Combat boots are military boots designed to be worn by soldiers during combat or combat training, as opposed to during parades and other ceremonial duties. Modern combat boots are designed to provide a combination of grip, ankle stability, and foot protection suitable for a rugged environment. They are traditionally made of hardened and sometimes waterproofed leather. Today, many combat boots incorporate technologies originating in civilian hiking boots, such as Gore-Tex nylon side panels, which improve ventilation and comfort. They are also often specialized for certain climates and conditions, such as jungle boots, desert boots, and cold weather boots as well as specific uses, such as tanker boots and jump boots.
- 1 History
- 2 20th Century - present
- 3 Fashion
- 4 See also
- 5 References
- 6 External links
The first soldiers known to have been issued boots were the foot soldiers of the Roman Empire. Roman soldiers wore hobnail boots, called caligae. By the late 1st century the army began to transition into an enclosed boot called calcei. They offered more protection and warmth than the caligae. They quickly became a staple in both Roman military and civilian dress.
England and United Kingdom
During the English Civil War, each soldier of the New Model Army was issued three shoes or ankle boots. After every march, the soldier would change them around to ensure they received even wear. Following the Restoration, shoes and uniforms followed the civilian pattern: shoes with buckles were used by most armies from 1660 until around 1800. Hessian boots were used by cavalry from the 18th century until World War I.
Late in the Napoleonic Wars, the British army began issuing ankle boots that replaced the buckle shoes. These types of boots remained in use throughout the 19th century and were used in conflicts including the Crimean War (1853-1856), First Zulu War (1879), and First Boer War (1880-1881).
These in turn were replaced by ammunition boots, which were used in a variety of similar design patterns from the late 1880s until the late 1960s. The "George Boots" worn with the Officers' dress uniform and mess dress are similar, but they lack the leather counter (heel cap), the toe case (toe-cap) and omit the hobnails, and the steel heel and toe plates.
Infantry regiments of the US military were equipped with calf-high boots in the War of 1812. From the 1820s until before the American Civil War soldiers were issued ankle-high boots, which were made on straight lasts. There was no "left" or "right" boot; instead, they shaped themselves to the wearer's feet over time. As a result, these boots were very uncomfortable until broken in and often resulted in blisters. They were replaced in 1858 with an improved version used until the 1880s, generally known as Jeff Davis boots after Jefferson Davis, the Secretary of War who re-equipped the army in the 1850s.
20th Century - present
|This section does not cite any sources. (November 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Since 2000, the Australian Army (as well as other its other Defense branches), primarily uses the Redback Terra Combat Boot as a replacement for the Vietnam War-era General Purpose combat boots. It was given a limited amount of tests in 1999, and was later distributed in 2000. Despite the boot's general aptitude for the tasks which the ADF had first put it in place for, it still had major flaws. 90% of all negative feedback from soldiers was about its inappropriate sizing, having only 43 different sizes. Many also claimed that its sole would rot under worst-case tropical circumstances.
Currently, development is underway to create a better boot. To address concerns, the Australian Army maintains a list of approved non-standard issue boots that can be worn by troops. Boots approved by the Chief of Army as at 25/6/11 include:
- Altama 4156 or 4158 3LC Hot Weather
- Belleville M590 or M591 Hot Weather
- Bates 30501 Durashocks Desert
- Crossfire PeaceKeeper Plus
- Danner Desert Acadia
- Meindl Desert Fox Safari
- Lowa Urban Desert
- Garmont T8 Multi Terrain
In the early 20th century, Argentine soldiers wore hobnail boots with leather gaiters as well as jackboots. The combat boots worn during the Falklands War came with durable stitched rubber soles. These boots were stolen from dead Argentines by the British forces as they were preferred to the poorly made DMS (Direct Moulded Sole) boots worn by the British troops. These boots continue to be worn today in addition to the later pattern with "EA" stamped on the leg.
Belgian combat boots are marked by the abbreviation "ABL" (Armée Belge / Belgisch Leger), i.e. "Belgian armed forces" in French and Dutch languages. The soles of Belgian combat boots have different markings, according to the soles manufacturers: Rugak, Rubex and Solidor (models of 1970-s). Leather uppers have markings of "GESKA" ("Geska" NV) or "ARWY NV". Belgian Combats of the years 1970-90s come with stitched rubber soles. Later pattern made by Urban Body Protection International and come with British type "tyre tread" soles.
Combat boots of the French army are nicknamed "rangers" because of their similarity to the M 43 American model. Since the end of World War 2, three models have been manufactured. The first model was based on the 1952 combat ankle-boots on which a leather high-top cuff with two buckles were added. It was made of sturdy but very stiff brown colored cowhide leather. It was called "brodequin à jambière attenante Mle 1952" and was widely distributed from 1956 on, in priority to airborne troops engaged in Algeria. In 1961, a simplified version was introduced, the boot and the leather cuff being made in one piece. In 1965 a new version of the 1961 model was introduced made of shined black grained leather more flexible than the original one. Their soles were of a direct molded type. In 1986 a transitory model with laces and enhanced waterproofing was experimented with under the designation "combat boots model F 2" but was not adopted. The first two models had to be blackened with colored grease and shoe polish. They were issued to French soldiers; including Foreign legionnaires, until the beginning of the 1990s, and then were kept in store in case of conflict. A lot of them have been released on the market after the gendarmerie dropped the territorial defense mission at the beginning of the 21st Century. A winter model, with laces and a Gore-tex lining was introduced in 1998. The third model and a winter model are still in service in the French army but are progressively being replaced in operation by more modern Meindl type boots.
The current combat boot used by the Norwegian armed forces is the M77. It was introduced in 1977 and is produced by Alfa Skofabrikk AS. The M77 boot took ten years to develop and strict requirements were set for weight, durability, water resistance, comfort, as well as having to be easy to maintain and with good heat resistance to facilitate quicker drying. The Norwegian army frequently test boots from other manufacturers, they have, however, not made any plans to change boots for their soldiers. The M77 boot has notches along the sole and in the heel made for the NATO issue skis used by the Norwegian Armed Forces. The bindings for these skis fit the M77 boots as well as the thick waterproof outer shoes they can be put in. The boots can be used for skis as well as snowshoes.
The military started using boots in 1779. The current model is m/90 that is designed to be both comfortable and light as well as giving ankle support. They are part of the m/90 uniform system.
The South African National Defense Force are issued brown combat boots with pimple print leather and stitched rubber soles. Paratroopers wear the same boots but tie them up in a way to increase ankle support.
The Singapore Armed Forces servicemen are currently issued the Frontier black combat boots with a "water outlet" that allows water to leak out of the boot should water ever enter the boots since 2012.
Unlike the predecessor Gore-Tex boots which were neatly padded and waterproof, the Frontier designers removed the padding, added a ankle support strip, and added two "water outlets", making the boot very uncomfortable.
With the change, the waterproof feature was also gone, resulting in criticism from the reserve conscripts who were previously issued with the Gore-Tex boots which were waterproof. However, it allowed the water to drain out of the boot after a river-crossing. Also, the boot become more ventilated (and "cooling") as the paddings were removed.
Durability was also an issue in both the 2nd Generation Gore-Tex (predecessor) and also some batches of the Frontiers. At times, the out-sole of the boot will come apart from the shell of the boot since the sole of the boot is only glued to the shell of the boot, not stitched. Some of the servicemen would also find their Frontier boots with its stitching coming apart after some months of usage.
The Republic of Singapore Air Force servicemen are currently issued a modified version of the high-cut Frontier boots. The RSAF boots has padded sides, and a different out-sole, a and composite toe fitted.
The Republic of Singapore Navy servicemen are issued the modified version of the RSAF's boots. The modifications include the two water outlets (as same as the Singapore Army), and a reduction in height from a high-cut boot to a mid-cut.
||This section possibly contains original research. (October 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
|This section may require copy editing. (October 2015)|
The Spanish army in the past issued triple buckled boots manufactured by Segarra. Fully laced-up boots became common from 1984-86, although it seems that during the 1980s Spain had many variations of design on their boots: Vibram sole/Panama; buckles/laces; eyelets/speed lace. However, there were three common models:
- Boot "regular" - which was the road with uniform instruction and campaign. Its sole thickness was respectable, and had a fixation tronillos. In principle, and unless "exclusives" was always, by default, the smooth soles fell into disuse over time, leaving only the model instruction and campaign.
- Boot "to walk" - which was basically and fundamentally, the same boot that used in the field, but with a twist differentiating remarkable: since a boot to wear on the street, and therefore, to walk on flat floor, the sole was quite thinner lacked tacos and was more "light" because it was a shoe for the soldier on the street "andase comfortable", and was not recociesen feet ... at least in summer. It was known more "vulgar" and floor light.
- Boot paratrooper - As its name suggests and defines, was a boot exclusive to paratrooper units. It lacked the issue triple bucksbuckes (for obvious reasons .... trying to jump in not providing the strings or winds bell parachute could get dangerously hooked on them), which was slightly higher than normal three buckles for, among other things, give the game shin-ankle-foot extra support, all of which reinforced toe and heel.
This would be the existing general approach in the late seventies and early eighties. For this reason, Segarra plunged into great problems of various kinds, preventing deliveries regularly meet and boots supply contract with the Ministry of Defence, which and given the situation, this eventually led to the closure of the same-had to find another alternative provider, serving as its choice on the industrial firm Imipiel. Except small details differentiating Imipiel boots were supplied, in principle, a carbon copy of the previous aesthetic Segarra, including the aspect of the sole although this was not screwed so much so that, at a distance, the simple observation of the same, gave the feeling of being wrong indeed be traditional Segarra. Unlike these, the bill turned out to be poorly made Imipiel boots, since it opened and took off with relative ease and in a short time, greatly shorten its life, a detail that was not lost on the charge-charge of the Ministry of Defence, responsible for assessing and managing this type of equipment.
An attempt to improve these boots, Imipiel, aesthetically similar to the old Segarra they replaced was withdrawing sole change their tacos and incorporating Panama type soles with idea to fix the problem of debonding as not liking the Ministry's action raised-but accepting lesser circumstantially as parallel studies were initiated for the final adoption of a new model boot, and other new concept, being made primitiivo or original boot the current model of education and campaign, which, as is well known, has no triple buckles and full roped covering up the rod, as in a former paratrooper styled boot it were, having been several manufacturers of these boots, including Iturri and Vidal.
The British Army introduced the DMS (Direct Moulded Sole) ankle boot in 1958. This had a moulded plastic sole and was externally similar to the World War Two Ammo Boot. However, as the leather was of shoddy quality at best, the boots leaked and could not be made satisfactorily water-resistant. The low sideless tongue also allowed water to get in over the top of the foot. Once water had got into the boot, it would evaporate through the top of the boot but not through the plastic sole, thereby keeping the foot wet and accelerating trench-foot. Although mesh insoles were issued to combat this, they were themselves fragile and could lead to 'burning' of the sole of the foot, with the result that most soldiers used commercially available sports-shoe insoles instead. This type of boot continued in service until the mid-1980s, after its unsatisfactory characteristics became a matter of public concern owing to the severe cases of trench-foot incurred during the Falklands War. The DMS boot was worn with anklets or wind-around puttees.
The immediate successor of the DMS boot was the "Boot, Combat High" - or as the soldiers themselves described it, the Boot Cardboard Horrible. Basically little more than a toecapless DMS boot extended up to mid-calf length, it was scarcely better than its predecessor. Theoretically waterproofed, it was therefore sweaty and unpleasant, and could cause acute tendinitis. A MkII version was introduced to solve this, but found little favour. Its only real advantage was that it was not supposed to be 'bulled' to a mirror shine.
The Combat Assault Boots (CAB) are still current issue and are used primarily for combat training and general service although privately purchased boots are often deemed acceptable as long as they are made of black leather. The Foot Guards still use modified ammunition boots. These boots, being primarily made of leather, can be brought to a high shine for the ceremonial purpose, although boots used as every-day military footwear tend to be left comparatively dull, but clean.
Various levels of shine can be achieved with CAB. However, when on exercise (in the field) or on operations, soldiers are only required to shine their boots to combat high.
Jungle boots supplied by various manufactures are also commonly worn in barracks due to the ability to carry out loaded marches faster and for longer.
From 2012 Armed Forces personnel will have a newly designed range of brown combat boots to replace the black and desert combat footwear they currently wear. Personnel will have the choice of five different boots depending on where they are based and what role they are in.
- Desert Combat – worn by dismounted troops conducting medium to high levels of activity in desert type environments with temperatures exceeding 40 degrees Celsius.
- Desert Patrol – worn by drivers/armoured troops conducting lower levels of activity in desert type environments exceeding 40 degrees Celsius.
- Temperate Combat – worn by dismounted troops for medium to high levels of activity in temperate (European) climates.
- Patrol – worn by mounted troops (drivers/armoured troops) taking part in lower levels of activity in temperate (European) climates.
- Cold Wet Weather – worn by dismounted troops for medium to high levels of activity in temperatures down to - 20 degrees Celsius.
Each of the five boot types comes in two different styles, so personnel can wear whichever one is more comfortable for them. The new brown boots, which have been developed to match the MTP uniform worn by Service personnel, will be made in two different fittings designed for the first time to take account of the different shapes of men and women's feet. The current black boots will carry on to be worn with most non-camouflage uniforms as well as units on parade in full dress uniform, such as regiments performing ceremonial duties in central London.
The 1917 Trench Boot was an adaptation of the boots American manufacturers were selling to the French and Belgian armies at the beginning of World War I. In American service, it replaced the Russet Marching Shoe. The boot was made of tanned cowhide with a half middle sole covered by a full sole. Iron plates were fixed to the heel. It was a great improvement, however it lacked waterproofing. It soon evolved into the 1918 Trench Boot, also called the Pershing Boot after General John Pershing, who oversaw its creation. The boot used heavier leather in its construction, and had several minor changes from the 1917 Boot.
The first true modern combat boots in the US Army, officially titled "Boots, Combat Service", were introduced in conjunction with the M-1943 Uniform Ensemble during World War II. They were modified service shoes, with an extended, rough-out or, more commonly, a smooth leather high-top cuff added. The cuff was closed using two buckles, allowing the boots to replace the existing service shoes and leggings worn by most soldiers with a more convenient and practical solution. The boots, and the service shoes they were made from, had a one piece sole and heel, made from molded synthetic or reclaimed rubber. These "double buckle" boots were worn through the Korean War as a substitute for the Boots, Russet, Leather Lace Up introduced in 1948. The first type of Combat Boots, or Combat Tropical boots were based on the "buckle boot" design and worn during the early parts of the Vietnam War.
In 1957, the US Army switched to shined black combat boots, although the transition to black boots was not completed until late in the Vietnam War, which also saw the introduction of the jungle boot. Both of these boots had a direct molded sole. The jungle boot had a black leather lower and an olive drab nylon upper. Black boots continued to be worn following Vietnam, with the M81 BDU, although non-shine boots were considered by the Army. As the BDU was replaced with the MCCUU, Army Combat Uniform, and Airman Battle Uniform the services transitioned to more practical, non-shine footwear. The only current military service mandating shined black combat boots are the United States Naval Sea Cadet Corps, the Auxiliary Cadet Detachment of the Naval forces, and the Civil Air Patrol, the Auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force, in conjunction with the BDU utility uniform.
As the United States Marine Corps transitioned from its utility uniform to the MCCUU, they discarded shined black combat boots, and switched to more functional tan rough-out (non-shine) combat boots, with either hot weather or temperate weather versions. The standard-issue boot is the Bates Waterproof USMC combat boot. Commercial versions of this boot are authorized without limitation other than they must be at least 8 inches in height and bear the Eagle, Globe, and Anchor on the outer heel of each boot. By 2012 these will be replaced by 2 variants (waterproof and hot weather) of the Danner RAT (Rugged All-Terrain) boot, which uses a combination of nylon, rough-out suede, and smooth synthetic leather in its construction.
The United States Army followed suit in 2002 with the introduction of the Army Combat Uniform, which also switched to tan rough-out combat boots, called the Army Combat Boot, and cotton socks. Commercial versions of this boot are authorized without limitation other than they must be at least 8 inches in height and are no longer authorized to have a 'shoe-like' appearance. Two versions exist, a 2.5 lb temperate weather boot, and a 2 lb hot weather (desert) boot. Current manufacturers are Altama, Bates, Belleville Boot, McRae, Rocky, Warson Brands/Converse and Wellco.
Combat boots are also popular as fashion clothing in the goth, punk, grunge, heavy metal, industrial, skinhead, and BDSM subcultures; however, they are becoming more and more mainstream. Beyond fashion as such, many individuals choose to wear combat boots simply due to durability, comfort and other utilities, as the boots are specifically designed to be comfortable to wear in a variety of changing conditions for long durations without significant long-term wear. Combat boots have a longer lifespan than fashion boots, which can give them a vintage feel, even after recrafting. For these and other reasons, they can be purchased in almost every moderately sized city at military surplus stores. The only caveat is that military boots must be AR 670-1 compliant, or they are inappropriate wear in the army.
- "Building a Better Boot". Scribd.
- The Logistics of War. DIANE Publishing. p. 318. ISBN 978-1-4289-9378-5.
- Tanner, Jane (2001-12-09). "GRASS-ROOTS BUSINESS; On the Home Front, a Welcome Economic Kick". The New York Times.
- Summer, Graham; D'Amato, Raffaele. Arms and Armour of the Imperial Roman Soldier. Retrieved 2015-11-05.
- Graham Sumner. Roman Military Dress. History Press. p. 191,193.
- "Fresh boot policy". Army News (Australia). 2008-03-20. p. 2. Retrieved 4 June 2011.
- "Бельгийские военные ботинки конца 1960-х - середины 1990-х". cartalana.ru.
- "М/77 - Ботинки вооруженных сил Норвегии". cartalana.ru.
- "Salutt til gammel sliter". norskdesign.no.
- Nordiska museet: Skor
- "Deal signed for new combat boots". mod.uk.
- "WW II Combat Boots". olive-drab.com.
- "Shoes and the Army - WWII". army.mil.
- Stanton, Shelby L (1995). U.S. Army Uniforms of World War II. Stackpole Books. p. 241. ISBN 978-0-8117-2595-8.
- Katcher, Philip R.N.; Mike Chappell (1980). Armies of the Vietnam War, 1962-75: Bk. 1. Osprey Publishing. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-85045-360-7.
- Rottman, Gordon L.; Ronald Volstad (1990). U.S. Army Airborne, 1940-1990: The First Fifty Years. Osprey Publishing. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-85045-948-7.
- "404w Page Not Found (DTIC)". dtic.mil.
- "Jungle Boots". olive-drab.com.
- "NO-SHINE COMBAT BOOT IS FAILING ARMY TESTS". The New York Times. 1981-11-12. p. A23.
- "SHINING'S OUT IN ARMY TEST OF NEW BOOT". The New York Times. 1981-06-13. p. A8.
- Stanton, Shelby L. (1998). U.S. Army Uniforms of the Cold War, 1948-1973. Stackpole Books. p. 148. ISBN 978-0-8117-2950-5.
- Halberstadt, Hans (2007). Battle Rattle: The Stuff a Soldier Carries. Zenith Imprint. ISBN 978-0-7603-2622-0.
- Army Combat Uniform (ACU) Ensemble
- [dead link]
- Air Force Instruction 36-2903
- Hochswender, Woody (1992-06-28). "SIGNALS; Your Sister Wears Combat Boots". The New York Times.
Media related to Combat boots at Wikimedia Commons