Here is a document outlining how the Civil Defense Corps worked in WWII that was prepared in 1940 before the start of CAP. http://www.archive.org/details/U.S.CitizensDefenseCorps
For those of you who think our senior rank insignia are a problem, I would like to present an alternative based on the WWII rank insignia used by the Civil Defense Corps. Personally, I support our current system, but I thought I would put out this option that would have some historical basis as opposed to the other schemes we've heard about (using ROTC rank insingia, for example).
Basically the CDC used triangles to denote rank for their volunteers and that would be what the CAP system woud use. Like the fire service, we would keep military rank names, but use different insignia to represent them and I think the old OCD system would be a similar homage to our history just as the fire service often uses trumpets for their rank insignia.
This is the original system
1 Black triangle - qualified worker
2 Black triangles - Squad Leader
3 Black triangles - Section Leader
1 silver triangle - Captain of Wardens, Assistant to Chief, Zone Leader
2 silver triangles - Chief of Local Group (Wardens, etc.)
3 silver triangles - Chief of Service (local or state)
Now, these obviously don't exactly match up with how we do things, so I would modify it as follows. I would use bronze rather than black for visibility purposes.
No insignia - Senior Member without grade
1 Bronze triange - 2nd Lt.
2 Bronze triangles - 1st Lt.
3 Bronze triangles - Capt.
1 Silver triangle - Major
2 Silver triangles - Lt. Col.
3 Silver triangles - Col.
1 Silver stars - Brig Gen
2 Silver stars - Maj. Gen.
They did use stars in the old system for federal OCD workers.
Just a thought.
As a serious suggestion, I'd vote "No". Those insignia were probably not worn on a formal uniform such as ours anyway.
Second, we couldn't go doing that with the Air Force variant uniform either. And having a set for one uniform, and another for the corporate would be impractical.
Interesting idea, but it's not a practical one.
If we HAD to change, why not copy the CG Aux? I think their handling of grade or office insignia makes sense, from an outsiders perspective. Since we don't integrate into Air Force units we probably don't have to remove our insignia like they sometimes do. Being in the CG Aux yourself your insight may be different.
Interesting from a historical perspective though!
Speaking of diamond shaped rank insignia: ;D
http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Military_Ranks_(RDM)#Insignia (http://en.battlestarwiki.org/wiki/Military_Ranks_(RDM)#Insignia)
QuoteSecond, we couldn't go doing that with the Air Force variant uniform either.
Who says? All it would take would be Air Force approval. Quite frankly, if you buy the theory of those who want our insignia to be different from the "real" military, then the AF would jump at the chance to have us wear something different.
QuoteIf we HAD to change, why not copy the CG Aux? I think their handling of grade or office insignia makes sense, from an outsiders perspective.
Because you get the same complaints from a minority of CG Auxies that they still look too much like real military rank. And considering that the CG rules say that when a CG Auxie is augmenting at a CG unit they don't wear their office (rank) insignia, I don't think it would solve the "problem".
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 03:09:31 PM
QuoteSecond, we couldn't go doing that with the Air Force variant uniform either.
Who says? All it would take would be Air Force approval. Quite frankly, if you buy the theory of those who want our insignia to be different from the "real" military, then the AF would jump at the chance to have us wear something different.
OK, you go tell the Air Force that you want to modify
their uniform. Let me know when they turn you down. The "Who says?" argument is not a rational one as far as the suggestion goes.
The difference we have is quite sufficient to the people that matter. The argument that since we haven't earned it in th same way is an argument looking to happen, not really a justified one. The
Air Force knows the difference between our rank and theirs. Anyone else doesn't really matter.
QuoteOK, you go tell the Air Force that you want to modify their uniform
CAP regularly requests and receives permission to modify the AF style uniforms so its not like it is unheard of.
This seems like a solution in search of a problem.
Ah, my favorite generic comment.
I do believe that the NLO would find such use of WW2 insignia to be "inappropriate".
Quote from: Trung Si Ma on March 09, 2009, 02:13:27 AM
I do believe that the NLO would find such use of WW2 insignia to be "inappropriate".
Guys, are we going to beat a comment made by a senior officer (a very lawyerly comment at that by our head lawyer) much futher into the ground, or are we going to take a deep breath, accept it for what it was (a legal opinion from a legal officer), petition to have his position on the comment explained or apologized for, and move on?
Beat it into the ground ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: RiverAux on March 08, 2009, 05:03:58 PM
QuoteOK, you go tell the Air Force that you want to modify their uniform
CAP regularly requests and receives permission to modify the AF style uniforms so its not like it is unheard of.
It's doubtful the Air Force would consider a modification that would fundamentally alter the apparance of their uniform. The idea of the CAP uniform is "similar, but distinctive". Your suggestion does not fit. And no, they don't consider requests to modify their uniform. CAP has never made a request to do so. Adding insignia, such as badges and ribbons, is not the same as "modifying the uniform". Modifying would change the garments themselves, insignia is a different matter.
The insignia you suggest are from over a half a century ago, and aren't really fitting with today's culture either.
Second, if you truly believe that it's an idea that should be considered, then provide a reasonable debate for it. "Ah, my favorite generic comment." can possibly be considered as the response of someone who doesn't feel that their suggestion needs justification. It does. Any idea not worth defending, isn't worth considering. Justify it reasonably, or let it go.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 08, 2009, 04:59:50 PM
OK, you go tell the Air Force that you want to modify their uniform. ...
It is not a USAF uniform - it is USAF-Style Uniform. I am sure the USAF would be more than willing to make it easier for people to tell CAP and USAF apart.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 08, 2009, 04:59:50 PM
The difference we have is quite sufficient to the people that matter. The argument that since we haven't earned it in th same way is an argument looking to happen, not really a justified one. The Air Force knows the difference between our rank and theirs. Anyone else doesn't really matter.
You are absolutely right!!! Mr John Q Public really has no need at all to know that you are NOT a Commissioned Officer in the Armed Forces and are really just another civilian who belongs to a volunteer organization.
Quote from: Short Field on March 09, 2009, 04:47:51 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 08, 2009, 04:59:50 PM
OK, you go tell the Air Force that you want to modify their uniform. ...
It is not a USAF uniform - it is USAF-Style Uniform. I am sure the USAF would be more than willing to make it easier for people to tell CAP and USAF apart.
Disagreed. It's an Air Force uniform, period. And the Air Force tells CAP members how to wear it so we are recognizable as non-paid civilian volunteers. The Air Force retains total control over its uniform, whether it's worn by active-duty blue-suiters, reservists or CAP volunteers.
The whole notion that it's an "Air Force-
style" uniform is fallacious at its core. (Who are we placating by saying it's a uniform "styled" like the Air Force's, when it's really the Air Force uniform with identifiable CAP markings?)
In CAP, you have two choices -- either you wear the Air Force uniform with distinguishable CAP insignia or you're wearing the CAP non-military uniforms (which include the illegal TPU).
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:07:33 AMDisagreed. It's an Air Force uniform, period. And the Air Force tells CAP members how to wear it so we are recognizable as non-paid civilian volunteers. The Air Force retains total control over its uniform, whether it's worn by active-duty blue-suiters, reservists or CAP volunteers.
The whole notion that it's an "Air Force-style" uniform is fallacious at its core. (Who are we placating by saying it's a uniform "styled" like the Air Force's, when it's really the Air Force uniform with identifiable CAP markings?)
Thanks, Buck. I'm getting a little disgusted of the "style" garbage that keeps coming up. I wore Air Force blue for eleven and a half years in the Air Force, and now ten in CAP. It's the same one. Just switched what I was wearing on it. (Which is actually a real money saver! ;D )
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:07:33 AM...(which include the illegal TPU).
Don't really know if the TPU is illegal. I think some of the Air Force insignia being used on it might be used illegally, but that's a different debate.
I have to admit that the base CSU is more uniform than the blazer combinations which is composed of "That works" pieces of clothing. The CSU uses standardized pieces. Everyone wearing a proper CSU is wearing the same shade and cut of pants, shirts, and coats.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 09, 2009, 05:21:08 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:07:33 AM...(which include the illegal TPU).
Don't really know if the TPU is illegal. I think some of the Air Force insignia being used on it might be used illegally, but that's a different debate.
I have to admit that the base CSU is more uniform than the blazer combinations which is composed of "That works" pieces of clothing. The CSU uses standardized pieces. Everyone wearing a proper CSU is wearing the same shade and cut of pants, shirts, and coats.
Even if we complain that it's either incomplete (it is, just look at the Air Force's uni manual) or conflicts with itself (it does), CAPM 39-1 sets itself up as THE authority on CAP uniforms. With Pineda's ICLs dying after 90 days and no change to the CAPM 39-1, the regulation stands with no attachments or revisions, and the double-breasted uniform is illegal.
What I don't get is why we can't follow our own regulations and procedures and codify the darned thing, if we're going to have it around. Isn't "integrity" one of our core values?
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:33:18 AM
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 09, 2009, 05:21:08 AM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:07:33 AM...(which include the illegal TPU).
Don't really know if the TPU is illegal. I think some of the Air Force insignia being used on it might be used illegally, but that's a different debate.
I have to admit that the base CSU is more uniform than the blazer combinations which is composed of "That works" pieces of clothing. The CSU uses standardized pieces. Everyone wearing a proper CSU is wearing the same shade and cut of pants, shirts, and coats.
CAPM 39-1 sets itself up as THE authority on CAP uniforms. With Pineda's ICLs dying after 90 days and no change to the CAPM 39-1, the regulation stands with no attachments or revisions, and the double-breasted uniform is illegal.
What I don't get is why we can't follow our own regulations and procedures and codify the darned thing, if we're going to have it around. Isn't "integrity" one of our core values?
Hadn't considered those points. I don't really think it's so much a matter of integrity, but a view that an ICL is considered acceptable and that the reg can wait. Could be considered laziness on someone's part.
There is a good chance that some thousands of CAP Officers and Cadets have bought these uniforms. I find such wastes distasteful, should it be so that these things will be purchased and so apathetically discarded.
Think about it for a minute...$160 times 1000, $160,000 wasted in CSU service dress coats alone. That is, if the above is true.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 09, 2009, 05:35:35 AM
Hadn't considered those points. I don't really think it's so much a matter of integrity, but a view that an ICL is considered acceptable and that the reg can wait. Could be considered laziness on someone's part.
I consider it an integrity issue because if you say you're going to do something and you don't follow through, you're not keeping your word. If you knowingly do it wrong and expect everyone to follow you, regardless of the rules, that's dishonesty. It's a violation of our first core value, and it engenders disloyalty and dissent. It's also an example of "do as I say, not as I do."
Quote from: Major Carrales on March 09, 2009, 05:42:11 AM
There is a good chance that some thousands of CAP Officers and Cadets have bought these uniforms. I find such wastes distasteful, should it be so that these things will be purchased and so apathetically discarded.
Think about it for a minute...$160 times 1000, $160,000 wasted in CSU service dress coats alone. That is, if the above is true.
I agree, Sparky. I absolutely agree. And it's sad, because the Powers That Be won't go back and fix the original mistakes... and clarify the ever-changing Pineda Suit guidelines, to boot. The darned thing was ill-conceived, and the uniform option was introduced to the membership by going around regulations. Again, it's an integrity issue.
But then again, I tell people if they want to keep money in their pockets, don't wear the CAP civilian combinations. Wear the Air Force uniform, because it doesn't change every time you turn around. Plus, it's a lot fewer headaches.
Let's leave well enough alone!
Why put people to expense of buying new insignia in this economy??
BTW, I vote for continuing to harp on NLO's comment regarding veterans, mainly because I consider (with all due respect!) that comment as "inappropriate"!
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 09, 2009, 06:35:08 PM
Let's leave well enough alone!
Why put people to expense of buying new insignia in this economy??
BTW, I vote for continuing to harp on NLO's comment regarding veterans, mainly because I consider (with all due respect!) that comment as "inappropriate"!
It's 'inappropriate' for a lawyer for an organization to make a comment concerning a possible legal issue regarding the organization?
QuoteIt's doubtful the Air Force would consider a modification that would fundamentally alter the apparance of their uniform. The idea of the CAP uniform is "similar, but distinctive". Your suggestion does not fit.
Hmm, you might want to check the BDU and the modifications made to it for use by CAP. For one thing having bright blue tapes, etc. with white letters, having "Civil Air Patrol" on the breast, and for many years having senior members have "CAP" on one of their collars just to name a few. All of those are pretty major changes to the AF uniform. And for the coup d'gras, you do know that CAP cadets wear non-AF rank insignia on their uniforms and that the AF has approved it? If they would approve it for cadets, there is no logical reason that they couldn't approve it for seniors.
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 03:17:46 AM
QuoteIt's doubtful the Air Force would consider a modification that would fundamentally alter the apparance of their uniform. The idea of the CAP uniform is "similar, but distinctive". Your suggestion does not fit.
Hmm, you might want to check the BDU and the modifications made to it for use by CAP. For one thing having bright blue tapes, etc. with white letters, having "Civil Air Patrol" on the breast, and for many years having senior members have "CAP" on one of their collars just to name a few. All of those are pretty major changes to the AF uniform. And for the coup d'gras, you do know that CAP cadets wear non-AF rank insignia on their uniforms and that the AF has approved it? If they would approve it for cadets, there is no logical reason that they couldn't approve it for seniors.
Blue name tapes: Both CAP and the Air Force wore ultramarine blue tapes, but the Air Force moved to subdued tapes on the OG 507 fatigues, leaving CAP with the blue to create the distinction. The blue tapes carried over for us, but not for them.
Cadet grade insignia: The enlisted grade insignia looks virtually the same (save for the shield content) as AFJROTC's insignia. The officer insignia is a descendant of Army JROTC's, if I'm not mistaken. And the Air Force is a descendant of the Army.
Seniors wearing a cutout on one side of the BDU collar: Yip, this also goes back a ways, a carryover that perpetuated itself.
The Air Force didn't just decide CAP would wear all this stuff -- on the BDU, much of it has history behind it, and it's perpetuated itself. Now if we could just clean up all the silly Mickey Mouse patches, it might be more professional looking....
Quote from: RiverAux on March 10, 2009, 03:17:46 AM
QuoteIt's doubtful the Air Force would consider a modification that would fundamentally alter the apparance of their uniform. The idea of the CAP uniform is "similar, but distinctive". Your suggestion does not fit.
Hmm, you might want to check the BDU and the modifications made to it for use by CAP. For one thing having bright blue tapes, etc. with white letters, having "Civil Air Patrol" on the breast, and for many years having senior members have "CAP" on one of their collars just to name a few. All of those are pretty major changes to the AF uniform. And for the coup d'gras, you do know that CAP cadets wear non-AF rank insignia on their uniforms and that the AF has approved it? If they would approve it for cadets, there is no logical reason that they couldn't approve it for seniors.
So Air Force Academy Cadets, AFROTC Cadets, OTS Cadets, and the like aren't wearing Air Force insignia?
Also, I think you have it reversed. The Air Force was wearing white and ultramarine blue on their fatigues before CAP was.
Cadet Officer's insignia are descenden from the 'pips and crowns' British officers wore.
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 04:08:54 AMCadet Officer's insignia are descenden from the 'pips and crowns' British officers wore.
British? I always heard Australian.
Learn something new every day.
They wear nearly identical insignia.
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 05:10:51 AM
They wear nearly identical insignia.
Makes sense. Australia was essentially a British colony.
The fact remains that the Air Force has no problem with CAP members wearing a uniform with many differences as significant, if not more so, than the rank insignia. So, saying that the AF wouldn't approve such a big change isn't really a sound argument against this proposal (there are others though).
Change for the sake of change isn't progress. It's wasted energy, time and money.
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 03:10:13 AM
Quote from: ZigZag911 on March 09, 2009, 06:35:08 PM
Let's leave well enough alone!
Why put people to expense of buying new insignia in this economy??
BTW, I vote for continuing to harp on NLO's comment regarding veterans, mainly because I consider (with all due respect!) that comment as "inappropriate"!
It's 'inappropriate' for a lawyer for an organization to make a comment concerning a possible legal issue regarding the organization?
It struck me as a personal opinion rather than a professional one; in that light, I feel it was inappropriate.
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:07:33 AM
Disagreed. It's an Air Force uniform, period. And the Air Force tells CAP members how to wear it so we are recognizable as non-paid civilian volunteers.
Of course you are right. It was just stupid of me to look in AFI 36-2903. We need to let them know they are missing a Air Force uniform.
Well, what the heck, I'll bite...
The Air Force has COMPLETE control over ANY rank and rank insignia of CAP. This is not only in AFIs, but also written into U.S. CODE specifically (as I understand it--I read it one time in the US Code authorizing CAP. Title 10 something). The regs say something to the effect of, "The United States Air Force maintains complete control over rank titles and insignia used by Civil Air Patrol." If this idea were proposed (which I'm not really against because I'd love to get the gray slides off of the USAF Coat), it would absolutely have to have the approval of AF. I bel;ieve you would therefore have to have approval of the insignia to use on BOTH the USAF and corporate uniforms.
My $0.02.
Quote from: Short Field on March 11, 2009, 04:56:24 PM
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 09, 2009, 05:07:33 AM
Disagreed. It's an Air Force uniform, period. And the Air Force tells CAP members how to wear it so we are recognizable as non-paid civilian volunteers.
Of course you are right. It was just stupid of me to look in AFI 36-2903. We need to let them know they are missing a Air Force uniform.
The Air Force isn't missing it, Shorty. They know exactly where and what it is. It's an Air Force uniform with distinctive insignia to mark CAP members as volunteers. Heck, we don't even change the buttons anymore. (And we could only wish CAPM 39-1 was as well organized and planned as AFI 36-2903. If it was more thorough, fewer ambiguities and loopholes would remain fixed in CAP uniform culture.)
Take the gray epaulets off the service coat --
voila! -- it's an Air Force service coat with some funny ribbons and maybe some duck-bill-shaped wings on it. The metal nametag only has the last name on it -- it's an Air Force uniform item, not a CAP distinctive item. And the Air Force lets us wear it. Semantics aside, if it wasn't an Air Force uniform, would the Air Force govern it?
Quote from: BuckeyeDEJ on March 17, 2009, 06:34:21 AM
Take the gray epaulets off the service coat -- voila! -- it's an Air Force service coat with some funny ribbons and maybe some duck-bill-shaped wings on it. The metal nametag only has the last name on it -- it's an Air Force uniform item, not a CAP distinctive item. And the Air Force lets us wear it. Semantics aside, if it wasn't an Air Force uniform, would the Air Force govern it?
If your metal name tag only has your last name on it, it is time for a new one with Civil Air Patrol on it. The name only one lasted about 6 weeks ;D. Guess I picked the wrong month to order >:(
^^^
Uhm...no. The last name only name plate is authorized on the USAF Service dress. The Civil Air Patrol metal plate is for the CSU only and is not authorized on the USAF Service coat.
Quote from: Hawk200 on March 10, 2009, 05:37:17 AM
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 05:10:51 AM
They wear nearly identical insignia.
Makes sense. Australia was essentially a British colony.
Now they are part of the Commonwealth of Nations.
Quote from: SilverEagle2 on March 17, 2009, 02:55:30 PM
^^^
Uhm...no. The last name only name plate is authorized on the USAF Service dress. The Civil Air Patrol metal plate is for the CSU only and is not authorized on the USAF Service coat.
I stand corrected. I was thinking the silver was a CSU only item.
Quote from: phirons on March 17, 2009, 08:14:27 PM
I stand corrected. I was thinking the silver was a CSU only item.
Currently, there's a nameplate for the 1. Service Dress 2. CSU 3. a blue with name and CAP for the blue/whites, 4. a grey one (with name, CAP, USAF Aux) for blues and white/greys, 5. a blue one (with name, CAP, USAF Aux) for cadets in blues, 6. a black one for the blazer, and 7. one for Cadet Sponsor Members. Have I forgotten any?
Confusion is understandable. I still think we could stand to eliminate a few, there shouldn't be that many to cause the confusion in the first place.
Back to the original Topic, did anyone see the latest comic at SwivelChairPatrol?
link: http://swivelchairpatrol.blogspot.com (http://swivelchairpatrol.blogspot.com)
I think he nailed the final and ultimate rank solution. But, would we then need to call her Grand Moff Courter?
openmind
Ah, but are those ranks or ribbons? >:D
^Both we kill two birds with one stone! :D