Jump to content

Notes on the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe


world war I nerd
 Share

Recommended Posts

world war I nerd

I’ve been trying to piece together the history of this particular shoe for a number of years now. I’ve finally cobbled together enough concrete information to make a somewhat credible post, which I hope will generate some conversation and hopefully, additional information from those who bother to read it.

 

In the absence of reliable information I have a bad habit of filling in the gaps with speculation; however, I call them educated guesses! I do this partially as a challenge to other forum members to post better or more accurate information so that I can learn, and partially to see if others agree or disagree with my assumptions. I know the shoe existed. I know that it was worn in Mexico in 1916 and in France in 1917. I’m hoping that someone out there will know a little more than that.

 

Anyway, please chime in with opinions, what you think you know or what you actually can prove. Regardless of whether you post or not, thanks for looking … world war I nerd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe

Specification No. 1237, Adopted by the Army on March 30, 1916

 

The 1912 Russet leather Shoe along with the 1905 Gymnasium Shoe were the only two regulation shoe types issued to the enlisted men of the U.S. Army in 1916. The Russet Shoe was issued to members of all branches of the Army and was to be worn “for all occasions”. “All occasions” meant that the new Russet Leather Shoe was intended to be worn for all dress and full dress occasions*, for garrison duty and for field service.

 

*Note: the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe replaced the 1904 Black Dress Shoe for wear with the 1902 Dress Blue Uniform in 1914. The year the shoe was issued Army wide.

 

Photo No. 01: When the U.S. Army went into Mexico in 1916, it did so wearing the recently adopted 1912 Russet Leather Shoe. Here men of the 16th Infantry move across the Sonora Desert in light marching order.

 

post-5143-0-04033900-1397067745.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

In 1916, the U.S. Army entered Mexico with orders to capture the bandit Pancho Villa. All of the enlisted men and a large number of officers that crossed America’s southern border wore the 1914 Russet Leather Shoe. Apparently, after a few weeks of service criss-crossing the rugged terrain of the Sonora Desert and the Sierra Nevada Mountains of Northern Chihuahua, Mexico, the soldiers and cavalrymen’s issued footwear were literally falling to pieces.

 

Photo No. 02: The Army’s new lightweight 1912 Russet Leather Shoe was designed to cut down on the amount of foot injuries that were sustained while on the march. The shoe was also intended to pull triple duty as a dress shoe, garrison shoe and a field shoe when it was issued army wide in 1914. Note the single smooth outer-sole, the smooth side out calfskin and the toe caps which prevented the toe of the shoe from warping after becoming wet.

 

post-5143-0-95619700-1397067795.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The 1914 Russet Leather Shoe’s shortcomings in Mexico and later in France were briefly mentioned in a report compiled by the U.S. Army Medical Department in early 1918. The findings summarized the serviceability of each military garment used by the AEF during the winter of 1917 – 1918. In respect to the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe, the report claimed that,

 

Prior to the World War the shoes issued to the enlisted men of the Army, and intended for use in the field was known as the russet marching shoe*. This shoe was machine sewed, had an upper of calfskin with the rough side turned in, and was lined with white cotton duck. Though excellent in pattern it proved short-lived when subjected to service in France. Similar complaints had been made in respect to the marching shoe in 1916, when a large part of our Army was serving on the Mexican border.

 

Medical Department of the United States Army in the World War, Vol. VI, Sanitation, 1926, Government Printing Office, page 626

 

*Note: From 1904 until 1913 the U.S. Army Quartermaster Department described the shoes that were designed specifically for field service as “Marching Shoes”. That obsolete title was used instead of the shoe’s correct name (1912 Russet Leather Shoe) in the above extract.

 

A more apt description of the deplorable state of the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe, as worn in Mexico was recorded by a First Sergeant riding with the ‘Buffalo Soldier’s’ of the 10th, Cavalry Regiment. In his memoirs, in addition to the men’s monotonous foraged rations, he recalled the drastic measures they resorted to, to mend the ripped and torn service dress they wore. He also noted the extraordinary measures that some of the troopers took to repair their well worn Russet Leather Shoes to keep from looking like mounted tramps,

 

Native beef and parched corn were the principal ration and for many days the men were without salt. They were in the mountains of Mexico following the hot trail of Mexican bandits. Men wore out their clothing and shoes and were obliged in many instances to use their shelter tents for patches and their stirrup hoods tied around their feet to keep from being absolutely barefoot.

 

1st Sergeant Vance Hunter Marchbanks, Troop C, 10th Cavalry Regiment, Punitive Expedition, 1916

 

Photo No. 03: These National Guardsmen from New York are wearing typical Mexican border attire. It consisted of the campaign hat, flannel shirt, wool service breeches, various styles of canvas leggings and Russet Leather Shoes. Many of the State Militia’s arrived at the border wearing obsolete uniforms. After a few months the Army reequipped the guardsmen with current issue clothing. However, a great deal of their outdated equipment remained in service. Note the 1907 Canvas leggings with spiral strap, 1903 Equipment Suspenders and the 1903 Bayonet Scabbard. The inset shows the extent of the damage that could be done to a Russet Leather Shoe in just a matter of weeks.

 

post-5143-0-88431800-1397067862.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The fact that the Russet Leather Shoes were wearing out so quickly led the War Department and the U.S. Army Quartermaster Department (USQMD) to decide that the otherwise highly regarded 1912 Russet Leather Shoe was wholly inadequate in its role as a “Marching Shoe”. The powers that be, further determined that a tougher field shoe was necessary for the troops serving in the mountains and deserts of Mexico. Since a stronger field shoe was urgently needed by the cavalry and infantry men scouring the deserts, hills, mountains and villages of Mexico, the QTMD hastily crafted a new field/marching shoe that was tailored specifically for Mexico’s generally inhospitable topography.

 

The new pattern U.S. Army marching shoe was based on the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe and the hobnailed field shoe that had been designed by the French Army. The French shoe, the Modele 1916 Brodequin* was chosen partially because it had the fewest parts of all the hobnailed shoes examined by the QTMD. The French shoe was also selected because it was currently being manufactured by American shoe firms for the French and Belgian Armies fighting overseas. This fact would allow production of the shoe to be expedited.

 

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

 

Photo No. 04: Compare the curved shape of the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe on the right with that of the rather rigid French made Modele 1916 Brodequin next to it. The Heavy Marching Shoe retained the American shoe’s form fitting shape and copied the French brodequin’s sturdier design.

post-5143-0-74526500-1397067919.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

The new hybrid Franco/American shoe was labeled by the QTMD as the “Heavy Marching Shoe”. I have also seen that shoe referred to as the “New Marching Shoe”. For the sake of clarity, I will refer to this shoe as the “1916 Heavy Marching Shoe” for the remainder of this topic. The design of the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe copied the basic cut and look of the French brodequin. It also incorporated some of the French shoes more durable qualities. Shoe designers at the QTMD made sure to construct the new Heavy Marching Shoe on the same shoe lasts that were used to make the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe, as the shape and fit of that shoe was thought to be superior to any other military shoe in existence at the time.

 

The result was the U.S. Army’s third official marching shoe, the first being the 1904 Russet Marching Shoe and the second the1907 Improved Russet Marching Shoe. The 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe was also the very first fully hobnailed field shoe issued by the U.S. Army since the American Civil War. According to the 1916 Quartermaster General’s annual report, the new Army shoe that looked like a French brodequin but fit like an American service shoe was immediately put into full scale production and rushed to the men in Mexico who desperately needed a harder wearing shoe for field service. The annual report had this to say about the Heavy Marching Shoe,

 

Field shoes. — 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

 

Photo No. 05: In this photo the shape of the Heavy Marching Shoe closely mirrors that of the Russet Leather Shoe.

post-5143-0-98939300-1397067976.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 06: This photo shows how closely the design and construction of the Heavy Marching Shoe followed that of the Modele 1916 Brodequin.

post-5143-0-47271500-1397068014.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 07: This photo shows a poor quality official QTMD image of the Heavy Marching Shoe compared to an example that turned up in France. The only difference between the two shoes is that the example at right lacks the reinforcing rivet on the ‘blucher ear” and it has been treated with black polish. At some point the shoe had also been resoled and the heel has been replaced. This accounts for the absence of the steel horseshoe on the heel and the fact that the sole is not hobnailed.

post-5143-0-15201500-1397068060.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

News of the Army’s intended change to the footwear worn by the regulars of the Punitive Expedition in Mexico and by the National Guardsmen along America’s southern border quickly found its way into the press. Here are three examples of the coverage that the Army’s new shoe garnered,

 

Aside from the larger question of the economy to the government there are a number features of the uniform and clothing allowance that are unsatisfactory. In the field and especially along the Texas border, it is stated that … the marching shoe* which is now issued to the army is regarded as the best shoe in the world it is made of too light material. According to the reports from the border the Munson Board Shoe**, as it is called, does not last long in the grinding sand of southern Texas. There is also some dissatisfaction with the sweater and the blanket***.

 

The Washington Herald, Tuesday, February 22, 1916, page 06

 

*Note: in this instance “marching shoe” refers to the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe.

**The name “Munson Board Shoe” is a reference to the 1908 Army Shoe Board that was presided over by Major Edward Lyman Munson. Munson was credited for much of the Russet Leather Shoe’s design. Also, the wooden shoe lasts on which the shoes were constructed were known as the Munson shoe last.

***The blame for the dissatisfaction with the 1911 Service Sweater and the 1904 Bedding Blanket in Mexico can be placed on the shoulders of the planners at the War Department who had determined that Mexico was a tropical country. As such there was no need for the men to bring their heavy overcoats. Without their overcoats, the men could never keep warm with only the sweater and one blanket in the cool nighttime temperatures of the high desert and they literally froze in the snowy mountain passes of the Sierra Nevada Mountains.

 

The only dress reform indicated was in shoes for rough work in deserts and mountains. Ordinary marching shoes* wore out in a few days, and in some cases, even one day of mountain climbing. The footgear that seems to have held up better than the shoes and leggings is the high lace boot with heavy hobnails**.

 

The Ogden standard, Monday, May 01, 1916, page 09

*Note: again, the term “marching shoes” is a reference to the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe.

**The “high lace boot with heavy hobnails”, mentioned above were private purchase boots favored by some American officers in Mexico.

 

Hobnailed Shoes for the Boys on the Border

 

The War Department has ordered 25,000 shoes of a new type for the regulars and militiamen in Mexican service, 20,000 of which have been delivered. All of the troops along the border and in the interior of Mexico will be outfitted with these shoes just as soon as they reach the front. These shoes are used by the allies, though they were first used by the Turkish armies. They are hobnailed, as the photograph shows … whereas, all the shoes now used by the army are smooth. A distinguishing feature of the new shoe however, is that the leather is worn inside out, and is exceptionally soft, the shoe has no cap. The old shoes lasted barely three weeks in Mexico, their particular enemy being malpaís rock**, which rapidly cuts then into shreds. The old shoe weighs two pounds and three ounces, while the new model weighs three pounds and seven ounces.

 

1916, Newspaper Article, City, State & Date Unknown

 

*Note: in Spanish, the word malpaís means “badlands”. Malpais terrain in terms of geology consists of a combination of very coarse, sharp loose lava and sandstone soil with very little vegetation.

 

Photo No. 08: the following illustration accompanied the above newspaper article. It shows the hobnailed sole and the steel horseshoe on the heel. Curiously, the shoe does not feature the toe cap, which was common to almost every U.S. Army shoe since the turn of the century. I don’t really know what to make of this fact, unless there was a specification change made to the shoe.

 

post-5143-0-57043600-1397068133.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No.09: I’ve yet to find a photo from 1916 or early 1917 that shows a hobnailed shoe being worn in Mexico or along the border. According to sources, 20,000 pairs of the Heavy Marching Shoe had been issued to the men in Mexico by May of 1916, out of the total 250,000 pairs that were ordered by the QTMD. Presumably, more shoes followed in later months. If anybody has a photo of a hobnailed shoe being worn between May 1916 and January 1917 along the border, please post it.

 

This photo shows men of the 7th New York Infantry upon their arrival in Texas in 1916. All of the men appear to be wearing smooth soled 1912 Russet leather Shoes. However, they have been equipped with the old fashioned 1903 Infantry Equipment.

 

post-5143-0-67848400-1397068189.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 10: Here are several views of the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe. Note that the original russet color is visible on the toe cap. The shoe features the standard seven pairs of lacing eyelets, the single outer-sole, along with a replaced half-sole, replaced heel and non-regulation black shoe laces. The uneven nailing around the half-sole and the heel is a good indicator that they have both been replaced. That combined with the attempt to blacken the shoes and the black shoe laces suggest that the shoes were worn in civilian life during or after the war.

 

It is possible that this particular pair of Heavy Marching Shoes were turned into the AEF salvage Service in 1918. QTMC statistics show that 35 out of every 100 pairs of shoes could not be repaired and reissued. However, a number of these would have been classified as “suitable only for civilian use”. Shoes so classed would have been repaired and then sold off to French civilians at a discounted. This could explain how these American shoes found their way into civilian life in Europe.

 

The only thing that could explain why this pair of shoes does not feature the rivets that reinforced the blucher ears is that perhaps early versions of the shoe were fabricated without them.

post-5143-0-68918800-1397068244.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 11: The only marking on the inner-sole reads, “No 2 – Q.M.C. U.S.”. When American shoes were refurbished by the AEF Salvage Service, one of the last steps was to insert a leather inner sole into each shoe to insure that the bottom was perfectly smooth. I believe that was done to this pair of shoes. The “No. 2” is likely a reference to the size of the leather insole which probably came in several numbered sizes. Below that, the “Q.M.C. U.S.” represents Quartermaster Corps, United States, the branch of the Army that issued the insoles.

 

 

post-5143-0-54252000-1397068295.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

According to descriptions compiled from several sources, the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe’s uppers were constructed on the Munson shoe last from chrome vegetable retanned calfskin, which was also called veal that was turned rough side out. The shoe was unlined and featured seven pairs of brass lacing eyelets. The shoe’s vamp had a cap toe and brass rivets were used to reinforce the attachment point with the blucher ears. The upper was sewn to a single full outer sole by means of waxed linen thread and nails. A half middle sole was nailed onto the outer sole and studded iron hobnails. The heel was comprised of stacked leather and reinforced with an iron horseshoe to prevent wear. The shoe cost $3.69 per pair and each shoe weighed 3 pounds, 7 ounces.

 

Photo No. 12: When issued, the shoes would be accompanied by a pair of regulation metal tipped, olive drab woven linen shoe laces similar to these.

 

post-5143-0-07385100-1397068348.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 13: Other that the Punitive Expedition and the Mexican border, there is no mention as to where else and to whom the Heavy Marching Shoe may have been issued after the Punitive Expedition and before WW I. Quartermaster Corps and Medical Department sources both indicate that the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe was worn in France before the arrival of the 1917 Trench shoe. Presumably, early arrivals to the AEF were issued with the Heavy marching Shoe until existing stocks were exhausted.

 

The men posing for this photo at a stateside training camp are definitely wearing two different styles of shoes. The right hand recruit is clearly wearing a pair of 1912 Russet Leather Shoes. Note the thinner soles and lightweight construction. The other just might be wearing a pair of 1916 Heavy Marching Shoes. If you look closely at the detail of the shoes worn by the soldier on the left, shown at top right, there appears to be a reinforcement rivet visible on the left shoe and the toe cap can be seen on both. Also the shoe’s sole is thicker and its overall construction is much more robust.

post-5143-0-44040500-1397068399.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 14: By all accounts, like the 1912 Russet Leather Shoe, the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe didn’t hold up much better when exposed to the wet and muddy conditions of the French winter of 1917 – 1918. It is quite possible that some of these 1st Division engineers are wearing the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe. The fact that the men are still in possession of their Campaign Hats and wearing canvas leggings rather that woolen puttees indicates that this photo was taken sometime between the time that division landed in June and the autumn of 1917. Also of interest are the eagle snap cartridge belts and the seldom seen ponchos. The ponchos were replaced late in 1917 and in early 1918 because they could not be worn with the gasmask satchel in the alert position.

post-5143-0-20988300-1397068483.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 15: The pair of shoes shown below were used on my reconstruction of a Marine at Belleau Wood shown elsewhere on the forum*. At the time I didn’t know exactly what those shoes were. They were dated 1917 and QTMC stamped. They were constructed of rough side out leather, had toe caps and reinforcement rivets on the sides. The soles were hobnailed and the heels featured iron horseshoes. I now know them to be a pair of Heavy Marching Shoes that were produced early in 1917. In the enlargement you can barely make out the toe caps and blucher ear rivets.

 

* http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/39439-usmc-corporal-belleau-wood-june-1918/

 

I speculate that the 1916 Heavy Marching Shoe was produced from March of 1916 through to early or mid 1917 at the latest. Existing contracts for the Heavy Marching Shoe would very likely have been superseded or canceled as soon as the 1917 Trench Shoe was adopted by the Army in the spring of 1917.

 

End of post.

post-5143-0-40641500-1397068549.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michigan Dawg

That was a great read and I thoroughly enjoyed it. You've got a very scholarly approach to your material and one might think it all might be rather dry (we're talking about marching boots after all). But that's certainly not true in your case. You really bring the material to life and present it in a way that's chock full of good information that's easily absorbed by the reader.

 

Thanks so much for the informative work and sharing it with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo! Another excellent topic!

 

I have some pictures of some 29th Division troops stateside that I recall wearing hobnailed boots (I recall because the sole is facing the cameraman, which I thought was interesting)., this reminds me to go back and find them. They are part of a large grouping of photographs, so it may take me some time to find.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWI Nerd,

Here is a poor scan of a bad photocopy of an old photo of my great-grandmother's cousin, PFC Francesco Pellegrini, Company M, 55th Infantry Regiment, 7th Division, taken in France, 1918. Can you identify the shoes hanging on his pack? I guess I'd call this "heavy marching order."

Thanks,

Pete

 

post-5467-0-41788700-1397164961.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Hi all,

 

Thanks for the kind words on the post. I only wish that I could agree. Whenever I read what I've written, after it's posted, I'm always horrified by the number of grammatical errors they contain. I think to myself, it looks as if little Johnny age 7 composed the thing!

 

Anyway, it's nice to know that it is being read ... thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Hi Pete,

 

You're right about the scan, it's pretty difficult to determine what type of shoes Mr. Pelligrini is toting around. Since you have the original photocopy, the best bet would be to count the number of hobnails and closely examine the pattern in which they are nailed to see if they match any of the following photos.

 

In doing so, they still might not exactly match any of the examples of the main shoe types worn by American Doughboys that I am about to post.

 

Over the past few years, I've been trying to work out what types of shoes were worn by the AEF. So far I've the research I've done, which is far from incomplete, shows approximately 35 to 40 different shoe styles! That number includes all of the US specification changes that were made to the field shoes during the war, which I estimate to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 20. Then their are Navy and USMC issued shoes, of which I still know very little, followed by British and French shoes, which also include a wide variety of types and styles, and the list goes on.

 

Anyway, take a look at what's posted below and see if anything comes close to the photo you posted. If you don't mind, please let us know which one you think is the closest. I have an opinion, but I don't want to influence your answer. Good luck.

 

Photo No. 01: Is the 1917 Field Shoe, 1st Pattern, which is also commonly called the "Trench Shoe". As near as I can tell the hobnail pattern on most U.S. manufactured hobnailed shoes are pretty consistent. However, the hobnails often fell out while marching, and if not replaced the shoe may look as if the hobnails have been placed in a different pattern. Also if the shoes were refurbished by the AEF Salvage Service, the technician making the repair could apply the hobnails in a different or alternate pattern.

 

This photo shows the first pattern field shoe's basic hobnail pattern and an issued version of the shoe that was made without hobnails.

post-5143-0-12941400-1397194829.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

world war I nerd

Photo No. 02: Is the 1917 Field Shoe, 2nd Pattern. The main difference between this shoe and the first pattern is that a row of hobnails have been added to the heel and the blucher ears, which were prone to ripping were reinforced with a small rivet.

post-5143-0-09952700-1397195095.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...