Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 19, 2018, 12:01:48 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10

 1 
 on: Today at 11:51:29 AM 
Started by Color Guard Rifleman - Last post by TheSkyHornet
I'm starting to think that the military's bureaucracy is almost as bad as ours...

Oh no, CAP has NOTHING on the military bureaucracy. After all, the US military has had 242 years to perfect theirs.

243*

1775...

The United States didn't come into existence until July 4, 1776. You know, that declaration thing.

The Army recognizes their birthdate as 14 June 1775 as that is when the Continental Army was authorized enlistment of expert riflemen.  General Washington officially took command of the Continental Army on 03 July 1775, I believe. The Revolutionary War started April 19, 1775. Although the Congress of Confederation created the US Army on 03 June 1784 after the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

Interestingly, the National Guard recognizes their birthdate as 13 December 1636.  The Militia Act of 1792 recognizes this date as the official date for the "National Guard".  Although that the term National Guard did not come into existence until 1903, when it became nationally recognized.  Granted New York had their "National Guard" in 1824.   

https://history.army.mil/html/faq/birth.html
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/branches.html

My point is that The United States of America did not exist prior to July 4, 1776.

July 2*

 2 
 on: Today at 11:49:13 AM 
Started by Color Guard Rifleman - Last post by PHall
I'm starting to think that the military's bureaucracy is almost as bad as ours...

Oh no, CAP has NOTHING on the military bureaucracy. After all, the US military has had 242 years to perfect theirs.

243*

1775...

The United States didn't come into existence until July 4, 1776. You know, that declaration thing.

The Army recognizes their birthdate as 14 June 1775 as that is when the Continental Army was authorized enlistment of expert riflemen.  General Washington officially took command of the Continental Army on 03 July 1775, I believe. The Revolutionary War started April 19, 1775. Although the Congress of Confederation created the US Army on 03 June 1784 after the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

Interestingly, the National Guard recognizes their birthdate as 13 December 1636.  The Militia Act of 1792 recognizes this date as the official date for the "National Guard".  Although that the term National Guard did not come into existence until 1903, when it became nationally recognized.  Granted New York had their "National Guard" in 1824.   

https://history.army.mil/html/faq/birth.html
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/branches.html

My point is that The United States of America did not exist prior to July 4, 1776.

 3 
 on: Today at 11:41:07 AM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by Eclipse
I have not found that to be the case, and honestly couldn't tell you the last time I saw someone in a polo outside of CAP.  Most ES, Police, Fire, SAR, DR, etc... teams that I have come in contact with wear some type of brightly colored top with cargo pants. Usually a tshirt in summer and a bdu or similar top in spring and fall with a coat or turnout gear in winter. Many of the smaller fire departments and generally the more rural and less well funded, will wear jeans. I have seen some wearing a coverall/flight suit, but they are a minority. All wear a helmet of some type, the more professional units wearing teamwendy, petzl, etc.. and fire units usually wearing their bullard wildfire helmets on double duty.

In what context, and are you talking urban or rural.

Because in my parts, in the ICP, it's nothing but golf shirts and t-shirts on fire guys, and golf shirts or typical daily PD uniforms on the LEOs.
EMA managers and government officials are all golf, all the time unless they have a suit on for the cameras.

Even in the field it's mostly golf shirts or t-shirts.  Yes, tac pants and robust shoes if you're in the woods, but for the typical
day-to-day ops, it's golfs and t's.

CAP invests a lot of time and effort in equipping and training its members for missions for that it gets on a statistically zero
basis, while ignoring the day-to-reality of what it really does.

Members don't need battle-rattle to man a POD, or tromp in the woods for a few hours looking for a lost child.

In the few places those missions are more common, then use common sense.

 4 
 on: Today at 11:40:56 AM 
Started by Color Guard Rifleman - Last post by LSThiker
I'm starting to think that the military's bureaucracy is almost as bad as ours...

Oh no, CAP has NOTHING on the military bureaucracy. After all, the US military has had 242 years to perfect theirs.

243*

1775...

The United States didn't come into existence until July 4, 1776. You know, that declaration thing.

The Army recognizes their birthdate as 14 June 1775 as that is when the Continental Army was authorized enlistment of expert riflemen.  General Washington officially took command of the Continental Army on 03 July 1775, I believe. The Revolutionary War started April 19, 1775. Although the Congress of Confederation created the US Army on 03 June 1784 after the Continental Army was disbanded in 1783.

Interestingly, the National Guard recognizes their birthdate as 13 December 1636.  The Militia Act of 1792 recognizes this date as the official date for the "National Guard".  Although that the term National Guard did not come into existence until 1903, when it became nationally recognized.  Granted New York had their "National Guard" in 1824.   

https://history.army.mil/html/faq/birth.html
https://history.army.mil/html/faq/branches.html

 5 
 on: Today at 11:13:31 AM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by GroundHawg
A real service jacket for the corporate uniforms, not a security guard jacket.


Overall I agree with the idea of an actual service coat for the grey corporate (aviator) uniform.  A number of people over the years... have sometimes made the claim that it isn't absolutely necessary... since as a "corporate" uniform, it is not a military uniform... and therefore doesn't "need" a jacket.

My response to that is... take a look at the great number of corporations, airlines, and other pilot / aviation related organizations in the civilian world... and many of their pilots/personnel can be seen often wearing pilot/aviator "service type" of coat.  It is completely acceptable in the civilian world as well... and there is no doubt that it sends the message to the public... that your organization values professionalism and high standards.

Some people also point out that creating a service coat for the grey corporate (aviator) uniform would cost members extra money.  It seems like very few members would end up being forced to buy both... because the standards make it pretty clear which uniform a member should buy.  Depending on where each member falls in regards to height & weight / grooming standards... they should plan to purchase either the U.S. A. F. style blue service uniform, or the grey/white corporate aviator style service uniform. 

There always might end up being a smaller number of members... who decide on their own to purchase both, but for the most part that's their own decision.  The vast majority of members will usually fall into one category or the other.  Below is an example (just an example) from the Polish Air Force... that shows that a grey aviator type uniform can definitely work (not to mention all the grey service coats that almost certainly can be bought from civilian/commercial sellers of aviation uniforms).



Something ignored in the "We don't need it" argument is the demonstrable fact that at least 50% of the adult membership,
some of the most active members and the ones running much of the organizaiton, are not eligible to wear the USAF-Style
Service uniform, which leaves them with no alternative to be compared to their peers, including now being presented
decorations they aren't even allowed to wear.

Further to this many in that 50%+ wear blues anyway for "reasons".

You can't make an argument that the blues are "important" to affinity, recruiting, and appearance, and then deny those
same benefits to the very members holding up the corners, and not expect to be accused of hypocritical attitudes.

The uniform is either important, or it isn't.


Could not agree with this more.  :clap:

 6 
 on: Today at 11:07:17 AM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by GroundHawg
I disagree. I think having our senior wear USAF style uniforms are good especially in emergency situations, [SAR, disaster relief, etc.] That way wee all look like we are on the same team.

Except seniors aren't in the same uniform, there are actually five (5) field uniform variants right now, and most of the
world performs SAR in golfs shirts these days.

I have not found that to be the case, and honestly couldn't tell you the last time I saw someone in a polo outside of CAP.  Most ES, Police, Fire, SAR, DR, etc... teams that I have come in contact with wear some type of brightly colored top with cargo pants. Usually a tshirt in summer and a bdu or similar top in spring and fall with a coat or turnout gear in winter. Many of the smaller fire departments and generally the more rural and less well funded, will wear jeans. I have seen some wearing a coverall/flight suit, but they are a minority. All wear a helmet of some type, the more professional units wearing teamwendy, petzl, etc.. and fire units usually wearing their bullard wildfire helmets on double duty.

 7 
 on: Today at 10:55:15 AM 
Started by Color Guard Rifleman - Last post by PHall
I'm starting to think that the military's bureaucracy is almost as bad as ours...

Oh no, CAP has NOTHING on the military bureaucracy. After all, the US military has had 242 years to perfect theirs.

243*

1775...

The United States didn't come into existence until July 4, 1776. You know, that declaration thing.

 8 
 on: Today at 10:27:10 AM 
Started by Color Guard Rifleman - Last post by TheSkyHornet
I'm starting to think that the military's bureaucracy is almost as bad as ours...

Oh no, CAP has NOTHING on the military bureaucracy. After all, the US military has had 242 years to perfect theirs.

243*

1775...

 9 
 on: Today at 10:25:57 AM 
Started by Hawk200 - Last post by TheSkyHornet
I disagree. I think having our senior wear USAF style uniforms are good especially in emergency situations, [SAR, disaster relief, etc.] That way wee all look like we are on the same team.

Except seniors aren't in the same uniform, there are actually five (5) field uniform variants right now, and most of the
world performs SAR in golfs shirts these days.

I think there's an issue in breaking down what "SAR" is---SAR is a mission, not a functional task.

The person driving the van is most likely going to be in a golf shirt. The person out in the woods should be in fatigues. You should be in an appropriate tactical-style uniform that protects you from the elements of the environment in which you operate.

Having a number of uniform options isn't inappropriate. But they should be worn dependent on the conditions of the task. The one thing for certain is that a common set of fatigues is equally appropriate to field use and "office wear." But a short-sleeved polo really isn't appropriate in woodland or 'back country' which may require you to be able to clip things onto your blouse, utilize those fancy pockets, add an extra-thick layer of clothing, and keep your sleeves down.


All that said, this topic has turned into the usual 5 pages of challenging points.

 10 
 on: Today at 10:18:32 AM 
Started by lil_goat - Last post by TheSkyHornet
The origin of Sir:

Sir, Sir is a subservient word surviving from the old days of Serbia, when certain serfs to ignorant to remember their masters' names yet too servile to blasphemy them, circumvented the situation by surrogating the subservient word sir by which I now belatedly address a senior officer who correctly surmised that I am syrupy enough to say sir after everything I said sir!

The Google results are in, and they determined that answer is false.

"Sir" came from the Latin origin "Senior" which became "Sire" during the High Middle Ages.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
CAP Talk  |  Recent Posts


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.078 seconds with 20 queries.
click here to email me