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

[PuckChaser]

Well then, we might as well just paint the boots pink, as long as their comfortable, right?

Keep the boot if it works, and make it a solid CADPAT Brown leather. Comfort and ridiculousness solved in one fell swoop. Or just scrap the whole thing and create a boot allowance.

 

[DexOlesa]

Yes of course there are better choices (assuming equivalent durability etc.) my preference would be for Boot Allowance, Brown, then CADPAT in that order. Just stating the CADPAT wasn't THAT bad.

 

[Loachman]

The CADPAT boot looks goofy.

My main cause of concern for either that or a brown boot, though, is the lack of commercial alternatives for those who cannot wear them, especially if they fit and function like the other disastrous examples.

I suspect that the bra project got shelved as much because of the press that it received, ridiculing the whole idea, as it did for the lack of success in meeting its intent. If the press decided to make an issue out of how much money has been spent to develop and issue boots that hurt people's feet, I'm sure that a boot allowance would be forthcoming just as quickly.

 

[REDinstaller]

A boot allowance would make my life much easier. I have sz14 feet, so in the Interm Boots there are only 2 choices of width, and both are not correct for my feet. Its quite the pain dealing with Base clothing, and getting the run around.

 

[Infanteer]

My main cause of concern for either that or a brown boot, though, is the lack of commercial alternatives for those who cannot wear them, especially if they fit and function like the other disastrous examples.

The good thing about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years is that there is an endless list of suppliers of excellent brown boots.  My biggest decision at times was choosing between my Danners and my Miendls (the decision to leave the issued toe-crunching brown boots in KAF was easy).

 

[armyvern]

A boot allowance would make my life much easier. I have sz14 feet, so in the Interm Boots there are only 2 choices of width, and both are not correct for my feet. Its quite the pain dealing with Base clothing, and getting the run around.

There is a very recent thread here where I posted the reference and quoted it into the thread. Print it. Take it to clothing. The rules and criteria are there ...

 

[armyvern]

Keep the boot if it works, and make it a solid CADPAT Brown leather. Comfort and ridiculousness solved in one fell swoop. Or just scrap the whole thing and create a boot allowance.

It won't. It will work for some people, but not for others. I speak from experience here (22 years of it) NO one style/make/maufacturer of boots will work for ALL members of the CF. Those boots that do get contracted WILL work for 80% of the members of the CF ... because "80%" is part of the trial criteria that kit must meet to get "brought into the system & contracted".

Problem with 80% is that means 1 in 5 troops are forced into footwear that does NOT work and is unsuitable for them. What if that 1 in 5 were all Infantry guys? Should 1 in 5 women who are full D 36s have to cram their boobs into a D36 that doesn't fit them and will trash their backs? NO --- we already decided that and figured it out.

Our current system actually ruins troops feet ... through no fault of their own. It starts with the feet, then moves up into 'bad kness" then spreads to "bad backs" --- all started by bad boots that didn't work for them. Feet are important. Why can't we just do what is right and make sure we look after them properly and effeciently.

Go with a boot allowance. It allows troops to use boots that work for them. It also saves shitloads of money every year on reduced infrastructure, shipping depot/base costs etc. etc. And go with the brown colour too, that saves each and every soldier from having to cart about 5 different pair of boots for each task he may/may not get.

 

[REDinstaller]

ArmyVern,

I have the reference, I made sure I kept it in favourites. My main issue is the Civi in charge of clothing in Edm wants my orthotics assesed every time I request funding to replace a set of worn out boots. This adds weeks to procurement, then I am only given one place to go, Work Authority, and pick something out of the catalog as they don't stock any 14s. I wish the process was more streamlined, I've had custom footwear since 94 but every time is like the first time.

 

[Loachman]

The good thing about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years is that there is an endless list of suppliers of excellent brown boots.  My biggest decision at times was choosing between my Danners and my Miendls (the decision to leave the issued toe-crunching brown boots in KAF was easy).

Brown, or tan?

 

[armyvern]

ArmyVern,

I have the reference, I made sure I kept it in favourites. My main issue is the Civi in charge of clothing in Edm wants my orthotics assesed every time I request funding to replace a set of worn out boots. This adds weeks to procurement, then I am only given one place to go, Work Authority, and pick something out of the catalog as they don't stock any 14s. I wish the process was more streamlined, I've had custom footwear since 94 but every time is like the first time.

That's not the civvie in Edmonton - that's CFMOs (CF Medical Orders). CF Health Services requires that all of you who wear orthotics have a reassessment done every two years in case your orthotics/needs change; thus, we suppies can not/will not refit you for new boots if your reassessment is not up to date in case your footwear requirements change with an ortho change.

We simply aren't going to buy you new boots with an expired ortho chit only to have you come back the next month after you re-do your ortho reassessment because those boots we just bought you won't work with your new orthotics. Make sense?

Simply put, you go get your orthotics reassessed like you are supposed to every two years at CF Health Svcs (who will also re-issue your chit), and then, when your new orthotics come in you bring them in with you to try on boots with, we will pay to replace your boots every two years so that the new boots work with the new/changed orthotics.

 

[McG]

They could look worse. I'm more concerned with comfort and durability. Its not a fashion show

Well then, we might as well just paint the boots pink, as long as their comfortable, right?

PuckChaser,
Don't be a clown.  You know that he is right.  Our boots need to be about utility & not fashion.  If the colour works but looks ugly or goofy, that should not rule out the colour.  Pink would not work as a colour on a uniform intended to be low visibility.  CADPAT, green and brown are options that would work for the low visibility requirement.

The good thing about fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan for the last 10 years is that there is an endless list of suppliers of excellent brown boots. 

Brown or tan suppliers?

Keep the boot if it works, and make it a solid CADPAT Brown leather. Comfort and ridiculousness solved in one fell swoop.

It won't. It will work for some people, but not for others. I speak from experience here (22 years of it) NO one style/make/maufacturer of boots will work for ALL members of the CF. Those boots that do get contracted WILL work for 80% of the members of the CF ... because "80%" is part of the trial criteria that kit must meet to get "brought into the system & contracted".

Problem with 80% is that means 1 in 5 troops are forced into footwear that does NOT work and is unsuitable for them. What if that 1 in 5 were all Infantry guys?

Of course, if the temperate combat boot and arid combat boot are the exact same colour we will accomodate much of that 5% with the ability to choose between footware. 

What if that 1 in 5 were all Infantry guys?

Fortunately, we seem to stack the trial groups a little heavier with people running around on thier feet, so if "the 1" is concentrated in any one group it is more likely to be a group spending more time on its butt.

 

[REDinstaller]

The Matterhorn website has Tan and Brown along with some that look green.

WWW.Coveshoe.com


The problem isn't my ortho chit expiring, its the fact that he feels they can be cut down to fit the boots, as some of the orthos appear to be quite chunky. This is what delays the procurement, I walk into Physio and they tell me right away its a fit problem and not their problem, so back to supply I go.

 

[armyvern]

Of course, if the temperate combat boot and arid combat boot are the exact same colour we will accomodate much of that 5% with the ability to choose between footware. 
Fortunately, we seem to stack the trial groups a little heavier with people running around on thier feet, so if "the 1" is concentrated in any one group it is more likely to be a group spending more time on its butt.

1 in 5 equals 20%, not 5%. And, you're still talking a few thousand troops who this will NOT work for. I thought we were about saving money and doing things effeciently and effectively? Do you have any idea how much we fork out a year stocking, storring, delivering, returni ng, scrapping footwear acrross the CF? Getting rid of those costs alone would save a few hundred B Class jobs and will better serve our soldiers and their feet.

Funny that you mentionned stacking our trials with pointy enders ... funny how that's worked out for all our current in-service boots and tac vests, and snowshoes, and floppy hats, and and and ... Seems to me that the vast majority of boot problems, tac vest problems etc etc are coming from the very groups who supposedly "were stacked into the trials" ... how does that work? They simply ignore that 20% and their needs - forcing them into stuff that does not work.

 

[armyvern]

The Matterhorn website has Tan and Brown along with some that look green.

WWW.Coveshoe.com


The problem isn't my ortho chit expiring, its the fact that he feels they can be cut down to fit the boots, as some of the orthos appear to be quite chunky. This is what delays the procurement, I walk into Physio and they tell me right away its a fit problem and not their problem, so back to supply I go.

You will also find the regulations and policy for orthotics posted in that thread. Show them to him. As long as your chit is under two years old, those rules apply. If your chit is greater than two years old, then physio needs to reissue you a new chit. If all of this is applicable, ask for the supervisor (I can PM you the name of this individual), then his supervisor. Get your supervisor involved if need be, but they are YOUR feet ... do what you need to do to get them looked after.

 

[REDinstaller]

Thanks for the insight from the other side of the counter.

 

[McG]

Funny that you mentionned stacking our trials with pointy enders ... funny how that's worked out for all our current in-service boots and tac vests, ...

They are stacked in favour of primary user group(s).  For the Tac Vest, it was 25% Infantry, 25% other Combat Arms, and 25% Service Support.  However, while the Tac Vest may score popular emotional points in any argument on issued kit problems, you know as well as I do that it is only a red herring here.  We have the vest we have because it was designed in a different time, based on different requirements and even the troops who trialed it were thinking "Bosnia."  You are one of many who have pointed that out in the past:

• No wrong steering, just different times.  If the Vest was identified as a requirement now,and not in the Bosnian time frame, it would probably have come out different.  Remember that everyone may have been living in the past.  The vest had to be trialled before it was accepted.  Troops resoundingly approved of it.  The whole process you described of design and manufacture, most likely started in mid 90's in a response to a need for better webbing in the Balkans.  ...  Unfortunately, we aren't like the Marines, when they all went to MOLLE, and everyone loved it, till they needed to use it, then they hated it.  The Marines fixed the problem by throwing it in the garbage and getting ILBE.

• Well said.  LFTEU does incorporate an exhaustive scientfic process to trial "stuff", from gloves and boots to weapons and the like.  There is extensive user feedback, but being human, they don't always get it right.  They do most of the time, but not always.  I think that the TV was a success story, however.

• As to the logic of the TV and the CTS items -- they were designed in the mid to late 90s -- well before Sept 11th, and well before the influx of combat experience the CF is currently witnessing.  ... had the CTS kit been design after 9/11 and after our deployment to Afghanistan circa fall 01 -- I'm quite sure that it would be significantly different than it is now.

• Perhaps you missed the part where I said the CTS kit was designed BEFORE we found ourselves on the 2 way range.
  
  Funny what future combat experience will reveal about one's kit and it's defeciencies.

• The Tac Vest f'n sucks. Everyone knows that. And because of THAT piece of kit -- some people people will go to good lengths to continue to slam each and every piece of CTS gear they can. But, how many times does it need to be said that the Tac Vest was designed in the early 90s --- when we were a peacekeeping nation -- a purpose for which it would be suitable?

The procurement of the Tac Vest was not a failure of Trials & Evaluations, it was a failing in our institutional perception of how we would fight the next war.  The continued service is also not a failing of T&E, and here again you have outlined the reasons it took so long for Ottawa to take notice that there was a problem:

• The TV is an individual kit item. The UCRs for it should be done by individuals. The more -- the better.
  
  Less than 10 submitted for 35000 issued means that not too many individuals have such a big problem with it that they are actually willing to DO something about getting it fixed instead of simply bitching about it.

• You must also have missed the part below where I said Individual Kit = Individual UCRS. In this case, it is an individual responsibilty ... same for PPE. Let me tell you this, when there's less than 10 UCRs on 35000 issued does it seem to be a big problem? No. Like I said ... that infers that 34996 individuals are perfectly fine with their kit. The "photocopying bit" is called IMPROVISING like I said already. One person with enough initiative to do this in every Unit WILL make a difference. And when NDHQ has 20000 UCRs on whatever piece of kit -- then that kit and its defeciencies certainly DOES become a problem that needs to get sorted out post haste exactly because it IS operational.

In any case, getting back to the topic of boots, you know that a boot allowance is a political battle.  The much maligned folks in DLR have examined that path - it ends at nowhere.  Providing an option within the supply system is likely the best that the CF can achieve without major political & other departmental bureaucratic change.

• Quite frankly, don't blame the Supply Techs, don't blame the staffer at CTS who can't do anything about it either, don't blame the different project managers who only have some say in where their specific funds go ...
  
  Blame the appropriate political authorities who are responsible for funding this outfit and enabling us to be able to afford the kit we need. ALL of it.
  
  ...
  
  In the case of footwear --- you can place the blame for the current situation squarely on the shoulders of Canadian Industry who bitched and whined that soldiers WERE getting the footwear that they needed from a US source of supply. Canadian Industry had a problem with that. Ergo ... now the Canadian Industry is being called upon, as per their DEMAND, to outfit our troops ... and quite the lovely job they're doing eh?
  
  (Maybe, just maybe, ... that's a BIG hint why the footwear was coming from a US source of Supply in the first place)
  
  That is pure POLITICS. Whine and cry all you want, but there's not a damn thing that I (even though I'd love to), you, the CDS or anyone else can do about it ... when Canadian Industry wants to push their "Canadian Content" crap into the kit you get ... at your expense.
  
  Talk to your MLA. Get them involved and make them aware how this 'lil political move is satisfying Canadian Industry at YOUR expense. Then, you may have a slim shot in heck about changing the way things are.
  
  It doesn't sound very nice, but that is the way it is.

• ... purchasing is Federal and governed by Federal regulations. Involving TB & PWGSC. Slow, tedious beaurcracy at it's finest, but that's the way it works in Canada.

• And PWGSC, who enforces most of the procurement laws, is DEFINITELY not at war.

• Recommendation rests at the highest levels of the CF, but, implementation and purchase is entirely dependant upon the approval of Feds outside of the CF.

I have to confess that I am absolutely stumped as to why you so voraciously attack the idea of an option through the supply system without acknowledging that it may be the best option within the military's power.  With an option in the supply system, we could go from ≥ 80 % to ≥ 95%.  With a third option (brown wet weather boot?) we could get even closer to that 100%.

 

[armyvern]

...

Blah blah blah ... and it's been 9 years already on the two way range - and here it still sits. I guess that pretty much sums up my point about how long it takes to trial things to find out they don't work. I have stated numerous times why we have the vest we do (which you were sure to quote) ... but I've also said many times "it don't work", "get rid of it" ... etc etc etc and I have tried umpteen times how to advise pers to go about getting that done. Here it sits though, still in service. Please, do not attempt to tell me that NDHQ is not aware of the discontent, nonfunctionality and absolute contempt of the pointy end troops with this particular piece of kit. They know; that's why 9 years later we're finally seeing some chest rig trials occur.

Yep, it was BiS before TFA ... TFA's been going on 9 years and we're just now getting around to trialling rigs?? Likewise the boots.

How come MCG, the bras took us less than a year to clue in? And, what's taking so long to do the same with the troops' boots? That's the question. Why is it that boots are "the" political battle? this is our soldiers feet that we're talking about - and those troops march and fight on those feet - it's time that they started getting looked after no? Answer that for me.

 

[McG]

Blah blah blah ... and it's been 9 years already on the two way range - and here it still sits. I guess that pretty much sums up my point about how long it takes to trial things to find out they don't work. I have stated numerous times why we have the vest we do (which you were sure to quote) ... but I've also said many times "it don't work", "get rid of it" ... etc etc etc and I have tried umpteen times how to advise pers to go about getting that done. Here it sits though, still in service. Please, do not attempt to tell me that NDHQ is not aware of the discontent, nonfunctionality and absolute contempt of the pointy end troops with this particular piece of kit. They know; that's why 9 years later we're finally seeing some chest rig trials occur.

Tac Vest - still not germane to the topic of a boot allowance, because I know you are not suggesting there should also be a load carriage allowance.  You've been a strong advocate for the necessity of T&E for individual operational equipment:

• ... for any item of kit to be "Officially sanctionned & authorized" for wear -- the government has the ONUS to ensure that it is tested for specs to ensure personal safety and that risks posed to the soldier are at the very minimal end of the stick.

• Then don't make a list of authorized non-issue kit.  Just say "If its CADPAT go for it. If your section commander shuts you down, too bad you've wasted your money."

  If anybody SAID that they would be benefacto "approving" it -- and NO ONE has the authority to do that unless it has been put through that testing process. Is that really too hard a concept to grasp?
  
  :

How come MCG, the bras took us less than a year to clue in?

Because our society has some hyper-sensitvity to boobs and that hyper-sensitivity is exacerbated in the mostly male military with fears of how the public might view the military's handling of said part of the anatomy.

If it makes you feel any better, I have been told that those authorities that managed to attain the bra allowance would be denied that success if they had to try it again today.

And, what's taking so long to do the same with the troops' boots? That's the question. Why is it that boots are "the" political battle? this is our soldiers feet that we're talking about - and those troops march and fight on those feet - it's time that they started getting looked after no? Answer that for me.

You may be getting closer to the relevant issues ... but I'm not playing this game a again where you ignore questions that I've asked while calling on me to answer questions of yours.

Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge what might be the best the CF can do inside of larger political & bureaucratic barriers that you had earlier described?

 

[armyvern]

Tac Vest - still not germane to the topic of a boot allowance, because I know you are not suggesting there should also be a load carriage allowance.  You've been a strong advocate for the necessity of T&E for individual operational equipment:

•  
• If anybody SAID that they would be benefacto "approving" it -- and NO ONE has the authority to do that unless it has been put through that testing process. Is that really too hard a concept to grasp?
  
  :

Because our society has some hyper-sensitvity to boobs and that hyper-sensitivity is exacerbated in the mostly male military with fears of how the public might view the military's handling of said part of the anatomy.

If it makes you feel any better, I have been told that those authorities that managed to attain the bra allowance would be denied that success if they had to try it again today.
You may be getting closer to the relevant issues ... but I'm not playing this game a again where you ignore questions that I've asked while calling on me to answer questions of yours.

Why is it that you refuse to acknowledge what might be the best the CF can do inside of larger political & bureaucratic barriers that you had earlier described?

Wow. You must have had my posts open all day long now.

So, I'm not ignoring a thing you've asked, but I am, once again, still waiting for you to answer my questions. Or, are you saying that I should just curl up and shut up because it's a "political issue"? A political issue or not, the current way is NOT looking after our troops or their health. Nor is it cost effective or effecient; so, "political" or not - it's WRONG. What do you not understand about that?

Just because it's political does not make it right, nor does it make it our best option. I, for one, will always advocate the best option for our pers vice something decided by Treasurey Board who doesn't have to walk one single meter in our shoes. So, we can call this discussion between us "done" now.

 

[McG]

So, I'm not ignoring a thing you've asked, but I am, once again, still waiting for you to answer my questions. Or, are you saying that I should just curl up and shut up because it's a "political issue"? A political issue or not, the current way is NOT looking after our troops or their health. Nor is it cost effective or effecient; so, "political" or not - it's WRONG. What do you not understand about that?

Just because it's political does not make it right, nor does it make it our best option. I, for one, will always advocate the best option for our pers vice something decided by Treasurey Board who doesn't have to walk one single meter in our shoes. So, we can call this discussion between us "done" now.

Gotcha.  So, instead of doing what is possible within the constraints placed upon the CF, we should throw our collective teddy-bear to the corner and hold-out for what has been denied.  Recognizing there are already accomodations in place for custome sizes & to meet medical requirements, if we could provide 2-3 different styles of boot to pick from in the supply system, I think we will have landed on the mark.  The troops & thier health can be looked after this way.  ... and you will note that I am not advocating the current way.  I am advocating a mechanism of choise within our constraints.

I'm not tracking your argument of effeciency.  Should we just abolish the whole existance of base clothing because supply chains costs money?