Improved Combat Uniform

[OldSolduer]

The CadPat boot project was canned. It was tested in Petawawa for a few months, apparently, no one liked them.

I saw them and they were utterly horrible to look at. And unneccessary.

 

[MikeL]

The Army's used the desert style boot for quite some time. They do have a lined/gore-tex version for cooler climates. We had a bunch of National Guard from WA on ex with us in Shilo in the spring and they weren't too happy with their non-insulated ones.

Interesting to note that the standard boot for the new Navy uniform (the dark-blue/grey BDU-style) is a black leather boot....even in KAF.

Yea the Army has used tan boots since ACUs replaced BDUs. 

Also,  USN pers wear MARPAT uniforms with brown boots when attached to Marine units.  And USN pers attached to US Army units(ie PRTs) in Afghanistan wear the Multicam/OEF-P uniform with tan boots.

The CadPat boot project was canned. It was tested in Petawawa for a few months, apparently, no one liked them.

I wouldn't say no one liked them.  Dude at Clothing Stores was saying how they were the best boots he's worn, and I've seen a couple guys still wearing them even though a CANFORGEN(or another message) came out saying CADPAT boots are not to be worn anymore.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I saw them and they were utterly horrible to look at. And unneccessary.

I saw them too in Val.  I imagine the hours of effort an old warhorse such as yourself would have to invest in polishing each and every small square the different colour would be unimaginable.... >  Seriously though, they did take some getting used to and did make my eyes go gaga somewhat.  I wonder how effective they would be in the field.

 

[OldSolduer]

I saw them too in Val.  I imagine the hours of effort an old warhorse such as yourself would have to invest in polishing each and every small square the different colour would be unimaginable.... >  Seriously though, they did take some getting used to and did make my eyes go gaga somewhat.  I wonder how effective they would be in the field.

Probably about the same as a black, brown, hot pink or any other boot that's been in the boonies for more than a day.

Damn it would have been difficult polishing those buggers!! 

 

[Danjanou]

Probably about the same as a black, brown, hot pink or any other boot that's been in the boonies for more than a day.

Damn it would have been difficult polishing those buggers!! 

You mean the CANEX doesn't stock kiwi cadpat polish?

 

[Teflon]

Yup - it's called "clear" polish  ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

You mean the CANEX doesn't stock kiwi cadpat polish?

No....of all things!! Hot pink combat boots would have made as much sense....

 

[Muttenthaler]

I'll stick to my MARK III for as long as they're in service. They're not heavy and warm like the cumbersome GORTEX boots...and you don't slide on ice. I might take 30 seconds longer to lace them up, but I can walk and run faster and farther in them, especially when they're wet.

 

[Teeps74]

I'll stick to my MARK III for as long as they're in service. They're not heavy and warm like the cumbersome GORTEX boots...and you don't slide on ice. I might take 30 seconds longer to lace them up, but I can walk and run faster and farther in them, especially when they're wet.

The BIGGEST single mistake of my career... Turning in my Mk IIIs for the new GP. Dear god.

Caveat. Not everyone will be happy with everything. It is impossible. With boots, more so, as our feet are entirely too different. I know many people who love the new GPs.

 

[Mojo Magnum]

I certainly must have time on my hands because I read four pages of this thread on boot bands when all i wanted was a picture of the new combats.  I always understood the purpose of boot bands and blousing to be the WW2 response to a soldiers "fight or flight" response.  When the bowells let go it doesn't go in your boots etc.  Gross I know but, that is the real reason we "blouse" the pants and rock those fassionable boot bands.

So, picture of the new "ish" combats anyone?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

I certainly must have time on my hands because I read four pages of this thread on boot bands when all i wanted was a picture of the new combats.  I always understood the purpose of boot bands and blousing to be the WW2 response to a soldiers "fight or flight" response.  When the bowells let go it doesn't go in your boots etc.  Gross I know but, that is the real reason we "blouse" the pants and rock those fassionable boot bands. So, picture of the new "ish" combats anyone?

That's a pretty definitive statement. You're going to need some pretty solid references to back up that little tidbit if you want people to take it seriously. Just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[Pusser]

I certainly must have time on my hands because I read four pages of this thread on boot bands when all i wanted was a picture of the new combats.  I always understood the purpose of boot bands and blousing to be the WW2 response to a soldiers "fight or flight" response.  When the bowells let go it doesn't go in your boots etc.  Gross I know but, that is the real reason we "blouse" the pants and rock those fassionable boot bands.

I'd love to see the reference for that.  Methinks someone's pulling your leg on that one.  It has more to do with keeping your trouser leg out of the mud and preventing crawly friends going up your leg.

 

[Jungle]

It has more to do with keeping your trouser leg out of the mud and preventing crawly friends going up your leg.

Yes, but the sleeve that is inside the pant leg, that you are supposed to put inside the boot, does that even if the pants are unbloused...

I don't believe the WWII crap story either, but somebody must be able to come up with the real reason behind the blousing.

 

[ballz]

Yes, but the sleeve that is inside the pant leg, that you are supposed to put inside the boot, does that even if the pants are unbloused...

I don't believe the WWII crap story either, but somebody must be able to come up with the real reason behind the blousing.

Either in this thread or another thread, after much debate between "bloused vs unbloused" people, we came up with it.

It used to have something to do with using puttees, which had a functional purpose. That created a "look" that was fairly unique to the military. Once we stop using puttees we had wanted to keep that look somehow, so we began to blouse them.

There is no actual functional purpose to it.

EDIT: Ah, from page 2 of this thread:

The puttee question: answer is!!

puttee, also spelled puttie, is the name, adapted from the Hindi patti, bandage (Skr. patta, strip of cloth), for a covering for the lower part of the leg from the ankle to the knee, consisting of a long narrow piece of cloth wound tightly and spirally round the leg, and serving both as a support and protection, worn especially by riders, and taking the place of the leather or cloth gaiter. It was once adopted as part of the uniform of foot and mounted soldiers in several armies, including the United States Army and the armies of the British Commonwealth.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Either in this thread or another thread, after much debate between "bloused vs unbloused" people, we came up with it.

It used to have something to do with using puttees, which had a functional purpose. That created a "look" that was fairly unique to the military. Once we stop using puttees we had wanted to keep that look somehow, so we began to blouse them.

There is no actual functional purpose to it.

For the same reason that they wore puttees and gaiters back then and outdoor people (hunters) wear gaiters today. It stops your cuffs from dragging and wearing when they get wet and dirty and prevents low level tangle problems while providing some measure of protection from things getting up your leg.

It is not a fashion statement.

 

[Journeyman]

It is not a fashion statement.

....nor a replacement for Depends 

 

[ballz]

For the same reason that they wore puttees and gaiters back then and outdoor people (hunters) wear gaiters today. It stops your cuffs from dragging and wearing when they get wet and dirty and prevents low level tangle problems while providing some measure of protection from things getting up your leg.

It is not a fashion statement.

I disagree, I think it is entirely a fashion statement born out of something that was once functional.

But having been through this entire thing full circle already, for about 4 pages in this thread, I am not getting into it again. It was pretty clear earlier than nobody on either side of the debate is changing their minds.

 

[Journeyman]

I disagree, I think it is entirely a fashion statement......

Let's see...the subject falls broadly under the heading of military uniforms, dress and deportment.

We have a Sgt-Maj, with extensive military experience, saying "A."
We have an OCdt, obligated to look at his watch when discussing time-in, saying "B."


Hmm.....who to believe, who to believe?  op:



Should anyone wish to come back with the obligatory "oh, oh ya," I admit right now that I don't particularly care, one way or the other. In garrison they're bloused; in the field, it depends. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Should anyone wish to come back with the obligatory "oh, oh ya," I admit right now that I don't particularly care, one way or the other. In garrison they're bloused; in the field, it depends. 

I thought you said this:

....nor a replacement for Depends 

>

 

[Journeyman]

:facepalm:

OK, you win that one.........bitch