CSM Charles Hayden 2498811 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>670-1 dtd 3Feb2005 has depictions on page 66, fig 15.7 showing trouser w/o a &#39;break&#39; over the front of low quarter shoes. <br /><br />I recall asking for, &#39;no break&#39; in the crease of my trousers over my shoe laces. The ? hem was then lowered to slightly cover the heel of the shoes. <br /><br />Inistutional memory, greybeards? Do you consider yourself to be informed re: AR 670-1? 2017-04-17T01:37:14-04:00 CSM Charles Hayden 2498811 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>670-1 dtd 3Feb2005 has depictions on page 66, fig 15.7 showing trouser w/o a &#39;break&#39; over the front of low quarter shoes. <br /><br />I recall asking for, &#39;no break&#39; in the crease of my trousers over my shoe laces. The ? hem was then lowered to slightly cover the heel of the shoes. <br /><br />Inistutional memory, greybeards? Do you consider yourself to be informed re: AR 670-1? 2017-04-17T01:37:14-04:00 2017-04-17T01:37:14-04:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 2498838 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>CSM Hayden;<br />I feel that the Army has changed AR 670-1 so many times now that its hard to keep up with the changes. The Army realized recently that we had too many AR&#39;s and FM&#39;s so there attempt to make it more conducive was by adding ADP&#39;s and TC&#39;s into the mix. This has given us even more to try to weed out. Some leaders still follow the AR&#39;s while some follow the ADP&#39;s and TC&#39;s so now everyone is referencing different information. I feel less informed and knowledgeable now and have to crunch to learn these new standards. It seems like the Army is attempting to lower the standard to conform to the younger generation. We are still using the military as a social experiment. Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2017 2:00 AM 2017-04-17T02:00:33-04:00 2017-04-17T02:00:33-04:00 SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM 2499393 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>that reg needs to be thrown out, have you seen our soldiers todays, they look like street rappers in uniform holding their cell phones, NO RESPECT Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Apr 17 at 2017 10:41 AM 2017-04-17T10:41:55-04:00 2017-04-17T10:41:55-04:00 CW3 Kevin Storm 2499547 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I always had the slight break. but it seemed to always be more than what I was after. Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Apr 17 at 2017 11:40 AM 2017-04-17T11:40:18-04:00 2017-04-17T11:40:18-04:00 SPC Private RallyPoint Member 2500001 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>670-1 is an interesting read, and as I understand has been updated a lot in the last decade. Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2017 2:37 PM 2017-04-17T14:37:34-04:00 2017-04-17T14:37:34-04:00 1SG Private RallyPoint Member 2500365 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Last I recall, and was confirmed at SLC, was a slight break at the top of the foot. The drawings in DA PAM 670-1, Apr 2015 show a break, but I can&#39;t find text that specifically says so. Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2017 4:47 PM 2017-04-17T16:47:07-04:00 2017-04-17T16:47:07-04:00 MSG Private RallyPoint Member 2500669 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div><a class="dark-link bold-link" role="profile-hover" data-qtip-container="body" data-id="305380" data-source-page-controller="question_response_contents" href="/profiles/305380-csm-charles-hayden">CSM Charles Hayden</a> , I would not say I&#39;m well versed in AR 670-1 since it likes to change so often, but I&#39;m certainly well versed in the Control F function when ever I have a question about the regulation. Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 17 at 2017 6:45 PM 2017-04-17T18:45:41-04:00 2017-04-17T18:45:41-04:00 2017-04-17T01:37:14-04:00