Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 8, 2015 8:55 am

The third link includes a graph, showing that 200,000 pairs of boots were used up in 14/15, and only a quarter of that number of the type that would be for “barracks” use.

So they are consumables, and getting the best will not be burdening the price per pair. Boots, these days, are a hi-tech thing, and luckily it is affordable to keep up with the developments.
– and us hikers get to buy the surplus at knock-down prices!

July 8, 2015 12:33 pm

Whatever the blokes get they’ll still buy their own as part of the kit merry-go-around.

Issued belt kit so purchased chest webbing.
Issued chest webbing so purchased patrol vests.
Issued patrol vests so attached directly to body armour.
Issued Osprey Mk 1 so purchased man-bags
Issued man-bags and Osprey MkIV so purchases under-armour belt-kit
Issued under-armour belt kit so back to PLCE.

July 8, 2015 2:06 pm
Reply to  Phil

@ Phil
I would slightly disagree with that remark, I think you are correct as maybe 5 years ago, but all the personnel I have trained from all three services over the last 3 years are a lot more happier with the personnel equipment they are receiving. Obviously that never stops them whinging about something else!!

July 8, 2015 2:24 pm

I thought the kit I was issued for H13 was top notch. No cause for complaint at all. Well the only thing that turned out crap was the Mk7 helmet pads that were supposed to make the chin strap etc more comfortable. They just fell off. The only other gripe I had was the support the Army gives folk who need corrective lenses. I ended up going to a specialist at the local university to get the precise prescription I needed to make the lens inserts for the glasses and goggles work for me. And I only found out that was possible via ARRSE.

Slightly Agricultural
Slightly Agricultural
July 9, 2015 10:07 am

Seriously, someone scanned the powerpoint? Were they too lazy to email the PT for the file and redact it?

I hadn’t heard the contract was up for re-letting. Heck, I know a lot of reservists who are still on the old black boots! Guess they’re getting started in good time.

Also very interesting that Altberg weren’t on that list of suppliers for the industry day. I think they dropped a bollock with the last contract, as their boot was by far the most popular and they didn’t have the capacity to supply the demand (how could they; it’s a large shed in Richmond).

(I have the flyer for the old styles kicking about still; https://www.scribd.com/doc/271009376/20130227-NewCombatBoot-Brown-V3-U )

Wanting the samples in black and the requirement for the patrol boot makes me nervous – sounds like the army could be sliding back into old ways and bad habits ( new ‘smarter’ MTP shirts) . Equally though, fabric boots are useless for a lot of people and having a generic and cheap “Camp Boot” might be a good idea. My worry is that despite best intentions, that’s the only boot many people get and we’re right back where we were with black CABs (long may they burn in hell, the cardboard-sided cheese-soled shits).

July 9, 2015 4:02 pm

I still remember an old fad for mine resistant boots once upon a time. It seems to have died out, most new army boots no longer have the steel blast resistant plating.

July 11, 2015 7:21 am

Boots with steel plates in them are not a good idea in cold climates. There’s no such thing as a mine resistant boot, the metal plates were to protect against panji stakes. Not really needed if you avoid tracks.

July 13, 2015 3:51 pm

Trouble with the metal plate is that what usually happens is that the blast shatters your ankle and foot bones to such an extent that you end up with a solid club foot or it gets taken off anyway. Lots of people lost feet to IEDs where only the detonator went off or it only partially detonated.

No or very little external trauma, but a foot like a bag of crunchy jelly pointing in the wrong direction was a common outcome.