|
|
Post by Étienne on Mar 27, 2015 16:36:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Mar 27, 2015 18:55:46 GMT -5
Or maybe I need to finally give up and just stick with the U.S. M-1943's... That's the conclusion I came to, or will in a couple weeks when I get some cash to buy a pair of M43's. The M43 was used by all the airborne units at one time or another, and most used them until the end of the war. The choice is too easily made in this instance. While having bottes de saut Mle. 50 would be totally tits, the expense and improbability of finding one in my size (10, damnit) made me scrap the idea. The Italian boots are a half-assed option, in my own (nearly worthless) opinion. An experienced eye can pick it out right quick. I looked at Corcoran's M1942 Jump Boots, but I despise the sole, namely the leather instep. M1942 boots were used by anyone and everyone, and private-purchase Cocorans with a lugged sole were somewhat common, especially in 1e RCP and 1e BPChoc. They offer an identical boot in black with a waffle lug sole, which would rock. I asked about getting one with brown leather and the CS rep stated they were not set up to handle special orders. It would literally be a 1:1 substitution of the leather parts. Oh well, screw 'em. At this point, I would happily shell out four bills for a repop Mle. 49 or 50. This is one of the reasons I like collecting Algerian War kit: I have five pairs of Mle. 52 boots and didn't pay more than $30 a piece. And the French actually kicked some major butt in that conflict, as opposed to getting their clocks cleaned in a TKO, but I digress. |
|
|
|
Post by Étienne on Mar 28, 2015 9:07:04 GMT -5
Yeah, I do believe you're right about just having to "settle" for US M-1943 boots...but heck, if they're good enough for Bigeard, they're good enough for me!  (BUT, he did injure his ankle during the Castor jump while wearing them...so, hmmm... . But, when I was in the army working in Thailand I saw Thai Army guys jumping with sandals on, so perhaps it's just the "luck of the landing" and certain faith in Buddha?!) I guess the main thing I'd miss out on is the look of wearing pataugas while having some Mle 1950's hanging off the back of one's ruck... Did you get your Mle. 52's off ebay France? The guy you pointed me towards that has the repro Mle. 1949 bush hats has a few pair for just under $30 (not incl. shipping), and in wearable sizes. I have an "odd" pair of roughout low boots that I bought about 20-25 years ago from either the Gap or Banana Republic (!) that seem to have been modeled on the Mle. 45; I've thought about dubbing them and turning them into French boots, as they look like U.S. roughouts, but with a French-style rubber cleat-ed tread. Weird! |
|
|
|
Post by Étienne on Mar 28, 2015 9:07:40 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Mar 28, 2015 10:38:53 GMT -5
I think one of the reasons a buckle boot was adopted as standard- the Mle. 52- was because the laces could be tightened independently of the "gaiter" section. I don't know about you, but, aside from historical accuracy, I'm not a fan of full-lace up boots. Either the whole thing is tight or it's not, and I don't need my lower legs to be squeezed as tight as my feet. Given my druthers, I'd rather have a lighter shoe for more nimble foot placement, less fatigue, and greater sensitivity to the ground beneath. Heck, I prefer my Palladiums or a cross trainer when backpacking out West. They also drain out and dry faster.
Remember something about those Asians: They're about half the size of us gringos, and, pound-for-pound, we can typically carry more equipment, so the weight disparity increases even further. Jumping in sandals (or even barefoot) would not be a problem for them,. Actually, it wouldn't be a problem for us, because boots of any type can only offer a very slim margin of protection against ankle injury. Better stick that PLF just right. The downside to their stature was that those parachute canopies weren't designed with little Orientals in mind, so they tended to drift a heck of a lot on the descent, and then they usually got blown all over the ground after landing. Physics is unrelenting.
I got one pair of my '52's off of ebay.fr, one on ebay.com here in the US, and the rest from La Tranchee. I have three size (taille) 43's (my size), and one each 41 and 44. I bought the 44 first, but it was too big. With an insole, it's a marginal fit.
Good link.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigtx on Apr 5, 2015 9:59:28 GMT -5
While I love my M43s, the pataugas make more sense for the climate. Not only from breathability concerns, but also not havin' the care problems that leather does in hot humid climates.
As far as jumping concerns, during my skydiving days I saw footwear from none, to sandals, to high top tennis shoes. That bein' said, we were usin' squares, not rounds and without combat loads. Personally, I always used high tops as it gave me extra ankle support. The M43 was issued to airborne units as well in '45 an effort to standardize footwear, but there was resistance from the troops to give up their jump boots.
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Apr 5, 2015 19:24:03 GMT -5
Round or square chute, boots are not going to prevent ankle injury. If they actually do, the force will just be redirected to points further up the leg. I'd rather break my ankle (and I have) than mess up my knee. There's a reason side-zip jump boots came about: they don't prevent injury, but they make it easier for the medic to get to it.
Pataugas are a lot cheaper to replace, too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Étienne on Apr 6, 2015 9:10:01 GMT -5
I never had an ankle injury nor did I ever see one occur while jumping in the US Army. I've had minor back and head injuries, and have seen a few bad head and neck injuries and badly bruised hips, but that was from slamming into the ground during higher than desirable winds. If you're pile driving into the ground fast enough to injure your ankles, I think you likely are going to have a few other more traumatic injuries to worry about.
The only good tall leather boots ever did me was to help support the load of a full pack and gear while marching/hiking/rucking. I'd prefer a lighter boot any day, and even had a few pairs of jungle boots modified to be lighter and have a more cushy sole, and they were quite comfortable.
As craigtx said above, an all-leather boot wouldn't do well over time in Indochina like conditions, and having stiff leather boots that kept getting wet and then drying out would be a foot's worst nightmare.
|
|
|
|
Post by craigtx on Apr 6, 2015 9:31:45 GMT -5
Well nothing's gonna prevent ankle injury. If you're determined to break it, you will (Parachutes and trees do not mix... That's how I got mine.). 
The area seemed to be just the place for canvas boot experiments. The high top jungle boot the Brits used has got to be one of the most unique. The U.S. Okiboot is one of my favorites, it's that buckle boot thing... And of course, the various models of U.S. jungle boot in VN. My favorite bein' the one with a barefoot sole on the bottom.
Craig
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Apr 6, 2015 10:56:55 GMT -5
As craigtx said above, an all-leather boot wouldn't do well over time in Indochina like conditions, and having stiff leather boots that kept getting wet and then drying out would be a foot's worst nightmare. That depends on the boot, or rather how it's treated. Something like the US M1942 Jump Boot that was treated by the manufacturer and the soldier was expected only to polish it. These boots failed miserably once exposed to water immersion and were hated as serious combat boots for that reason. Boots that require oil treatment by the end-user- US M43, TAP boots, TTA brodequins, etc...- held up fine providing regular maintenance was performed. Once they are saturated with boot oil, water won't be able to get in. Accumulated mud left on the boot will draw out the oil, leading to water ingress and the wet/dry cycle that kills leather quick. It's not the issue of water that drove the popularity of canvas footwear; it's the issue of the foot inside the boot, or rather the sweat and heat that it generates. Even with proper foot care, foot powder, and well broken-in boots, blisters and fungal infections are going to be tough to prevent in the jungle. I know my feet sweat enough in leather boots in a temperate environment. I couldn't imagine wearing them for any length of time in the tropics. |
|
|
|
Post by Étienne on Apr 6, 2015 20:55:37 GMT -5
Craig: The most amusing tree "injury" I saw was when I was in PLDC at Ft. Bragg and we jumped into our field exercise. I was the only one who hit the edge of the DZ (I remember jumping up as soon as I landed and yelling "woo hoo!"), everyone else was in the trees, and a classmate of mine hit a dead pine (the type that has all the branches broken off so there's all those sharp stubs sticking off the tree) about 30 feet up and it somehow ripped a sleeve entirely off his BDU top...but didn't even scratch him. I had a similar landing some time later, but all I did was spike my BDU top and/but it missed my guts and only gave me a scratch across my side.
Anyway, to get back on subject, I guess that's why cheap, lightweight issued boots were appreciated...as you could wear them til' they wore out and get a new pair and do the same, ad nauseum...
|
|
|
|
Post by lew on Apr 7, 2015 11:00:33 GMT -5
Amusing story. I'm sure you got a few looks later that day.
In Algeria, Pataugas lasted about two months and leather boots about six. Granted, the terrain there is much more mountainous and rocky. I'd probably multiply that by 1.5 for Indochina, assuming the footwear didn't rot.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kenneth on Jun 8, 2020 6:50:26 GMT -5
I just thought I'd throw out a thought or two in this old thread, if I may.
First off, I was never in an airborne unit, although the division I was in (24th) did have an airborne brigade at one time, before I joined the unit. But I think that was mainly because the division had been reflagged from an airborne division (11th).
Anyway, it is interesting how various militaries approach the boot problem over the decades. The Danes were issuing a high lace-up boot in 1900, which was really different at the time. They also seem to have never "bloused" the trousers, merely rolling up the pants legs. The British, when they began forming parachute infantry (airborne included gliders), experimented with a gum sole (crepe) with a higher than normal leg (about 8 or 9 inches, judging from photos). But they ultimately used the standard ammo boot. I doubt that ordinary soldiers had any input on that decision. Also, based on personal experience, I'd say that the practical performance of boots in the field is at the top of the list of qualities expected by the army. Army headquarters also gives explicit instructions in manuals about how to maintain boots but you really have to do whatever the sergeant major says to do, not what the army says. That would be true in any army.
|
|
