Thin Barracks Shoes and Great Hobnailed Hulks

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 49: Note the similarity between what could be a cut down Aviator Boot and the pair of full size, hobnailed, Aviator style boots that were recently sold by Bay State Militaria. The following account by a USMC officer regarding what he wore and carried in the trenches is what gave me the notion that these particular russet shoes may be cut down aviator boots:

 

Dirty torn suit; wrapped puttees; shoes that used to be boots, but are now cut off. Steel helmet, with a hole through it and a big dent; pistol belt and suspenders; 1^st aid package and cover; pistol and holster; canteen, cup and cover. Knapsack which holds toilet articles, maps, message book, extra cartridges, etc; field glasses and case; two extra pistol clips and case; German gasmask (which saved my life) and French gasmask (M2); big German Luger pistol and holster; Big mussette bag, malted milk tablets, comb, little clothes brush, alkaline tablets (for gas), and other junk. A blanket roll which contains a poncho, blanket, air-pillow, handkerchiefs, socks, underwear, etc; and a German raincoat slung over my arm.

 

 

2^nd Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, 96^th Company, 6^th marine Regiment, 2^nd Division, AEF

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 50: I’ve also seen this style of russet shoe whose upper curves down towards the sole, in dozens of post war and occupation photographs. I have no documentation to back this up, but I personally believe that this shoe, which I have dubbed the “1919 Discharge Shoe”, is the U.S. Army service shoe that was adopted to replace the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe in April of 1919. I’d be very interested in opinions on this type of shoe.

 

Photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 51: A comparison of the late or post war shoe in the photograph and what I believe to be the 1919 Discharge Shoe. This particular example is dated 1920.

 

Photo courtesy of the airborne 53 collection

 

End of post. Thanks for looking.

[Dragoon]

This a superb topic, like your other work well researched and evidenced by period photos and surviving examples.

 

Here are my boots, they do not have the pull strap and the back strap does not reach all the way to the top. The only stamp on the lining is 485 18440.

 

Kurt.

 

[Dragoon]

Two more photos.

 

[world war I nerd]

Kurt,

 

Thanks for adding your russet shoes, which by the way are in amazing condition.

 

When compared to the two examples shown in the post do you notice anything about your shoes that is significantly different?

 

I keep hoping that some shoes with specification numbers stamped inside or with noticeably different details will turn up.

 

Thanks again for posting.

 

Brian

[Dragoon]

Hi Brian

 

These retain the lower backstrap that does not reach the top of the boot as noted by yourself, but they do not have the pull tab. Could these be placed between the two you show?

 

Just an observation, I noticed the stitch line following the eyelets differs slightly in the boot from the 1923 advert to other examples you show.

 

Kurt.

[Johan Willaert]

Wow! Absolutely Wow!!!

This is one Fantastic! topic and great reference!

Thanks for taking the time to post this...

 

Johan

[airborne53]

hello

good job !!!!

take some others pics and have found some unknown shoes

 

olivier

[Dr_rambow]

This is excellent, I have been looking into the early shoes recently and only came out confused! This explains things quite thoroughly.

[world war I nerd]

Hi Kurt,

 

I'm not entirely sure that the full length backstrap and lack of a pull strap accounts for one (or two) of the specification changes that were made to the russet shoe. Even though this makes the most sense, at this point it's just an educated guess.

 

If they were part of a specification change, your shoes which lack the pull strap, but still have the shorter backstrap could be a hybrid shoe that was made at the cusp of the specification change and therefore they incorporate elements of the older specification (short backstrap) as well as the new specification (no pull strap). Unfortunately, until the exact details of each specification change surface, there really is no way to know for sure.

 

I've also noticed minor variations in the stitch line parallel to the eyelets. It's possible that these represent part of a specification change, but I think that it's more likely that this is the result of the different fabrication techniques that were employed by the firms manufacturing the shoes.

[world war I nerd]

Olivier,

 

When you have some free time, please send me a personal message. I'd like to ask you some questions about your russet shoes. I tried to pm you but your forum mailbox was full!

 

Thanks,

 

Brian

[world war I nerd]

Dr rambow,

 

Thanks for reading this long winded post. I agree with you completely -- figuring out early 20th century U.S. Army shoes is not an easy task. The subject is becoming a little bit clearer to me, but there's still so much that I am trying to piece together.

[world war I nerd]

Johan,

 

I appreciate the fact that you took the time to read the post. Thanks for the kind words.

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 52: This very poor quality photo of the 1916 Heavy marching Shoe shows the hobnail pattern on the outer sole and the heel’s steel plate. It appeared along with a brief narrative in an American newspaper in May of 1916.

[world war I nerd]

1916 Heavy Marching Shoe

In service from 1916 until 1917

Adopted by the Army on March 20, 1916

The fact that the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe, when worn as a “marching shoe” wore out far quicker than expected, forced the War Department and the U.S. Army Quartermaster Department (USQMD) both concluded that the otherwise highly regarded russet shoe was wholly inadequate for field service. The powers that be, further determined that a tougher field shoe was necessary for the troops that were serving on, and south of the border. Therefore, the QTMD hastily crafted a new marching shoe that was better suited for Mexico’s inhospitable topography.

 

The shape for the new pattern marching shoe was based on that of the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe. The shoe’s design was a modified copy of the hobnailed field shoe that was currently in use by the French Army. The French Modele 1916 Brodequin* was selected because it was one of the strongest field shoes currently in use. It was also the cheapest field shoe to manufacture. The fact that the brodequin was currently being manufactured by American shoe firms was also a plus, as this meant that production of a new shoe could commence almost immediately.

 

*In English, the French word “brodequin” roughly translates into “work boot”.

 

In short, the French shoe’s more durable qualities were married to the superior shape, comfort and fit of the American russet shoe. The result of this marriage was the U.S. Army’s third official marching shoe – its predecessors being the 1904 Russet Marching Shoe and the1907 Improved Russet Marching Shoe*. The new hybrid Franco/American shoe was given the name “Heavy Marching Shoe”. However, I have also seen this shoe referred to as the “New Marching Shoe” and the “Second Pattern Marching Shoe”. Prior to adopting the Russet Leather Shoe, marching shoe was the term that the QTMD had been using for all regulation shoes that were intended to be worn for field service. The 1916 Quartermaster General’s annual report, noted that as soon as the new shoe that looked like a French brodequin, but fit like an American service shoe was available, it would immediately be dispatched to the men in, and near Mexico:

 

Realizing the fact that on account of the numerous complaints that the regulation shoe, while excellent in all other respects, was too light in construction and material, and consequently did not possess the necessary wearing qualities for service in the field, this office ordered the purchase and issue to troops, for preliminary trial, of 600 pairs conforming in pattern and substance, with minor modifications, to those furnished by American manufacturers to the French and Belgian Armies during the present European war. The uppers are made of undressed veal or side leather. The soles are of adequate thickness and are studded with hobnails. The shoes are made upon the same lasts as heretofore used in the manufacture of Army shoes, and in regard to which no complaints have reached this office.

There are now being purchased under contracts at the Boston, Philadelphia, and St. Louis depots 265,000 pairs, at an average cost of $3.69 per pair, and they are dispatched to the troops as fast as accepted From the contractor.

 

1916 Annual Report of the Quartermaster General to the Secretary of War, page 351

*Prior to 1904 the Army’s field shoes were referred to as “campaign shoes”.

 

Photo No. 53: Soldiers like this man serving along the border in Texas would have been among the first to draw a pair of Heavy Marching Shoes. Note that he is wearing the seldom seen Army issued 1911 First Aid Pouch. At right is the 1912 Russet Shoe (top), a 1917 pattern French Brodequin, which was identical to the 1916 Brodequin, except for the fact that it was made 15 mm taller (bottom), and the offspring of their union – the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe (center).

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 54: During its relatively short lifespan (approximately one year – March 1916 to May 1917), the Heavy Marching Shoe, Specification No. 1237, which was adopted on March 20, 1916, probably didn’t undergo many specification changes. That being said, I have seen evidence that a shoe of this type was issued with and without hobnails, with and without a steel heel plate, with and without a rivet on the blucher ears, and that it was also made from cowhide. Nevertheless, according to various sources, the primary characteristics of the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe are as follows:

 

• A half leather middle sole followed by a single leather outer sole.
• The outer sole was fully hobnailed.
• A low wide leather heel whose outer edge was reinforced by a horseshoe shaped steel plate.
• The shoe was constructed from chrome-vegetable retanned, undressed* “veal”, which was a lighter and more flexible type of calfskin, with the rough side turned out.
• The shoe featured a one piece external heel counter that wrapped around the back of the shoe, and fully covered the backstay seam on the rear of the shoe.
• The shoe had additional side stitching to prevent the heel counter from separating from the upper.
• On at least one variation of the shoe, the blucher ears were reinforced with an iron rivet.
• The shoe did not have a pull strap.
• The interior of the shoe was unlined.
• Each shoe weighed 1 pound, 7 ounces.
• The shoe was 6 ½ inches high from the bottom of the heel.
• All of the Heavy Marching Shoes that I have seen have had seven rows of lacing eyelets. It is not known if larger sizes of the shoe featured additional rows of lacing eyelets.
• The shoe was manufactured in 15 lengths running from 5 to 12 by half sizes. There was no half size available for size number 12. Each length came in six commercial widths (B, C, D, E, EE, and F) making a total of 90 available sizes.
• The shoe featured a toe cap to prevent the front of the shoe from warping downward when drying after it had become wet.
• Each pair of Heavy Marching Shoes cost the American taxpayer an average of $3.69.

*“Undressed or “unfinished” leather” is leather that has not received an additional application intended to “finish”, color or otherwise treat the already tanned hide. Unfinished leather was typically used on rough side out military leather shoes.

 

Photo courtesy of the airborne 53 collection

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 55: This pair of Heavy Marching Shoes turned up in a militaria collection in France. Note the French style heel counter with additional side stitching, the U.S. toe cap, and the original tan or russet color peeking through the post war applied black finish.

 

This particular pair of Army shoes likely found their way into French civilian life after they were deemed unfit for use in the field by the AEF Salvage Service. Statistics show that one third of the shoes turned in to the Salvage Service could not be repaired and reissued. However, a number of these rejected shoes were classified as “suitable only for civilian use”. Shoes so classed were repaired and then sold to the French population. Doughboy shoes of all types also found their way onto a French civilian’s foot by way of the black market. AEF shoes also became civilian property through bartering, and by other means as a Doughboy returning to his unit in the field after being wounded in action found out:

 

I got an earful about “Hob-Nail-Kate”. A woman with one kid who lives in a shack near the field and who submits to immoral purposes in exchange for “hob-nailed” shoes and a can of Bully beef. Rough stuff.

 

Private First Class Alfred C. Harrison, HQ Company, 102^nd Engineer Regiment, 27^th Division, AEF

Photo No. 56: This photo, probably taken in 1918, shows three rather uninterested recruits wearing shoes with toe caps. It’s difficult to determine if the men are wearing the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe or the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe, which were the only two shoe types with toe caps in use at the that time.

 

Photo courtesy of the John Adam-Graf collection

[world war I nerd]

Sorry, I neglected to post photo number 55. Here it is

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 57: Despite being re-soled, re-heeled, re-laced, and re-colored, traces of these re-purposed shoes former profession remain. Two of which are the “QMCUS” or Quartermaster Corps U.S. Army (top left), and the shoe’s “8C’ size stamped onto the leather liner that rests on top of the inner sole (top right). Another clue that these were once U.S. Government property is the russet color visible on the toe cap beneath layers of black polish (lower right). When new, this pair of 1916 Heavy Marching Shoes would have been laced with a pair of woven olive drab linen shoe laces like the ones pictured at lower left.

 

Toe and marking photos courtesy of the airborne53 collection

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 58: The view of the shoe from above reveals that it is unlined, and the absence of a pull strap. The view from below, other than illustrating the shape of the shoe’s sole, shows nothing except for the fact that the original hobnailed outer sole and steel plated heel had both been replaced long ago.

 

Photos courtesy of the airborne53 collection

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 59: The footwear housing the feet of these two recruits are comprised of the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe with a toe cap (right & lower right), and a much heavier shoe that looks to be made from rough side out leather, also with a toe cap (left & upper right). The heavier, toe capped shoe certainly fits the description of the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe.

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 60: First let me apologize for this extremely poor photo. It’s all I have however, as the original was lost in a hard drive crash and this compressed version was recovered from an email. These images were found in a 1917 dated Red Cross publication. The photos were captioned: the Army’s first and second pattern marching shoe. The style of the photos indicate that they are official QTMC photographs of the 1912 Russet Shoe (left) and what looks to be a variant of the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe (right).

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 61: This enlargement seems to show all of the external characteristics of the Heavy Marching Shoe. However, the sole lacks hobnails and there is no steel plate on the heel. To me this suggests that there was a later variation of the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe that had a smooth leather sole and a heel that was heavily reinforced with nails – perhaps a 1917 Heavy Marching Shoe?

[world war I nerd]

Photo No. 62: This comparison between the above shoe and the de-commissioned Heavy Marching Shoe from France are remarkably similar and could very well be the same type of shoe.