Talk:Tanker boot

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 June 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology

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 not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

The edit on 17 Sept.

I edited out a few paragraphs from the lore section for a few reasons A.it was not lore B.it was personal opinion not fact C.as a former 19K who served 29 months in Iraq I can tell you from personal experience he was VERY wrong. Any one of these should be enough justification just trying to keep the facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.17.0 (talk) 11:08, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I edited them back in... As a seasoned veteran 19E20 and a 19K20, who graduated from Knox sometime before you were born, I can attest (as can other veterans from that era) that you got your tanker boots right after graduation. In some units , such as Ft. Carson Co. in the late 80s, cold weather tanker boots were issue items from CIF. This "gotta qualify to get your tanker boots" is a pile of horseshit, made up by some drill sergeants from infantry billets, more especially airborne infantry. They ending up taking positions as drill sergeants in Armor and Cavalry during the post Desert Storm draw downs brought on by President Clinton. Jump boots are 'earned', hence these idiots think that tanker boots need to be earned too. They are earned by graduating OSUT at Knox (soon to be Ft. Benning) and can be worn fresh out of basic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.88.163.161 (talk) 08:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was a tanker in 1998 to 2002 until I reclassed to 21D10 Deep Sea Diver. I can attest that this tradition was in place when I went through OSUT training and was upheld by every tank company I was part of, including D Company 2-72 Armor and A Company 2-34 Armor. FNG's were not allowed to wear their tanker boots even if they had allready purchased them until they completed a successful 700+ gunnery score, and I am not sure how you went to the field but gunnery was much longer than 24 hours. We went to the field for a minimum of 30 days at a time, and gunnery was a week long event of various tank tables, ending in tank table 12. If all went as planned the actual tank table 12 would only last approximately 24 hours, or long enough to complete your day and night engagements. Furthermore, I did not have a single DS that was infantry- or any other mos but Tank Armor Crewman. The military is a constantly changing animal, and just because when you left it was one way doesnt mean it didnt immidiately change. Hell it could be different now and probably is, but at one point in time, at least for two tankers, this is the way it was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.166.167 (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note- does anyone know where I can find that store off base that converted altama combat boots to ripple sole tanker boots? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.166.167 (talk) 03:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lore Section

The voice of this section may be amusing, but I am pretty sure the term "dumb ass grunt" and references to the relative intelligence of infantry and tankers are hardly encyclopedic. This section needs some cleaning. Atypicaloracle (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was all this removed? I find the fraternal history being argued here to be relevant and interesting.Coemgenv (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]