Boot Shortage
- Thread starter big bad john
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
UK, US, JAPAN conversion chart
http://www.footwearbyfootskins.com/Footskins-Footwear-Sizing-Charts.html
UK, US, FRENCH, MONDO conversion chart
http://www.overstock.com/garmonsize.html
http://www.mec.ca/Main/fyi.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=63655&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=814607
http://www.footwearbyfootskins.com/Footskins-Footwear-Sizing-Charts.html
UK, US, FRENCH, MONDO conversion chart
http://www.overstock.com/garmonsize.html
http://www.mec.ca/Main/fyi.jsp?CONTENT%3C%3Ecnt_id=63655&FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=814607
- Reaction score
- 4,491
- Points
- 1,160
bossi said:
Nearly 25 years ago I was out on a big exercise in Gagetown â “ about the biggest thing we had tried in 15 or so years ... anyway, I am at the Ex HQ/Div HQ and I am walking from the officers' mess down to wherever and I came across a very young female soldier. She was tiny, very young, very pretty (cute?) and was wearing tiny little white running shoes with pink bows or pom-poms or something on them. She saluted and we stood there (waiting for vehicles to clear the road?) and I decided that I should say something, so ... (returning her salute) â Å“Good morning. Are you well? Are your feet better?â ? She smiled and looked a bit confused ... â Å“My feet are fine, sir.â ? I looked down ... â Å“Fine are they? Then why are you wearing little white and pink plimsolls? Where are your boots?â ? She looked up, way up, with big, brown eyes and a hint of a sniffle and said, â Å“I don't have boots, sir; they don't make boots small enough for me.â ?
I hustled off to safety â “ with other large, loud middle aged men. I later asked one of the signals officers running the HQ about the little princess but I had to leave because his tale of woe re: lack of anything nd everything for the hundreds of reservists assigned to his unit was making me alternately laugh and cry.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
On the other hand, I'm surprised to read that they've actually "solved" the WWB sole problem:
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dsafeg/pubs/digest/1-05/art03_e.asp
http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/dsafeg/pubs/digest/1-05/art03_e.asp
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Yes you can definitely say that we've come a longway, technically in our strides of Modern Warfare.
But a Boot shortage, my heart goes out to all our staunch Infantrymen who must fight and win battles in their Boots and with Rifles.
Who ever coined the phrase, A Army Marches on its Stomach, Never marched ten miles in a ill fitting, soaking wet pair of Boots.
Even if this is remotely true, its a Disgrace.
Pieman
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 27
- Points
- 530
Jeepers...I think I will hit the Army surplus store before I hit BOTC, even just to have an extra pair around.
I was in one store not to long ago and they had a nice selection of parade and Garrison boots. Would they give me any gripe if I showed up with my own boots that have been worked in?
I was in one store not to long ago and they had a nice selection of parade and Garrison boots. Would they give me any gripe if I showed up with my own boots that have been worked in?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 110
Quantities of Parade boots are okay. Don't spend money on those. Garrison boots are out of the system so don't bother.
If you buy a pair of surplus combat boots (in good to excellent condition) the worse thing going to happen is you'll be prepared for the worse. Good luck on your course.
If you buy a pair of surplus combat boots (in good to excellent condition) the worse thing going to happen is you'll be prepared for the worse. Good luck on your course.
Why does one assume that just because you have small feet, that you are a young recruit?
Last I checked I was closing in on 35yrs old and I still have the same size feet I did when I entered high school........a proud size 3!
Feet size doesn't correspond with age...sorry fellows!
Bojangles
Last I checked I was closing in on 35yrs old and I still have the same size feet I did when I entered high school........a proud size 3!
Feet size doesn't correspond with age...sorry fellows!
Bojangles
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
bojangles said:
I stand corrected (no pun intended).
However, I've been told that for many men shoe size often increases with age
(possibly because we're bigger and heavier ... ? Besides, you're still a young pup).
I'll have to look up some more authoritative proof for you
(some other time - too busy today).
4
421
Guest
As far as I remember,
There was only ever 2 sizes - too big and too small. I've been issued all differnt types due to my trade and localles. Just come through with something that will work and work well - all you can ever hope for.
There was only ever 2 sizes - too big and too small. I've been issued all differnt types due to my trade and localles. Just come through with something that will work and work well - all you can ever hope for.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Infanteer said:
After I left CTCRM the first place I went was to buy boots. Never had another pair of issue boots again.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Well I don't mind my issued boots (MKIII's) , they're comfortable enough with the Dr. Scholls inserts... Lol... $25.00 enstead of like $125.00 for decent boots I suppose.
Then again I've never had the luxury yet of trying on or using anything other than the issued stock also. My boots are brand new too, never been used which could make a difference.
I'll take a look around after I'm done BMQ+SQ+BIQ, see what they have in the Army surplus stores after I've had my feet in those beasts for a summer...
Then again I've never had the luxury yet of trying on or using anything other than the issued stock also. My boots are brand new too, never been used which could make a difference.
I'll take a look around after I'm done BMQ+SQ+BIQ, see what they have in the Army surplus stores after I've had my feet in those beasts for a summer...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
I just had to deal with this "shortage of boots" issue myself.
A bunch of years (~5) back, I went in in, with tales of misery and woe about my knees and back, wanting something done about it (ie orthotics and new soles for Mk III's). The resistance that the system put up was better than the defence of Stalingrad...... Short story long, I was fitted for orthotics at Physio on base, and was given a chit to get Vibram soles put on my Mk III's at a civilian shoe place (the physio people tried, in relative vain, to get through my thick Crewman skull that my orthotics didn't "fit" into my issue boots (Them: ***wink, wink**** "They're pretty snug, huh?"**** wink, wink**** Me: "No.....". Them: "You sure?!??!!?". Me: "Yup!!!!". Anyway, part of it was stupidity, and the other part was not wanting to be like "them": people who milk the system so they can get issued "Gucci" kit (especially the lame ass "running" shoe style of boots, that offer zero ankle support, and are crap in the field), even though the issue stuff would have worked fine. I bought a pair of Danners back around '99, and wore them in the field, and managed to avoid the wrath of those with too much time, too little to do (you know who I mean......) and was content until the WWB's came on line.
Anyway, since then (and before, for that matter), I have been astounded at the number of people that I have seen wearing "Gucci" Danners, Hi-Techs, Corcoran's, etc, etc. I would complain about "How is it that soldiers with next to no time in can get those fancy-schmancy boots, but I (and a lot of old-timers) can't??? Their knee's and back's couldn't have taken the same abuse as people from way back?!?!?!" A light went on in the empty recesses of my brain: "Issue decent boots to people at the beginning of their career, rather than trying to fix their medical problems at the end of it!!!!!" Boy, what a revelation. I remember getting a lecture/briefing from some medical type back in Cornwallis regarding the "Cornwallis Crippler's" that were issued: basically, don't wear them, and go out and buy decent Nike, Adidas, whatever's. But, of course, the only way to wear those non-issue shoes was to (shudder) get a chit. Boy, let's tie up the medical system so that people can get a chit to wear "REAL" running shoes, not those pieces of crap. Anyway, very few people did wear their own shoes, due to the fear of reprisals, the shame, etc. What a great system we are part of!!!!!
Anyway, to get back to the present, I went in to clothing stores the other day, after going to see an MO with an unrelated problem, and slid in the fact that I needed a new pair of boots to get resoled, and I need to get a chit from Physio ("here son, let me get this hoop the right height for you to jump through it......"), I ended up standing in front of a desk at Base Supply with my handy, dandy MO/Physio approved chit. Basically reality (and the message of the article that is in post #1 in this thread) slapped me in the face: IF they had my size in stock (they didn't.... imagine that, no 10.5 E) I couldn't receive them anyways, as they were "operations restricted" (or words to that effect). So here I am, being told I can't get combat boots, or more precisely "tough shit!!!". I had visions of yelling at the poor Pte working there, but for once sanity and common sense prevailed, and my incredulous look was enough to convey that I would need an alternate plan (plus she probably heard some of my comments, which were probably loud enough for her to hear while she was searching the shelves, to another Sgt about how lame it is that I can't get boots, yet almost every Private I see around seems to have "fancy" boots on. Guess what she had on her feet when she came back? Not Mk III's.......) Anyway, a deal was struck: I would be able to go down to the local civvie store that they dealt with and get a pair of non-issue boots.
Once down at this store (owned by an ex-military guy, who according to him was given the boot in the '80's for the unforgiveable crime of not being able to wear combat boots!!! Oh the irony, of him providing the army with non-issue boots, almost 20 years later........) I lamented how pathetic it is that here I am, buying boots from them. They didn't seem to mind, oddly enough........ Then we got on the subject of "approved" boots. As it turns out, the boots have to be all-leather (as a Crewman I can understand the reasoning (to a degree) of this: flash fires. Fine, but where is the rest of my fire-retardant gear, then??????). But, as they told me, the Base RSM has a say in what is a go, and a no go. I won't venture too far into this territory (call me a sissy, if you will, but your name better be at the top of your post
), but I was told that one of their more popular boots (by a very respected company) that is purchased by those in the know (ie. infantry soldiers) is on the no-go list because it has canvas side panels (whether they are flame-retardant I never thought to ask), and I suppose don't LOOK exactly like combat boots. Looks...... Hmmmmmm. There's a theme going on here. Rather than bite a gift horse in the ass, I gladly tried on and accepted my very Gucci new boots (Matterhorns, by the way, and more expensive than I would have bought, but hey!!! we got $13 billion dollars in the new budget, let's live a little!!!!!!).
We also got into a discussion (already mentioned here) about how we should be given a list of "approved" (and I would hope that it would be a factor that includes comfort, ruggedness, suitability for field ops, and then LOOOOOOKKKKKKKKSSSSSS (sorry, but the sound you hear is that of RSM's rolling over in their graves......) boots, and then given an allowance to buy those. I think it's a crime that soldiers sometimes have to go outside of the system to buy a pair of boots that are very comfortable, rugged and suitable, only to be told that they can't wear them...... Many moons ago, I remember hearing about how soldiers in a certain unit I was in, were told that they couldn't wear their Matterhorns, Danners, etc because it would demoralize the soldier sitting in the trench beside him that was wearing wet, sloppy, Mk III's..... brilliant!!!!! I have also heard the argument, that if you were in combat, or on exercise, and you broke your leg/rolled your ankle/stepped on an AP mine/ got fusili macaroni up your ass, etc and then they had to cut your precious boots, you wouldn't get reimbursed for your loss, and would get Mk III's as a replacement. Fine by me, as my $200 boots would probably be the last thing on my mind as I was in agony. But it's hard to beat that logic.
As my rant winds down, I can't help but think that one of the reasons we won't adopt the US system of "buy the boots you want" is sort of like the health care system: we would end up with a "two tier" clothing system, where only those that actually care about their feet would use the money for decent boots, and the remainder would squander their money on crap boots, and use the money for other pursuits, and then, at the end of their career, or in more likelihood, well before that, moan loudly about how "the system" destroyed their knees/back/ankles with shitty boots. It's a sad fact that "we" have to protect people from their own stupidity (ie. force people to wear seatbelts, wear bike helmets, warn them that hot coffee is in fact hot, etc) and cover everybody with the protective blanket of issued boots. To whit, I see people still wearing their issue running shoes, or better yet $15 Velcro "laced" WalMart specials,, WELL after the retirement age of the shoes was reached, saying that "If the army won't buy me new shoes, I'lll keep on wearing the old ones.....". Meanwhile, they spend $10 per day on coffin nails ($300 per month....) or eating the requisite $1.50 bag of Cheesies and $2.50 Extra-Loaded Sub every working day, and wouldn't ever think about spending $100-$150 every 4 to 6 months on a decent pair of PROPER running shoes for running in. Don't even think about getting me started on the people with knee and back problems, and blame the combat boots, and not the 50 (or more) extra pounds that they carry around on their frames..... :rage:
Al
[Note: Edited for dumb-ass punctuation and spelling errors]
A bunch of years (~5) back, I went in in, with tales of misery and woe about my knees and back, wanting something done about it (ie orthotics and new soles for Mk III's). The resistance that the system put up was better than the defence of Stalingrad...... Short story long, I was fitted for orthotics at Physio on base, and was given a chit to get Vibram soles put on my Mk III's at a civilian shoe place (the physio people tried, in relative vain, to get through my thick Crewman skull that my orthotics didn't "fit" into my issue boots (Them: ***wink, wink**** "They're pretty snug, huh?"**** wink, wink**** Me: "No.....". Them: "You sure?!??!!?". Me: "Yup!!!!". Anyway, part of it was stupidity, and the other part was not wanting to be like "them": people who milk the system so they can get issued "Gucci" kit (especially the lame ass "running" shoe style of boots, that offer zero ankle support, and are crap in the field), even though the issue stuff would have worked fine. I bought a pair of Danners back around '99, and wore them in the field, and managed to avoid the wrath of those with too much time, too little to do (you know who I mean......) and was content until the WWB's came on line.
Anyway, since then (and before, for that matter), I have been astounded at the number of people that I have seen wearing "Gucci" Danners, Hi-Techs, Corcoran's, etc, etc. I would complain about "How is it that soldiers with next to no time in can get those fancy-schmancy boots, but I (and a lot of old-timers) can't??? Their knee's and back's couldn't have taken the same abuse as people from way back?!?!?!" A light went on in the empty recesses of my brain: "Issue decent boots to people at the beginning of their career, rather than trying to fix their medical problems at the end of it!!!!!" Boy, what a revelation. I remember getting a lecture/briefing from some medical type back in Cornwallis regarding the "Cornwallis Crippler's" that were issued: basically, don't wear them, and go out and buy decent Nike, Adidas, whatever's. But, of course, the only way to wear those non-issue shoes was to (shudder) get a chit. Boy, let's tie up the medical system so that people can get a chit to wear "REAL" running shoes, not those pieces of crap. Anyway, very few people did wear their own shoes, due to the fear of reprisals, the shame, etc. What a great system we are part of!!!!!
Anyway, to get back to the present, I went in to clothing stores the other day, after going to see an MO with an unrelated problem, and slid in the fact that I needed a new pair of boots to get resoled, and I need to get a chit from Physio ("here son, let me get this hoop the right height for you to jump through it......"), I ended up standing in front of a desk at Base Supply with my handy, dandy MO/Physio approved chit. Basically reality (and the message of the article that is in post #1 in this thread) slapped me in the face: IF they had my size in stock (they didn't.... imagine that, no 10.5 E) I couldn't receive them anyways, as they were "operations restricted" (or words to that effect). So here I am, being told I can't get combat boots, or more precisely "tough shit!!!". I had visions of yelling at the poor Pte working there, but for once sanity and common sense prevailed, and my incredulous look was enough to convey that I would need an alternate plan (plus she probably heard some of my comments, which were probably loud enough for her to hear while she was searching the shelves, to another Sgt about how lame it is that I can't get boots, yet almost every Private I see around seems to have "fancy" boots on. Guess what she had on her feet when she came back? Not Mk III's.......) Anyway, a deal was struck: I would be able to go down to the local civvie store that they dealt with and get a pair of non-issue boots.
Once down at this store (owned by an ex-military guy, who according to him was given the boot in the '80's for the unforgiveable crime of not being able to wear combat boots!!! Oh the irony, of him providing the army with non-issue boots, almost 20 years later........) I lamented how pathetic it is that here I am, buying boots from them. They didn't seem to mind, oddly enough........ Then we got on the subject of "approved" boots. As it turns out, the boots have to be all-leather (as a Crewman I can understand the reasoning (to a degree) of this: flash fires. Fine, but where is the rest of my fire-retardant gear, then??????). But, as they told me, the Base RSM has a say in what is a go, and a no go. I won't venture too far into this territory (call me a sissy, if you will, but your name better be at the top of your post
), but I was told that one of their more popular boots (by a very respected company) that is purchased by those in the know (ie. infantry soldiers) is on the no-go list because it has canvas side panels (whether they are flame-retardant I never thought to ask), and I suppose don't LOOK exactly like combat boots. Looks...... Hmmmmmm. There's a theme going on here. Rather than bite a gift horse in the ass, I gladly tried on and accepted my very Gucci new boots (Matterhorns, by the way, and more expensive than I would have bought, but hey!!! we got $13 billion dollars in the new budget, let's live a little!!!!!!).We also got into a discussion (already mentioned here) about how we should be given a list of "approved" (and I would hope that it would be a factor that includes comfort, ruggedness, suitability for field ops, and then LOOOOOOKKKKKKKKSSSSSS (sorry, but the sound you hear is that of RSM's rolling over in their graves......) boots, and then given an allowance to buy those. I think it's a crime that soldiers sometimes have to go outside of the system to buy a pair of boots that are very comfortable, rugged and suitable, only to be told that they can't wear them...... Many moons ago, I remember hearing about how soldiers in a certain unit I was in, were told that they couldn't wear their Matterhorns, Danners, etc because it would demoralize the soldier sitting in the trench beside him that was wearing wet, sloppy, Mk III's..... brilliant!!!!! I have also heard the argument, that if you were in combat, or on exercise, and you broke your leg/rolled your ankle/stepped on an AP mine/ got fusili macaroni up your ass, etc and then they had to cut your precious boots, you wouldn't get reimbursed for your loss, and would get Mk III's as a replacement. Fine by me, as my $200 boots would probably be the last thing on my mind as I was in agony. But it's hard to beat that logic.
As my rant winds down, I can't help but think that one of the reasons we won't adopt the US system of "buy the boots you want" is sort of like the health care system: we would end up with a "two tier" clothing system, where only those that actually care about their feet would use the money for decent boots, and the remainder would squander their money on crap boots, and use the money for other pursuits, and then, at the end of their career, or in more likelihood, well before that, moan loudly about how "the system" destroyed their knees/back/ankles with shitty boots. It's a sad fact that "we" have to protect people from their own stupidity (ie. force people to wear seatbelts, wear bike helmets, warn them that hot coffee is in fact hot, etc) and cover everybody with the protective blanket of issued boots. To whit, I see people still wearing their issue running shoes, or better yet $15 Velcro "laced" WalMart specials,, WELL after the retirement age of the shoes was reached, saying that "If the army won't buy me new shoes, I'lll keep on wearing the old ones.....". Meanwhile, they spend $10 per day on coffin nails ($300 per month....) or eating the requisite $1.50 bag of Cheesies and $2.50 Extra-Loaded Sub every working day, and wouldn't ever think about spending $100-$150 every 4 to 6 months on a decent pair of PROPER running shoes for running in. Don't even think about getting me started on the people with knee and back problems, and blame the combat boots, and not the 50 (or more) extra pounds that they carry around on their frames..... :rage:
Al
[Note: Edited for dumb-ass punctuation and spelling errors]
- Reaction score
- 9,523
- Points
- 1,260
Well, I tried to read that rant, but I couldn't figure out what you were angry about, so I gave up....
I wore Danners because they sold them in the 1 VP kitshop, right at the front door. Felt good so I wore them on ex, on tour, and on Parade for the LFWA commander and no one seemed to care.
I really wonder why some people put their energy into figuring out what kinds of boots people are wearing....
I wore Danners because they sold them in the 1 VP kitshop, right at the front door. Felt good so I wore them on ex, on tour, and on Parade for the LFWA commander and no one seemed to care.
I really wonder why some people put their energy into figuring out what kinds of boots people are wearing....
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Allan, you're a harder troop than I.
If my MkIII boots were causing me injury to that extent, I would have simply gotten orthotics ( which I have, $400 out of my own after-tax pocket) and if need be, gotten a chit and different boots. RSM or not, I am not doing the army any service by wearing incorrect boots and rendering myself ineffective, and me being able to do the job is more important than some mickey mouse garrision rule. The day I get called on it will be the day I 1)demand a court martial about the boots, and 2)sign my release. There are some things that are worth getting hurt over, idiot RSMs and their garrision BS are not.
If my MkIII boots were causing me injury to that extent, I would have simply gotten orthotics ( which I have, $400 out of my own after-tax pocket) and if need be, gotten a chit and different boots. RSM or not, I am not doing the army any service by wearing incorrect boots and rendering myself ineffective, and me being able to do the job is more important than some mickey mouse garrision rule. The day I get called on it will be the day I 1)demand a court martial about the boots, and 2)sign my release. There are some things that are worth getting hurt over, idiot RSMs and their garrision BS are not.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
My stream-of-(un)conscious rant IS a little hard to follow (gotta cater to the short attention span of people brainwashed by music-videos), but I suppose it could be boiled down to: buy your own boots, good; wear ill-fitting, but "let's all look alike, but be incapacitated down the road by crappy boots" bad.
Regardless if boots (or fleece, or toques) are sold in a kit shop, it is up to the hierachy whether or not they can be worn (even in the field). In '96, my Regt sold one of the first fleece jackets (OD green, very good quality, I forget the brand name), and we all snapped them up.... it was easily -254 degrees celcius (give or take 2 or 3 hundred degrees) and we bought them anyway..... next regime change "There shall not be any non-issue kit worn in field (fleece included)" So much for us being warm.....
It's all about the leadership, and if I may digress, anybody who was on Roto 7 to Bosnia can nod along, I distinctly remember 3 things about that tour: 1) No fleece (issue, even) will be worn as an outer garment (in fact, it should be worn UNDER the combat shirt ....... try taking off your jacket, shirt, and fleece in a Coyote turret when it warms up) 2) no v-neck t-shirts, and 3) no long sideburns. I actually agree with #3, but all things considered I think that there are more important things to worry about than having a jihad against those three things.....
If I were in power (the 5 most dangerous words in the world), this boot issue would be a non-issue, as I would allow people to wear pretty much whatever they wanted, as long as they looked more or less "military", were clean (not shiny, but clean), were kept in good order (good repair, laces not dangling willy-nilly, good tread on soles), but above all, were appropriate for the job at hand: the same person conducting the jihad against the 3 things I noted, had the good sense to decree that desert boots wouldn't be worn in the winter (a lot of the carpet commando's got upset) but it was shown that a good chunk of the lower leg injuries over there were attributed to the tan "slippers". Don't get me wrong, I think they serve their purpose, but they are useless in the winter time. Jungle boots in the winter would also be forbidden (unless of course, you were, you know, in the jungle).
Al
Regardless if boots (or fleece, or toques) are sold in a kit shop, it is up to the hierachy whether or not they can be worn (even in the field). In '96, my Regt sold one of the first fleece jackets (OD green, very good quality, I forget the brand name), and we all snapped them up.... it was easily -254 degrees celcius (give or take 2 or 3 hundred degrees) and we bought them anyway..... next regime change "There shall not be any non-issue kit worn in field (fleece included)" So much for us being warm.....
It's all about the leadership, and if I may digress, anybody who was on Roto 7 to Bosnia can nod along, I distinctly remember 3 things about that tour: 1) No fleece (issue, even) will be worn as an outer garment (in fact, it should be worn UNDER the combat shirt ....... try taking off your jacket, shirt, and fleece in a Coyote turret when it warms up) 2) no v-neck t-shirts, and 3) no long sideburns. I actually agree with #3, but all things considered I think that there are more important things to worry about than having a jihad against those three things.....
If I were in power (the 5 most dangerous words in the world), this boot issue would be a non-issue, as I would allow people to wear pretty much whatever they wanted, as long as they looked more or less "military", were clean (not shiny, but clean), were kept in good order (good repair, laces not dangling willy-nilly, good tread on soles), but above all, were appropriate for the job at hand: the same person conducting the jihad against the 3 things I noted, had the good sense to decree that desert boots wouldn't be worn in the winter (a lot of the carpet commando's got upset) but it was shown that a good chunk of the lower leg injuries over there were attributed to the tan "slippers". Don't get me wrong, I think they serve their purpose, but they are useless in the winter time. Jungle boots in the winter would also be forbidden (unless of course, you were, you know, in the jungle).
Al
Similar threads
