Talk:Jump boot

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military aviation task force

Aviation

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Fashion

	Fashion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fashion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Fashion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FashionWikipedia:WikiProject FashionTemplate:WikiProject Fashionfashion articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Comments=[edit]

Untitled[edit]

This sentence is ambiguous:

Jump boots are fully laced from the instep to the top and give more support to the ankle whereas ordinary combat boots during World War Two were laced just above the ankle and had to be worn with leggings or puttees to prevent mud and dirt from entering the shoe.

Is it the jump boots or the WW2 combat boots that needed the leggings or puttees? Pretzelpaws 22:03, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

These are two different sentences, which would normally be seperated by a semi-colon or comma. Notice the whereas in the middle, which indicates a comparison between the subject of the previous sentence and the subject of the next. With the right punctuation in place, it should make more sense (granted, it would be better to rewrite it entirely):

"Jump boots are fully laced from the instep to the top and give more support to the ankle; whereas ordinary combat boots during World War Two were laced just above the ankle, and had to be worn with leggings or puttees to prevent mud and dirt from entering the shoe." --Addama 13:45, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Niceness[edit]

The bit about not wearing paratrooper boots if you're a leg (in other words, not qualified to be delivered to the battlefield by parachute) can't be cited since it's not actually against regulations. It's a social thing. Paratrooper boots are earned, along with jump wings and the beret and the title.

Wearing jump boots when you're not airborne is like wearing a cop's SWAT gear (minus the gun and grenades and stuff, ok, anybody can wear knee- and elbow-pads and bulletproof vests but not anybody can walk around with a Heckler and Koch UMP) when you're not SWAT-trained. You look dumb/goofy/weird/a bit of a prick/cocky/wannabe/egotist/et cetera. 'Nuff said. It's like wearing a stethescope when you're not a doctor.

Jump boots announce to the world at large that you are a soldier trained and ready to jump out of an airplane, properly execute a parachute landing fall, and then take up your weapon and kill people in a manner that may and that you intend to benefit others. It's a helluva statement to make, more so than most articles of clothing worn to "make a statement".

So there.

Citation THAT.

PS I'm a civilian.

I believe you are very correct about what you said (above). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.141.164.105 (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well Mr. Civilian, let me let you in on a little bit of realism from the US Army. Airborne units will not allow a leg to wear jump boots. It is socially unacceptable. Non-Airborne units don't really care. The only type of boots soldiers assigned to a non-Airborne unit are socially prohibited from wearing are tanker boots, unless, of course, you're a tanker. PS - I spent 8-1/2 years in 4th Infantry Division with 1 tour in Operation Intrinsic Action, 2 tours in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 7 rotations to NTC. I think I have first-hand knowledge of this. SGT B 18:08 17 April 2007

Need help expanding?[edit]

What about writing two parts: one about previous types of jump boots (eg. WWII),,, and the other part about jump boots used now. Jump boots are also for civilian use, and you can write about that... Wiki flight simmer (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Wiki_flight_simmer[reply]

Removed the nonsense about zippers. Zippered boots are not authorized to be worn in the US Army. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.63.56 (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navy Use[edit]

The description in the article concerning Navy use on flight decks sounds suspiciously familiar. In fact the version worn by Navy sailors were called Flight Deck boots. They were black lace ups with the zig zag sole as described, with additional leather patches over the toe and shanks to sufficiently cover the steel toe and steel shanks. While the Navy was fairly regulation tight on most of the uniforms, footwear was a safety matter and more open to translation. The only requirements were to be completely black, steel toe & shank, and leather (for the sake of high temperatures that would cause synthetic materials to melt). The Navy does not have the same social restrictions, especially on the “small boys” (i.e. Destroyers & Frigates) as on a daily basis any member of the crew will be required to be out on the flight deck. My first hand knowledge comes from 20 years in the Navy, with an accumulated time of 12 years on a Frigate and two destroyers. retrograde62 [PST 4:20 August 20, 2014} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.170.11.65 (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015 - Added a new ref, but needs some work still[edit]

I added a reference and cleaned up some of the poor and ambiguous prose regarding what, exactly, differentiated a jump boot from a regular combat boot at the time of their inception (at least in the US military), but it could really benefit from more details about, say, the Fallschirmjager and the Italian paratroopers of WWII, both of which I know for a fact had their own paratrooper-specific boots (or boot modifications) before the US did, simply by virtue of having started their programs earlier.

As for "modern" jump boots, we're really getting into a quagmire, since the two primary characteristics (calf-length leather and rigid toe caps) were both incorporated into the Korea-era 1947 standard issue boot. They ended up keeping the calf-length and getting rid of the toe caps (better for marching) but you get my point. These days the difference between a jump boot and a regular calf-length GI leather combat boot are pretty minimal, and the Army has fallen in love with the jungle boot instead. Anybody feel like standing up and taking a swing at producing some more references? Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jump boot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.corcoranandmatterhorn.com/ItemDisplay.asp?Style=1500&CategoryID=34
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216221313/http://cartalana.com/0037-boots.php to http://cartalana.com/0037-boots.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]