Replacing tanker boots could be hazardous

Dear ARMOR,

The new advanced combat uniform (ACU) will soon be in general issue to deploying units and eventually to all soldiers. The ACU will be worn with hot climate, tan-colored suede desert boots. Soon, the smell of Kiwi will be a thing of the past. It is therefore time for the armor and cavalry communities to address the issue of the historic and much prized "tanker boots."

There are two basic types of tanker boots: the wrap-around-strap type and the cavalry-side-strap type. While I am sure that there is a certain amount of historical tradition in wearing a distinctive piece of footgear, our tanker boots exist for several very good reasons that relate specifically to our role as mounted warriors.

The first concerns the fit of the boot, as dictated by the duties of the wearer. Unlike issue boots, tanker boots are designed for wear by soldiers who will not be moving around much, but will instead be sitting or standing in an enclosed space for extended periods. The boot is designed to allow for blood circulation: a stationary man's foot swells over time as the blood pools in the lower extremities, due to circulation that is relatively lower than that of a walking man. Hence the straps: tanker boots are intended to be fairly loose fitting. This is why we don't wear tanker boots on road marches.

In the days of the horse cavalry, boots were high (reaching to mid or upper thigh) and had straps and buckles on the outside to spare the horse's flank (some designs had straps that ran all the way around.)

During World War II, these strap designs became useful for another reason--the second greatest cause of combat injury to tank crews during World War II (after fire) was shattered foot and leg bones resulting from mine strikes. While the hull of the tank could be pierced, many mines lacked the penetration to do so, but still inflicted casualties by transmitting the shock of the explosion into the underside of the tank. The underside then reacted like a large bell-spring, flexing up at a high velocity, transmitting that shock into the feet and legs of tank crewmen. The value of boots with straps was learned in combat--it was easier for medics to remove the strapped boots off shattered feet.

Tanker boots have other safety-related characteristics, making them important functional pieces of equipment:

* They are all leather in case of fire--all tankers are aware of the prohibition of non-leather footgear in the tank, just as we are all aware of the prohibitions on clothing made of synthetic material.

* They have flat soles instead of thick lugs or treads--thick treads can catch on a projection and cause injury or a fall.

* They are made of petrochemical resistant materials, whereas normal boot soles are partially soluble in JP8, DF2, and FRH, resulting in extra slick soles.

The mounted warrior will remain an important part of the combined arms team. As program managers design and redesign our combat vehicles, clothing, and equipment, they must not forget the footgear. Standard no-polish boots are great, but we need tanker boots for safety, functionality, and historical reasons. Currently, only the general description of the boot is provided in U.S. Army Regulation 670-1, Wear and Appearance of Army Uniform and Insignia. This general description should be maintained with only appropriate changes describing the use of brown suede, instead of black leather, to allow some freedom of choice. As a minimum, the boots should be all leather, have straps, have flat or reduced-tread soles, and have non-leather parts made of petrochemical resistant material.

While we're on this topic, how about a re-designed Nomex coverall to incorporate the new camouflage pattern?

MICHAEL R. EVANS

MAJ, U.S. Army

COPYRIGHT 2005 U.S. Army Armor Center
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group