I can't tell from reading CAPM 39-1 if a tie bar or tie tack is required if a tie is worn with cadet blues. Also, can the tie be "tucked" into the shirt like CAP cadets did in the 60s and 70s?
Quote from: williamcabot on August 16, 2006, 12:16:07 AM
I can't tell from reading CAPM 39-1 if a tie bar or tie tack is required if a tie is worn with cadet blues.
Quote from: CAPM 39-1 Figure 2-6.8. Tie Tack or Bar: Center tie tack or tie bar (silver metallic with CAP crest, Air Force coat of arms or
Wing and Star/Hap Arnold design) between bottom edge of knot and bottom (tip) of tie, if tie is worn.
Quote from: williamcabot on August 16, 2006, 12:16:07 AMAlso, can the tie be "tucked" into the shirt like CAP cadets did in the 60s and 70s?
No.
Quote from: MIKE on August 16, 2006, 02:59:33 AM
Quote from: williamcabot on August 16, 2006, 12:16:07 AMAlso, can the tie be "tucked" into the shirt like CAP cadets did in the 60s and 70s?
No.
Alright, Mike, I hate being
that guy, but why? I don't see any reason that, if I wanted to, I could tuck in my tie.
(As for the rest of your answer, yes... :) )
Well, going along with the idea that you can't do something unless a directive says you can, the current CAPM 39-1 says nothing about tucking in your tie. The 15 Jan 68 edition did address that issue, limiting it to specific combinations.
I think you found a loophole ;D
Just a comment: no opinion either way.
In most cases, in the military, when people tucked their ties in there was a practical reason to do it, especially before the development of a "field uniform". For example, in the WWII era the Army wore a uniform with a tie, but obviously the tie would have been combersome in a battlefield scenario so they tucked them in their shirts to get them out of the way. I doubt it was published as an exceptable practice in any regulation.
Journalist, office workers, and teletypists would tuck in their tie to prevent them from getting caught in the typewriters of the era. Obviously, infantry, truck drivers and machinery operaters just wanted to get them out of the way. It also makes it harder for the enemy to find something to grab onto in close combat.
The "style", as with many military practices, spilled over into the CAP and through our heritage we continued to practice it. After the development of field uniform there was little need to tuck in the tie, as you normally only wore a tie with your service uniform, or what the Army likes to call Class-Bs, or your service dress, Army's Class-As.
Unless you are going to be out tromping in the woods at practice missions in your blues, I can't see any reason to tuck it in besides making a fashion statement. If you are going to use this loophole, be ready to field scrutiny and questions. Be ready to reference your supporting documentation.
Quote from: ncc1912 on October 02, 2006, 01:51:17 PM
I doubt it was published as an exceptable practice in any regulation.
I believe it was required, for the US Army during the WWII era. Have a couple books on US Army uniforms of that time.
Quote from: ncc1912 on October 02, 2006, 01:51:17 PM
Unless you are going to be out tromping in the woods at practice missions in your blues, I can't see any reason to tuck it in besides making a fashion statement. If you are going to use this loophole, be ready to field scrutiny and questions. Be ready to reference your supporting documentation.
Would be a good practice while eating soup, eggs and other sundry wet/messy foods. (They actually taught us to do it in Navy Bootcamp in '82)
Quote from: sixgunjoe on October 01, 2006, 02:53:10 AM
I think you found a loophole ;D
What loophole? The practice was specifically authorized in 1968. THere is no such authorization in the 1987, 1997, or 2005 editions of CAPM 39-1. Am I missing something here?