39-1 Table 6-4 species HMRS patch on right sleeve of BDUs, etc.  Wing patch is on left sleeve of BDUS, right sleeve of flight suits.

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 03:29:41 AM
39-1 Table 6-4 species HMRS patch on right sleeve of BDUs, etc.  Wing patch is on left sleeve of BDUS, right sleeve of flight suits.

How about quoting something a bit more current, like the ICL to CAPM 39-1 dated 25 Jan 2008 that moved ALL patches that used to be worn on the right shoulder to the left breast pocket.

The flag is worn on the right shoulder.

Quote from: NIN on July 17, 2008, 09:58:46 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on July 13, 2008, 09:54:14 PM
Get rid of the patches, when the ABU's are approved.  In fact, we should follow strict guidelines established by the AF for the ABU and badges, patches and bling.  If AF doesn't wear equivalent item, CAP does not wear it.  I think on ABU's you can wear 1 Occupational badge and wings.  SO CAP should be "One specialty badge and Wings". 

Which gets to my concept that our uniform manual should be a supplement to the current USAF uniform manual, not a separate document.

I'll do you one better....our uniform manual should be chapter in the USAF Uniform AFI...that way...everyone in the USAF will atleast know who and what we are when they see us.

Quote from: PHall on July 18, 2008, 03:54:19 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 03:29:41 AM
39-1 Table 6-4 species HMRS patch on right sleeve of BDUs, etc.  Wing patch is on left sleeve of BDUS, right sleeve of flight suits.

How about quoting something a bit more current, like the ICL to CAPM 39-1 dated 25 Jan 2008 that moved ALL patches that used to be worn on the right shoulder to the left breast pocket.

I could, but where would be the fun in that.

Quote from: lordmonar on July 18, 2008, 04:26:37 AM

Quote from: NIN on July 17, 2008, 09:58:46 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on July 13, 2008, 09:54:14 PM
Get rid of the patches, when the ABU's are approved.  In fact, we should follow strict guidelines established by the AF for the ABU and badges, patches and bling.  If AF doesn't wear equivalent item, CAP does not wear it.  I think on ABU's you can wear 1 Occupational badge and wings.  SO CAP should be "One specialty badge and Wings". 

Which gets to my concept that our uniform manual should be a supplement to the current USAF uniform manual, not a separate document.

I'll do you one better....our uniform manual should be chapter in the USAF Uniform AFI...that way...everyone in the USAF will atleast know who and what we are when they see us.

Has anyone ever asked about this?

straying a bit....

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 06:14:17 PM
straying a bit....

Okay...to recap.....standarizing our hearaldry rules would be cool thing to do.  It models our parent organisation and makes us look uniformed......but it is a) fiscally impractical, b) tosses out a lot of tradition, 3) may become a moot point in 3-4 years with the ABU, and 4) not really an issue....our credibility and our ability to perform our missions are NOT affected at all....if one wing's patch is not the same shape as another.

Sounds about right, where do I sign?

Quote from: lordmonar on July 18, 2008, 07:27:36 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 06:14:17 PM
straying a bit....

Okay...to recap.....standarizing our hearaldry rules would be cool thing to do.  It models our parent organisation and makes us look uniformed......but it is a) fiscally impractical, b) tosses out a lot of tradition, 3) may become a moot point in 3-4 years with the ABU, and 4) not really an issue....our credibility and our ability to perform our missions are NOT affected at all....if one wing's patch is not the same shape as another.

a.  fiscal issues already addressed and are a non-issue
b.  Already addressed by grandfathering existing patches. 
3.  Assumes facts not in evidence.
4.  Not germane to the discussion.  If you want to go that route as uniforms are not necessary to perform any of our missions when you get right down to it.  If you accept the fact that we do wear uniforms, then you have to accept that some degree of uniformity is necessary.

a.  I disagree that you adequately addressed the cost.  Even if you grandfathered it in....it will take years.....many years for some unit to come into compliance.....my unit alone has 5-6 years of squadron patches on hand.  Vanguard would have to replace 98% of all the wing patches.  Someone will have to get the new patches designed and vanguard will have to pay the upfront costs of developing the new patch (or most likely pass it on to us).  Either you have a hard and fast date to become compliant or you are just going to make us look even sillier than we already do (if you buy that we look silly because we have odd shaped patches).  Also consider that by the time that we grandfather these patches in...we will not be wearing patches on our field uniforms we greatly reduce even the need for patches at all....let alone the money and time it will take to redesign them.

b. Tradition....is not helped by grandfathering.

3. Okay.....but I would assume that if you are a stickler for following the lead of our parent service then you would follow their wear guidance.  Sure things can change.....but let's save some money and time....and wait and see.

4.  Not germain to the discussion?  What is this discussion all about?  You started it with saying that we needed to standardize our patches and follow the USAF model.  Why would we need to do that?  I can only assume it is because some how you feel our mismatched patches harms us in some way?  Otherwise you argument breaks down to "gee....I would just love it if our patches looked like the USAF." and nothing else.  As far as our uniforms go....you are wrong.  They provide a great benefit to our credibility (hench my desire to eliminate most of them...but that is another thread).  They also provide a point of pride, and sometimes actually serve a functional purpose.  Some degree of uniformity is very important....so everyone in the same unit should wear the same patch....but we are talking about making sure that my shield shaped squadron patched is the "same shape" as your round squadron patch.   I don't think that is all that important from a uniformity stand point.

I believe that CAP does need a standard for patches and that if you accept that (which not everybody does), then the logical place to start is with the standards used by our parent service.  I've said that I'm not wedded to the AF way of doing things and if CAP wanted to come up with something different, that woudl be fine by me. 

Why did I focus this thread on Wing patches?  Simple, it is very easy to look at all Wing patches while there is no way to really get a complete view of what all the hundreds of squadrons patches out there look like at any given time.  But, in looking at my own wing, about half the squadrons with patches would meet the AF standard now. 

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 10:48:25 PM
there is no way to really get a complete view of what all the hundreds of squadrons patches out there look like at any given time.

WHAT?!!  <err humm> I know you didn't forget about...
http://www.incountry.us/CAPPatches/   
Although, I can't guarentee which patches displayed are currently in use. But a patch no longer in use doesn't require replacing, and is really moot to this discussion anyway.

Also...
Col Bill Schell Jr, the National Archives Curator mentioned in 39-1, has finnally put together a book on all known patches below the wing level. It became "ready" this year, and I have a copy. However since new stuff is constently being discovered or created, it's an on going project and will require frequent addendums. Lt Col Charlie Weiss published a FANTASTIC book on all known CAWG patches earlier this year with LOTS of information.

Do only New Jersey and Illinois Wing have emblem design regulations currently? I have not ever addressed the issue in my wing, but I'm sure our current Wing/CC would be interested in this concept if presented. We (MN) are also one of the many wings that have made the choice to leave the wing shoulder patch on the utilities.

-Ace

I think ALL Wing Patches should have been removed by all members.  Unless Wings want to provide the patches free of cost to members who join their respective Wings, it is only an added cost, that is both unnecessary and takes away from the "one CAP" concept.  I also feel the same way about SQD patches, another added cost. 

Quote from: mikeylikey on July 18, 2008, 11:32:57 PM
both unnecessary and takes away from the "one CAP" concept.

I would think that standardizing emblems would move toward the "One CAP" concept. Whose concept was that anyway?

We're not quite the Men In Black here, showing one's home unit/wing on the BDUs is a Good thing! At a National Activity, it's like looking at all the different license plates to see where people came from.

-Ace

Quote from: alamrcn on July 18, 2008, 11:29:01 PM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 10:48:25 PM
there is no way to really get a complete view of what all the hundreds of squadrons patches out there look like at any given time.

WHAT?!!  <err humm> I know you didn't forget about...
http://www.incountry.us/CAPPatches/   
Although, I can't guarentee which patches displayed are currently in use. But a patch no longer in use doesn't require replacing, and is really moot to this discussion anyway.

You're right that it isn't complete nor necessarily accurate, but just for fun I did some random browsing of half a dozen wings and it is pretty clear that there is a huge amount of variation among squadron patch shapes.

As to other wings, I quoted Indiana wings supplement on the issue in the first post. 

FYI, here is the NJ wing supplement: http://www.njwg.cap.gov/regs/NJWG%20Supp%20CAPM%2039-1.pdf

Quote from: mikeylikey on July 18, 2008, 11:32:57 PM
I think ALL Wing Patches should have been removed by all members.  Unless Wings want to provide the patches free of cost to members who join their respective Wings, it is only an added cost, that is both unnecessary and takes away from the "one CAP" concept.  I also feel the same way about SQD patches, another added cost. 

That would be correct per CAPM 39-1, but also note that the patches were removed from the "required uniform"... everything else is optional... So they can buy you the BDUs or Field Uniform to go with 'em too.

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 10:48:25 PM
I believe that CAP does need a standard for patches and that if you accept that (which not everybody does)

Okay...let's start there.....why?  What value added do we get if we make my squadron patch the same shape as yours?

Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2008, 12:41:23 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 10:48:25 PM
I believe that CAP does need a standard for patches and that if you accept that (which not everybody does)

Okay...let's start there.....why?  What value added do we get if we make my squadron patch the same shape as yours?

Since it has been pointed out by others here that CAP is not the AF, I think standardizing patches is not needed.  Yes it would aesthetically be pleasing to see everyone in the same shape patch,  it is not a necessary agenda item.  Heck, almost every item in 39-1 can be modified by Commanders, thus taking away from uniformity on a MAJOR scale.  Until we establish uniformity guidelines for everyday items, lets not worry about patch shape, or size. 

I am a big supporter of following AF guidance on how CAP should operate, almost like we are a part of the AF, but there are those that are just as opposed.  We all have to meet in some middle ground and fight it out with "mind bullets" and name calling.   

Stock issue Evaluation of Redesigning Wing Patches to a Standard.

Solvency:  What problem is being solved?  Is it the idea that all the patches should be uniform or is it because of some need to mimic the USAF?  For the past 60 some years the USAF has made no issue of the Wing Patches and likely supported their existance as items that showed instantly that a CAP Officer was just that...a CAP Officer.  I give it 4 out of 10 points.

Harms: What disadvantages might arise from this plan?  I can see a noticable price in redesigning all 53 (50 States, Puerto Rico, National Capital and Overseas patch) that could extend into the hundreds of thousands of CAP volunteer dollars.  2 out of 10 points.

Inherency: Does this plan address something that already exists?  Yes, each Wing alrady has its own Wing Patch.  1 out of 10 points.

Topicality: Does this plan stay on topic?  What is the topic?  CAP Patches?  One CAP approach?  Solidarity with the USAF?  The main issues is somewhat ambiguous, but still we all know what we are talking about. 5 out of 10 points.

Significance:  Is this a significant matter to warrant change to the Status Quo?  No one is yet to prove that anyone in USAF is disgusted with CAP Wing Patches to warrant that they might effect USAF policy toward CAP.  Some might argue that Wing Patches (as optional item in many Wings limited to field uniforms where used and of less than frequent discussion at CAP meetings at most levels) are an insignificant issue when compared to other issues directly related to operations.  3 of 10 points.

Thus, 15 out of a possible 50 points by this method of analysis. 

Quote from: lordmonar on July 19, 2008, 12:41:23 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on July 18, 2008, 10:48:25 PM
I believe that CAP does need a standard for patches and that if you accept that (which not everybody does)

Okay...let's start there.....why?  What value added do we get if we make my squadron patch the same shape as yours?

If you don't believe uniformity doesn't need to extend down to that level, thats fine.  Personally, I find that uniformity tends to make things simpler for everybody.  

One might say that standardizing patch shape and design may make it easier for squadrons to come up with patches -- no arguing about shape since they know where they need to begin.  And, it may make it cheaper for them than if their squadron has come up with a very unusual design which is probably going to be more complex (probably not much cheaper since other factors play a big role in patch cost).  

Is this the most important uniformity of uniforms item that should be on the agenda?  Of course not.  But that doesn't mean that we can't talk about it anyway.  Besides, we've already talked about all that other stuff.

As to Carreles comments above, I've already addressed those concerns several time and see no reason to do so again.