Combat boots (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Combat boots , now officially combat shoes, are leather boots or leather shoes for soldiers that are worn in combat. The term “combat boots” has become common in the Bundeswehr and the Swiss Army . This type of shoe was and is used both for combat clothing and for military parades and military elevations in the armies of the world. Colloquially, this shoe was and is also known in Germany as the " commission boot ". In the past, the Austrians were also called “ comrade lace-up shoes ” by German soldiers , as they competed with lace-up shoes instead of German leather boots (“Knobelbecher”) during the First World War . Depending on the country and army unit, traditional footwear such as high boots or lace-up shoes are still used in their modern form on various occasions.

In the German-speaking countries, the footwear worn in the army with combat clothing today is very robust and largely waterproof leather lace-up shoes with a deep profile structure in the non-slip rubber sole . The term “combat boots” is used colloquially in the Federal Republic of Germany for both Knobelbecher and lace-up shoes. The mountain troops, however, wear mountain boots .

The military boots and shoes were already considered an essential part of the operating infantry in the German army of the German Empire . Therefore, they became a medical, orthopedic and shoe craft study object as early as the 19th century. For example, as early as 1905, manufacturers showed their latest models and improvements at a competition for military boots in Berlin. To this day, military shoes are also used as a model for the functional design of civilian footwear. They are viewed as status symbols and, in modifications, have become fashion props.

Army (1866 to 1945)

Marching boots M1866 in the blackened version from 1915
Soldier of the protection force in Tsingtau with M1866 marching boots

Marching boots

Marching boots, model 1866

High boots or marching boots, which later became known colloquially as "Knobelbecher", were used for the first time in 1866 by the infantry of the Prussian army, not without criticism . At this point in time, boots of this type that were not intended for riding had long been anchored in civilian life, but they were also anchored in many military units. In the Prussian Guard, knee boots were worn from September 5, 1807, and they were also part of the basic equipment of the normal infantry battalion set up in 1811. More and more the boot also became a symbol for officers and NCOs, and more and more sub-units of the Prussian army took over this item of clothing. For example, on February 3, 1813, knee boots were prescribed for the voluntary hunter detachments. Since April 22, 1819, boots with short, soft shafts could be worn in Prussia instead of lace-up shoes. However, these had to disappear under the pants. From 1864 the short boots could also be pulled over trousers. Since this boot proved to be extremely practical, the 12 to 14 inch high marching boot, model 1866, was introduced on March 1, 1866 by the highest cabinet order (AKO).

After the creation of the German Empire in 1871, other federal states introduced the Prussian Knobelbecher for the infantry. Until 1870/1871 in Prussia, as in the Napoleonic period, the use of so-called two-ball strips was allowed. That is, the soldier received a pair of shoes that had been hit over a last and therefore did not take any orthopedic considerations into account. This fact brought the shaft boot into disrepute. And even later, the accuracy of fit remained the focus of discussions. After the German War in 1866, one of the résumés of boots and shoes with gaiters for the Prussian army was established in 1870: "Bad boots will turn out before the actual outbreak of the war and must be exchanged by the battalion." The lace-up shoe also hit on rejection: “During the campaign in Bohemia, our people eagerly reached for captured Austrian shoes, but soon threw them aside again. The shoe requires good, durable stockings and gaiters, otherwise it will chafe the ankles and fail completely in bad weather. ” However, it took a long time for the elite officer corps to understand the relationship between good footwear and the performance and health of its wearer . Since even in the years after 1870/1871 little attention was paid to more individualized lasts, critics of the shaft boot still endorsed the older shoe model with lace-up shoes and gaiters in 1885, as they were of the opinion that, among other things, only custom-made boots for the individual Would be comfortable and unproblematic in terms of health. Since, in addition, accuracy of fit is not common in practice, the critics saw the lace-up shoe as the better choice. On the other hand, the proponents of the lace-up shoe also had to admit that they could not provide adequate protection against moisture, which in turn was an advantage of the shaft boot. The protection of the lower leg against mechanical influences as well as the more difficult penetration of dust and stones were just as advantageous as being able to easily put them on in the dark. Disadvantages were the possibility of getting stuck in tough floors and problems caused by a soaked or poorly cared for boot. The lace-up shoe, on the other hand, allowed dirt, stones, water, snow and insects to penetrate. In addition, the laces tore easily. Many doctors in the 19th century pondered this issue. In order to guarantee the fit, which was initially criticized on the shaft boot, the German army had a total of 133 different lasts available around 1909, which went along with an exact foot measurement on the future recruits.

The marching boots were worn with stockings or foot rags . It was also a good idea to pull a pair of stockings over the footrests. From autumn 1915, the troops had to blacken their marching boots. The leather sole of the boot model was studded with 35 to 42 galvanized nails at that time. A sunk horseshoe-shaped fitting was set into the heel to protect the boot. Particularly in times of crisis or war, when new troops had to be raised very quickly, no great consideration could be given to the precise adjustment of the footwear. This forced many soldiers to march in inadequate or ill-fitting boots.

Marching boots, model 1922

With the establishment of uniforms for the provisional Reichswehr on May 5, 1919 and the decree to introduce the uniform of the Reich Army on December 22, 1920, the marching boots were no longer used and - until the introduction of a new high boot - were replaced by lace-up shoes with wrap gaiters. It was not until the decree of June 14, 1922, that a marching boot that was to be blackened - similar to that of the imperial era - was reintroduced alongside the lace-up shoe with wrap gaiters. As in the previous model, the shaft of the new boot consisted of two parts that were joined together on the flanks with a seam each. In 1933 this boot gave way to a completely new model for a short time.

Buckle boots (gaiter boots), model 1933

View into a German clothing store in 1935. In addition to the buckled boots introduced in 1933, the 1928 model can be seen.

At the beginning of the 1930s it became clear that a not inconsiderable number of the recruits of the Reichsheer suffered from various foot diseases. The military doctors diagnosed various pathological malpositions and their subsequent conditions. After strenuous marching, foot tumors were found, especially among recruits, of which 66 percent were caused by overexertion and 20 percent by ankle twisting in 1932. Ingrown toenails were also a problem. In addition to the orthopedic and hygienic problems, many recruits had difficulty getting used to the unfamiliar military footwear, which among other things led to sores. These initial problems were traced back to the mass-produced civilian shoes, which, in contrast to bespoke footwear, did not address the wearer's individually shaped foot and so often encouraged shape and directional errors.

The presentation of a new field and service suit in 1933 also included a new boot model, which was introduced on April 1, 1933. The boots made of strong, khaki-colored fabric trimmed with leather and tested in troop trials in 1932 were a combination of shaft boots and lace-up shoes. The boot, which measured between 35 and 39 centimeters high in the back seam from the heel to the upper edge of the shaft, was laced up to the ankle, then the upper leather, which reached over the calves, could be closed with pin buckles. The leather shoelaces were pulled through a total of ten to fourteen holes in the lower shoe area, from ankle height up through 20 to 24 hooks. There was again a single perforation on the upper edge of the shaft. The metal-studded holes and the hooks were covered with black or brown celluloid. The whole and half of the sole were made of the best bend leather. An average of 35 nails were driven onto the half-sole, depending on the size of the boot. The horseshoe-shaped heel iron was sunk into the heel and was made of electrolytically galvanized steel. The new boot model should compensate for the disadvantages of the Knobelbecher. There, after years of use, the shaft tended to sag and then squeeze. It was also criticized that an older boot became unsightly and that water could penetrate into the boot from above due to the not tight-fitting shaft, so that it was difficult to take off and put on. In the opinion of the doctor, the lace-up shoe with the almost knee-high wrap gaiters was not ideal either, since a gaiter that was tightened too tightly could disrupt the blood circulation and swaddling was also not economical. A major disadvantage of the new gaiter boot was that it was much more complex and therefore more expensive to manufacture than was the case with the Knobelbecher. It was also shown that the buckles on the upper part of the boot could obstruct or even tear off the wearer in the undergrowth, thicket or wire entanglement. In daily duty, the buckle pins also chafed through the fabric of the long uniform coats. Since the gaiter boot did not prove itself, marching boots were reintroduced in 1935. The gaiter boot remained in use for training and supplementary units and was applied during the war.

Marching boots model 1935

The re-introduced Knobelbecher differed from its predecessor, the 1922 model, in that it was manufactured slightly differently. The boot shaft was no longer made of two leather parts, but only one, which was sewn to the back of the boot with two seams and a cover strap.

Marching boots, model 1939

With a decree of the High Command of the Army (OKH) of November 9, 1939, a shortened version of the M35 boot was introduced into the Wehrmacht . The boot height was reduced from 32 to 41 centimeters to 29 to 35 centimeters in order to save leather . There were several reasons for this action. On the one hand, this was due to the sustained increase in employment after the seizure of power in 1933 and the consequent strong increase in the need for professional shoes as well as the massive increase in the number of uniformed associations. The tendency to save leather developed for this reason had already led to a decrease in leather consumption in 1937, despite increased general shoe production. On the other hand, it quickly became apparent that in the course of the attack on Poland that began on September 1, 1939, leather consumption had skyrocketed and this natural material had to be used more sparingly in the future.

In 1915, during the First World War, the original leather-colored boots were blackened. The Reichswehr and later the Wehrmacht also ordered their shoe deliveries not blackened. It remained the task of the later wearer to blacken his footwear himself before the first use. As the ordinance HV Bl.Part B 190 No. 24, 4 in the Army and Marine Ordinance Sheet 1940 clarified, members of the Wehrmacht who wore orthopedic custom-made shoes and did not receive any clothing compensation could, if necessary, have high boots with additional orthopedic work made at Wehrmacht costs. This ordinance applied to all parts of the armed forces. In the case of the cavalry team boots made from sturdy cattle boxes, the base price increased by 42 percent, while the infantry marching boots, mostly made of pale leather, rose by 38 percent. From 1943 onwards, in order to save leather, the orthopedic made-to-measure footwear was only allowed to be fitted with rubber soles by Wehrmacht members during repairs. Exceptions were made for self-dressing (officers) and war invalids (HV Bl. 1941 Part B p. 474 No. 736). For the upper leather of the Knobelbecher - as in the military footwear of many countries of the time - pale leather was usually used.

With the order of September 29, 1943 (LV 43, No. 1823), the issue of high boots to the Air Force was completely stopped. They were replaced by lace-up shoes with gaiters, with old boots still being applied.

Lace-up shoes with gaiters

In the First and Second World Wars , high boots were an integral part of the equipment of the armies of Germany and Russia . In Russia they are still part of the equipment of the soldier today. In addition to the tanned shaft boots, lace-up shoes, which included gaiters, were already issued during the emperor's time.

Around 1860 various armies in the German states often wore lace-up shoes with gaiters, but also boots. The infantry gaiters were often made of light calfskin or tough sheepskin, which reached over the calf and could be buckled on the outside. With the shoes, the soldiers themselves procured woolen stockings or - if no stockings were available - foot rags.

Even after the introduction of the marching boots, model 1866, on March 1, 1866, the lace-up shoes with gaiters that had previously been worn next to half-stockers were to be worn as a second set. However, this requirement was changed again on March 16, 1867. The half-shafts, which were taken out of service with the marching boots, now took the place of the lace-up shoes.

The oldest pattern of the imperial lace-up shoe, which had to be brought into the field as a second footwear, consisted of a combination of natural-colored leather and waterproof canvas with leather trim. The foot was in a leather construction, the shaft itself was made of canvas and had a visible leather-stiffened seam on the back. Another leather stiffener was on the inside from the lace opening to the front seam. All shoes have been waxed since 1887 . With the introduction of the model on June 1, 1893, the shoe was made entirely of leather.

Lace-up shoe, model 1906

In 1906, a new lace-up shoe replaced the model from 1893 that had been used up until then. Since the introduction of the new shoe, important decision-makers have called for the alternative of wearing the gaiter-lace-up combination instead of the shaft boot and ultimately enforced it by army ordinance. For this natural-colored lace-up shoe, natural-colored gaiters made of pale leather with straps and brass buckles were introduced with the highest cabinet order of January 16, 1908 for test purposes. The very robust, greased pale leather is produced by vegetable tanning and, under the moderate Central European conditions, had the advantage of keeping the foot warmer in the cold and insulating in the warm so as not to heat the foot. The disadvantage was the increased need for care, as improper handling made it harder and could impair the soldier's marching ability. Since pale leather is also sensitive to heat, it must not be dried "forcibly" near a heat source. The gaiters approved in 1908, which ended five centimeters below the kneecap, had a leather tongue in addition to the side buckles, which the soldier passed under the shoe in front of the heel and tightened with a pin buckle on the side.

Light and heavy lace-up shoe, model 1919

On May 5, 1919, uniforms for the provisional Reichswehr were set, from which the decree on the introduction of the Reichsheer uniforms issued on December 22, 1920 took over the “heavy lace-up shoes” set for unmounted people in 1919 . In connection with the boot pants, this shoe was to be worn with wrap gaiters reaching below the knee. The introduction of a shaft boot should only take place after experiments have been completed. By order of June 14, 1922, a marching boot - similar to that of the imperial era - was reintroduced in place of the heavy lace-up shoe. In 1919 a "light lace-up shoe" came into the closet, which took the place of the heavy lace-up shoe from 1922 and was now only referred to as a "lace-up shoe" . This shoe was made like the heavy lace-up shoe, but had a lighter long sole. The shoe was delivered without nailing. While this remained the case with the initial assembly, fitting was permitted for the operational models with the exception of the drivers. Most of the time, this possibility of fogging was also used.

Lace-up shoe, model 1928

In 1925 and 1927 a new lace-up model was used for troop trials, the pattern of which in 1927 was based on “the shape of a tourist shoe ” . With the decree of May 4, 1928, the new, black-to-be-dyed shoe was introduced for all branches of service, the inner lining of which was made of canvas. The 13 to 15 centimeter high leather shoe had a leather loop on the back to help it put on. The boot had four pairs of snap hooks at the top and five eyelets made of sheet brass with a black celluloid coating at the bottom. The historical photo from a German clothing store from 1935 shown above shows this shoe. The sole nailing and heel iron were identical to those of the shaft boot. The stamp was on the inside of the shaft. The upper leather of these lace-up shoes consisted of Mastbox (mast calf leather).

Lace-up shoe, model 1934

With the order of February 6, 1934 (HV 34, No. 64), the shoe made of light pale leather, which was also used during the war, was introduced. In terms of its design, the nailed shoe was conceptually identical to the model from 1928. His shaft was still 14 to 16 centimeters high. On the back there was a two centimeter wide belt strap, which was attached to the loop and should help to improve entry and exit. With the order of January 24, 1940 (HM 40, No. 163) the loop fell away. The shoe leaf was made of moleskin and the toe was reinforced. The shoe had a total of ten lace holes in the lower area and a total of eight lace hooks at the top. The top hook was an inch below the edge of the shaft. As was customary at the time, the footwear had to be blackened by the soldier himself before the first use.

The lace-up shoes used by the infantry in World War II initially consisted of the 1928 and 1934 models, but increasingly prey material from different origins was also used.

In contrast to the modern shaft boots of the German Armed Forces, for example the Sea Boot 2000 of the German Navy , only first-class rawhide leather was processed until 1945 - apart from deficiency failures - in order to achieve a smooth, shiny surface after polishing. By pressing in so-called " elk scars ", minor blemishes such as cracks from thorns and barbed wire could and can be made "invisible" in the combat shoes of the Bundeswehr.

Due to the shortage economy that persisted in the course of the war, more and more lace-up shoes, including gaiters, were issued from 1944 onwards. Originally only the mountain troops of the Wehrmacht wore short wrap-around gaiters with their mountain boots, but now they are increasingly being used by the infantry. In addition, short fabric gaiters made of waterproof canvas were used, which could be attached with two leather tongues and two pin buckles. Officers of the Wehrmacht were also allowed to wear lace-up shoes with black leather gaiters instead of boots.

From leather to rubber soles - 1942 to 1944

In 1944 a British soldier shoed his comrades' boots

In their original form, German shaft boots had an outsole made of leather, which was protected against wear and tear with nails and a heel iron ('horseshoe'). Leather soles are more skin-friendly when it is warm (compare skin fungus ), because moisture released by perspiration is better removed. The advantage of a non-slip nail sole was particularly evident in the terrain. However, the metal led to noises when walking on cobblestone streets and asphalt, which was a clear disadvantage in urban and urban warfare. However, the shoes of many German opponents of the war also had this disadvantage. After bad experiences in North Africa, the US Army introduced the “Type III service shoe” for the infantry in 1942, which was based on experiences from the First World War. This lace-up shoe was issued with rubber or nail soles. It was not until January 1944 that a revised American boot model went into series production that only had rubber soles. In contrast, the British Army continued to use nailed combat boots after World War II. Rubber-soled shoes were only kept ready for certain units and tasks. The Russian Knobelbecher were already equipped with a nailed rubber sole before the Second World War and, due to an unbridgeable shortage of leather boots, were made from artificial leather by the millions from November 1940 (so-called "Kirza boots"). The decision-makers in the Wehrmacht had obviously been convinced that rubber soles would reduce the soldier's marching ability, but for reasons of the shortage economy, they had to start converting soldiers' shoes to rubber soles. This is indicated by an order from 1942 (HV Bl. 1942 Part L p. 27 No. 48). There it says: “The tense leather supply situation makes it necessary to also use rubber soles for soling W-shoes [Wehrmacht shoes] . However, in order not to endanger the marching ability of the Wehrmacht's self-clothing, only street shoes (black low shoes, light black lace-up shoes, ankle boots) are soled with rubber soles. In the Kriegsmarine, all footwear for self-dressing people who do on-board duty is still to be soled with leather. " After the raw material situation had deteriorated further up to autumn 1943, the German General Staff had to nail the up to then cherished Prussian tradition of the rubber soles despite general opposition to rubber soles Abandon bootlegs. The shaft boot as such should now give way to the lace-up shoe in all branches of the army. An order of the Luftwaffe dated September 29, 1943 (LV 43, no. 1823) mentions an "army marching shoe" in this context. On November 9, 1943, the decision was made to issue the first combat shoes with rubber soles by spring 1944. The development of the footwear with rubber soles was only allowed to take a few weeks and should start as soon as possible. The general conditions set by the Reich Office for Economic Development also included the use of the shoe runner command established in 1940 in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp . However, due to changes proposed by the industry, the introduction of the rubber sole was delayed beyond the spring of 1944. In January 1944, the community shoes , an association of German shoe manufacturers, took over all management competencies for the military footwear of the Wehrmacht. Now a standardization of the different shoe models of the army, navy and air force should be achieved in order to make a rationalization of the production possible. Therefore, for the first time, a uniform lace-up shoe was to be developed for the three units and the SS. The inhumane test conditions for the concentration camp prisoners were delayed until autumn 1944 and turned out to be unfavorable for the tried and tested boots. Those responsible now questioned the entire forms of the examination and at least parts of the footwear delivered to the concentration camp and the conditions in which these footwear had been manufactured. Also in the general staff there was resentment, which erupted on September 5, 1944 in a discussion about the "Last 1944" developed by the community shoes and the shoe samples and test methods supplied so far. Among other things, there were prisoners among the shoe runners who had "bad and abnormal Eastern feet" . Ultimately, the "still in development" shoe announced with the order of April 26, 1944 (HV 44B, No. 253) was not under the "probable" designation "uniform (ski) lace-up shoe" due to the events until the surrender more introduced. It was originally planned to wear this shoe with the newly developed trousers 43 .

Winter boots in World War II

The nailed shoes and shaft boots designed for the Western European theater of war were generally not suitable for use in wintry Eastern Europe. This had already been shown by the experience of German soldiers in the First World War . In the severe cold that is typical for this climatic region, the German soldiers in World War II showed that the steel nails quickly conducted the heat inside the boot to the outside, which accelerated the cooling of the feet and thus resulted in frostbite . Insoles made of felt were therefore procured whenever possible. In addition, those responsible began to learn lessons from the first Russian war winter and to design shoes based on the traditional Russian felt boots . From 1942 a corresponding model was made for the Wehrmacht. These boots had the same substructure as the Knobelbecher, but had felt inserts and consisted of gray wool felt under or above the ankle. The leather soles of these boots were not nailed down and some had rubber soles. However, like the later Bundeswehr high boots, they could have bumpers and heels. There were a variety of different designs. In addition, the Wehrmacht knew leather-reinforced ankle-high overshoes in which parts of the upper leather were replaced by felt and which could be closed by two leather tongues with buckles. The soles of these overshoes were made of wood. Snow boots were just as well known as straw-woven overshoes, which could be used by guards in particular. The difficulties at that time consisted in producing the required quantities and delivering them to the troops. Since winter material was often in short supply, German soldiers were often dependent on capturing Soviet material .

Stockings, socks and foot rags

In contrast to the Imperial Army, the German soldiers in the dressing rooms of the barracks of the Third Reich were equipped with gray wool stockings in four sizes as standard . In addition, foot rags were also delivered for work. The knitted stockings were made from so-called sweat wool. This unwashed sheep's wool came from freshly sheared animals that still contained the wool fat. One to four white, rarely green, circumferential size rings were knitted into the opening of the stocking. With the order of February 11, 1938 (HV 38C. No. 109), the stockings were renamed “socks”, which made it clearer that the military socks were the shorter version of a stocking. According to the ruling of November 25, 1939 (HM 39, No. 870), the sizes were also represented with one to four cross stitches made of white threads, depending on the knitting method. The decree of June 7, 1944 (HV 44B, No. 247) brought so-called “Finnsocks” into use, which were knitted without heels. At the beginning of the 21st century, the Soviet and later Russian armies had no socks, so foot rags were put on there. A Footwraps was to pressure points and wound running a piece of cloth that has been very carefully wrapped around the foot while marching to avoid. Before and during the war, footcloths were also given out in German clothing stores. These were 40 × 40 centimeters in size and consisted of unhemmed white cotton flannel cloth , brushed on both sides . However, similar substances were also used. The German soldier wore the foot rags when no socks were available. It was also recommended by doctors to wear foot rags in the boots and socks over them, as was already the practice in the imperial army. In many cases, foot flaps have been viewed as more advantageous when wearing shaft boots. As in the emperor's time, several layers of newspaper should be wrapped between socks and boots in winter.

Paratrooper (1936 to 1945)

In contrast, the paratroopers of the Wehrmacht, but later also hunting commandos and members of hunter units , were equipped with laced combat boots . These had a lacing and thus a more secure fit. During the war, the black combat boots were revised once. The first model had a grained upper leather and a twelve-hole lacing with leather laces on the outside. A heel and half sole made of profiled rubber were attached to the sole, which is also made of leather. In the second model, which also consisted of blackened, grained leather that Zwölflochschnürung was already like modern combat boots on the instep been shifted to the initially planned rubber sole was eventually waived. The applied outsole made of sturdy leather is reinforced with flat polished steel pins. All modern combat boots, including those used by the Bundeswehr, are based on this early model of the paratrooper boot. In addition to many other changes, modern paratrooper boots have a profiled, abrasion-resistant rubber sole.

Marine (1870/71 to 1945)

In the case of the Imperial Navy , the Reichsmarine and the Kriegsmarine , high boots with leather soles were also part of the equipment. The 1914 “Handbook of Health Care on Board of Warships” refers to the old point of controversy between lace-up shoes and high boots. However, it is also made clear that a well-fitted boot that is handled with care, together with good footwear, offers the best conditions for good adaptability to the foot. As in the case of the army, naval shaft boots with footrests made of rough fennel were worn, which were well cushioned, washable and, as cotton, dried quickly.

Federal Republic of Germany

Since there was never a central manufacture for military equipment in Germany, the shoes were and are produced by various manufacturers according to standardized specifications. Despite these uniform specifications, there were always slight production differences. Traditionally, the Bundeswehr awards its footwear orders to German manufacturers. As with other pieces of equipment, foreign production facilities, including non-NATO partners, could and can also receive orders.

For purely political considerations, the decision-makers responsible for the future Bundeswehr in the Blank office rejected almost any takeover of tried-and-tested German structures and equipment. In addition, the new armed forces should work from the ground up in a market-oriented manner. That is why words like “procurement” were frowned upon in the founding discussions for some time. In order to do justice to the free market economy in a liberalized world, there were considerations that the soldier should buy his own supplies and that defective material should only be repaired by industry and craft. It was agreed that a military administrative authority such as the Intendantur , which was responsible for supplying troops from the German Empire to the Wehrmacht, should no longer be set up. In this sense, every armaments contract should be publicly tendered and processed on the terms of the market. The obligation to public procurement law for Bundeswehr contracts burdened taxpayers with unnecessary and excessive costs from the start. In addition, the tenders were very time-consuming and control-intensive. For this reason, the Bundeswehr repeatedly made attempts to break away from the dictates of the tenders. In the spirit of the Bundeswehr founders, the political decision-makers pursued an increasing privatization of the army after the fall of the Wall . Under the Gerhard Schröder government , the LH Bundeswehr clothing company was founded in 2002 . With this consortium , the majority of which were held by Lion Apparel Deutschland GmbH and Hellmann Worldwide Logistics GmbH & Co. KG, the Federal Ministry of Defense wanted to satisfy the complete liberalization of the states demanded by the European Union and still avoid the unpopular obligation to tender. The clothing company initially succeeded in making a lot of money by selling uniforms and equipment, but in a key point of its foundation, now placing orders itself, it was defeated in 2003 before the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court. The judgment was preceded by an order for around 80,000 combat shoes from a shoe manufacturer by the clothing company, which saw itself as a private company, without public procurement. One of the goals of the privatization promoted by the Schröder government was to trivialize the military's own names . The clothing stores have now become linguistically generalized “service stations”. After the company had speculated on third-party deals outside of the Bundeswehr business, the state saved the consortium facing bankruptcy by taking over the clothing company for over 90 million euros at taxpayer costs. Today the clothing and equipment of the Bundeswehr is distributed by the Bw Bekleidungsmanagement GmbH via "service stations" and the new German "Mobile Servicepoints" called mobile clothing stores .

Like most of the German uniform parts used so far, the Knobelbecher was exposed to the most severe criticism in the run-up to the establishment of the Bundeswehr and was rejected many times in the Blank office. In contrast, the Federal Border Police had already been equipped with boots when it was founded in March 1951. For the newly founded German armed forces, however, the fact that it was initially planned to introduce a uniform shoe shape as part of the European Defense Community EVG, which had been planned since 1952, came into play . The French, Italians, Belgians and Dutch advocated a lace-up shoe with an attached gaiter. Since these partners of Germany had good experiences with this type of footwear in their African and Asian colonies and colonial wars and the Americans in Korea were also satisfied with their gaiter lace-up shoes, they prevailed over the politically controversial high boots. So it came first to the introduction of a laced “combat boot” in the Bundeswehr, even if the French parliament in 1954 had overturned the joint plans for the EVG.

Lace-up shoe, model 1955

When the first recruits were sworn in on November 12, 1955, a lace-up shoe with attached short leather gaiters and a profiled synthetic rubber sole became the first standard shoe for the newly founded German armed forces, which were only given the name "Bundeswehr" on April 1, 1956. However, the new shoe could not prevail because it was neither suitable for longer nor shorter marches. Shortly after the march started, the majority of the soldiers had to give up because of foot problems. The shoe also showed manufacturing difficulties because, in addition to the generally poor quality of the leather, the heels did not hold and the lacing device allowed moisture to penetrate. In the winter of 1955/1956, 18 frostbite occurred on just one training day. The soldiers wondered why the Bundeswehr should forego all of the equipment-related achievements of the German military in the past, while the Federal Border Guard was able to continue their continuity without restrictions. Those in charge of the Bundeswehr ultimately had to establish that "this type of shoe was not suitable for German soldiers" .

Combat boots, model 1957

Bundeswehr soldiers with knobs, model 1957, in 1960. There are bumpers attached to the front and under the heel of the boots.
Panzer grenadiers lined up in 1968 wearing shoes typical of the time. Some of the soldiers wear lace-up shoes with cloth gaiters, most of them wear a puzzle. All shoes are equipped with bumpers on the tips
Panzer grenadiers from 1968 carry Knobelbecher, one soldier is armed with combat boots

Due to the very bad experiences with the Schürschuh taken over by the NATO partners, the shortened "tried and tested" Knobelbecher was reintroduced into the Bundeswehr in 1957 under Defense Minister Franz Josef Strauss . The troops had also been made aware of many other unpopular details of the Bundeswehr initial equipment. These were then put to the test and, after being revised, were presented to the Federal President in the Villa Hammerschmidt at the beginning of January 1957, together with the shaft boots . At the same time as the shortened shaft boot, the Bundeswehr reintroduced the ankle-high lace-up shoe with gaiters, which was increasingly worn, especially during the second half of the war. Until 1945, these lace-up shoes included short cloth or wrap gaiters. After it was founded, the Bundeswehr continued to have short canvas gaiters for this type of shoe, which could be fastened around the shoe and leg with two blackened leather tongues and pin buckles. Black leather gaiters were also used, but they were unpopular with the troops. In practice, the canvas gaiters were passed on by the graduates. There were no longer any leggings.

Based on the experience with the negative properties of the purely vegetable-tanned standard knobel cups of the Wehrmacht, whose pale leather reacted equally positively to the foot under the moderate Central European conditions in cold and heat, but required a higher level of care, the high boots of the Bundeswehr with a combined tanned upper leather fitted. The vegetable tanning was combined with a chrome tanning. This gave the shoe the properties known from tanning, such as fullness, grip and colorability, as well as the advantages of chrome tanning in terms of tear resistance, toughness and insensitivity to heat. Contrary to the views of the Federal Ministry of Defense, the leather industry enforced the use of elk scars. These scars are pressed onto the tanned leather and make minor blemishes unrecognizable. This made it possible for the industry to also process second-class leather. By pressing on the scars, the already heavy upper leather became a little harder. Many combat boots from the 1957 model were still delivered with a smooth surface.

The Bundeswehr Knobelbecher differs mainly in three ways from the shortened model introduced in 1939. A pin buckle on the side has now been attached to narrow the shaft. Since the soldiers suspected that the largely inoperative "pull / pull buckle" had only been attached to distinguish the new boot from the Wehrmacht model previously worn, it was called the "democratic buckle". Also in the political discussions of the Bundestag to 1957 said "in serenity in the house" from the "democratic struggle boots with buckle strap and three openings as a mixture between the combat boots of former Wehrmacht and the Federal Border" .

In the 1957 model, the thorn buckle of the combat boot was made of black lacquered aluminum ; in the Marine Model 2000, it was replaced by a brass version also lacquered in black . A major difference to the pre-war shaft boots was the sole. The high-quality insole , the wooden pins and the traditional double-stitched design remained, but shoe nails have now been dispensed with and very flat, durable hard rubber soles with a grooved profile have been used instead. While the heel sole was fixed with eight nails, the half sole was attached to the bottom of the shoe with seven screws and sewn on the edges - visible from below. At the toes of the shoes there were recesses in the rubber for push irons, which were fastened with three of the seven screws mentioned. In the early years, like the pre-war models, sales were partly made entirely of leather. The shaft boots were equipped with chisels on the tips and heel irons in different designs. The heel irons became obsolete in the 1960s.

Until the introduction of the model in 2017, only the German Navy used an approximately 35 centimeter high, shortened Knobelbecher (sea boots) with the buckle attached to the side. In addition, the guard battalion at the Federal Ministry of Defense and the music corps will be equipped with a variant of the shortened model introduced in 1939. These boots correspond to the model in terms of form, but instead of nails they are also equipped with a flat rubber sole. The traditionally constructed leather heel with the horseshoe-shaped chisel has remained.

Combat shoe, model 1971

As the successor to the Knobelbecher, the German Armed Forces, under Defense Minister Helmut Schmidt, introduced a brown lace-up shoe with an extended shaft that had been developed in-house and had the same thin profile rubber sole as the Knobelbecher. The model of this shoe was the footwear already used by other NATO partners and the combat boots. The switch from high boots to combat shoes did not happen suddenly, but from 1972 the new footwear was only given out where Knobelbecher were no longer available in the same sizes. This is why both shoe models will exist side by side for many years.

In 1971, the designers had to take the following requirements into account when developing the shoe:

  • "Good fit and dimensional stability,
  • largely abrasion and tear resistant,
  • supple, even after a long period of wear,
  • noiseless when moving,
  • insensitive to aggressive substances,
  • secure hold on metallic, damp, wet, stony, frozen and overgrown surfaces,
  • adequate protection against cold,
  • largely waterproof,
  • sufficiently breathable, d. H. water vapor permeable,
  • Protection against sight, also in the infrared range,
  • The best possible tactile feeling with the feet for operating pedals and levers on vehicles and other devices,
  • adequate protection against shock and impact,
  • Year-round shoe (!)
  • etc."

The new coarsely tanned cowhide shoe was, like the Knobelbecher, double-stitched using traditional craftsmanship, the seam was waxed and the heel and toe reinforced. The rubber soles consisted of a heel and a half sole. The heel sole was fixed to the heel made of leather with eight nails, the half sole was screwed to the bottom of the shoe and sewn on the edges. On the toes of the shoes, on the soles of the knuckle cups, there was a recess in the rubber for pushing irons. Also known from the Knobelbechern was the seam pierced through the rubber sole, which was visible on the underside of the shoe and could thus be worn through under heavy loads, whereby the sole was then detached from the bottom of the shoe and only attached through the toe of the shoe and in the area of ​​the metatarsus Screws was held.

As early as the beginning of 1973, a revised version of the brown shoes, usually equipped with eight rows of metal lace-up eyelets, was issued under the supply item name “Stiefel, Feld” and supply number 8430-12-152-70. Now the welted shoe had a pronounced, continuous profile rubber sole, which was colloquially known by soldiers as the " Oberfeldwelsohle " because the profile in the heel had a double angle, which looked like the double angle on the epaulets of a Oberfeldwels. The non-slip, oil- and petrol-resistant sole was now glued to the body of the shoe, double-stitched using traditional craftsmanship, and the seam was then waxed. In early models of this series, the rubber sole was partially sewn through, as with the first Knobelbechersole installed, so that this seam was visible again on the underside of the shoe. The combat shoes had a reinforcement sewn with leather on the heel and a leather loop on the back of the shoe opening for easier entry and exit. It was forbidden to treat these shoes with anything other than the business-supplied brown shoe polish. An essential point for this regulation was the requirement for infrared protection. From 1978 the already delivered combat shoes were colored with black shoe polish. Among other things, those responsible in the Bundeswehr have now waived infrared protection. In the models with a continuous profile sole, the heel was also attached with eight nails in addition to the adhesive.

Combat shoe, model 1977

A version of the 1972 model made in black leather was presented in 1977 under the supply item name “Stiefel, Feld”. This was preceded by discussions about foot hygiene in the Bundeswehr and the discontinuation of infrared protection. From the beginning of 1978, the professional and temporary soldiers were each equipped with a new pair of combat shoes, and from January 1979, the soldiers doing basic military service were each given a new pair of heavy shoes. At the management level, those responsible now assumed to the Bundestag that “orthopedic and hygienic needs should also be taken into account” . However, it was recognized that the heavy footwear offered “insufficient protection from the cold” when the winter temperature was low . And further: "According to the Federal Minister of Defense, this problem can only be solved by providing the soldiers with winter combat boots." However, this demand remained unfulfilled. Likewise, the complaints by soldiers "about water permeability and insufficient load-bearing capacity of the new heavy shoe equipment" were viewed as "largely irrelevant" . The hygiene discussion had been public for some time. As early as March 3, 1975 , Der Spiegel reported that, according to the Koblenz Ernst Rodenwaldt Institute , 95 percent of the combat shoes and military work shoes were infested with athlete's foot. The soldiers should therefore take their used shoes home with them after their period of service. According to “Guidelines for Clothing No. 10/77”, this was and still applies in particular to reservists in the Bundeswehr who voluntarily and regularly take part in official events.

The leather of the combat shoes model 1977 was either smooth or appropriately grained by pressing a grain surface during the manufacturing process. Second-rate leather could also be used in this way, as this technique was introduced by the industry to counteract blemishes in leather. In addition, the leather became a little harder due to the grain surface. In addition, there were slight deviations from the standard model for different tranches. However, the leather-reinforced heel zone was always retained. The double-stitched and glued continuous profile rubber soles of this shoe remained the same as in the no longer sewn-through version after 1973. In addition to the previously used brown-colored sole, combat shoes with black soles were now also issued. All had the "sergeant major" profile. Sometimes the brown rubber soles were blackened on their flanks. A feature of this model was initially that, as with the predecessor, the heel was also fixed with eight nails. The hammering of these nails was no longer necessary after a few years of production, because the new shoe model was continuously revised until 1983. These treatments particularly concerned the water-repellent properties and the sealing of the seams. "This made it possible to increase the waterproofness of the finished shoe from the original three to six hours."

Combat shoe, model 1983

In the 83 model, the combat shoe was lined with leather, among other things.

The combat shoe model 83 was first presented towards the end of 1984 under the supply name "Stiefel, Feld" and the supply number 8430-12-169-6645. It was developed from the experience with the previous laced combat shoes of the models 72 and 77 and took up demands from the troops. Since their complaints about suitable winter equipment did not stop until 1984, voices in the Bundestag were now also loud. The MP Albert Pfuhl (SPD) said in 1984 - at that time only with a view to the combat shoe model 1977: "The combat boots are suitable for summer, but are highly water-permeable in winter and in contrast to the equipment used by US troops no rubber overshoes were available ” . This request was based on a questioning of the troop magazine Heer from February 1984 and was taken up again in the same year in the magazine Wehrtechnik after the Bundestag request . The problems that had arisen with the introduction of the first laced combat shoe in 1972 had not been resolved by this point in time - despite all attempts at appeasement on the part of the Federal Ministry of Defense and those in charge of politics.

The Bundeswehr's answer was the 1983 model with its water resistance increased to six hours. In 1985, experts were of the opinion: "In its current design, the combat shoe can no longer be improved without impairing wearing comfort (rubber boot effect)." Comparisons with shoes from other NATO partners showed that the new German model performed best. "However, complaints about wet feet that have been expressed are caused by the need to wear old combat shoes for economic reasons (which do not yet meet today's quality requirements), improper treatment and lack of or incorrect care." Those in charge also saw the current shoe problems with recruits at the time Behavior of young people. The “generation of sneakers” had a very strong tendency towards deformed feet and initially had verifiable difficulties in wearing sturdy shoes.

Conceptually, the appearance of the previous lace-up shoe made of black-dyed, smooth or grained cowhide leather was retained, but a few innovations were introduced. The leather reinforcement attached to the outside of the shoe was omitted at the heel level. The continuous, molded, profiled plastic sole (Oberfeldwebel sole), which was taken over identically from the 1977 model, was glued to the body of the shoe, double-stitched and the seam was then waxed. The sole was non-slip as well as oil and petrol resistant. Particular emphasis was placed on increased wearing comfort. An additional leather lining on the flap cushioned and insulated the back of the foot and at the same time prevented the penetration of moisture. The shoe had eight rows of metal eyelets and a leather tab on the back, which should help to improve getting in and out.

Combat shoe, model 1990

At the beginning of 1990, a revised combat shoe was also introduced under the supply name "Stiefel, Feld" and the supply number 8430-12-169-6653. This model made of black, grained leather had eight rows of metal eyelets - including hooks - and was supplied with a leather loop on the shaft for easier entry and exit. Typical of this design was the lack of leather heel reinforcement attached to the outside of the shoe. The shoe had a lightly padded leather lining. Although this made it pleasant to wear, it was susceptible to cracking when exposed to high levels of moisture or when the shoe was very dry. The sole was double-stitched, waxed and glued to the bottom of the shoe using traditional craftsmanship. Early models still had the sole of the previous model (Oberfeldwebelsohle), but this changed very quickly. Then the antistatic, oil and petrol-resistant sole was installed, which was also used in the 2007 combat shoe. One supplier of these shoes was the East Bavarian company Völkl, which until then had manufactured shoes for occupational safety and high boots, among other things.

Combat shoe, model 2000

Combat boots model 2000 of the Bundeswehr

The combat shoe model 2000 was a robust, leather-lined lace-up shoe with an extended shaft made of black cowhide. It was manufactured according to the technical delivery conditions of the Bundeswehr under the "TL 8430-0039" and issued as "combat shoe, men" as service and combat shoe to all branches of the armed forces. The shoe had the supply item name "Stiefel, Feld" and the supply number 8430-12-336-0326. One requirement for the shoe was that it should meet the climatic conditions in Central Europe. Additional shoes were kept ready for use in other climatic zones. The footwear should be more comfortable to wear, protect against overheating and prevent static charge on the body. It was also important to be waterproof for five to six hours, good cushioning properties of the sole to promote walking performance, slip resistance, antistatic properties and protection against mechanical influences.

The shoe consisted of combined tanned, grained, full-grain, hydrophobized, unfinished waterproof leather. The model had two plastic caps per boot to protect the heels and toes . In contrast to the previous steel caps, plastic caps have the advantage of not promoting the cooling of the toes. The shaft height of the 2000 model was around 24 centimeters. Furthermore, the plastic of the non-slip tread rubber composite sole was both oil and petrol-proof and antistatic. The sole was double-stitched using traditional craftsmanship and the seam was sealed. The sole was also characterized by a cushioning middle layer. In addition to the eyelet lacing, the shoe tongue ensured additional tightness in the area of ​​the lacing, as it was connected to the upper on both sides up to the top. In addition, the combat shoe was equipped with an expansion fold in the ankle area, had ventilation openings and a shaft padding on the upper edge.

Combat shoe, model 2002

Depending on the manufacturer, the 2000 model was sold before 2002 with or without a handle on its back. It was not until 2002 that all model 2000 combat shoes had this pull-on loop. This shoe was also supplied by Völkl, among others.

Combat shoe, model 2005

In 2005, the 2000 model was revised, particularly in terms of the construction of the rubber sole and the external design. For the first time in a military combat shoe in Germany, the outsole was no longer double-stitched using traditional craftsmanship, but instead glue-pinched using the cheaper process that has become common for industrial mass production. This meant that the seam between the lining and the insole fell away. In addition, the tread rubber sole has now been vulcanized to the bottom of the shoe. The upper material consisted of a combined tanned, grained and hydrophobized waterproof leather, the inner lining was made of combined tanned, natural cowhide leather. The insole was removable and washable. The shoe had a pull-on loop and a padded border. The model was supplied by various manufacturers, including the Haix company.

The troupe did not like the shoe. For reasons of cost, the only sticky-pinched soles came off and some soldiers complained of blisters on their heels. Despite the ban, soldiers began to get private footwear.

Combat shoe, model 2007 DMS

Overshoes
Combat shoe cleaning system in the Generalfeldmarschall-Rommel-Kaserne (Augustdorf)

The 2005 model was replaced in 2008 by a revised version of the Bundeswehr lace-up shoe. This new model is manufactured according to the technical delivery conditions of the Bundeswehr under the revised "TL 8430-0039" of July 30, 2008 and issued as "Combat shoe, men, directly injected sole". The shoe, which is very similar to the 2005 model, bears the item name “Stiefel, Feld” and stock number 8430-12-362-8689. The sticky, vulcanized sole is non-slip, non-wearing, acid and petrol resistant and antistatic. The shoe has a pull-on loop and a padded border. It consists of combined tanned, grained, full-grain, thoroughly hydrophobized, unprepared waterproof cowhide leather. Its tongue is padded and it has ventilation openings at the top. There is an expansion fold on the back of the shoe. One goal of the combat shoe overhaul was to save weight. On the scales, the 2007 model therefore weighs 400 grams less per pair of shoes than the 2000 model. As is customary with Bundeswehr combat shoes from the start, the upper leather is structured by pressing a grain surface during the manufacturing process. Contrary to the original specifications of the Federal Ministry of Defense, the industry implemented this process in the 1950s in order to be able to process leather of second choice. The grained surface makes minor blemishes in the leather "disappear". In addition, the pressure on the surface also makes the leather a little harder. The model is supplied by various manufacturers, including the company Baltes, which also sells this shoe as the KS 2002 combat shoe , and the company Völkl.

The shoe is not popular with the troops. For reasons of cost, the soles, which had only been pinched with adhesive since the 2005 model, came off and some soldiers complained of blisters on their heels. Despite the ban, some soldiers began to equip themselves with private shoes. Even after the launch of the 2017 models in 2018 and 2019, the 2007 model will be applied.

  • Combat shoe model 2007 DMS

  • Front view

  • Original sole

  • Rear view

  • complete with uniform

Combat shoe, model 2018

As early as 2012, a redesign of the combat shoe was considered because the soldiers had bad experiences with the last models. For reasons of cost, the soles, which had only been pinched with adhesive since the 2005 model, came off and some soldiers complained of blisters on their heels. Despite the ban, the soldiers began to get private footwear.

It was not until 2014 that the Ministry of Defense responded to the proposals it had collected for new footwear, so that preparatory work could begin in autumn 2015. The first wearing tests of shoes from different manufacturers took place in November 2016. A new combat shoe was developed from this experience. The Bundeswehr was able to order the new shoes in September 2017. Ultimately, each soldier receives three pairs of combat shoes in the basic operation - two heavy (Gore-tex) and one light pair (with textile insert). In November 2017, the distribution of the light footwear began, initially only to soldiers who go into action and from January 2018 the first heavy combat shoes were distributed. The light and heavy shoes for men and women are produced by three manufacturers. The men's shoes are made by Meindl and Haix, the women's shoes by Meindl and Lowa . Men and women can also choose the shoes of the opposite sex for service. When it comes to men's shoes, there are slight construction differences between the Meindl and Haix models. The soles are supplied by the Italian manufacturer Vibram .

The new shoe shows visual similarities to the existing US model. The new boots will be natural-colored and for the first time have a suede surface. Due to existing Bundeswehr regulations, however, the heavy models were only allowed to be delivered in classic black, as these are also used for formal service. Only the light boots, which are a novelty, remain brown. The suede is more maintenance-intensive than the previous smooth leather models, but apparently the rough surface cannot be sanded down as was the case with the last Bundeswehr shoe models.

Special models

Bundeswehr combat shoe from the Baltes company for tropical use

The guard battalion at the Federal Ministry of Defense does not wear combat shoes during parades, but traditional, shortened shaft boots with the supply article name “boots, protocol service”. The soldiers of the mountain troops , the paratroopers and some of the flying personnel usually wear special designs or no combat shoes at all. The mountain troops wears light mountain boots with a jagged sole profile, standardized for the Federal Armed Forces.

Tropical shoe

The Baltes company also produced appropriate, around 24 centimeter high combat shoes for use in southern Europe for the German armed forces, due to their deployment in different climatic zones. The shoe was named "boots, field, tropics". The shoe, equipped with a quick lacing system, was slightly lighter than the 2007 model. On the sides of the shaft, it was equipped with tear-resistant and resilient Cordura nylon and cotton. The shaft ends themselves were padded. The continuous tread rubber sole, which was equipped with a different profile than the combat shoe, was antistatic and resistant to oil and petrol. This type of combat shoe with a combination of leather and textile was first developed for the Afrikakorps .

Desert shoe

The Haix company supplied the German Armed Forces with the 18.5 centimeter high beige "Combat shoe, hot / dry climate zone", most recently according to TL 8430-0054 of October 8, 2009. The shoe was sold under the utility name "Stiefel, Feld; hot / dry ”and stock number 8430-12-368-8286. This laced model, which is sold under the name “Airpower P9 Desert”, had integrated heat protection. The breathable upper material consisted of a combination of soft and supple, hydrophobic suede and fabric inserts made of hard-wearing polyamide. Gore-tex was used in the inner lining. The shoe had a moisture-absorbing insole made of Texon, a flexible non-woven material made of cellulose and latex. The non-chalking, directly injected and glue-pinched tread rubber sole was oil and gasoline resistant and differed from that of the standard combat shoe and that of the tropical shoe. A damping wedge made of polyurethane should improve the running properties. A tab on the rear shaft helped to get in and out faster. The Haix company had registered design protection on the rubber sole. However, in the context of procurement for the German Armed Forces, the company waived these rights.

Haix also delivered another model to the Bundeswehr, which was available under the civil name "Black Eagle Athletic 11 high desert". The upper material of this laced shoe consisted of a combination of suede and textile and had a breathable inner lining. The insole was breathable and antibacterial and the non-chalking tread rubber sole was oil, gasoline, heat and cold resistant. In addition to the lacing, the metal-free shoe had a loop on the back of the shaft and a side zipper for faster entry and exit.

The Meindl company also produced its own laced beige “combat shoe, hot / dry climate zone”, which was visually different from the Haix model. The shoe is delivered as a civilian model under the name "Desert Fox". This water-repellent shoe also had a Gore-Tex lining and was designed for resistance and robustness. A tab on the rear shaft helped to get in and out faster. During the conception, value was placed on a high level of walking and wearing comfort. The shaft was made of suede, the tread rubber sole was oil and petrol resistant.

The Bundeswehr is now being supplied with a new beige combat shoe hot / dry. The model, which is very similar to the old Haix shoe according to TL 8430-0054, is designed as a robust all-year-round shoe that can be used universally. The coarse, non-chalking tread rubber sole, which is constructed differently than that of Haix, is directly injected and pinched with glue. It is antistatic and resistant to oil and petrol. The upper material consists of a combination of hydrophobic suede and synthetic fabric. A tab on the rear shaft helps to get in and out faster. The ankle and tongue area is padded and the three-layer laminate lining has an intermediate membrane. The insole is removable and the plastic insole is fleece-coated on both sides.

Sea boots model 2000

The model 2000 sea boot of the German Navy , specially developed for the German Armed Forces, was a robust, cowhide-made, around 35 centimeter high shaft boot with a pin buckle made of black lacquered brass on the side of the boot opening to adjust the size. The shaft boot, the visible surfaces of which on the upper leather were grained throughout, was last manufactured in accordance with the technical delivery conditions of the German Armed Forces under “TL 8430-0017” from August 18, 2010 and as “Sea boots, men” under the supply item name “Boot, shaft” for issued general service to the Navy. The boots equipped with an insole were delivered in a blackened state. In contrast to the German Armed Forces boots model 1957, the marine summer boots, model 2000, had a much stronger, continuous profile rubber composite sole without metal fittings. This sole was identical to the continuous profile sole of the combat boot model 1972. As then, it was delivered in both black and brown colors - then with blackened flanks. The traditionally handcrafted double-stitched sole with waxed seams was both oil and gasoline-resistant, antistatic and had a polyurethane wedge . There was also a lambskin-lined winter version of this model, which had a side zipper over the entire boot height. The summer model 2000 was made from a combined, tanned, grained, full-grain, water-repellent, waterproof cowhide leather and delivered without finishing, with a leather lining and microporous intermediate padding in the upper part.

  • Sea boots model 2000 of the Navy

  • Summer model of the German Navy's sea boot, model 2000

  • Sole of the sea boot 2000 of the German Navy. Soles made of black plastic were also delivered

  • Summer model of the sea boot 2000 of the German Navy, front view

Sea boots model 2013

Under TL 8430-003 from June 28, 2013, the current model of the naval shaft boot is manufactured under the designation “Sea boots, security, soldiers” and the supply item name “Boots, shaft” for general service in the Navy. This boot model is the first modern revision of the previous boot, which was manufactured on the basis of the combat boot model 1957, and has clearly moved away from the classic look of the German Army Knobelbecher. The coarse profile sole made of nitrile rubber must provide the current standard of slip resistance, the profile has been modernized technically and visually. The sole is non-chalking, oil and petrol resistant and antistatic. The shaft boot was made from a combined tanned, grained, full-grain, water-repellent waterproof leather. Instead of the previous leather lining, the 2013 model is equipped with a textile lining without finishing. Instead of a microporous one, the boot now has a reticulated intermediate cushion in the shaft. No more metal was installed on the antistatic boot, so the “democrat buckle” has been omitted, instead there is now an elastic band made of leather on the inside of the boot. The boot made of smooth leather has the horizontal rows of darts above the heel and on the back of the foot, which have become known from motorcycle boots. Below the upper there are two rows of ventilation openings on the front of the shoe. Instead of leather, polyester was now used for the insole. For the first time in a German shaft boot, the sole is no longer hand-sewn, but instead glue-tweaked at a cheaper industrial rate.

Possession after the end of service

If you leave the Bundeswehr, combat shoes are part of the additional peace equipment according to the 1977 “Guidelines for Clothing No. 10/77” . They are punched in an inconspicuous place to prevent further exchange and remain with the former soldier after the end of the service period and become his property after three years, unless he continues to voluntarily and regularly participate in business events as a reservist in accordance with Paragraph 4, Paragraph 4 of the Conscription Act (WPflG) .

See also

literature

Commons : Shoes of the Bundeswehr  - Collection of images, videos and audio files
  • Laurent Mirouze: Infantrymen of the First World War . Verlag Karl-Heinz Dissberger, Düsseldorf 1990, ISBN 3-924753-28-8 .
  • Laurent Mirouze: Infantrymen of World War II . Verlag Karl-Heinz Dissberger, Düsseldorf, ISBN 3-924753-27-X .
  • Hans-Jürgen Schmidt: We wear the federal eagle on our skirts . Volume 1, Chronicle of the Federal Border Police 1951–1971. Fiedler-Verlag, Coburg 1995, ISBN 3-923434-17-0 .
  • Ricardo Recio Cardona, Antonio Gonzales Sanchez: German Army Uniforms and Equipment 1933–1945 . Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2005, ISBN 3-613-02476-4 .

Remarks

  1. ↑ René Baumgartner, Hartmut Stinus: The orthopedic care of the foot. Thieme, Stuttgart / New York 2001, ISBN 3-13-486603-X , p. 206.
  2. ^ Paul Pietsch: The formation and uniforming history of the Prussian army, 1808-1914. Volume 1, Schulz, Hamburg 1963, p. 99.
  3. ^ Paul Pietsch: The formation and uniforming history of the Prussian army, 1808-1914. Volume 1, Schulz, Hamburg 1963, p. 105.
  4. ^ A b c d Anne Sudrow: The shoe in National Socialism. A product story in a German-British-American comparison . Wallstein, Göttingen 2010, p. 379.
  5. ↑ (Without author): Practical reviews of the campaign of 1866 . Dümmler, Berlin 1870, p. 15.
  6. ^ Military weekly paper. 11, Mittler, 1885, col. 207-209.
  7. ^ Georg Karl Friedrich Viktor von Alten : Handbook for Army and Fleet. Encyclopedia of War Studies and Related Areas 2, Deutsches Verlagshaus Bong, Berlin / Leipzig / Vienna / Stuttgart 1909, p. 61.
  8. ↑ a b c d e Ernst Danielsen, K. Walther: The heat regulation of the soldier. In: Anton Waldmann , Wilhelm Hoffmann (ed.): Textbook of military hygiene. Springer, Berlin 1936, p. 50.
  9. ↑ Jürgen Kraus: The German Army in the First World War. Uniforms and equipment - 1914 to 1918. Militaria, Vienna 2004, ISBN 3-9501642-5-1 , p. 199.
  10. ^ A b c Adolf Schlicht, Jürgen Kraus: The German Reichswehr. Uniforms and equipment of the German Reichsheer from 1919 to 1932. Militaria, 2005, ISBN 3-902526-00-9 , p. 210.
  11. ↑ a b Ernst Danielsen, K. Walther: The heat regulation of the soldier. In: Anton Waldmann , Wilhelm Hoffmann (ed.): Textbook of military hygiene. Springer, Berlin 1936, p. 51.
  12. ^ Adolf Schlicht, Jürgen Kraus: The German Reichswehr. Uniforms and equipment of the German Reichsheer from 1919 to 1932. Militaria, 2005, ISBN 3-902526-00-9 , p. 133.
  13. ↑ a b Ernst Danielsen, K. Walther: The heat regulation of the soldier . In: Anton Waldmann , Wilhelm Hoffmann (ed.): Textbook of military hygiene. Springer, Berlin 1936, pp. 50-51.
  14. ^ Adolf Schlicht, John R. Angolia: The German Wehrmacht. Uniforms and equipment 1933-1945. Volume 1: Das Heer ., Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-613-01390-8 , p. 156.
  15. ^ Adolf Schlicht, John R. Angolia: The German Wehrmacht. Uniforms and equipment 1933-1945. Volume 1: Das Heer ., Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-613-01390-8 , p. 111.
  16. ^ Rudolf Absolon: The Wehrmacht in the Third Reich, Volume 5: September 1, 1939 to December 18, 1941 . Boldt, Boppard am Rhein 1988, ISBN 3-7646-1882-5 , p. 323.
  17. ^ German Institute for Economic Research (ed.): Semi-annual reports on the economic situation 14, 1939, p. 49.
  18. ↑ High Command of the Navy (ed.): High boots with additional orthopedic work . In: Marineverordnungsblatt 71, 1940, p. 398; High Command of the Wehrmacht (Ed.): High boots with additional orthopedic work . In: Heeres-Verordnungsblatt 22, 1940, p. 176.
  19. ↑ Oberkommando der Wehrmacht (Ed.): Soles for orthopedic custom-made shoes for members of the Wehrmacht . In: Heeres-Verordnungsblatt 25, 1943, p. 145.
  20. ↑ a b c d e f g h i The shoes in the Bundeswehr . In: Wehr und Wirtschaft 4, Stuttgarter Verlagkontor, 1959, pp. 36–37; here: p. 36.
  21. ^ Adolf Schlicht, John R. Angolia: The German Wehrmacht. Uniforms and equipment 1933-1945. Volume 1: Das Heer ., Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-613-01390-8 , p. 110.
  22. ^ Paul Pietsch: The formation and uniforming history of the Prussian army, 1808-1914 , Volume 1, Schulz, Hamburg 1963, p. 105.
  23. ^ Paul Pietsch: The formation and uniforming history of the Prussian army, 1808-1914 , Volume 1, Schulz, Hamburg 1963, p. 105.
  24. ↑ Yearbooks for the German Army and Navy Berlin 1907, p. 598.
  25. ↑ Ralf Raths: From mass storms to shock troop tactics. The German land war tactics as reflected in service regulations and journalism 1906 to 1918. Rombach, Freiburg i.Br./Berlin/Wien 2009, ISBN 978-3-7930-9559-0 , p. 83.
  26. ^ Paul Pietsch: The Formation and Uniforming History of the Prussian Army, 1808-1914 , Volume 1, Schulz, Hamburg 1963, p. 107.
  27. ↑ Leather from fattening calves that are slaughtered for shoe production during the transition from calf to cattle
  28. ^ Adolf Schlicht, John R. Angolia: The German Wehrmacht. Uniforms and equipment 1933-1945. Volume 1: Das Heer ., Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-613-01390-8 , p. 110.
  29. ↑ Hans-Dietrich Nicolaisen: The deployment of air force and naval helpers in World War II. Presentation and documentation . Nicolaisen, Büsum 1981, p. 119.
  30. ^ Adolf Schlicht, John R. Angolia: The German Wehrmacht. Uniforms and equipment 1933-1945. Volume 1: Das Heer ., Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-613-01390-8 , p. 36 u. 110.
  31. ^ A b Adolf Schlicht, John R. Angolia: The German Wehrmacht. Uniforms and equipment 1933-1945. Volume 1: Das Heer ., Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-613-01390-8 , p. 111.
  32. ↑ Anne Sudrow: The Shoe in National Socialism. A product story in a German-British-American comparison . Wallstein, Göttingen 2010, p. 573.
  33. ↑ Anne Sudrow: The Shoe in National Socialism. A product story in a German-British-American comparison . Wallstein, Göttingen 2010, p. 575.
  34. ↑ Anne Sudrow: The Shoe in National Socialism. A product story in a German-British-American comparison . Wallstein, Göttingen 2010, p. 582.
  35. ^ Adolf Schlicht, John R. Angolia: The German Wehrmacht. Uniforms and equipment 1933-1945. Volume 1: Das Heer ., Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 2000, ISBN 3-613-01390-8 , p. 123.
  36. ^ Handbook of Health Care on Board of Warships . Fischer, Jena 1914, pp. 827-828.
  37. ↑ ET: Can Blank buy in line with the market? In: Die Zeit 29, 21 July 1955.
  38. ↑ Clemens Gause: The economization of the Bundeswehr. Strategic realignment and organizational culture framework . Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag, Wiesbaden 2004, ISBN 3-8244-4583-2 , pp. 67-68.
  39. ↑ Jürgen Dahlkamp, ​​Matthias Gebauer: “ Bundeswehr clothing store before bankruptcy: Expensive green stuff ”, Spiegel-Online June 22, 2015; accessed on March 20, 2018.
  40. ^ Martin Rink : The Bundeswehr 1950 / 55-1989 . de Gruyter, Berlin / Boston 2015, ISBN 978-3-11-044096-6 , p. 100.
  41. ↑ Helmut R. Hammerich , Dieter H. Kollmer , Martin Rink , Rudolf J. Schlaffer : Das Heer 1950 to 1970: conception, organization and installation. Oldenbourg, Munich 2006, ISBN 3-486-57974-6 , p. 220.
  42. ↑ The new combat boots - Strauss releases the "democratic combat boots" into practice . In: Wehr und Wirtschaft 1, Stuttgarter Verlagkontor, 1957, p. 38.
  43. ↑ Wolfgang Thomas: 50 Years Ago - A Uniform for the Army and Air Force . In: Zeitschrift für Heereskunde , German Society for Heereskunde, 417, 2005, p. 7.
  44. ↑ Knobelbecher seen from an ideological perspective . In: Das Neue Journal 6, Pagoden-Verlag, 1957, p. 6.
  45. ^ Bulletin of the Press and Information Office of the Federal Government 24, Deutscher Bundes-Verlag, February 5, 1957, p. 215.
  46. ↑ Bundeswehr. Comrade lace-up . In: Der Spiegel 25, June 12, 1972, p. 38.
  47. ↑ a b c d combat shoe . In: Wehrtechnik 4, 1985, p. 41.
  48. ↑ Printed matter 8/2625 . In: Negotiations of the German Bundestag - Stenographic reports and printed matter , 8th electoral period, 1979, p. 23
  49. ↑ www.spiegel.de: Pilze im Stiefel , March 3, 1975; accessed on March 11, 2018
  50. ↑ Negotiations of the German Bundestag - Stenographic Reports and Printed Matter , 10th Election Period, Volume 300, p. 137.
  51. ↑ Quality of winter equipment under constant review. In: Wehrtechnik 5, 1984, p. 49.
  52. ↑ Rolf Abresch, Lothar Schulz: The soldier and his equipment . Report, Frankfurt am Main / Bonn 2002, ISBN 3-932385-13-6 , p. 32.
  53. ↑ a b fragdenstaat.de, technical delivery conditions TL 8430-0039, issue date: July 18, 2005 ; queried on March 11, 2018
  54. ↑ a b This is how a shoe becomes out of it. There were long complaints about the combat boots. Now there are new ones. In: JS Magazin 9 (2018), pp. 8–11; here: p. 8.
  55. ↑ fragdenstaat.de, technical delivery conditions TL 8430-0039, issue date: December 19, 2006 ; queried on March 11, 2018
  56. ↑ www.baltes-schuh.de: Kampfschuh KS 2002 ; accessed on March 25, 2018
  57. ↑ www.voelkl-professional.com: Combat shoes .
  58. ↑ This is how a shoe becomes out of it. There were long complaints about the combat boots. Now there are new ones. In: JS Magazin 9 (2018), pp. 8–11.
  59. ↑ This is how a shoe becomes out of it. There were long complaints about the combat boots. Now there are new ones. In: JS Magazin 9 (2018), pp. 8–11.
  60. ↑ www.haix.de: "Airpower P9 Desert" ; accessed on March 25, 2018