Three Strap Boots II

A place for discussion of mounted services uniforms, headgear, footwear and related personal equipment of the horse soldier.
User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Sat Jun 17, 2006 7:33 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Sam Cox</i>
<br />i imagine there are some parts that paddock shoes would get you killed

Sam Cox
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Perhaps.

Actually, around here, I think I've seen people riding in every type of footgear known to man, and even without footgear at all. I cringe at some of the things I'll see on odd occasion. One thing that makes me a bit tense is to see a guide mount a client up with the client wearing his Vibram sole hunting boots. That's just asking for a disaster. I've seen working riders very carefully evaluate stirrups in relationship to their boots, out of a concern about getting hung up. In contrast, I'll see guys hop on who don't know better with heavy hunting boots in a western stirrup. Eeek.

But amongst working hands, as I mentioned to another one of our participants off line in an email conversation, I've noticed an interesting thing in recent years. A decade ago many working riders were starting to wear packers, usually Whites packers. I have a pair of Chippewa packers, and I used to ride with them a lot, and I like them very much.

But, to include myself, I've noticed that working hands here have nearly completely returned to wearing very traditional cowboy boots, particularly if riding long distances, or working stock pretty hard. Almost every working hand wears fairly high heeled, fairly hight topped, cowboy boots, to include myself.

I'm far from an expert on these things, but I don't think that's an accident. For working riders, who do not do much ground work, and who ride stock saddles, that probably is the best footgear. At least that the consensus of the overwhelming majority of such riders, based on what they are using.

Things like packers, or 31 boots, or even the three strap boots, are all compromises in a way that contemplate ground work. In that sense, they were all better, indeed much better, than the service shoe, but they still all contemplate ground work. And of course they contemplate a different type of stirrup, as a rule, from the stock saddle types.

Pat

User avatar
Philip S
Society Member
Posts: 2102
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 9:26 am
Medals: 2
Last Name: Sauerlender
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
:
Society Member Donation - 8th

Post by Philip S » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:33 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Things like packers, or 31 boots, or even the three strap boots, are all compromises in a way that contemplate ground work. In that sense, they were all better, indeed much better, than the service shoe, but they still all contemplate ground work. And of course they contemplate a different type of stirrup, as a rule, from the stock saddle types.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The shoe portion of the enlisted version of the three strap boot and the army service shoe are identical. Basically, then, the three strap boot was a service shoe with a strap on legging attached.

For those new to the topic--there were enlisted and officer's versions of the three strap boot. The officer's boot apparently derived from an earlier English army model. This was essentially an English style tall field boot. Being custom made, there were a number of different variations of style. The enlisted boot was shorter and based on the service shoe. Both became popular in the US cavalry immediately prior to WWII.

John Fitzgerald
Society Member
Posts: 964
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:27 am
Medals: 1
Location: USA
:
Society Member

Post by John Fitzgerald » Sat Jun 17, 2006 1:39 pm

The old Mexican style half chaps look real western and are both protective and comfortable.

John Fitzgerald
Eagle County, Colorado

Ride'm like you stole'm

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:05 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Philip S</i>
<br />

The shoe portion of the enlisted version of the three strap boot and the army service shoe are identical. Basically, then, the three strap boot was a service shoe with a strap on legging attached.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Indeed, the lower portion of the three strap boot, the service shoe, and the paratrooper boot, of that period, are all remarkably simliar in appearance. Some older threads here deal with three strap boots being cut down to resemble M1943 combat boots, and they do indeed resemble them when cut down. I have a pair of those. And, as another thread here notes, there were even some cavalry boots converted into boots appearing like paratrooper boots. Presumably these would be the early lace up boots.

I'm ashamed to admit that after looking forever for a pair of three strap boots, and finally finding a pair in new condition, I haven't worn them riding yet. I'll have to give them a try.

Pat

User avatar
dallas
Society Member
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 1:11 pm
Medals: 2
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - 4th

Post by dallas » Sun Jun 18, 2006 12:37 pm

Regarding the lower portion of the 3 strap EM boot looking like the service shoe, the cap toes were the same but the heel counters were different. The 3 strap boot had an inside heel counter with a reinforcing piece up the back on the outside while the service shoe had an outside heel counter with the reinforcing piece extending around on the sides of the shoe. The service shoe also had a rubber tap sole similar to the jump boot while the 3 strap boot had an all leather sole.
Dallas

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Sun Jun 18, 2006 9:45 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dallas</i>
<br />Regarding the lower portion of the 3 strap EM boot looking like the service shoe, the cap toes were the same but the heel counters were different. The 3 strap boot had an inside heel counter with a reinforcing piece up the back on the outside while the service shoe had an outside heel counter with the reinforcing piece extending around on the sides of the shoe. The service shoe also had a rubber tap sole similar to the jump boot while the 3 strap boot had an all leather sole.
Dallas
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Dallas, thanks.

On the sole, one thing that at least some of the modified cut down three straps have is the rubber half sole. The pair I have do.

I've wondered who did the modifications of the cut down three strap boots. They seem to be at least somewhat common. I've seen it claimed on ebay that they were motorcycle rider boots, but I haven't seen any other support for that. I've also seen photos of them being worn by cavalry officer in WWII, with regula trousers and breeches, so I wonder if they were simply a way to get a dressier M1943 style boot.

The pair of cut down ones I have are well done, and you can only tell that they were cut down if you really examine them, and likely already knew that they were. The half sole is not obviously a resole, although it must be. It makes me wonder who did these boots, or if they were simply a widely done private alteration.

Pat

Sam Cox
Society Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:27 pm
Medals: 1
Location: Australia
:
Society Member
Contact:

Post by Sam Cox » Sun Jun 18, 2006 11:24 pm


User avatar
dallas
Society Member
Posts: 539
Joined: Sun Jul 14, 2002 1:11 pm
Medals: 2
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - 4th

Post by dallas » Mon Jun 19, 2006 12:17 pm

Sam: I have never seen a pair of 3 strap boots with anything but a full leather sole. However that pair you are showing obviously had a full cord/rubber sole originally similar to the M1943 combat boot before they were halfsoled. I had a mint pair of the 3 strap boots dated 1946 with the leather soles and rubber heels. What is the date on your pair?
Dallas

Sam Cox
Society Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:27 pm
Medals: 1
Location: Australia
:
Society Member
Contact:

Post by Sam Cox » Mon Jun 19, 2006 6:28 pm

The boots picterd are either 44 or 46 dated,the stamp is a bit vobbly
They have the larger squared of buckles that apear on the 44 and later boots ( having said this i have a pair made in 41 with the big buckles )
They came to me with a 10th Mountain QM group about 6 years back
They are a whopping 12d,the other uniform bits from the group are large sizes as well

Sam Cox

User avatar
Philip S
Society Member
Posts: 2102
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 9:26 am
Medals: 2
Last Name: Sauerlender
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
:
Society Member Donation - 8th

Post by Philip S » Mon Jun 19, 2006 7:57 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by dallas</i>
<br />Regarding the lower portion of the 3 strap EM boot looking like the service shoe, the cap toes were the same but the heel counters were different. The 3 strap boot had an inside heel counter with a reinforcing piece up the back on the outside while the service shoe had an outside heel counter with the reinforcing piece extending around on the sides of the shoe. The service shoe also had a rubber tap sole similar to the jump boot while the 3 strap boot had an all leather sole.
Dallas
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

There apparently was some variation in boots and shoes. This may be either because of changes in design over time or different manufacturers. I took a good look at my three strap boots and service shoes. They are constructed the same. Unfortunately both are quite worn and all markings are gone.

Quartermaster Supply Catalog QM Sec. 1 August 1943 lists the following:

SHOES SERVICE, COMPOSITION SOLE
sTOCK nO. 72-s-2223-20--72-s-2253-70

This shoe is the same as the shoes service, with the exception that there is an outside tap of reclaim rubber (this refers to a rubber half sole) which gives at least twice the wear obtained from leather. The issue of this shoe is confined to the United States.

SHOES, SERVICE
Stock No. 72-S-1806-35--72-S-2173

A welt constructed shoe, blucher pattern, with 1/2 bellows tongue, outside counter pocket, full toe vamp, toe cap (without box toe), heavy first quality bend outersole, slip tap, and reclaim rubber heel. The upper leather is best quality, heavy, Army Russet shade, side leather fully chromed and vegetable retanned. The shoe is unlined.

BOOTS, LEATHER, LACE, LEGGING TOP
Stock No. 72-B-829--72-B-846-72

This is a boot used by the Cavalry. It is made of welt construction 17" high, blucher pattern with wrap legging top, three (3) straps, 1/2 bellows tongue, full toe blucher vamp, toe cap (no box), unlined, leather sole with slip tap and one-half (1/2) rubber heel. The upper is cut from the best quility, heavy weight, chrome tanned, dress elk sides. Army Russet Shade.

BOOTS, LEATHER, LACE, EM
Stock No. 72-B-373--72-B-598-35
LIMITED STANDARD--to be issued until exhausted.

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Mon Jun 19, 2006 9:04 pm

I've seen a photo of all the footgear, supposedly, in use by the U.S. Army early in WWII. There's one model of boot in those photos I've never seen anywhere else, as it was a fairly conventional shaped boot, of the same height as the lace up cavalry boot, but without toe cap. If I recall correctly, the caption indicated it was for wet weather.

Anyhow, the variety of WWII footgear the Army had is impressive. And even at that, there's differences in some examples. I've never seen a rubber soled three strap boot before either, so there's one more variation.

Or could it be a very good resole?

Pat

Sam Cox
Society Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:27 pm
Medals: 1
Location: Australia
:
Society Member
Contact:

Post by Sam Cox » Mon Jun 19, 2006 11:02 pm

These soles are original to the boot,the tap fore foot is a retread

Sam Cox

User avatar
Philip S
Society Member
Posts: 2102
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2000 9:26 am
Medals: 2
Last Name: Sauerlender
Location: Pennsylvania, USA
:
Society Member Donation - 8th

Post by Philip S » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:03 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've seen a photo of all the footgear, supposedly, in use by the U.S. Army early in WWII. There's one model of boot in those photos I've never seen anywhere else, as it was a fairly conventional shaped boot, of the same height as the lace up cavalry boot, but without toe cap. If I recall correctly, the caption indicated it was for wet weather.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That may have been:

BOOTS, BLUCHER, HIGH TOP
Stock no. 72-B-128-8--72-B-133-18

A boot, 12" in height, constructed in such a manner as to be more waterproof than other types of leather footwear. It is intended for wet, cold areas.

(QM1 Sec. 1, Aug. 1943)

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:20 am

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Philip S</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I've seen a photo of all the footgear, supposedly, in use by the U.S. Army early in WWII. There's one model of boot in those photos I've never seen anywhere else, as it was a fairly conventional shaped boot, of the same height as the lace up cavalry boot, but without toe cap. If I recall correctly, the caption indicated it was for wet weather.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

That may have been:

BOOTS, BLUCHER, HIGH TOP
Stock no. 72-B-128-8--72-B-133-18

A boot, 12" in height, constructed in such a manner as to be more waterproof than other types of leather footwear. It is intended for wet, cold areas.

(QM1 Sec. 1, Aug. 1943)
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, it isn't that one, but the photo identifies the model. I wonder if it might have been misidentified? I'll have to dig it up.

The boot is as high as the 31 lace up boots, which I think might also be in the picture. They differ from that boot in the shape of the toe, which is more like the 1970s era GI combat boots, and in that they lack a toe cap.

Pat

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Tue Jun 20, 2006 8:24 am

Sam sent us this great photo showing a variety of boots in use:

Image

Pat

User avatar
wkambic
Society Member
Posts: 1497
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:44 pm
Medals: 1
Last Name: Kambic
Location: Kingston, TN
:
Society Member

Post by wkambic » Tue Jun 20, 2006 9:54 am

Damn, not only footgear but gloves, trousers, and overcoats. I guess some is due to officer/enlisted status. Bog only knows about the rest!!!!!



Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

User avatar
Pat Holscher
Website Admin
Posts: 26729
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2000 6:51 pm
Medals: 2
Last Name: Holscher
Location: USA
:
Society Member Donation - Origin
Contact:

Post by Pat Holscher » Tue Jun 20, 2006 5:26 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by wkambic</i>
<br />Damn, not only footgear but gloves, trousers, and overcoats. I guess some is due to officer/enlisted status. Bog only knows about the rest!!!!!



Bill Kambic

Mangalarga Marchador: Uma raça, uma paixão

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wonder if that first row is the cadre?

Pat

Sam Cox
Society Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:27 pm
Medals: 1
Location: Australia
:
Society Member
Contact:

Post by Sam Cox » Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:08 pm

the officer 4th from left is wearing em 3 straps,and the bloke on his ledt is wearing same with bloused trousers!!his boots may have been shortened but the guy 5th and 6th from right are wearing full length em boots with trousers and it looks wierd!!!
4th from right is wearing 31 boots
thanks to Pat for posting


Sam Cox

User avatar
Jim Bewley
Society Member
Posts: 1726
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2001 10:04 am
Medals: 2
Last Name: Bewley
Location: PA
:
Society Member Donation - 3rd

Post by Jim Bewley » Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:58 pm

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">the officer 4th from left is wearing em 3 straps,and the bloke on his ledt is wearing same with bloused trousers!!his boots may have been shortened but the guy 5th and 6th from right are wearing full length em boots with trousers and it looks wierd!!!
4th from right is wearing 31 boots
thanks to Pat for posting


Sam Cox<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

You have agood eye, Sam. I can't see that kind of detail. The officer you mention looks younger then the two to his right.

Jim

Sam Cox
Society Member
Posts: 2100
Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2000 6:27 pm
Medals: 1
Location: Australia
:
Society Member
Contact:

Post by Sam Cox » Tue Jun 27, 2006 8:02 pm

My eyes are so so,its my scanner that is good
regards
Sam

Sam Cox

Post Reply

Return to “Uniforms and related”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest