Army boots are sexist
According to the Army Times, some pencil neck on congressional staff says that the Army isn’t buying good boots for females’ feet, so they want to take money from training and equipment to fund a survey of two thousand female soldiers to determine how to make boots better for those people who wear eight-inch heels for hours on end while they’re dancing the nights away. And they spend hundreds, if not thousands on a different uncomfortable shoes every year (of course, my expertise on that subject comes from being a father of three daughters);
The markup requested “a survey of no fewer than 2,000 female active duty and Reserve component soldiers from a variety of relevant military occupational specialties to determine whether or not they are satisfied with the fit, size, and performance of combat footwear issued to them.”
[Adam Carbullido, spokesman for the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Madeleine Bordallo] said the survey, which lawmakers want done by Sept. 1, was a committee initiative, not necessarily one pushed by a particular member.
It’s as if the people who are supposed to be funding the military are more interested in diverting every penny they can from the warfighting capability of the Pentagon and nickel and dime them into poverty with ancillary BS. Yeah, I know it’s just a survey, so how much can it cost? It’s the Pentagon we’re talking about.
Category: Army News
Perhaps crocks will work for them.
Personally, I think the proposed study is a crock – the contents of which should be obvious.
Try six 6in high heels Sapper
Hurts my back.
I mean no way.
???
Keen sandals. Hard toe and everything
Hmmm, that is an interesting subject, especially since I saw so many young women grabbing onto the Doc Martens that looked like combat boots because they didn’t want to wear spike heels. Also, Doc Martens cost a lot less than Jimmy Choos. And they come in all sorts of fashion colors, too.
http://www.drmartens.com/us/c/womens-boots
So what was the problem again? Oh, they’re military issue.
Okay, I wear a size 6 shoe, but for hiking in the snow in the winter, my snowsport boots are 6.5 to accommodate my thicker socks.
This is a BS issue out of the mouths of whiny children and not much else.
Agreed, it some more micro management from afar. BTW a lot of the young girls in my area wear those, which proportionally makes them look like Frankenstein boots. My 20’s daughter still has a pair of those which she sometimes wears for going out with friends, which I thought was a little much as well as heavy. Especially since she wears light weight hiking boots for hiking.
Then again I still have a pair of jungle boots, which were always found more comfortable, but now wear Bates GX-8’s, I just wish they were less costly.
My hiking shoes literally fell apart and I have to get new stuff. I’m inclined to go to jungle boots so that if I wander into boggy places chasing dragons, I don’t have to worry about my feet and footwear drying out. Do they make them for itty-bitty feet like mine, or should I go a half size up?
Good news yes, bad news they are copies of the original, not saying they are bad but each manufacturer cuts them different for size. I personally like Columbia light weights for hiking (mostly for they come in extra wide, with my feet I can nearly walk on water).
Never saw dragons unless gators count.
I have pictures of dragons. Sometimes, they land on my head.
I have to point out, Doc Martens blow these days. They used to be made for working class English Hooligans to wear, which meant that they would last. Lately, they’ve been pandering to candy-assed hipsters, and they literally fall apart in a month now, and those are the English made ones, not the Asian ones.
Also, as someone who has worn them for a long time, I have to say that I would not want to run or march in them. They’re a lot heavier than Altama’s.
I used to wear them when playing guitar live, because the steel toed ones protect you from hitting something with your foot (like a stack of amps or a monitor), but the drastic drop in quality with an increase in price made me switch over to Solovair, who bought out Doc Marten’s facility when they left England in the early 2000s. Doc Martens these days aren’t good for much more than clubbing by kids still being supported by their parents.
But… but they’re so pretty!
No pushing. No shoving. There are enough Birkenstocks for all!
Shhhh! Don’t give them ideas!
This is probably the same ignorant staffer that came to observe training here at ITB and asked us to just make the female packs lighter.
I’d laugh, but he or she will probably be designated to draw up the new standards for combat arms.
Pictures….we need pictures. Tactical stilettos and maybe some thigh highs.
What? No fishnet? No Fredrick’s of Hollywood camo push-up bras?
Where you been, SARC? Missed you.
Keep talking Ex-PH2….you have my attention. lol
maybe a line of “cammiesoles” and weight bearing lingerie? Lacey plate carriers?
A little bit of eye candy from RealTree, just for you, SARC.
http://www.realtree.com/camo-products/2014-realtree-girl-camo-swimsuits
Thanks Ex, the hat looks useful.
If they are going to survey 2,000 women, maybe they should survey 2,000 men. Since men are going to be the great majority of combat troops for the near future, why not detect and solve a problem for the majority of the force instead of for the minority?
Wasn’t there some talk about not changing the standards because Amazons don’t need different rules? Or, was that last week?
Hat? (smile)
Richard, it changes with the way the wind blows through Foggy Bottom. That Hobo fellow can probably confirm this.
THUD!!!!
OK, big fella, pull yourself together. It’s just pictures.
This is another example of the stupidity prevalent behind a great many well intentioned projects…it wouldn’t surprise me to find this survey costing anywhere from a half million to five million to conduct and then deciding that a separate boot is required for women, then I can see the logistics behind making that happen and the associated cost structures that accompany that logistical supply chain alteration.
And then I still see all those aircraft that are currently not airworthy and I wonder much as the rest of you, what the fucking fuck are we doing?
I’d be surprised if total cost wasn’t north of $1000 per participant. You can do the math from there.
That’s the published cost not the final accounting.
Meanwhile, there are thousands of currently serving, retired and otherwise separated from military service females who could share their opinions of this nonsense for nothing.
WTF, over? Footware, as does every other uniform article, come in a variety of sizes. Get a pair that fits – your gender doesn’t matter – shoes and/or boots which do not fit properly will cause problems for both males and females.
Maybe the folks doing the survey will be from the staffer’s college?
“Meanwhile, there are thousands of currently serving, retired and otherwise separated from military service females who could share their opinions of this nonsense for nothing.”
^ Like it!
—
As a Female who owns more Holsters than Heels, I can’t understand the 8″ heel thing. Back in the “non-enlightened” days, purchasing after market was difficult without the interwebz, but necessary if one wanted Boots that fit. Most likely easier now and more choices.
For the women who don’t lean to Birkenstocks, there’s this little number:
http://www.amiclubwear.com/shoes-heels-ami-marilyn-5pink.html
2/17 Air Cav…Well chosen. A closed toe pump with high heal. Good for desert applications and getting a good grip in jungle mud or snow. Plus, it works great for after hours at the clubs. Good choice. The blinding color will have Arabs falling down into prayer.
All true, Sparks, but they look great on a woman wearing a red negligee.
I’d hit it!
Here ya go, Sparks. (Warning: brain bleach may be required after viewing.)
http://www.randomreviewcrew.com/wp-admin/images/fat-1.jpg
(smile)
Whoo-Hoo, a Ginger Snap.
The “Snap” you hear is when she does the lift and quick release maneuver on her belly.
Smile.
Funny, when I got my boots, no one asked me if I was “satisfied with the fit, size, and performance of combat footwear.” Soon after, I purchased the aftermarket equivalent that was authorized by the Army at that time.
Hey Bobo, no one asked me a damned thing either except to say, “Why the hell are you holding up the line! Move on to the next issue station dipshit!”
I wore a 10 1/2 6X (Yes, 6 wide) from age 16 on. Biggest parents could find were XW at W.T. Grant. I think they were probably 2X or thereabouts. Joined the Navy and was asked my size. I said 10 1/2, 6X. Guy said something about ‘here’s an 11, XW. Same thing’ and that was that. No negotiation, no explanation. no nothing. LOL Man, did they hurt. Later when stationed with the Marines, I found they actually had a better selection in their webbed boots, and they didn’t totally suck. Didn’t fit perfectly, but were better than anything I had prior to that time. Since about the early 70s, I have bought mostly from Hitchcock Shoes. They have up to 6X. Even wider in some models. Haven’t bought a pair of shoes from a fixed store in 45 years or so. The additional cost is money well spent. I like one post about asking the ladies who are veterans. The cost to do so? The loss of income for the several hundred people the government would hire to hold committee meetings, crunch the data and go to seminars about shoes. Yeah, I know. Never heard of a study potentially costing millions of dollars that the government would walk away from.
It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know that Army boots are cut and sized for men. Men’s feet tend to be longer and wider. I’ve spent some time in hiking boots, and because I have big feet (size 10 female, size 8 male) I generally buy men’s boots. If I take time and get a good brand name (Merrill’s for one pair, Rocky’s for the other), then yes, I can get a good fit and a comfortable boot. But I’ve had boots that I wore once, too, because while the length was correct, the boot was cut too wide and too high in the foot, and I ended up sliding around in them, with the resultant blisters and calluses. Thick socks can help, but they won’t correct an ill-fitting boot.
However, I would think the current boot maker on contract for the Army boots would be able to make boots for females with very little problem. If someone is doing a ‘study,’ then I’d bet someone is lining their pockets.
Belleville Boots is one of the primary providers to the Army and Air Force. They already make a womens line of the same cut of boots we wear. Plus excellent aftermarket boots.
https://www.bellevilleboot.com/shop/index.php?c=16&l=product_list&sortby=&size=&width=&color=2&climate=3&gender=16&features=5
The reactions of some people here is rather shocking. People on this site usually support having the best equipment for people in the military but when it comes to footwear, women should just “suck it up?” There is actual science behind looking into this: “This study demonstrates that female feet and legs are not simply scaled-down versions of male feet but rather differ in a number of shape characteristics, particularly at the arch, the lateral side of the foot, the first toe, and the ball of the foot. “ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11283437 “Analysis showed that the heel-to-ball length (ball length) of the male participants’ feet (181.5 mm) was significantly longer, on average, than that of the female participants’ feet (165.0 mm). The width of the male paticipants’ feet at the ball, instep, and heel regions, as well as the ball circumference, normalized by the ball length, were all significantly larger on average, than the female test participants’ feet. However, toe region, instep, and medial and lateral malleoli heights were larger, on average, for the female participants than for the male. The results show that female feet differ in size and shape from male feet and are not algebraically scaled, smaller versions of male feet, as is often assumed.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19767544 Does anyone here think that Nike, Addas, New Balance,etc design athletic shoes with the same ratios and dimensions for men and women? The cited article contains this quote: “The Army is the only service that does not use female-specific lasts — the mold/model around which the boot is built — to design their combat footwear,” said Adam Carbullido, spokesman for the subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Madeleine Bordallo, of Guam, via email. “Instead, the Army uses lasts designed for male feet, despite women having served in combat for years.” The real question is then “why is the Army behind the times when it comes to footwear?” Why have the Marines, the Air Force and the Coast Guard all addressed the very real issue of physiological differences between men and women’s feet while the Army has not? (Didn’t the military branches all make new uniforms… Read more »
I am personally ashamed, gitarcarver. Maybe the women should sue. Sounds like proxy gender discrimination. Think of all the women who would have joined the Army but for those blasted boots. Think of the women in service who would have made the grade in various PT tests but for those blasted boots. It’s a damn shame.
You ever hear the saying “No hoof, no horse”? Well, no foot, no soldier, Soldier!
The interesting thing Air Cav is that for the running part of the tests, women can wear running shoes designed for women.
As I said,it appears more that the Army is behind the other services.
When I was a raw recruit, we were given 2 pairs of shoes politely called Oxfords. They were ugly, they were painful to break in, and after 10 weeks of marching on asphalt from one building to another at Bainbridge, they had to be resoled. They were also referred to as ‘boondockers’, although all the boondockers I ever saw were 1960s combat boots on Army guys in greens. They were of cheap, crappy construction and had to be polished to a mirror shine every day.
Whatever these girls are whining about, if the shoe doesn’t fit properly, it’s as PN said: the boots are cut for a man’s foot, not a woman’s. It does make a difference.
Well I guess it’s only a matter of time until issued weapons are also deemed sexist and redesigned for the female body.
Of course. It’s just another act of discrimination by proxy. There is no real need for women to prove that they can do X number of pull-ups or push-ups. The fact that male musculature is different than female musculature makes this proxy discrimination, not to mention that chesty women have a extra load to carry, although that does tend to help in push-ups. There’s not as far to go. And the amount of ammo a woman can carry versus that of a man, well, the number is actually arbitrary, isn’t it? Same as the number of grenades one carries. Sure, there may come a time when one wishes he had more ammo, a few more grenades, but waste not, want not, I say, and, besides, those instances are relatively rare. So, let’s get with it, stop the discrimination against women by these subtle methods. Forward!
AirCav, the ‘extra load’ is a pad of fat tissue. Did you know that men can get breast cancer, too? Love ya!
I loves fat tissue so long as it’s on women and in the right places.
Madeleine Bordallo is a moron.
Most women do not wear 8 inch heels. Most have never worn a pair in their entire lives.
What the hell, why is this such an issue? It is not wasted money to do this research.
We are talking about spending money on research for SERVICE MEMBERS. These are SOLDIERS, SAILORS, AIRMEN, and MARINES.
They are serving our country and putting their lives on the line and some of you are bitching about spending money to make sure boots fit properly?
Is this a position you will still feel proud to have taken in 10 years? Will you look back and say; “yeah, I was right to constantly bitch about the role of women in the military.”?
Oh, LOOK! The Poodle withadick is sticking his oar in! And when, pray tell, Poodledick, have you EVER worn women’s shoes, never mind our clothing?
Come on, Poodle! Fess up!
Back for more hunting Lars?
Ex-PH2, it’s probably been recent and often. Makes it easier to go in the shitter he identifies with.
The crickets get SO loud when he shows up and then blows away.
And he still hasn’t answered my question about research. Taking the fact that he shows up, pisses everyone off in a way that can only be intentional and then starts the cricket lullaby has me convinced that is exactly what he is doing. Fargin Arsehole that he is. That or he’s here for the abuse and gets off on it. Which is really scary considering I may unknowingly playing into some weird Lars sexual fantasy.
Sorry. Here’s the blain breach.
You know, you could WARN someone when you say things like that, Animal!!!
Lars,
Out of curiousity and I know you served in the Army, but did any female Soldier you worked with complained about her boots?
Well I was in for 9 and the wife was in for four, and she complained that her feet hurt in the boots and reported that when she was in basic, a large percentage of her company, even some good runners, developed shin splints running in boots.
So, yes, at least in my case, I HAVE heard complaints from women about their boots.This, however, was in the 76-86 time frame with the old black leather combat boots. (The preferred alternative was jump boots…but they didn’t fit me well so I stuck to the normal boots. That’s why there are 31 flavors.)
Thanks, David, for the feedback.
Still don’t see answer from Lars on my simple question, which is either a Yes or a No.
He stays silent with others as well.
Guess he has joined the other members of Joe Gainey’s “Welcome to the Sound of Silence” Group or as others mentioned, PV9 Gainey’s Cricket Brigade.
Running in boots gave a helluva lot of male soldiers shin splints too, David – along with causing or aggravating other physical problems. That’s a primary reason the Army by and large got away from running in boots, starting in the 1980s.
GAAAAWWDAMMIT Lars, JUST WTF are you trying to say in your bawling bitch comment dujour?
Hey waitaminnit, you’re a pus-nuts pinkie-in-the-ait snotnosed UC Berserkely liberal. AND you’re living proof that liberal Kool-Aid causes severe brain damage! Have a Berserkely day, POODLE DICK!!
Lars, you idiotic pseudo intellectual fraud. Just because more posts return to another philosophical discussion by people who have a good handle on intelligent conversation, BY NO MEANS is that an invitation for your liberal garbage. In case anyone forgets (and I will NEVER let that happen) you are the shithead who remarked “People who are afraid of communists are foolish”. Just f_______g brilliant you asshole! EVERY time you post on this site I am going to add more deaths of fathers, sons, brothers, daughters etc. to the list of those killed in military wars/exercises by your so-called not-to-worry-about Commie buddies. Republic of Viet Nam 58,209….Korea 36,516. Each and every time you post you will find more numbers for us to not worry about…according to the biggest liberal asshole in this country.
You don’t know shit about research, you DAMNED SURE don’t know anything about Communism, you don’t know about Shinola…as a matter of fact you don’t know nothin’ about nothin’.
Wait just a damned minute…must give you credit for knowing somethin’. That would be OBVIOUSLY you know a LOT about women’s shoes and how they fit. BY any chance are you a gay ballerina?
Include the missing from both of those wars, Jarhead, and the list grows even larger.
Thanks Ex…good suggestion which will be taken to heart.
We’re the same. Everyone is equal. Everything is gender neutral. Gender is a social construct. But women’s feet are different from men’s feet. Awesome double speak. Awesome congruence of logic. Maybe just maybe could it be that everyone’s boots suck at first. But the POGs who complain never properly break their boots in because they sit behind a desk. Then scream and bitch when the eventually go on deployment and have to walk to a chow hall?
Commissar does NOT know me.
Are you positive about that, Jack? I thought for sure he was your cousin Fulla.
I think F usa just married into the family and is blood kin.
I meant Fulla. My one chance to be witty. That ain’t worth a Lars.
Thank God we just did tennis shoes underway.
And in reality, who is going to pay for this survey?
Let me guess. My taxes will be raised again. No increase in retirement pay/COLA again.
What’s next? A study on headgear/Kevlar Helmets and Jackets for women? Smaller weapons for women’s hands?
How about using our tax dollars to support our Vets who came home minus their feet/limbs?
And last: Wonder what company will get the contract to do the survey. And why survey 2,000 women?
All they have to do is ask the Navy and Marines it has already been done and they have Male and Female Combat Boots.
No need for a survey. An actual study was done over 20 years ago and involved women and men, with the black boots of my era and the so-called hot-weather boots. Here’s the link:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a133002.pdf
WELL SHIT, then what else is some “Consultant” gonna do for a kickback from some pol he bribed (*OOPS*, donated to in an election year)
ROTC GF at the time (mid 80’s) showed me a book (Small Soldiers?). The indicated the large number of women getting heel blisters was not due to poor foot care management but a narrower heel than typical men’s boot lathes of the day.
Well, that settles it. No need to pay for another study, because it’s already been done and paid for.
All this info is readily available from commercial hiking/sporting boot makers, and has been for years.
Commissar, another question:
You seem to be an intelligent person.
You honorably served our country.
You have been forthright is stating you do have some mental issues.
You come here and express your views and opinions and Jonn has not blocked you.
Yet, when asked questions based on your comments, you ignore the questions and go quiet.
Why? I’m sure you did not do that when you were in the Army and were you not an Officer?
Did you do the same thing to your Soldiers, that is, ignore them?
There has to be a reason as to why you continue to come here. You once made a statement that you don’t read other folks comments on TAH, yet you choose to write your views on topics that are addressed here.
Is that not being hypocritical?
Not all of us agree with one another on TAH. Somehow, though, there is still that bond on sharing and being thick skin at the same time.
And since you were a former Army Officer (Civil Affairs, correct?), then I’m sure you had to have some thick skin when those who out ranked you in your Chain of Command conducted an AAR on your unit, platoon, company, etc.
So, Lars, again…why ignore our questions? And if you are indeed doing a “study” on us, how can you produce an honest “paper” if everything is one sided?
I used to think Lars was intelligent. Now I think he just memorized a few talking points that someone sold him as “The Way” and he just parrots them over and over without any true understanding of what he’s saying.
Hmm. Taylor as a “talking head” with the Ghost of Lenin’s hand up his butt manipulating his head and jaw.
Might explain quite a lot, actually.
Animal,
It’s been a bit disturbing to me (and I know for you) that he contiuously ignores you and your questions.
Perhaps this may be part of his study/dissertation or whatever his motives are.
Maybe it’s time to ignore his comments, that is, don’t respond no matter how tempting one may want to sandblast him.
Let him keep posting his comments here. IMO, just give him the Silent Treatment. Make him wonder why we are ignoring him.
It may seem childish on my part to feel that way and I’ve been told “Silent Treatment” is a form of emotional abuse, but I found out that if you want someone’s attention, don’t give them any.
And so far, in my own personal experiences, it has worked.
So, for Lars, he is now off my radar. Don’t have any interest anymore on him answering my questions.
Thanks for being a great commentor on TAH (and Kudos to others as well). I have learned alot from this site and have deep respect for all (except the defenders of SV liars).
Yeah I tried ignoring him. Serenity now, insanity later. One upside now to asking him is he disappears after.
Not that anybody died and left me in charge or anything, but it seems like the boot study is going about things the wrong way in that it’s going to wind up telling everybody what they pretty much already know. The real goal shouldn’t be to provide dozens of new gender-specific sizes, and the inventory issues that involves, it should be to figure out a way to bring the cost of custom fitting down in a way that can benefit everyone.
As an example of the kind of approach I’m talking about, some years ago I wrote a story about helmets used in the NFL. It turned out that although each helmet shell was an off-the-shelf item, the interior cushioning was custom fitted. The way they did this was to inject a liquid gel into the liner while the player was being fitted, with the gel later turning into a semi-solid. At the time, it seemed like a remarkable use of the available materials science.
Another way it could work is that those with a combat arms MOS could be granted a voucher to off-set the cost of custom fitting from a third party. An advantage of doing it this way is that the process would act as it’s own R&D. Vendors who provided a good cost-effective product would stick around; those who didn’t would go away. All the Army would care about is that the boots meet certain appearance and durability standards.
Ski Boot’s were doing the same thing a while back.
Skate boots. The men’s boots and women’s boots are built on completely different lasts, and skates are put through enormous stress in practice and in competition by both men and women.
If I get women’s boots from LLBean, they are sized and built to fit women’s feet, not men’s hooves.
It should not even be about ‘custom’ fit, but rather acknowledging that there is a distinct difference between a man’s foot and a woman’s foot.
I think that’s one of the biggest failures in the military footwear program – they seem to ignore the basic fact that not all of our feet are the same. You’ve got a tall, thin arch to your foot that needs a different level of support, thus a boot made for that reason. They also ignore that there are men that have a high arch (I was told mine would collapse when I went through Army Basic back in ’78 – guess what – I still have a high arch). My post at the end gives a bit more of my thoughts.
This company produces military boots specifically designed to fit women’s feet.
http://uspatriottactical.com/female-womens-tactical-military-boots/
If this is already available, why is another study needed, except to line someone’s pockets?
Looks like someone “broke the code”. (smile)
Ex, You are correct I don’t know why the Army is have a big deal with this. We and the Marines issue the Belleville Combat COYOTE boots and if some women can not use them they go to the danners. The females in our community do not complain as the BOSS contract company that issues the gear makes sure that if they have problems with the fit they will keep trying until they find the ones that work. I believe we have a different contract as we are a small community and it is easer to take care of a small group vice 100 of thousands of troops.
The Marine Boot that is a Belleville is a different boot from the like three or four the Army has. The Navy NECC has the same COYOTE Brown combat boot it just does not have the Globe and Anchor on the heal.
The bottom line if the Army would talk to the other branches and see what they have they could solve the problem instead of paying for a survey.
“The bottom line if the Army would talk to the other branches and see what they have they could solve the problem instead of paying for a survey.”
Yes, but when you point out the obvious like that, people in the Army who have to ‘do something’ will ignore you or give you blank looks. If they budget money for a study, then they have to spend it because they might not get it again.
Corcoran makes boots for women unless they are nasty legs. http://www.corcoranandmatterhorn.com/Category.asp?CategoryID=28
FWIW: it looks like the Navy has also rather extensively studied the issue:
http://dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA259324
I’m guessing the problem is that far too many women are being fitted with reg width vice narrow. Women’s feet are in general a bit narrower than men’s feet, so I’d guess many women would need a narrow width (or possibly extra narrow) vice regular width shoe or boot.
Yes Hondo, We have had a women’s boot for sometime now and when the Marines and us went to the COYOTE Brown combat boot they made a contract with Belleville and Danner to provide ground Combat boots for women.
I don’t know why Branches do not talk to each other on issues like this. They need to understand although different branches we can all still have the same problem and the other may have solved the problem.
On my last deployment we had a female troop with tiny feet. The size was 3. The folks with the RFI traced her on paper feet and sent her custom boots overseas ten months later. Just a funny story.
This one is ironic, and here’s why. I retired from the ANG, and one of the items that our union (Full time dual roll – Excepted Civil Service) got was for us to be able to purchase Mil-Spec boots for our union members because the boots that were available through supply were so miserable that countless people were having back and foot problems. We were able to purchase them using the GPC for a time, then someone cried and we had to do it via reimbursement. The big push came from the people in Maintenance that were out on the asphalt all day long, and we loved the program. I know personally that I couldn’t wear issue boots because of the surgery the Army did when I was AD, and I had to have custom orthotic inserts as a result. There’s a really simple fix – simply allow the same program – find a Mil-Spec boot that meets or exceeds the requirements (and there’s a slug of them out there), and allow the people the choice. I think that some of the people that come up with these assinine surveys and such need to pay for them out of their pocket – a whole lot of them wouldn’t have been!! Oh – and as a positive feeedback on our being allowed to purchase our own boots, most of them lasted a lot longer than the issue ones, so in the long run, quite a bit of money was saved. I was also the Maintenance Group RA (thus the first hand knowledge that it did indeed save the Government money)
This observation may be anecdotal.
Back in the mid-late Seventies, the basic black molded sole boots that had a contoured or cut-out “indentation” between the eyelets on each side of the tongue were called “Female Boots” by some troops. These particular boots were despised by the crusty old types