrams with no visible heel, the ones that are completely flat soled?



Vibrams are not the boots but the soles.   You can have Vibram soles put onto your Mk III's.  If you have seen the MO for foot or back problems, you can get a chit for two pair of new boots through the QM, to be fitted with Vibram soles at Government expense.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Apr 2005)

Just because you have seen them in CADPAT doesn't mean that the mass quantity will be reproduced in them.  What you probabley saw was a trial pair. I personally talked with a CTS officer who had them on and he said they were just a trial pair and that they weren't being reproduced in CADPAT.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Apr 2005)

Just imagine the iddy biddy polishing brushes and the number of different colours of boot polish cans you would have to have to polish a pair of CADPAT Boots.......  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Apr 2005)

I'm sure it would just be a clear paste.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 Apr 2005)

jjronnie said:
			
		

> Just curious to know what makes the Vibram's so much better than the Grebb's? I have the MK III's as well as expensive work boots with the Vibram lug sole, they are both hard as a rock. Or is that you guys like the Vibrams with no visible heel, the ones that are completely flat soled?



It's not so much the sole that's in contact with the ground, but that a properly resoled Mk III will have a midsole of polyurethane foam sandwiched between the outsole and boot.   It's this midsole that does most of the shock absorbtion and with a decent set of insoles, will provide alot of the comfort to your foot when walking or standing.

On the subject of the new combat boots, I'm suprised at how long it's taking for CTS to get the CFs the new boots.   As it was mentioned by Redeye, the new boots should have been a higher priority for CTS.

As for the boots themselves being Cadpat, I can't understand why they didn't go with more of a universal type approach as we did in the Marines with our Jungle/Desert non-Goretex boot.   That way you ease your logistics burden by only having one type of boot that's suitable for desert/arid operations somewhere like Afghanistan or Darfur, while at the same time can be used in Canada or other more temperate locations.

A shade of brown or light olive that's compatible to both temperate and arid cadpat would have been perfect.   An 'oiled' type nubuck leather finish would be great in that it's lower maintenance than a conventional black 'polishable' boot, yet has greater durability than a rough-out leather boot such as the desert boot.   A big problem with desert boots and our Marine Corps combat boots is that because they're never cleaned or have any moisturizers such as polish or mink oil/dubbin, etc. they tend to dry rot and crack significantly and as such have a much shorter life than a boot you polish or moisturize regularly.

Attached is a picture of the Thorogood Peackeeper in a nubuck/oiled Olive drab leather.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Apr 2005)

I can't believed your surprised by anything the CF does or doesn't do.


----------



## KevinB (22 Apr 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> I can't believed your surprised by anything the CF does or doesn't do.



Exactly - even the Infantry won't have the new ruck till 2010 now - but hey we got CADPAT Fleece  :

Why did we not replace the crap first - I did not really need Gortex in CADPAT - my OD stuff worked fine.

 Now what did we really need?
Boots?

RainCoat?

Ruck and LBV that works?


Naw - CADPAT BiviBags - CADPAT sleeping bags you know important things  :etc....


----------



## Kal (22 Apr 2005)

2010??!!!  I thought it was going to be 2006/07.  Why so much longer now?


----------



## KevinB (22 Apr 2005)

no idea - but my info is current as of today...


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Apr 2005)

The new ruck has been issued to pers on deployment out of Pet. Think the rest of us could be waiting awhile though.


----------



## KevinB (22 Apr 2005)

Canadian Sig said:
			
		

> The new ruck has been issued to pers on deployment out of Pet. Think the rest of us could be waiting awhile though.



Your sure it was not the Patrol pack ?


----------



## Britney Spears (22 Apr 2005)

> Your sure it was not the Patrol pack ?



 ;D ;D ;D


(ahem)

Do you have to be so mean spirited and condescending about it? Why don't you post a picture too, since the poor CSS sap obviously doesn't know what a rucksack is?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Apr 2005)

Its my understanding that some members are field testing the new ruck in A Stan as we speak.


----------



## KevinB (22 Apr 2005)

Really - well learn something new everyday.

 (note to self kit source is ass   )


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Apr 2005)

Don't worry Britney; Kevin and I have already had a previous discussion about being condescending to us sigs. And for the record we ruck march at a minimum twice a week in my unit and with real rucks and everything!( end sarcasm). Not to worry I accept the apology that I am sure was forthcoming.


----------



## KevinB (22 Apr 2005)

Dude it was a question not a flame  

 I'm still waiting for you to come out for the trench digging lecture  ;D


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Apr 2005)

I would love to, but only if you let me play with all those awsome toys you get your hands on.  :dontpanic:


----------



## Bomber (22 Apr 2005)

Recce Platoon and some of the PRT from Pet is doing a user trial right now.  I filled out the TI cards for over 40 of them before their deployment.  I am talking about the Rucks, not Patrol Packs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Apr 2005)

Kev the info I saw on it was bulk issue 2006-2007.  Of course the CTS officer I was talking with kinda laughed at the eta (ie. good luck).


----------



## Yeoman (22 Apr 2005)

those rucks are bloody huge. seen one of those not too long ago. fit both your summer and winter scale in there. jebus they're big things.
Greg


----------



## Kal (22 Apr 2005)

Yeoman said:
			
		

> those rucks are bloody huge. seen one of those not too long ago. fit both your summer and winter scale in there. jebus they're big things.
> Greg



     Then add on the pockets, the capacity should be over 100 litres.


----------



## Canadian Sig (22 Apr 2005)

They also appear to have an internal valise, anybody confirm that?


----------



## HItorMiss (22 Apr 2005)

Confirmed Sig they do have an internal Valise and a compression sac for the sleeping bag... 1RCR Recce on Roto 3 is "trialling" them right now, yup they are huge and comfortable...I mean the guys taking them over had every piece of kit they owned in them for a March and other then trying to lift it once it was on you could barely even tell it was there.


----------



## Bomber (22 Apr 2005)

There is a compression sack, you crunch your stuff and then pop it into an internal drawstringed valise carrier.  The sizing and individuality are key to comfort.  They have back stays which you remove, mold, then return to the bag.  They also need to fit you properly.  This is bag, shoulder harness, and waist belt.  When they don;t fit, and aren't adjusted, they only feel a 100 times better than the 82, but when done correctly and the user knows how to wear it and adjust it, it is like wearing a little slice of heaven.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (23 Apr 2005)

Infinite moderators perhaps this should be seperated.


----------



## Thorvald (1 May 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Naw - CADPAT BiviBags - CADPAT sleeping bags you know important things   :etc....



Your kidding right?  I've seen the CadPat Bivy bag but didn't know they were replacing the sleeping bag as well... sheesh.


----------



## Bomber (6 May 2005)

No cadpat sleeping bags are planned, unless you are talking about zipping the new "ranger blanket".


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (6 May 2005)

Bomber said:
			
		

> When they don;t fit, and aren't adjusted, they only feel a 100 times better than the 82, but when done correctly and the user knows how to wear it and adjust it, it is like wearing a little slice of heaven.



Wow. *pauses to wipe drool from chin*

Maybe I'll actually grow to enjoy this whole "ruck march" business. ;D


----------



## buzgo (2 Sep 2005)

I noticed someone wearing Cadpat TW boots yesterday.

Have they started issuing them, or did I just see someone involved with the CTS project (I'm in Ottawa).

BTW they didn't look too bad.


----------



## bitterntwisted (6 Sep 2005)

Linc said:
			
		

> Personally, I think Garisson Uniforms are a waste of money.


 : absolutely.   the best parade square units get killed, the most raggyedassed units kill.


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (6 Sep 2005)

Wow...way to bring up a three-year-old thread.   :


----------



## buzgo (7 Sep 2005)

Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?


----------



## brin11 (7 Sep 2005)

signalsguy,  they are still trialing them to my knowledge as a friend of mine in Ottawa is involved in the trial.  He wore them all summer on course and seemed to like them as well.


----------



## Bomber (8 Sep 2005)

They are not yet issued, I don't know what stage they are at.


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2005)

Good morning,
Currently, CTS is still developing a couple of prototypes for the new TW Cbt boot. They have not been trialed yet (especially by 2RCR here in Gagetown, I think us here at Clothing would have known about it). Some CTS pers have some of the prototypes which will be trialed though. This boot is not replacing the Mk III, but rather will be an additional item of kit. The sole is green and the polish is just a standard green paste put out by the same manufacturer of the WW Boot paste. You can scuff them etc...do not fret...as we gouged a pair here during a recent CTS visit to Clothing Stores. The cadpat pattern is not just on the surface of the boot, rather the various green dyes used to strike the cadpat pattern have been developed to extended totally through the leather. Therefore a scuff leads to....more green underneath!
Vern


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Sep 2005)

Correct me if I"m wrong here but I was under the impression that the MK3's weren't being made anymore and that is
why the new boot was coming online.


----------



## Bomber (18 Sep 2005)

Mk 3's are finished, they are bieng replaced by GPB (General Purpose Boot, which I previously called Mk 4's) and the TCB (Temperate Combat Boot).  GPB's are to be coming in November, but like almost everything, you won;t see them till current stock is exhausted.  They are WWB's (Wet Weather Boots) sans goretex.  They are lighter and use the same polish.  Full leather boot though.  TCB's are same, but half cordura material, and cadpat coloured.  No idea when you will see them.  Plus side is the soles on these boots freeze at -65, Vibram guy told me at a trade show, unlike WWB's pre re-sole at -10.  The TCB's I have been wearing are now exceptionally comfortable, as they are fairly light, and have to the toe lacing and vibram soles.  They did take a while to break in though.


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2005)

Sorry,

Gotta refer you guys to your CANFORGENs. The Mk III combat boot is currently Ops restricted as they can't make any more at this time. The tool dies for the MkIII have worn out and need to be re-tooled. They will not be replaced until the fall when production and delivery of the MkIII into the Supply System will begin again, all info is avail in the CANFORGEN as to which sizes are not being made right now. The CTS TW Cbt boot is meant for temps of 10 degrees and higher (link to the CTS specs below):

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/Chief_Land_Staff/Clothe_the_soldier/hab/2/261_e.asp

Something I posted in the vibram soles forum earlier.... NDHQ still has yet to receive a single UCR from a single troop who was unhappy with the lack of vibram soles on their boots (well at least as of their CTS visit to brief us here at Clothing Stores Gagetown in July). Fill in the UCRs and send them in...then you too can effect change to your kit.

Although not a CTS item, there is such a beast as the "Thermal Blanket." This item was brought into the sytem as a replacement for both the ranger/horse blanket/poncho liner (whichever one you were issued) and  and the sleeping bag liner. Therefore when you base evnetually gets them you will need to bring in both to get issued your TB. They are a cadpat pattern and zip up around the edge, and also zip out in the centre for your head to poke through in case you're nostalgic for the poncho.

As for the cadpat bivy bag, it too exists....I have one sitting underneath my desk which was recently returned by a releasing member. Maybe I'll post a picture of it!!


----------



## KevinB (18 Sep 2005)

armyvern - 1PPCLI and 3PPCLI have trailed CTS wear - A COy 1VP did the boot trial for the MkIII replacement.

 And no offence but a Bin Rat, regadless of rank in Gagetown is probably not on the cutting edge of issue like a Sgt in CTS, so I will be listening to Bomber...


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2005)

KevinB

Giddyy Uppp...No offense taken but I get my updates from the CTS Project Manager, also frequent e-mail updates from the CTS MWO and CLS Capt from DSSPM...boy will I ever be mad if they have been lying to us here in Gagetown all these years...and on their web-site too!! Although they haven't so far, we've all got our small packs, BEW, SOGs, TC Gloves, and lo and behold that nifty little Thermal blanket that had nothing to do with them in the first place. Now if we could only get our ICE (actually I have mine having been previously deployed on Apollo/Athena from Jan - Aug 2003) but my husband the infanteer does not. Perhaps after my upcoming deployment on Op Argus (Feb-Aug 06), I shall let him use mine. I really wouldn't want anybody claiming that I have it only because I work at Clothing which is the usual chatter.


----------



## KevinB (18 Sep 2005)

Surely you dont trust the Army...  

 [Frau Braun] LIES, ALL LIES... [/Frau Braun]

 We got our ICE for Roto II - but everyone else here got it a few weeks later.

- I was going to make a quip about why the CADPAT Bivy bag was at your desk...  ;D


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (18 Sep 2005)

I think it depends on the base because I have all my sleeping bag stuff plus the new thermal blanket.


----------



## armyvern (19 Sep 2005)

Hey there KevinB,

I keep it under my desk because it is the only one on this Base....Seeing as how we can't get the ICE for the soldiers here...knowing that piece of kit existed could start a riot.... ;D   Also it would be hard for it to disappear from under my desk without me being aware...I hope. It'll be really really sweet here this week as we are doing the bulk issue of the ICE (purchased of course by the CEMS project) to all the Air Force serving with 403 Sqn....That'll go over well I'm sure with all the hard army folks serving with the RCRs, Inf, Arty, Armd schools I'm sure. My phone will be ringing off the hook I promise you that...and then they'll come to the counter and will be none to impressed to find out that they can't have it. :


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

It was a joke...

I hear you on the AirForce stuff - a buddy went to 408 as the 031 Mission Specialist and darn he got some cool kit...


----------



## armyvern (19 Sep 2005)

I know it was a joke...did you not note the humour in mine? Clothing Stores...what a FUN place. :


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Sep 2005)

"buddy went to 08 as the 031 Mission Specialist"

what does my magic KevinB jargon ring decoder say?


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

Look Pool boy...

 ;D

I edited it - I meant 408 ...  poor typing.



armyvern - my sarcasm detector is broken, and with this budget I doubt it will get fixed any time soon


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (19 Sep 2005)

hey don't be hatin'
you call some arty on your head and maybe we'll give ya the Governor General clip on.
;D


----------



## KevinB (19 Sep 2005)

I got my own commendation thanks though   
 Albiet its somewhere in the system along with my GCS, CPSM and CD   :


----------



## Guy. E (29 Nov 2005)

i just thought of this... where is the logic of issuing new boots when there are brand new gortex? you know, the wonderfull boots that everyone loves to walk on ice with? or rather end up sitting on the ice with?

of course presuming there is logic in a place thought to exist without...


----------



## McG (30 Nov 2005)

Because the boots fill different functions.  The wet weather boot is intended for cooler & wetter conditions than the current Mk III.  The Mk III's replacement (while hopefully still suited for wet weather) will be your standard "summer boot."


----------



## buzgo (30 Nov 2005)

I've now seen the new boot on several occasions, in use - I haven't touched them yet.  They actually LOOK pretty good, in CADPAT, but I am not convinced...


----------



## armyvern (6 Apr 2008)

MCG said:
			
		

> I've recently learned that the term "Mk IV" will never be used.  The MK III replacement will be the Temperate Combat Boot (TCB).
> 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).



Uggghhh, the ugly green cadpat TCB.


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Uggghhh, the ugly green cadpat TCB.


Only time will tell.


----------



## danchapps (6 Apr 2008)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Uggghhh, the ugly green cadpat TCB.



So if the new boots are going to be CADPAT, how are they going to make the polish have all those little squares and make it transfer to the boot without smearing?



(Insert groans now)


----------



## armyvern (6 Apr 2008)

Chapeski said:
			
		

> So if the new boots are going to be CADPAT, how are they going to make the polish have all those little squares and make it transfer to the boot without smearing?
> 
> 
> 
> (Insert groans now)



They are dyed completely through the leather, not just on the surface; apparently, should you scuff one all that can be seen beneath it -- is more relish.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Apr 2008)

On Ex Maritime Raider in VA I saw one person with said boots and they look like shit when covered in mud. Conversly my MK III's almost looked like desert boots  ;D


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2008)

This is one of most pressing arguments against a CADPAT boot that I can think of.  Today, soldiers are allowed to wear non-issue boots based on a chit because it is possible to buy boots in the same colour which (from a distance on parade) look the same.  You can bet there will be a lot of people quite opposed to different soldiers visibly in different coloured boots (as seen from a distance).  I hope, when the testing, trialing & selection is all done and over that we find ourselves with something in a solid colour which is available commercially.


----------



## armyvern (6 Apr 2008)

That and the fact that the cadpat boots just look ... horrible!!


----------



## ProPatria031 (7 Apr 2008)

something else to loose in a CADPAT mush pile LOL


----------



## acen (10 Jul 2008)

To revive a somewhat older thread, we all know how bad this cadpat boot looks as well the argument that aftermarket boots would be impossible in this case. Also, it's pretty common knowledge that its the fact that the boots are black that they stand out, being that this is not a natural colour while bush bashing. That being said, why could we not adopt something along the lines of the US air force type boot, they are sage green, rough side out boots. There are plenty of manufacturers producing this type of boot as it, the only issue beign that these are all steel toe for the moment as per their uniform standard requirement (they have a list of approved boots). Would that not solve our stand out black boots while avoiding the cadpat boot abomination?

Interested to hear what others think of this.


----------



## McG (10 Jul 2008)

There is some comment of this nature here: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/77015.0/all.html

However, in that case the boot is brown & one colour could meet the needs of arid and temperate climates.


----------



## acen (10 Jul 2008)

I saw that thread a little while back, just thought that maybe this was another option worth looking at.
It would be interesting to see how they would match up with both TW and AR combats via photo, sounds like an alright idea though, i think the key here though is rough side out, though the base may be brown, whatever kind of mud and crud your dealing with will provide some mighty natural cam.


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2009)

I’ve noticed that the CADPAT boot is no longer being worn anywhere in the halls of DLR these days.  Instead one can find a solid brown boot on many sets of feet.  This same brown boot can be seen on the mannequins in both Arid and Temperate dress.

I can’t say for certain, but it looks like a sign.


----------



## dimsum (6 Apr 2009)

Like the current Desert Boot, or that darker one that some AF bases have been trialling?


----------



## R031button (6 Apr 2009)

Is it just me or does it seem like the most obvious solution here is to just adopt the desert boot as the standard combat boot? A light tan colour is a reasonable alternative, especially in places like Waiwright and Suffield, and it was the issued boot to troops deploying to temperate regions such as Bosnia. With the amount of money that I'm sure is being spent on developing the correct colour and type of boot doesn't it seem obvious to just adopt something we already have?


----------



## armyvern (6 Apr 2009)

R031button said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does it seem like the most obvious solution here is to just adopt the desert boot as the standard combat boot? A light tan colour is a reasonable alternative, especially in places like Waiwright and Suffield, and it was the issued boot to troops deploying to temperate regions such as Bosnia. With the amount of money that I'm sure is being spent on developing the correct colour and type of boot doesn't it seem obvious to just adopt something we already have?



Hmmm. Curiously enough --- that was exactly what was recommended during the trials (and was also noted here on Army.ca too) ... ergo the proliferation of solid brown boots being seen about noted in the post preceeding yours.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Apr 2009)

Adopt a desert boot as standard footwear? Oh heavens what would us MWOs have to do all day if we can't hammer the troops for not blackening their boots? Oh woe is me!! (joking!)


----------



## dapaterson (6 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> I’ve noticed that the CADPAT boot is no longer being worn anywhere in the halls of DLR these days.  Instead one can find a solid brown boot on many sets of feet.  This same brown boot can be seen on the mannequins in both Arid and Temperate dress.
> 
> I can’t say for certain, but it looks like a sign.



A sign that many folks in DLR have been replaced by mannequins, and no one noticed?


However, more seriously, I do question why buy-and-try assessments for field clothing are conducted by cube dwellers in Louis St Laurent instead of, say, a field unit?  Despite claims to the contrary by some, the only operational folks in the NCR are the West-End Boys.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Apr 2009)

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Adopt a desert boot as standard footwear? Oh heavens what would us MWOs have to do all day if we can't hammer the troops for not blackening their boots? Oh woe is me!! (joking!)



I'm sure you would find something else to pick on

 ;D


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (6 Apr 2009)

Scuffs, oil and grass stains etc etc... Anyone used tan boots in the field (and I am not talking about dry desert conditions)?


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, more seriously, I do question why buy-and-try assessments for field clothing are conducted by cube dwellers in Louis St Laurent instead of, say, a field unit?


The trial was done in Ft Bliss by BG troops on pre-deployment training.  I understand a few design changes were made based on largely positive feedback, and the colour was changed from tan to Brown (so that the boot is compatible with both temperate & arid camouflages).  



			
				Dimsum said:
			
		

> Like the current Desert Boot, or that darker one that some AF bases have been trialling?


It is an Army boot.  As was pointed out previously (either here or another thread), the Air Force boots don't meet what the Army is looking for  ... something about all the CSA safety footwear standards making them heavier and ill suited to long marches.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> something about all the CSA safety footwear standards making them heavier and ill suited to long marches.



I wear CSA approved Magnum Stealth II side zip boots at work. They have a composite toe and midsole plate. They actually weigh less than regular Stealths and come in at under two pounds for the pair.

The technology is out there.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I wear CSA approved Magnum Stealth II side zip boots at work. They have a composite toe and midsole plate. They actually weigh less than regular Stealths and come in at under two pounds for the pair.
> 
> The technology is out there.



But are $300 a pair  ;D


----------



## McG (6 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The technology is out there.


Maybe.  It is not what the Air Force is wearing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Apr 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> But are $300 a pair  ;D



Don't know where you buy boots, but I can get two pair for that price. Legally, in Canada.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (6 Apr 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't know where you buy boots, but I can get two pair for that price.



If they are these boots

Stealth Force 8.0 SZ CT/CP then they are $300 here on the rock.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Apr 2009)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> If they are these boots
> 
> Stealth Force 8.0 SZ CT/CP then they are $300 here on the rock.



Approx $165, incl taxes, here.


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Apr 2009)

So we are talking about a brown GP boot?  just like the 2 tan ones I have, that will not make it out of KAF (Unless forced to).  Why can't we just adopt the Magnum Amazons like the British  :


----------



## armyvern (7 Apr 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> So we are talking about a brown GP boot?  just like the 2 tan ones I have, that will not make it out of KAF (Unless forced to).  Why can't we just adopt the Magnum Amazons like the British  :



No, not a GP boot.

A Mk IV boot. In brown.

Mk IV does not equal "GP". Whole different (sucky) beast that boot is.

Answer to your question: This is Canada; different Federal Procurement Laws are applicable.


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Apr 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> A Mk IV boot. In brown.
> 
> Mk IV does not equal "GP". Whole different (sucky) beast that boot is.



Vern the cadpat boots I have seen, look close to my GP boots/desert boots


----------



## armyvern (7 Apr 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> Vern the cadpat boots I have seen, look close to my GP boots/desert boots



GP boots don't resemble desert boots either. How are you getting GP/Desert?

What boots are you talking about?

GP Boots aren't mesh-sided ... are all-black ... leather ... and they suck (which is about the only thing they have in common with the cadpat boot and/or the desert boot) ...


----------



## McG (7 Apr 2009)

NL_engineer said:
			
		

> So we are talking about a brown GP boot?


As Vern mentioned, the GP boot is not Combat Boot.  It is a CF (not Army) boot which is intended to fill a different role (and so was not built to meet the full spectrum of Army footwear requirements).  You can find out more by visiting the GP boot thread. 



			
				R031button said:
			
		

> Is it just me or does it seem like the most obvious solution here is to just adopt the desert boot as the standard combat boot?


It turns out that what I have seen is simply the new Arid boot.  Because of its darker colour, it is compatible with the temperate CADPAT and will be allowed for wear with either uniform and in Canada. 

If we are lucky, the temperate combat boot will also adopt this same brown colour as the Arid boot.  Then the soldiers would be able to pick the boot they prefer from within the system (because they’d all look the same from a distance).


----------



## R031button (7 Apr 2009)

When you say solid brown do you mean something like a hunting or hiking boot or a suede?


----------



## Soldier1stTradesman2nd (7 Apr 2009)

What he was refering to, I think, was that from a quick glance, the GP (made by Boulet), the Desert (made by Boulet), the WWB and the Mk IV (CADPAT/Brown whatever colour) all look very similar. About 9" in height, combo speed/standard lace system, lace pattern that covers most of the instep, and oversized outsoles. Whatever technology has gone into each design to make them unique (for better or worse) is a different story.


----------



## NL_engineer (7 Apr 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> GP boots don't resemble desert boots either. How are you getting GP/Desert?
> 
> What boots are you talking about?
> 
> GP Boots aren't mesh-sided ... are all-black ... leather ... and they suck (which is about the only thing they have in common with the cadpat boot and/or the desert boot) ...



I should have been a little clearer the same bottom in both, I know that the GP is black and all leather, the new Deserts may as well be also (you must have seen us breaking them in in the winter), they were just as worm as the GP boots/MKIII's.


----------



## Pencil Tech (5 May 2009)

Hey, I just noticed this thread has been going for seven years... We've been guessing about these boots for a long time!


----------



## dimsum (26 Jun 2009)

To resurrect an older thread:

I was clearing into Comox and asked for a pair of combat boots for an upcoming BFT.  I was told that only TCBs were being issued there and when I asked if people were doing BFTs in them, he  said "yes."  

I was under the impression that you had to wear combat boots for the BFT though?


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jun 2009)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> To resurrect an older thread:
> 
> I was clearing into Comox and asked for a pair of combat boots for an upcoming BFT.  I was told that only TCBs were being issued there and when I asked if people were doing BFTs in them, he  said "yes."
> 
> I was under the impression that you had to wear combat boots for the BFT though?



You might want to ask what he thought BFT stood for.  It may not have been what you thought.  You may have been talking about "walking", while he was thinking "flying".    >


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Jun 2009)

BFT = Basic flight test?


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 Jun 2009)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that you had to wear combat boots for the BFT though?



Only if you don't want your feet to look like you've been dancing barefoot on razor wire. Seriously, if you plan to do the BFT, find any boot other than the TCWB unless, of course, you try them out beforehand and they work for you, which is unlikely.


----------



## benny88 (26 Jun 2009)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> BFT = Basic flight *training*


----------



## dimsum (26 Jun 2009)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Only if you don't want your feet to look like you've been dancing barefoot on razor wire. Seriously, if you plan to do the BFT, find any boot other than the TCWB unless, of course, you try them out beforehand and they work for you, which is unlikely.



No, I'm not using those.  I actually had permission from 17 Wing to LPO boots.  So, I'll be using my Magnum Stealths (steel toe, but at least they're comfy.)  Weird thing though; 17 Wing allowed me to have them bought, but 19 Wing has no idea about it.  Would I have to go to MIR in 19 Wing to explain to them I have small ankles?!


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jun 2009)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> No, I'm not using those.  I actually had permission from 17 Wing to LPO boots.  So, I'll be using my Magnum Stealths (steel toe, but at least they're comfy.)  Weird thing though; 17 Wing allowed me to have them bought, but 19 Wing has no idea about it.  Would I have to go to MIR in 19 Wing to explain to them I have small ankles?!



Army Vern can confirm this, but I am under the impression that your Chit for boots should be keep on your Clothing Docs.  If it isn't, and as it isn't recorded electronically, then you will need a new Chit the next time you need boots.


----------



## PMedMoe (27 Jun 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Army Vern can confirm this, but I am under the impression that your Chit for boots should be keep on your Clothing Docs.  If it isn't, and as it isn't recorded electronically, then you will need a new Chit the next time you need boots.



You'd think so, wouldn't you?  I had a _medical_ chit for LPO boots when I was in Pet.  When I got posted to Kingston, it was no longer on my file.  Surprise, surprise.  I now have two pairs of the old combat boots that had better last for the next four years.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Jun 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You'd think so, wouldn't you?  I had a _medical_ chit for LPO boots when I was in Pet.  When I got posted to Kingston, it was no longer on my file.  Surprise, surprise.  I now have two pairs of the old combat boots that had better last for the next four years.



I got my chit and had certified true copies placed on my Pers File, given to the RSM & SSM, RQ and ASU Clothing. The last copy I carry with me. I've kept the original in a safe place.

I don't trust anyone


----------



## dimsum (28 Jun 2009)

The permission to LPO boots I got in 17 Wing was actually by Base Supply, not MIR.  I'm starting to wonder if I should go to MIR and re-request a chit so I don't have any issues later on (ie. when I need boots again.)


----------



## McG (28 Jun 2009)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The permission to LPO boots I got in 17 Wing was actually by Base Supply, not MIR.  I'm starting to wonder if I should go to MIR and re-request a chit so I don't have any issues later on (ie. when I need boots again.)


The CF health services have no responsibility for boot sizes.  The Supply system is responsible to ensure you have fitting footwear.  If you have a medical condition which requires special footwear, then you go to the MIR.  If your boots just don't fit then you go to supply.

Going to the MIR because your boots do not fit is only wasting your time & their time because they can do nothing for you.


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> You'd think so, wouldn't you?  I had a _medical_ chit for LPO boots when I was in Pet.  When I got posted to Kingston, it was no longer on my file.  Surprise, surprise.  I now have two pairs of the old combat boots that had better last for the next four years.



That's _normal_. Medical chits issued at one base are not necessarily good at the next base, nor will they necessarily be valid at the same base they were issued ... if they are more than 2 years old (the chits). That's because some people need orthotics etc, but some medical problems can be fixed (corrected) and ergo a re-visit to the MIR to check out your feet is deemed appropriate by the medical system (_not_ Supply) every 2 years when it's a medical chit that got you the boots so that medical staff can determine whether or not your "medical requirement" for LPOd boots still exists. Nothing nefarious there --- .

If it's a sizing issue ... the chit remains valid, but always keep a copy in your wallet.


----------



## dimsum (28 Jun 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> The CF health services have no responsibility for boot sizes.  The Supply system is responsible to ensure you have fitting footwear.  If you have a medical condition which requires special footwear, then you go to the MIR.  If your boots just don't fit then you go to supply.



Thanks.  All cleared up.


----------



## PMedMoe (28 Jun 2009)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That's _normal_. Medical chits issued at one base are not necessarily good at the next base, nor will they necessarily be valid at the same base they were issued ... if they are more than 2 years old (the chits). That's because some people need orthotics etc, but some medical problems can be fixed (corrected) and ergo a re-visit to the MIR to check out your feet is deemed appropriate by the medical system (_not_ Supply) every 2 years when it's a medical chit that got you the boots so that medical staff can determine whether or not your "medical requirement" for LPOd boots still exists. Nothing nefarious there --- .
> 
> If it's a sizing issue ... the chit remains valid, but always keep a copy in your wallet.



The chit I had was for special sized boots and not medical in the least, however, in _my_ experience, the Supply section(s) did not want to take responsibility for getting boots that fit me.  They just kept giving me a different size and hope that they'd fit.  As stated, I've tried on at least four pairs of the new boots and none fit.

Not to mention, if it is a medical problem that cannot be corrected, why wouldn't they keep the chit on file?  Why should someone have to go in every two years for a new chit for something that won't change?  

I'm not slagging the Supply Techs, just the ones I've had to deal with.  If they were all like Vern, we wouldn't have anything to bitch about.   :nod:


----------



## armyvern (28 Jun 2009)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> The chit I had was for special sized boots and not medical in the least, however, in _my_ experience, the Supply section(s) did not want to take responsibility for getting boots that fit me.  They just kept giving me a different size and hope that they'd fit.  As stated, I've tried on at least four pairs of the new boots and none fit.
> 
> Not to mention, if it is a medical problem that cannot be corrected, why wouldn't they keep the chit on file?  Why should someone have to go in every two years for a new chit for something that won't change?
> 
> I'm not slagging the Supply Techs, just the ones I've had to deal with.  If they were all like Vern, we wouldn't have anything to bitch about.   :nod:



1)  You don't get a "chit" that would "disappear" for special-sized boots. Sup Techs don't issue chits for boots. A note would be made onto your electronic docs via the 01B to annotate the comments in your electronic docs. All the old yellow clothing docs were shredded once your docs went electronic - perhaps your annotation got missed when they were converted. Not too bad considering they had to roll over from paper to electronic for every single mil & civ mbr of the department ... all put in by hand.

1b) Each and every time new style boots are introduced into the system you "must" try them on to see if they fit. Period. Just because one stocked boot does not fit you does not mean that the next style footwear brought in will not. TB guidelines and CF policy says this will occur, so it does. That's not a supply caused problem - that's called the TB saying "you can buy them boots if stocked boots do not fit" --- so, if you haven't tried the new style ... how does anyone know they do not fit until you do? My ESP doesn't work as well as you expect it to apparently. That's just the way the rules say it has to work.

2) Ref medical chits: Since f'n when is "the medical problem" written on your chit? It's not. The med world writes "requires boots for medical purposes". That's it, that's all; other than that ... the medical 'issue' causing the chit is none of mine (or any other Sup techs) business. How do "we" know whether "your" problem can be fixed or not? We don't. As stated in my original post, the fact that medical chits for footwear expire is a medical system issue - NOT a Sup tech issue. You have to go in every two years because THEY say so; ask _them_ that question, not me.


----------



## PMedMoe (29 Jun 2009)

Original post sent via PM to avoid more public flogging.


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2009)

Having successfully suppressed the urge to yell something unprofessional, immature, and sexist, I shall endeavour to calm the waters a little...

The system worked for me as Vern has described.

"My" (theoretical, as measured) size of hot weather boots were too wide. The next narrower width in the same size were so narrow that I could not get my foot fully into the boot.

The nice supply lady - before I could even ask - whipped out a form, filled it out, and sent me into Soldier Gear in Angus to try on Magnums and Swats.

I went to KAF with happy feet, and an electronic note on my clothing docs. I was never actually given a chit.

One of the boots failed after about a month of wear, so I wandered into Clothing Stores in KAF. I was given a signed letter from the J4 guy authorizing purchase of a new pair locally after he verified the annotation on my clothing docs, dropped the old ones into the Terp Box, bought another pair at the PX, took the receipt and letter into the NSE OR, and got a claim done up. Very slick.

This was a sizing issue, and not a medical one.

While I was picking up the second pair in Borden, I b**ched about the stunningly horrible a** f**ce Cold Wet Weather Boot. They had me try on the Army WWB, which seemed to fit alright (yet to be worn for more than fitting took, so no meaningful comment on them) so we traded.

Perhaps we are spoiled here in Borden. I've always found our Supply people to be very helpful and operating ATV.


----------



## armyvern (29 Jun 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Having successfully suppressed the urge to yell something unprofessional, immature, and sexist, I shall endeavour to calm the waters a little...



Geez, please remind Moe & I never to invite you to one of our mud-wrassling matchs if you can't handle this _normal_ stuff.   >


----------



## Loachman (29 Jun 2009)

I was thinking more claws and loud meows, but I can handle either.

I'd also even be willing to help fund such an event...


----------



## joonrooj (23 Dec 2009)

MCG said:
			
		

> The CF health services have no responsibility for boot sizes.  The Supply system is responsible to ensure you have fitting footwear.  If you have a medical condition which requires special footwear, then you go to the MIR.  If your boots just don't fit then you go to supply.
> 
> Going to the MIR because your boots do not fit is only wasting your time & their time because they can do nothing for you.


Just wondering if you have a link or something to a official document citing this. I am getting a wicked run around in Wx, clothing has me running to the MIR saying its a medical problem and requires a chit, and the MIR says they do not issue chits for boots anymore and its a sizing issue.


----------



## armyvern (23 Dec 2009)

Slack and Idle said:
			
		

> Just wondering if you have a link or something to a official document citing this. I am getting a wicked run around in Wx, clothing has me running to the MIR saying its a medical problem and requires a chit, and the MIR says they do not issue chits for boots anymore and its a sizing issue.



Trust me - sizing IS a Base Supply responsibility and you do NOT need a chit. Period.

The ref that you require has been posted by me on this site numerous times, I'll hyperlink it below. Scroll down to para 5 of my post there (the actual para with the '5' in front of it).

Officially, your ref is: CFSM 3-13G-002.05

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50234/post-815704#msg815704


----------



## joonrooj (23 Dec 2009)

Thank you,
This is very helpful, and will fix a problem that I've been getting the run around about for 3 years.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 May 2010)

SoldierSystems has an article on the wear trial taking place in Valcartier right now:
http://soldiersystems.net/2010/05/18/polish-by-the-numbers/


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2010)

There's RUMINT floating around now that various important people have stated we're moving to using just a brown boot like the US does. Anyone heard anything similar/different?


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's RUMINT floating around now that various important people have stated we're moving to using just a brown boot like the US does. Anyone heard anything similar/different?



That was posted on the site a couple of years ago. 

Yep, the general concensus is that a boot would be better in cadpat brown (the official name for that colour brown in your TW cadpat) as the "cadpat brown" is a common colour to both AR & TW cadpat. Thus, troops wouldn't need to be issued different boots for different uniforms, boots would always be broken in for deployment etc, nor lug around umpteen pairs of boots for their career - usually taking up space in the basement.

It was posted by me. It was a point taken from Army Op Clothing Working Groups and CTS Working Groups. It makes sense - and would also serve to save a fortune.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 May 2010)

I've heard it outside the forums as well, with names like "The CLS said".


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've heard it outside the forums as well, with names like "The CLS said".



Well, he did.  

Think about it --- I just told you "*Army Operational Clothing* groups" ... now, I wonder, who does that fall under and who attended? He wasn't present at any that I attended, but some of his staffers certainly did.

The move is to come up with a suitable array of boots via trials ... and the further move is consider bringing in those boots - whatever they are - in the common Cadpat Brown colour.


----------



## PanaEng (18 May 2010)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> SoldierSystems has an article on the wear trial taking place in Valcartier right now:
> http://soldiersystems.net/2010/05/18/polish-by-the-numbers/


[quotehttp://soldiersystems.net/2010/04/26/canadians-testing-camo-boots/][/quote]
Frig, those boots look heavier that the current crop.


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2010)

PanaEng said:
			
		

> [quotehttp://soldiersystems.net/2010/04/26/canadians-testing-camo-boots/]
> Frig, those boots look heavier that the current crop.



Quaint too the comment about painting by numbers.  :

The leather is dyed all the way through vice just surface dying. Scuff 'em and the colour remains whatever little pixel of green happens to be underneath that scuff.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, the general concensus is that a boot would be better in cadpat brown (the official name for that colour brown in your TW cadpat) ...



According to the specs from the Directorate Soldier System Program Management it's actually called 'DND Maxi Brown'.  Reference DSSPM 372-08.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Quaint too the comment about painting by numbers.  :
> 
> The leather is dyed all the way through vice just surface dying. Scuff 'em and the colour remains whatever little pixel of green happens to be underneath that scuff.



Looks to me like when they're scuffed, they're scuffed and that the leather is a greyish brown underneath, just as most boot leather is underneath the surface dyes.  This picture is from the current batch of trial boots, which you can clearly see are scuffed at the toe area to the point whereby there is no CADPAT pattern underneath it, just grey/brown leather.

As Soldiersystems.net mentioned, there are 2 Temperate Combat Boot trials taking place this year.  The wear test for comfort and durability is curretly ongoing at Valcartier.  Later on this year there will be a visual detection test which will compare the CADPAT TW boot against several other coloured boots, i.e. DND Maxi Brown, Black, Desert Tan, etc. to see which provides the greatest level of concealment in a temperate woodland environment when worn by soldiers who are also wearing CADPAT TW clothing and equipment.
The findings of the trial will form part of the basis of what DLR/DSSPM recommends as the colour/pattern to produce the Temperate Combat Boot in.  Other considerations will be cost of CADPAT printed leather vs. solid colour dyed leather, durability of the dyed pattern, etc.


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2010)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> According to the specs from the Directorate Soldier System Program Management it's actually called 'DND Maxi Brown'.  Reference DSSPM 372-08.
> 
> Looks to me like when they're scuffed, they're scuffed and that the leather is a greyish brown underneath, just as most boot leather is underneath the surface dyes.  This picture is from the current batch of trial boots, which you can clearly see are scuffed at the toe area to the point whereby there is no CADPAT pattern underneath it, just grey/brown leather.



Whatever the common brown colour is between the TW and AR ~ that's the shade of brown they're considering because it was the common cadpat brown.

I wonder if that pic is of an early set of trial boots from many years ago?? The pair we saw scuffed up had the colour all the way through ... as per the specs for the boots.

Interesting indeed.


----------



## Loachman (18 May 2010)

I would think that it's a little tricky to get a pattern printed below the surface of the leather without the colours all bleeding into each other.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 May 2010)

I'll pop in to my (future) work tomorrow and see what the boys think of them.  They have been handed out to my regiment for trials.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Whatever the common brown colour is between the TW and AR ~ that's the shade of brown they're considering because it was the common cadpat brown.
> 
> I wonder if that pic is of an early set of trial boots from many years ago?? The pair we saw scuffed up had the colour all the way through ... as per the specs for the boots.
> 
> Interesting indeed.



If you look at the specs for both CADPAT TW and AR, there are actually no 'common' colours.  While both patterns have a shade of brown in them, the CIE colour lab coordinates are different for each brown, and they are visibly different if you compare the two patterns side by side.

The photo of the scuffed CADPAT boots was sent to Soldiersystems from a member taking part in the Valcartier wear trial.  There may be a chance that his were from a previous production run, but it would seem that all the boots issued were from the latest batch produced last year.


----------



## dapaterson (18 May 2010)

And somewhere, Jimmy Cox is weeping.


----------



## Zoomie (18 May 2010)

FWIW - aircrew boots are going to be brown.  Along with CADPAT two piece zoom suits.  They found a company in France that could produce
CADPAT on appropriately static resistant material.


----------



## Loachman (18 May 2010)

And flame resistant too, I presume.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 May 2010)

What color polish will I have to put on them??? dooooh this hurts my tiny dinosaur brain!!

Joking.... >


----------



## PMedMoe (18 May 2010)

If the fit is anything like the new boots in the system, I don't want 'em.


----------



## armyvern (18 May 2010)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> If you look at the specs for both CADPAT TW and AR, there are actually no 'common' colours.  While both patterns have a shade of brown in them, the CIE colour lab coordinates are different for each brown, and they are visibly different if you compare the two patterns side by side.



I think we discussed this a couple of years ago too?? Perhaps the colour was being called something different in both the patterns or something to that effect. I just know what we got ... was "cadpat brown" which was the brown colour that was "common" to both the TW and AR uniforms.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (20 May 2010)

Just had 4 members of 12RBC who were issued the CADPAT trial boots in the shop this afternoon.  Had a good opportunity to speak with them and check out the boots.  

All the boots were scuffed/scratched up somewhat and where the leather was scuffed or scratched, the pattern was completely worn off, exposing the raw leather.  

One of the guys told me that with the boots they were issued (no joke) 4 little finger nail polish type bottles of leather dye in the respective CADPAT TW colours to touch up the pattern where it became worn off.  A tin of clear/neutral type boot dressing was also issued to preserve the leather.


----------



## armyvern (20 May 2010)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> One of the guys told me that with the boots they were issued (no joke) 4 little finger nail polish type bottles of leather dye in the respective CADPAT TW colours to touch up the pattern where it became worn off.  A tin of clear/neutral type boot dressing was also issued to preserve the leather.



Oh good gawd; the end is nigh. 

We'll all need to have toomuchtimeonourhands to be dabbling in nail polish --- well, except maybe for Journeyman --- he's a SME.


----------



## Brasidas (20 May 2010)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> One of the guys told me that with the boots they were issued (no joke) 4 little finger nail polish type bottles of leather dye in the respective CADPAT TW colours to touch up the pattern where it became worn off.  A tin of clear/neutral type boot dressing was also issued to preserve the leather.



Please tell me that they were given this crap years ago and that the brilliance of this idea was noted way back when.


----------



## mover1 (20 May 2010)

This is going way too far. 

Lets just get a common boot color in different styles and sell the frigging things at Canex.
That way everyone is happy and we don't have to have 6 sets of boots collecting dust in our closets.
Plus everybody with a wide feet, flat feet, ingrown nails, never satisfied with anything we issue. Can buy one of the seven approved sets for wear and then they can openly complain about those on ARMY.CA


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 May 2010)

New combat boots being tested ?


----------



## PMedMoe (22 May 2010)

I saw a Major at work yesterday wearing a pair.


----------



## slowmode (22 May 2010)

I was out having a smoke break in CFSCE and saw a cpl wearing them. According to him there extremely comfortable.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (22 May 2010)

When I did my PLQ 4 yrs ago my course officer was wearing a pair.......


----------



## REDinstaller (22 May 2010)

Almost every MWO from DLR that I have seen in Edmonton has been wearing them. Might be comfy, but they look horibble.


----------



## armyvern (22 May 2010)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> When I did my PLQ 4 yrs ago my course officer was wearing a pair.......



These boots have been around since at least 2004.

You know, at the end of the day, I'd LOVE to see exactly "how much" money all these "Boot Trials" are costing the CF - and have been costing the CF since circa 2004. Perhaps a FoI request would be telling.

Word up (again) A set of feet is like a set of boobs!! THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. Why the heck could we trial bras (of which I was a trial participant) and clue in SO darn quick that:

*NO* 1 style of bra would _*ever*_ work for all CF women due to "differences in boobs";
*NO* 1 manufacturer of bras would *ever* be a suitable supplier for bras (even in different styles) due to differences in boobs.

It took a split instant to discover that and we immediately canned the "supplying of issued bras" to our women ... but, so far, no one has clued in that feet are exactly the same!!?? 

Just like for the bras, let's get the hijinks overwith already and get a boot allowance in place whereby soldiers can buy boots that are suitable for their feet and which work for their feet. 

Feet, for the troops, are much more critical than boobs (sorry to all you breast men out there) ... yet - we look after boobs better, more effeciently, and most certainly in a more cost effective manner. 

Sorry, that's scarey.


----------



## REDinstaller (22 May 2010)

How do I go about being a quality control inspector for the CADPAT Bra Program???? >


----------



## Old Sweat (22 May 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> How do I go about being a quality control inspector for the CADPAT Bra Program???? >



Can I say you have to be able to get a grip on the problem without being tortured by Vern? Not too likely!


----------



## REDinstaller (22 May 2010)

I'm good to go with being tortured over Bra selections. You have to try it on to deny it, just like boots.  ;D


----------



## DexOlesa (22 May 2010)

They could look worse. I'm more concerned with comfort and durability. Its not a fashion show


----------



## PuckChaser (22 May 2010)

Well then, we might as well just paint the boots pink, as long as their comfortable, right?

Keep the boot if it works, and make it a solid CADPAT Brown leather. Comfort and ridiculousness solved in one fell swoop. Or just scrap the whole thing and create a boot allowance.


----------



## DexOlesa (22 May 2010)

Yes of course there are better choices (assuming equivalent durability etc.) my preference would be for Boot Allowance, Brown, then CADPAT in that order. Just stating the CADPAT wasn't THAT bad.


----------



## Loachman (23 May 2010)

The CADPAT boot looks goofy.

My main cause of concern for either that or a brown boot, though, is the lack of commercial alternatives for those who cannot wear them, especially if they fit and function like the other disastrous examples.

I suspect that the bra project got shelved as much because of the press that it received, ridiculing the whole idea, as it did for the lack of success in meeting its intent. If the press decided to make an issue out of how much money has been spent to develop and issue boots that hurt people's feet, I'm sure that a boot allowance would be forthcoming just as quickly.


----------



## REDinstaller (23 May 2010)

A boot allowance would make my life much easier. I have sz14 feet, so in the Interm Boots there are only 2 choices of width, and both are not correct for my feet. Its quite the pain dealing with Base clothing, and getting the run around.


----------



## Infanteer (23 May 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> My main cause of concern for either that or a brown boot, though, is the lack of commercial alternatives for those who cannot wear them, especially if they fit and function like the other disastrous examples.



The good thing about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years is that there is an endless list of suppliers of excellent brown boots.  My biggest decision at times was choosing between my Danners and my Miendls (the decision to leave the issued toe-crunching brown boots in KAF was easy).


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> A boot allowance would make my life much easier. I have sz14 feet, so in the Interm Boots there are only 2 choices of width, and both are not correct for my feet. Its quite the pain dealing with Base clothing, and getting the run around.



There is a very recent thread here where I posted the reference and quoted it into the thread. Print it. Take it to clothing. The rules and criteria are there ...


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> *Keep the boot if it works,  * and make it a solid CADPAT Brown leather. Comfort and ridiculousness solved in one fell swoop. Or just scrap the whole thing and create a boot allowance.



It won't. It will work for some people, but not for others. I speak from experience here (22 years of it) NO one style/make/maufacturer of boots will work for ALL members of the CF. Those boots that do get contracted WILL work for 80% of the members of the CF ... because "80%" is part of the trial criteria that kit must meet to get "brought into the system & contracted". 

Problem with 80% is that means 1 in 5 troops are forced into footwear that does NOT work and is unsuitable for them. What if that 1 in 5 were all Infantry guys? Should 1 in 5 women who are full D 36s have to cram their boobs into a D36 that doesn't fit them and will trash their backs? NO --- we already decided that and figured it out.

Our current system actually ruins troops feet ... through no fault of their own. It starts with the feet, then moves up into 'bad kness" then spreads to "bad backs" --- all started by bad boots that didn't work for them. Feet are important. Why can't we just do what is right and make sure we look after them properly and effeciently.

Go with a boot allowance. It allows troops to use boots that work for them. It also saves shitloads of money every year on reduced infrastructure, shipping depot/base costs etc. etc. And go with the brown colour too, that saves each and every soldier from having to cart about 5 different pair of boots for each task he may/may not get.


----------



## REDinstaller (23 May 2010)

ArmyVern,

I have the reference, I made sure I kept it in favourites. My main issue is the Civi in charge of clothing in Edm wants my orthotics assesed every time I request funding to replace a set of worn out boots. This adds weeks to procurement, then I am only given one place to go, Work Authority, and pick something out of the catalog as they don't stock any 14s. I wish the process was more streamlined, I've had custom footwear since 94 but every time is like the first time.


----------



## Loachman (23 May 2010)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The good thing about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years is that there is an endless list of suppliers of excellent brown boots.  My biggest decision at times was choosing between my Danners and my Miendls (the decision to leave the issued toe-crunching brown boots in KAF was easy).



Brown, or tan?


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> ArmyVern,
> 
> I have the reference, I made sure I kept it in favourites. My main issue is the Civi in charge of clothing in Edm wants my orthotics assesed every time I request funding to replace a set of worn out boots. This adds weeks to procurement, then I am only given one place to go, Work Authority, and pick something out of the catalog as they don't stock any 14s. I wish the process was more streamlined, I've had custom footwear since 94 but every time is like the first time.



That's not the civvie in Edmonton - that's CFMOs (CF Medical Orders). CF Health Services requires that all of you who wear orthotics have a reassessment done every two years in case your orthotics/needs change; thus, we suppies can not/will not refit you for new boots if your reassessment is not up to date in case your footwear requirements change with an ortho change.

We simply aren't going to buy you new boots with an expired ortho chit only to have you come back the next month after you re-do your ortho reassessment because those boots we just bought you won't work with your new orthotics. Make sense?

Simply put, you go get your orthotics reassessed like you are supposed to every two years at CF Health Svcs (who will also re-issue your chit), and _then_, when your new orthotics come in you bring them in with you to try on boots with, we will pay to replace your boots every two years so that the new boots work with the new/changed orthotics.


----------



## McG (23 May 2010)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> DexOlesa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


PuckChaser,
Don't be a clown.  You know that he is right.  Our boots need to be about utility & not fashion.  If the colour works but looks ugly or goofy, that should not rule out the colour.  Pink would not work as a colour on a uniform intended to be low visibility.  CADPAT, green and brown are options that would work for the low visibility requirement.



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> The good thing about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years is that there is an endless list of suppliers of excellent brown boots.


Brown or tan suppliers?



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> PuckChaser said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Of course, if the temperate combat boot and arid combat boot are the exact same colour we will accomodate much of that 5% with the ability to choose between footware.  



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> What if that 1 in 5 were all Infantry guys?


Fortunately, we seem to stack the trial groups a little heavier with people running around on thier feet, so if "the 1" is concentrated in any one group it is more likely to be a group spending more time on its butt.


----------



## REDinstaller (23 May 2010)

The Matterhorn website has Tan and Brown along with some that look green.

WWW.Coveshoe.com


The problem isn't my ortho chit expiring, its the fact that he feels they can be cut down to fit the boots, as some of the orthos appear to be quite chunky. This is what delays the procurement, I walk into Physio and they tell me right away its a fit problem and not their problem, so back to supply I go.


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Of course, if the temperate combat boot and arid combat boot are the exact same colour we will accomodate much of that 5% with the ability to choose between footware.
> Fortunately, we seem to stack the trial groups a little heavier with people running around on thier feet, so if "the 1" is concentrated in any one group it is more likely to be a group spending more time on its butt.



1 in 5 equals 20%, not 5%. And, you're still talking a few thousand troops who this will NOT work for. I thought we were about saving money and doing things effeciently and effectively? Do you have any idea how much we fork out a year stocking, storring, delivering, returni ng, scrapping footwear acrross the CF? Getting rid of those costs alone would save a few hundred B Class jobs and will better serve our soldiers and their feet.

Funny that you mentionned stacking our trials with pointy enders ... funny how that's worked out for all our current in-service boots and tac vests, and snowshoes, and floppy hats, and and and ... Seems to me that the vast majority of boot problems, tac vest problems etc etc are coming from the very groups who supposedly "were stacked into the trials" ... how does that work? They simply ignore that 20% and their needs - forcing them into stuff that does not work.


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> The Matterhorn website has Tan and Brown along with some that look green.
> 
> WWW.Coveshoe.com
> 
> ...



You will also find the regulations and policy for orthotics posted in that thread. Show them to him. As long as your chit is under two years old, those rules apply. If your chit is greater than two years old, then physio needs to reissue you a new chit. If all of this is applicable, ask for the supervisor (I can PM you the name of this individual), then his supervisor. Get your supervisor involved if need be, but they are YOUR feet ... do what you need to do to get them looked after.


----------



## REDinstaller (23 May 2010)

Thanks for the insight from the other side of the counter.


----------



## McG (23 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Funny that you mentionned stacking our trials with pointy enders ... funny how that's worked out for all our current in-service boots and tac vests, ...


They are stacked in favour of primary user group(s).  For the Tac Vest, it was  25% Infantry, 25% other Combat Arms, and 25% Service Support.  However, while the Tac Vest may score popular emotional points in any argument on issued kit problems, you know as well as I do that it is only a red herring here.  We have the vest we have because it was designed in a different time, based on different requirements and even the troops who trialed it were thinking "Bosnia."  You are one of many who have pointed that out in the past:




			
				Bomber said:
			
		

> No wrong steering, just different times.  If the Vest was identified as a requirement now,and not in the Bosnian time frame, it would probably have come out different.  Remember that everyone may have been living in the past.  The vest had to be trialled before it was accepted.  Troops resoundingly approved of it.  The whole process you described of design and manufacture, most likely started in mid 90's in a response to a need for better webbing in the Balkans.  ...  Unfortunately, we aren't like the Marines, when they all went to MOLLE, and everyone loved it, till they needed to use it, then they hated it.  The Marines fixed the problem by throwing it in the garbage and getting ILBE.






			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Well said.  LFTEU does incorporate an exhaustive scientfic process to trial "stuff", from gloves and boots to weapons and the like.  There is extensive user feedback, but being human, they don't always get it right.  They do most of the time, but not always.  I think that the TV was a success story, however.






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> As to the logic of the TV and the CTS items -- they were designed in the mid to late 90s -- well before Sept 11th, and well before the influx of combat experience the CF is currently witnessing.  ... had the CTS kit been design after 9/11 and after our deployment to Afghanistan circa fall 01 -- I'm quite sure that it would be significantly different than it is now.






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the part where I said the CTS kit was designed BEFORE we found ourselves on the 2 way range.
> 
> Funny what future combat experience will reveal about one's kit and it's defeciencies.






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The Tac Vest f'n sucks. Everyone knows that. And because of THAT piece of kit -- some people people will go to good lengths to continue to slam each and every piece of CTS gear they can. But, how many times does it need to be said that the Tac Vest was designed in the early 90s --- when we were a peacekeeping nation -- a purpose for which it would be suitable?




The procurement of the Tac Vest was not a failure of Trials & Evaluations, it was a failing in our institutional perception of how we would fight the next war.  The continued service is also not a failing of T&E, and here again you have outlined the reasons it took so long for Ottawa to take notice that there was a problem:




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The TV is an _individual_ kit item. The UCRs for it should be done by _individuals_. The more -- the better.
> 
> Less than 10 submitted for 35000 issued means that not too many individuals have such a big problem with it that they are actually willing to DO something about getting it fixed instead of simply bitching about it.






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> You must also have missed the part below where I said _*Individual Kit = Individual UCRS*_. In this case, it is an individual responsibilty ... same for PPE. Let me tell you this, when there's less than 10 UCRs on 35000 issued does it seem to be a big problem? No. Like I said ... that infers that 34996 individuals are perfectly fine with their kit. The "photocopying bit" is called IMPROVISING like I said already. One person with enough initiative to do this in every Unit WILL make a difference. And when NDHQ has 20000 UCRs on whatever piece of kit -- then that kit and its defeciencies certainly DOES become a problem that needs to get sorted out _post haste_ exactly because it IS operational.




In any case, *getting back to the topic of boots*, you know that a boot allowance is a political battle.  The much maligned folks in DLR have examined that path - it ends at nowhere.  Providing an option within the supply system is likely the best that the CF can achieve without major political & other departmental bureaucratic change.




			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Quite frankly, don't blame the Supply Techs, don't blame the staffer at CTS who can't do anything about it either, don't blame the different project managers who only have _some_ say in where their specific funds go ...
> 
> Blame the appropriate political authorities who are responsible for funding this outfit and enabling us to be able to afford the kit we need. ALL of it.
> 
> ...






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... purchasing is Federal and governed by Federal regulations. Involving TB & PWGSC. Slow, tedious beaurcracy at it's finest, but that's the way it works in Canada.






			
				Ecco said:
			
		

> And PWGSC, who enforces most of the procurement laws, is DEFINITELY not at war.






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Recommendation rests at the highest levels of the CF, *but, implementation and purchase is entirely dependant upon the approval of Feds outside of the CF.*




I have to confess that I am absolutely stumped as to why you so voraciously attack the idea of an option through the supply system without acknowledging that it may be the best option within the military's power.  With an option in the supply system, we could go from ≥ 80 % to ≥ 95%.  With a third option (brown wet weather boot?) we could get even closer to that 100%.


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> ...



Blah blah blah ... and it's been 9 years already on the two way range - and here it still sits. I guess that pretty much sums up my point about how long it takes to trial things to find out they don't work. I have stated numerous times why we have the vest we do (which you were sure to quote) ... but I've also said many times "it don't work", "get rid of it" ... etc etc etc and I have tried umpteen times how to advise pers to go about getting that done. Here it sits though, still in service. Please, do not attempt to tell me that NDHQ is not aware of the discontent, nonfunctionality and absolute contempt of the pointy end troops with this particular piece of kit. They know; that's why 9 years later we're finally seeing some chest rig trials occur.

Yep, it was BiS before TFA ... TFA's been going on 9 years and we're just now getting around to trialling rigs?? Likewise the boots. 

How come MCG, the bras took us less than a year to clue in? And, what's taking so long to do the same with the troops' boots? That's the question. Why is it that boots are "the" political battle? this is our soldiers feet that we're talking about - and those troops march and fight on those feet - it's time that they started getting looked after no? Answer that for me.


----------



## McG (23 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Blah blah blah ... and it's been 9 years already on the two way range - and here it still sits. I guess that pretty much sums up my point about how long it takes to trial things to find out they don't work. I have stated numerous times why we have the vest we do (which you were sure to quote) ... but I've also said many times "it don't work", "get rid of it" ... etc etc etc and I have tried umpteen times how to advise pers to go about getting that done. Here it sits though, still in service. Please, do not attempt to tell me that NDHQ is not aware of the discontent, nonfunctionality and absolute contempt of the pointy end troops with this particular piece of kit. They know; that's why 9 years later we're finally seeing some chest rig trials occur.


Tac Vest - still not germane to the topic of a boot allowance, because I know you are not suggesting there should also be a load carriage allowance.  You've been a strong advocate for the necessity of T&E for individual operational equipment: 



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> ... for any item of kit to be "Officially sanctionned & authorized" for wear -- the government has the ONUS to ensure that it is tested for specs to ensure personal safety and that risks posed to the soldier are at the very minimal end of the stick.






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Wonderbread said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...






			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> How come MCG, the bras took us less than a year to clue in?


Because our society has some hyper-sensitvity to boobs and that hyper-sensitivity is exacerbated in the mostly male military with fears of how the public might view the military's handling of said part of the anatomy.

If it makes you feel any better, I have been told that those authorities that managed to attain the bra allowance would be denied that success if they had to try it again today.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> And, what's taking so long to do the same with the troops' boots? That's the question. Why is it that boots are "the" political battle? this is our soldiers feet that we're talking about - and those troops march and fight on those feet - it's time that they started getting looked after no? Answer that for me.


You may be getting closer to the relevant issues ... but I'm not playing this game a again where you ignore questions that I've asked while calling on me to answer questions of yours.

Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge what might be the best the CF can do inside of larger political & bureaucratic barriers that you had earlier described?


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Tac Vest - still not germane to the topic of a boot allowance, because I know you are not suggesting there should also be a load carriage allowance.  You've been a strong advocate for the necessity of T&E for individual operational equipment:
> 
> If anybody SAID that they would be benefacto "approving" it -- and NO ONE has the authority to do that unless it has been put through that testing process. Is that really too hard a concept to grasp?
> 
> ...



Wow. You must have had my posts open all day long now.

So, I'm not ignoring a thing you've asked, but I am, once again, still waiting for you to answer my questions. Or, are you saying that I should just curl up and shut up because it's a "political issue"? A political issue or not, the current way is NOT looking after our troops or their health. Nor is it cost effective or effecient; so, "political" or not - it's WRONG. What do you not understand about that?

Just because it's political does not make it right, nor does it make it our best option. I, for one, will always advocate the best option for our pers vice something decided by Treasurey Board who doesn't have to walk one single meter in our shoes. So, we can call this discussion between us "done" now.


----------



## McG (23 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, I'm not ignoring a thing you've asked, but I am, once again, still waiting for you to answer my questions. Or, are you saying that I should just curl up and shut up because it's a "political issue"? A political issue or not, the current way is NOT looking after our troops or their health. Nor is it cost effective or effecient; so, "political" or not - it's WRONG. What do you not understand about that?
> 
> Just because it's political does not make it right, nor does it make it our best option. I, for one, will always advocate the best option for our pers vice something decided by Treasurey Board who doesn't have to walk one single meter in our shoes. So, we can call this discussion between us "done" now.


Gotcha.  So, instead of doing what is possible within the constraints placed upon the CF, we should throw our collective teddy-bear to the corner and hold-out for what has been denied.  Recognizing there are already accomodations in place for custome sizes & to meet medical requirements, if we could provide 2-3 different styles of boot to pick from in the supply system, I think we will have landed on the mark.  The troops & thier health can be looked after this way.  ... and you will note that I am not advocating the current way.  I am advocating a mechanism of choise within our constraints.

I'm not tracking your argument of effeciency.  Should we just abolish the whole existance of base clothing because supply chains costs money?


----------



## armyvern (23 May 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> Gotcha.  So, instead of doing what is possible within the constraints placed upon the CF, we should throw our collective teddy-bear to the corner and hold-out for what has been denied.  Recognizing there are already accomodations in place for custome sizes & to meet medical requirements, if we could provide 2-3 different styles of boot to pick from in the supply system, I think we will have landed on the mark.  The troops & thier health can be looked after this way.  ... and you will note that I am not advocating the current way.  I am advocating a mechanism of choise within our constraints.
> 
> I'm not tracking your argument of effeciency.  Should we just abolish the whole existance of base clothing because supply chains costs money?



Got me!!?? You're starting to sound like my 15 year old.

Go back through all my posts again fine Sir; there'll you'll find other posts (and even some of the same quotes you've used "without" my "from day 1 stance of boot allowance" that I've said:

1) WHY we have the tac vest;
2) That boots are political; and
3) WHY don't we have a boot allowance EVEN if it's political.

My outlook has never changed. You've _*got me*_ on SFA. At one point in time, Treasurey Board denied us many things ... your impetus for me to now, in 2010, curl up into a corner and NOT to advocate for "the right thing for the troops" certainly isn't going to change that.

Now, instead of throwing "the collective teddy bear of millions of dollars in trials and O&M, delivery costs" ad naseum simply because "it's political" ... let's not; let's do the right thing. POLITICS is costing us millions that would be MUCH better spent elsewhere.

Sure, let's abolish supply if that's what you want. Apparently, you may not actually realize that boots take up MOST of the shelving in warehouses, depots and clothing stores of all personal kit allotment items. Go ahead and take a walk through clothing sometime and check it out for yourself. Cehck out anyone's basement too to understand the sheer volumes of pairs of useless footwear they have issued ... for what?? Because "politics" says so? Nor have you stood at the counter scrapping slightly-worn boots because they didn't work for someone, or had to help a soldier out trying on "stocked" boots whose feet were trashed because they are obviously one of the 20%.  

Once you get rid of me, you can rid of the truckers too; then the tfc techs ... and so on.  :


----------



## McG (23 May 2010)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Got me!!?? You're starting to sound like my 15 year old.


No.  Gotcha as in - I'm trakin'



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Go back through all my posts again fine Sir; there'll you'll find other posts (and even some of the same quotes you've used "without" my "from day 1 stance of boot allowance" that I've said:
> 
> 1) WHY we have the tac vest;
> 2) That boots are political; and
> 3) WHY we don't have a boot allowance EVEN if *is because* it's political.


One correction and...
I know you've posted all this.  I know you have always argued there should be a boot allowance.  That doesn't explain why you won't acknowledge the best that can be done within the CF's given constraints.

The CF has made a lot of progress in backroom political battles over the recent years.  When we can meet our needs (choice of boots) within our constraints (political/bureaucratic opposition to uniform allowances), then I think we should be staking our claim on more important battles than boots ( like Leopard 2, C-17, M777, load carriage, etc).



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Sure, let's abolish supply if that's what you want.


It is not what I want; rather, it seems to be the path you are proposing.  You want to do away with supply chain costs associated to boots.  If that argument is sound, then would it not apply to all the other items of individual operational clothing?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2010)

How about you guys take a breather.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## aesop081 (24 May 2010)

MCG said:
			
		

> if we could provide 2-3 different styles of boot to pick from in the supply system, I think we will have landed on the mark.



The result of that will be 2-3 styles of boots nobody wants and that work for nobody.

Vern as to why boots are a political issue and not the bra :

How many bra manufacturer are located in Quebec ?


----------



## Infanteer (24 May 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Brown, or tan?





			
				MCG said:
			
		

> Brown or tan suppliers?



Doesn't really matter - after a month of use all the boots are the same dirty colour; the darker brown issued tan boots quickly fade and look the same as any other Desert boot.


----------



## Loachman (24 May 2010)

It will certainly matter in garrison, and that's where most of these boots will be worn most of the time.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It will certainly matter in garrison, and that's where most of these boots will be worn most of the time.



How true.


----------



## Infanteer (24 May 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It will certainly matter in garrison, and that's where most of these boots will be worn most of the time.



What I'm saying is that dark brown colour seems to fade after time - field use only speeds this up.  The Danner boots I have are dark brown like our issued boots as the Marines also go for a dark boot.  The Meindls are a more conventional tan.  They all look the same now.


----------



## Loachman (24 May 2010)

That may or may not cut it for some sergeants-major in non-operational establishments.

Perhaps there will be something like the current black boot treatment that will keep the colour to a suitable standard, and perhaps darken tan boots enough to match.


----------



## REDinstaller (24 May 2010)

Just as long as I don't have to buy Brown KIWI, might as just well wear Corcoran Jump Boots ( Hideous Looking is Sz 14). I don't know how any of this will pan out when it comes to purchasing???


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 May 2010)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That may or may not cut it for some sergeants-major in non-operational establishments.
> 
> Perhaps there will be something like the current black boot treatment that will keep the colour to a suitable standard, and perhaps darken tan boots enough to match.



Most mink oil/dubbin type boot dressings will significantly darken tan suede/rough out type leather.  Whether they will make the tan boot look like the pinkish brown 'DND Maxi Brown' boot is another question though.

Of the desert boot versions of the 'DND Maxi Brown' boots that have been worn for some time, they end up covered in dust and have dirt ingrained into them they do end up looking like any other desert boot though.  The leather is a no-polish/no-dressing type nubuck leather which is an RSM's worst nightmare in terms of presenting a neat, military type appearance.  The CFs will also find that they will be spending a fortune in boot replacement costs as this type leather will dry rot and crack rendering the boots unserviceable at a rate far greater than the current wear-out of black full grain leather boots.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 May 2011)

Photo of the latest version of the Temperate Combat Boot is on the Clothe The Soldier Project website:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/temperatecombatboot-bottepourclimattempere-eng.asp

Looks to be that they've decided to go with a brown boot which uses full grain leather, a Cordura upper, and a Goodyear welted Vibram outsole.  Full grain leather is a good decision in my opinion, as it can be better maintained than a suede/rough out sided leather, and will offer much better water resistance.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2011)

As long as we don't get those horrible looking CADPAT boots that were trialled and now banned.....what next, CADPAT socks and underwear? ;D

Anyone know when these will be issued?


----------



## PMedMoe (25 May 2011)

As long as the sizes aren't anything remotely like the CWW boot.   :


----------



## 211RadOp (25 May 2011)

According to the schedule, they were supposed to be fielded in Mar 11.  I haven't seen a pair yet, but I haven't been to Fort Fumble on the Rideau in a while.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2011)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> According to the schedule, they were supposed to be fielded in Mar 11.  I haven't seen a pair yet, but I haven't been to Fort Fumble on the Rideau in a while.



And who knows what priority they'll be issued......


----------



## Matt_Fisher (25 May 2011)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> According to the schedule, they were supposed to be fielded in Mar 11.  I haven't seen a pair yet, but I haven't been to Fort Fumble on the Rideau in a while.



I talked with a footwear manufacturer back in December that will be bidding on the contract when it comes out.  DND is about a year behind schedule with this program.  It'll probably go out for tender sometime between now and September, with the contract being awarded in October.  First fielding will likely happen sometime next spring.  Will be interesting to see how long it takes before the Army replaces the black WWB with a corresponding brown version to standardize boot appearances for wear with CADPAT TW combats.  Will also be interesting to see what sort of guidance is given for the local purchase of safety boots, i.e. whether black will still be an acceptable colour, and the medical 'boot chit' program and whether black or brown locally purchased boots will be acceptable.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 May 2011)

So, Matt, is that once again we'll be having "discussions" on troops and boots in a years time..... ;D


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2011)

I can't remember if this was brought up or answered before, but since this is going to be the flying boot as well, wouldn't having synthetic uppers that melt quickly be a bad thing on an airplane?  (Same argument would probably apply to LAVs/tanks)


----------



## REDinstaller (26 May 2011)

Skin will melt much more quickly than the synthetic uppers on boots. Clothing for Armoured Crews is designed to give the crew a chance to escape the fire before becoming engulfed in flame. That is why when we roll out the door its with sleeves down, gloves on and as much skin as possible covered. Fire is every tankers worst nightmare.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 May 2011)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I can't remember if this was brought up or answered before, but since this is going to be the flying boot as well, wouldn't having synthetic uppers that melt quickly be a bad thing on an airplane?  (Same argument would probably apply to LAVs/tanks)



A valid concern, Dimsum, although the risk would be mitigated partially by being generally covered with double Nomex from the lower leg/cuff of the flying suit.  In my younger days as a Group (before 1 CAD) ALSEO, we conducted risk assessments on a number of difference flying (and armd crewing) clothing issues and there were items like boots that we determined the 'best' was full leather, but that multilayer synthetics were reasonable in flash test...ironically, it was non-FR laces that posed the greatest problem, even in full leather boots, as when the laces burned through, the boot would no longer stay on one's foot.  We procured a rather large quantity of Matterhorns and Danners in the mid/late-90's and when we tried to also procure several thousands of paris of Nomex laces, we ran into systemic difficulties that seemed more difficult than surviving inside a fireball.  Even the current Aircrew version of the GP doesn't have nomex laces...go figure.

cheers
G2G


----------



## Infanteer (26 May 2011)

Boot looks good enough - we'll see how they fit.  That being said, I do relish the thought of getting rid of 2 sets of boots for this single set.  Issue a set of NEOs (I know the CLS was prodded on them after seeing one of his Bdes, from Private soldier to Bde Comd, decked out in them) and you can get rid of WWBs as well.


----------



## REDinstaller (26 May 2011)

NEOS are excellent, but if you are in the top end of sizing for them as i am it gets to be complicated trying to wear them. I can only wear boots that aren't welted in them. So my matterhorns end up being a sunny day boot, where as the magnums are my sole NEOS compatible boots. Being a sz 15 really sucks.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2011)

I've finally given up on the CF being able to produce anything that will not cause hand size blisters on the soles of my feet and all my toenails to shed, and invested in a pair of Lowa Combat GTX. 
http://www.lowaboots.com/catalog/ShowBoot.cfm?StockNum=2118800999&Category=8&Type=M

I've done a few hours of tabbing over hills with about 60lbs on and, right out of the box, they are frickin' excellent ....


----------



## Wolf117 (30 May 2011)

Those look pretty comfortable.  I've been wearing the Rocky SV2 for a few years now.  On both tours to Kandahar and a black version back in Canada.  For me they are the most comfortable and durrable combat boot I've had. I also find my agility and stamina is superior in them when compared to Mk3 vibramed or the GP boots.  The contour of the sole make them almost like Merrel style hiking boots.  It's nice when your leg muscles are focusing their energy solely on pushing you forward instead of fighting the clunkyness of the GP style soles.

I really wish the boot replacement program was taking into account troops' experiences in the field and new developments in design and manufacturing practices.  The hockey puck style soles may work well in a vehicle or in an office, however, when your job requires you to move fast over long distances by foot, you had better believe you learn fast what works and what fumbles.
Not to sound arrogant, but I really wish they'd make a seperate boot for field troops.  Or at least make something the lives up to our standards.


----------



## lawandorder (30 May 2011)

Why switch the colour of the boot?  What is wrong with a black boot?  The new boot looks a little on the heavy side, but will be hard to tell until you actually touch and feel it in real life.


----------



## OldSolduer (30 May 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Why switch the colour of the boot?  What is wrong with a black boot?  The new boot looks a little on the heavy side, but will be hard to tell until you actually touch and feel it in real life.



Black does not blend into the surroundings as well as brown does.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Black does not blend into the surroundings as well as brown does.



I also (painfully) recall the difference between wearing black and brown boots in hot climates. Black, of course, soaks up more radiation and is therefore much warmer!


----------



## REDinstaller (31 May 2011)

Too true, nothing like wool socks in a hot leather boot in july.


----------



## McG (31 May 2011)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Why switch the colour of the boot?  What is wrong with a black boot?  The new boot looks a little on the heavy side, but will be hard to tell until you actually touch and feel it in real life.





			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Black does not blend into the surroundings as well as brown does.


Actually, it is also because black was found to contrast too much with the rest of the uniform.  Back when CADPAT was still new, there were many studies on why soldiers are seen and one conclusion was contrast between uniform and several items of solid black equipment (rifle, boots, gloves, etc).  

Brown was chosen because it is the one colour common to both temperate and arid.  Therefore, all boots can be made in brown and soldiers can pick their preference between any style issued boot in any given natural environment regardless of which combat uniform is worn.


----------



## Armymedic (31 May 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I've finally given up on the CF being able to produce anything that will not cause hand size blisters on the soles of my feet and all my toenails to shed, and invested in a pair of Lowa Combat GTX.
> http://www.lowaboots.com/catalog/ShowBoot.cfm?StockNum=2118800999&Category=8&Type=M
> 
> I've done a few hours of tabbing over hills with about 60lbs on and, right out of the box, they are frickin' excellent ....



Awesome boot. Pity it is more than the CF can afford to give us.



			
				Law & Order said:
			
		

> Why switch the colour of the boot?  What is wrong with a black boot?  The new boot looks a little on the heavy side, but will be hard to tell until you actually touch and feel it in real life.



We need to break the tradition of the "black boot" for anything but dress uniforms. There is no good specific reason to keep, and several already listed here against, a black boot for our combat uniform.

In a few years, we'll talk about the reason why we wore black boots being the same as why farmers painted their barns red:

Because, at first it was the cheapest, but then it was what everyone did.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 May 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Awesome boot. Pity it is more than the CF can afford to give us.



The 'F' in Infantry stands for 'Footborne' (and sometimes other words that are not suitable for a G rated audience). 

How can we NOT make that kind of investment in the most basic and vitally important piece of personal kit - yes, I'd say that boots are the most improtant piece of personal kit - when we're quite happy spending bejillions on tanks, planes etc? 

I wore them again yesterday on a short workout... my feet are still smiling.  ;D

The issued socks work well with them, by the way, so we wouldn't have to start from scratch if we wanted to save our aching feet, and reduce casualty rates.


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2011)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Pity it is more than the CF can afford to give us.



With all of the money that's been dumped into crappy boots over the last few years, buying a decent, quality, modern boot in the first place probably would have saved a bundle.


----------



## MikeL (31 May 2011)

When the CF officially makes the move to wear brown boots and issues them out, I wonder what rules there will be for those who have boot chits/buy their own boots.  Will we be allowed to wear desert/tan boots, or will they have to be brown?


----------



## Loachman (31 May 2011)

There's got to be some spray paint that's close.

If spray paint is good enough for parade boots and dress Oxfords, it'll be good enough for combat boots.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Jun 2011)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There's got to be some spray paint that's close.
> 
> If spray paint is good enough for parade boots and dress Oxfords, it'll be good enough for combat boots.



I think I've just heard the souls of ten thousand dead Guardsmen scream out in horror.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jun 2011)

I'm sure that when the switch is final, there will be several enterprising manufacturers ready and willing to sell us all better brown non-issued boots.

Bates boots, i would like a pair of brown M9s with side-zip, size 9 please...........


----------



## REDinstaller (1 Jun 2011)

No doubt this will be a long term phase in, vice a short term solution.


----------



## Wolf117 (1 Jun 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The 'F' in Infantry stands for 'Footborne' (and sometimes other words that are not suitable for a G rated audience).
> 
> How can we NOT make that kind of investment in the most basic and vitally important piece of personal kit - yes, I'd say that boots are the most improtant piece of personal kit - when we're quite happy spending bejillions on tanks, planes etc?
> 
> ...



Very good point, the boot is as important to an infantryman as a tank is to a armoured soldier.

Which is why I wish they'd just issue a different higher quality boot for infantry and field troops.  If they wanted to save money that is.  Or else design a new boot that lives up to our standards.  OR and this is a big or, buy a boot that is already in use by our troops overseas (bought on our own dollars in most cases).  It seems like a big waste of money for us to have a research and development program to re-design the wheel when there are already more durrable and comfortable and vastly more advanced products out there thanks to industry.  There's a reason the CANSOFCOM guys get kit allowances to buy commercial combat gear, IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE ISSUE!


----------



## George Wallace (1 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> ........ There's a reason the CANSOFCOM guys get kit allowances to buy commercial combat gear, IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE ISSUE!



I would say "Prove it!"  In some cases, it may be better, but is it safer?  Does it meet the safety requirements in the ways of fire protection/heat protection/impact protection.  Gucci kit is not always better, even if it looks good/better/kool.  There are safety standards that have to be met, and that is what the majority of the CF have to meet.  This is also why testing is so long and drawn out.   Then comes contracting out for mass production and of course we must not forget "Quality Control".  Just because you can't get the Gucci kit you want, doesn't mean that what you do get is garbage.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Jun 2011)

I agree with George. If you want the allowance for "Gucci " kit you know what to do. If you don't like issue kit....there are opportunities.

Gucci kit is nice....BUT when you are in the middle of nowhere and need new boots.....and the CQ drops them off, they're probably going to be issue boots, not Gucci.


----------



## Armymedic (1 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> There's a reason the CANSOFCOM guys get kit allowances to buy commercial combat gear, IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE ISSUE!



They do not get a kit allowance to buy commercial combat gear. They get a clothing allowance to buy specific list of items of civilian clothing and footwear. With exception of a few trial items, the guys wear what is issued, or they pay for it out of their pockets, just like the rest of the CF.

Or so I heard.


----------



## Rheostatic (1 Jun 2011)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Photo of the latest version of the Temperate Combat Boot is on the Clothe The Soldier Project website:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/aete/temperatecombatboot-bottepourclimattempere-eng.asp
> 
> Looks to be that they've decided to go with a brown boot which uses full grain leather, a Cordura upper, and a Goodyear welted Vibram outsole.  Full grain leather is a good decision in my opinion, as it can be better maintained than a suede/rough out sided leather, and will offer much better water resistance.


Maybe it's time to update the thread title?


----------



## helpup (1 Jun 2011)

Well I just peeled off the blisters from the last march.  And that was with boots that normally do not cauase my feet any issues.  I will wait and see if and when the new ones come out and watch as the policy settles in untill the enevitable complaints come in again. 

Honestly I dont think there is ever going to be a 100% answer for that one.  I think it was Vern who pointed out that you will always have the 20% who do not meet the norm for sizing and it will cause problems.


----------



## skater021 (1 Jun 2011)

This is a Good point. Jungle boots are not the best boot out there, they  seem to chaf the heal and in my case the arch! My Son is with 3RCR and the new boots he has are great inprovement since the day of the "GREBS" remember? :nod:


----------



## dale622 (1 Jun 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would say "Prove it!"  In some cases, it may be better, but is it safer?  Does it meet the safety requirements in the ways of fire protection/heat protection/impact protection.  Gucci kit is not always better, even if it looks good/better/kool.  There are safety standards that have to be met, and that is what the majority of the CF have to meet.  This is also why testing is so long and drawn out.   Then comes contracting out for mass production and of course we must not forget "Quality Control".  Just because you can't get the Gucci kit you want, doesn't mean that what you do get is garbage.



Although I agree with you. I don't always trust the product testing. Case in point.... the LSVW


----------



## dapaterson (1 Jun 2011)

bananaman said:
			
		

> Although I agree with you. I don't always trust the product testing. Case in point.... the LSVW



The LSVW proved that a piece of equipment that fails evaluations should not be purchased.


----------



## helpup (1 Jun 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The LSVW proved that a piece of equipment that fails evaluations should not be purchased.



Oh, and I thought it meant we had to purchase a piece of (Sh*^)....equipment.  My bad   :nod:

That being said yes there is and should be a certain standard requirement for all the equipment we use.  Does it mean it will always be the best of what not out there............. well most of us know the answer.  But it does allow us something to talk about on here or in the mess


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Jun 2011)

The question of boots drives me CRAZY! No two people are going to have the same feet, cadence, foot strike, length of step blah blah blah. There is a reason that running shoe companies (and many companies that make "combat" boots) spending millions annually on research and design. 

Why oh why is it that the institution thinks that it is possible to get one boot that will work for 100% of the population? 

The current GP boot works for some people, of that I do not doubt. I know people who will march 10-15kms under weight with them, no problems. I wear 'em for ten mins on a march, and blisters. I wear my Magnums and I have no issues over vast kms under weight. Everyone's feet are different.

I can not help but to believe that, it would be far cheaper on many aspects, to issue troops a "boot allowance" to local purchase boots that meet specific criteria from a select list (to meet fire resistance, ankle support, acid/oil resistance blah blah blah). One of the long terms savings would definitely be medical claims... Wearing the wrong footwear for long duration will do very real damage to the knees, hips and back over long term exposures.

Anyways, I digress.


----------



## medicineman (1 Jun 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The 'F' in Infantry stands for 'Footborne' (and sometimes other words that are not suitable for a G rated audience).



One thing I'd argue (from the medical end) that goes hand in hand with that is the FOOT in FOOTBORNE - while what you put on your feet is extremely important, not looking after the feet themselves properly will knock you out of action pretty quick.  I'm amazed that Recruit and Trades Schools spend so much time on things like Harrassment and Envrionmental issues but don't teach simple foot care to soldiers anymore...my one good deed I pulled out of my back end in Gagetown was to cut sick parade from CAP one summer by almost half simply by giving a 45 minute class on basic foot care and what constituted a bona fide sick parade foot issue vs what was just plain old driver maintenance.  I also took the baby officers and NCO's aside and taught them how to do foot inspections on their troops and that it was a responsibility of their's.  It caught on through CTC and I had a bit of a travelling road show for awhile.

MM


----------



## Bzzliteyr (1 Jun 2011)

MM,

Thanks, you just gave me a great topic for some professional develpoment classes!!


----------



## dimsum (1 Jun 2011)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> I can not help but to believe that, it would be far cheaper on many aspects, to issue troops a "boot allowance" to local purchase boots that meet specific criteria from a select list (to meet fire resistance, ankle support, acid/oil resistance blah blah blah).



I agree totally.  I'm sure someone in the "boot requirements" development section is reading this, right?


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jun 2011)

I suspect that there is a lack of economies of scale involved. The government gets a lower price as it buys humpteen thousands of pars of boots while a single soldier with a boot allowance buys 2-3 pairs at regular price at "boots r us" and another buys his favorite at "boots world'.

The issue with reducing injury claims is this........injury claims are years down the road. That is money the government (usualy another government) has to deal with later. Stuff that you can "pay later" or fluff off to some far away government is political gold.


----------



## Wolf117 (1 Jun 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would say "Prove it!"  In some cases, it may be better, but is it safer?  Does it meet the safety requirements in the ways of fire protection/heat protection/impact protection.  Gucci kit is not always better, even if it looks good/better/kool.  There are safety standards that have to be met, and that is what the majority of the CF have to meet.  This is also why testing is so long and drawn out.   Then comes contracting out for mass production and of course we must not forget "Quality Control".  Just because you can't get the Gucci kit you want, doesn't mean that what you do get is garbage.



Safety is certainly a concern.  I am not advocating giving troops a blank cheque and sending them in the general direction of US Cavalry or Full Spectrum Gear.  However, what needs to be acknowledged here is that a lot of kit producing companies in the US make equipment for the US Defence Department and have to meet their safety and quality standards.  Which in a lot of cases are as good or better than ours from what I've seen.  Hence, having a list of manufacturers which are green lighted for use is not outside the realm of possibility.

To not get off topic with this tac vest or that ballisitic eyewear brand I'll keep this focused on footwear.  I think it's important that we acknowledge that the majority of our soldiers in the field are already using footwear from these companies and have been for years now.  There is a good cost saving measure right there.  Instead of trailing x number of footwear types and rearching hypothitcals in a lab somewhere in Ottawa, just do a survey of combat troops to find what is working and what is not.  Then go to those companies and get the info needed to prove them safe, and if you aren't satisfied by that do your own in house testing on the boots.  As opposed to spending millions and a decade's worth of time designing something in house that needs to be revised repeatedly and eventually doesn't live up to the infantryman's needs anyways.

In the case of the M4 GP issued boots or the wet weather boots.  I've been around the block and I have worn these almost as much as I wore my Mk3s back in the day  I've put them through field conditions and ruck marches and 'run' in them on section attacks.  They have consistently given me blisters and overworked my feet.  Even with the best insoles money can buy they still fall short.  As of now I ONLY use them for in garrison work and save my Rocky SV2s for field and infantry stuff.  But after a day at work in garrison and with a one kilometer walk one way to home twice a day, my feet still scream at me after wearing the issued boot.  In fact my feet feel better after a BFT with my field boots than they do on a garrison day.  So in all honesty from my own experience with them and from noticing that the vast majority of troops here don't wear the issue boot at all, I'd have to say that the issued footwear is still garbage.  It's not Gucci to ask for footwear that doesn't cause you unecessary pain or allows you to perform to your potential in the field, that's just adequate kit; which our current system does not provide at this time.


----------



## Wolf117 (1 Jun 2011)

I don't want to sidetrack the conversation here, but this question of better boots and different types has got me thinking.  Is the fact we as an institution cannot seem to produce or procure a adequate combat boot a problem with the supply system or the R&D system?  Is this a case of the right hand not talking to the left or something?

I mean when the vast majority of troops prefer to spend their own money for proper footwear doesn't that tell people who are working on these projects that there's something wrong with where we have been going?

Take the wet weather boot, GP boot or desert tan boot produced by boulet boots in Quebec.  Everyone I've spoken with who use their feet as a primary mode of transportation have come out against these things.  Even more worriesome is the ammount of people suffering ankle and foot injuries as a result of wear. The common thread I've heard is that the boots are overly heavy, they don't provide the right ammount of ankle support or they don't fit well.  Then you take the same people and throw them in some Swats and the problems vanish.

I think two principles need to be acknowledged here by those on the Temperate Boot program.  One, that no one boot type will work for all troops, therefore a variety of similarly coloured ones are needed.  Two, in the time it has taken the CF to develop requirements and industry to respond to them there have been VAST improvements in terms of the ergonomics and production techniques.  These advances have not come from the cumbersome beauraucracy that is DND, but from industry.  They are design features that have been developed from lessons learned in hiking, sport, and military experience over the past decade of war.  The result is products like Swat, Rocky SV2, Bates to name a few.

Now here's the important thing and I REALLY hope someone out there who has an influence on this process reads this.  These boots have already been in use with our field troops for years and have faced some of the toughest conditions on earth.  Me personally, I've used the Rocky SV2 on TWO tours to Kandahar and they lasted through em.  The only thing I had to do was replace the laces every few months.

This info is out there and it won't cost the government any more than it has already spent to send us to Afghanistan in the first place.  Just save the money that we may give Boulet for yet another incarnation of the same proven to be inadequate boot and instead buy SWATS, Rockys and whatever else is safe and shown to be what the troops need.  This way if a trucker or mechanic need safety boots with steel toes, they can get em.  Or a tanker needs something that lets the circulation in his feet flow better by being lower on the ankle, he can find em.  Or, and god forbid, an infantryman decides a certain boot has the features he needs to make the next 20 K easier on his body, he can get em.  And all of this while not spending money that is hard earned and better spent taking care of their families.

PLEASE.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Everyone I've spoken with who use their feet as a primary mode of transportation have come out against these things.



It goes beyond that as the problem with the boots are not limited to those"who use their feet as primary modes of transportation". Since we are all issued the same boots now, we also have pilots who wear boots that are too heavy, that make it difficult to use the rudder pedals and aircrews getting blisters just walking around in the crappy desert boots. Never mind the fact that the AF is in a shooting war in both Afghanistan and Libya, where if things go pearshaped, you may have to depend on your feet to get away from people who wouldn't mind cutting your head off.

Point is, the problem with the current POS boots affects pretty damn near everyone. i wish i had a workable solution other than to keep paying for my own. I've had to go with Bates Delta-8s in black and Bates M9s for desert boots.


----------



## McG (1 Jun 2011)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Why oh why is it that the institution thinks that it is possible to get one boot that will work for 100% of the population?


The institution does not believe this.  The goal (achievable or not) is a boot for 80%.  However, the choice of brown is partially intended to provide option to soldiers.  Both temperate and arid boots will be the same colour - they will be close enough that even the crustiest RSMs won't care to differentiate on a parade square.  There will be some percentage of soldiers who like one boot and not the other, and so the two boot option will bring the Army up past 80% acceptace.  If the Wet Weather Boot is ever produced in the brown, we will climb even higer on the level of acceptance.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Since we are all issued the same boots now...


Each environment has been doing its own seperate boot programs since the Mk III died.  We're not all issued the same.  AF boots have a whole lot of CSA requirements that the Army is not including to reduce bulk and weight.

The AF boots are at this link and the Navy boots are at this link.  It is possible that the Cold Wet Weather Boot is the same for the AF and Navy, but it is not the same as the Army's Wet Weather Boot.


----------



## Wolf117 (1 Jun 2011)

Aviator I agree completely.  If ever there were a man who needed quality boots as much as a infanteer it would be a downed air force pilot or navigator.  Escape and evasion is yet another example of people needing kit that allows them to push past their limits.  After 40 plus K a day your feet will be blistered and tired enough.  We need boots that mitigate this reality, not help it happen sooner.

The current boots are more like something a construction worker or a warehouse storeman would need, not a warfighter/athlete.  These Temperate Combat Boots are just brown versions of the same thing we've had the past couple years, oh with a mesh ankle.  The real problem is they heavy and clunky soles that do not absorb enough shock nor are they curved at the toe to allow for sprinting and running.  Trying to run in them is like trying to run on hockey pucks.

I would say the solution is this.  Look at what the US and UK forces are doing and learn.  Both have a system in place where a soldier can go into a PX or NAFFI and purchase boots that have been okayed for use.  They offer multiple choices so that servicemen can find what works best for them.  So provide us all a basic boot allowance to buy two pairs of swats or a similarly economic boot.  OR stock them in the supply system for us.  Either way, we just need something proven and simple and a few choices for people.  This isn't the early 1900s when we all wore the same putties and brown office shoe into the field.  We have something called ergonomics.  We have decades of sports science and research and the invaluable experience of warfighters.  Take a lesson from them and go with something that has a good track record (Swat, Rocky etc.) and ignore those who have a consistent record of remaking the same boot over and over again in different colours. (Boulet)


----------



## McG (1 Jun 2011)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> These Temperate Combat Boots are just brown versions of the same thing we've had the past couple years ...


Not true.  The GP boot (the black thing we've had for the last few years) was a dirt cheap interim solution to provide something until CTS was ready to deliver the Temperate Weather Boot.  The GP was the Wet Weather Boot without the wet weather linings.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50234.0.html


----------



## Teeps74 (1 Jun 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> The institution does not believe this.  The goal (achievable or not) is a boot for 80%.  However, the choice of brown is partially intended to provide option to soldiers.  Both temperate and arid boots will be the same colour - they will be close enough that even the crustiest RSMs won't care to differentiate on a parade square.  There will be some percentage of soldiers who like one boot and not the other, and so the two boot option will bring the Army up past 80% acceptace.  If the Wet Weather Boot is ever produced in the brown, we will climb even higer on the level of acceptance.
> Each environment has been doing its own seperate boot programs since the Mk III died.  We're not all issued the same.  AF boots have a whole lot of CSA requirements that the Army is not including to reduce bulk and weight.



Fair enough... I have very serious doubts that these boots meet the 80% standard tho. I can say with certainty that 80% of the people I have talked to about the GP boots are not happy with them. Perhaps the trials pairs were superior in someway. Remember the Gerber multi tools? The civi off the shelf version was fantastic... The military contracted version was a hunk of "white metal" junk.

Further, I can not see any manufacturer being able to pull off 80% "satisfaction". I just can not see how it is possible. Not with footwear. People are flat footed, people pronate three different ways (see link below), people foot strike anywhere from the toes to the heel... There are far too many variables for any credible source to argue that one boot style will accommodate 80%. Now, a manufacture could theoretically accommodate the different pronations of the foot by creating a style that has different sole "loads" or "styles".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_type


----------



## Wolf117 (1 Jun 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Not true.  The GP boot (the black thing we've had for the last few years) was a dirt cheap interim solution to provide something until CTS was ready to deliver the Temperate Weather Boot.  The GP was the Wet Weather Boot without the wet weather linings.
> 
> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50234.0.html



Cheap clearly, however, I've seen a few of the Mk4s with the same vibram sole pictures on the Temperate combat boot.  Also the wet weather boot from Boulet is very similar to this new temp. boot.  The top of the ankle is padded for some reason and the sole is again the same flat fronted vibram sole.

Vibram is a great company and the soles of my SV2s are from them as well.  But this style of sole sucks when used for running fast or far.  Something I HAVE to do for work.

Talked to Boulet reps at a defence show one year past.  Tried to explain how their designs we limited and that as an infanteer I needed something lighter and with a sole that allows me to maximize efficiency while running or sprinting.  His response was that as long as my bosses kept asking for boots that looked good on the parade square they'd keep making this design.


----------



## Biggoals2bdone (1 Jun 2011)

In ref to the GP boots being cheap, they cost the Gov about 200$ I don't know about you guys but for 200$ i can get a way more comfortable/usable pair of boots.

In ref to the AF and Navy having their own boots, this is both true and false, the Navy boots are shipboard boots...meaning sailors not on ship don't need to wear boots with THOSE specifications.  Same goes for AF boots, as well as purple trades just wear what they need to case dependent.

and I fully agree and support the boot allowance!! Now if only we could get the higher ups to see this.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Jun 2011)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Same goes for AF boots, as well as purple trades just wear what they need to case dependent.



The air force has gone to one single boot regardless of trade.


----------



## McG (1 Jun 2011)

Biggoals2bdone said:
			
		

> Same goes for AF boots, as well as purple trades just wear what they need to case dependent.


No.  Boots are bought with environmentally coloured NP monies.  Army, Air and Navy boots are issued to individuals of designated occupations, or to other individuals posted to units within the respective environmental commands as needed.


----------



## Wolf117 (1 Jun 2011)

Wait WHAT?!  Biggoals2bdone is that true!?  I'm not questioning your honesty, but really I am SHOCKED to hear that.  When MCG stated they were cheap I was figuring between 70 and 90 bucks a pair.  But 200 dollars for a piece of garbage that is as useful to a infantry soldier as deployable reflector tapes in a rainsuit!?

Honestly guys that is just astounding.  The Rocky SV2, which I consider a pricey boot, costs 200 to 220 a piece.  Now for the same price the government spent my tax money on something that is vastly inferior in every possible criteria?!  Wow (if that is the correct figure).

MCG what I was refering to in comparing the various incarnations of Boulet's boots was this.  Although there have been varriations between the WWB, GP, Desert Boot version 1 and 2 and the current Temperate Boot, the overall design features have been very very similar.  In that the style of sole used is unecessarily heavy for one.  I mean you can't look at all of these mentioned boots and not come to the conclusion that not much else is changing other than the colour and small features like vent holes etc.

The plan to have the temperate boot be not sued leather leads me to think that someone over there planning this is still concerned more with how they'll look on a parade square rather than if a fit man can march or run 20 to 40 k a day in them and not suffer unecessary injury or blistering.


----------



## Snaketnk (1 Jun 2011)

I've actually heard similar numbers, including something like 400-700$ for custom fitted boots for weird sizes; usually just from mumblings of Supply Techs.


----------



## REDinstaller (2 Jun 2011)

My custom boots are costing the CF 2400.00 a pair. 400-700.00 would be very cheap customs.


----------



## SevenSixTwo (2 Jun 2011)

I am totally pumped for these new boots. I am one of those people that don't complain and just deal with the kit im given but I will be really happy to hand in my Mark 3's. Even with Dr. Scholl's soles, the white sock, gray wool suck system the boots suck over long distances. In cold weather they don't keep warmth in (I know there are WWBs) and in hot weather they are like having your feet inside pizza ovens. I was told my feet are too big for GPs (but not for WWBs? Makes no sense but whatever).


It'll be interesting to see troops in CADPAT with brown boots, I am curious if people will be forced to brown polish these babies as well as how much of an effect it will have on the Black Polish market .


----------



## dimsum (2 Jun 2011)

SevenSixTwo said:
			
		

> It'll be interesting to see troops in CADPAT with brown boots, I am curious if people will be forced to brown polish these babies as well as how much of an effect it will have on the Black Polish market .



I think Kiwi and Tana will be fine, given that we still have black parade shoes/boots.  They are probably giddy that we may need to buy 2 colours off them instead of just one!


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> My custom boots are costing the CF 2400.00 a pair. 400-700.00 would be very cheap customs.



What kind of snake skin did they use?  ;D


----------



## Dissident (2 Jun 2011)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> What kind of snake skin did they use?  ;D



Unicorn skin would be my guess.


----------



## REDinstaller (2 Jun 2011)

Well I was hoping for dolphin skin then i would never need WWBs. But they must have bought me a cow for each foot as my sz 15s take a lot of leather.


----------



## aesop081 (2 Jun 2011)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> Well I was hoping for dolphin skin



I can just see the animal-lover uproar.........

"Harper government slaughters dolphins to equip soldiers"


----------



## LineJumper (7 Jun 2011)

Sure would hate to have to paint the boots, hopefully SM's will be somewhat lenient on the pers wearing trade PPE.


----------



## DirtyDog (28 Jun 2011)

Matt_Fisher said:
			
		

> Most mink oil/dubbin type boot dressings will significantly darken tan suede/rough out type leather.  Whether they will make the tan boot look like the pinkish brown 'DND Maxi Brown' boot is another question though.
> 
> Of the desert boot versions of the 'DND Maxi Brown' boots that have been worn for some time, they end up covered in dust and have dirt ingrained into them they do end up looking like any other desert boot though.  The leather is a no-polish/no-dressing type nubuck leather which is an RSM's worst nightmare in terms of presenting a neat, military type appearance.  The CFs will also find that they will be spending a fortune in boot replacement costs as this type leather will dry rot and crack rendering the boots unserviceable at a rate far greater than the current wear-out of black full grain leather boots.


We had a bottle of CLP get caught in the ramp of LAV and explode on the desert boots of few guys.  They looked pretty damn close to this brown.


----------



## Old Log Dog (13 Jul 2011)

Sharpie said:
			
		

> I‘ve seen a picture of them. Fashionable I might add. Getting used to yes I can understand that. Ugly, yes that to. But, I can see them being effective. Depending on the terrain, I can see a big ‘ol pair of black Cadillac‘s sticking out more than a pair of CADPAT boots. Yet to try on and test out a set of CADPATS (Reservist ‘ya know    ), but the pattern I am sure is tested and proven.



I had the pleasure of trialing these boots and I can tell you they are the most comfortable boots I have had on my feet.  (Issued on a Wed and I did my BFT on a Fri) no hot spots or blisters.  As far as the look is concerned yes they are different but so was the CADPAT uniform when it first cam out.  Nobody liked it because it looked like a jar of relish.  I wonder of those who were sceptical of the CADPAT uniform would like to go back to the OG107 (Olive Drab cbts)? 
The final decision is now out and the CoC (Army SM) within the Army has not authorized the CADPAT boot in TW, and from what I am hearing they DSSPM have made the same boot (specs and manufacturer) only in a brown leather,  End result is a very comfortable, durable, and effective boot.  I wonder if the SWAT/DANNER/ MATERHORN or other boot lovers will give it a fair shot?
MTF!!!


----------



## ballz (13 Jul 2011)

Old Log Dog said:
			
		

> I wonder if the SWAT/DANNER/ MATERHORN or other boot lovers will give it a fair shot?
> MTF!!!



Only if my Meindls ever wear out, or I am forced to... I am sure the latter is much more likely. ;D


----------



## aesop081 (13 Jul 2011)

Old Log Dog said:
			
		

> I wonder if the SWAT/DANNER/ MATERHORN or other boot lovers will give it a fair shot?



Only until SWAT/DANNER/MATERHORN/ETC... market a brown boot. Its not an issue of coulour. Issued boots have always sucked when it comes to quality and design.


----------



## PuckChaser (13 Jul 2011)

Old Log Dog said:
			
		

> I wonder if the SWAT/DANNER/ MATERHORN or other boot lovers will give it a fair shot?



Have you worn a pair of SWATs for a march for comparison to the new boots? From your 2 posts here I see you have an axe to grind with people wearing non-issue boots, but maybe you should give them a fair shake before you compare them to the new issued boot. If the new trial boot is comfortable, that's great; however it'll be years before anyone gets them.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Jul 2011)

We're back to the "only issue boots shall be worn" crowd versus the "all issue boots suck" crowd.

The truth about boots is somewhere in the middle.  There are some people, for a variety of reasons, that can't wear the issue boots. I can, but only because the GP boot can take my orthodics, whereas the MKIII could not. 

I wear the issue GP boot right now because they are free. If I was to deploy anywhere that required me to walk for long distances daily, I might consider buying boots.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jul 2011)

In a related vein, the CF's buying a swack of Boots, Combat, Arid Region - first item here.  

Shared FYI - now, back to your regularly scheduled boot battles ....


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2011)

From MERX:


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB), spare laces and insoles in DND Brown Colour in accordance with DND specifications. This requirement is divided in two phases.
> 
> Phase 1: A maximum of three contracts will be awarded for the supply of 60 pairs of boots under each contract to be delivered in Gatineau, Québec. These boots will be used for a User Acceptance Trial.
> 
> Phase 2: Following the User Acceptance Trial result, one contract will be awarded for the supply of 120,000 pairs of boots, 80,000 pairs of spare laces and 80,000 pairs of spares insoles to be delivered in Montréal, Québec and Edmonton, Alberta. This contract also includes two options. Option 1 is for an estimated maximum quantity of 40,000 pairs and option 2 is for a firm quantity of 40,000 pairs both exercisable during a period of 48 months from contract award date ....


A bit more technical detail in excerpt from bid documents (PDF) here.


----------



## dimsum (11 Aug 2011)

DND Brown?  We warrant our own colour now?   ???


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Aug 2011)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> DND Brown?  We warrant our own colour now?   ???



We warrant a lot of things..........ya know?


----------



## bigdaddy142 (17 Aug 2011)

Anyone started getting issued these to be used in Canada yet?  i.e. people not deploying?


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Aug 2011)

Why not just save the hassle and just buy these (brown) boots off the shelf? 

Lowa Combat GTX. I have a pair. Verdict: Frickin' awesome!


----------



## Infanteer (18 Aug 2011)

A little thing called the Treasury Board would get in the way of that.

I have the Meindl's, which are just as good....


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> A little thing called the Treasury Board would get in the way of that.



Which dictates if there is a Canadian company who can provide the same or similar boot........


----------



## McG (18 Aug 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Which dictates if there is a Canadian company who can provide the same or similar boot........


Actually, the requirement to take competitive bids is probably the more overriding factor.


----------



## Hurricane (18 Aug 2011)

Im sure it has been looked at before, but is there a reason why the do not just go to something along the lines of a Boot Allowance and send the troops downtown when their boots are worn out with chit for a new set?


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Aug 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> Im sure it has been looked at before, but is there a reason why the do not just go to something along the lines of a Boot Allowance and send the troops downtown when their boots are worn out with chit for a new set?



We've discussed that at length. To sum it up, we don't make the decisions on what boot or what company produces them. We can recommend but the grown ups make the final decision.


----------



## ballz (18 Aug 2011)

Hurricane said:
			
		

> Im sure it has been looked at before, but is there a reason why the do not just go to something along the lines of a Boot Allowance and send the troops downtown when their boots are worn out with chit for a new set?



Haha, your question reminded of this quote:

" If Marines could get what they needed when they needed it we would be happy and wouldn't ready to kill people all of the time. The Marine Corps is like America's Pitbull. They beat us, mistreat us and every once in awhile, they let us out to attack someone. "

-Cpl Ray Person, USMC


----------



## buzgo (26 Aug 2011)

I heard a rumour today that there is a list of acceptable footwear being developed. Has anyone heard anything to corroborate this?


----------



## Neolithium (26 Aug 2011)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I heard a rumour today that there is a list of acceptable footwear being developed. Has anyone heard anything to corroborate this?


I haven't heard anything of the sort.  At least no one at clothing stores heard anything 2 days ago when I hunted down another  pair of Mk III's in my size  >


----------



## dale622 (15 Apr 2012)

To bring an old thread back to life... I believe I have seen this new boot. Anyone heard anything lately? Delivery dates? How they hold up/ how they feel?


----------



## buzgo (26 May 2012)

The latest that I have heard is that they are being issued now in lieu of Mark IV GP boots. 

Also, anyone waiting for custom boots from Pouliot will get brown vice black. So you should start to see them this summer.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 May 2012)

Sounds like we need some sort of CANFORGEN authorizing them for wear... I can just seem some poor Pte getting a one-way conversation from a RSM when asked if he's deploying and he says no.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 May 2012)

They are already starting to "walk around" Gagetown......

 ;D


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> They are already starting to "walk around" Gagetown......
> 
> ;D



Pics or it didn't happen


----------



## R031button (26 May 2012)

I was in Wainwright at the beginning of the month and there were a bunch of guys doing trials, they had three different models to try out.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 May 2012)

Did you catch which models?


----------



## R031button (26 May 2012)

i believe they were called boot A B & C, no one had any manufacturer information with regards to the boots.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 May 2012)

Makes sense, don't want to taint the trial with "OMG They're Oakleys so they must be better than the other ones."


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 May 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Pics or it didn't happen



Sure I'll go up to the SQN 2I/C and say one sec sir can I grab a pic of your boots......

 ;D


----------



## R031button (26 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Makes sense, don't want to taint the trial with "OMG They're Oakleys so they must be better than the other ones."



The flip side of that is that if people "believe" they are of better quality they're more likely to accept and use them, branding is a big part of that. Ref this study http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA383539 (admitably troops still didn't like the socks the army issued them even when they were given a brand name, the statements made by the Marines are interesting). End use acceptance of kit is something I don't think the military considers too much, the idea that "well they're issued it so they'll wear it" has it's merits, but I'm sure we all have some kit that's never left a box in the basement, and that's just a waste of time and money on the part of the military.


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Sure I'll go up to the SQN 2I/C and say one sec sir can I grab a pic of your boots......
> 
> ;D



What's the worst that can happen?    :blotto:


----------



## Nfld Sapper (26 May 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> What's the worst that can happen?    :blotto:



Facing the wrath of the SSM.... ;D

But I kid you not there are ppl sporting them at CFSME.....


----------



## buzgo (27 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Makes sense, don't want to taint the trial with "OMG They're Oakleys so they must be better than the other ones."



If only we were so lucky.

Its probably Sorel, Cougar and General Dynamics Boot Division or some craziness.


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2012)

The brown boots are now being slowly issued into the system. Totally acceptable for wear if you happen to be one of the few who already has been issued or whose size runs out in the black ...


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> If only we were so lucky.
> 
> Its probably Sorel, Cougar and General Dynamics Boot Division or some craziness.



I had Oakleys ... they sucked.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The brown boots are now being slowly issued into the system. Totally acceptable for wear if you happen to be one of the few who already has been issued or whose size runs out in the black ...



They are being issued solely on a replacement-only basis for now? Do you know if there's an intent to produce a distribution plan to units once production ramps up, or is the goal to use attrition to get the black boots out of the system first?


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> They are being issued solely on a replacement-only basis for now? Do you know if there's an intent to produce a distribution plan to units once production ramps up, or is the goal to use attrition to get the black boots out of the system first?



I have no idea; I just know that it is out in O Gps to "lay off the troops in brown boots - they are now being issued." I don't imagine we are scrapping black boots that are currently in the system (I can almost guarantee that actually), but rather that those will continue to be issued until depleted as well. If they run out (or already have run out) of your size, you may find yourself issued brown instead. Depends how popular your size is.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 May 2012)

Thanks for the clarification. Guess I'll see who at my unit has brown boots when I redeploy before I wear my coyote brown SWATs around. Haven't worn issued boots in years so unless they're being pushed in the system I won't see the new ones, unless shelf dust counts as wear.  >


----------



## MikeL (27 May 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The brown boots are now being slowly issued into the system. Totally acceptable for wear if you happen to be one of the few who already has been issued or whose size runs out in the black ...



Are they the brown desert/hot weather boots?  Or is it a different boot?  I asked a supply tech at base clothing about this and he didn't know anything about new boots or even about the switch from black to brown

I have a couple pairs of those boots as well as coyote brown boots I've purchased,  I'd like to start wearing them full time instead of just in the field.... but I also don't want to be the first guy on base doing it.


----------



## armyvern (27 May 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Are they the brown desert/hot weather boots?  Or is it a different boot?
> 
> I have a couple pairs of those boots as well as coyote brown boots I've purchased,  I'd like to start wearing them full time instead of just in the field.... but I also don't want to be the first guy in base doing it.



Nah, it's not the desert boots. I have some pics in my office ... I'll try to fire some up on here tomorrow before I head out to Petawawa.


----------



## dale622 (11 Jul 2012)

Since it came down in orders that I can no longer wear my Swats, I have a renewed Interest as to what these boots are like. Anyone have news or some reviews....


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2012)

Seen a few guys with them in Kingston, second-hand reviews are positive. They are a dark leather with a tan fabric on them very similar style to issued desert boot.


----------



## brihard (11 Jul 2012)

There are a smattering of new recruits in Gagetown wearing them. No word on what they think, but their opinion would't be well informed anyway.

But they do seem to be trickling into the system.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jul 2012)

I'm about to go try to get some tomorrow at Clothing Stores. Not sure if they'll have my size, because I'm not an off the shelf fit for the desert boots and I have a feeling they used the same sizes.  That, and I don't know if they'll like me turning in boots that have less than a year of wear... I haven't worn issued stuff since 2007.


----------



## dale622 (12 Jul 2012)

well at least they are coming... Maybe one day a couple size 15's will make it out west.


----------



## GnyHwy (12 Jul 2012)

Brihard said:
			
		

> There are a smattering of new recruits in Gagetown wearing them. No word on what they think, but their opinion would't be well informed anyway.
> 
> But they do seem to be trickling into the system.



If you turn in worn out black boots, you will be issued the new brown boot.

Bulletin: RSMs everywhere are currently working overtime on the plan of how to blacken them.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jul 2012)

GnyHwy said:
			
		

> If you turn in worn out black boots, you will be issued the new brown boot.
> 
> Bulletin: RSMs everywhere are currently working overtime on the plan of how to blacken them.



NOT this RSM!


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Jul 2012)

One thing with those boots is that the stiching between the leather and the fabric is not done well and will tear very quickly......

Clothing stores here in gagetown are telling people that there will be no polishing of the boots, clean only with a damp cloth....


----------



## Spanky (12 Jul 2012)

Guess I better unload my stock in Kiwi.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Jul 2012)

Spanky said:
			
		

> Guess I better unload my stock in Kiwi.



Send it to me.  If the sizes for the new boots are anything like the last boots, I won't be going to get any.   :nod:

Hell, I won't even bother trying them on....


----------



## Nfld Sapper (12 Jul 2012)

Heck I am not getting rid of my black boots untill I am ordered to do so......


----------



## PiperDown (12 Jul 2012)

I was issued a pair of these boots a couple weeks ago here in Kingston.  I had to ( reluctantly ) trade in my pair of MK3s with vibrum soles as they were literally held together on the inside with duct tape.

I was sized for the GP combat boot and told that its a bit of a lottery what shows up.

review -  ( I am not a  kit sl*t, and have always worn the boots I have been issued... so, I cant compare to any Gucci boots out there )

boots seemed to have no break in time and were comfortable from the start.  The Vibrum soles seem good.
They are light, and cool to wear.  (Although, I never really had an issue with hot feet. Even deployed to hotter climates.)  The tag on the boots indicated to be worn from +10 to +30

What I don't like is the very top of the boot, which is similar to the WWB.  I generally like to tie the top of my boot with captain bars and tuck the excess into the boot.  Not possible with these ones.. So, I have the ever present bow tie below the blousing of my combat pants.

No polishing, the directions say to use a damp cloth.  I am sure there will be a time when a suitable brown paste is available at canex.

At first, they looked plastic to me, but I guess I am used to the colour and texture now.  I actually don't mind them.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jul 2012)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> What I don't like is the very top of the boot, which is similar to the WWB.  I generally like to tie the top of my boot with captain bars and tuck the excess into the boot.  Not possible with these ones.. So, I have the ever present bow tie below the blousing of my combat pants.



Boot bands solve some of these issues.


----------



## Robert0288 (12 Jul 2012)

A comic I found which might be applicable.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jul 2012)

Right before I go on leave I'm going to let it slip that I just "got issued the new combat boots and new uniforms". Supply techs will love it, I'm sure.


----------



## PiperDown (12 Jul 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Boot bands solve some of these issues.



boot bands solve the issue if you are standing  still.  They dont solve the issue when you are out and about working all day.

I do wear boots bands.. the problem is they slip up over the boot.  Wasnt a problem when I tucked the excess lace inside the boot.  I only stated I dont like tying a bow at the top of my boot, and having it exposed.

I am sure I will survive.


----------



## Bluebulldog (12 Jul 2012)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> boot bands solve the issue if you are standing  still.  They dont solve the issue when you are out and about working all day.
> 
> I do wear boots bands.. the problem is they slip up over the boot.  Wasnt a problem when I tucked the excess lace inside the boot.  I only stated I dont like tying a bow at the top of my boot, and having it exposed.
> 
> I am sure I will survive.



I never bloused my pants over the tops of my boots, but rather just at the top of them, with the band ( and bloused material) sitting on my leg / ankle. Seemed to work fine for all day wear and work......maybe a little ride up but nothing major. But then again...to each his own. I have to admit, from the pic....I really dont like the look of them.


----------



## Jimmy_D (12 Jul 2012)

PiperDown said:
			
		

> boot bands solve the issue if you are standing  still.  They don't solve the issue when you are out and about working all day.
> 
> I do wear boots bands.. the problem is they slip up over the boot.  Wasn't a problem when I tucked the excess lace inside the boot.  I only stated I don't like tying a bow at the top of my boot, and having it exposed.
> 
> I am sure I will survive.



A method that you could try is: Wrap you laces around the boot once as I seen in your pick. Then do a Surgical knot. That is what I have been doing with all of my boots and the laces never come undone unless I loosen the knot. (Which is easier than untying a bow)


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jul 2012)

Wandered into Clothing Stores in Kingston: New brown boots are luck of the draw if you get them through the system. If you need special size (I fall inbetween sizes as the new Brown boots are the same sizes as the GPs and the new Desert Boots) you have to go to Foot Parade at the MIR, and get a chit for special size. As I was being told this, another civilian supply tech said that there was currently no contract to make a mold of feet for the special size footwear, and I'd be waiting for quite some time. Sounds like a fantastic system.


----------



## Kokanee (12 Jul 2012)

Clothing Stores in Kingston could not issue new type boot as they had plenty of GP's in stock in my size; needed a new pair as one of my sets of Danners finally bit the dust. As I can't wear GP's and have a chit for private purchase footwear, ordered a set of these;

http://www.danner.com/dannerr-rat-temperate-military-boots-24039.html

Best.Boots.Ever.... even compared to my Danner Acadias.


----------



## PMedMoe (12 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you need special size (I fall inbetween sizes as the new Brown boots are the same sizes as the GPs and the new Desert Boots) you have to go to Foot Parade at the MIR, and get a chit for special size.



That is absolute BS.  If you have to get a special size due to orthotics or some other medical problem, then you need to get a chit.  If you just simply do not fit the boots provided the onus is on Supply to get you ones that fit.

At least, I think that's the way it's supposed to be.


----------



## McG (12 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you need special size (I fall inbetween sizes as the new Brown boots are the same sizes as the GPs and the new Desert Boots) you have to go to Foot Parade at the MIR, and get a chit for special size.


Echoing the post above but, this is false.  It is a supply responsibility to get you boots that fit.  If the standard sizes do not fit, it is still a supply problem.  Kingston should know better.


----------



## buzgo (12 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Wandered into Clothing Stores in Kingston: New brown boots are luck of the draw if you get them through the system. If you need special size (I fall inbetween sizes as the new Brown boots are the same sizes as the GPs and the new Desert Boots) you have to go to Foot Parade at the MIR, and get a chit for special size. As I was being told this, another civilian supply tech said that there was currently no contract to make a mold of feet for the special size footwear, and I'd be waiting for quite some time. Sounds like a fantastic system.



I was sized before the end of the fiscal year, but then the contract didn't get renewed so I am currently waiting. Hopefully the same company gets the new contract, otherwise I'm going to have to get molded again... 

All of this to get crap boots.


----------



## Kokanee (13 Jul 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> That is absolute BS.  If you have to get a special size due to orthotics or some other medical problem, then you need to get a chit.  If you just simply do not fit the boots provided the onus is on Supply to get you ones that fit.
> 
> At least, I think that's the way it's supposed to be.



One issue is that 33 HSvcs @ Kingston is no longer issuing medical related footwear chits, either physio or the CDUs.


----------



## PMedMoe (13 Jul 2012)

Kokanee said:
			
		

> One issue is that 33 HSvcs @ Kingston is no longer issuing medical related footwear chits, either physio or the CDUs.



Really?  So then how does one go about getting "special" footwear?

It's like when you were a kid asking your parents about something:

"Go ask your mother..."  "Go ask your father..."

I'm just glad I've held on to my old combat boots (and bought my own desert boots).  Should not require any new footwear before I retire.  And I paid for my Vibram soles myself, instead of going through the medical system.  It would have taken too much time to get a referral, see the foot specialist, etc, etc.


----------



## Kokanee (13 Jul 2012)

Indeed - three years ago it was literally a case of make an appt with an MO and be told "oh, foot parade issues boot chits"... wait two weeks, go to foot parade and see a big sign on the wall "NO BOOT CHITS, MAKE AN APPT WITH YOUR MO".

Thankfully I had a great MO who was willing to "bend the rules" at the time so to speak... Not that it would have killed me, but after a knee surgery certain shoes/boots aggravate it while others don't, so I go with what feels good now that I have that chit.

Unfortunately I know newer fellows who have legit complaints about footwear who are left high and dry, our Unit policy is "if it's black it's ok", but that won't last too much longer.


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Jul 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> Echoing the post above but, this is false.  It is a supply responsibility to get you boots that fit.  If the standard sizes do not fit, it is still a supply problem.  Kingston should know better.



Thats what I thought too, but knowing Kingston policy is just whatever people want to say it is. I'll jump through their hoop and try foot parade. If they tell me supply is out to lunch then I'll just throw it up the chain of command. The civilian at the counter was very friendly when he outlined the policy, and maybe misunderstood that I just want proper fitting footwear, not to fit any special orthotics.


----------



## LineJumper (14 Jul 2012)

Those look like Danners. Maybe they'll steel toe and shank some for the climbing and safety types.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Jul 2012)

LineJumper said:
			
		

> Maybe they'll steel toe and shank some for the climbing and safety types.



I expect them to. The RCAF currently issues steel-toed boots to everyone and is going to brown boots as well. Leads me to believe there will indeed be steel-toed brown boots available in the system.


----------



## Good2Golf (15 Jul 2012)

CA, I know ours are CSA Grade 1, but my toe cap appears to be non-magnetic.  Not sure whether this is because kevlar/composite or aluminum was determined to be  cheaper than steel, or steel was deliberately not used so as not to interfere with compasses or other magnetically-sensitive equipment in the aircraft.  I wonder if the new brown boot's fabric upper will be FR?

Regards
G2G


----------



## CombatDoc (16 Jul 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Really?  So then how does one go about getting "special" footwear?
> 
> It's like when you were a kid asking your parents about something:
> 
> ...


C/mon Moe, you should know better as a former Med Tech.  If a member has normal feet but can't find boots to fit, then it is a supply problem.  If a member has abnormal feet due to a medical condition, then it is up to medical to provide the appropriate chit or custom footwear.  However, in my experience the problem is usually due to the former e.g. female troops (and some small statured males) that can't find size 5 combat boots, male troops (and some female troops) that need size 15, folks that can wear Danners but not the Mk III combat boot, etc.  

I can assure you that the evil medical school curriculum did not include Combat Boot Sizing 101, as that is supposed to be the Supply Tech's purview.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jul 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> CA, I know ours are CSA Grade 1, but my toe cap appears to be non-magnetic.  Not sure whether this is because kevlar/composite or aluminum was determined to be  cheaper than steel, or steel was deliberately not used so as not to interfere with compasses or other magnetically-sensitive equipment in the aircraft.



I had not noticed as i do not wear the boots. I was told that they were not actual steel but i have never checked. I find them very uncomfortable so i stayed with my Bates.




> I wonder if the new brown boot's fabric upper will be FR?



Good question. Think anyone has thought that far ?


----------



## dimsum (16 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Good question. Think anyone has thought that far ?



Oh come on.   >


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Jul 2012)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> C/mon Moe, you should know better as a former Med Tech.  If a member has normal feet but can't find boots to fit, then it is a supply problem.  If a member has abnormal feet due to a medical condition, then it is up to medical to provide the appropriate chit or custom footwear.  However, in my experience the problem is usually due to the former e.g. female troops (and some small statured males) that can't find size 5 combat boots, male troops (and some female troops) that need size 15, folks that can wear Danners but not the Mk III combat boot, etc.
> 
> I can assure you that the evil medical school curriculum did not include Combat Boot Sizing 101, as that is supposed to be the Supply Tech's purview.



I know that.  Tell it to Supply in Kingston...   

No skin off my nose (or feet), I'm set for the next little while.  No new boots for me.   :nod:


----------



## dimsum (16 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I expect them to. The RCAF currently issues steel-toed boots to everyone and is going to brown boots as well. Leads me to believe there will indeed be steel-toed brown boots available in the system.



So I can finally buy the sweet USN brown Belleville boots and have them shipped to the USN Exchange guy's APO box for half the price of buying in Australia?


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jul 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So I can finally buy the sweet USN brown Belleville boots and have them shipped to the USN Exchange guy's APO box for half the price of buying in Australia?



I don't tell you what to do. I won't tell you what i may or may not have already done.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2012)

Some info on the RCAF footwear via the CEMS (Clothing and Equipment Millenium Standard) project, including info/pics of the RCAF DCB (Desert Combat Boot) in Flight Comment, Issue 3 2008.  Pages 27-29.   

WRT 'composite materials' not offering the CSA safety standard required (page 27), I question that.  My Magnum's "special size" issued ones are full leather, CSA Gr 1 composite toe/shank.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jul 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Some info on the RCAF footwear via the CEMS (Clothing and Equipment Millenium Standard) project, including info/pics of the RCAF DCB (Desert Combat Boot) in Flight Comment, Issue 3 2008.  Pages 27-29.



The brown boot talked about here, for the RCAF, is not the DCB.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2012)

I know.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jul 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I know.



Yes, but others reading may not.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yes, but others reading may not.



Roger.

Article speaks to RCAF footwear requirements such as FR and shock resistance.  If the Brown TCB is going to be 'adapted' for use in the RCAF, I'd like to think that the folks at D Air Prog will be asked about RCAF 'adaptation' of the Army brown TCB to RCAF requirements.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (16 Jul 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So I can finally buy the sweet USN brown Belleville boots and have them shipped to the USN Exchange guy's APO box for half the price of buying in Australia?



The Belleville USN flight boot is CONSIDERABLY a darker shade of brown than the new CF boot in the 'DND Maxi Brown' shade.  If you're looking for aftermarket boots to match the shade of the new CF boots you're probably better of looking at various Coyote Brown/Mojave Olive coloured ones as they more closely match the 'Maxi Brown'.

It probably won't be long before Original SWAT comes out with a Canadian specific version of the Classic 9" in a Maxi Brown shade.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2012)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I know that.  Tell it to Supply in Kingston...
> 
> No skin off my nose (or feet), I'm set for the next little while.  No new boots for me.   :nod:



After making an inquiry today, it seems that LSS is complying with CANFORGEN of a while ago regarding procurement; they are not going to LPO as the first COA for sizing issues; rather, they are taking molds of the feet for obtaining custom-fitted footwear from the federal contractor instead as the first COA.


----------



## PMedMoe (16 Jul 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> After making an inquiry today, it seems that LSS is complying with CANFORGEN of a while ago regarding procurement; they are not going to LPO as the first COA for sizing issues; rather, they are taking molds of the feet for obtaining custom-fitted footwear from the federal contractor instead as the first COA.



I had that done once too.  The boots felt worse than the ones off the shelf (probably the "lowest bidder" thing).  If need be, I'll buy my own.   :dunno:


----------



## MikeL (16 Jul 2012)

Searching around the CANFORGENS/CANLANDGENs and the useless DIN search engine,  I haven't seen any messages regarding the wear of brown boots, outside of a message Gander putout saying the Army is going to a brown boot and showing pictures of the Arid Boots and these new Brown Combat Boots.  Does anyone know if there will be a official message coming out saying we can start wearing brown boots,  or is it just wear them once they are issued and everyone is supposed to know this through word of mouth?


Also,  anyone heard of a brown version of the Wet Weather Boots?


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Searching around the CANFORGENS/CANLANDGENs and the useless DIN search engine,  I haven't seen any messages regarding the wear of brown boots, outside of a message Gander putout saying the Army is going to a brown boot and showing pictures of the Arid Boots and these new Brown Combat Boots.  Does anyone know if there will be a official message coming out saying we can start wearing brown boots,  or is it just wear them once they are issued and everyone is supposed to know this through word of mouth?
> 
> 
> Also,  anyone heard of a brown version of the Wet Weather Boots?



There was an email sent to Supply sections Clothing Stores for furtherance to the Units they supported and also one down from the Army Dress Committee ... our RSM disseminated it to all of us at an O Gp. I'll see if I still have a copy kicking around for you. If not electronic, I'll scan it up into an adobe for you.


(Same email mentions that our green CTS socks are being switched to a grey colour instead of green; and, that effective 30 June 2012, all CTS socks will only be exchanged via clothing online. It also mentions that one may want to go in to get annual top ups of t-shirts, boxers, long undershirt and pants soon too as they too will be moving to clothing online only.


----------



## MikeL (16 Jul 2012)

Would be appreciated if you can get me a copy Vern,  thanks.

Just checked Logistik Unicorp and the new SOCKS, TEMPERATE, CF, CHARCOAL GREY as well as the liners and cold weather socks are available, 
Sock System – Annual Operational Entitlement Remaining: 5   Also,  no additional points allotted,  still the 210 points a year,  wonder if that will change.

*edit no points needed to get the socks as long as you are within your yearly allotment 


> Number of pairs issued under Annual Operational Entitlement (no points charged).



Wonder what the reason was to go from green to charcoal grey for our socks was.



With the talk here of non-issue boots/colours, here's a quick comparison of the brown boots I have. Rocky and Swat's are Coyote Brown.

RockyS2Vs, SWATs and issue Arid boots,  the SWATs and Rockys have been worn,  the Arid boots are unused.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> ...
> Wonder what the reason was to go from green to charcoal grey for our socks was.



So they can be worn with cadpat and DEU. One less sock-type in the system now.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jul 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Also,  no additional points allotted,



I just looked at mine, same thing. WTF, you have to use points to replace operational clothing now ??

Nevermind, no points required to order the operational quantity remaining.


----------



## armyvern (16 Jul 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I just looked at mine, same thing. WTF, you have to use points to replace operational clothing now ??
> 
> Nevermind, no points required to order the operational quantity remaining.



Not like points actually cost you money though.  

I guess perhaps the reasoning is they are now used for both cadpat and DEU. And, most pers never did go in and exchange theirs anyway.

Strike that through after your edit or some good idea fairy will see it and go googly!!  >

So, no points until you've already got your 5 sets of each per FY then? I am too lazy to login to logistik. Haven't been on there in a few years now.


----------



## MikeL (16 Jul 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, no points until you've already got your 5 sets of each per FY then? I am too lazy to login to logistik. Haven't been on there in a few years now.



CDN Aviator is right,  they don't cost points as long as you are within your 5 sets for the FY

Just ordered the socks,  and it cost me no points


> Number of pairs issued under Annual Operational Entitlement (no points charged).


----------



## aesop081 (16 Jul 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So, no points until you've already got your 5 sets of each per FY then? I am too lazy to login to logistik. Haven't been on there in a few years now.



Yup, no points if ordering within the operational allowance for the item.

I'm ordering a shyteload before i move out of my tier 1 DEU points........


----------



## buzgo (23 Jul 2012)

UK forces are adopting a brown boot:

http://www.strikehold.net/2012/07/23/british-armed-forces-get-new-combat-boot/#more-8407

Interestingly: 

_As part of a contract worth £80m, troops will have the choice of wearing five different boots depending on where they are based and what job they are doing. The five types available are:

Desert Combat – worn by dismounted troops conducting high levels of activity in desert environments exceeding 40 degrees Celsius
Desert Patrol – worn by mounted troops, typically drivers/armoured troops conducting lower levels of activity in desert environments exceeding 40 degrees Celsius
Temperate Combat – worn by dismounted troops for high levels of activity in temperate climates
Patrol – worn by mounted troops, typically drivers/armoured troops conducting lower levels of activity in temperate climates
Cold Wet Weather – worn by dismounted troops for high levels of activity in temperatures down to minus 20 degrees Celsius.

Each of the five boot types comes in two different styles, so personnel can wear whichever one is more comfortable for them.  The improved brown boots will also be made in two different width fittings, taking into account for the first time the different shapes of men and women’s feet._

So doing the math that works out to... 10 boots to choose from depending on the operational requirements.

What do we get? 1 boot. No choices.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2012)

And I bet our 1 pair of boots temperate brown boots cost more than £80m.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Jul 2012)

Well, if its any consolation, you can check the CANAIRGEN site for the info on the NEW brown combat belt.   ;D

What else would you want...matching brown belt and boots!


----------



## Dissident (23 Jul 2012)

Minor detail:

Is there a plan for students of CFMPA? I see whole lot of people wearing Mk III/IV while in OPDs at the Academy. Black uniform and brown boots seems a rather poor match, IMHO.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Jul 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Minor detail:
> 
> Is there a plan for students of CFMPA? I see whole lot of people wearing Mk III/IV while in OPDs at the Academy. Black uniform and brown boots seems a rather poor match, IMHO.



Might have to be something specific to the Branch to have special black boots procured, but I doubt they looked at that situation.


----------



## dimsum (24 Jul 2012)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well, if its any consolation, you can check the CANAIRGEN site for the info on the NEW brown combat belt.   ;D
> 
> What else would you want...matching brown belt and boots!



Can you post a pic here?  I need something to laugh at and post to my Aussie co-workers 

More to the point (?), is someone seriously going to check what colour your belt is while in operational uniform?  Aren't there more pressing concerns?

Oh wait, never mind.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jul 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> More to the point (?), is someone seriously going to check what colour your belt is while in operational uniform?  Aren't there more pressing concerns?



You haven't gotten the chance to be on Op Attention have you?  ;D


----------



## dimsum (24 Jul 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You haven't gotten the chance to be on Op Attention have you?  ;D



No, I sneaked by on Op Athena.  Not to worry, apparently the RAAF and Aus Army RSMs are equally pedantic about colours and patches and things in war zones.


----------



## MikeL (3 Aug 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Also,  anyone heard of a brown version of the Wet Weather Boots?




Found the answer to my question yesterday while searching on the DIN.  Going by what I read,  this new brown boot is all the Army can expect for new boots for the next few years.  It also looked like they were looking at issuing out NEO overshoes or a similar item instead of Wet Weather Boots.

Also,  the topic of a boot allowance was discussed but 





> there was no appetite for it


 - quoted part is how they answered the boot allowance topic.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Aug 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Found the answer to my question yesterday while searching on the DIN.  Going by what I read,  this new brown boot is all the Army can expect for new boots for the next few years.  It also looked like they were looking at issuing out NEO overshoes or a similar item instead of Wet Weather Boots.



I heard that rumour as well that they were going to go to something like the NEOs Adventurer insulated overshoe, since the NEOs are extremely popular and fairly cheap compared to 2 pair of insulated goretex boots.


----------



## Jungle (3 Aug 2012)

The NEOs were tested by 2R22eR in Gagetown during the BDE Ex earlier this year.


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Aug 2012)

Jungle said:
			
		

> The NEOs were tested by 2R22eR in Gagetown during the BDE Ex earlier this year.



Any idea how it worked out for them?


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Aug 2012)

I dunno how their results were, but I wore a regular set (non-insulated) over my issue desert boots with double socks and was good to go in -25 in Gagetown for my TCCC field ex this winter. I can't imagine how cozy the insulated ones will be. Although, maybe it says something about how warm our desert boots are....


----------



## MikeL (5 Aug 2012)

PuckChaser,  did you have any cosmetic type damage to the boots after wearing them in the NEOs?    I wore a pair of tan SWATs in the NEOs awhile ago and the NEOs rubbed off some of the suede.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Aug 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> PuckChaser,  did you have any cosmetic type damage to the boots after wearing them in the NEOs?    I wore a pair of tan SWATs in the NEOs awhile ago and the NEOs rubbed off some of the suede.



Didn't notice any, although I did have to get a size up for my Neos to fit over the wide sole of the Boulet desert boots. Only thing I got was condensation on the inside of the Neo which didn't freeze and just needed a hang dry every night and was good to go next day. I made sure the Neo was very snug to the boot and my leg, did yours have some play?


----------



## Precept (30 Aug 2012)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Minor detail:
> 
> Is there a plan for students of CFMPA? I see whole lot of people wearing Mk III/IV while in OPDs at the Academy. Black uniform and brown boots seems a rather poor match, IMHO.



There is a policy at CFMPA right now to wear issued boots while in CADPAT. I think this has kept students from purchasing proper boots until they graduate. I had a MWO in the branch mention that I will soon be wearing brown boots, as my element is Army. I certainly hope we can wear black with OPD.


----------



## buzgo (21 Sep 2012)

1 week ago I was issued brown boots - custom fit due to some issues with the MKIV boot but as far as I am aware identical to the general issue.

I will be taking them back to clothing next week. The right boot has a 1 inch hole torn in the cordura upper, at the spot where it joins the leather 'spine' of the boot. They started to show signs of strain in this location within a day of getting them.

I am in an office environment, they have had no field use, no rucksack marches.

Overall, very comfortable - a perfect fit (of course, they are molded to my feet) but... too high and too heavy. Oh, and they tear easily... I'm sure its a defect but I am not impressed.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Sep 2012)

How long did it take for you to get the custom boots fit/issued? I had a request put in 2 weeks ago for them and still waiting for a call for a fitting.

Someone told me today these brown boots are now counted as an interim brown boot because of all the quality issues. Can anyone else confirm hearing the same thing from an official source?


----------



## buzgo (21 Sep 2012)

It took a year, in Kingston. This was because the contract was allowed to lapse and had to be renewed at the end of fiscal year, and then they switched to brown.

I have heard that the normal brown boots are failing pretty terribly, one story was about a guy using them for Nijmegen training and they didn't last long.

I have heard from a pretty good source that they are interim and that off-the-shelf boots are being/will be looked at, the plan is to use Clothing Online to distribute them - points would get renewed every year for new boots. There will be some kind of competition and then a selection of boots will be made available.


----------



## MeatheadMick (21 Sep 2012)

Clothing online is an excellent idea IMO.  The delivery can be slow though, and some items are back-ordered which seems like eternity. If the Yukon Hat is any indication on how Clothing Online deals with new issue items... soldiers could be waiting until their VIE expires before they get new boots 

On the other hand... if they go with a COTS boot, purchasing SWATS with points would be awesome!


----------



## dimsum (21 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> Clothing online is an excellent idea IMO.  The delivery can be slow though, and some items are back-ordered which seems like eternity. If the Yukon Hat is any indication on how Clothing Online deals with new issue items... soldiers could be waiting until their VIE expires before they get new boots
> 
> On the other hand... if they go with a COTS boot, purchasing SWATS with points would be awesome!



Off the shelf boots...clothing allowance...hey, wasn't this a discussion on this site about a year ago?  Nice to know that some of The Powers That Be "listen" to us  

Now...about the colour of that RCAF DEU (....I kid, I kid).


----------



## medicineman (21 Sep 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> I have heard from a pretty good source that they are interim and that off-the-shelf boots are being/will be looked at, the plan is to use Clothing Online to distribute them - points would get renewed every year for new boots. There will be some kind of competition and then a selection of boots will be made available.



That should take about 10 years...

MM


----------



## aesop081 (21 Sep 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Nice to know that some of The Powers That Be "listen" to us



Easy trigger. It was an unsubstantiated rumour posted by a member here who got it from a "pretty good source".


----------



## buzgo (21 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Easy trigger. It was an unsubstantiated rumour posted by a member here who got it from a "pretty good source".



Its a really good source but... I will believe it when I am opening a box of boots that I ordered from the website. In the meantime I'm going back to my non-issued boots, sans holes.


----------



## MeatheadMick (21 Sep 2012)

So say I have a pair of brown COTS boots, when is the official date to be able to switch up? Does anyone know the actual date? I've only read "sometime October 2012"...


----------



## Jungle (21 Sep 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> ... off-the-shelf boots are being/will be looked at, the plan is to use Clothing Online to distribute them - points would get renewed every year for new boots. There will be some kind of competition and then a selection of boots will be made available.



I submitted this idea to 5 Bde Cmder in the spring of 2009... They can have some kind of competition if they want, as long as the SWATS are one of the available choices, I'm fine with it.


----------



## Armymedic (23 Sep 2012)

Or Rocky SV2.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Off the shelf boots...clothing allowance...hey, wasn't this a discussion on this site about a year ago?  ...



It was a discussion on the site way back when I was a Sgt and the IC Clothing (2004_ish_).


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Sep 2012)

So if the new Temperate Combat Boot is brown, but the Cold Wet Weather Boot is black, what does this mean for those of us who wear non-issued boots for various reasons? Will we have black boot/brown boot changes in the spring and fall (like the old sleeves up/sleeves down thing)? Maybe the units will even be happy with mixing brown and black, year round.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2012)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> So if the new Temperate Combat Boot is brown, but the Cold Wet Weather Boot is black, what does this mean for those of us who wear non-issued boots for various reasons? Will we have black boot/brown boot changes in the spring and fall (like the old sleeves up/sleeves down thing)? Maybe the units will even be happy with mixing brown and black, year round.



Why are you wearing "Non-issued" boots?


Is this on a personal whim of yours, or on a legitimate "Medical Chit"?


----------



## willy (23 Sep 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Why are you wearing "Non-issued" boots?
> 
> 
> Is this on a personal whim of yours, or on a legitimate "Medical Chit"?



Why does it matter anymore?  A huge portion of the soldiers now wear privately purchased boots.  I was recently appointed as SSM, and I do too.  So do my RSM and CO.  Non-issued boots are a non-issue.  Or at least they have been.  

His question in regards to colour issues is valid if you ask me, and I think that your question is driving at the wrong issue.  This has been a de-facto accepted practice in many units for a long time.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

willy said:
			
		

> Why does it matter anymore?  A huge portion of the soldiers now wear privately purchased boots.  I was recently appointed as SSM, and I do too.  So do my RSM and CO.  Non-issued boots are a non-issue.  Or at least they have been.
> 
> His question in regards to colour issues is valid if you ask me, and I think that your question is driving at the wrong issue.  This has been a de-facto accepted practice in many units for a long time.



You're not at JSR obviously; you might want to avoid coming/returning too. No non-issued footwear allowed to be worn here without a valid recent med chit.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Sep 2012)

If the troops are wearing privately purchased boots, that perhaps speaks volumes to the quality, comfort, durability and practicality of what is on offer.  If the issue boots were hot shit, then the boys would be willingly wearing them in my experience.  That's why when I was in Calgary in the early 90's those who could afford them, wore Danners.  Not to mention Norwegian sweaters and US rain jackets and cbt coat liners.

Should not command better direct their attention and efforts into getting gear that meets the standards that are obviously not being met instead of "no tickiee, no laundry!"?


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If the troops are wearing privately purchased boots, that perhaps speaks volumes to the quality, comfort, durability and practicality of what is on offer.  If the issue boots were hot shit, then the boys would be willingly wearing them in my experience.  That's why when I was in Calgary in the early 90's those who could afford them, wore Danners.  Not to mention Norwegian sweaters and US rain jackets and cbt coat liners.
> 
> Should not command better direct their attention and efforts into getting gear that meets the standards that are obviously not being met instead of "no tickiee, no laundry!"?



Nothing that hasn't been raised here before in a myriad of other boot/footwear threads floating around the site. Does_ this_ thread need to turn in to that debate too?


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Sep 2012)

No, you're right.  It doesn't.  But to be fair, you mentioned JSR's 20th century head-in-the (sand, butt etc) attitude first.  I'll shut up now.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, you're right.  It doesn't.  But to be fair, you mentioned JSR's 20th century head-in-the (sand, butt etc) attitude first.  I'll shut up now.



That post had SFA to do with footwear procurement policy.  The little factoid that the CF has approached going with a boot allowance and was shut down by TB eons ago is in other threads; obviously you haven't read them.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2012)

willy said:
			
		

> Why does it matter anymore?  A huge portion of the soldiers now wear privately purchased boots.  I was recently appointed as SSM, and I do too.  So do my RSM and CO.  Non-issued boots are a non-issue.  Or at least they have been.
> 
> His question in regards to colour issues is valid if you ask me, and I think that your question is driving at the wrong issue.  This has been a de-facto accepted practice in many units for a long time.




I think it was a legitimate question.  Does he have a medical reason not to wear issue boots or is it a personal whim?  If it were a personal whim, then the answer is a no brainer.  Perhaps I could ask you the same.  The LCF is not what wearing a uniform is all about.  You as an "recently appointed SSM" are responsible for your troops.  Could I ask you a question?  Why do we even design, produce and issue a Uniform if everyone can be like a kid playing airsoft and go out and buy what they think is best for them?  Sort of defeats the meaning of the word "uniform".  Where will it stop?  Will it continue on this track so that some day we will see soldiers in DEU wearing brown, black and khaki boots; silk or cotton ties; Gucci shirts; etc.?   What will we witness on "Speak Like a Pirate Day"; swashbuckling costumes?  Ponder it for a moment.  Why do we go through the expense of producing uniforms?  Why not let everyone just purchase what they think is best?  There would then be no need for a Clothing Issue at all, nor Clothing Stores, nor any R&D to develop a better uniform, including boots.

There is a time and a place for everything.  It seems that many are stretching the bounds in what they think they can get away with.


----------



## brihard (23 Sep 2012)

My unit has just gone back to rigidly enforced issued boots only for garrison wear- which prompted several guys to have to go to clothing stores because they haven't had issued boots in their possession in some years now. For the field 8" Black remains acceptable.


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Sep 2012)

Why do I wear non-issued boots? A combination of factors. For me personally, it is because of comfort, safety on ice (I have broken too many bones to wear the CWWB without fear), and that the supply system always seems to be out of Mark III Combat Boots in my size. A boot that I quite enjoy wearing.

So I guess it's personal whim, rather than anything else. But in the units I have served in it was a very, very common personal whim. Going all the way to CO and RSM.


----------



## willy (23 Sep 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If it were a personal whim, then the answer is a no brainer.



I agree that it's a no-brainer.  Let the troops wear whatever boots they want, so long as they are of good quality and look professional.  The horse is out of the barn on non-issued boots.  Nearly everyone I know wears them.  I can tell that you think this is an example of poor leadership, but suffice to say that I disagree and that I don't think I'm the only one who does. 

As to the various units going back to a rigidly-enforced "issued boot only" policy, that's not surprising, but it is disappointing to hear.  Without trying to put words in his mouth, I think that what Ostrozac may have been driving at was a fear that the black/brown issue would result in the adoption of such regressive policies on a widespread basis.  If so, then score one for the dinosaurs.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If it were a personal whim, then the answer is a no brainer.



Yes, it is a no-brainer. Who cares ?

The issue boots are shit. I tried them long enough to figure out that they hurt my feet and are way too hot. I bought myself a pair of bates M9s and one pair of Bates Delta 8. 

Yup, it was a no-brainer.

I will not give any grief to any of my troops who choses not to wear the issued boots. If they are the same colour as the issued boots, look "military" and are kept clean & polished, i will just go on worrying about things that actually matter.

When our system can crank out something that makes sense, i'll go back to wearing issued boots.



> It seems that many are stretching the bounds in what they think they can get away with.



Thankfully, my job involves making sure the stretching stays reasonable.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

willy said:
			
		

> ... If so, then score one for the dinosaurs.



Bullshit. The fact of the matter is that we have a national contract for footwear ... that is being paid for regardless. It's got nothing to do with dinosaurs ... the CF has attempted, and been shut down by Treasury Board, to go with a boot allowance.

Bitch about the issued footwear all you want - it sucks, but be damn sure you put the blame squarely where it actually lay.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator, I know you have an axe to grind and do so at any opportunity, and I find it convenient of you to gloss over this part of my post.





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is a time and a place for everything.




willy.  I can just as easily point to you as well.


----------



## Stoker (23 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yes, it is a no-brainer. Who cares ?
> 
> The issue boots are crap. I tried them long enough to figure out that they hurt my feet and are way too hot. I bought myself a pair of bates M9s and one pair of Bates Delta 8.
> 
> ...



On the ships a lot of us pick up Bates  8" Tactical Sport Composite Toe Side Zip at the NEX. They are way better than what we current get and way more comfortable. Never had a problem wearing them.


----------



## willy (23 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Bullshit. The fact of the matter is that we have a national contract for footwear ... that is being paid for regardless. It's got nothing to do with dinosaurs ... the CF has attempted, and been shut down by Treasury Board, to go with a boot allowance.
> 
> ***** about the issued footwear all you want - it sucks, but be damn sure you put the blame squarely where it actually lay.



I think you may be misinterpreting what I mean.  I'm aware of all the above.  I'm suggesting that once the brown boots are widely issued, it will be easy for those who are inclined to implement regressive boot policies to say "the brown boots are here, everyone will wear them, no more privately purchased boots".  Nowhere in my post did I blame the supply system or suggest a boot allowance.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> That post had SFA to do with footwear procurement policy.  The little factoid that the CF has approached going with a boot allowance and was shut down by TB eons ago is in other threads; obviously you haven't read them.


Yup, you're right again.  I have not been paying close attention to any issues here about a boot allowance.  Sea boots are what's on offer for me to use and that's that.  They're up to the standards and needs apparently of the Sailor's such as myself as we all seem to be wearing them without major conflict.

As for Willy's post, I thought it was more directed at the results of the procurement process.  That it's not working and the troops are taking care of things themselves.  To which I agreed and put my oar in to the mix, my bad.  As a Hairy Bag I don't have a dog in the fight and I shall now withdraw out of this.


----------



## Ostrozac (23 Sep 2012)

I did recently mention the supply system.  I don`t like wearing the issued CWWB in the winter, and I can`t seem to find the issued summer boot that I do like (the Mark III Combat Boot). 

I don`t understand the supply system enough to suggest a solution, so I have instead voted with my wallet. I buy Danners for the winter and Magnums for the summer. And I am certainly not the only one -- as stated before I take my cues from higher, and when Majors and MWOs are routinely walking around the garrison in non-issued footwear, then Lieutenants and Corporals will, not surprisingly, do the same.

I was more interested in whether I will end up buying brown winter boots to replace my black Danners.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2012)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I find it convenient of you to gloss over this part of my post.



It gets lost in all the the chaff contained in your post.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Sep 2012)

The issued boots are absolute dogshit, got the black MK IV's and wore them only a handful of times, they tore the crap out of my feet in Garrison might I add.  The last pair of issued boots I wore on ex were Mk III's with Vibrams until they blew out on me in the field in 09.  Since then I have worn Danner's and Rocky's both of which are far superior boots to anything the CF issues.  Being in a 3rd Bn where my feet are my lifeline and vehicle its important I get a boot I can walk with carrying 100lbs + of gear and not break myself in the process.  Not to mention the stupidly long wait time it takes to get issued boots.  I don't have time to try a boot on test it out for a couple of weeks, bring it back, get another pair until I find the perfect fit.  The present system is absolute nonsense and has really let the troops down  :facepalm:.  Give me an 11.5 D width that is lightweight and breathable that I can get in a day and use the next day on a ruckmarch.  

The boot issue is going to remain for the foreseeable future and the major boot companies have already taken note and the first "Coyote" Brown boots are already beginning to hit the market with SWAT, Rocky and Danner all looking to produce boots in that colour.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2012)

Coyote Brown SWATs are not the same colour as the CF brown temperate boots we're starting to see. Any coyote colour is a lighter shade of brown.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2012)

It won't take long for manufacturers to pick up on the right colour.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2012)

If Boulet made their boot available to the general public, I wonder how many people would actually buy them?  Folks may come back and tell me that the boot "meets spec" to which I would not disagree, but I've worked requirements, including life-support eqpt (the aircrew variety, including boots) and I think it is not overly reasonable to try and nail down a single boot the way it was done, and even the categories of boots are missing something IMO. 

One of the biggest issues seems to be getting with the times re: sole technology. I liken the soles that currently exist on all issue boots as lacking...far too rigid/no compliant.  The original CWWB was a dangerous piece of gear that should never have been issued as it was, and the CWWB sole/Mk 2 isn't a whole lot better.  
The desert Boulets weren't much better, and the new coyote brown Mk IV's look (in the sense of how they'll work) the same (bad, rigid, blister-inducing).

Having worked the system, I have not just complained but sent in my share of UCRs, last being WRT CWWB (aka hockey pucks with laces). The CWWB UCR may have helped, but I still see stuff being pumped out of DLR/DSSPM that makes me shake my head. 

Sad that the only issue boots I have that I am willing to wear regularly are my Mk IIIs with Vibram sole, and the Matterhorns I procured as a young, energetic Group ALSE Officer nack in the 90's.  I rue the day that my Grebs can't be re-soled or the leather tears and can't be repaired. 

In my spare te, I will send in more UCRs on the latest "spec matching" footwear, but I will also wholly endorse the Black (and soon to be Brown) 8" rule to complement the use of the UCR system. 

If SWAT, Rocky, 5.11, Adidas, Lowa, Danner and others can make decent boots, why for the love of anyone's diety of preference can't the CF/DLR/DSSPM get it right?

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Coyote Brown SWATs are not the same colour as the CF brown temperate boots we're starting to see. Any coyote colour is a lighter shade of brown.



I wonder if this was done deliberately?  Even this is the case I think it will only be a matter of time before you see companies come out with a comparable colour of boot.  I don't know anyone that wear issued boots other than maybe some support types at 3 RCR.

I just participated in an equipment trial as well and we had members of 3 RCR, 3 PPCLI and 2 R22eR participating in it.  Part of the trial involved ruck marching every day with a cbt load weighing 110lbs.   The first day of the trial we conducted an 9km march on a dirt road. The 3 RCR and 3 PPCLI soldiers didn't lose one guy to injury and all the soldiers were wearing non-issued boots.  The R22eR soldiers, who are forced by their CoC too wear issued boots, lost half of their section on the march to blisters and foot injuries.  This spoke volumes IMO on the quality of our issued boots or lack thereof.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Sep 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If Boulet made their boot available to the general public, I wonder how many people would actually buy them?  Folks may come back and tell me that the boot "meets spec" to which I would not disagree, but I've worked requirements, including life-support eqpt (the aircrew variety, including boots) and I think it is not overly reasonable to try and nail down a single boot the way it was done, and even the categories of boots are missing something IMO.
> 
> One of the biggest issues seems to be getting with the times re: sole technology. I liken the soles that currently exist on all issue boots as lacking...far too rigid/no compliant.  The original CWWB was a dangerous piece of gear that should never have been issued as it was, and the CWWB sole/Mk 2 isn't a whole lot better.
> The desert Boulets weren't much better, and the new coyote brown Mk IV's look (in the sense of how they'll work) the same (bad, rigid, blister-inducing).
> ...



You know I think traditionally in some of those organizations there may have been a culture of "not giving a shit" but I have had the fortune of participating in some recent trials with DLR/DRDC and their are some people there now who are very passionate and really do care about getting the troops the best kit they deserve, especially the guys there now  who have been on the pointy end and had to deal with sub-standard kit.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If Boulet made their boot available to the general public, I wonder how many people would actually buy them? ...



I wear my old MkIII combats boots to this day. They beat any of the *_improved_* shit the powers that be have managed to come up with over the past decade.

Footwear contracting for the CF, specs or not, is also severely hampered by politics geography.  :


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2012)

RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> I wonder if this was done deliberately?  Even this is the case I think it will only be a matter of time before you see companies come out with a comparable colour of boot.  I don't know anyone that wear issued boots other than maybe some support types at 3 RCR.



It might have been, or the CF wanted a darker boot in that coyote is more akin to the desert tan than anything. SWAT actually makes a brown boot, but its harder to find. Not sure about Magnums/Danners/Rocky.

I'm willing to give the issued boots another shot, especially now that I'll get some that fit. Now that I've heard the horror stories of the brown boots falling apart, I hope I'm not going to get a hard time from clothing trying to replace them. However, that's a year from now considering the Kingston wait time listed previously, so I'll just run my current pair of SWATs into the ground.

MKIII boots had a great boot portion, it was the soles that were absolute junk. It doesn't surprise me a lot of people are using them with vibram's attached.


----------



## MikeL (23 Sep 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It might have been, or the CF wanted a darker boot in that coyote is more akin to the desert tan than anything. SWAT actually makes a brown boot, but its harder to find. Not sure about Magnums/Danners/Rocky.



Going off pictures posted here,  it doesn't look like the issue brown boots are that dark(like the issue Arid/Desert boot),  maybe a little darker then Coyote,  but I don't think it's that much of a difference.  I could be wrong though as I haven't seen these new boots in person.  


Rocky has a coyote boot,  but it is a light coyote,  similar to the colour of the coyote SWATs.  Danner also has some brown boots 
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/RAT-TW.jpg
http://www.shoestoboot.com/images/rocky/104.jpg

Belleville and Bates also have a brown boot.  Probably helps that the USMC has been wearing brown boots since the switch to MARPAT in 2002.


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Going off pictures posted here,  it doesn't look like the issue brown boots are that dark(like the issue Arid/Desert boot),  maybe a little darker then Coyote,...



The new brown combat boot is much darker.


----------



## MikeL (23 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> The new brown combat boot is much darker.



Rog,  so it's the same colour or close to the colour of the desert boot?


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Rog,  so it's the same colour or close to the colour of the desert boot?



Darker. 

I'll snap a pic at work tomorrow. A couple of my troops have 'em issued already.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Sep 2012)

I just bought a second pair of black Rockey SV2's, on top of my new tan SV2s.  Guess I'll head to vally workwear for some coyote SV2s..


----------



## MikeL (23 Sep 2012)

OZ,  unless Valley Workwear has changed their prices,  I found it cheaper to order them online
http://www.lapolicegear.com/rocky-sv2-olive-boots.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Sep 2012)

Wow, that's quite the savings thank you very much.  I'm going to see if Workwear will match the price (or come close) and if not I'll pick up some before they get swarmed with orders.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2012)

The only Boulet boot I ever enjoyed wearing was my 1/4 Wellingtons with my mess kit. Every other Boulet product was a piece of shit.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The only Boulet boot I ever enjoyed wearing was my 1/4 Wellingtons with my mess kit. Every other Boulet product was a piece of shit.



Of course, the fact that Boulets are manufactured in Quebec likely has something to do with them getting contract after contract, no matter what type of product they put out.


----------



## Stoker (23 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The only Boulet boot I ever enjoyed wearing was my 1/4 Wellingtons with my mess kit. Every other Boulet product was a piece of crap.



What do you expect from a company that specializes in producing Cowboy boots. :


----------



## armyvern (23 Sep 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Of course, the fact that Boulets are manufactured in Quebec likely has something to do with them getting contract after contract, no matter what type of product they put out.



Yep, it's that old matter of politics geography regarding contracts at play.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Rog,  so it's the same colour or close to the colour of the desert boot?



They look just a touch lighter than these: http://www.originalswat.com/products/1150brn/


----------



## MeatheadMick (23 Sep 2012)

If the brown is really that dark... what is the point of switching from black to brown? That brown is far too dark to be considered a desert boot... and almost as dark as the black... considering the whole purpose of changing the boot was supposed to be 1 common boot for different regions, and to help blend in with the environment, I believe this brown has failed... Coyote Brown would have been a much better alternative.. however, I'll wait until I actually see the new boot to form a proper opinion.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Sep 2012)

I guess I should be thankful that I have had no problems with any of the CF issue stuff. They keep my feet dry and safe, not too hot, not too cold, just right.   I imagine I would probably end up getting some superior boots from outside sources if I had to go back to walking lo distances - now I'm just concerned about stepping off the jet and making it to Ops.


----------



## McG (23 Sep 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Rog,  so it's the same colour or close to the colour of the desert boot?


The newer darker arid boot and the brown temperate boot are supposed to be the same so that soldiers are free to choose one over the other at any given point in time.


----------



## MeatheadMick (23 Sep 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> The newer darker arid boot and the brown temperate boot are supposed to be the same so that soldiers are free to choose one over the other at any given point in time.



Too bad the newer arid boot is also garbage...


----------



## buzgo (23 Sep 2012)

I would say they are the same colour as the brown in the cadpat TW pattern. You can see the tear, that is after 1 week - it is in a spot that 'bends' with my ankle so I would guess is under more stress but it shouldn't fail like that.


----------



## MeatheadMick (23 Sep 2012)

*sigh*

May as well be black... that is a very dark brown...

How do they feel? Are they still heavy and clunky?  They look to me like a brown GP with mesh siding. My feet just do not like the GP's, and the weight bugs my knees something horrible. I guess I get the priveledge of jumping through the medical system again so I can wear a Coyote Brown SWAT lol.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Sep 2012)

MCG said:
			
		

> The newer darker arid boot and the brown temperate boot are supposed to be the same so that soldiers are free to choose one over the other at any given point in time.



They most definitely botched that... the new issue Boulet Desert boots are a coyote brown colour, temperates are way darker.


----------



## MikeL (23 Sep 2012)

Wow,  that is pretty dark, I thought it was lighter going off Piperdown's picture.  I guess the flash really lightened it up
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/450/post-1156894.html#msg1156894



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> The newer darker arid boot and the brown temperate boot are supposed to be the same so that soldiers are free to choose one over the other at any given point in time.



Makes sense,  having a hot weather and temperate boots for here and operations as the temperate boots would probably be pretty hot in the summer.. even the desert ones can be pretty warm.  The temperate boots look pretty warm anyways,  same as the GP boots - never worn them,  so I could be wrong.

I'm guessing the arid boots will still be a deployment issue boot only though,  and not issued to everyone,  at least for now anyways.


----------



## aesop081 (23 Sep 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> I'm guessing the arid boots will still be a deployment issue boot only though,  and not issued to everyone,  at least for now anyways.



Something I always found completely retarded. You don't have to be deployed to find yourself in a desert. A few years ago, I was going to 29 Palms, California for an exercise and the conversation went like this:

"You can't wear desert boots"
"why  not ?"
"They are for desert use only"
"I'm going to the Mojave desert...."
"It's not Afghanistan"

 :

Troops who are in deployable units, or earmarked for quick reaction units should be issued what they need to deploy anywhere. I was told once that we would always have 21 days NTM so there would be time for kit issue. OP MOBILE came along at 3 hours NTM........When I brought that up, i was told "MOBILE is not a good example....." WTF ??


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (23 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Something I always found completely retarded. You don't have to be deployed to find yourself in a desert. A few years ago, I was going to 29 Palms, California for an exercise and the conversation went like this:
> 
> "You can't wear desert boots"
> "why  not ?"
> ...



LOL I chuckle at this as I have experienced the exact same thing "I am going to the Mojave Desert I need a camelbak..." "camelbaks are for deployments only!"  Ok so I guess I'll just sit out in the desert on ex with no water then!  (Retarded)


----------



## Matt_Fisher (24 Sep 2012)

So far, the only commercially available 'military' boot that somewhat matches the specs (colour and full grain rather than rough-out/suede leather) of the new CF issued 'brown' boot are some models by UK manufacturer Altberg:  http://www.altberg.co.uk/Web/military.jsp


----------



## PanaEng (24 Sep 2012)

Zoomie said:
			
		

> I guess I should be thankful that I have had no problems with any of the CF issue stuff.


Same here. I use the MKIV all the time: BFT, on EX, did my workup for the Ironman with them (but the actual event on SWATS as they are about a pound lighter - makes a difference after 32km of running with them). Only had a problem with the first BFT 2 weeks after getting them. Since then no problems.
As for the brown, it will fade somewhat and will match many wooded/dirt backgrounds much better than the black.


----------



## DirtyDog (25 Sep 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Going off pictures posted here,  it doesn't look like the issue brown boots are that dark(like the issue Arid/Desert boot),  maybe a little darker then Coyote,  but I don't think it's that much of a difference.  I could be wrong though as I haven't seen these new boots in person.
> 
> 
> Rocky has a coyote boot,  but it is a light coyote,  similar to the colour of the coyote SWATs.  Danner also has some brown boots
> ...


I spoke with the SWAT Canadian representative a few days ago.  Their "brown" boots aren't quite a match yet and he was very interested in getting his hands on a set of the new brown boots.  I have some in my possesion, unfortunately they belong to one of the troops.  So if anyone's interested in probably getting a free pair of boots....


----------



## DirtyDog (25 Sep 2012)

I honestly (naively) didn't think there were any units out there that actually enforced issued boots.  If and when I find myself confronted with this, there will be problems.  The issue boots (all of them) are crap and don't work for me, end of story.  My feet are my livelihood and I will not put them through unnecessary punishment to appease some dinosaur.  I don't know what hoops you have to jump through to get a medical chit but that sounds about as painful as telling my CoC to "shove it".  I'm fine with unlimited liability, but tell me to so as something as retarded and ridiculous as purposely maiming myself and reducing my effectiveness and we have issues.  It's not like I enjoy spending $250 yearly on "Gucci" boots and it has nothing to do with LCF.  In fact, most people where I'm from regard a set of old MKIIIs with vibram soles as more cool than some boots any clown can buy off the shelf.


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Sep 2012)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> In fact, most people where I'm from regard a set of old MKIIIs with vibram soles as more cool than some boots any clown can buy off the shelf.



 :nod:

So what is the back story on why we stopped acquiring the Mark III Combat Boot before we had designed and contracted for an adequate replacement? Was the Mark III exceedingly expensive? Did the factory burn to the ground? Was the fact that it was made out of leather lead to excessive pressure from Greenpeace and PETA?


----------



## MikeL (25 Sep 2012)

I would assume they stopped procuring MKIIIs when the GP boots came in?  When we found out about the GP boots originally people made it seem like they would be the greatest boots ever... and rumor of non issue boots being banned came out as the GP boots were great and could fit all orthotic insoles.


----------



## Ostrozac (25 Sep 2012)

Ah, that makes more sense. A replacement, that turned out to be not so great, and had to be replaced soon itself.

Sort of like the Brits with their tanks. Chieftain to Challenger 1 in 1983, Challenger 1 to Challenger 2 in 1993.


----------



## slayer/raptor (26 Sep 2012)

Had a presentation from DLR and Trials guys today.  Turns out the 6 different boots that the CF had been trialling for the last 6 years all failed.  The government's direction was that the boots had to be produced in Canada.  No Canadian company was able to meet our standards, so a decision now lies in Ottawa as to what will happen next.  Apparently the most favoured option is an allowance system with a left and right of arc of which boots we would be allowed to purchase.  Again still waiting approval though.


----------



## MikeL (26 Sep 2012)

If we do get a boot allowance,  would there still be a standard CF combat boot that people can get from stores - issue out boots currently in the system till all are gone?  What would all the new Recruits get issued?  I assume they can be issued the boots we have in the system now,  but once those are depleted what will they get?  Or would they get told what boots are approved and let them buy them before they show up on BMQ?

All hypothetical and assumptions/guesses I know,  but something to consider.

I'm all for a boot allowance,  but I'm not holding my breath on getting it,  anytime in the near future if at all.




			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> When I brought that up, i was told "MOBILE is not a good example....." WTF ??



What are those people going to say if something similar happens again?  :



			
				RoyalDrew said:
			
		

> "camelbaks are for deployments only!"



I thought Camelbaks were issued to everyone now (at least pers in field units)?  I returned my worn/abused Camelbak(US camo 2L Camelbak) I got overseas and was able to get the CADPAT Camelbak bladder carrier without any issues.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (26 Sep 2012)

Boot allowance issues for Basic would be mitigated by having a sort of clothing "store" on bases where you could purchase the boots if they didn't have them in civvie street?  I could see that being an issue in the reserve brigades where there are no real "bases" left.  I.e. Calgary where we run BMQs from units.  They'd have to do the trip to clothing stores where they'd have a rack with prices?  Logistik Unicorps could have their hands in on things as they can process online payments I think?


----------



## MikeL (26 Sep 2012)

Reg Force and Reserve units near Reg Force bases(ex Edmonton) would be easy as the Canex could carry the boots(Petawawa Canex already stocks SWATs),  but for Reserve units away from the Reg Force would need something online(perhaps Logistik Unicorp like you mentioned) unless stores in the area carried CF approved boots.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Sep 2012)

For Reserve units... we LPO stuff all the time. Why can't the CQs put the order in for their new troops if they're outside of a larger urban area with kit stores? I think we're putting the cart before the horse though, we'd have to convince people in the puzzle palace that a COTS solution is best/most cost effective.


----------



## MeatheadMick (27 Sep 2012)

slayer/raptor said:
			
		

> Had a presentation from DLR and Trials guys today.  Turns out the 6 different boots that the CF had been trialling for the last 6 years all failed.  The government's direction was that the boots had to be produced in Canada.  No Canadian company was able to meet our standards, so a decision now lies in Ottawa as to what will happen next.  Apparently the most favoured option is an allowance system with a left and right of arc of which boots we would be allowed to purchase.  Again still waiting approval though.



So does that mean Boulet failed too?



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> For Reserve units... we LPO stuff all the time. Why can't the CQs put the order in for their new troops if they're outside of a larger urban area with kit stores? I think we're putting the cart before the horse though, we'd have to convince people in the puzzle palace that a COTS solution is best/most cost effective.



True enough... since a lot of Reserve units also have Regimental Kit Shops... There shops could carry the typical PT Gear, Berets and CADPAT items as well as LPO boots.


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Something I always found completely retarded. You don't have to be deployed to find yourself in a desert. A few years ago, I was going to 29 Palms, California for an exercise and the conversation went like this:
> 
> "You can't wear desert boots"
> "why  not ?"
> ...



Yep, the scale of entitlement note that is applicable clearly states, "for deployment on overseas operations only".

That being said, I have also emailed the SM and scale OPI for pers that we've had going on Course "X" in Place "Y" in the desert etc, providing details and "common sense says desert gear makes sense in this case" and without fail they have emailed me back same-day authorizing the issue to that individual.

WTF is up with clothing stores supervisors who do not communicate with the appropriate powers that be when common-sense dictates it occur?


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> If we do get a boot allowance,  would there still be a standard CF combat boot that people can get from stores - issue out boots currently in the system till all are gone?  ...



I don't know, but the "custom" footwear won't cut it. I don't know a single new entrant who has a year to wait for his custom-made footwear to finally show up once we mold his feet for them ...  (I think the contract for them still sits in la belle province aussi --- ARS Sports in Montreal vice Boulet Boots for the stocked footwear).


Gotta love contracting. It will be interesting to see what the future holds given that all failed the trials.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yep, the scale of entitlement note that is applicable clearly states, "for deployment on overseas operations only".



Vern, in that incident, I wasn't ever seeking to be issued any, I have multiple pairs already from previous tours.

Yup....... :



> WTF is up with clothing stores supervisors who do not communicate with the appropriate powers that be when common-sense dictates it occur?



I could tell you some choice stories about one specific clothing stores person........Come for a beer some day. The kind of person you tell subordinates to "not go to clothing stores without a WO or above with you".


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Vern, in that incident, I wasn't ever seeking to be issued any, I have multiple pairs already from previous tours.
> 
> Yup....... :
> 
> I could tell you some choice stories about one specific clothing stores person........Come for a beer some day. The kind of person you tell subordinates to "not go to clothing stores without a WO or above with you".



I was talking about the entire arid scale ... camel backs etc. The entire arid scale has that note applicable to it. Every single item. 

I think you visited my office in clothing once many, many years ago. IIRC, you were escaping to the RCAF from the Army at that time vice heading to the desert. I am though, getting old and senile.


----------



## buzgo (27 Sep 2012)

Vern, the custom boot contract is with Pouliot.


----------



## armyvern (27 Sep 2012)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> Vern, the custom boot contract is with Pouliot.



That's it!! ARS did the re-soling. My bad. All in PQ though. 

Therefore, I think it will be one hell of a fight to get an allowance through TB (politics at play here - as always) ... just has it has always been when it comes to footwear. I`m not holding my breath although I am probably one of it`s greatest supporters.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Sep 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I was talking about the entire arid scale ... camel backs etc. The entire arid scale has that note applicable to it. Every single item.



Ack. 



> I think you visited my office in clothing once many, many years ago. IIRC, you were escaping to the RCAF from the Army at that time vice heading to the desert.



You are quite correct.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Sep 2012)

On a related note, and looks close in colour to our new ones.


http://soldiersystems.net/2012/07/25/british-military-officially-adopts-brown-boots/



> *British Military Officially Adopts Brown Boots*
> 
> The Ministry of Defence has signed a multi-million-pound contract for new boots for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.
> 
> ...


----------



## MeatheadMick (27 Sep 2012)

Looks like a much better boot than our T-Dub though...

Reminds me of Lowa's.

Nice that they get a spectrum to choose from as well... would be excellent if we end up going with the same approach. I still have 20 years left until pension, (without res time of course ^^), so I guess I'll see a ton of changes in my career... wonder what it'll be like if/when I'M a crusty old Warrant Officer?


----------



## aesop081 (27 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> wonder what it'll be like if/when I'M a crusty old Warrant Officer?



I wouldn't know anything about that kind of thing as i am not old.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I wouldn't know anything about that kind of thing as i am not old.



Crusty yes......


----------



## MeatheadMick (28 Sep 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I wouldn't know anything about that kind of thing as i am not old.



Lol, I swear I was not intentionally aiming the crusty old warrant at any other members.  I was however, contemplating on what kind of issues I'll see throughout my career.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Sep 2012)

MPMick said:
			
		

> So does that mean Boulet failed too?
> 
> True enough... since a lot of Reserve units also have Regimental Kit Shops... There shops could carry the typical PT Gear, Berets and CADPAT items as well as LPO boots.



Most Reserve Kit Shops are stand alone entities run by the Regimental Association. Not PF or NPF.

You would not be able to sell issue gear from them, unless it was purchased from the approved vendor and brought on stock.

There is absolutely no doubt in anyone's mind that if a boot allowance was allowed, CANEX would be the sole entity able to sell the approved footwear.

Even if you were to find the identical footwear elswhere, your claim would be denied because you didn't use the "APPROVED" vendor.

An allowance to let you go wherever you want, for the boot you want, for the price you want, is an absolute non-starter.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (28 Sep 2012)

Hmm.. a real live Canex?  I haven't seen one of those since I left Valcartier in April.

I'm pretty sure the Canex in Wainwrong isn't a full fledged one ready to supply (sell?) boots to BMQs of 40 pers at a time...


----------



## MeatheadMick (28 Sep 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Hmm.. a real live Canex?  I haven't seen one of those since I left Valcartier in April.
> 
> I'm pretty sure the Canex in Wainwrong isn't a full fledged one ready to supply (sell?) boots to BMQs of 40 pers at a time...



Wainwright's Canex gets a hell of a lot of business, considering it's one of the main trg bases of the West.  If Canex were picked up to be a boot seller / provider as we've been discussing, then all Canex's would have to beef up their supply of boots.  I know the Canex in Edmonton would not be readily available to supply boots either... mind you, many clothing stores sections right now can't provide combat clothing to troops either  >


----------



## Lare (19 Oct 2012)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the Canex in Wainwrong isn't a full fledged one ready to supply (sell?) boots to BMQs of 40 pers at a time...



Just a side note here, the canex in wainwright just got a huge renovation earlier this year, was happening just as I left in Febuary so I have not seen it yet, but I've heard it's a lot nicer.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Nov 2012)

Seems Original Swat now has a brown boot that is close in colour to the new brown boot being issued.....

CLASSIC 9" Brown


----------



## MikeL (18 Nov 2012)

They've carried that brown boot for awhile,  it's not new.  That boot might as well be black though..


----------



## armyvern (18 Nov 2012)

Interesting email received by one of the regiment's troops this week that was forwarded to me:



> Subject:	"Orders for your ARCB (brown combat boot)"
> 
> ALCON;
> 
> ...



I guess the members of this site made the proper forecast for the ARCBs and that they are now in an official state of "who knows" ...

 :facepalm:

Footwear (and it's contracts):  something that would save the CF millions if we'd only get over that "must buy Canadian/must wear issued boots only" hump. Politics - gotta love it.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Nov 2012)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Interesting email received by one of the regiment's troops this week that was forwarded to me:
> 
> I guess the members of this site made the proper forecast for the ARCBs and that they are now in an official state of "who knows" ...



Saw that one coming while in gagetown.... with only 1 or 2 days garrison use and they started to fall apart....

 ;D


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Nov 2012)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> They've carried that brown boot for awhile,  it's not new.  That boot might as well be black though..



Oh, never noticed it before when I was looking through their site...


----------



## armyvern (18 Nov 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Saw that one coming while in gagetown.... with only 1 or 2 days garrison use and they started to fall apart....
> 
> ;D



As noted on this site months ago ...


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Seems Original Swat now has a brown boot that is close in colour to the new brown boot being issued.....



I spoke to one of the Original SWAT reps for Canada a few weeks ago at a CANEX demo. He's trying to stay in the loop with whats going on for the new CF boots, and as soon as they make the final decision and he can get his hands on a pair, he will colour match and produce boots in at least the Classic 9". He isn't doing anything now as he knows its not firm, and doesn't want to do a 5,000 boot run in a colour that's not final.

Seeing as how the ARCBs are stop-dropped, I wonder how long/what the heck I'm going to get for the custom boots that were ordered in August but have yet to be sized... I sure as hell don't want to be doing ruck marches in a safety boot, the GPs were heavy/ackward enough.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (18 Nov 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I spoke to one of the Original SWAT reps for Canada a few weeks ago at a CANEX demo. He's trying to stay in the loop with whats going on for the new CF boots, and as soon as they make the final decision and he can get his hands on a pair, he will colour match and produce boots in at least the Classic 9". He isn't doing anything now as he knows its not firm, and doesn't want to do a 5,000 boot run in a colour that's not final.
> 
> Seeing as how the ARCBs are stop-dropped, I wonder how long/what the heck I'm going to get for the custom boots that were ordered in August but have yet to be sized... I sure as hell don't want to be doing ruck marches in a safety boot, the GPs were heavy/ackward enough.



Maybe buy yourself a pair of swats?


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2012)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Maybe buy yourself a pair of swats?



I have a set, purchased on my own dime. CF is responsible to find boots that fit me for my job, and I don't fit the off the shelf sizing. Even the SWATs aren't as good a fit as I'd like.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Nov 2012)

> Please come into LSS Clothing Stores to be sized for a suitable substitute in either the CWWB (Cold Wet Weather Boot) or AFTCB (Air force temperate safety boots).



I didn't know Safety started with a silent 'C'.



TCB= Temperate COMBAT Boot.   8)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (18 Nov 2012)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I have a set, purchased on my own dime. CF is responsible to find boots that fit me for my job, and I don't fit the off the shelf sizing. Even the SWATs aren't as good a fit as I'd like.



You ever try wearing Danner's or Rocky's?  I just bought a pair of Danner's and they are amazing!  You gotta drop some money for them (my Danner's were $200) but they don't fall apart in 3 months and are a very high quality boot.  You should also be able to order a special size if you goto a boot store and get them there.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Nov 2012)

I had a set of Rocky S2Vs a while back, and were great until the eyes ripped out and shredded the laces after a month of use. I think they've done better on them now, but the experience I had with the dealer in Canada I bought them from left me gunshy to spend another $200 on boots that I may or may not be able to warranty if they fail.

I've got a mortgage soon and another kid on the way, shouldn't need to be buying boots to do my job. Was easy to put the cash away as a single guy, but not anymore. If the army wants to buy me Rocky's I'll wear them though.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Nov 2012)

They removed the eyelits on them as the coy noted they were ripping.  I agree with you though the CF should be providing soldiers with bootsa dn good boots at that.


----------



## MikeL (25 Feb 2013)

Any updates on the brown boots?  


I'm down to 1 pair of black boots at the moment,  and don't really want to invest in another pair of black boots if I'm going to be allowed to wear my brown boots(private purchase, I have a chit) in a month or two.  Nor do I want to be the first guy to start wearing brown boots in the unit until I see others wearing them, or some documentation saying it's good to go.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Feb 2013)

Last email I saw on the subj of CF kit was that the Brown boot went back to contracting, and they aren't anticipating delivery until Fall/Winter 2013, with the contract awarded sometime in the summer.


----------



## dale622 (26 Feb 2013)

Great... So in other words we will sit and wait to hear that another contract has been canceled in a few months. I guess I'll buy one more set of black SWATs as mine are starting to fall apart. 

Had some false hopes that the boot procurement would run along side the new combats we now have.... oh wait...  I'm down to one set of old ratty combats and I'm about to deploy to the field for 2 months.... awesome...


----------



## brandon_ (26 Feb 2013)

Have you guys seen the brown boots yet? 


I ask because one of guys I work with has been issued them already, ill try and catch up with him tomorrow and snap a photo of the boots.


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Feb 2013)

brandon_ said:
			
		

> Have you guys seen the brown boots yet?
> 
> I ask because one of guys I work with has been issued them already, ill try and catch up with him tomorrow and snap a photo of the boots.



There's some pictures in this thread already, but since the brown boot failed, it may be a different one contracted in the Fall.

I just remembered that the email also stated that if you need boots and the there are no GP available in your size, they're issuing out desert boots as an interim.


----------



## Old EO Tech (1 Mar 2013)

bananaman said:
			
		

> Great... So in other words we will sit and wait to hear that another contract has been canceled in a few months. I guess I'll buy one more set of black SWATs as mine are starting to fall apart.
> 
> Had some false hopes that the boot procurement would run along side the new combats we now have.... oh wait...  I'm down to one set of old ratty combats and I'm about to deploy to the field for 2 months.... awesome...



Back before Christmas I received an email coming down from the LFWA SM, and likely the result of a decision at AFC, that if you can not get two sets of GP boots due to shortages before the Brown boots hit the ground, supply is authorized to issue you AR boots and wearing them is authorized.  Myself I found the AR boots that I wore in 2008 very comfortable.  I have not yet seen people wearing desert boots in Edmonton yet, but if the Brown boots are delayed for QA reasons, we may very well see them soon.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Apr 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Last email I saw on the subj of CF kit was that the Brown boot went back to contracting, and they aren't anticipating delivery until Fall/Winter 2013, with the contract awarded sometime in the summer.


An update - this on MERX this morning:


> .... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB), spare laces and inserts in Brown Colour to be supplied in accordance with DND specifications. This procurement is divided in two phases:
> 
> Phase 1: A maximum of three contracts will be awarded for the supply of 200 pairs of boots under each contract. Delivery to be made to Gatineau, Quebec. These boots will be used for a User Acceptance Trial.
> 
> Phase 2: Following the User Acceptance Trial result, one or two contracts will be awarded for the firm total quantity of 80,000 pairs of boots, 40,000 pairs of spare laces and 40,000 pairs of spares inserts to be delivered to Montreal, Quebec and Edmonton, Alberta. The Contract also includes one option to purchase additional maximum quantity of 70,000 pairs of boots, 40,000 pairs of spare laces and 40,000 pairs of spares inserts exercisable during a period of 48 months from contract award date ....


Tender closes "2013-05-23 02:00 PM Eastern Daylight Saving Time EDT" -  a few more technical details also available in excerpt from bid documents here


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Apr 2013)

In my estimation it will be another year at least before we see brown boots on general issue.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Apr 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> In my estimation it will be another year at least before we see brown boots on general issue.



And if the sizing is anything like the current boot, it's another one I'll never get issued.   ;D


----------



## Loachman (11 Apr 2013)

One wonders how much money has been spent on failed boot purchases to date.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Apr 2013)

Loachman said:
			
		

> One wonders how much money has been spent on failed boot purchases to date.



I know the $70 I paid to put Vibram soles on my own boots (twice) has been well spent.   :nod:


----------



## McG (11 Apr 2013)

Unverified RUMINT that I am hearing is that the Land Operations Temperate Boots (LOTB) represents a convergence of the brown Temperate Combat Boot (TCB) and the brown Arid Combat Boot.  Instead of having two brown boots in the system for soldiers to select their preference for wear, there will be one brown boot and less cost to the crown.


----------



## Loachman (11 Apr 2013)

So, aside from being a poorly-fitting foot-destroyer never available through the supply system in one's correct size, it'll also be too warm for wear in actual hot-weather areas...?

If "less cost to the crown" was really a factor, a boot allowance (yes, not going to happen, I know) would be the only logical choice.

No expensive trial.

No expensive warehousing.

No expensive rejection of every multi-thousand-boot order time and time again.

No running out of the most common sizes.

No constant bitching about fit and comfort, or lack thereof.

A boot designed to meet the rigours of commercial competition will trounce a boot designed by an uncaring manufacturer generously bestowed with guaranteed income regardless of performance.


----------



## buzgo (11 Apr 2013)

I've read the original SOR from 2002, the update in 08 and the update in 2010. They were crap, the CF was telling the boot industry how to do their business.

The new one that is on Merx now is written differently, it is less definitive and leaves room for the manufacturers to show their stuff... there is even an option for a secondary opening that is secured by zipper. The specs call for shorter boots, no solid requirement for cuff pad, flexibility with sole attachment, flex on the exact shade of brown etc etc etc.

This one might actually work!


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (19 May 2013)

Any updates on this?


----------



## Forester (24 May 2013)

I have seen them on random people at LFCA TC Meaford(including candidates on the reg force DP1 running currently). That also is going along with the interim new combats(just the modified combat shirt). 

I was talking to the CSM of A Coy in Petewawa yesterday about them(he was wearing them), he said that in pet when you go to get new boots now you will be getting the brown ones vice black. How much truth there is to that I dont know, but I think that it is slowly coming out as the black ones run out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 May 2013)

I thought they recalled those things and cancelled Boulet's contract.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I thought they recalled those things and cancelled Boulet's contract.



I remember hearing that as well. They were supposed to retender because Boulet made a garbage boot in some wierd colour the industry hasn't ever seen before.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (24 May 2013)

I was OIC on 2 BMQ's earlier this year, I'm currently running a BMOQ.  I'm seeing more and more candidates, especially those being served by the Valcartier clothing store, being initially issued with the brown temperate boots.  More and more people are showing up with them after they go exchange worn out boots too.

These magnum boots are the closest I've seen in regards to colour:

http://www.tacticalbootstore.com/product_thumb.php?img=images/mens-magnum-precision-ultra-lite-wpi-ct-coffee.jpg&w=286&h=286


----------



## PuckChaser (24 May 2013)

And wearing those in uniform is like wearing a big sign that says "Jack me up".


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 May 2013)

Wonder how much $ will be spent on those of us who wear COTS boots (the issued ones never fit my orthodics so I wear Magnum Stealth full leather).  In the days of budget restraint, etc I might have to go get new ones 'because they aren't brown'.

 :


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (24 May 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> And wearing those in uniform is like wearing a big sign that says "Jack me up".



Notice how I specified colour and not height.  See what I did there?


----------



## buzgo (24 May 2013)

On the DWAN, go to the Capabilities Investment Database (CID) and you can see all of the current projects. The new LOTB SOR is there... the project is going back for the 3rd (or 4th?) attempt.


----------



## JRH93 (24 May 2013)

Canada West boot- I was issued the "arid region combat boot" the brown boot and I've worn them on 7 occasions and the whole toe region of the boot is peeling off and turning black. As well as the side fabric region I've noticed is turning black.. The Vibram sole is holding up as there isn't any noticeable wear. Went to get black GPs and clothing stores are apparently not issuing any boots out as there is a "boot shortage nationwide"... Grea


----------



## OldSolduer (24 May 2013)

It is unfortunate that the CF cannot contract a non Canadian company....Danner comes to mind....to properly kit us out.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (24 May 2013)

Gorsh.  Is that wear from field use?


----------



## JRH93 (24 May 2013)

5 parade nights and 2 weekends of GD.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (24 May 2013)

Intense.


----------



## JRH93 (27 May 2013)

so intense..  :threat:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2013)

If those boots look like that from that kind of 'soft' use... :


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (28 May 2013)

signalsguy said:
			
		

> On the DWAN, go to the Capabilities Investment Database (CID) and you can see all of the current projects. The new LOTB SOR is there... the project is going back for the 3rd (or 4th?) attempt.



Yeah I checked it out today... couldn't make sense of most of the information there.  From what I could gather, the whole project is on hiatus..


----------



## PuckChaser (28 May 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> From what I could gather, the whole project is on hiatus..



That's good, soldiers don't need boots.

The lack of basic kit is really starting to appall me. At least Afghanistan is starting to get their soldiers all proper uniforms and boots, while we're still trying to figure that out... Shiny new kit is really great to show off to the media, by soldiers who have to buy their own boots because the system doesn't have any.


----------



## MikeL (28 May 2013)

At least we have 1812 pins..


At the end of the day, I'm just happy I can wear the boots that I purchased because they work/are comfortable.  Would be great to have issue boots that work, but spending a few hundred dollars every couple years isn't too bad - for me anyways.  Hopefully,  the wearing of personally purchased boots will continue, instead of forcing everyone to wear the junk boots Boulet/Canada West make.


----------



## 63 Delta (28 May 2013)

Every year my wife gets to claim $150 for bras.

If she can claim bras, I should be able to claim boot. As no two breasts are a like, no two feet are a like, and these Double D feet of mine dont fit well in the army issued boots


----------



## dale622 (28 May 2013)

I as well don't mind forking over a few of my dollars to be comfortable. I just hope they don't make their own shade of brown. Would make it really hard to find matching boots. I understand Canadian business always has to have a percentage of our procurement but come on! Making something completely different from everything else just seems like and idiotic idea. Big companies like Danner would take a long time if ever to make a set of boots in our "new" brown.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (28 May 2013)

I need a new pair... been looking at the Blackhawk Warrior.  Can't decide whether I need black or coyote brown.  All signs are pointing to black!


----------



## dale622 (29 May 2013)

So... I'm hearing grumblings of soldiers having no option but to buy boots. The QM was out of black, (crappy) brown, and tan as well. If this is the case, should they not be reimbursed? This footwear problem appears the be getting as bad as the shortfall on combats. If they are going to run out of sizes completely and have to pay troops to get boots anyways. They should just start a boot chit program. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## MJP (29 May 2013)

bananaman said:
			
		

> So... I'm hearing grumblings of soldiers having no option but to buy boots. The QM was out of black, (crappy) brown, and tan as well. If this is the case, should they not be reimbursed? This footwear problem appears the be getting as bad as the shortfall on combats. If they are going to run out of sizes completely and have to pay troops to get boots anyways. They should just start a boot chit program. Just my 2 cents.



I see you are 1CER so I will assume you are in Edmonton.  You are right clothing is very short on certain sizes of boots due to unforecasted demands by the TF2-13 folks eating into normal levels of supply.  I was in DRMIS today looking at things and there are boots coming, it just takes time to get them in.  

Unfortunately there is no mechanism to reimburse for boots a la boot allowance, however there is a mechanism to LPO or rush deliver if someone absolutely needs boots now due to all of theirs being FUBAR.  IF this is the case then they need to identify that fact to Clothing and BPT show the level of deterioration to get the ball rolling.


edited to fixed bad copy paste skills


----------



## dale622 (29 May 2013)

I'll send the troops that direction. Have seen some pretty haggard footwear.


----------



## Ostrozac (30 May 2013)

MJP said:
			
		

> due to unforecasted demands by the TF2-13 folks eating into normal levels of supply.



I wouldn't call the Kabul training mission unforecasted. We've known about it for years. The Libya war, the First Gulf War, DART missions, lots of deployments have been unforecasted. But not TF2-13.


----------



## REDinstaller (30 May 2013)

The mission isn't unforcasted, but the demands on the supply system by the pers that are deploying on it weren't forecasted. There are also 3 PTAs that are undergoing training at Ex Maple Resolve that are taxing the system as well


----------



## MJP (30 May 2013)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> The mission isn't unforcasted, but the demands on the supply system by the pers that are deploying on it weren't forecasted. There are also 3 PTAs that are undergoing training at Ex Maple Resolve that are taxing the system as well



Ex MR has limited impact on Clothing stores in Edmonton or the system writ large.  The unforecasted demand was the fact that folks in some cases came lacking basic issues of footwear or waited till they came to exchange their old stuff.  Generally that doesn't happen but for a host of reasons it has.  Clothing is restocking as fast as the system can get the stuff there.


----------



## REDinstaller (30 May 2013)

I beg to differ about that, as 2 of the PTAs are sub C/S of my Regt and a huge portion of the Bde Sigs Sqn. So yes Edmonton Clothing is impacted as Svc Bn would issue kit to these soldiers, some of whom have been on constant exercise since Jan 13.


----------



## MJP (30 May 2013)

Tango18A said:
			
		

> I beg to differ about that, as 2 of the PTAs are sub C/S of my Regt and a huge portion of the Bde Sigs Sqn. So yes Edmonton Clothing is impacted as Svc Bn would issue kit to these soldiers, some of whom have been on constant exercise since Jan 13.



You can beg to differ all you want.  Your context into the matter is limited to your domain and I understand where you are coming from.  I am telling you from 1st hand knowledge that there is limited impact from Ex PR or MR.  You can take it for what it's worth or you can PM me and and I can give you some more info.  I don't wish to interrupt the main thread with this sidebar.  I merely came on to help out Bananaman wrt his troops and to clarify to some extent what the hold up is/was.


----------



## dale622 (31 May 2013)

Which I do thank you for MJP. Troops have been notified and direction given.


----------



## DirtyDog (2 Jun 2013)

Can you imagine the impact on the system if all those who wear personally purchased non-issued boots (and it's a lot where I come from) decided, or were forced to, actually rely on issued boots through the system?

What a joke.  It kills me how us low on the totem pole are held accountable and face serious questions when we fail to perform, yet these bozos who deal with kit and equipment seem to sh1t the bed on a near constant basis....


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Jun 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Can you imagine the impact on the system if all those who wear personally purchased non-issued boots (and it's a lot where I come from) decided, or were forced to, actually rely on issued boots through the system?
> 
> What a joke.  It kills me how us low on the totem pole are held accountable and face serious questions when we fail to perform, yet these bozos who deal with kit and equipment seem to sh1t the bed on a near constant basis....



Solid point my friend!


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jun 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Can you imagine the impact on the system if all those who wear personally purchased non-issued boots (and it's a lot where I come from) decided, or were forced to, actually rely on issued boots through the system?
> 
> What a joke.  It kills me how us low on the totem pole are held accountable and face serious questions when we fail to perform, yet these bozos who deal with kit and equipment seem to sh1t the bed on a near constant basis....



It's not totally the fault of DND for our procurement/kit issues. Yes there are some fingers that could be pointed, but that is counter productive right now.

Consider this: DND has been mandated to purchase kit that Canadian companies can manufacture, like boots. If there is a Canadian company that can make boots to our specs, then that Canadian company will be contracted, within reason of course.
If there are any procurement experts, please weigh in, and if I am wrong, correct me please.


----------



## DirtyDog (2 Jun 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> It's not totally the fault of DND for our procurement/kit issues. Yes there are some fingers that could be pointed, but that is counter productive right now.
> 
> Consider this: DND has been mandated to purchase kit that Canadian companies can manufacture, like boots. If there is a Canadian company that can make boots to our specs, then that Canadian company will be contracted, within reason of course.
> If there are any procurement experts, please weigh in, and if I am wrong, correct me please.


By all means, I wasn't excluding bureaucrats from blame.  

I don't  know who specifically, or which departments/organizations exactly, are to blame for our many kit woes.  But somebody IS to blame. 

What you call finger pointing, I call being held accountable.  The levels of organizational dysfunction are disgusting and people need to start being shown the door, and/or kicked in the d1ck.  No excuses.

Again, I apologise for my cynicism but it's sad to see what we accept as a standard.


----------



## Teager (2 Jun 2013)

I think there should be just a boot allowance instead of issued boots. Members can only claim a certain amount and if the boots you want cost more then you can pay the extra. Obviously one type of boot made for everyone doesn't work and probably never will. If you go to a physio therapist near a base the amount of CF members that are there for back, knee, or foot issues is pretty staggering. This usually comes from improper foot wear and is costing large amounts of money. (I know this as I have spent a few years in physio and have spent numerous conversations with numerous physio therapists that have said the foot wear is the main problem.)

IMO if the boots issued are going to cause you pain or problems down the road its just not worth it to wear them. The people with non issued boots seem to be happy and aren't having any health related issues. Perhaps this should be looked at further.  :2c:


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Jun 2013)

Maybe you two can convince Treasury Board, oh and all the Canadian companies that make  boots and could benefit from a DND contract.

Good luck with that. I think a boot allowance, in an ideal world, is the way to go.

We don't live in an ideal world.


----------



## buzgo (2 Jun 2013)

Part of the problem is that the statement of requirement for a given item of kit is written in a way that constrains industry. For example the LOTB SOR goes into details about boot construction, sole attachment, height, heel counters etc. This means that DLR wrote an SOR that is so restrictive that the boot manufacturers (Terra, Danner, Kodiak, etc) can't do what they do best - make boots - if they want to win. 

When SORs are written in a way to specify WHAT an item will be like instead of specifying the capability required, you end up with a crappy brown boot. 

So, ultimately the Army gets exactly what they ask for, and it is taking them a few tries to understand that they need to ask for a boot capability, not a specific boot.


----------



## Teager (2 Jun 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe you two can convince Treasury Board, oh and all the Canadian companies that make  boots and could benefit from a DND contract.
> 
> Good luck with that. I think a boot allowance, in an ideal world, is the way to go.
> 
> We don't live in an ideal world.



Yes, Jim we don't live in an ideal world. Since being injured there have been a lot of changes that have come and changed the military for the better that have been pushed upon the CF. If no one did any pushing or bring about ideas into the "ideal world" we would never have any changes. In a way I almost believe through your comment your bringing about motivation to myself to act upon this and maybe bring about change. The word maybe being used strongly as it can go either way. I beleive through your postion you are stuck at enforcing what the CF says even though you have your opinions and are entitlted to them and for the most part agree.

Boot companies will still be at an advantage regardless of a DND contract. If there is a boot allowance it allows members to choose boots from any company. I'm sure multiple companies will benefit from this and heck it might even cause companies to improve upon there own current footwear which benefits everyone.

IMO it takes DND time and lots of it to take on change but eventually it can happen with the right amount of push and if there is a majority pushing. Also if it benefits the soldier and saves DND $ in the long run theres nothing but good to come of it.


----------



## KevinB (4 Jun 2013)

DLR boot trial

DLRick one of three boots.
A)
B)
C)

Soldier: I want A

DLR: sorry we don't have A in your size

Soldier: okay what can I have?

DLR: take C no one else wanted it.

Soldier wear C for two months, just has it broken in as the first 3 week he took trying to get his CSM/RSM to lket him wear them, as they where different and there was no message attached to the boots authorizing them for wear.

DLR: great what do you think of the boots.

Soldier: Well I have only worn them a few times, never been on ex, or rucked with them.

DLR: we dont care - what do you think of them

Soldier: I really think A looked better.

DLR: okay likes Boot A


*********************************************************

Somewhat facetious stab at the trial method but in all reality, unless soldiers get multiple pieces of gear, they cannot offer a true opinion on how something compares.

Feet are very individual - I had a boot chit since 1995, when I got back in 2002, the system had changed, and they had no boots, so I just wore what I wanted, and only a few times did an RSM ever bother to ask me why.

Quite honestly the boot is the ONE thing that soldier should get some leeway on.  Its not like its the end of the world is Pte Bloggins has a slightly different boot than Cpl What'shisnose, or Capt Clownshoes.  The end of the day is the mission getting accomplished?

From where I sit the CF could save a metric shit ton of money in a $200/year boot allowance.  And also admit that if an individual boot is destroyed by a service related incident that the soldier turns that boot in for another allowance that year.
   (I had a set of LPO Danners ruined in Bridgeport CA in Mountain Training, and was just out a pair of Danner -- good job system).

Worried about boots for deployed troops - fix the MAIL, and/or just mandate another set to be brought.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Jun 2013)

Ahh boots money; save some now and pay lots later in some cases.

I wore the issued boots with the issued liner from '89 - '03.  I was doing a Pt II med and the PA MWO said "you're going to the foot clinic son".

Foot clinic staff all pretty much agreed that the culprit was the crappy insoles/liners.  Since then I've been in orthotics and LPO boots.

Doing some rough math, replacing the orthotics every 2 years, my LPO Temp cbt boots every 3 years and my LPO CWWB every 6 years, the CF is forking out about $16-$17k between '03 and my CRA date.

For whatever reason, when I go to the physio folks for my assessment/new orthotics every 2 years its not big deal ($300/pr x 2 sets).  Trying to get LPO boots that fit "my feet" (foot + orthotics IAW the med and physio folks) was one fucked-up exercise in retaining my sanity.

And all because of those shitty insoles/liners....I don't know what is more painful at this point, not wearing orthotics or the _LPO Boot Square Dance/Gong Show _ every few years... :

Why I have to go back to physio every time I need new boots for them to confirm my arches have not "UNfallen" is beyond me...then there is the haggling over what place I get to go to, and if they actually have boots that meet the RCAF boots specs... :Tin-Foil-Hat:   

 *A well-oiled machine*   :


----------



## KevinB (8 Jun 2013)

That Liner/Insole is/was a disaster.

I've not been in since 2005, but the on the bus, off the bus routine with the boot fiasco is an utter cluster.

I still blame the "Cornwallis Crippler" runners that I was originally forced to wear (1987) for the foot problems that plague me to this date.


----------



## Container (9 Jun 2013)

So- I was issued two sets of these brown boots yesterday. They aren't uncomfortable at the moment but they dont seem to be durable. Im concerned about doing anything in them and then having to make them presentable.


----------



## JRH93 (9 Jun 2013)

container, there comfortable, and there is a bit more ankle flexibility, but be prepared to see scuffs. for parade I use daubin polish, its clear and makes them sparkle, Coc knows there isn't anything you can do about the scuffs so don't baby them in a sense.
I've noticed shin strain if the top lace isn't completely tight, just passing it down.


----------



## MikeL (11 Jun 2013)

Land Operations Temperate Boots Solicitation Documents and amendments(found at bottom of page)
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-PR-751-62564


From the original document


> 3.3.5 Design. The overall design of the LOTB should be heavily influenced by current
> commercial-off-the shelf (COTS) ruggedized, outdoor footwear.





> 4.1 Whole Boot - Weight. The overall weight for the boot, excluding the removable inserts and
> the laces, must not exceed the maximum average weight of 900.0 grams per boot.



From amendment 5


> The current timeline is ambitious and envisions completing user trials in late autumn 2013. A contract could then be
> awarded to deliver boots into operational service in spring and summer 2014.



From amendment 3


> Question 15: Commercial Brown
> Annex B page 5/18
> 3.3.3 Colour. The colour requirements for the LOTB (upper material(s), outsole and midsole (if
> utilized), lining, removable inserts, and fittings (lacing system, laces, etc.)) must be a commercial
> ...


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (29 Jul 2013)

Went to Valcatraz's clothing store the other week to change my general purpose boots.  They were totally out of my size and only issuing  rown boots.  On the bright side, the clerk said the boots that were ripping were quarantined boots that were issued because they had nothing else to give out to the troops.


----------



## dale622 (30 Jul 2013)

So we are issuing the rejects. What a sad state we have come to.


----------



## Old EO Tech (30 Jul 2013)

duplex drive said:
			
		

> container, there comfortable, and there is a bit more ankle flexibility, but be prepared to see scuffs. for parade I use daubin polish, its clear and makes them sparkle, Coc knows there isn't anything you can do about the scuffs so don't baby them in a sense.
> I've noticed shin strain if the top lace isn't completely tight, just passing it down.



Ya I have a pair and wore them on Ex in WX this spring, they do scuff easily.  I just use commercial brown polish, most are a bit darker than the actual leather and eventually darken the boot, but nothing that makes it look horrible.  They are light and comfortable, though I would not wear them for a BFT as they don't have a lot of ankle support.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (4 Aug 2013)

Has anybody ever tried a pair of Alt-Berg's?  I am gonna take a chance and order a pair.  Hopefully the British MOD brown will fit our DND brown.

 http://www.camouflage-store.com/boots/1/?sort=&user_length=24&cat_id=62

Im going to try the Altberg sneeker model in brown.  They have black and olive too.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Aug 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Has anybody ever tried a pair of Alt-Berg's?  I am gonna take a chance and order a pair.  Hopefully the British MOD brown will fit our DND brown.
> 
> http://www.camouflage-store.com/boots/1/?sort=&user_length=24&cat_id=62
> 
> Im going to try the Altberg sneeker model in brown.  They have black and olive too.



Good luck.... that boot looks very different than most "approved" boots. Appears more like a mountaineering boot that I've seen Recce Pl mbrs wearing on deployment.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (4 Aug 2013)

They look like the Lowa amd Haix boots a lot of guys wear.  My SEK9000s dont look like most boots people wear either and I havent been bothered by anyone.  Even here in QC where they stresd out if you wear non issue socks.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (18 Aug 2013)

Well... Got issued 2 pairs of the ''Boot, Combat, Arid Regions''

They are surprisingly comfortable when you compare them to the general purpose boots. I was pl comd for a DP1 infantry course so I got ample field use out of them. 

Word to the wise, water goes right through tongue right underneath the laces.  Boot stays relatively dry in rain but when you walk through wet bushes... your boots fill up. However, they dry out substantially faster than the general purpose boots thanks to the fabric around the ankles. I completed a BFT after a week or so with them, no issues to report there either.  Although, I wear two layers of 5.11 socks so that helps out. The final FTX was 10 days of rain. My feet were wet all the time but I was a DS so... changing gear isn't much of an issue.  I wore one of the pairs on 4 different combat patrols and they are now badly scuffed.

In my opinion, they are a marked improvement over the general purpose boots; I have had no blisters or anything and they only take about 1-2 days to break in before they are really comfortable. As far as maintenance goes, I tried brown kiwi on one pair to get the scuffs out; the boot is a little darker and the scuffs are less visible. The colour works out great when you're in the field, a lot less conspicuous than black.


----------



## MikeL (18 Aug 2013)

Was the care and instructions pamphlet that comes with the boot recommending you use polish on them?  I'm not sure applying polish to the desert boots is the way to go, but something more like a suede boot cleaning kit(has a brush, and white bar you rub on scuffs).


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (18 Aug 2013)

The instructions say not to put excessive amounts of polish or paste on them. They are brown leather, I tried nubuk oil too but it didn't help with the scuffs.


----------



## MikeL (18 Aug 2013)

My bad, I was thinking of the old style Arid/Hot Weather boots.

Applying a water proof spray might help the boots repel water if you are going to be wearing them in the rain, etc.

Out of curiosity,  how much darker did the brown polish make the boots?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (18 Aug 2013)

Here: Can you tell the difference? haha














The boot on the left has a light coat of polish and nubuk oil.  They finally fixed the piece of leather on the heal that cut up our ankles and added fabric to cover that up.


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Here: Can you tell the difference? haha
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Our Maint O is now on his 4th pair of these useless boots.

Utilizing your pic, boot on the left:

1)  First pair:  Sole split into two. Straight up the whole depth and width of the sole immediately in front of the heel.  They had been worn in the extremely harsh environment of his air-conditioned office for a whole 2 weeks after being issued;

2)  Second pair:  Just above the outside heel, the mesh fabric totally separated and frayed out from the brown leather fabric where it had been stitched.  Again purely office wear and lasted 5 weeks;

3)  Third pair:  Right boot this time.  Total separation of the sole from the leather on the outer edge of the foot beginning at the baby toe and running approx 1.5 inches in length.  2 weeks.

 :facepalm:


Cue typical CAF boot contract soundtrack:  Ooooops I did it again, I fucked up the boots, I didn't care how important they aaaarrrrre, but now we've got the pips to go with our croooowns


----------



## JorgSlice (19 Aug 2013)

In exactly 30 days of field time, I went through 2 and a half. Many other CF members and CIC call bullshit and I just redirect them here.

Garbage.


----------



## Infanteer (19 Aug 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Cue typical CAF boot contract soundtrack:  Ooooops I did it again, I ****ed up the boots, I didn't care how important they aaaarrrrre, but now we've got the pips to go with our croooowns



 :rofl:


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Aug 2013)

Meanwhile, in the British Army they seem to have finally got it right (after centuries of getting it wrong).

They went with an off the shelf design by Altberg - a British company - and reports are good from those I have talked to: 
http://www.altberg.co.uk/category/military-boots/


The Ministry of Defence has signed a multi-million-pound contract for new boots for the Army, the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force.

Armed Forces personnel will receive a new range of brown combat boots to replace the black and desert combat footwear they currently wear.

As part of a contract worth £80 million, troops will have the choice of wearing five different boots, depending on where they are based and what job they are doing. The five types available are:

•Desert Combat: worn by dismounted troops conducting high levels of activity in desert environments exceeding 40 °C
•Desert Patrol: worn by mounted troops, typically drivers or armoured troops conducting lower levels of activity in desert environments exceeding 40 °C
•Temperate combat: worn by dismounted troops for high levels of activity in temperate climates
•Patrol: worn by mounted troops, typically drivers or armoured troops conducting lower levels of activity in temperate climates
•Cold Wet Weather: worn by dismounted troops for high levels of activity in temperatures down to –20 °C.

Each of the five boot types comes in two different styles, so personnel can wear whichever one is more comfortable for them.

Warrant Officer Julie Lodge models the new boots for female personnel. Different foot shapes of men and women

The improved brown boots, which have been developed to match the Multi Terrain Pattern uniform worn by all service personnel, will be made in two different width fittings, taking into account for the first time the different foot shapes of men and women.

The new boots have been chosen after months of trials involving 2000 troops serving across the world in Kenya, Cyprus, Canada and the UK. The brown boots will be rolled out to personnel in all three services later this year.

Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology Peter Luff said:

"This contract will provide our troops with the high-quality footwear they need whilst on operations and back in the UK. Our Armed Forces will have more choice than ever before to make sure they are as comfortable as possible, whatever their role."

Warrant Officer Class One Julie Lodge from the Ministry of Defence's Defence Clothing team said:
  
 "The boots we have now do the job well, but having footwear that is specially designed for female troops means we get an even better result, and marks a real development in the kit available to us. The new boots are very comfortable and fit so well I feel like I could run a marathon in them.
  
 "We have had excellent feedback on the new boots from both male and female soldiers and we are buying a variety of styles to cover the full range of conditions we might encounter on operations, which means all our troops will have new boots for all seasons." 
   
The right boot for the right job

WO1 Regimental Sergeant Major Ian Wright of the Parachute Regiment took part in the trials and said:

"The choice offered to us with this new range of boots is fantastic as it means troops can find the right boot for the right job.

"It is important that we continue to feel comfortable in the boots that we wear and reassured that they are going to provide the right protection - and these new brown boots offer that.

"They performed well on the trials and I am sure our soldiers will be delighted with them."

Black boots will continue to be worn with most non-camouflage uniforms and by units on parade in full dress uniform, such as Guards regiments on ceremonial duties in central London.

http://www.army.mod.uk/news/24306.aspx


----------



## JorgSlice (19 Aug 2013)

Which brings us to the question: Why doesnt Danner supply the CF with boots?


----------



## armyvern (19 Aug 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Which brings us to the question: Why doesnt Danner supply the CF with boots?



Because this is Canada and not Britain.

Danners are _Made in the USA_ footwear; here in Canada, it's all about politics (by law we have to "buy Canadian") ... thus the always-QC contracts for useless footwear.

Being that contractors are also well aware of this little factoid they have very little incentive, nor inclination, to improve their products.

And, contrary to popular belief, troops march on their feet, not their stomachs.  Feet problems lead to knee problems, which lead to hip problems, which lead to back problems ... and we wonder why our troops disintegrate.  Simple: Shitty footwear forever plus a day now.

Attempting to get a boot allowance so that troops can buy a style and type that works for them has already been tried too to no avail for same reason as above (job protection).  PS:  Even your beloved Danners don't work for everyone.  We need choice and a variety of styles and that is the only thing that will ever fix this problem.

The current CAF situation with lack boots is embarrassing; when we have no boots to issue to troops, but can expend resources on other pet projects (not necessarily CAF directed projects  ) something is indeed seriously wrong.


----------



## PuckChaser (19 Aug 2013)

I'm not a ninja at reading MREX (or I guess its called Buy and Sell now?), but it looks like 3 contracts were awarded for LOTB trials, 2 to Kodiak and 1 to L.P. Royer (never heard of them). I sense another failure at user acceptance, although I've worn civilian Kodiak winter boots, and they were pretty good.

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/award-notice/PW-PR-751-62564-1
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/award-notice/PW-PR-751-62564-0
https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/award-notice/PW-PR-751-62564

Edit: Link is a little messed up, had to do individual links.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (19 Aug 2013)

From what I understood at the clothing store counter, the boots that were ripping and cancelling themselves out were quarantined boots that the supply system was handing out because it had nothing else to issue.

I have two pairs of these boots, combat, arid regions and so far after a month of forced marches and combat patrols they have only been scuffed.  The stitching behind the heel is holding up fine too.  I know, I'm finding it hard to believe myself.  The date on the tag is the manufacturing date or the contract date?


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2013)

...at the very least, the tech spec should require quadruple stitching...one of my pairs of Mk 3's is over 25 years old...two re-soles later and the stitching is still like new.  Is Grebb still in business?


----------



## dale622 (19 Aug 2013)

So we spend over $500 000 in a frigging stealth snowmobile so we can ride on snow "quietly", but we can't have boots to walk from A to B. I currently hang my head in a small amount of shame.


----------



## markppcli (19 Aug 2013)

I was on a waiting list to get issued the Brown Boots, a few weeks ago I was told all issue of them had ceased, is this no longer the case?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (19 Aug 2013)

The Valcartier clothing store is only issuing brown boots; unless they still have your size in black.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Aug 2013)

The US has also 'gone commercial':

This use of a commercial boot design is nothing new. Over the last decade the army and marines have changed their attitudes towards combat boots. Instead of trying to design boots themselves, the military has recognized the superior design of commercial boots created for hikers, mountain climbers, and outdoor activists in general. This has resulted in a new generation of combat boots that are more durable, and comfortable, than earlier generations of combat footwear. http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htinf/articles/20130624.aspx


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> I was on a waiting list to get issued the Brown Boots, a few weeks ago I was told all issue of them had ceased, is this no longer the case?



Correct: because they are crap and they are all falling apart, all the new brown combat boots have thus have all been quarantined.  However, some are being issued out of quarantine to new pers or others without any boots to wear etc because there are simply no other boots to issue them with.


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> The Valcartier clothing store is only issuing brown boots; unless they still have your size in black.



But note that the brown boots were_ just_ contracted in to replace the black boots. Note how they give you black boots first if they still have your size.  See my last post.  The new brown boots suck and are all quarantined --- they are issued as a last resort.


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2013)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> ...at the very least, the tech spec should require quadruple stitching...one of my pairs of Mk 3's is over 25 years old...two re-soles later and the stitching is still like new.  Is Grebb still in business?



I still wear MkIIIs as well; have never had a single issue with them.  Mine are on their first re-sole.


----------



## markppcli (20 Aug 2013)

Cheers, thanks for that. I'm in a situation where my orthopedics don't GP boots... thus I am a special snowflake just like my mommy always said, and am waiting to see how they want to handle my reissue of boots. I know other options where trialed and I'm curious if they'll fall back to one of the those boots.


----------



## armyvern (20 Aug 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> Cheers, thanks for that. I'm in a situation where my orthopedics don't GP boots... thus I am a special snowflake just like my mommy always said, and am waiting to see how they want to handle my reissue of boots. I know other options where trialed and I'm curious if they'll fall back to one of the those boots.



If you are in Edmonton, request that clothing stores contact the SM to request permission to try you in the desert boot instead (which also seem to be holding up to the stress of wear).  We were just approved to do that at this location for pers requiring boots.

Hopefully, they can accomodate your orthos.  If not, the CFSM *still* contains apporopriate reference stating that the supply system is required to provide you with footwear that fit and accomodate. Currently they are forecasting at least 1 year until the contract is back in place for getting you custom footwear made by the system so that is not a viable COA to get you boots either.  If desert boots won't do it, then work with your supervisor through your CoC on a memo insisting that clothing stores purchases you footwear that does.  If you require the ref and can't access, fire me a pm and I will get it to you ... fack -- I'll write your damn memo for you.


----------



## Infanteer (20 Aug 2013)

So if this replaced the Interim Combat Boot, than what is the new Land Ops Boot I am hearing about?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Aug 2013)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> So if this replaced the Interim Combat Boot, than what is the new Land Ops Boot I am hearing about?



LOTB is just a continuation of the Temperate Combat Boot, which has consistently failed trials for years. The brown boots in the system are supposed to be quarantined AFAIK as they're terrible quality and fall apart quickly but since there's rapidly shrinking quantities of GP boots, they're being issued someplaces. Kingston is trying to have pers waiting on custom boots sized in the new desert boots because PWGSC is sitting on their hands for the SOA to have the custom boots made.


----------



## MJP (20 Aug 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> Cheers, thanks for that. I'm in a situation where my orthopedics don't GP boots... thus I am a special snowflake just like my mommy always said, and am waiting to see how they want to handle my reissue of boots. I know other options where trialed and I'm curious if they'll fall back to one of the those boots.





			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Hopefully, they can accomodate your orthos.  If not, the CFSM *still* contains apporopriate reference stating that the supply system is required to provide you with footwear that fit and accomodate. Currently they are forecasting at least 1 year until the contract is back in place for getting you custom footwear made by the system so that is not a viable COA to get you boots either.  If desert boots won't do it, then work with your supervisor through your CoC on a memo insisting that clothing stores purchases you footwear that does.  If you require the ref and can't access, fire me a pm and I will get it to you ... fack -- I'll write your damn memo for you.




To add in on AV's post

Edmonton has a plan in place for members that require special sizing as we are approaching critical mass.  Make sure you have identified yourself to clothing as needing it (if you haven't already).  I am not in clothing but was participating in the discussion this pm about the work around.  It won't be fast but hopefully we can get you into proper boots.


----------



## McG (25 Aug 2013)

The boots on the left is the current hot weather combat boot.  It is smooth leather body with canvas tongue and canvas sides from the ankle up.  
The pair of boots on the right is the current temperate weather combat boot.  It is suede or nubuck thourout.

Oddly enough, the boot on the left is coloured much like chocolate Easter bunnies and has a significant amount of contrast with the arid uniform with which it should usually be paired, but it works really well with the temperate uniform.  The boot on the right is a little lighter and works well with both temperate and arid combat uniforms.

If the Army is still looking at one colour of boot for both uniforms, hopefully there is a lesson learned on how dark is too dark.


----------



## JorgSlice (25 Aug 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Because this is Canada and not Britain.
> 
> Danners are _Made in the USA_ footwear; here in Canada, it's all about politics (by law we have to "buy Canadian") ... thus the always-QC contracts for useless footwear.
> 
> ...



Honestly, I was on the beer and do not even remember posting that statement.

I will agree with the overall message:

WE NEED SOME FRIGGIN BOOTS. FRIGGIN BOOTS THAT WORK!


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (25 Aug 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> The boots on the left is the current hot weather combat boot.  It is smooth leather body with canvas tongue and canvas sides from the ankle up.
> The pair of boots on the right is the current temperate weather combat boot.  It is suede or nubuck thourout.
> 
> Oddly enough, the boot on the left is coloured much like chocolate Easter bunnies and has a significant amount of contrast with the arid uniform with which it should usually be paired, but it works really well with the temperate uniform.  The boot on the right is a little lighter and works well with both temperate and arid combat uniforms.
> ...



Quite so. Your post reminds me of this video. The boot that ended up brown was actually that lighter colour when it was being designed; now it is brown. It is described in this video and sitting right next to the cadpat boots.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbJueEcQ-o4


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Aug 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> The pair of boots on the right is the current temperate weather combat boot.  It is suede or nubuck thourout.



I was just issued those boots, and the box says "Desert Combat Boot". I think you have it reversed, as the crappy Temperate boots were the ones with the brown no commercial retailer could match, aka the ones on the left.


----------



## MikeL (25 Aug 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> The boots on the left is the current hot weather combat boot.  It is smooth leather body with canvas tongue and canvas sides from the ankle up.
> The pair of boots on the right is the current temperate weather combat boot.  It is suede or nubuck thourout.



In your photo the boots on the left look like the Boots, Combat, Arid Region(on the label on the boot tongue) - going off the photos St-Cyr posted. Not sure if those are the LOTBs or something different.  The boots on the right are the current Hot Weather/desert boots.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (25 Aug 2013)

As others have mentioned the brown boots with the fabric ankles and the brown boots with air holes all over them are ''Arid Region'' and ''Desert'' boots respectively. 

We have yet to see any apparition of the land operations temperate boots. I've seen the MERX listings but have never seen a boot with ''Land Operations Temperate Boot'' written on its tag.

One hopes that they eventually release a boot with a colour that can be easily matched by other boots. The British MOD brown boots have many different good quality makers like Haix and Altberg and I'd get a pair of MOD brown boots if I was certain the brown was a match. Otherwise, if they could go for a suede boot in coyote brown the options for private purchase would be virtually endless.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2013)

Rest assured. They are probably trying to come up with a colour that you will only see in the CF. No aftermarket boot will match it, even remotely.

Sergeant Majors will love being able to spot aftermarket boots from 50 paces, with just a glance. ;D


----------



## markppcli (25 Aug 2013)

If the boots with the air holes are now the Temperate combat boot, they look an awful lot like my desert boots, then fine, they were reasonably comfortable and make sense for the summer, issue every one those. I saw a power point about the army purchasing a NEOS style over boot, between the two and the issued socks I'll be good until I need my Muklucks.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (25 Aug 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Rest assured. They are probably trying to come up with a colour that you will only see in the CF. No aftermarket boot will match it, even remotely.
> 
> Sergeant Majors will love being able to spot aftermarket boots from 50 paces, with just a glance. ;D



Quite so.  That is what I perceive to be their intent as well. Sad, I had my eye on the Blackhawk warrior in coyote brown for the longest time. That Vibram sole is fantastic.


----------



## Old EO Tech (25 Aug 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I was just issued those boots, and the box says "Desert Combat Boot". I think you have it reversed, as the crappy Temperate boots were the ones with the brown no commercial retailer could match, aka the ones on the left.



Yes and I have a pair, and there is no commercial boot polish that matches them either.  You could use clear polish but that doesn't cover scuff's at all, and these boots do scuff very easily.  So no my boots are even darker than issued as I use the standard brown polish that that civilian world uses :-/

Jon


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Aug 2013)

Old EO Tech said:
			
		

> Yes and I have a pair, and there is no commercial boot polish that matches them either.  You could use clear polish but that doesn't cover scuff's at all, and these boots do scuff very easily.  So no my boots are even darker than issued as I use the standard brown polish that that civilian world uses :-/
> 
> Jon



What? 

Are you purposely trying to drive your RSM crazy? ;D


----------



## markppcli (25 Aug 2013)

Don't worry, I'm sure Boulette will kindly develop a specific polish at a reasonable 25 dollars a tin. 

To clarify I'm a bit confused, maybe I'm just misreading here, but the boots, combat, hot weather are the paler boots with the holes in them correct? And the arid are the darker brown?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (25 Aug 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I'm sure Boulette will kindly develop a specific polish at a reasonable 25 dollars a tin.
> 
> To clarify I'm a bit confused, maybe I'm just misreading here, but the boots, combat, hot weather are the paler boots with the holes in them correct? And the arid are the darker brown?



Yep yep. 

Speaking of Boulet, here is the new land operations temperate boot they came up with (and it's brown).

http://www.bouletboots.com/index.php?page=48&MCatID=1&CatID=20&PID=235


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Aug 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> As others have mentioned the brown boots with the fabric ankles and the brown boots with air holes all over them are ''Arid Region'' and ''Desert'' boots respectively.



Thanks for the clarification. Makes perfect sense that we have 2 different types of hot weather boot, but nothing for "temperate" wear yet.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Aug 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> Are you purposely trying to drive your RSM crazy? ;D



I have spoken with Niner about this and when the troops are issued these crap boots and our COA in response. 

I am not confident the CF can supply us with anything close to the 80% solution.


----------



## Old EO Tech (25 Aug 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What?
> 
> Are you purposely trying to drive your RSM crazy? ;D



The RSM at 1VP has indeed seen them and only asked me "if they are the new boots" so I took that as an opportunity to educate him on the dogs breakfast boots in the Army has become :-/

Jon


----------



## x_para76 (3 Sep 2013)

It's so sad that the greatest concern in the army these days seems to be whether or not one's kit is issued or aftermarket. Issued kit is often purchased by the military from the lowest bidder and has often been trialled by people who are least likely to use it for it's intended purpose. I've found it odd how xenophobic Canada is about non-issued kit when most other military's around the world have embraced it and realized that not every soldier uses the same kit to operate effectively. There's clearly a reason why units like CANSOFCOM use little to no kit that's issued to the rest of the CF and when they do it's usually modified in a fashion that gives CSM's from other units aneurysms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Sep 2013)

Canadian companies would spin it and ask why the CF isn't supporting local businesses and not "buying Canadian". Can you imagine the fall out of the CF purchasing boots from Danner or Rocky instead of getting a company in Quebec to make boots?  The new boots we're trialing look worse than what you would find at Walmart. Two styles even had gigantic tri-force logos taking up the whole width of the boot tongue.


----------



## x_para76 (3 Sep 2013)

I'm certainly not suggesting that the CF purchases foreign kit. In some cases purchasing the rights to manufacture foreign kit in a CADPAT would suffice ie. the British Bergan. However since it would be impossible to produce a boot that would suit every soldier in every situation why does upper management have such a hard on for non-issue boots. The British army found out in the Falklands that issued boots that were poor quality and not meant for the terrain they were operating in created as many casualties as the the enemy.


----------



## dangerboy (3 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> . However since it would be impossible to produce a boot that would suit every soldier in every situation why does upper management have such a hard on for non-issue boots. The British army found out in the Falklands that issued boots that were poor quality and not meant for the terrain they were operating in created as many casualties as the the enemy.



Why do you say "upper management" has a hard on for non-issue boots?  Every unit I have been in for the last say 10 years did not really care what boots you wear as long as they were black and military looking.  I have not even heard of people being harassed over their boots once they have passed basic training.


----------



## x_para76 (3 Sep 2013)

Before I went on pre-training for Afghanistan I had the foresight to get a boot chit to allow me to wear my Lowa's from the M.O. The pre-training was being run by 1 RCR and sure enough the first day that we were on the ranges I was confronted by the platoon warrant and told that as per the D.S I wasn't allowed to wear them. It was at that point that I presented him with my laminated boot chit. I agree it maybe  an extreme length to go to but I knew it would be necessary because of my past experience with the RcR.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Sep 2013)

A lot has changed since 2005.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Sep 2013)

We had a guy with laminated chits. 
Boot chit, aftermarket rucksack chit, aftermarket chest rig chit, no shaving chit. 

Where do we draw the line? 

I'm not sure about other bases but petawawa is boots, black, military looking.


----------



## x_para76 (3 Sep 2013)

The no shaving chit is taking the piss I agree. And you shouldn't need a chit for the rest of that kit if it's being used in the field. The reason that there is so much after market kit out there is because there is demand for it which created by junk that is issued.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (4 Sep 2013)

A lot of locations (and by locations I mean the people therein) in the province of Quebec are anal about what boots you wear. I've even had people say displaced comments to me regarding my 5.11 socks that were exposed between my Original Swat SEK 9000 boot and my pant blouse. And I've had people go as far as saying my boot sole's treads were too ''aggressive'' for army wear.

You can still wear non issue boots at your own peril of course; the official policy pretty much everywhere around here (Quebec) is you have to wear issue only. And that is the same word I've been getting from my CoC since 2006; every year we are told to wear issue and as far as I know boot chits weren't authorized anymore (or so I heard, I have never verified). If that policy is respected by the troops and applied by the CoC is a whole other issue, of course.

So, on the one hand we have RSM's telling us ''Ottawa says the surgeon general said issue boots for all'' and the next day I see a Major General visiting my course wearing Original Swats.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> So, on the one hand we have RSM's telling us ''Ottawa says the surgeon general said issue boots for all'' and the next day I see a Major General visiting my course wearing Original Swats.



Always great for morale.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> So, on the one hand we have RSM's telling us ''Ottawa says the surgeon general said issue boots for all'' and the next day I see a Major General visiting my course wearing Original Swats.



Don't forget that apparently if you don't have a chit for special boots, VAC won't cover you if you're injured while wearing them. As if there's a difference in the SWAT boots bought at CANEX by someone with a chit and without...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (4 Sep 2013)

I just went in to get new Boot, General Purpose and was told that if they don't have my size I'll be seeing the brown boots.

I guess I'll find out next week.  My current pair has two of the CTS grey insoles, a set of super civvy insoles AND my orthotics in them and I still have room.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> The no shaving chit is taking the piss I agree. And you shouldn't need a chit for the rest of that kit if it's being used in the field. The reason that there is so much after market kit out there is because there is demand for it which created by junk that is issued.



No shaving? Surely you were a member of 'Gungy 3 PARA' then?  ;D


----------



## x_para76 (4 Sep 2013)

No 1st battalion I'm afraid.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't forget that apparently if you don't have a chit for special boots, VAC won't cover you if you're injured while wearing them. As if there's a difference in the SWAT boots bought at CANEX by someone with a chit and without...



I believe that's an old wives tale that has previously been debunked here.


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I believe that's an old wives tale that has previously been debunked here.



Someone needs to let Clothing Stores at Kingston know that, it was mentioned while I was trying on my "custom" desert boots.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> A lot of locations (and by locations I mean the people therein) in the province of Quebec are anal about what boots you wear. I've even had people say displaced comments to me regarding my 5.11 socks that were exposed between my Original Swat SEK 9000 boot and my pant blouse. And I've had people go as far as saying my boot sole's treads were too ''aggressive'' for army wear.
> 
> You can still wear non issue boots at your own peril of course; the official policy pretty much everywhere around here (Quebec) is you have to wear issue only. And that is the same word I've been getting from my CoC since 2006; every year we are told to wear issue and as far as I know boot chits weren't authorized anymore (or so I heard, I have never verified). If that policy is respected by the troops and applied by the CoC is a whole other issue, of course.
> 
> So, on the one hand we have RSM's telling us ''Ottawa says the surgeon general said issue boots for all'' and the next day I see a Major General visiting my course wearing Original Swats.



The CoC doesn't have the power to override a medical chit. They may go to the source and question it, but unless they hold a medical degree, they have no business countermanding what a MO says.

I'd also take the RSM comments about what the 'Surgeon General' had to say without a reference.


----------



## x_para76 (4 Sep 2013)

Can we not agree that the use of non-issue kit is the least of the CF's concerns? The CF is faced with significant budget cuts and should probably be more focused on how those will be implemented as opposed to what boots a soldier chooses to wear. I would have thought that the lessons learned in Afghanistan would have reinforced the use of non issue kit and eliminated any debates over it's use.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Someone needs to let Clothing Stores at Kingston know that, it was mentioned while I was trying on my "custom" desert boots.



Tell them to show you a reference.

While your at it, ask them why they are issuing boots on the basis of VAC policy and not what the CF says.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Can we not agree that the use of non-issue kit is the least of the CF's concerns? The CF is faced with significant budget cuts and should probably be more focused on how those will be implemented as opposed to what boots a soldier chooses to wear. I would have thought that the lessons learned in Afghanistan would have reinforced the use of non issue kit and eliminated any debates over it's use.



Nope. They're still around


----------



## x_para76 (4 Sep 2013)

Damn those old dinosaurs!  :crybaby:


----------



## CombatDoc (4 Sep 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> So, on the one hand we have RSM's telling us ''Ottawa says the surgeon general said issue boots for all'' and the next day I see a Major General visiting my course wearing Original Swats.


Your RSMs are wrong.


----------



## CombatDoc (4 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Don't forget that apparently if you don't have a chit for special boots, VAC won't cover you if you're injured while wearing them. As if there's a difference in the SWAT boots bought at CANEX by someone with a chit and without...


Really?  I put this comment in the urban myth category. Unless you can provide a policy or reference to the contrary, my understanding is that VAC is concerned mainly about whether or not a medical condition is attributable to military service. Furthermore, I'll bet they can't even tell if Mk 3s, Danners, 5.11 or Swats are the issue boot.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (4 Sep 2013)

In 1 CMBG there were only two kinds of boots authorized for wear: black, and tan.  Now we have brown as well.

Makes it kind of simple....


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2013)

CombatDoc said:
			
		

> Really?  I put this comment in the urban myth category. Unless you can provide a policy or reference to the contrary, my understanding is that VAC is concerned mainly about whether or not a medical condition is attributable to military service. Furthermore, I'll bet they can't even tell if Mk 3s, Danners, 5.11 or Swats are the issue boot.



Absolutely. I've never seen a reference, or heard a reference but have had numerous supply techs spread the myth along all without documentation. I'm not a confrontational guy, so I normally just nod and smile, but one day I'll ask someone to prove it.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely. I've never seen a reference, or heard a reference but have had numerous supply techs spread the myth along all without documentation. I'm not a confrontational guy, so I normally just nod and smile, but one day I'll ask someone to prove it.



I would start by asking the local VAC rep.


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Before I went on pre-training for Afghanistan I had the foresight to get a boot chit to allow me to wear my Lowa's from the M.O. The pre-training was being run by 1 RCR and sure enough the first day that we were on the ranges I was confronted by the platoon warrant and told that as per the D.S I wasn't allowed to wear them. It was at that point that I presented him with my laminated boot chit. I agree it maybe  an extreme length to go to but I knew it would be necessary because of my past experience with the RcR.


When was this?  In 7 years I've never even heard a mention of boots... and some people push the limits pretty hard.


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Someone needs to let Clothing Stores at Kingston know that, it was mentioned while I was trying on my "custom" desert boots.


Well their idiots and who cares what they say.  I have more than a couple of friends walking around on pricey prosthetics who weren't wearing issue kit at the time of their injuries.


----------



## DirtyDog (4 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> Can we not agree that the use of non-issue kit is the least of the CF's concerns? The CF is faced with significant budget cuts and should probably be more focused on how those will be implemented as opposed to what boots a soldier chooses to wear. I would have thought that the lessons learned in Afghanistan would have reinforced the use of non issue kit and eliminated any debates over it's use.


Well, when it come to boots anyway... I really don't understand where this is an issue.  I've never been anywhere in the last 7 years, other than basic training, where a single person once mentioned anything about non-issued boots.

If it's a problem in Quebec, I guess that's because, well, Quebec.


----------



## x_para76 (4 Sep 2013)

That would be great if the only issued kit that was lacking was the boots.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> So, on the one hand we have RSM's telling us ''Ottawa says the surgeon general said issue boots for all'' and the next day I see a Major General visiting my course wearing Original Swats.



I have had many an RSM in my career and I have yet to hear a single RSM mention the Surgeon General in any statement regarding what is/is not appropriate footwear or it's policy for wear.  I too, as a former CSM, have never passed along such a statement to my pers.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Someone needs to let Clothing Stores at Kingston know that, it was mentioned while I was trying on my "custom" desert boots.



I'll call them tomorrow; already had to call them once today.  Sigh.  LSS Kingston --- please career gawds NEVER post me to that place!

 :facepalm:


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The CoC doesn't have the power to override a medical chit. They may go to the source and question it, but unless they hold a medical degree, they have no business countermanding what a MO says.
> 
> I'd also take the RSM comments about what the 'Surgeon General' had to say without a reference.



You are correct; there is no change to the medical requirement for footwear - and clothing will purchase footwear for chitted personnel; this purchased footwear is then placed onto their clothing docs and legally becomes their "issued footwear".

The only thing that has changed is that the medical system is no longer supposed to be writing "specific brand name" boots.  IE: "Buy this mbr Swats" --- it is now supposed to be "Mbr requires LPOd footwear due to medical issue" or "Mbr requires LPOd, mesh-sided footwear due to medical issues" etc etc.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Sep 2013)

The chain of command really needs to stop using the "you won't be covered" boogyman explanation for various things and leaders need to start challenging the veracity of such statements.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Absolutely. I've never seen a reference, or heard a reference but have had numerous supply techs spread the myth along all without documentation. I'm not a confrontational guy, so I normally just nod and smile, but one day I'll ask someone to prove it.



Wow. I is one and I've never heard a Sup tech say such a thing.  I will however, call clothing supervisor here tomorrow and let him know what one of his staff apparently told you and will ask him to speak to his staff and put an end to the perpetuation of such myths.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Sep 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> and clothing will purchase footwear for chitted personnel; this purchased footwear is then placed onto their clothing docs and legally becomes their "issued footwear".



Until someone in clothing pulls it off your docs and says it needs to be reviewed every two years.   :


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Until someone in clothing pulls it off your docs and says it needs to be reviewed every two years.   :



That actually comes from the CFMOs; it is not a Sup policy, but a medical one.  Same as the no-shave chits needing to be reviewed/done annualy now.  I put that CFMO ref up here years ago now so it's somewhere on the site already.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Sep 2013)

I no longer give a shit about boots or chits.  I'll hang onto my old and improved (by me) combat boots, my one pair of issued Magnums and my (personally purchased) desert boots.  At least I won't have to bitch about the new ones!    

BTW, there are no CFMOs anymore.


----------



## x_para76 (4 Sep 2013)

I find it amusing that we even have to have this conversation. In the Para's there was little if no restriction on our choice of footwear. This flexibility extended to most field kit too including webbing, rucksack, and most other tactical kit. We had the benefit of having officers and Snr Nco's still serving with the battalion who had served in the Falkands and were painfully aware that much of the kit that is issued by the army is woefully inadequate compared to what can be privately purchased.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> BTW, there are no CFMOs anymore.



So what are they called these days?  Anyway - their policy vice a Sup one.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> I find it amusing that we even have to have this conversation. In the Para's there was little if no restriction on our choice of footwear. This flexibility extended to most field kit too including webbing, rucksack, and most other tactical kit. We had the benefit of having officers and Snr Nco's still serving with the battalion who had served in the Falkands and were painfully aware that much of the kit that is issued by the army is woefully inadequate compared to what can be privately purchased.



Well, this is Canada and the CF isn't "the Paras" just in case anyone is tracking.  You've almost got me forgetting where we are and it's a whole different political fight over here with procurement laws.


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Sep 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I have had many an RSM in my career and I have yet to hear a single RSM mention the Surgeon General in any statement regarding what is/is not appropriate footwear or it's policy for wear.  I too, as a former CSM, have never passed along such a statement to my pers.


The Surgeon General isn't the CDS nor is he the Army Comd. 

Whatever RSM said this....if he/she in fact did, pulled out of their butts.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> The Surgeon General isn't the CDS nor is he the Army Comd.
> 
> Whatever RSM said this....if he/she in fact did, pulled out of their butts.



Agreed.


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Sep 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So what are they called these days?



P&Gs (Policy and Guidance).  Someone just cut and paste the CFMOs into new documents.  I should apply for that position for my retirement job.   ;D


----------



## x_para76 (4 Sep 2013)

It really had very little to do with procurement and more a case of the powers that be recognizing that the purchase and use of aftermarket kit was not the transgression that certain elements of the CF make it out to be. I've had the fortune of serving on Op's with both militaries and was really taken aback by the rigid adhesion to issued kit by certain command elements of the CF.


----------



## armyvern (4 Sep 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> P&Gs (Policy and Guidance).  Someone just cut and paste the CFMOs into new documents.  I should apply for that position for my retirement job.   ;D



Yes!! Worth a _Mastered_ in "Leading Change" and "Initiative" for them I bet!!


----------



## Old EO Tech (4 Sep 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Yes!! Worth a _Mastered_ in "Leading Change" and "Initiative" for them I bet!!



"guidance" sounds much less restrictive than "orders" 

Jon


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2013)

x_para76 said:
			
		

> It really had very little to do with procurement and more a case of the powers that be recognizing that the purchase and use of aftermarket kit was not the transgression that certain elements of the CF make it out to be. I've had the fortune of serving on Op's with both militaries and was really taken aback by the rigid adhesion to issued kit by certain command elements of the CF.



So you've said a half dozen times in the last couple of pages. We get it.

The same theme has been mentioned a gazillion times in this thread and elsewhere by many others here.

You can quit banging your drum.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Sep 2013)

A little off topic but I wanna throw out some counter points regarding after market kit.



			
				x_para76 said:
			
		

> It really had very little to do with procurement and more a case of the powers that be recognizing that the purchase and use of aftermarket kit was not the transgression that certain elements of the CF make it out to be. I've had the fortune of serving on Op's with both militaries and was really taken aback by the rigid adhesion to issued kit by certain command elements of the CF.



I love aftermarket kit as much as the next geardo but it's not always a case of the CF fun police simply saying no because they know it upsets us little guys.  

1. Consider this with rucksacks;

You have your British bergen, I have my Lowealpine Saracen, ArmyVern has a Kiraru MMR, CombatDoc has a Snugpak Pocketpack, PMedMoe has the 82 style rucksack, Recceguy a 64 Pattern jumpruck, Old EOtech has a haversack (I kid)  but you get the picture.

Aside from looking like a gang of mercenaries what happens when shoulder straps and waist belts start breaking? What if you're on an OP for a few weeks or a month?   That may not seem like a very strong argument but I've seen a heck of a lot of effort put in to bringing the small shit (helmet straps)out to the FOBs and COPs in a rush. Sometimes on emergency resupplies.   Troops loved their OregonAero kits for their helmets (myself included) but when those straps and buckles break troops needed complete new strap systems and sometimes even helmets brought out for them. 

2. Another issue with aftermarket kit is that us troops are stupid enough to use knockoffs. A good friend of mine loved the EoTech I had (self bought before I knew they were issued) so he ordered one from Ebay (China). Only $150, I was a sucker for paying $500. His broke in a week, luckily it wasn't at an inopportune time.
I'll include  troops buying fake Oakleys and then either using them or getting them mixed up with legit ones.  That's just giving the chain of command ammo for the No-Oakley-Crusade.

3. We bitch that the CoC and CF is giving us shitty equipment to use. The media gets a hold of that and spins a story that Canada's army is using inferior equipment (true enough) which embarrasses the chain of command. Their reaction is to cease the use of this kit everywhere.


The companies that produce the "inferior kit" don't give a shit because they're getting big money whether or not guys like me spend $300 on Rockeys, I'm still issued 2 pairs of their boots and they still get paid. They're laughing all the way to the bank.




One alternate method to using our own personally bought kit all the time is to use the issued kit that we can't stand (boots, tacvest, rucksack) and overwhelm the chain of command with those reports (I can't remember what they are called) but the ones that say this piece of issued equipment is garbage. It doesn't work. It's garbage and doesn't work for the following reasons. We need it replaced ASAP.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Sep 2013)

You mean, submit UCRs like you're supposed to and not just bitch all the time?


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Sep 2013)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You mean, submit UCRs like you're supposed to and not just ***** all the time?



Quite right. If enough problems with the kit is reported, the adults have to do something.


----------



## Matt_Fisher (5 Sep 2013)

Like the 'Tiger Team' report that a former CLS put together to 'Fix the Tac-Vest Problem' only to have that initiative quashed by budgetary cutbacks?  ...UCRs were submitted, DLR became aware of the equipment shortcoming and started a corrective course of action, then program scaled back and now effectively terminated.


----------



## Good2Golf (6 Sep 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> In 1 CMBG there were only two kinds of boots authorized for wear: black, and tan.  Now we have brown as well.
> 
> Makes it kind of simple....



...at least that makes one formation using common sense.  I'm pretty sure common sense is fairly common in 2 as well, like OZ said.  I know folks seem to be able to wear any of the three colours of boots where I work.   :nod:


----------



## PaulD (18 Sep 2013)

The brown boots are comfortable once they are broken in.  The problem is once they are broken in, they break!

I've had both my issued brown boots blow out in the ankle where the nylon and leather are stitched together.  I did the hot water treatment to form them to my feet and I have a suspicion that the type of nylon (not even sure if it's Cordura) doesn't like exposure to hot water.  

I am disappoint.  Base clothing told me these boots are an interim solution until a proper boot can be fielded but that sounds asinine.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (18 Sep 2013)

Because people like me seem comfortable with the Boots, general purpose while Billy Bob likes the SWAT boots.  I could go on with a ton of examples.  

Horse. Dead. Beaten.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Sep 2013)

What baffles me is this "need to have an interim boot while a *real* one is found".   It is not like they are 'inventing' boots ffs.  Lots of companies are already making really good boots.   :facepalm:


----------



## armyvern (18 Sep 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What baffles me is this "need to have an interim boot while a *real* one is found".   It is not like they are 'inventing' boots ffs.  Lots of companies are already making really good boots.   :facepalm:



Apparently, just not Canadian companies; and that is the trick.


----------



## JorgSlice (18 Sep 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What baffles me is this "need to have an interim boot while a *real* one is found".   It is not like they are 'inventing' boots ffs.  Lots of companies are already making really good boots.   :facepalm:



You shall not halt the crusade to create the perfect Doo-Doo Boot.  >


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Sep 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> Apparently, just not Canadian companies; and that is the trick.



Balderdash!   ;D


----------



## Matt_Fisher (18 Sep 2013)

Simple fix:

Resurrect the MkIII as the general purpose combat boot but with the following mods:
CADPAT Brown full grain leather
Speed lacing
Padded collar at the top & leather pull tab
Vibram/EVA composite sole

MkIII generally worked and was durable for 30+ years of service.  Canadian industry was and is capable of producing this boot.  
Issue 2 pair of boots per Soldier/entitled CAF member, but amend the dress regulations to state that personally purchased boots may be worn.
This pleases the Canadian footwear industry as they keep their  DND boot contract business and it pleases the CAF members because if they don’t like the issued boot, they can wear an alternative.

Sample dress regulation for personally purchased boots (amended from Marine Corps Dress Regulations):
ALL CAF MEMBERS MAY PERSONALLY PURCHASE (AT NO EXPENSE TO THE CROWN) OPTIONAL COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE COMBAT BOOTS FROM ANY SOURCE PROVIDED THEY MEET CRITERIA SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS.  THESE ITEMS WILL NOT BE USED TO SATISFY MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS AND THE ISSUED COMBAT BOOT WILL REMAIN A MANDATORY POSSESSION ITEM.  THESE BOOTS MAY BE WORN AT THE OPTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL WHENEVER COMBAT BOOTS ARE PRESCRIBED/AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR, EXCEPT THAT COMMANDERS MAY REQUIRE THE WEAR OF THE STANDARD ISSUE BOOTS ON SPECIFIC OCCASIONS WHEN UNIFORMITY IS REQUIRED, I.E., INSPECTIONS, PARADES, CEREMONIES, ETC.  
ALL OPTIONAL BOOTS WILL MEET THE FOLLOWING GENERAL APPEARANCE
STANDARDS:
BOOTS WILL BE A VISUAL COLOUR MATCH TO THE ISSUED COMBAT BOOT. 
BOOTS WILL BE ALL FULL GRAIN OR NUBUCK/’ROUGH OUT’ LEATHER, OR FULL GRAIN OR NUBUCK/’ROUGH OUT’ LEATHER TOE AND HEEL WITH FABRIC UPPERS. 
BOOTS MAY HAVE A PLAIN OR CAPPED TOE.
BOOTS MAY HAVE A VULCANIZED/DIRECT MOULDED OR GOODYEAR/NORWEGIAN WELT SOLE CONSTRUCTION.
SPEED LACES OR EYELET LACING IS ACCEPTABLE.  
THE TOTAL HEIGHT OF THE BOOTS WILL BE FROM 8 TO 12 INCHES.  
LINING, INSULATION, OR PADDING IS OPTIONAL.
BOOTS WITH A PATENT LEATHER OR POROMERIC FINISH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED.  
BOOTS UTILIZING ZIPPERS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED.
BOOTS MADE ENTIRELY OF FABRIC AND/OR RUBBER ARE NOT AUTHORIZED.
BOOTS WORN UNDER THIS AUTHORITY WILL BE FUNCTIONAL AND SUITABLE
FOR COMBAT AND FIELD WEAR.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (18 Sep 2013)

There we have it, case closed. Good thing the Brits made the switch to brown as well. The market is flooding with brown combat boots over there:

Altberg
Haix
Lowa
Magnum
YDS
Bates
Meindl


----------



## Matt_Fisher (19 Sep 2013)

Edited...sorry for the double post


----------



## ballz (20 Sep 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> There we have it, case closed. Good thing the Brits made the switch to brown as well. The market is flooding with brown combat boots over there:
> 
> Altberg
> Haix
> ...



Nice. I'm very happy to see I won't have to search very hard for a pair of brown Meindls when they decide that black boots are no longer good to go.

I'm not so happy that Meindl is still using that gross grey stripe at the bottom though.


----------



## Quirky (20 Sep 2013)

I day I get issued my blowns I'm ordering a set of Magnum safeties. The current Magnums I have now are so much better than anything I've been issued. After reading this thread I can see the trend of crappy issued boots is going to continue.  :-[


----------



## JorgSlice (23 Sep 2013)

Did my weekly call to Stores to see where my boots are at, no Doo-Doo Boots (or even Mk4's) and Doc won't give me a boot chit. I've been advised I must wear my "Boots, Combat, Wet Weather" until further notice.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Sep 2013)

That is just not on IMO.

Who 'advised' you that?


----------



## JorgSlice (23 Sep 2013)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That is just not on IMO.
> 
> Who 'advised' you that?



My CoC unfortunately. I asked about using my boots that I use in my civvy-side job as they're nearly identical to most patterns of CF combat boot and was told "...not unless you get a chit..."


----------



## dale622 (23 Sep 2013)

I would sooner wear old tattered boots before I lace up junk wet weathers. They should issue those boots with CF-98's, complaint forms, and VA contact information. Worst footwear I have ever seen. It's garbage like this that the reg force is releasing at a rapid rate. We can't even give basic soldier kit to our front line units. 

I really just want to go on an angry rant right now but I know it will achieve nothing.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (24 Sep 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> My CoC unfortunately. I asked about using my boots that I use in my civvy-side job as they're nearly identical to most patterns of CF combat boot and was told "...not unless you get a chit..."



Had you not heard about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the CAF?


----------



## Sadukar09 (24 Sep 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Did my weekly call to Stores to see where my boots are at, no Doo-Doo Boots (or even Mk4's) and Doc won't give me a boot chit. I've been advised I must wear my "Boots, Combat, Wet Weather" until further notice.


You're still better off than some of the guys on my DP1 course.

They only had steel toed boots...


----------



## dale622 (24 Sep 2013)

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> You're still better off than some of the guys on my DP1 course.
> 
> They only had steel toed boots...



I saw the same thing while I was teaching. Shameful.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Sep 2013)

But guys, we have pips and crowns! And a new Int.Com or something or other..... :facepalm:


----------



## JorgSlice (24 Sep 2013)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Had you not heard about the "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the CAF?



But I have a guilty conscience sometimes, and knowing my luck, I'd be that one guy that gets noticed and receives a ripe jacking.



			
				Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> You're still better off than some of the guys on my DP1 course.
> 
> They only had steel toed boots...



Steel-toes would be better than using wet-weather boots in hot dry weather.

Although it would better than the new troops doing courses in running shoes because they don't have steel-toes OR WW.

Its pretty sad.
I'm going back to my doctor to plead my case again and get a chit. Rather be safe than sorry.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Sep 2013)

PrairieThunder said:
			
		

> Steel-toes would be better than using wet-weather boots in hot dry weather.



I had troops on a BMQ-L this summer actually start developing trench-foot because they had 1 set of boots which happened to be CWW Boots. First 8 km march and their feet were hamburger.


----------



## JorgSlice (25 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I had troops on a BMQ-L this summer actually start developing trench-foot because they had 1 set of boots which happened to be CWW Boots. First 8 km march and their feet were hamburger.



Completely unacceptable

OH!! BUT WAIT...



			
				Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> But guys, we have pips and crowns! And a new Int.Com or something or other..... :facepalm:


----------



## medicineman (25 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I had troops on a BMQ-L this summer actually start developing trench-foot because they had 1 set of boots which happened to be CWW Boots. First 8 km march and their feet were hamburger.



I'd also hazard to guess they weren't powdering and airing out their feet, changing their socks, etc.  My experience  these days is that people aren't taught (or not paying attention to what's being taught) to look after their feet properly and leaders aren't ensuring that people are looking after their feet properly...and blame the foot wear instead for all their ills instead of accepting some of it themselves.  Summer trench foot isn't a result purely of the CWW - I've seen it plenty in the MKIII and other boots - it's usually a result of poor foot maintenance in people that sweat a lot and don't dry themselves out.  I used to use my Cold Wet Weather boots in Dry Warm Weather all the time because the soles were a little easier on my knees - my feet, which sweat a lot, were generally drier because the GoreTex does its job and wicks a lot of the moisture away.  

:2c:

MM


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Sep 2013)

We had a PRes Med-A who was doing his BMQ-L after QL3 training running a foot parade every day for these guys, and I lost track of how many times I'd walk down the trench line to see them airing their feet out. It may not have just been the boots, but the sizing as well. Loose boots + heat + field conditions = bad news. I originally thought the same as you, that they weren't taking care of their feet, but when you start a field ex by having most of the surface area of your heel as a blister, it simply gets worse and worse.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We had a PRes Med-A who was doing his BMQ-L after QL3 training running a foot parade every day for these guys, and I lost track of how many times I'd walk down the trench line to see them airing their feet out. It may not have just been the boots, but the sizing as well. Loose boots + heat + field conditions = bad news. I originally thought the same as you, that they weren't taking care of their feet, but when you start a field ex by having most of the surface area of your heel as a blister, it simply gets worse and worse.



It we be interesting to see some stats from that experience appear in an article somewhere.  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Sep 2013)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> It we be interesting to see some stats from that experience appear in an article somewhere.  :nod:



What MM has stated about foot care is applicable. 
Last night I said to the assemble O Gp that if troops are bitching about equipment and all they can say is "This sucks" - that doesn't get things fixed.

UCRs need to be submitted.


----------



## medicineman (25 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> We had a PRes Med-A who was doing his BMQ-L after QL3 training running a foot parade every day for these guys, and I lost track of how many times I'd walk down the trench line to see them airing their feet out. It may not have just been the boots, but the sizing as well. Loose boots + heat + field conditions = bad news. I originally thought the same as you, that they weren't taking care of their feet, but when you start a field ex by having most of the surface area of your heel as a blister, it simply gets worse and worse.



Loose boots definitely = more blisters...which makes me wonder if some people were not wearing socks properly, etc as well...you know - "it's hot out, don't want to wear too much on my feet" kind of deal.  Yeah, you'll never get a perfect fit, but if it's just off, socks can off set that.  I've covered marches before where people's heels literally had to be glued back together - a large part of the issue was a combination of poor foot conditioning (ie - marching) and poor foot maintenance - boot fitting was a tertiary problem generally.  

MM


----------



## dale622 (7 Oct 2013)

I completely agree that troops need to know how to better wear and care socks and boots. I seen new troops showing up thinking the thin black socks were just a summer sock. Had to shake my head on that one.

However much I try the CWWB is still a piece of s**t boot and even with all the proper breaking in and care it still fails my usability testing. I would rather spend my own money for better boots or NEOS if I'm just looking for something waterproof. Even purchasing a new pair of SWAT's yearly is better as THEY LAST A WHOLE YEAR! Unlike our brown boots that failed trials and were supposed to be disposed of but ended up being issued (maybe a rumor). At least CP gear can give me some basic kit when I require it for a price.

Lastly... When I see troops doing capsize drills with assault boats wearing steel toes it makes me cringe when they tell me it's all they have. That goes beyond knowing foot care. Marching around Gagetown all summer in steel toes is just cruel. Especially when your second pair of boots is the CWWB. There is a reason they have them left in stock. No one wants them.


----------



## McG (7 Oct 2013)

bananaman said:
			
		

> However much I try the CWWB is still a piece of s**t boot ...


Do you mean to be commenting about the Air Force boot?  The Army instead has the WWB.


----------



## Dissident (7 Oct 2013)

Adding to the chorus:

Currently teaching on a week end BMQ. Troop tripped and got injured in the subsequent fall. One of the root cause of this incident is that boots in the correct size were not available, larger boots were issued. Troop might not be able to complete training due to injury.

Recruit was enrolled as a supply tech, of all thing.

And yes, I do hold myself partially at fault for not making sure my troop was supplied with all the right gear.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (8 Oct 2013)

NinerSix said:
			
		

> Adding to the chorus:
> 
> Currently teaching on a week end BMQ. Troop tripped and got injured in the subsequent fall. One of the root cause of this incident is that boots in the correct size were not available, larger boots were issued. Troop might not be able to complete training due to injury.
> 
> ...



Please ensure that not only a CF98 but a CF663 gets put in on this. Many times the 663 is forgotten but is vital in pointing to reasons as to how the accident happened to prevent it from happening in the future.


----------



## markppcli (8 Oct 2013)

Well finally got my brown boots, interestingly labelled temperate combat boots but I digress. So far the best part of the new boots will be getting issued trial boots tomorrow.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (9 Oct 2013)

Picture please? Are they like the arid region boots I posted?


----------



## Dissident (9 Oct 2013)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Please ensure that not only a CF98 but a CF663 gets put in on this. Many times the 663 is forgotten but is vital in pointing to reasons as to how the accident happened to prevent it from happening in the future.



Roger. Already in motion.


----------



## Container (9 Oct 2013)

After two sessions of "up- he sees me- down" the toes were disgusting. Medium brown Kiwi polish is the closest to the right color I've found for anyone looking to have okay boots.


----------



## Wolf117 (9 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> Well finally got my brown boots, interestingly labelled temperate combat boots but I digress. So far the best part of the new boots will be getting issued trial boots tomorrow.



Are you trialing new boots for the LOTB program?  Can you post any photos of the new ones?


----------



## markppcli (9 Oct 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Picture please? Are they like the arid region boots I posted?



They are, from what I can tell, the exact same boot, labelled boot, combat, temperate. We start our trial tomorrow, I'll try and post pictures of the boots my company gets issued.


----------



## x_para76 (9 Oct 2013)

So is I confirmed are we going the way of the yanks and doing away with black boots? If so why?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Oct 2013)

Same boot, different label. Imagine that.


----------



## dale622 (10 Oct 2013)

yup... not surprised


----------



## Jungle (10 Oct 2013)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> So is I confirmed are we going the way of the yanks and doing away with black boots? If so why?



Yes, we are going the way of the "Yanks"  :  and of the Brits; this will prevent us having black boots for woodland and tan boots for arid regions.
The brown boot will be worn with both patterns.


----------



## Wolf117 (10 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> They are, from what I can tell, the exact same boot, labelled boot, combat, temperate. We start our trial tomorrow, I'll try and post pictures of the boots my company gets issued.



Does this mean that there is more than one kind of boot being tested?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (10 Oct 2013)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Does this mean that there is more than one kind of boot being tested?



Three boots are being tested.  If the user's trial indicates that all three are acceptable, then all three will be purchased, and soldiers will have the choice of which of the three that they wish to be issued.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Oct 2013)

Choice? What a strangely capitalist idea.

Please provide us with pictures if you get a chance!


----------



## Wolf117 (10 Oct 2013)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Three boots are being tested.  If the user's trial indicates that all three are acceptable, then all three will be purchased, and soldiers will have the choice of which of the three that they wish to be issued.



That's good to hear.  Can you say if the models being tested are a brown smooth letter surface that needs to be polished, like the current in service boots or if they are suede leather like the in service boots the USMC or US Army use?


----------



## Infanteer (10 Oct 2013)

Suede.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Oct 2013)

Same pattern as the brown and general purpose boots again, but brown suede?


----------



## markppcli (10 Oct 2013)

Not at all the same pattern, we got issued them today. From what DLR told us they sent out performance benchmarks, and let industry come up with the boots themselves. Hilariously, as part of the process was a finger-frig / window shop by soldiers, appearance was part of the process; thefore two of the boots have little aesthetic CF notes on them in an effort to stand out. One has the tri service batch embroidered on its tongue, the other has weird rubber mesh panels covering arid cadpat fabric and an arid patter tongue. Happily I was issue neither and got this instead.



 

 





So far their extremely comfortable and very light. Obviously not water proof, but being able to dry quickly is a nice trade off.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Oct 2013)

Thank you for the pics. They look very unorthodox indeed! Looks like they were influenced by Haix a bit.


----------



## Wolf117 (10 Oct 2013)

Very interesting indeed.  Glad they went with suede as it will be easier to find non-issue commercial boots for various purposes.  Although hopefully whatever is chosen is good enough to no longer NEED to buy non issue boots.

Can you grab some pics of the other models as well?

What are the insoles like?


----------



## PuckChaser (10 Oct 2013)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Although hopefully whatever is chosen is good enough to no longer NEED to buy non issue boots.



I think this is definitely what we need to strive for, however procurement holdups are probably going to make sure we're wearing 700 types of boots for the next 20 years.


----------



## markppcli (10 Oct 2013)

Well, from what was explained to us, if all three boots score above 60 on their trials, and are close to each other, we will be getting 3 different typesof boots into the system. The idea that we can have 3 types of combat boots inthe system and troops can choose is something the DLR guys we talked to were down with. 

To add to the boot pictures, all three are shorter then the standard boots we get. I'd guess about 6 inches, not quite a hiking boot but a step in the right direction for sure.


----------



## PMedMoe (10 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> To add to the boot pictures, all three are shorter then the standard boots we get. I'd guess about 6 inches



Which will look incredibly stupid with bloused pants.  IMO.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Oct 2013)

Funny, when I read the MERX requirements for the LOTB it said between 8 1/4 and 8 3/4 inch boots?

They look eerily familiar to Haix desert boots.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/HAIX-SUEDE-DESERT-BOOTS-SIZE-8-EXPERIMENTAL-BRITISH-ARMY-FANTASTIC-CON-/161095440185?pt=UK_Collectables_Militaria_LE&hash=item2582095739


----------



## x_para76 (10 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Which will look incredibly stupid with bloused pants.  IMO.



Just wear your pants bloused lower problem solved or do you prefer the Star Trek look?


----------



## markppcli (10 Oct 2013)

[quote author=incredibly stupid with bloused pants.  IMO.
[/quote]

I just bloused my pants lower...


St-Cyr, I have the Haix P9 deserts, these are shorter, and very very different. The haix are stiffer, taler, darker, and the eyelets are very different.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Which will look incredibly stupid with bloused pants.  IMO.



Lots of people have been wearing SWATS, Magnums, etc of the same height, with bloused pants, for quite some time. Myself included.

I have never had anyone say that it looks stupid.


----------



## x_para76 (10 Oct 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Lots of people have been wearing SWATS, Magnums, etc of the same height, with bloused pants, for quite some time. Myself included.
> 
> I have never had anyone say that it looks stupid.


IMHO I actually think it looks better with the pants worn bloused lower. Wearing the pants bloused super high takes me back to the old garrison dress which reminds me of the uniforms from Star Trek. I used to get shit constantly from the CSM in my reserve unit because he thought there was some dress reg in the CF that stated where and how your pants must be bloused in relation to your boots.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2013)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> IMHO I actually think it looks better with the pants worn bloused lower. Wearing the pants bloused super high takes me back to the old garrison dress which reminds me of the uniforms from Star Trek. I used to get shit constantly from the CSM in my reserve unit because he thought there was some dress reg in the CF that stated where and how your pants must be bloused in relation to your boots.



I get the impression, from most of your posts, that everything about the CF, in your opinion, is shit. 

You long for your halcyon days with the Brits.

I'm sure your opinion, and attitude, would be more welcome and appreciated over at ARRSE.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> [quote author=incredibly stupid with bloused pants.  IMO.
> 
> 
> I just bloused my pants lower...
> ...



Rock on man. Is the suede closer in colour to desert tan boots or coyote brown? Can you get a picture of the other models your company is trialing for comparison?


----------



## markppcli (10 Oct 2013)

THe light colour parts are spot on with between the too. I'd say hte tan is... paler I guess? The zip up boots with the CF Tri Service on them are a fair bit darker... much darker actually. I'll try and get a coupel pictures up next week. Interestingly, though no manufactuer is listed, I'm prettery convinced two of the boots are from the same company, the soles and insoles are exactly the same, as are the laces, eyelest, and the lacing system.


----------



## ballz (10 Oct 2013)

They're trialling zip-ups??? I don't trust any manufacturer enough to wear zippers, I definitely don't trust a manufacturer hired by DND to wear them.

Can't wait to see how many blown out zippers happen at the most crucial times...


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (10 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> THe light colour parts are spot on with between the too. I'd say hte tan is... paler I guess? The zip up boots with the CF Tri Service on them are a fair bit darker... much darker actually. I'll try and get a coupel pictures up next week. Interestingly, though no manufactuer is listed, I'm prettery convinced two of the boots are from the same company, the soles and insoles are exactly the same, as are the laces, eyelest, and the lacing system.



There's a zip up model? Wow, I really hope those don't make it through the trials. Every time I saw a poor guy think he's all leet wearing zipper boots you'd spot him 4 days into a 10 day FTX trying to figure out a way to fasten shut a destroyed zipper.


----------



## JorgSlice (10 Oct 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> There's a zip up model? Wow, I really hope those don't make it through the trials. Every time I saw a poor guy think he's all leet wearing zipper boots you'd spot him 4 days into a 10 day FTX trying to figure out a way to fasten shut a destroyed zipper.



Second this, 

If you're anything but a parking control officer or security guard doing minimal movement... Zippers are fine.

Start getting into Protective Services, Police, Military and you'll either be getting them repaired every 3-4 months or having to replace the boots entirely (repair sucks, boot doesn't fit the same causing friction).

That's just my experience though.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Oct 2013)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Just wear your pants bloused lower problem solved or do you prefer the Star Trek look?



Blousing.  I hate blousing.  I HAVE to blouse my pants all the time because it "looks more professional".  "Even in the field" say some units.  But the moment it starts to rain or gets cold I put on my wind pants and guess what, they don't get bloused.  

MP uniforms, not bloused.  Navy uniforms, not bloused. New ICU pants are not made to be bloused (I'm pretty sure judging by all the crap they've installed down there) but guess what, we're blousing them. 

Anyhow, I definitely enjoy how the boots look like the Haix boots I had purchased for me in 2007.. THAT ARE STILL GOING STRONG and I wear them as civvy boots all the time. Hiking, camping, walking around town.  They are tough.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Oct 2013)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Lots of people have been wearing SWATS, Magnums, etc of the same height, with bloused pants, for quite some time. Myself included.
> 
> I have never had anyone say that it looks stupid.



I said *IMO*.  Just me I guess.  My CO wears his bloused at his ankles.  It looks retarded.  *IMO*


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (11 Oct 2013)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> I said *IMO*.  Just me I guess.  My CO wears his bloused at his ankles.  It looks retarded.  *IMO*



I agree. Looks very sloppy indeed. I use trouser blousers to fasten my pant legs around my ankles and wear them inside my boots, but I digress.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2013)

Are we seriously blousing the pants that have pockets on the bottom of them and aren't designed to be bloused?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (11 Oct 2013)

The officer in my office uses the drawcord on his.  They don't hang down. They are "bloused".


----------



## MikeL (11 Oct 2013)

Why are some assuming the pants are not meant to be bloused?  In the power point of the ICU/ECU from awhile ago it showed the dummy with pants bloused. I don't have the ECU pants, but from what I can tell in the pictures in the ppt, the leg pocket is high enough on the leg that it won't interfere with blousing. Isn't the shock cord in the cuffs there for blousing anyways(eg for the people who are anti boot band/trouser blouser). Also, blousing has been the standard for garrison wear for the CADPAT combats, OG Combats, etc.


On a personal note, I don't understand why the hate towards blousing(in garrison). IMO it does look better/professional in garrison and from what I can tell, is the standard for many nations(ranging from NATO to African Union).


If the velcro and shock cord at the cuff of the pants is annoying/useless and gets in the way(of anything, not just blousing), etc submit a UCR.



I'm glad to see the boots seem to be going in the direction, and the colour and boots being suede will make it very easy to find boots that match(eg coyote SWATs, Rocky, etc).



			
				markppcli said:
			
		

> the other has weird rubber mesh panels covering arid cadpat fabric and an arid patter tongue.


That is a little weird and a bit of a throw back to those terrible looking CADPAT boots.



			
				markppcli said:
			
		

> I'm prettery convinced two of the boots are from the same company, the soles and insoles are exactly the same, as are the laces, eyelest, and the lacing system.


I believe two of the boots are from Kodiak and the third is from LP Royer(?). At least according to the merx/buyandsell pages posted a couple pages back.


----------



## dale622 (11 Oct 2013)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> Blousing.  I hate blousing.  I HAVE to blouse my pants all the time because it "looks more professional".  "Even in the field" say some units.  But the moment it starts to rain or gets cold I put on my wind pants and guess what, they don't get bloused.
> 
> MP uniforms, not bloused.  Navy uniforms, not bloused. New ICU pants are not made to be bloused (I'm pretty sure judging by all the crap they've installed down there) but guess what, we're blousing them.
> 
> Anyhow, I definitely enjoy how the boots look like the Haix boots I had purchased for me in 2007.. THAT ARE STILL GOING STRONG and I wear them as civvy boots all the time. Hiking, camping, walking around town.  They are tough.



That rant was longer than the time taken to blouse your pants....  :crybaby: this is what I see when someone moans about blousing.

I don't really give a crap left or right. In garrison the standard is to blouse pants. So be it and I enforce it. Once I pass range control the boot bands are gone. Not due to time saving or comfort or anything it's just what I do. 



			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Are we seriously blousing the pants that have pockets on the bottom of them and aren't designed to be bloused?



So the draw chords and velcro built in are just for nothing? I'm pretty sure it's pretty clear that it was added to negate the purpose of buying boot bands. They however created a shitty system and everyone still uses boot bands. The pockets are far enough above the ankle that if your pants fit right, the blousing won't effect them.


----------



## PMedMoe (11 Oct 2013)

bananaman said:
			
		

> if your pants fit right



In the CF?  You've got to be kidding....


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (11 Oct 2013)

Blousing in Garrison is fine and you are right it does look professional, as soon as you are past range control though, the boot bands should come off and the pants should come down, their is a reason we have sand traps in our pants.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2013)

-Skeletor- said:
			
		

> Why are some assuming the pants are not meant to be bloused?


They read the dress regs and didn't find blousing your boots in there  ;D



			
				bananaman said:
			
		

> So the draw chords and velcro built in are just for nothing?



So the pants were made long enough to be worn without having to blouse them but we should anyways?   We should just get issued shorter pants  :nod:


----------



## captloadie (11 Oct 2013)

I find it funny that even though trial has just commenced, the main concern from posters isn't their functionality or comfort, but whether the colour of the new boot is close enough to Swats, Magnums, etc. so they can go out and buy something other than what is issued. This either indicates that individuals are so jaded they believe no boot trialled will be good enough, or that individuals will bitch and complain about the issued boots regardless of how good they may in fact be.


----------



## MikeL (11 Oct 2013)

Speaking for myself,  if the new boots are comfortable, etc than great, I will wear them.  How ever,  if they don't work out, it's nice to know that there are boots on the market that match the colour and material. 




			
				ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> They read the dress regs and didn't find blousing your boots in there  ;D


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (11 Oct 2013)

Now that is a cute little kitten.


----------



## dale622 (12 Oct 2013)

So the pants were made long enough to be worn without having to blouse them but we should anyways?   We should just get issued shorter pants  :nod:
[/quote]

Well... they weren't meant to go around your knees or under the heel of you boot... So logic dictates that... (insert smart response). Maybe if troops can't figure it out we should start looking at our recruitment process.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Oct 2013)

captloadie said:
			
		

> I find it funny that even though trial has just commenced, the main concern from posters isn't their functionality or comfort, but whether the colour of the new boot is close enough to Swats, Magnums, etc. so they can go out and buy something other than what is issued. This either indicates that individuals are so jaded they believe no boot trialled will be good enough, or that individuals will ***** and complain about the issued boots regardless of how good they may in fact be.



There are those that will moan and complain " issue kit sucks" no matter what you give them.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2013)

bananaman said:
			
		

> So the pants were made long enough to be worn without having to blouse them but we should anyways?   We should just get issued shorter pants  :nod:
> 
> 
> Well... they weren't meant to go around your knees or under the heel of you boot... So logic dictates that... (insert smart response). Maybe if troops can't figure it out we should start looking at our recruitment process.



Have you looked at the Recruiting Forums lately?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (13 Oct 2013)

I can only see positive feedback for actual troops if the colours are easy to match with off the shelf boots. If self purchased boots improve my platoon's combat efficiency in any way... why the ruddy hell not?


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2013)

Some pictures of the new boots are up here: http://soldiersystems.net/2013/10/15/canadian-military-land-operations-temperate-boot/


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (15 Oct 2013)

Thanks for the link.  Anxious to hear from the people doing the trials. Those 2 first ones from the left look promising. Too bad that third one has the zipper.


----------



## Quirky (15 Oct 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Some pictures of the new boots are up here: http://soldiersystems.net/2013/10/15/canadian-military-land-operations-temperate-boot/



Those things will turn black after a few weeks on the flightline, like they did during OP MOBILE. http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=51688&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos


----------



## markppcli (15 Oct 2013)

So far I'm pretty positive on these as it stands.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2013)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Those things will turn black after a few weeks on the flightline, like they did during OP MOBILE. http://www.combatcamera.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?original=51688&site=combatcamera&catalog=photos



Where'd that dude get shorts?


----------



## x_para76 (15 Oct 2013)

I've seen pants issued in the CF that can be converted into shorts by zipping the bottoms off. I think they were specifically intended for just the CAF but a friend mine had them issued because due to his short stature it was the only thing that would fit him at the time.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2013)

I've received some info from reliable sources who were on the boot project. Oakley submitted a boot that scored the highest, but since it had no Canadian content it was discounted. The current trial boots are 6th, 7th and 8th place.

Only the best for our troops.  :facepalm:


----------



## JorgSlice (15 Oct 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I've received some info from reliable sources who were on the boot project. Oakley submitted a boot that scored the highest, but since it had no Canadian content it was discounted. The current trial boots are 6th, 7th and 8th place.
> 
> Only the best for our troops.  :facepalm:



LOL


----------



## x_para76 (15 Oct 2013)

Isn't that generally the standard with most issued kit? The best possible as long as it's submitted by the tender with the lowest bid.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2013)

It shouldn't be the standard. If we're paying $20 more per pair but it beat out every other boot design submitted (as well as meets/exceeds all requirements) then maybe thats what we should be buying. In fact, we don't even know whether the Oakley boot was more expensive. Perhaps it was cheaper but discounted strictly for Canadian content. Whats really telling, is that if Oakley submitted a design, then I bet Danner/Belleville/SWAT did as well, and all of those proven boot designs have been trashed.

If I can get on DWAN tomorrow, I'll check the CID and see if theres any documentation on the trial pairs.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Oct 2013)

Sorry gents.

Issuing high end boots from Oakley and Rocky that have been tested in war isn't as important as issuing untested boots that are made in Canada, ranked 8th place in the trial or not  :camo:


----------



## x_para76 (15 Oct 2013)

Maybe we can all take some solice in the fact that it's not only the CF that occasionally issues absolute rubbish. The main thing is that the powers that be acknowledge that it's rubbish and don't chastise the troops for going out and purchasing aftermarket kit that's far superior to it's issued counterpart.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Oct 2013)

I don't know what part of the CF you've seen, but the most I've seen for "acceptable aftermarket kit" is boots because there's none in the system. Allowing stuff like chest rigs/pistol holsters/boots is the exception not the rule, and its going to take a major culture change to make that stuff acceptable.


----------



## daftandbarmy (15 Oct 2013)

X_para76 said:
			
		

> Isn't that generally the standard with most issued kit? The best possible as long as it's submitted by the tender with the lowest bid.




Seven Reasons Competitive Tendering Fails (And What You Can Do About It) 

    
Competitive tendering (bidding) is a widely used procurement method within government agencies and private sector organisations. The idea behind competitive tendering is that it forces suppliers to compete and (so the theory goes) consequently the purchaser and taxpayer will gain better “value for money”. In reality this rarely occurs, writes contributor Murray B. Stanley. Here’s why.

Competitive tendering involves a purchasing organization advertising its interest to acquire services or supplies and requests tenders to respond and to compete for the opportunity to win the business. In some countries the tendering/bidding process is mandatorily used in some government organizations for purchases over predetermined dollar values.

Dr. Deming wrote many important sections on customer - supplier relationships. Most relevant to this column is Deming’s comment in The New Economics that states, “The idea of several suppliers for any one item, competing with each other for lower prices (as advocated by some authors), makes good talk, but as a practical matter it is only talk, even under long term contracts. It destroys any possibility of a good relationship between customer and supplier. The losses would be one of those unknowable figures”. Although “unknowable,” Dr. Deming did indicate where such losses are likely to be incurred. One example would be that competitive tendering tends to erode trust, and without trust suppliers and purchasers are much less likely to collaborate on continually improving a product or service –and continually reducing its cost.

Another important aspect of hard-to-quantify losses is described by Mary Walton in the Deming Management Method, “Financial people like to have several vendors pit against each other to drive down price. This practice, Dr. Deming says, with no regard to quality and service, can actually drive good vendors and good service out of business.” How does one measure such a loss to society? Again, as Deming might say, “Unknown and unknowable” –but real and costly. 

The Advantages of Competitive Tendering

Competitive tendering is often considered to promote competition, provide transparency and give all suppliers the opportunity to win business. It may be that price tags are driven down –but as Dr. Deming would ask, “At what cost?” People and companies will meet the lower price requirement, but if they are not using the Deming System for Managing to do so, they will have to cut corners. Cutting corners eventually results in more losses.

The Disadvantages of Competitive Tendering

Disadvantage #1: Leading suppliers may not tender

In Australia, for example, government procurement guidelines only allow suppliers who actually tender to be considered for a procurement decision. If the leading supplier or suppliers do not tender, the purchaser can only consider bids from suppliers who do tender. If leading suppliers are not considered, the purchaser may end up buying inferior product or service. An example is reported in this news link  in which a key, potential supplier decided not to tender a bid because of the costs and the terms/conditions for the contract were onerous.

Disadvantage #2: Barriers to communication between supplier and customers

When making significant purchases, frank and open communication between potential supplier and customer is crucial. Competitive tendering is not conducive to open communication; in fact, it often discourages deep dialogue because in many cases all discussions between a bidder and the purchaser must be made available to all other bidders. Hence, Bidder A may avoid asking certain questions because the questions or answers may help other bidders by revealing Bidder A’s approaches, features, and the like.

Disadvantage #3: The cost-plus phenomenon

Dr. Deming writes in Out of the Crisis, “There is a bear-trap in the purchase of goods and services on the basis of price tag that people don’t talk about.

To run the game of cost plus in industry a supplier offers a bid so low that he is almost sure to get the business. He gets it. The customer discovers that an engineering change is vital. The supplier is extremely obliging, but discovers that this change will double the cost of the items……the vendor comes out ahead.”

Disadvantage #4: Use of cheaper, poor quality materials and/or labor

A supplier forced to play the competitive tendering game may come under pressure to keep costs down to ensure he gets a satisfactory profit margin. One way a supplier can lower costs is by using cheaper labor and/or materials. If the cheaper labor and materials are poor quality, the procurer will often end up with inferior, poor quality product or service. Warranty and other claims may result –raising the price of the true, overall cost.

Disadvantage #5: Safety shortcuts

Another area where suppliers may be tempted to lower costs is safety standards. An example is reported in this news link. In this case sub-contractors seemed to be cutting corners and creating safety risks. As a result the buyer was urged by the union to put in checks and balances in the tendering process. Such checks and balances a) miss Deming’s points about the flaws in competitive tendering, b) create financial costs, time delays, and c) make it more likely for disagreements about terms to occur, perhaps leading to litigation.

Disadvantage # 6: Competitive tendering can be extremely slow

When government agencies, and indeed, private companies use competitive tendering it can take several years to choose a successful bidder. The result is the customer can wait incredibly long periods for product or service that may be required quickly. A situation that compounds the problem of lengthy time frames of competitive tendering is when a selected supplier is unable to meet the requirement that he has contracted for. To the procurer’s frustration, the lengthy competitive tendering process may have to begin again. As such, it is rework caused by competitive tendering itself.

Disadvantage #7: Insufficient profit margin to allow for investment in research and development, new technology or equipment

Competitive tendering can force a supplier to accept a very slim profit margin. These low margins can result in a supplier having little or no money to spend on research and development, new technology and equipment. The result – society gets a lower price tag today, but society loses out tomorrow and well into the future.



Who gets the blame when competitive tendering produces bad results?

When the results of competitive tendering are bad for the purchaser, a scapegoat is often found. Someone will claim that the “Statement of Requirements” was written poorly. The “Statement of Requirements” is the document that defines the product or service that is being put to tender. The claimant may argue that critical information was omitted or that the requirements were poorly worded.

This scapegoating generally shows a misunderstanding of several crucial points. For example, Dr Deming stated in The New Economics that “Any supplier worthy of consideration possesses specialised knowledge about his products – more than the customer can hope to have, even though the customer will be the user of the supplier’s product”. As it is the purchaser who writes the “Statement of Requirements” (often without the input of potential suppliers); it shouldn’t be a surprise that these requirements are not written as well as they could be. Crucial communication between supplier and purchaser is already stifled or prevented as part of the competitive tendering process.

A better procurement model

The type of solution to competitive tendering may vary depending on the type of industry, the complexity of the product, the price of the purchase, whether the purchase is a one-off or a long-term supply relationship. The following key principles however, can apply to the majority of procurement decisions:
•Thorough research of the purchasing requirement and/or alternatives.
•Open communication with current or potential suppliers.
•Purchasing decisions based on a strong relationship of trust.
•Developing a long-term and healthy relationship with a reputable supplier or suppliers.
•Paying the supplier a fair profit margin.

Potential barriers to implementation of the improved procurement model

In government organizations, procurement methods are influenced by politicians. For a politician, transparency is incredibly important. If a procurement process produces a poor result, a politician can say “the organization conducted a thorough and transparent procurement process. All suppliers that tendered were carefully considered.” The proposed solution outlined above may not have the same level of transparency as competitive tendering. Of course, there have been cases in which there was a too cozy relationship between the purchaser and the supplier, resulting in bad outcomes and costs. Nevertheless, as Dr. Deming remarked, “Do we like the way the government spends money? Consider that the government got into this mess by buying on lowest price tag. Looking at the evidence, can anyone seriously argue that doing so makes sense?”

Conclusion

This article recommends that competitive tendering be abolished. Where possible; long term, mutually beneficial relationships should be developed with trusted and reputable suppliers. Selection of these suppliers should be based on thorough research. Once selected, these suppliers should be paid a fair profit margin for the quality product or service they provide.



Author's note: This PEX Network column was based on a longer research paper. If you wish to receive a copy of the complete research paper presented at the 17th Annual International Deming Research Seminar at Fordham University and a visual presentation, e-mail the author at: murraybstanley@hotmail.com

Editor’s Note: The columns published in THE DEMING FILES have been written under the Editorial Guidelines set by The W. Edwards Deming Institute.? The Institute views these columns as opportunities to enhance, extend, and illustrate Dr. Deming’s theories. The authors have knowledge of Dr. Deming’s body of work, and the content of each column is the expression of each author’s interpretation of the subject matter.

References

Deming, W.E. (1982). Out of the Crisis., MIT Press.

Deming, W.E. (1994). The New Economics for Industry, Government, Education, 2nd Ed., Cambridge: M.I.T. Center for Advanced Engineering Study.

Walton, Mary. (1986). The Deming Management Method, Perigree books.

Copyright 2011 Murray B. Stanley

http://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/organizational-strategies-for-innovation-continuou/columns/seven-reasons-competitive-tendering-fails-and-what/


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Oct 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Where'd that dude get shorts?



Issued kit for the 500 series folks in the RCAF.  Jacket/zip-leg pant set IIRC.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Oct 2013)

There are ways to address most of Deming's concerns and still maintain an open and transparent system.  While it's not perfect (look, for example, at Montreal's experience in construction) it's preferable to blatant behind-the-scenes manipulation.

For example, Deming points out that vendors may not bid because they don't like your terms.  Well, that's a feature, not a bug.  Do you really want a supplier who can't deliver according to your timeline, or who won't give you the warranty you want?

Suppliers jacking up prices on change requests are due to poorly defined requirements.  That's not a tendering problem - that's a definition problem.

No system is perfect.  Government acquisition is public and open, so errors and mistakes are very plainly visible.  Things done without that level of transparency suffer from a similar level of problems and failure; they're just kept out of the public eye.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2013)

How much do we (cf)  currently pay for a pair of combat boots?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (17 Oct 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> How much do we (cf)  currently pay for a pair of combat boots?



200$ give or take.


----------



## Sadukar09 (17 Oct 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> 200$ give or take.



Imagine what we can do with $200 allowance per year on boots.


----------



## Bzzliteyr (17 Oct 2013)

Sadukar09 said:
			
		

> Imagine what we can do with $200 allowance per year on boots.



I think you meant to say with a $400 per soldier allowance, not per year. You think you need a new set of boots yearly?


----------



## Matt_Fisher (17 Oct 2013)

A boot allowance should be based on the expected service life of issued footwear and the replacement cost of that footwear.

If the boot is designed to last 2 years and costs the crown $165, then the boot allowance would be $165 every 2 years.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (17 Oct 2013)

Bzzliteyr said:
			
		

> I think you meant to say with a $400 per soldier allowance, not per year. You think you need a new set of boots yearly?



Well from what I've been reading about the Boots, Combat, Arid Regions, people have been needing up to three pairs a year.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2013)

Oakley treats soldiers pretty well. 

Under their forces appreciation program a cf member can get a pair of new SI all weather boots that retails at $280 for $196.


----------



## markppcli (21 Oct 2013)

Right, so I'm back in Edmonton now for a couple days (medical appointment) and wore the boots for part of our dismounted phase on Patricia Outrider. Two of us in my platoon were issued the boots I have, and both have blown out already. For the other guys it was after 2 days of advance party, so setting up our biv, and for myself it was after a relatively short fighting patrol. On his the nylon / canvas mesh on the sidw of the boot ripped just at the bottom of the lower panel, close to where the boot meets the sole. On mine it ripped where it connects to the leather that runs up the back of the boot. I say ripped because it's not the stitching that has come out, rather the actual material of the boot has ripped open. In addition, while I can't speak to his experiences, my boots felt like they stretched during the patrol, and by the end of it I found the support of the boot utterly lacking. Haix from here out. So far the only boot that's getting positive responses is the side zip model. Although I suspect the comments attached to it will be " great boot, ditch the logo and the zipper"


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (21 Oct 2013)

Disappointed but not surprised! Thanks Mark.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> Right, so I'm back in Edmonton now for a couple days (medical appointment) and wore the boots for part of our dismounted phase on Patricia Outrider. Two of us in my platoon were issued the boots I have, and both have blown out already. For the other guys it was after 2 days of advance party, so setting up our biv, and for myself it was after a relatively short fighting patrol. On his the nylon / canvas mesh on the dis of the boot ripped just at the bottom of the lower panel, close to where the boot meets the sole. On mine it ripped where it connects to the leather that runs up the back of the boot. I saw ripped because it's not the stitching that's come out, rather the actual material of the boot has ripped open. In addition, while I can't speak to his experiences, my boots felt like they stretched during the patrol, and by the end of it I found the support of the boot utterly lacking. Haix from here out. So far the only boot that's getting positive responses is the side zip model. Although I suspect the comments attached to it will be " great boot, ditch the logo and the zipper"



Want to bet they'll tell you that you wore them incorrectly?

Meanwhile, my Mk IIIs are entering their third decade, and I still have a brand new pair lurking in the closet that I haven't broken in yet.


----------



## markppcli (22 Oct 2013)

Well the guys from DLR that briefed us on them said "wear them as you wear your boots" so here's hoping common sense prevails...


----------



## Bzzliteyr (22 Oct 2013)

I like how you mentioned Haix.  Are they one of the three types?  I love my Haix that the army bought me in 07...still going strong!


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Oct 2013)

So do you think it is worth telling the troops they have to have a two pair of those issue brown boots, but they may wear purchased boots that match the colour?

Or should I wait a bit. Not being a boot guy (Danners are great) what brands should we be looking at?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (22 Oct 2013)

I'm telling you, Haix are awesome but expensive.. well worth it.

http://www.haix.com/us/products/military/haix-airpower-p91-desert?ca=1&


----------



## markppcli (22 Oct 2013)

No Haix aren't being tested. I was trying to say I'll be wearing my own boots from here out.


----------



## lawandorder (22 Oct 2013)

Very interested to see the results of the trials and can't wait for the roll out.  There seems to be a shortage of boots.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> No Haix aren't being tested. I was trying to say I'll be wearing my own boots from here out.



What does the CoC have to say about that?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> What does the CoC have to say about that?



Mine says once a winner is picked it/they will be produced in black and there will be no non issued boots.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (22 Oct 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Mine says once a winner is picked it/they will be produced in black and there will be no non issued boots.



That is the actual policy and people still do what they want. I don't see that changing just because we have 2 black boots to choose from.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> Well the guys from DLR that briefed us on them said "wear them as you wear your boots" so here's hoping common sense prevails...



Rose = common sense    ;D


----------



## markppcli (22 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> What does the CoC have to say about that?



I believe 1 CMBG's policy on boots has been posted, from the proverbial horses mouth, on this thread already. To summerize, they couldn't care less, and they certainly aren't going to force me to wear broken boots on ex and risk an injury.


----------



## markppcli (22 Oct 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> Mine says once a winner is picked it/they will be produced in black and there will be no non issued boots.



Sorry I hate to double post, but that is in direct contravention to what DLR briefed us on. They stated, emphatically, that the army is now trying to get out of the business of designing it's own boots. They will not be redesigning the boots once they are selected.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Oct 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> I believe 1 CMBG's policy on boots has been posted, from the proverbial horses mouth, on this thread already. To summerize, they couldn't care less, and they certainly aren't going to force me to wear broken boots on ex and risk an injury.



Thank you.  Now if the rest of the Army will go along.....


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Oct 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Thank you.  Now if the rest of the Army will go along.....



Just need the Army SM to stand up and set a policy, or the Army Council, and then enforce it when they hear of contradictory unit-level policies.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Oct 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> That is the actual policy and people still do what they want. I don't see that changing just because we have 2 black boots to choose from.


I think  some bases and places of work currently have policies in place that allow members to wear "black books, 8 inche-style in height" but after the new boots are out there will be a CF wide directive that members will be required to wear them and only them, if anything than to simply "support" the project.



			
				markppcli said:
			
		

> Sorry I hate to double post, but that is in direct contravention to what DLR briefed us on. They stated, emphatically, that the army is now trying to get out of the business of designing it's own boots. They will not be redesigning the boots once they are selected.



No worries. I'm just throwing out what was passed on to me from my bde O-group.


----------



## DirtyDog (22 Oct 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> .... there will be a CF wide directive that members will be required to wear them and only them, if anything than to simply "support" the project.


Cool.  I have always felt a little inadequate when I hear that every NCO worth his salt has had to have been charged _at least _ once in their career.


----------



## DirtyDog (29 Oct 2013)

Some info here:

http://soldiersystems.net/2013/10/15/canadian-military-land-operations-temperate-boot/


----------



## armyvern (31 Oct 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> Cool.  I have always felt a little inadequate when I hear that every NCO worth his salt has had to have been charged _at least _ once in their career.



So someone for whom issued boots work perfectly fine isn't "an NCO worth their salt"??

This boot thread is akin to this.

*Some* CF boots work perfectly fine for _some_ CF members;
*Some* Danners work perfectly fine for _some_ CF members;
*Some* Oakleys work perfectly fine for _some_ CF members;
*Some* other purchased boots work fine for_ some_ CF members.

What's the common theme in all of that?  That *any type* of boot will only work for _*some*_ people.

I have purchased all manner of LPOd footwear for people and have had all manner of it returned because it didn't work for someone.

The only thing that will work would be a boot allowance that lets people find a manufacturer and make that works for them; the kicker is how many pairs would we pay for before they find the make/model that does work right for the individual??  I assure you that just because it's from a civvie company does not equal = a working boot for so & so who buys it.

We will NEVER get a boot allowance (the bit that never ends) ... the CAF has tried to get this and has been snuggley booted back into our place by PWGSC/TB.  It's political and always will be.  Too much money and too many jobs are on the line.  If the CoC allowed the entire CF to wear their own LPOd footwear and just continued paying the contract despite no one being issued theCF boots --- we'd eventually not need any boots provided by the manufacturer because our shelves would be overflowing.  We could then still continue to pay the manufacturer (99.99% guaranteed to be located in la belle province  ), but the manufacturer would still take the money but lay off their employees ('cause they do not need employees to make boots that aren't being supplied) and then 2 federal departments would be paying those pers (employees collecting pogie and while the CF still pays the contractor).  Politics is grand.

Like it or not, the votes of those laid off and their families and communities far out-number the amount of CAF members who need a boot allowance.  Guess what the politicians are going to do?


----------



## Wolf117 (1 Nov 2013)

It is too bad, from my perspective, that politics has such an effect on the gear I am expected to operate in combat with.  I would love to see a company like Rocky come in and take over from whatever Canadian firms are currently supplying us.

I got to see two of the variants being trialed while I was at clothing stores today.  Although DND isn't going to be dictating design changes to the bidders, I really hope that the companies at least take input from the soldiers currently evaluating them.  I like the look of the brown one from L.P. Royer but I would definetly lose the zipper feature.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Nov 2013)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> It is too bad, from my perspective, that politics has such an effect on the gear I am expected to operate in combat with.



Have you read the book "Vimy"?

We had the same issues 100 years ago. The Ross rifle is a prime example of politics interfering in military procurement.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Nov 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Have you read the book "Vimy"?
> 
> We had the same issues 100 years ago. The Ross rifle is a prime example of politics interfering in military procurement.



Not like the entire Quebec textile industry and the (French) Canadian space program, though, right?  ;D


----------



## MilEME09 (2 Nov 2013)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Have you read the book "Vimy"?
> 
> We had the same issues 100 years ago. The Ross rifle is a prime example of politics interfering in military procurement.



To be fair, it was a good rifle, just not in the role the it was pushed into due to said political interfering. That said I'm sure we can all remember the procurement of the LSVW and how politics came into that one pretty hard. Though as long as we have procurement politics will try to mess things up


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (8 Nov 2013)

Is the trial over?


----------



## DirtyDog (10 Nov 2013)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> So someone for whom issued boots work perfectly fine isn't "an NCO worth their salt"??


I was being facetious.  What I was saying was that _I_ could finally become a worthy NCO by having a charge on my pers file.



			
				ArmyVern said:
			
		

> It's political and always will be.  Too much money and too many jobs are on the line.  If the CoC allowed the entire CF to wear their own LPOd footwear and just continued paying the contract despite no one being issued theCF boots --- we'd eventually not need any boots provided by the manufacturer because our shelves would be overflowing.  We could then still continue to pay the manufacturer (99.99% guaranteed to be located in la belle province  ), but the manufacturer would still take the money but lay off their employees ('cause they do not need employees to make boots that aren't being supplied) and then 2 federal departments would be paying those pers (employees collecting pogie and while the CF still pays the contractor).  Politics is grand.
> 
> Like it or not, the votes of those laid off and their families and communities far out-number the amount of CAF members who need a boot allowance.  Guess what the politicians are going to do?


Although I believe politics do play a part, I think that it's a little grandiose to equate the CAF's boot contracts to votes.  That's a serious stretch.

First of all, exactly how many jobs in Quebec could be directly attributed to CAF boot production?  

Secondly of those, how many would translate the loss of that contract, or possibly jobs, to influencing their vote in any way?


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Nov 2013)

DirtyDog said:
			
		

> I was being facetious.  What I was saying was that _I_ could finally become a worthy NCO by having a charge on my pers file.
> Although I believe politics do play a part, I think that it's a little grandiose to equate the CAF's boot contracts to votes.  That's a serious stretch.
> 
> First of all, exactly how many jobs in Quebec could be directly attributed to CAF boot production?
> ...



If one Quebcer loses a job over a DND contract you know what will happen - a big crapstorm in PQ. 

I lived in Calgary when the CF 18 Maintenance contract was awarded to Bristol in Winnipeg. It was taken by Mulroney and given to a Quebec company. 

Quantifiers aren't needed here.  We know what Quebec will say.


----------



## markppcli (11 Nov 2013)

Mr. St-Cyr said:
			
		

> Is the trial over?



It's a 45 day trial, so it will be shortly, how 45 days is supposed to test a boot you'll wear for a year is beyond me but I bow to the wisdom of DND. Frankly, in this Cpl's opinion, they need to drop the "easy to break in" quantifier. The simpliest, easiest, and cheapest way to accomplish that is to make a boot flimsy, and in a competition where money talks, that's what you're going to get.


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Nov 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> It's a 45 day trial, so it will be shortly, how 45 days is supposed to test a boot you'll wear for a year is beyond me but I bow to the wisdom of DND. Frankly, in this Cpl's opinion, they need to drop the "easy to break in" quantifier. The simpliest, easiest, and cheapest way to accomplish that is to make a boot flimsy, and in a competition where money talks, that's what you're going to get.



Bow to the wisdom of DND -  :facepalm:  

Some boots are easy to break in, but will last as well. Good post.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (21 Nov 2013)

markppcli said:
			
		

> It's a 45 day trial, so it will be shortly, how 45 days is supposed to test a boot you'll wear for a year is beyond me but I bow to the wisdom of DND. Frankly, in this Cpl's opinion, they need to drop the "easy to break in" quantifier. The simpliest, easiest, and cheapest way to accomplish that is to make a boot flimsy, and in a competition where money talks, that's what you're going to get.



I have to agree with you on all counts. I rather wait longer and get a decent boot than be issued these running shoes that appear to fall apart just by looking at them.

I have had the arid region boots since July and they are holding up well. They survived a DP1 infantry course in which I did not spare any ruck marches (had to test the boots) or combat patrols. The worst punishment they received was an FTX in Thetford Mines in an abandoned asbestos mine near Black Lake. I washed the asbestos residue / clay off with water and applied a layer of Altberg brown Leder Gris and they have since been revived:


----------



## lawandorder (21 Nov 2013)

Mr St-Cyr those look like the Maxi Brown boot not the arid region boots, but if you liked them right on.  I can't get a pair sized properly here so I haven't had a chance to wear the .  My only issue, and it is minor, is the colour.  Not a fan of the shade of brown.  

And you're right hopefully the next boot issued will  be good to go for most and we can give one last kick to that dead horse.


----------



## dimsum (21 Nov 2013)

Bit of a tangent, but does anyone else think it's not the best idea to go traipsing around abandoned asbestos mines (or asbestos anything) ???


----------



## Wolf117 (21 Nov 2013)

So I heard the latest round of trials failed all three boot types, anyone heard this as well?


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (22 Nov 2013)

Law & Order said:
			
		

> Mr St-Cyr those look like the Maxi Brown boot not the arid region boots, but if you liked them right on.  I can't get a pair sized properly here so I haven't had a chance to wear the .  My only issue, and it is minor, is the colour.  Not a fan of the shade of brown.



These are the arid region boots. I believe the ''maxi brown boot'' is just another name for the same boot. I like them better than the GPB for sure. Very comfortable when they are broken in.





Here they are blending into Canada's arid climate:





However, there is another totally different boot with holes on the sides called ''hot weather brown'' that you may have been referring to:


----------



## lawandorder (22 Nov 2013)

Glad to hear they are comfortable.  I think I'm wait listed #250 for my size at clothing stores.  
And you're right, they blend in great!  :camo:


----------



## DirtyDog (24 Nov 2013)

Making the rounds on social media:

http://m.vice.com/en_ca/read/the-candian-forces-still-cant-buy-combat-boots




> _The Canadian Forces Still Can't Buy Decent Combat Boots
> 
> By Ben Makuch
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Nov 2013)

IMO the last line is a nice summary.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (23 Dec 2013)

What about the trial?  :christmas happy:


----------



## Wolf117 (25 Dec 2013)

I heard all three versions were rejected.  But that's unconfirmed.


----------



## Mr. St-Cyr (25 Dec 2013)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> I heard all three versions were rejected.  But that's unconfirmed.



Well... I never.


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Dec 2013)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> I heard all three versions were rejected.  But that's unconfirmed.



Crappy duty boots built by companies who make cowboy boots rejected? Say it ain't so. What else did the project think was gonna happen?  :facepalm:


----------



## dale622 (25 Dec 2013)

It's kind of an angering subject with me that we can't even give our troops the BASIC kit to complete a task. They say an army marches on it's stomach... very true. However full stomachs can't march far without any footwear. I hope the CF is ready to start processing claims on boots as footwear becomes more and more of a scarcity at base clothing. I know I can't get footwear on base anymore and I am constantly in the field or otherwise tasked. So since the CF can't seem to get it's s**t together is there any way I can stop buying SWATS which for me only last 6-10 months and just hand in a receipt from Danner? That way I can have some boots for cold weather too as supply is throwing out mukluks without anything to replace them. At least a set of Danner boots will last me longer than 6-10 months. Might even last long enough to see a new issued boot be approved. I'm guessing 2-3 years.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Dec 2013)

Good question.  I have one pair of issued boots, clothing couldn't replace the pair I turned in for exchange and gave me a 4-5 month+ waiting period for the new boots. Does that mean.....they'll pay for civi boots while I wait ?  :warstory:


----------



## Journeyman (25 Dec 2013)

ObedientiaZelum said:
			
		

> .....they'll pay for civi boots while I wait ?


Just show up with flip-flops or Uggs. The RSM will understand.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Dec 2013)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Just show up with flip-flops or Uggs. The RSM will understand.



Oh yes he will for sure!  >


----------



## Armymedic (3 Jan 2014)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Just show up with flip-flops or Uggs. The RSM will understand.



Uggs sound like a plan. Do they have to be black?

Does Ugg make boots for men?


----------



## dapaterson (3 Jan 2014)

Rider Pride said:
			
		

> Uggs sound like a plan. Do they have to be black?
> 
> Does Ugg make boots for men?



http://www.uggaustralia.com/men/

ANd, just to make the RSM smile, why not try these?

http://www.uggaustralia.com/men-flip-flops/hegger/1002246.html?dwvar_1002246_color=BLK#start=2&cgid=men-flip-flops


----------



## Wolf117 (11 Jan 2014)

Still unable to get combat boots issued to me.  Not any sizes even close to what I wear in stock and this has been going on for six months now.  I am unsure what to do as my current boots are about ready to fall apart.  I am using gorilla glue and other adhesives to ensure that the sole doesn't peel off further.

Does anyone know what the CoC expects us to do?  I am unable and unwilling to fund my own pair out of pocket.  But at this point I'm almost unable to have footwear to show up to work with...


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Jan 2014)

Maybe its time to get the Ombudsman involved? I'm sure another investigation into defense procurement wouldn't look great.

Perhaps you should go to clothing stores, ask to have boots LPO'd since the system cannot provide, and when they say no, file a redress of grievance. Start raising flags up the CoC, and pull some of the ostrich heads out of the sand.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (11 Jan 2014)

My concern is why is it that the lower levels (Jr ranks) are  the one raising flags? Where is the senior leadership? And what happened to simply taking care of our troop?


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jan 2014)

A troop being put on listening watch while the remainder of the organization meanders down a "they'll get here when they get here" path is unacceptable.  Somewhere out there, if the back log is as it is said, and the troop's boots are as bad as they sound, a CO should be authorizing a LPO for boots...


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Jan 2014)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Still unable to get combat boots issued to me.  Not any sizes even close to what I wear in stock and this has been going on for six months now.  I am unsure what to do as my current boots are about ready to fall apart.  I am using gorilla glue and other adhesives to ensure that the sole doesn't peel off further.
> 
> Does anyone know what the CoC expects us to do?  I am unable and unwilling to fund my own pair out of pocket.  But at this point I'm almost unable to have footwear to show up to work with...



We should set up an Army.ca 'Gear Swap' site, like MEC, where you could post 'combat boots' under the 'gear wanted' page.  :nod:


----------



## blacktriangle (11 Jan 2014)

We need Popurhedoff to start an "OP Walking Tall" CAF edition... I'll try to canvass the Americans I know and see if they will donate some boots our way. 
Ok...in all seriousness... 

*Senior Officers/Bureaucrats please do something about this issue* ...and would someone with some pull or supply knowledge from this site please help Wolf117 get some boots? 

The whole issue is pathetic. Fix it!


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jan 2014)

I'm looking forward to being told we're not allowed to wear our civilian boots because the CF is issuing these great new brown ones and that's what we'll use  :nod:


----------



## Wolf117 (12 Jan 2014)

What is an LPO?


----------



## Bzzliteyr (12 Jan 2014)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> What is an LPO?



Local Purchase Order


----------



## Wolf117 (12 Jan 2014)

Okay and would I just make a request in the form of a memo up my chain or simply verbally relay the difficulties again to the CoC to try and get an LPO started?  I'm not the only soldier this is affecting so I assume an LPO would cover anyone in my unit who is in a similar situation.


----------



## CombatDoc (12 Jan 2014)

Wolf117 said:
			
		

> Okay and would I just make a request in the form of a memo up my chain or simply verbally relay the difficulties again to the CoC to try and get an LPO started?  I'm not the only soldier this is affecting so I assume an LPO would cover anyone in my unit who is in a similar situation.


The first step would be to discuss your concerns with I/C Clothing Stores. Request that they authorize local purchase of combat boots for you, given the system's inability to supply. 

If that gets no joy, write a memo to your COC explaining your inability to obtain adequate issued footwear and requesting their assistance (point out that it is a larger concern than just you).


----------



## Wolf117 (12 Jan 2014)

That sounds good, but would I just walk over to the clothing stores and ask to speak to their "I/C"?  Is that like the Sgt in charge of the tables for that day?  Or is it a more permanent position somewhere in the back.  I don't know how they structure themselves over there and every time I've asked for reimbursement for purchased boots over there they (the Cpl at the counter) just tells me the authority for such a decision is in Ottawa and that they continually deny such requests.

So who do I seek out over there?


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jan 2014)

Going on you own and asking to see the IC might get you in hot water. Clothing has sent a few nasty grams to members chains of command for bugging them or asking for stuff they weren't entitled to. (Why would a sig op attached to an infantry battalion need a shelter-half...)

I would suggest going to the counter and quickly explaining to the Pte/Cpl working there that you're intending to staff a memo to your chain of command regarding your issue with boots and you just want to know who you should put in the memo as a point of contact from clothing stores.  You can bring it up in conversation like "Do YOU know if there's anything I could do, do you think your boss might know? I just don't want to waste your time".   

That way you may get an answer or some direction but also you'll be covering your ass since technically you were there looking for a point of contact in order to put a memo up your chain of command.

I'd still put a memo up and get the CoC involved.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2014)

I'd consider mentioning what you're doing to your 2ic maybe as well.   :2c:

He/she might even help you.


----------



## dangerboy (12 Jan 2014)

What has been said above, don't go on your own to clothing stores.  I recommend talking to your Pl 2IC and have him through your CQ talk to the RQ.  Your RQ being a supply tech will know who to talk to base side and all the regulations involving issuing boots.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2014)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> What has been said above, don't go on your own to clothing stores.  I recommend talking to your Pl 2IC and have him through your CQ talk to the RQ.  Your RQ being a supply tech will know who to talk to base side and all the regulations involving issuing boots.



Good advice. 

IIRC there is a CANFORGEN forbidding COs from buying operational kit. I do not know if this includes boots, but the CO may be precluded from authorizing the purchase of footwear.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Jan 2014)

Its probably base side that should be LPOing those boots, not individual units.

I don't remember seeing boots specifically on that CANFORGEN, but would be worth looking up on Monday.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2014)

I've been using LPOd boots since about 2003 for my orthotics and it has always been a Base lvl procurement/issue.  

Likely detailed in the CFSM.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2014)

I will post up the CFSM ref tomorrow;  a CO has no authority to authorize an LPO for footwear (or any other thing that is system-issued - CANFORGEN a couple years ago on that), but footwear is, and always has been covered in the CFSM - therefore no CO authority is required in the first place.

If it is a sizing issue, Base Supply is _obligated_ to provide to member via custom or LPO.  

They are also obligated to ensure that personnel are provided with footwear by CFSM.  When I was the Sgt IC Clothing Stores, that is exactly the ref that I utilized to LPO footwear for individuals when stockouts occurred and when sizing was an issue.  

"LPO authorized as per CFSM yada yada. National stockout of required size".  They shouldn't need a friggin' CO to "authorize" because they are failing to apply the CFSM.  Are they paranoid these days? Perhaps, but the damn official ref backs them up.  I can tell you what I'd be doing if I were still employed in that world, "Here's the ref, LPO the man some damn footwear already".  :


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Jan 2014)

ArmyVern said:
			
		

> I will post up the CFSM ref tomorrow;  a CO has no authority to authorize an LPO for footwear (or any other thing that is system-issued - CANFORGEN a couple years ago on that), but footwear is, and always has been covered in the CFSM - therefore no CO authority is required in the first place.
> 
> If it is a sizing issue, Base Supply is _obligated_ to provide to member via custom or LPO.
> 
> ...



Thank you Vern.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jan 2014)

To be more specific about language, it's a CANLANDGEN/CANARMYGEN and, if I recall correctly, it prohibits the use by COs of O&M funds (L101) for the purchase of operational clothing and equipment.  The reason is two-fold - first the CFSM has policies in place to expend the right type of funds to provide footwear and secondly it prevents units from doing what DLR is supposed to do.


----------



## armyvern (12 Jan 2014)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> To be more specific about language, it's a CANLANDGEN/CANARMYGEN and, if I recall correctly, it prohibits the use by COs of O&M funds (L101) for the purchase of operational clothing and equipment.  The reason is two-fold - first the CFSM has policies in place to expend the right type of funds to provide footwear and secondly it prevents units from doing what DLR is supposed to do.



I believe the CANLANDGEN simply re-inforced the earlier published CANFORGEN (most offenders seemed to be Army COs [Commandants at Schools  ] at the time, offending after the CANFORGEN had already been published).  I'll dig for all the refs tomorrow and paste 'em up.

And, seriously, is the winter footwear now an issue as well?


----------



## armyvern (15 Jan 2014)

Sorry for my tardy post ~~~ work happens.

I just had an update from Clothing Stores BTW on shortages ... mukluks were not mentioned as being defecient/limited stocks.

CFSM (Cdn Forces Supply Manual)  Ref:  CFSM Vol 3, Ch 13, Sect G



> http://admmat.mil.ca/dgmssc/dmpp/documents/ARCHIVED%20CFSM%20Oct%202013.pdf
> 
> 3-13G-002. Special size personal allotment clothing, footwear and orthopaedic furniture
> 
> ...


----------

