asdarley Posted 3 April , 2007 Share Posted 3 April , 2007 A soldier relative of mine was hospitalised back to England and spent six weeks recovering from trench foot So...... Can anyone shed light on whether or not the ordinary soldier had access to wellingtons when serving in the trenches? or Am I naive in thinking that if soldiers had worn "wellies" the incidence of trench foot would have been reduced? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 3 April , 2007 Share Posted 3 April , 2007 Soldiers were issued with waders and rubber boots. Trench foot was a result of not getting clean or dry socks for days at a time, and never getting them off. When feet were looked after by oiling and cleaning etc on a daily basis, trenchfoot was drastically reduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Blonde Posted 3 April , 2007 Share Posted 3 April , 2007 A soldier relative of mine was hospitalised back to England and spent six weeks recovering from trench foot So...... Can anyone shed light on whether or not the ordinary soldier had access to wellingtons when serving in the trenches? or Am I naive in thinking that if soldiers had worn "wellies" the incidence of trench foot would have been reduced? Hallo edorc I am sure the constant wearing of rubber boots would have been as bad for the soldiers feet as wearing leather boots in the wet all the time, also with the amount of sharp metal objects littering the trenches, no-mans land, etc the surviverbility of a pair of wellies probably would have been very short. Not to mention they would offer no support to the feet. Connaught Stranger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Trenchwire Posted 3 April , 2007 Share Posted 3 April , 2007 found a picture for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeppoSapone Posted 3 April , 2007 Share Posted 3 April , 2007 I once read a letter from a soldier in France. He had worked at the local railway station, and hoped that people would remember him. However, the real reason he had written to his home town paper was to request that somebody would send him a pair of wellingtons. PS size 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 3 April , 2007 Share Posted 3 April , 2007 These were usually treated as Trench stores. There were two types on issue Boots, gum, thigh Boots, gum, short The thigh boots are the ones being worn above and were the predominate type. Up to the Great War era, Wellington boots had a double meaning. In official British Army nomenclature if you ordered a pair of "Wellington Boots" you'd get leather boots that were worn on Full Dress occasions by mounted troops, when dismounted. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 These were usually treated as Trench stores. There were two types on issue Boots, gum, thigh Boots, gum, short The thigh boots are the ones being worn above and were the predominate type. Up to the Great War era, Wellington boots had a double meaning. In official British Army nomenclature if you ordered a pair of "Wellington Boots" you'd get leather boots that were worn on Full Dress occasions by mounted troops, when dismounted. Joe Sweeney Joe, do you have any idea of the appearance of the "Boots, gum, short", either descriptive, photographic or surviving examples? I ask as I have an old pair of black wellies in my size which I'm wondering if they'd be suitable for WW1 living history, but I have nothing to compare them to! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 Andrew, I don't have anything in particular as far as descriptive language on the Gumboots short. I have the approval dates and pattern numbers but there is no descritive narrative except the nomenclature. So not much use in comparing. They came-out earlier than the thigh boots. I would just look into period photos and see what you come-up with. I'm not even sure if the originals would have been black or khaki rubber. The issue scales for the BEF give the suggestion that the thigh boots were preferred and that short boots used only as available. I have a pair of US 1918 contract--for US Army- thigh boots-a little different than the British Army and they are black rubber. I have a British Strap from the British Thigh boots that is almost relic and it appears black but could have ended up that way through the environment. About 7 or 8 years ago a batch of thigh boots surfaced that were Canadian marked--supposedly found in a dugout dig near Vimy. The price was too rich for me at the time to pick one up. I seem to recall that they may have been black rubber but that was a long time ago to be certain memory wise. I remember one of them being sold by Regimentals on ebay and I believe it might have gone to one of the forum members--if I remember correctly. Hopefully if that is correct they will post some photo's. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrus Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 A possibly very silly question. Were "Gum boots, Thigh" worn in place of boots and puttees or as an 'overboot'? Tom the Walrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asdarley Posted 4 April , 2007 Author Share Posted 4 April , 2007 A possibly very silly question. Were "Gum boots, Thigh" worn in place of boots and puttees or as an 'overboot'? Tom the Walrus Judging by the photo you wouldn't get them on over boots, see the middle guy with puttees & boots and then compare. By the way thanks to all who developed the thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 A possibly very silly question. Were "Gum boots, Thigh" worn in place of boots and puttees or as an 'overboot'? Tom the Walrus I have seen thighlength overbooots which were army issue but I don't know if they had them in WW1. They were army surplus in late 40's and were sold for motorcycle wear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 A possibly very silly question. Were "Gum boots, Thigh" worn in place of boots and puttees or as an 'overboot'? Tom the Walrus Tom, Hopefully an owner of a pair may say whether it could be done either way. But the attached photo says a lot. Looks like this Highlander is wearing in place of ankle boots. May be the reason is why put wet muddy ankle boots into a dry set of Trench wadders. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthergw Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 I certainly do not fancy wearing them with a kilt! It's making my eyes water just thinking about it. As I said earlier, the big problem was wet socks being worn for days on end. I believe there were goloshes worn. Perhaps by US troops? I expect you will know Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 I certainly do not fancy wearing them with a kilt! It's making my eyes water just thinking about it. As I said earlier, the big problem was wet socks being worn for days on end. I believe there were goloshes worn. Perhaps by US troops? I expect you will know Joe. Thigh Wadders and Kilts dont seem to go together. Hopefully these guys are wearing the short under pants issued to Highlanders in winter. I think the sock issue is one of discipline--not as easy as as said I know--each soldier was authorized 3 pairs of socks and two inner soles were issued for each gum boot (short and thigh). Hopefully the rotation could be kept up to keep the feet relatively dry. Tom, Inner soles--I think that answers the question--wadders were meant to be worn in lieu of ankle boots and puttees. I do have a set of waterproof leggings that were meant to be worn over ankle boots and Puttees. I'll post a photo soon. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 A possibly very silly question. Were "Gum boots, Thigh" worn in place of boots and puttees or as an 'overboot'? Tom the Walrus I would just look into period photos and see what you come-up with. I'm not even sure if the originals would have been black or khaki rubber. May be the reason is why put wet muddy ankle boots into a dry set of Trench wadders. Inner soles--I think that answers the question--wadders were meant to be worn in lieu of ankle boots and puttees. I do have a set of waterproof leggings that were meant to be worn over ankle boots and Puttees. I'll post a photo soon. Joe Sweeney Thanks for that Joe, but no photographer at the time seems to have taken any beautiful close-ups - I've only seen one picture of them in use, but they were covered in mud and too far away to allow any detail to be made out... As to the thigh length boots, they were supposed to be worn over feet, and not boots and puttes - if you look carefully at the picture posted earlier, the men are doing what I do when I'm changing shoes over, doing them one at a time, keeeping the other on as long as possible - you can just about see a sock covered toe about to be inserted in the boot by the chap in the top right corner, but he still has his ankle boot on his other foot... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walrus Posted 4 April , 2007 Share Posted 4 April , 2007 Gentlemen, Thanks for the answers about the 'Gum boots, Thigh'. What inspired the question was the distant memory of a voluminous looking pair of black waders with a fairly meaty strap and buckle affair over the instep, turning rock hard in the back of a store. Tom the Walrus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Henschke Posted 6 April , 2007 Share Posted 6 April , 2007 The wearing of these boots did cause there own problem. Here is an extract from an Australian report regarding trench feet over the December 1916-January 1917 period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiegeGunner Posted 6 April , 2007 Share Posted 6 April , 2007 Wellies/waders are at best a short-term solution to working in wet and muddy conditions. Short wellies would be fine in a wet trench with a solid base, but almost useless in mud, which would tend to suck them off the feet — hence, presumably the preference for thigh boots. Rough and sharp objects underfoot need not have been a problem, as water-resistant boots with solid soles existed before the war for gamekeepers, shooters, etc. The weakness of gumboots has always been that once they are wet inside, they take forever to dry out. And they don't need to be 'over-topped' in order to get wet — rain runs in off the clothing, unless something is worn over the boot tops. If worn wet, they may feel comfortable enough once they 'warm up', but the conditions inside the boot are disasterous for foot health. As regards thigh-length overboots — how would a man wearing rigid army boots get them on? They would have to be enormous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Foster Posted 7 April , 2007 Share Posted 7 April , 2007 These were usually treated as Trench stores. There were two types on issue Boots, gum, thigh Boots, gum, short The thigh boots are the ones being worn above and were the predominate type. Up to the Great War era, Wellington boots had a double meaning. In official British Army nomenclature if you ordered a pair of "Wellington Boots" you'd get leather boots that were worn on Full Dress occasions by mounted troops, when dismounted. Joe Sweeney Hi Andy Here are a couple of images could these be Gum Boots short ? Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Foster Posted 7 April , 2007 Share Posted 7 April , 2007 Hi Andy Here are a couple of images could these be Gum Boots short ? Regards Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 7 April , 2007 Share Posted 7 April , 2007 A very nice picture, but the boots look to be very thin compared to modern "wellies" - they look more to me like the canvas boots with rubber soles that turn up occasionally - then again, I could be biased by my modern definition of what a welly should look like... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SimonMoore Posted 23 June , 2015 Share Posted 23 June , 2015 I hope people don't mind me opening an old thread but I have a question regarding Gum boots, Thigh; regarding the ankle and calf straps, looking at existing examples and old photographs it seems some had both straps e.g: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30015935 Some appear to have only the calf strap and others seemingly have no tightening straps at all, was this just a manufacturer variation or were the straps removed from the design through the course of production? The reason I ask is Chris Henschke's informative post which mentions problems with the pressure exerted by ankle straps which might have influenced such a change... Many thanks for any info and apologies if I have missed this elsewhere on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 December , 2021 Share Posted 30 December , 2021 Hello, aim collecting Belgian stuff 1915/18. Found this boots. The Belgian Army had this model in 1917/18 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 30 December , 2021 Share Posted 30 December , 2021 A aim a former collection manager of the Belgian Royal Army Museum. I made this mannequin some years ago for the permanent expo WW1. look a The boots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now