U.S. Army Field Shoes 1902 to 1917

[world war I nerd]

The reasons for troops falling by the wayside during a critical march are many, such as heavy loads, poor physical conditioning, exhaustion, hunger, steep or rugged terrain, and excessively hot or adverse weather conditions to name a few.

 

However, by and large, the overwhelming majority of marching men fell out as a result of foot injuries that were caused by improperly fitting shoes. During the 19^th and early 20^th centuries it was recorded that American soldiers fell out in staggeringly large numbers.

 

In the period from the Civil war to the beginning of the 20^th century statistics showed that on average anywhere from one quarter to one third of a command could be expected to sustain some form of foot injury after several days of marching. Of that number, not less than 10% would wind up in the hands of the regimental surgeon.

 

This fact caused Major Edmond Lyman Munson of the Medical Department to write in 1912, that,

 

The soldier whose badly shod feet are unable to carry him into battle fails at the critical moment of the purpose for which he is trained, and instead of being an added strength, he becomes an encumbrance.”

 

Despite the fact that so many men were falling out with foot injuries, the important matter of correctly fitting shoes to the soldier’s feet was given scant consideration by the War Department. In fact, at the turn of the century, more attention was given to shoeing the horse’s hoof than that of the soldier’s foot!

Both the Army and the War Department failed utterly and completely to make the connection between sore feet and the fundamental importance of shoe fitting. The Army’s General Staff was convinced that it was the design of the field shoe, not its fit that was to blame for so many men falling out whilst on the march.

 

Photo No. 02: Two images showing the Resco shoe measuring device in use – one borrowed from America’s Munitions, the other from the Resco kit’s manual.

[world war I nerd]

It wasn’t until the Army Shoe Board of 1908 discovered than the Army’s practice of allowing the men to, in most cases, incorrectly select their own shoe size, was the reason for the high percentage of foot injuries.

 

An experiment was conducted in which a battalion of infantrymen who had selected their own shoe size was made to march 8 miles, spend 24 hours in camp, and then march the same 8 mile route back to the post. Upon completion of the march, the board members examined the feet of the men and 38% were found to have severe foot injuries.

 

A second test was conducted in which each soldier’s feet were first measured and fitted with the correct size shoe by the board members. The men were allowed to wear their recently issued shoes for approximately 14 days before the march in order to break them in. The men then proceeded on a 120 mile hike that lasted 9 days. The shortest day’s march was 8 miles and the longest day’s march was 21 miles. Full equipment and ammunition was carried. At the end of the march, not one man had fallen out as a result of foot injuries.

 

That demonstration proved that it was entirely possible to march American troop’s long distances without appreciable loss from foot injury … provided that their footwear fit properly. The War Department took note and in 1912, it revised its policy in regard to issuing enlisted men’s footwear.

Shortly afterwards, measuring sticks were issued, and the matter of determining the soldier’s shoe size was taken out of the enlisted men’s hands and entrusted to company officers. Orders dictated that it was now the officer’s responsibility to ensure that the men in their command were issued and wore shoes that actually fit their feet.

 

Photo No. 03: Two more images from America’s Munitions showing the Resco foot/shoe measurement device.

[world war I nerd]

Despite the orders issued in 1912, studies made at a cross section of World War I training camps in the U.S. conducted late in 1917 and early in 1918, showed that less than 20% of the 59,000 men checked, were wearing shoes that properly fitted. The findings showed that over 80% of them were wearing shoes that were too long, too short, too narrow or too wide.

 

Shortly after that the Resco Shoe Fitting Device was adopted and several officers from each camp were sent to a five day shoe fitting school at Camp Meigs in Washington DC. Upon their return they in turn, had to instruct the other company grade officers at each camp how to use the new Resco measuring device.

 

New orders followed which stated that company officers were to personally measure the feet of each man and personally check the fit of his shoes. An unknown artillery officer posted to Camp Brunswick in Maine, wrote the following in a letter to his wife,

 

“Today I measured and fitted my battery to their shoes, which has to be personally done by the captain. So now I am an expert shoe fitter. Talk about dirty stinking feet. Honey, you should have seen and had a whiff of some of those 414 feet that I saw and measured today. I am also directly responsible for the feet of the men, so if a fellow has a sore or something the matter, I have to see that it’s fixed up right. Oh this is some job.”

 

Photo No. 04: Clockwise from upper left, the closed carrying case, minus the leather handle, of the Resco kit courtesy of Bay State Militaria.com, a pair of hopefully correctly fitted 1917 Field Shoes and three diagrams from the Resco’s manual illustrating how the device was to be employed.

[dave grunt]

Thank you WWIN for the education.

[jprostak]

I wanted to add these pictures of some Barracks Shoes to the discussion.

[jprostak]

And these as well.

[world war I nerd]

Jon, Great photos and great additions to this thread. Thanks for adding them.

[Dr_rambow]

Wow, I've never seen such nice examples!

[Dreamer42]

Very interesting information. I never knew there were so many differences. Here's my French made shoes with my WWI display. They still have the size sticker ("28") under the heel.

[BEAST]

The following were copied from Bay State Militaria's website. If anyone is wondering what to get me for Christmas, these will do very nicely!

 

1912 Russet Leather shoes, specification No. 1258 with box.

 

[BEAST]

[BEAST]

[BEAST]

Last photo:

 

 

 

[world war I nerd]

I saw those Erik, those are extremely nice indeed.

 

That particular pair is Specification No. 1258, adopted on May 18, 1917.

[RustyCanteen]

Wonder how those managed to survive unworn. Very nice

[CWCollector]

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread and appreciate the research and effort that has gone into it. I feel this is a topic that does not receive a lot of academic attention but it is very important for collectors who are trying to gain more knowledge on period footwear. I myself have just recently started collecting 19th century footwear in an attempt to put together complete uniform displays for the Civil War and Indian Wars era. I currently have a knee high pair of, what I believe to be, late Civil War to early Indian War boots and 3 pairs of brogans. The 1st is a "minty" condition Civil War pair, the 2nd pair's authenticity is in question but my gut tells me they are legitimate 1800s era, the last pair I just purchased at auction that were listed as Civil War Era Saxon Military Issued Boots. I was pretty confident the last pair was not Civil War era when I bid but I got a pretty good deal on them, I think. The shoes look very much like the M1882/85 campaign shoes pictured above. My question on the M1882/85 shoes is, how do you distinguish between military issued shoes and civilian shoes in the absence of a QM stamp or solid provenance? Were the M1882/85 campaign shoes unique to the military?

[Aurel]

Hi 

I continue with this pair of shoes found with a lot of US WW1 equipment in France. Is it a 1904 model? Personal purchase?

Best regard

Aurel 

[draws]

I have a pair of 1905 Russet Leather Shoes that I need some opinion/evaluation on.  Am wondering if anyone could advise as to them either being original or repro.  They have SoleTech leather soles with SoleTech Rubber heals.  They have what appears to be the required 11 lacing holes and design as defined in the americanmilitaryreference website.  There are NO interior markings either on the inner tops or innersole.  It is possible that the soles have been replaced but it is hard to tell.  Any advice would be appreciated.  Photos below.

[aefcav]

Thoughts on these? Almost exact markings and linings as my 1912 shoes

 

Thanks,

 

Mitch

[atb]

The material used and light construction makes me think they are Barracks Shoes.

[atb]

I have two pairs of US WW1 trench shoes. One pair I know are the 1918 "Pershing" shoes with heel and toe plates, rivrts on the sides, three soles, and three rows of stitching on the back straps. The other pair is the same, except for lacking a metal toe plate. Are these still M1918 or a transition/variation of the M1917 trench shoes? Both pairs are in very good condition.

 

I want to retain one pair. Which are more typical of the type found in use in Sep-Nov 1918?

[Edelweisse]

QUESTION:  Are these US military boots or another country or just civilian?  Thanks,

[General Apathy]

On 1/16/2016 at 10:37 AM, world war I nerd said:

Despite the orders issued in 1912, studies made at a cross section of World War I training camps in the U.S. conducted late in 1917 and early in 1918, showed that less than 20% of the 59,000 men checked, were wearing shoes that properly fitted. The findings showed that over 80% of them were wearing shoes that were too long, too short, too narrow or too wide.

 

Shortly after that the Resco Shoe Fitting Device was adopted and several officers from each camp were sent to a five day shoe fitting school at Camp Meigs in Washington DC. Upon their return they in turn, had to instruct the other company grade officers at each camp how to use the new Resco measuring device.

 

New orders followed which stated that company officers were to personally measure the feet of each man and personally check the fit of his shoes. An unknown artillery officer posted to Camp Brunswick in Maine, wrote the following in a letter to his wife,

 

“Today I measured and fitted my battery to their shoes, which has to be personally done by the captain. So now I am an expert shoe fitter. Talk about dirty stinking feet. Honey, you should have seen and had a whiff of some of those 414 feet that I saw and measured today. I am also directly responsible for the feet of the men, so if a fellow has a sore or something the matter, I have to see that it’s fixed up right. Oh this is some job.”

 

Photo No. 04: Clockwise from upper left, the closed carrying case, minus the leather handle, of the Resco kit courtesy of Bay State Militaria.com, a pair of hopefully correctly fitted 1917 Field Shoes and three diagrams from the Resco’s manual illustrating how the device was to be employed.

.

Hi World War 1 nerd,

 

Nice seeing an earlier version of the 1930's shoe sizing kit I owned, it appears to be an almost identical device, here's an open shot of mine showing all the pieces needed for sizing, if I recall it went from somewhere around sizes 5 or 6  to 15, and widths of A,B,C,D,E,EE.

 

 

cheers lewis.

 

... 

[eaglerunner88]

On 3/5/2024 at 3:13 PM, atb said:

I have two pairs of US WW1 trench shoes. One pair I know are the 1918 "Pershing" shoes with heel and toe plates, rivrts on the sides, three soles, and three rows of stitching on the back straps. The other pair is the same, except for lacking a metal toe plate. Are these still M1918 or a transition/variation of the M1917 trench shoes? Both pairs are in very good condition.

 

I want to retain one pair. Which are more typical of the type found in use in Sep-Nov 1918?

Interesting, I would like to know this too. Do you have photos of the 'transitional' pair?

[atb]

3 hours ago, eaglerunner88 said:

Interesting, I would like to know this too. Do you have photos of the 'transitional' pair?

I still have the "Pershing" boots, but maybe have images of the other pair. I will do a search.