TYR Tactical

Putting the “Combat” Back in Combat Boots

In addition to the announcement that US Army is transitioning to Coyote colored boots, they’ve made another revelation.

It looks like SMA Chandler’s crusade to police up the Army’s boots is going to affect the Coyote swap. Although no details have been released, all new Coyote styles in Coyote color sold through AAFES will have to meet as-yet-published performance guidelines under the new UQCP for Uniform Quality Control Program.

The concept is that any optional wear footwear will have to be submitted for evaluation and then carry an “approval”. The intent is noble; any footwear a Soldier wears should be able to live up to its name of Combat Boots. In short, no more garrison boots.

Obviously, details are scarce. The real question is if this is going to hurt or help Berry compliant producers. On one hand they will be the only ones getting the certification. This assuredly won’t be offered to non-Berry boots. On the other, we know that offshore boots will continue to be sold and worn without the additional cost associated with the certification.

38 Responses to “Putting the “Combat” Back in Combat Boots”

  1. joe08 says:

    You’ve been, micro managed!

  2. PNW_Tree_Octopus says:

    Heaven forbid personnel equip/modify based in their performance and needs.

    SGMs need to stop doing a squad leaders job.

  3. Bugsy says:

    Oh come on. Really, WHO CARES what boots we wear?! Does that change our ability to train? The ability to qualify expert? Render aid to a buddy? Fill out a 4187? Where are your priorities, SMA? This is why I’m staying in…..

    • Justin M. says:

      The same people investing in the R&D to keep you safe and comfortable as you go into harms way.

      It may seem simple but there is a ton of testing and investment that goes into these programs and the manufacture of goods. Certifications, standards, quality assurances etc. all become very important. There are a lot of jobs and money on the line — and its coming from your friendly tax payer. Take pride in knowing we want to make sure you get the best goods.

      You may not be familiar with it, but there was a story of an underwater boot that won a massive contract from a company overseas. Everyone signed off on the deal as the proto’s were outstanding and exceeded expectations..however the first deliverable’s were complete failures. Why you ask? Well some knuckle head got a bright idea to change up an ingredient in the formula that was applied to bond the soles to the boot in effort to shave a fraction of a cent. That critical component happened to impact the integrity and life span of the product — soldiers were literally walking out of their brand new boots. Needless to say folks weren’t happy.

      I will be the first to admit that quite often you can find some great product (ie salomon gtx, patagonia, etc.) built overseas. However, it might be wise to start thinking bigger picture and respect those that do this for a living. They may have a better understanding of whats going on in their respective areas of expertise. After all, that is what division of labor and the foundation of the republic is all about, right?

      • xdarrows says:

        @ Justin M

        I require narrow boots. I have not been able to find an “issue” boot in Narrow since 2004.

        How can anyone say, with a straight face, that the issued desert boot is anywhere near as good as a Lowa or Salomon?

        Issued boots destroyed my feet … they continue to function in more expensive boots that fit me feet and offer the protection and support I require.

        • SSD says:

          ALL issue footwear share a common DoD last. If one doesn’t fit you, none will, just like the bad old days of leg boots.

        • Sal says:

          Heh.

          According to one SSD poster if you can’t comfortably wear issue boots you shouldn’t be serving.

  4. Drew says:

    My question is who will make up the UQCP?

    • Darth says:

      SMA Chandler .. you didn’t think he was going to leave the Army without a job to fall into that will afford him the oppurtunity to keep his knife hand ready

  5. TheDude says:

    Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the Marine Corps require their Marines to only wear authorized boots? Don’t think I’ve ever seen a Marine without a set of boots on their feet without an EGA stamped on the heel.

    And this isn’t something a Squad Leader makes good choices about, just like many squad leaders in the Army use the expression “shooters preference” and let their Soldiers set up their kit in all sorts of retarded ways, without ever having the knowledge or experience to make good decisions, or at least teach them what good options are. If you were arguing for the exception to actually wear quality, rugged, and appropriate boots for operations then this post wouldn’t be necessary. (Scarpa, Asolos, etc.)

    Most of you are crying because you want to wear tennis shoes masquerading as boots to be cool because the manufacturer said they are for “training” or for “special operations”. The boots don’t make the Soldier.

    These types of sneaker boots only hold up in the office. After two or three months on the streets, the woods, or even less time in the mountains and they are shredded. On airborne operations, I have seen more than enough ankle and foot injuries because the sport sneaker boots don’t provide enough support or projection. Don’t use the excuse “that they are better for ruck runs” either. If you are training, then train as you are going to fight, or at least what your are going to support your frame with – good quality boots. If you want to go faster, do better training.

    Grow up, stop crying and wear issued and authorized boots. You signed up, now accept the terms of your commitment.

    • balais says:

      I always bring those points up, and everybody gets butthurt because im implying that they should not be able to wear their super commando tennis shoe oakley whatevers.

      I enforced the combat boot only standard within my squad. No kommando boots.

      If you “need” a pair for garrison duties, you need to sit down, STFU, and do your job rather than worry about what pairs of boots are comfy for your garrison job.

      If issue boots hurt your feet too much, get a medical discharge.

  6. The Stig says:

    In other news, SMA Chandler informed Soldiers that the only authorized boots for wear with the new uniform would be made by Rothco and available only in size 9.5 narrow width. Asked why only one size would be offered, SMA Chandler responded, “the Rothco boot in 9.5M is the only boot evaluated to be up to the needs of the modern war fighter. No other boot matches the durability and uniformity requirements laid out. Plus, I’ve been wearing these boots for years now, so I know Soldiers will be happy with the choice.”

  7. CAVstrong says:

    I’m not sure why everyone is so concerned? Correct me if I’m wrong but the Marines don’t get a choice in footware? Why is it so shocking if they take away our choice?

    I mean I love my Rocky’s but…. Maybe it’ll be better for Joe if he can’t waste his money on frivolous stuff.

    • Riceball says:

      Actually, Marines do. They have since I was in back in the old black boot days and from what I’ve seen they still do now. I think the main difference is that (some) authorized boots have an EGA stamped onto the side of the heel area. I don’t know if only authorized boots have the EGA or not or if any coyote colored boots are acceptable but Marines do get a choice regardless, even if it may only be brand/manufacturer.

    • PNW_Tree_Octopus says:

      Marines do. We actually have a decent selection for most tastes and functions. Nothing near the Asolo’s or the Salomon line but good regardless.

      • straps says:

        What, a voice of reason among the din of military personnel griping about being held to something called a “uniform” requirement that their bourgie-ass UA cool kid boots didn’t conform to?

        You must be lost or something…

  8. Mick says:

    I like this. I’m annoyed that any company can put out crap that’s desert tan, and sell it in the px. It feels like trying to take money from joe. I’m not surprised that there’re joes out there who bought boots in the right color and couldn’t wear them b/c they’re not authorized. The “but they were sold in th px” excuse didnt cut it. It seems like such an easy mistake for a 18 year old to make. This makes sense to me.

    • Riceball says:

      I really don’t see this as trying to take making from Joe, just a company trying to make a buck. However, I don’t think that the PX should be allowed to sell unauthorized boots, it just leads to unnecessary confusion and people wasting their money because they think that if it’s sold in the PX then it must be authorized to wear. Either that or they need a section that’s clearly labeled saying “Authorized boots” so there’s no confusion as to whether those cool new boot you’re buying are on the authorized list or not.

      • Mick says:

        You and I mostly agree; I was less than articulate typing on my iphone.

        I have seen plenty of companies try to take money from Joe; and I strongly believe some company out there is like “looks like a boot? It’s in desert tan? Get it in the PX!” with not concern at all for if Joe is authorized to wear it.

        Also, my understanding of hte article is that it’s just PX sale of boots that this affects. If joe wants to do his research, and go out on the open market and find the cool commando boots that are compliant and fit his special, unique snowflake feet, then he’s still free to do that.

        However, Joe with paycheck making impulse purchase on post will only get authorized boots, which is good for joe. No more $200 down the drain b/c SGM doesn’t like his boots.

        • SSD says:

          No one is sure what this will mean. Assuredly, there will be leaders who look for the tag on the boot. If it’s not there, the Soldier will have to get a different pair.

  9. balais says:

    You are issued boots. You dont need to go to the PX or ranger joes online and buy another pair of different tennis shoe like ones.

    The Altamas, Bellevilles, Wellcos, and others work fine. If they hurt to wear, then perhaps you are in the wrong line of work.

    I cannot wait to see tennis shoe boots go the way of the dodo bird.

    • Riceball says:

      I don’t know, I think that those tennis shoes type boots do have a role but not for grunts (or grunt types) out in the field. What those light boots seem best for is SWAT types that mostly pound asphalt or concrete and don’t need a super rugged boot. They’re also good for the behind the wire garrison type troops like admin, cooks, mechanics and the like who don’t typically go out and hump a lot of hills or go on long patrols.

    • pbr549 says:

      Unfortunately, the Army saw fit to stop issuing the Belleville 390s. I’d go out on a limb and say if they still issued those as opposed to the Rothco and Altimas, there’d be a lot more issued boots on Soldiers feet.

    • pbr549 says:

      i guess Yadkin Rd, Victory Dr, and other similar roadways will see a return of the boot shop that specializes in modifying issue boots by pulling out all the card board and putting a more comfortable sole that were very common between 1989 and 2006.

  10. bulldog76 says:

    Do all those bitching im gonna let yall in on a old secret ….Dr.Schols

  11. Ron Dignard says:

    I have a feeling this initiative will go the way of other recent ‘Army Approved’ items such as FR gloves and flashlights.

  12. Silver Dragon says:

    Off topic: Mr. SSD, I have a recommendation which in short version: a cartoon image of your own creation distinctively approaching specific topics.

  13. Pete says:

    Blah! I’m so tired of people telling me I need “more ankle support.” Frankly, F you and your pussy-a$$ ankles. I have some seriously gumby ankles, but I’ve never had more rolled ankles than with issue boots. I have tried quite a few boots and discovered that Garmont T-8’s with Spenco Poly-Sorb rigid insoles work best for me for patrolling and time in the woods under a ruck as well as general use. I also find that Nike SFB’s (with the same insoles) work best for me for ruck runs and general PT in boots. Typically when I’m out with a ruck I wear Garmonts and keep Nike’s as my spare pare of boots. They’re light and, more importantly, pack smaller in my ruck. They work fine in the woods but don’t last as long and get eaten up by rope descents. I’ve carried a lot of weight over a lot of miles in a lot of terrain and jumped plenty. I know what works for me. I am willing to pay for nicer gear that doesn’t last as long. That is a personal choice a soldier should be able to make. Also keep in mind it is perfectly ok to tell a soldier his boots are worn out or unsuitable for the task at hand and that he/she needs to go get new ones. As they say, that’s what the uniform allowance is for.
    One size fits all does not work. Tanker boots are great for tankers but retarded for infantrymen. Flight boots are great for that line of work (and pretty good on a construction site too), but they’re heavy. Mountain boots are great for mountains, Mickey Mouse boots, Cold weather, etc etc ad infin.
    UQCP strikes me as, at best, a micro-managing crock of feces from on high; and, at worst, yet another insider deal for retired buddies of well-connected Penta-troopers.
    Stick with a color and size, and let the market do the rest.

  14. ab5olut3zero says:

    I think there’s something to be said for both sides and it sounds to me- on the face of it- the SMA is trying to straddle the line and allow Soldiers to make personal-preference choices but within the Army requirements. I know how things sound up front is rarely how they turn out in reality, especially in this newer, kinder, gentler Army; that being said, we can hope right? I definitely prefer my Garmonts for anything tactical or field, unless I’m on a track and then it’s my H&H Tankers all day. Rear can go either way. As they say, it’s METT-TC/Situationally Dependent, right?

  15. Bushman says:

    I think, there should be a prerequisite for issuing this kind of regulation – clear answer on a simple question: “Who knows better?”
    Because there are soldiers, who are better experts on their own body than anyone else, and there are soldiers, who think they are experts.
    First ones are able to improve their performance by using custom pieces of outerwear and footwear, second ones can usually only make it worse.
    That’s pretty clear, that it’s hard to find, who actually belongs to these two groups while there is no scientifically correct study on this subject. Therefore, any rough universal regulation like “issued only” or “certified only” has two sides, and nobody actually knows, how big each side is.

    By the way, any speech regarding “in-garrison boots” is a kind of speculation: there is no such a thing as “in-garrison performance” – even if your boots are, say, too warm, you are still able to cook, work on the computer or do anything else. Emphasizing this part of situation makes everybody who complains about the new regulation sound like “pussy who wants more comfortable footwear for doing paperwork”. While some of them are, probably, talking about something to improve their performance, say, in the mountains. And it’s a bit different thing, right?

  16. tom says:

    when will multicam make its way up to the MCS at JBER?

  17. Mac says:

    So does this mean they’re going to unfuck the boots in the supply system too? I have literally seen the soles fall off the brand new boots of privates in BCT. They don’t ruck that much! Drives me nuts when senior management says the issued boots are best yet the boots coming through the supply chain are obviously fucked. I get the fact that it’s a uniform, but whatever happened to QC to begin with that we have to institute a new program???

  18. Jon Meyer says:

    Are we having this god damn conversation again? I am still seeing blatant ignorance being posted.. I will quote what I said the last time we had this conversation.

    “I am so sick of seeing people justifying non-sense because that is what they HAD to do/use. F*cking retarded the sh*t that comes out of peoples mouths or from their keyboards. Lets just go back to bows & arrows and living in brick & straw houses while we are at. Or how about we stop using f*cking anti-biotics and sterilizing medical equipment.

    That type of ideology gets people injured and or killed. Next time one of you morons suggests keeping footwear that has barely changed much since WWII, put the sh*t on yourself and then throw on some shitty armor carrier (that you most likely advocate for over a much superior plate carrier) and likewise with a 100lb ruck, and then go walk through f*cked up terrain for a minimum of a day. Then tell me how you would like to go “back to basics.”

    I only spent 4 years in the infantry. When I was doing my phase 2 physical upon ETS’ing, they told me I had flat feet! I did not enter with flat feet. That is half the damn reason my knees and back have issues, the other half was carrying all that damn weight plus a car accident. I am not the only one either. Now go ahead and try and tell me again footwear, and gear in general do not f*cking matter all that much. Get the f*ck out of here.

    Now imagine the people who’ve done it longer than I, and the ones that still do. Their bodies and health are just ad important as the mission, if not more. You cannot complete this mission without the people.”

    • Jeffrey says:

      ^This +1

      I’ve seen brand new issued boots fail within the first month in country, yet the guys wearing whatever flavor of go-fast boot fare better. Everyone I know has had some sort of complaint about the issued boots over the years. Depending on brand, I have seen the issued boots vary in size from a 1/2 size to a full size up and down. I’m not against issued or approved boots, but give soldiers a little bit of choice, from quality US made brands and let them find what works for them and quit micromanaging us.

  19. Mark says:

    Your choices now are far better than what they were in the 1970s and 1980s. Of course, technology is much more advanced that it was then.

    The initial direct molded sole boots were a response to the stitch down boots having broken soles. They were cheaper, and lasted longer, although they were not designed to be re-soled. Technology allowed us to do such a thing by the time we transitioned to the boots we have now.

    The problem we’ll always have when the average guy gets to buy his own stuff is that you’ll get guys who decide that the made in China knockoffs are good enough. Leaders have to keep an eye on this kind of thing. The Army promulgated a left and right limit list. The Marine Corps has a number of boots Marines can use, but they all most be approved and bear the USMC emblem on them- which is licensed, and which is a quick check for leaders.

    Of course, boots, like any other piece of gear, require maintenance. They need to be replaced from time to time once they can no longer be re-soled. Leaders need to keep an eye on this, too.