New brown boots on trial?

[medaid]

Are these going to be "Boots for Show, or Boots for Wear"?

I'd like to see these as Boots for GONE. I hate them... the fact that it's ugly and bares resemblance to all of its predecessors of WWB, GPB has NOTHING to do with that fact...

 

[geo]

I just hope they have the same clunky weight distribution and that they fit nicely into my combat overboots.

You wear the galoshes ... guess you don't go in the field very often.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You wear the galoshes ... guess you don't go in the field very often.

They were good in a Sqn harbour with sneakers in them  ;D

 

[geo]

I rest my case

 

[TDeV]

You wear the galoshes ... guess you don't go in the field very often.

Ha nobody detected my sarcasm?

 

[geo]

Sarcasm ???
Wazzat ?

with that blank profile, you could very well be a purple trade that uses the darned things

 

[armyvern]

I'd like to see these as Boots for GONE. I hate them... the fact that it's ugly and bares resemblance to all of its predecessors of WWB, GPB has NOTHING to do with that fact...

Personally, I didn't join the Ford or Elite modelling agency when I signed my contract - I don't give two shits about how our kit looks; we are NOT in a fashion show. And people who believe we are really irritate the hell out of me. First & foremost - out kit MUST be functional, looks are secondary.

I give a shit that, however they may look, that they WORK and that they do NOT hurt our soldiers feet. That'll never happen with the CF no matter how "cool", "hot", "awesome", "pretty" - thus covering the "LCF" - as long as it's all one style.

We can buy the prettiest & most expensive set of boots out there for the CF contract, with the most-awesomest LCF on the entire planet - that will not/can not/and never will FIX the problem.

 

[medaid]

My comment aboout looks was directed at the fact that they LOOK exactly like the WWB and GPB, which in honesty didn't work and part of it is attributed to the way they are designed, hence look.

I could give less of a damn about looks if the kit we're issued would just WORK in the first place.

Besides, the prettiest kit sometimes doesn't stand up to the test of use anyways.

 

[McG]

OMG... those boots are HIDEOUS! Yes... I prefer a slight bit of fashion sense when wearing uniform items as well... so sue me

My comment aboout looks was directed at the fact that they LOOK exactly like the WWB and GPB, which in honesty didn't work and part of it is attributed to the way they are designed, hence look.

I could give less of a damn about looks if the kit we're issued would just WORK in the first place.

Besides, the prettiest kit sometimes doesn't stand up to the test of use anyways.

You claim that your concern is function, but you've based your argument on aesthetics.  Have you ever worn these boots?  Do you know anyone who has worn these boots?  The boots were trialed by soldiers participating in the 3 RCR BG exercise in Ft Bliss (though the trial boot was tan) and accepted based on the trial results.  I'm not going to try and suggest that any one make of boot will meet the requirement of most users, because I don't belive this is true.  However, if soldiers were able to wear these boots in the field for the length of the exercise and then come out saying they were happy with them, then maybe the boot is right for many users (which is about as good as any one make of boot is going to get).  Before we get too busy judging the boots' functionality (or LCF) based on a few pictures, maybe we could hear from somebody who has worn them?

 

[armyvern]

My comment aboout looks was directed at the fact that they LOOK exactly like the WWB and GPB, which in honesty didn't work and part of it is attributed to the way they are designed, hence look.

I could give less of a damn about looks if the kit we're issued would just WORK in the first place.

Besides, the prettiest kit sometimes doesn't stand up to the test of use anyways.

Understood, but your comment was the beginning of my rant - you honestly would not believe just how many troops we see in a day who are all about the LCF rather than functionality. It's pretty freakin' sad.

 

[1feral1]

I guess I get the scoop on who's put up the first pics of the new Boots, Combat, Hot Weather, Brown (Army) NSN: 8430-20-004-1013.

The colour is referred to in the tender as 'DND Brown', and is a full grain, chrome tanned, nubuck finish leather that is intended to be maintained by brushing only (no mention is made whether you can use any boot dressing compounds).

The sole is brown rubber to match the leather.  Good luck on getting these resoled commercially, with a brown replacement sole.   :

Boot is lined with Aerospacer 3D mesh, same as what the current Boot, Combat General Purpose, and the current issued Hot Weather Boot use, except that it will be chocolate brown.

As per the Boot, Combat General Purpose (commonly incorrectly referred to as the Mk IV Combat Boot), and the current issued Hot Weather Boot, this boot will have the 'dreaded' Heel Counter Pocket Lining, which has caused foot problems among a significant percentage of users.

Matt, thanks for the pics.

These have a hint of Aussie dysfunctionlisms built in.  Cripplers, Mk IV, but I should shut my sausage roll-hole pending wearer critique.

Why do we (the CF) not buy an already proven boot off the shelves, or make it under a copyright licence.

OWDU

 

[armyvern]

Why do we (the CF) not buy an already proven boot off the shelves, or make it under a copyright licence.

OWDU

Because some would say "Danners are proven and are the best" and some would say "Magnums are proven and are the best", and some would say "Swats are proven and are the best" ... etc etc etc ad nauseum.

The best for their own feet maybe, but as someone who works clothing stores --- not even with those "proven" boots is there a boot that works for the majority. Fact is that what works for one does not work for the next guy - no matter how well it works for the soldier before him.

A boot allowance, so that our soldiers can buy a "proven boot that works for them personally" (whatever manufacturer that "proven" boot happens to be for that individual) is the ONLY way to fix the footwear issue and avoid further injury to our troops' feet, knees, backs etc.

 

[medaid]

Understood, but your comment was the beginning of my rant - you honestly would not believe just how many troops we see in a day who are all about the LCF rather than functionality. It's pretty freakin' sad.

I understand I get my fair share too and I'm guilty of that as well

 

[1feral1]

A boot allowance, so that our soldiers can buy a "proven boot that works for them personally" (whatever manufacturer that "proven" boot happens to be for that individual) is the ONLY way to fix the footwear issue and avoid further injury to our troops' feet, knees, backs etc.

That is an excellent idea. Here, we get over $500 per annum as a uniform allowance, and we are already allowed to wear 3 types of non-issue dessert boots.

On top of this we get an additional $10,000+ as a service allowance, then our salary, plus other allowances if applicable.

As long as the boots are of the same colour and approved why not do this.

OWDU

 

[George Wallace]

Matt, thanks for the pics.

These have a hint of Aussie dysfunctionlisms built in.  Cripplers, Mk IV, but I should shut my sausage roll-hole pending wearer critique.

Why do we (the CF) not buy an already proven boot off the shelves, or make it under a copyright licence.

OWDU

Wes

The bottom photo shows the part of the boot, that is also found in the GP Boot, that has a tendency to not just blister your heals, but literally tear the flesh to pieces.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

Wes, you must stop making sense... the scary men will show up at your home and make you disappear.