Private Sheldon Forrest pulls a cleaning swab through the
barrel of his C7A2 rifle, while serving in Afghanistan.
Source: Combat Camera
STAND – UP TABLE
BOOTS ON THE GROUND:
A Different View on Boots for the Land Combat Environment
CWO Rob Unger, CD, writes...
As the Regimental Sergeant-Major of a combat arms unit, I am responsible for enforcing dress policies and
standards. A recurring issue in this area of interest is the wearing of non-issue boots. I am frequently
reminded in countless e-mails and conversations by my higher-formation sergeant-major that my soldiers
must only wear issue combat boots. Those reminders are supported by policies from the supply system,1
letters from Canadian Forces (CF) medical professionals2 and CANLANDGENs3 from the chain of
command. Despite the best efforts of disciplinarians at every level, soldiers still find a way to sneak in
other-than-issue combat boots during training activities. This is further complicated by the fact that the
chain of command seemed to turn a blind eye for our troops who deployed to Afghanistan, where soldiers
were allowed to wear boots of their own choosing during both the pre-deployment training and the actual
deployment. When soldiers returned from deployment, they preferred to continue wearing their chosen
boots rather than revert to standard-issue boots. Despite our attempts to standardize dress, the reality is
that there are currently three different types of boots in circulation worn by Army soldiers: the all-leather
Mark III combat boot, the wet-weather boot and the temperate weather boot. Add to the mix steel-toed
boots worn by certain tradesmen, the variety of boots worn by Navy and Air Force personnel, not to
mention the freedom of choice of boots given to special operations soldiers, and it becomes clear
that there is very little standardization in footwear.
Of course, when soldiers are asked why they prefer to wear other-than-issue boots, the majority state
personal comfort as the main reason. One can reasonably deduct from this that our standard-issue boots
do not necessarily fit every pair of feet—all feet are simply not created equal. For years the CF made
exceptions for members who complained of chronic joint or foot pain which they believed resulted from
wearing ill-fitting boots or boots whose soles did not provide enough shock absorption. During this time
many soldiers were allowed to purchase boots of their own choosing and claim back the amount spent. The
guidelines were that the chosen boot had to be a black high-top type boot. This practice has now been
suspended in favour of providing members with customized orthotics to be fitted in standard-issue boots.
The boot situation can be compared to a similar experiment the CF chose to undertake: that of the infamous
Brassiere Temperate Underwear, better known as the combat bra. At the time it was felt that this very
personal item was worthy of being integrated into the Clothe the Soldier program,4 and so an unwitting staff
officer was assigned the project. There were two opposing views on this initiative at the time. The staff who
supported standard support for our female service members stated that a properly designed bra would
reduce friction and thus prevent uncomfortable skin irritation. The skeptics stated that a standard-issue bra
would not take into account individual preferences and fit requirements. In the end, the project was
abandoned after a formal survey revealed that female CF members felt that a standard-issue item of this
nature was not a high enough priority.5 Instead, the CF decided to continue the practice of compensating
female members for the purchase of up to four brassieres of their choice per year, eight if the member
was deployed on international operations.6
What the combat bra experiment showed is that not all items of personal clothing for land force personnel
can or should be standardized. However, the CF is currently studying a new standard-issue boot design for
the land combat environment.7 I suppose that a great deal of staff effort—and vast amounts of research and
development (R&D) money—will be spent on determining the requirements and specifications for a boot
that will suit soldiers who must endure the rigours of combat while ensuring maximum combat effectiveness.
The proposed initial specifications for the new boot are that it must be brown or tan in colour and must be
lighter in weight than current in-service boots. It is expected to have a maximum duration of 180 days of
consistent wear.8 But the same problem will persist: the standard-issue boot will not suit every soldier’s feet.
WWW.ARMYFORCES.GC.CA/CAJ
141
Some militaries have solved the dilemma of the best fit for feet by allowing soldiers to purchase optional
footwear. In the U.S. Army, soldiers are given specific parameters for selecting commercial off-the-shelf
(COTS) boots. The material, both upper and sole, and the height of the boot are detailed, and a number of
examples of acceptable COTS combat boots are listed.9 U.S. Army soldiers must be in possession of at least
one pair of government-issue boots but may wear optional boots that meet the specified parameters. The
advantages of such a system would include the following: (1) the costs of R&D are borne by someone else,
(2) soldiers have a selection of footwear to choose from, (3) soldiers would have a fallback pair of standardissue boots if the COTS boots wear out before the next purchase entitlement period, and (4) there would be
little impact on the supply system—in fact, there is the potential to reduce inventory of current combat boots
and there would be less traffic at base supply units for exchanges. The only potential disadvantage is that
bases/units would be required to process more individual claims; however, this would mean only an increase
in volume, not the creation of a new procedure, since the process already exists for the purchase of brassieres
for female members.
Perhaps the way ahead for the CF is to redirect the staff effort dedicated to combat boot R&D towards
determining what specifications are required in footwear worn by Army soldiers and drawing up a list of
suitable COTS combat boots that fit those requirements. This would allow every soldier to have boots that
best fit his/her feet. Soldiers could be authorized to purchase a specific number of pairs of boots per year up
to a maximum dollar amount and be reimbursed annually. In this manner, soldiers would be equipped with
optimal close-fitting articles of clothing. And RSMs like me could focus our efforts on the primary outcome
of mission success, with member well-being assured by allowing soldiers the freedom to choose the most
comfortable boot.
ENDNOTES
1. A-LM-007-014/AG-001, Vol 3, Ch 13, Clothing and Personal Equipment.
2.
6600-1 (Medc Garnison) Avis concernant les bottes de combat et autres bottes, dated 4 July 2008.
3.
CANLANDGEN 022/10, dated 7 June 2010.
4.
“Canadian Forces ponder development of Combat Bra,” Dennis Bueckert, Canadian Press, 3 August 1999.
5.
“Canadian troops say no to combat bra,” Jack Boulware, www.salon.com, 17 July 2000.
6.
“Canadian Forces combat bra a big bust,” George Jaxon, Esprit de Corps, August 2000.
7.
Clothe the Soldier website, www.forces.gc.ca/aete/clothethesoldierdirects-habillezlesoldathis-eng.asp, as viewed
on 13 November 2011.
8.
Presentation by DLR-5 Soldier Systems during the Canadian Infantry Association Annual General Meeting,
Vancouver, BC, May 2011.
9.
United States Army website, www.army.mil/article/10228/, as viewed on 13 November 2011.
142
THE CANADIAN ARMY JOURNAL 14.3 2012
Members of Joint Task Force Afghanistan’s close protection
unit and members of Oscar Company, The Royal Canadian
Regiment, take part in a foot patrol in the Panjwayi District
of Afghanistan.
Source: Combat Camera