For the life of me I can't understand why Germany, with all of the innovations they made during the Second World War, stuck with the traditional, impractical jackboot. The infantry is the backbone of every army. This was especially true of the Wehrmacht and SS who covered hundreds of miles on the soles of their jackboots. I can't imagine using such an impractical item on the Eastern Front especially. How about trying to put one of those wet, frozen things back on your feet in sub zero temperatures. I have seen shorter lace up boots work with leggings on German soldiers toward the end of the war. Primarily though I see the jackboot. Did perhaps Hitler have anything to do with this? Did he want his troops to look sharp first, be effective fighters second? Maybe the army just wanted to stick with tradition. Who knows. Any ideas?
That's not such a bad question, Miller.... Don't take the following as Gospel - it's more my thoughts after reading many books. Firstly, I'm not sure that the finger of blame can be pointed at Hitler here.Traditionalism tends to run strong in any Armed Service - it's partly what holds a military organization together. The Nazis were also very aware that young men like to look 'cool' in uniform ; Third Reich uniforms were arguably the smartest in the World ( just compare with the British battledress ). the Jackboot for some reason ( perhaps someone here can give further detail on this ) seems to have a strong hold on German psychology ( maybe from hunting ? ). Yo uare of course quite right - what looks great on the parade ground or marching through a defeated City can be disastrous on the battlefield and in the unimaginably low temperatures of the Eastern Front, many soldiers suffered horribly through wearing the Jackboot. Later on, of course, much more practical footwear was introduced. Photos of the Ardennes, for instance, show Waffen-SS wearing the short, lace-up boot - but some of their comrades can still be seen wearing Jackboots..... I've always thought it's a bit like the Luger pistol - over-complicated and rather impractical in the context of WWII, replaced by the far more practical P-38 - and yet soldiers did not want to be parted from their treasured Lugers....
You have to think as well of the logistics needed to turn over millions of boots per year which had to be converted to produce other millions of an entirely different boot, not to count on the huge stockpile of boots already accumulated and that had to be spent, not recycled. The conversion from the jackboot to the ankle boot was quite a feat.
However I've read recently that many German soldiers hated the short boot, particularly the British gaiters that went with it. Bit of a theme in armies though, dodgy boots. Look at the infamous 'Ammunition boot' in the Falklands for a complete disaster based on this most vital piece of military equipment. Earlier Jackboots I've seen (and even tried on) struck me as reasonable and solid footwear but the later war ones made in cardboard and what looked like very poor felt with woodchips in look dreadful. It's a great question though, the kind of thing often neglected in military history but hugely important to the bloke in the foxhole. I can't think of a particular nations footwear that was really ahead of any others? Maybe those high American Para boots? Cheers, Adam.
Why the Jackboot? To keep the bottom of the trousers clean... As for wearing them I have... and if they dont fit perfectly they can be hell. I had very sore feet after a weekend in a pair, but the most annoying thing is when mud sucks them off your feet. I preferred the short boots myself, although I found that the gaiters could rub if not worn correctly. My favourite German footwear, that I have worn, was the mountain troop boot. It was very comfortable but its downside was weight. I heard from re-enactors that the FJ boot is comfy to wear. Personally, my feet killed me after a weekend in any of them... So lord knows how it felt to march accross Russia in them!
Good point about the Gebirgsjager boots, I had a pair once and they were top quality shambling boots once broken in but if you launched a kick the momentum was likely to induce a hernia. :eh: Funny but I don't think I'd wear 'em if I still had them now. I'd probably regard them as 'militaria', I bet they wouldn't cost c.£20 from an army surplus shop these days either...
Yeah I remember in Sajer's book him talking about how the quality of the boots decreased as the war went on and money was needed elsewhere. I'm also thinking those boots could retain a lot of water crossing a stream or something. Theres no outlet for the water to go.
As a Jaeger myself the issue of footwear is interesting. I have been part of a test programme on alternative footwear for the armed forces. A boot by Nokia (are you listening Kai?) was very good in certain circumstanses. On the average the Dalsfjord boot is good enough. The bastard is to break it in, and to keep it in ship shape.
The early US boots with the leggings were a pain to get on in a hurry. The big problem is that different boots are needed for different demands. The standard army boot is very comfortable when broken in, but I remember how the jungle boot was much better for the conditions of Vietnam, especially with the added on side zipper. In other areas, I had to wear an engineer boot that was very comfortable, but tore my feet up if I had to run in them. Steel toes and sole plate do not do well for running.
The Jackboot was a part of teh German Army long before Hitler was even born, so he can not bear any blame, or credit as the case may be. They were adopted in the 19th century as standard footware for the German army, because they looked great. Few if any complaints arise from the use of this boot at the time. My opinion is that once you train in them you get used to them. I used to wear Doc Martin boots while I was living Central America, I would walk, run, play football, work, or whatever in them and I didnt mind, years latter when I was back in civilized places I tried them on again and they felt heavy, sluggish and cumbersome. But yes they we tradional, like goosesteping which was more of and exercise than a march at first.
They remind me of what we called 'rubbers' growing up. (no crude jokes please) If I recall correctly, it went back to Prussia? and a King's admiration of some other nation's cavalry even uniforms. The Cavalry knee high boots were to protect against chafing and going through brush etc. Too bad we have no-one here from those countries. I also wonder, as with our rubbers, if they were more beneficial in slopping through wet terrain, even water? I've read anglo soldiers would get punished for allowing themselves to get marching disease because of water in the boot? something like? When on tour in armoured vehicles, the guide even mentioned that having cuffs could be a problem getting caught on things, yet ironically, iirc, German Panzer crews didn't have those 'rubber' boots, but normal ankle cuff outs? The Asian armies also preferred to be 'tight' knee down. I know one old veteran I talked to said it prevented being tripped up or making noise as you snuck through bush. But he had no real idea where the banded shin style for their armies came from either. I'll stick with my 'rubbers' theory, it kept your shin from getting wet? Or it was a babe-grabber?
