Combat Boots policy 2018-CANFORGEN 127/18

[Remius]

There's nothing to hash out. Units were notified 3 weeks ago.
90% of the process is contained within the CANFORGEN itself.

It is when the CC isn't on the ground yet and a non clerk is trying to keep things from catching fire.  There are still details that are vague and with reserve units stood down and scattered to the four winds until a few weeks from now getting CoC authorization is a bit difficult at this time.  I already have troops trying to claim boots purchased before Aug 15 because they can't read. 

So yes.  Some things still need to be hashed out.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Units making up their own policy, contrary to the CANFORGEN. Jarnhamar's unit is skipping phase I and II with this order.

There is this para from CFP 265, though, that gets used/misused from time to time...

CFP 265, Ch 1 - Command, Control and Staff Duties, (Control) Para 8:

8.  Control is exercised by local commanders who may standardize the dress of subordinates on any occasion, including the wear of accoutrements and alternative or optional items, subject to overall command direction.

* ref the yellow text - IMO the CANFORGEN is 'higher command direction'.  I'm betting there are those who would not agree and will want to introduce some standardization/uniformity into the equation.  Uniformity is important in some regards, mostly for parades if the topic is boots as far as I'm concerned. 

 

[Jarnhamar]

Originally the plan was that an official boot list would come out after 3 years, but now we're told to wait until an approved list is released. So, maybe we'll get the thumbs up in 3 years lol

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Originally the plan was that an offices boot list would come out after 3 years, but now we're told to wait until an approved list is released. So, maybe we'll get the thumbs up in 3 years lol

Any idea how 'high' the order was issued at? Coy, Bn, Brigade?  Army, pan-CAF?

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I hear some places are waiting on a DIV policy to come down...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Isn't the CANFORGEN clear enough?  :

 

[Ostrozac]

Uniformity is important in some regards, mostly for parades if the topic is boots as far as I'm concerned.

But how does a unit enforce uniformity of combat boots on parade when the supply system is unable to supply a uniform quantity of said boots? I suppose a large enough unit with a stocked kit shop could say "Change of command parade dress will be in Cadpat with xxx model of tan boot. Those lacking a pair of xxx know where the regimental kit shop is." --- but that's certainly subverting the intent of the recent Canforgen.

 

[daftandbarmy]

But how does a unit enforce uniformity of combat boots on parade when the supply system is unable to supply a uniform quantity of said boots? I suppose a large enough unit with a stocked kit shop could say "Change of command parade dress will be in Cadpat with xxx model of tan boot. Those lacking a pair of xxx know where the regimental kit shop is." --- but that's certainly subverting the intent of the recent Canforgen.

That makes it easier then: formal parades = DEUs

 

[Ostrozac]

That makes it easier then: formal parades = DEUs

Sounds good to me. I've done change of command parades in DEU, in combats, and once even in the paint-by-numbers garrison dress.

But of course, as soon as we had a decent contract to provide DEU clothing directly to the troops, we decided that we didn't want to wear DEU very much anymore, and instead wanted to wear a uniform that was never in stock and had mismatched footwear.

No doubt that once everything is stabilized for Cadpat and boots, every unit will shelve the Cadpat and then start wanting to have parades in a mix of patrol blues and Multicam. Nobody's ever happy.

 

[dimsum]

That makes it easier then: formal parades = DEUs

I'm surprised formal parades are in anything other than DEU.  In the midst of a heatwave here (as well as everyone else), thankfully they let the Sqn change of command parade be in 3B this year. 

 

[dapaterson]

... have parades in a mix of patrol blues and Multicam. Nobody's ever happy.

Oxfords, grey wool socks, multicam pants, patrol blue tunic with DEU shirt and tie, and wide-brimmed CADPAT bushcap.  Outdoors when it's sunny and 33 degrees Celsius... in the shade.

 

[ballz]

Isn't the CANFORGEN clear enough?  :

No, and there are some staff officers working seriously hard to overthink it all and ensure the entire intent of the boot allowance is undermined.

 

[MJP]

No, and there are some staff officers working seriously hard to overthink it all and ensure the entire intent of the boot allowance is undermined.

Yup I hope from my minor level of influence we institute a level of relative common sense.  The army based on my early read if a certain div policy is still stuck in 1980.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Yup I hope from my minor level of influence we institute a level of relative common sense.  The army based on my early read if a certain div policy is still stuck in 1980.

Well I can say the 3 Div policy is pretty common sense, we only specified that boots have to be "military in nature" because technically the CANFORGEN would allow cowboy boot etc...

 

[RocketRichard]

Well I can say the 3 Div policy is pretty common sense, we only specified that boots have to be "military in nature" because technically the CANFORGEN would allow cowboy boot etc...

Can get behind cowboy boots as most of 3 Div is in cowboy country. Giddiup!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But how does a unit enforce uniformity of combat boots on parade when the supply system is unable to supply a uniform quantity of said boots? I suppose a large enough unit with a stocked kit shop could say "Change of command parade dress will be in Cadpat with xxx model of tan boot. Those lacking a pair of xxx know where the regimental kit shop is." --- but that's certainly subverting the intent of the recent Canforgen.

I forgot to consider that not all CofC parades are in DEU;  like Dimsum's Sqn, our Sqn CofC recently was in 3B.  I've only done one CofC parade in combats, with FFO but that was in the reserves 20 years ago or something.  I think "parade" and my mind automatically thinks "DEU".

 

[MJP]

Well I can say the 3 Div policy is pretty common sense, we only specified that boots have to be "military in nature" because technically the CANFORGEN would allow cowboy boot etc...

Your assessment and mine off that policy differs.... Mostly in the execution not the intent.

 

[Old EO Tech]

Your assessment and mine off that policy differs.... Mostly in the execution not the intent.

Well TBH if the sub formations can't follow Div direction there are ways to sort that out....

 

[ballz]

There are two parts in that policy that MJP read that are directly related to execution and are a result of overthinking and would actually defeat the intent and whole point of the boot allowance. One of them was quickly scrapped, the other... punching holes in people's boots... remains to be seen what will happen with that. If it goes through, the saving grace of that silliness is that no one will follow it.

And the fact that cowboy boots were being brought up is just another example of overthinking. First of all, if units need a Division Commander to sign a directive to sort that out for them, perhaps they should be employed at McDonald's instead. Secondly, if a soldier is stupid enough to use his allowance on purchasing a pair of cowboy boots, guess what? He still needs a pair of boots for his job that he'll have to pay for himself. For the 1 guy in 10,000 that does that and saves $100 through mischievously claiming cowboy boots, the sum total value of the risks aren't worth the paper the policy will be printed on.

 

[Old EO Tech]

There are two parts in that policy that MJP read that are directly related to execution and are a result of overthinking and would actually defeat the intent and whole point of the boot allowance. One of them was quickly scrapped, the other... punching holes in people's boots... remains to be seen what will happen with that. If it goes through, the saving grace of that silliness is that no one will follow it.

And the fact that cowboy boots were being brought up is just another example of overthinking. First of all, if units need a Division Commander to sign a directive to sort that out for them, perhaps they should be employed at McDonald's instead. Secondly, if a soldier is stupid enough to use his allowance on purchasing a pair of cowboy boots, guess what? He still needs a pair of boots for his job that he'll have to pay for himself. For the 1 guy in 10,000 that does that and saves $100 through mischievously claiming cowboy boots, the sum total value of the risks aren't worth the paper the policy will be printed on.

I know the punching holes in old boots was not something we supported either.  But we'll see what the commander thinks in the end.  As for cowboy boots, well I would not under estimate how dumb some people can be.  But there are other things in the proposed directive like ensuring CO's don't dictate that unit members have to buy the boots from the Regt Kit shop, and you know that would happen, either officially or not.  So that has to be black and white in the order.