The brown Temperate Combat Boot (AKA: Mk IV Cbt Boot) - No longer CADPAT

[armyvern]

The chit I had was for special sized boots and not medical in the least, however, in my experience, the Supply section(s) did not want to take responsibility for getting boots that fit me.  They just kept giving me a different size and hope that they'd fit.  As stated, I've tried on at least four pairs of the new boots and none fit.

Not to mention, if it is a medical problem that cannot be corrected, why wouldn't they keep the chit on file?  Why should someone have to go in every two years for a new chit for something that won't change? 

I'm not slagging the Supply Techs, just the ones I've had to deal with.  If they were all like Vern, we wouldn't have anything to bitch about.  :nod: 

1)  You don't get a "chit" that would "disappear" for special-sized boots. Sup Techs don't issue chits for boots. A note would be made onto your electronic docs via the 01B to annotate the comments in your electronic docs. All the old yellow clothing docs were shredded once your docs went electronic - perhaps your annotation got missed when they were converted. Not too bad considering they had to roll over from paper to electronic for every single mil & civ mbr of the department ... all put in by hand.

1b) Each and every time new style boots are introduced into the system you "must" try them on to see if they fit. Period. Just because one stocked boot does not fit you does not mean that the next style footwear brought in will not. TB guidelines and CF policy says this will occur, so it does. That's not a supply caused problem - that's called the TB saying "you can buy them boots if stocked boots do not fit" --- so, if you haven't tried the new style ... how does anyone know they do not fit until you do? My ESP doesn't work as well as you expect it to apparently. That's just the way the rules say it has to work.

2) Ref medical chits: Since f'n when is "the medical problem" written on your chit? It's not. The med world writes "requires boots for medical purposes". That's it, that's all; other than that ... the medical 'issue' causing the chit is none of mine (or any other Sup techs) business. How do "we" know whether "your" problem can be fixed or not? We don't. As stated in my original post, the fact that medical chits for footwear expire is a medical system issue - NOT a Sup tech issue. You have to go in every two years because THEY say so; ask them that question, not me.

 

[PMedMoe]

Original post sent via PM to avoid more public flogging. 

 

[Loachman]

Having successfully suppressed the urge to yell something unprofessional, immature, and sexist, I shall endeavour to calm the waters a little...

The system worked for me as Vern has described.

"My" (theoretical, as measured) size of hot weather boots were too wide. The next narrower width in the same size were so narrow that I could not get my foot fully into the boot.

The nice supply lady - before I could even ask - whipped out a form, filled it out, and sent me into Soldier Gear in Angus to try on Magnums and Swats.

I went to KAF with happy feet, and an electronic note on my clothing docs. I was never actually given a chit.

One of the boots failed after about a month of wear, so I wandered into Clothing Stores in KAF. I was given a signed letter from the J4 guy authorizing purchase of a new pair locally after he verified the annotation on my clothing docs, dropped the old ones into the Terp Box, bought another pair at the PX, took the receipt and letter into the NSE OR, and got a claim done up. Very slick.

This was a sizing issue, and not a medical one.

While I was picking up the second pair in Borden, I b**ched about the stunningly horrible a** f**ce Cold Wet Weather Boot. They had me try on the Army WWB, which seemed to fit alright (yet to be worn for more than fitting took, so no meaningful comment on them) so we traded.

Perhaps we are spoiled here in Borden. I've always found our Supply people to be very helpful and operating ATV.

 

[armyvern]

Having successfully suppressed the urge to yell something unprofessional, immature, and sexist, I shall endeavour to calm the waters a little...

Geez, please remind Moe & I never to invite you to one of our mud-wrassling matchs if you can't handle this normal stuff.  >

 

[Loachman]

I was thinking more claws and loud meows, but I can handle either.

I'd also even be willing to help fund such an event...

 

[joonrooj]

The CF health services have no responsibility for boot sizes.  The Supply system is responsible to ensure you have fitting footwear.  If you have a medical condition which requires special footwear, then you go to the MIR.  If your boots just don't fit then you go to supply.

Going to the MIR because your boots do not fit is only wasting your time & their time because they can do nothing for you.

Just wondering if you have a link or something to a official document citing this. I am getting a wicked run around in Wx, clothing has me running to the MIR saying its a medical problem and requires a chit, and the MIR says they do not issue chits for boots anymore and its a sizing issue.

 

[armyvern]

Just wondering if you have a link or something to a official document citing this. I am getting a wicked run around in Wx, clothing has me running to the MIR saying its a medical problem and requires a chit, and the MIR says they do not issue chits for boots anymore and its a sizing issue.

Trust me - sizing IS a Base Supply responsibility and you do NOT need a chit. Period.

The ref that you require has been posted by me on this site numerous times, I'll hyperlink it below. Scroll down to para 5 of my post there (the actual para with the '5' in front of it).

Officially, your ref is: CFSM 3-13G-002.05

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/50234/post-815704#msg815704

 

[joonrooj]

Thank you,
This is very helpful, and will fix a problem that I've been getting the run around about for 3 years.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

SoldierSystems has an article on the wear trial taking place in Valcartier right now:
http://soldiersystems.net/2010/05/18/polish-by-the-numbers/

 

[PuckChaser]

There's RUMINT floating around now that various important people have stated we're moving to using just a brown boot like the US does. Anyone heard anything similar/different?

 

[armyvern]

There's RUMINT floating around now that various important people have stated we're moving to using just a brown boot like the US does. Anyone heard anything similar/different?

That was posted on the site a couple of years ago.

Yep, the general concensus is that a boot would be better in cadpat brown (the official name for that colour brown in your TW cadpat) as the "cadpat brown" is a common colour to both AR & TW cadpat. Thus, troops wouldn't need to be issued different boots for different uniforms, boots would always be broken in for deployment etc, nor lug around umpteen pairs of boots for their career - usually taking up space in the basement.

It was posted by me. It was a point taken from Army Op Clothing Working Groups and CTS Working Groups. It makes sense - and would also serve to save a fortune.

 

[PuckChaser]

I've heard it outside the forums as well, with names like "The CLS said".

 

[armyvern]

I've heard it outside the forums as well, with names like "The CLS said".

Well, he did. 

Think about it --- I just told you "Army Operational Clothing groups" ... now, I wonder, who does that fall under and who attended? He wasn't present at any that I attended, but some of his staffers certainly did.

The move is to come up with a suitable array of boots via trials ... and the further move is consider bringing in those boots - whatever they are - in the common Cadpat Brown colour.

 

[PanaEng]

SoldierSystems has an article on the wear trial taking place in Valcartier right now:
http://soldiersystems.net/2010/05/18/polish-by-the-numbers/

[quotehttp://soldiersystems.net/2010/04/26/canadians-testing-camo-boots/][/quote]
Frig, those boots look heavier that the current crop.

 

[armyvern]

[quotehttp://soldiersystems.net/2010/04/26/canadians-testing-camo-boots/]
Frig, those boots look heavier that the current crop.

Quaint too the comment about painting by numbers.  :

The leather is dyed all the way through vice just surface dying. Scuff 'em and the colour remains whatever little pixel of green happens to be underneath that scuff.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Yep, the general concensus is that a boot would be better in cadpat brown (the official name for that colour brown in your TW cadpat) ...

According to the specs from the Directorate Soldier System Program Management it's actually called 'DND Maxi Brown'.  Reference DSSPM 372-08.

Quaint too the comment about painting by numbers.  :

The leather is dyed all the way through vice just surface dying. Scuff 'em and the colour remains whatever little pixel of green happens to be underneath that scuff.

Looks to me like when they're scuffed, they're scuffed and that the leather is a greyish brown underneath, just as most boot leather is underneath the surface dyes.  This picture is from the current batch of trial boots, which you can clearly see are scuffed at the toe area to the point whereby there is no CADPAT pattern underneath it, just grey/brown leather.

As Soldiersystems.net mentioned, there are 2 Temperate Combat Boot trials taking place this year.  The wear test for comfort and durability is curretly ongoing at Valcartier.  Later on this year there will be a visual detection test which will compare the CADPAT TW boot against several other coloured boots, i.e. DND Maxi Brown, Black, Desert Tan, etc. to see which provides the greatest level of concealment in a temperate woodland environment when worn by soldiers who are also wearing CADPAT TW clothing and equipment.
The findings of the trial will form part of the basis of what DLR/DSSPM recommends as the colour/pattern to produce the Temperate Combat Boot in.  Other considerations will be cost of CADPAT printed leather vs. solid colour dyed leather, durability of the dyed pattern, etc.

 

[armyvern]

According to the specs from the Directorate Soldier System Program Management it's actually called 'DND Maxi Brown'.  Reference DSSPM 372-08.

Looks to me like when they're scuffed, they're scuffed and that the leather is a greyish brown underneath, just as most boot leather is underneath the surface dyes.  This picture is from the current batch of trial boots, which you can clearly see are scuffed at the toe area to the point whereby there is no CADPAT pattern underneath it, just grey/brown leather.

Whatever the common brown colour is between the TW and AR ~ that's the shade of brown they're considering because it was the common cadpat brown.

I wonder if that pic is of an early set of trial boots from many years ago?? The pair we saw scuffed up had the colour all the way through ... as per the specs for the boots.

Interesting indeed.

 

[Loachman]

I would think that it's a little tricky to get a pattern printed below the surface of the leather without the colours all bleeding into each other.

 

[Bzzliteyr]

I'll pop in to my (future) work tomorrow and see what the boys think of them.  They have been handed out to my regiment for trials.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

Whatever the common brown colour is between the TW and AR ~ that's the shade of brown they're considering because it was the common cadpat brown.

I wonder if that pic is of an early set of trial boots from many years ago?? The pair we saw scuffed up had the colour all the way through ... as per the specs for the boots.

Interesting indeed.

If you look at the specs for both CADPAT TW and AR, there are actually no 'common' colours.  While both patterns have a shade of brown in them, the CIE colour lab coordinates are different for each brown, and they are visibly different if you compare the two patterns side by side.

The photo of the scuffed CADPAT boots was sent to Soldiersystems from a member taking part in the Valcartier wear trial.  There may be a chance that his were from a previous production run, but it would seem that all the boots issued were from the latest batch produced last year.