Author Topic: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots  (Read 181878 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,516
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,935
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #350 on: November 03, 2016, 17:56:13 »
I've heard from a reliable source that the CAF will be returning to Black Mk 4 leather combat boots except they'll come with vVbram soles and speed laces. And of course will be the only authorized boots to wear   ;D
« Last Edit: May 07, 2017, 01:21:17 by kratz »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline RocketRichard

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 5,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 285
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #351 on: November 03, 2016, 19:47:56 »
I've heard from a reliable source that the CAF will be returning to Black Mk 4 leather combat boots except they'll come with vVbram soles and speed laces. And of course will be the only authorized boots to wear   ;D
This would be a good thing.  Except for the only authorized boots part;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,389
  • Crewman
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #352 on: November 03, 2016, 19:58:25 »
I've heard from a reliable source that the CAF will be returning to Black Mk 4 leather combat boots except they'll come with vVbram soles and speed laces. And of course will be the only authorized boots to wear   ;D

Then they would no longer be Mk 4's.......Mk 5's anyone?
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Tcm621

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 4,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 572
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #353 on: November 03, 2016, 20:31:14 »
Same...14 years and have always been told to avoid a shine. High gloss shine on combat boots is right out of er.
Ive been on parade with some who spit shone the old mk3s and they stuck out...the Sgt Maj came right aboard them.

I've always been told, and now tell that black and clean is fine. Unless they have tan boots...which is a whole other story.

Sent from my Samsung S6 using Tapatalk
God I'm getting old. I remember having to have my MKIII combat boots highly shone (brush shine only) and my combats creased. It was a pain in the *** but on the other hand,  one didn't get these people with chewed up boots and wrinkly combat. Part me wants to go back to proper walking out dress that sets a high standard of dress and deportment. Not a huge part, mind you, but part of me

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Offline eliminator

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 221
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #354 on: March 11, 2017, 08:29:23 »
Does anyone know the back-story with this choice of boots?

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #355 on: March 11, 2017, 09:01:07 »
I'd bet there is a maroon beret on the head that is cut off the picture;  most jump/airborne units were the bloused combat boots in CFs/DEUs.  If its a tan beret, well I guess the jump qual'd folks in CSOR in Army DEU/jump positions are allowed to wear the bloused combat boot in DEU.

« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 09:22:31 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline eliminator

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 221
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #356 on: March 11, 2017, 09:05:03 »
I'd bet there is a maroon beret on the head that is cut off the picture;  most jump/airborne units were the bloused combat boots in CFs/DEUs.

Tan berret.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #357 on: March 11, 2017, 09:10:35 »
There's nothing (I could find with a search) in 265 about this, so a guess is its in a C Army, Base or Unit dress instruction as to the who/when is authorized this variation of DEU.  Can't remember if the RCD Jump Troop was auth this...but normal for jumpers AFAIK.
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline dangerboy

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 310,539
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,537
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #358 on: March 11, 2017, 09:20:16 »
As Eliminator pointed out the person is from CANSOFCOM, hence the no face in the picture. They now blouse their DEUs into a type of jump point.
All right, they're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us... they can't get away this time.
- Lt Gen Lewis B. Puller, USMC

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #359 on: March 11, 2017, 09:25:13 »
Rgr that...figured it one maroon or tan.  Should have guessed tan beret with the badges and GCS-Exp on his DEU. 

Nothing new for jumpers to wear combat boots with pants bloused in CFs/DEUs.  Obviously an older picture with the guys in tans, from the CAR FB page.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2017, 09:59:19 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 427,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,389
  • Crewman
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #360 on: March 11, 2017, 13:35:35 »
Rgr that...figured it one maroon or tan.  Should have guessed tan beret with the badges and GCS-Exp on his DEU. 

Nothing new for jumpers to wear combat boots with pants bloused in CFs/DEUs.  Obviously an older picture with the guys in tans, from the CAR FB page.

Just a small correction.  The SSF did not wear Cbt Boots with their CFs/DEU's, but the SSF Boots; which were similar to the issue ankle boots, but were 8" to 10" instead of 6" sides.  They bloused their Cbt Boots when wearing Work Dress or Cbts; and later the Garrison Boot was worn with Garrison Dress.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.
Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #361 on: March 11, 2017, 13:44:19 »
Ahh...so that's what the guys in the tans have on.  Seen.
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 117,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,458
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #362 on: March 11, 2017, 15:00:25 »
Rgr that...figured it one maroon or tan.  Should have guessed tan beret with the badges and GCS-Exp on his DEU. 

Nothing new for jumpers to wear combat boots with pants bloused in CFs/DEUs.  Obviously an older picture with the guys in tans, from the CAR FB page.

Most likely taken on 17 June 1994.  That was the date of the presentation of the Medal of Bravery (MB) to five members of the CAR for actions performed by them in Somalia. 

http://www.airborneassociation.com/e/about/decorations.html
Quote
Corporal BRENT CHRISTOPHER ASHTON, M.B.,
Corporal ROBERT WELLINGTON FARQUHAR, M.B.,
Corporal DINO LEON SIMONE, M.B.,
M/Cpl PAUL DEAN SPRENGER, M.B.

Medal of Bravery, Date of Presentation: June 17, 1994

While off duty in Mogadishu, Somalia, on June 2, 1993, Cpl. Sprenger, then Ptes. Ashton, Farquhar and Simone, swam to the aid of a woman who was being attacked by a shark. Hearing screams from swimmers 500 metres from shore, Ptes. Ashton and Farquhar, followed by Pte. Simone and Cpl. Sprenger bringing an inner tube, swam out to the woman, whose leg had been torn off by a shark. Despite the danger of the blood-filled waters and the rolling surf, Pte. Farquhar attempted artificial respiration while the others managed to place the victim on the inner tube. Pte. Ashton removed his shirt, which Pte. Farquhar used as a tourniquet around the severed limb. The four soldiers brought the woman back to shore, continuing artificial respiration until a helicopter arrived. Unfortunately, their efforts to save the woman were not successful.

Corporal JOSEPH JACQUES MARIO CHARETTE, M.B., Petawawa, Ontario

Medal of Bravery, Date of Presentation: June 17, 1994

A medical assistant with the Canadian Airborne Regiment in Somalia, Cpl. Charette defused a violent demonstration of armed townspeople at the entrance to the Belet-Wen Hospital on February 17, 1993. Cpl. Charette was working alone when a crowd advanced towards the gates of the hospital. Shots were fired and a grenade exploded while Cpl. Charette called for back-up. Despite the growing chaos, Cpl. Charette continued to transmit situation reports while he screened and disarmed the demonstrators. His efforts prevented further destruction of the hospital and the possible deaths of many people.

 
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #363 on: March 11, 2017, 15:26:02 »
Most likely taken on 17 June 1994.  That was the date of the presentation of the Medal of Bravery (MB) to five members of the CAR for actions performed by them in Somalia.

Oddly enough, I don't remember that ever being in the news around that time.  Anything that had CAR in it was negative press.  Tks for the link!
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Blackadder1916

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 117,610
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,458
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non
« Reply #364 on: March 11, 2017, 17:19:40 »
I do recall the announcement of these awards (perhaps in a CANFORGEN or by other internal media), but perhaps because one of the incidents involved a Med A, it probably stuck in my mind.  At the time of the actual presentation I had just repatted from Germany so when any coverage of the events occurred, it would have been like most news we got in Lahr, with a heavy military slant.  Remember, the time was essentially pre-internet.  Yeah, it existed but not that many people were on-line.  If you wanted porn, you actually had to rent videos.  And most people got their news by reading a paper or from the TV/radio.

The presentation would not have been a military affair, as can be noted by the other recipients of bravery decorations on that day.
https://www.gg.ca/honours.aspx?ln=&fn=&t=3&p=&c=&pg=1&types=3&advdfbif=1994-06-17&advdfbit=1994-06-17
Whisky for the gentlemen that like it. And for the gentlemen that don't like it - Whisky.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 133,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,969
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #365 on: June 16, 2017, 01:57:29 »
Quote
National Defence considers the boots on the ground
After more than a decade of testing new boots, the Canadian Armed Forces is set to return to the basics.

In the wake of a striking new review of Canada’s military, and promises of a 20-year vision for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), the Department of National Defence has confirmed a new, high-tech, painstakingly engineered form of transportation for soldiers in the field. After years of niggling displeasure, CAF members can anticipate a sigh of relief.

The department is buying new boots.

“We’re aiming to get the solicitation on the streets by the end of August,” Lieutenant-Colonel Gordon Edwards, director of soldier systems program management for the CAF, confirmed to The Star. It’s been just three years since the government signed on to $11.7 million in contracts for their current footwear.

“The Land Operation Temperate Boot doesn’t seem to have met the needs of the soldiers the way we hoped that it would,” Lt.-Col. Edwards admitted. The new boots have elicited a range of complaints, from material breaking down to zippers breaking apart in harsh weather.

While the army conducted a user trial prior to purchase — “which is probably one of the first times I think we’ve done it for boots,” Lt.-Col. Edwards added — the then-positive results haven’t held up.

“There’s no test that can be as good as wearing those boots in operation for one year, or nine months,” Major Patrick Lottinville, the director of Land Requirements 5-4/DLR 5, noted. The boots haven’t presented an issue so severe that an immediate switch was required, but Lt.-Col. Edwards ceded that there have been “lots of emails and discussions” dedicated to the topic.

Boots, as it happens, have a complex history in the Forces.
[/color]

No s***, Sherlock.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/15/national-defense-considers-the-boots-on-the-ground.html
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 405,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,390
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #366 on: June 16, 2017, 06:49:24 »
Quote
... Boots, as it happens, have a complex history in the Forces ...
"I'll try "Canadian Defence Procurement Understatements" for $400, Alex ..."
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #367 on: June 16, 2017, 16:33:31 »
Lsst WCWO *Sgts Townhall* I attended, it was passed on that there are (serious) efforts underway to go to a boot allowance of some sort;  there will be 4 - 5 kinds of boots approved, the mbr would get an allowance, go determine which ones fit and purchase them.  Something along that line.

IF...the boots you can pick from are of the same...less than desirable quality...then situation no change and people will be back to LPOs or stuff they buy themselves off shoeme.ca etc. 
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Eagle Eye View

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 13,615
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 294
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #368 on: June 16, 2017, 16:47:05 »
So I know I read the CA is going back to black boots?
Leadership and learning are indispensable to each other.

John F. Kennedy

Offline signalsguy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,480
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 475
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #369 on: June 17, 2017, 07:56:10 »
Perhaps just a simplification of the situation. We have a boot design that is the 85% solution. Issue that to everyone but let them wear whatever as long as the boot fits into some hopefully broad set of requirements.

Totally conjecture but let's see what happens.

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 877,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,190
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #370 on: June 17, 2017, 13:19:17 »
If 85% of our force is destined for offices and never doing a day of field work, we totally have a 85% solution. Good combat boots run from $250-$450 CAD at retail prices. As soon as we stop trying to re-invent the combat boot, we'll sort this out. Look at the US AR670-1 with a quick synopsis from here: http://authorizedboots.com/list-of-authorized-army-combat-boots/
 
Quote
    Are they made of synthetic materials? If so, they’re out. The upper portion cannot be made of synthetic leather, synthetic suede, or “Wolverine Warrior Leather”…which is another term for pig leather. Your boots must be made of cow/cattlehide leather.
    Is the leather flesh side out? This means the inner lining of the leather is actually facing out. The flesh side is softer and it’s often called “suede leather“.
    Is the sole the same color as the boot? It should be.
    Is the outsole made of rubber or polyether polyurethane? Good.
    Is the height of the soles 2” or less.
    Does the sole curl around the toe or up the heel? Bad.
    Is the upper part leather or a combination of leather and non-mesh? Good. Anything else, then you need a new pair of boots.
    Is the boot 8 to 10 inches tall? Good. Otherwise, it’s out.

I mean, we're not designing #$%$#ing rocket appliances here. It's a pair of boots. Generate some bonafide requirements due to flight/field/ship safety, outline those requirements and let industry advertise boots that are compliant.

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 200,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,355
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #371 on: June 17, 2017, 14:02:59 »
In case you are thinking something good will come of all this, ponder on the little snippet that bitching about sub-standard boots should be an authorized military sport. I joined the army in December 1957 and the troops were griping about our footwear back then nearly sixty years ago. Our first waterproof combat boots were anything but, and the beat goes on. Heck, the cavemen probably complained about the poor quality of their mammoth-hide footwear. 

Offline BinRat55

    ???

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,127
  • Lead by example.
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #372 on: July 01, 2017, 20:01:21 »
Lsst WCWO *Sgts Townhall* I attended, it was passed on that there are (serious) efforts underway to go to a boot allowance of some sort;  there will be 4 - 5 kinds of boots approved, the mbr would get an allowance, go determine which ones fit and purchase them.  Something along that line.

IF...the boots you can pick from are of the same...less than desirable quality...then situation no change and people will be back to LPOs or stuff they buy themselves off shoeme.ca etc.

It'll never happen. And the only way to prove either one of right / wrong is wait. But I'm my own opinion, the elusive "boot allowance" has been discussed and shot down several times. It will never see the light of day. Right now we are emptying the shelves at both depots of all boots in a systematic order. We have also been told that a new boot sizing kit will be on the way to us before Christmas. For what you ask? Pimped out MkIVs... yessir. Mark 4s are back.
Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,516
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,935
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #373 on: July 01, 2017, 20:25:34 »
It'll never happen. And the only way to prove either one of right / wrong is wait. But I'm my own opinion, the elusive "boot allowance" has been discussed and shot down several times. It will never see the light of day. Right now we are emptying the shelves at both depots of all boots in a systematic order. We have also been told that a new boot sizing kit will be on the way to us before Christmas. For what you ask? Pimped out MkIVs... yessir. Mark 4s are back.

Nice to see you posting BinRat.

What you're saying is what I was told by the army RSM or whoever he was, with all his fancy patches.

New boots will be modified mk4's (vibram soles, speed laces) and f**K  all the guys who paid out of their own pocket for quality boots that work(and don't fall apart)  cause once the new ones new-new ones are issued there will be a crusade against non-issued boots. Again.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 177,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,424
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: BOOT REGULATIONS: issued vs. non-issued vs. non-standard boots
« Reply #374 on: July 01, 2017, 20:38:28 »
Well...I don't know what to tell you.  This was supposedly discussed at the highest levels and is being given consideration.  Maybe its the RCAF that is going to seriously try this?   :dunno:  This was just what the WCWO said was seriously being considered and reviewed at the WCWO Sgts Townhall.  Time will tell though eh?

While I feel for my subordinates who have to suffer thru more of this crappy boot fiasco, where the same problem will tried to be fixed by different people using the same solutions that didn't work XX times before...I am effin glad my *issued* boots are Magnums and Bates.  One good thing I can thank the crappy boots of the late 80s and early 90s for (or crappy insoles/inserts) is foot problems today that = LPO for me.



The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.