Why Soviet WW2 Boots were used for 72 years

VIDEOS MENTIONED:

ROSE ANVIL EMAIL LISTS:

ROSE ANVIL LINKS:

CREDIT:

TIMESTAMPS:
0:00 Intro
0:32 History
4:42 Better Than Leather
5:55 Puncture Tests
6:20 Construction
8:54 Cut In Half
10:21 Reveal/ Japanese Reproduction Info
11:08 Review
11:29 The Worst of WWII?
13:02 Why I cut this boot
13:46 Final Thoughts

#ww2 #historicalfacts

[oz.Mu]

When I was a soldier in 1987 - 1989, I wore such boots. At first they seemed uncomfortable to me and rubbed my feets. Around the spring of 1988, we were given high-laced boots. Having tried all the options, we returned to the old boots. These boots are not hot in summer and not cold in winter, they do not get wet in the rain. Until now, somewhere on the balcony I have a pair of such boots.

[wolfdima]

I used those Kirza boots in the Army in early 90s. We had plenty of modern boots, but used Kirza for some daily work and duty in the fields. To say the least, I was amazed how comfortable and practical they were when you work in trenches, dirt, high grass and similar environments. Especially when you know how to use it with footcloth. Also, despite simplicity, those boots had a lot of killer features - they were light, reliable, easy to maintain, protected and stabilized the foot and it was super-easy to keep your feet dry. Only best tactical boots with modern lacing and Goretex can compete with them.

So I understand why Kirza boots were used for more than a century.

[OlegLyutov]

The officers had leather jack boots. Kirza boots were for the lower ranks. Either kind of these boots were worn without socks. Instead of socks each foot would be wrapped with a strip of linen or cotton fabric in a such way that would make these boots quite comfortable to wear. When part of the fabric strip gets wet from sweat, the foot gets rewrapped so the dry end wraps around the foot while the wet end is wrapped around the crus to dry out. Due to water resistance, these boots could also be used as a vessel.

[peterwilson]

I was in the British military in the 1980s and 1990s our military and our boots were pretty good. I married an Estonian woman and used to do work at their country house on the property in Tabasalu, Estonia. I used a pair of those Russian boots and they were really quality items hard wearing and superbly comfortable. The quality of the leather and lining was just excellent. I totally understand why they would have kept them that style and for so long.

[Ndleffect]

I love how he adds the entire history around the boots. Makes me super interested in history!

[gunnar]

I served in 2010, in the military registration and enlistment office we were given military boots along with a uniform. During the first week of the "young fighter course" in the military unit, some guys wore their legs very badly, and then we were given kirza boots with footcloths, my legs felt so blissful then that I still remember it, how great it was compared to high-top boots and socks = )

[billietyree]

This was very interesting to me. My mother was employed by The Florsheim Shoe Company in Chicago, Illinois when WWII ended, and she told me that on the day they were informed that the war in Europe was over, that the manager of the factory was upset that his contracts would be canceled. He was not too popular with the ladies working there who had family members fighting in that war.

[theslavicimmigrant]

I don't think you understand war boots enough, because these are some of the best. These boots didn't get hot in the summer, and didn't get too cold in the winter-they're kind of comfortable, too and THEY ARE COMPLETELY WATER TIGHT.

In a warzone, when you're marching for miles/fighting in wet, muddy trenches, walking through boggy fields and unpaved, muddy roads after artillery has bombed them and tanks drove through, being watertight is far more important than being resistant to fire; fire is not that common, can be avoided most of the time, meanwhile, the rain doesn't stop, the rainy, muddy, sloshy weather of September/October til April doesn't stop the fighting, the fighting doesn't stop if you're in a foxhole pinned down for hours with water seeping in.

If it wasn't for these boots being water-tight, millions more would be dead/with amputated feet/out of action due to trenchfoot.

[vladimir]

My father was an officer in the Soviet army in 1980-s, he said that although officers were issued cooler full-leather boots, many of them would still prefer kirza boots for being lighter. He brought a few pairs home, I would occasionally wear them when doing chores around our village house - didn't like them much, mostly because the "shoe" part was completely stiff, and putting them on was giving me some kind of "foot claustrophobia" (e. g. the feeling that I maybe shouldn't put my foot into that, because it's unclear whether I will be able to get it back out). I didn't bother with footwraps, would just put several cotton socks on each foot, and then a thick wool sock on top of that if the weather was cold.

[iangarrett]

I heard a story of a Soviet soldier who got boots two sizes too big. His comrades thought he was mad, and a pain in the *** in the rain when he would get stuck in the mud. However, come the winter, he stuffed his boots with newspaper and had the warmest feet in the regiment.

[Nikita_Random]

I remember wearing one of these in 2011, while serving in the army.
Mine hade a glued on sole, and most of the guys from my squad changed their combat boots for this type of footwear, as it fits better for the hot climate.
Also, you can easily take them off while having a break on a speed march, what made them really popular among soldiers.

Thanks for the video!

[exexpat]

I owned the East German copies (basically the same boots issued to East Germany from the 50's to the 80's). They were fairly indestructible, hard on your feet with or without socks, waterproof. Very plain outside of them being high boots.

[Johnson_]

These boots, at least for me, make for encredably good work and walking boots particularly for the price.
There aren't many places where you can get knee high boots with durable soles in for $80.
They are also encredably comfortably when you use footwraps with them since in my experience they fill out the boot better and allow sweat to wick away alot easier.

[ljoe]

I wore those boots during my militeraized service (emercom) in years 2002-2005, as an old colleague gave me his old style boots which were too small for him and told me not to wear the new-style boots with laces. I was very satisfied, as I could put them on in a second during the night shifts and could come into rather deep water or mud with them. I used to climb, jog and jump in these boots without any problems. do not see any problems in using these boot with the tissue instead of socks. cheers from Russia!

[NMiller_]

I love looking at historical trade offs like this. Seeing what decisions were made and why, and ultimately the outcomes of those choices. We can learn so much from seeing what has already been tried. Thank you for doing these sorts of videos.

[svetko]

It might be on the lower side of reliability and quality, but if they really are lighter and more waterproof than the other boots, I'd take them.
Having wet feet at war times, especially in the Russian winter, is life threatening. And having to walk with heavy boots packed with snow or mud is extremely fatiguing, considering the huge distances the soldier had to walk during the later stages of the war.

[timrutkevich]

I wore those shoes in Soviet Army at the end of 1980's. It is not just a boot. IT is the whole system of tightly wrapped around a foot piece of cloth, called Portianka. If your foot gets wet or sweaty you can wrap your foot with the another side, while wet part dries as you continue walking. When you sleep, you wrap the cloth around the boot and let it and the boot dry up.

Becides the lighter weight, you don't have to worry about socks to carry spares. As per fire resistance, It never even crossed my mind, as it never been a problem.

Last, these boots saved lots of lives, as it takes split second to put them on, no shoe laces to worry, no socks to put, just put a cloth over the boot and slide the foot into the boot. Cheap and light does not mean it is bad, it did the job it was designed for. And I completely disagree with western and German propaganda that Soviet leaders just threw the bodies at any problem. It is especially very visible when Soviet union started war against Japan. With relatively few troops Red Army was way more successful in destroying Japanese Imperial Army that was occupying China, Korea, Sakhalin and Kurils

[edgarcardiel]

I do wwii soviet reenacting and i can guarantee these boots are quite comfortable and versatile.

With footwraps they fit quite snug and are easy to repair as im a cobbler and have torn a few open

[MrHrKaidoOjamaaVKJV]

It was reported that when Russia switched from the Kirza jackboot to the low lace-up boots the General officers were quoted as saying, "Wait until the spring floods come the soldiers will wish they had Kirza boots".

[Robertarea]

As a person that has 3 pairs of these boots.

They are very durable all weather boots, and great for outdoors and even horse riding. Down side, they do take very long to break in and can be very uncomfortable at first. But with proper boot socks and time it becomes very comfortable.

The water proof quality of the boot is what is the most important factor to me. And light weight.

Weight equals lbs, lbs quality pain.
Having a water proof boot is far better to have in Eastern Europe too as most of eastern Europe is a bog, swamp and hill grassland.
So I wouldn't say it is a bad boot, it is a great boot for the area it is designed. You want a light boot in a bog and swamp as it is easier to get out of mud versus a heavy boot.