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

[danchapps]

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

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


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

 

[armyvern]

Well, here's my take:

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

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

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

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

 

[combatbuddha]

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[danchapps]

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

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

 

[PMedMoe]

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

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

 

[TCBF]

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

Oh,

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

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

 

[PMedMoe]

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

 

[Yrys]

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

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

 

[rambo123]

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

 

[combatbuddha]

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

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

 

[combatbuddha]

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[danchapps]

Because we are stubborn.

 

[medaid]

Because it's the Garrison Army mentality...

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

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

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

 

[McG]

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

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

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

 

[OldSolduer]

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

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

 

[TCBF]

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

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

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

 

[armyvern]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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