Quote from: CyBorg on August 18, 2014, 07:53:17 PM
I just looked at them on VG's site.

Really, I think having the "CAP" on them is a bit redundant and detracts from the overall attractiveness of the insignia.

If it would have simply had the full-colour triangle/prop in the centre...a little more work, maybe, but could not be mistaken for the AF.



Of course, it would likely not meet the criteria for "distinctiveness" for someone viewing a satellite image of a hi-res zoom-in on a CAP NCO's arm...

I think it looks fine and it removes the need for CAP cutouts on the collar. It's definitely better than the alternatives: gray chevrons for the service uniform and ultramarine ones for the BDU.

To perhaps add fuel to the fires over insignia, in my conversation with Vanguard's general manager, one big issue is the lack of detailed specifics on CAP insignia. Without information on the specific pantone numbers for colors, exact type of materials to use, etc. Vanguard resorts to best educated guesses to fulfill CAP requests. Granted, this information may be woefully inaccurate, but it is what I received direct from the company's head at the conference.

Regarding the stripes, the thread and colors used are identical to what the USAF uses for its enlisted stripes. I think they are quite sharp, IMHO.

Quote from: MisterCD on August 18, 2014, 08:09:16 PM
To perhaps add fuel to the fires over insignia, in my conversation with Vanguard's general manager, one big issue is the lack of detailed specifics on CAP insignia. Without information on the specific pantone numbers for colors, exact type of materials to use, etc. Vanguard resorts to best educated guesses to fulfill CAP requests. Granted, this information may be woefully inaccurate, but it is what I received direct from the company's head at the conference.

Isn't this what many of have been saying for quite a while now?

Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2014, 08:14:25 PM
Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

In this case, wouldn't it be the same shade of blue/silver as AF chevrons?

The only differences are the tri-prop design and "CAP" designator.

Which red, which blue, and is it white or silver?

Then there's consistency.   With no spec, it might be one thread density and color one run,
a different one the next time because something "close" was already in the machine.

Or perhaps the prototypes are run using the more expensive color, and then the regular production
is on the cheaper one.

How about stitches / threads per inch?  Ever seen some of those anemic nametapes VG has made in the past?

Details, details.

Quote from: CyBorg on August 18, 2014, 09:27:58 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2014, 08:14:25 PM
Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

In this case, wouldn't it be the same shade of blue/silver as AF chevrons?

The only differences are the tri-prop design and "CAP" designator.

The AF chevrons haven't been blue/silver for a number of years now. They're blue/white.

Quote from: PHall on August 18, 2014, 11:55:20 PM

Quote from: CyBorg on August 18, 2014, 09:27:58 PM

Quote from: Eclipse on August 18, 2014, 08:14:25 PM
Accuracy is a two-way street.

Absent the spec, you ask for the spec, you don't guess...

In this case, wouldn't it be the same shade of blue/silver as AF chevrons?

The only differences are the tri-prop design and "CAP" designator.

Speaking of, someone posted in another thread about the airman/airman first/senior airman stripes with the blue star as opposed to the white. I'll post the pics when I get back to the phone they are on.

The AF chevrons haven't been blue/silver for a number of years now. They're blue/white.

This is how I remember the chevrons (obviously, I am using metal examples):


Airman (E-2)


Airman 1st Class (E-3)


Senior Airman (E-4)


Sergeant (E-4)


Staff Sergeant (E-5)


Technical Sergeant (E-6)


Master Sergeant (E-7)


Senior Master Sergeant (E-8)


Chief Master Sergeant (E-9)

Of course, there were also the various diamonds attached for First Shirts.

To me, this grade structure worked fine...one of the goofiest things the AF ever did was go straight from SrA to SSgt.

There have been many changes to AF Enlisted grade over the years since 1947.
I personally went through three of them during the time I served (1974 - 2005).

We should change to these chevrons instead. When cadets or NCOs promote we could say "Chevron X locked!"

Quote from: CyBorg on August 19, 2014, 02:22:36 PM
To me, this grade structure worked fine...one of the goofiest things the AF ever did was go straight from SrA to SSgt.

I imagine there was always friction from the Army and Marines over the original structure, with Air Force E-4s being Sergeants while Army NCO E-4s and Marine E-4s were Corporals.  Corporals probably resented calling Air Force E-4s "Sergeant".

The Air Force probably eliminated the rank of Sergeant (E-4) to be more in line with the other services (Army, Marine Corps) where Sergeant is E-5. They could've renamed the rank to corporal, but it really makes no difference. It also eliminates unneeded complexities. A SrA who has completed ALS can still be a supervisor. An experienced SrA can also perform the duties of MTI, MTL, Tech School Instructor, etc. The elimination of Sgt (E-4) did not affect the Air Force in any negative way. Even the Army promotes most Specialists (E-4) to Sergeant (E-5), skipping Corporal (E-4).

The only people I know that find the change odd are those who served prior to this change, which occurred over two decades old ago. Prior to 1967, when the Air Force had the ranks of Airman Third Class and Second Class, an Airman First Class was an E-4. It wasn't until 1967 that Airman First Class was rename Sergeant (E-4) and Airman Second Class was renamed to Airman First Class (E-3). The split of E-4 into SrA and Sgt didn't occur until 1975. I bet some found those changes "goofy" at the time.

^^Point taken - in fact, my uncle served under one of the early AF rank structures.  A3C, A2C, A1C...in fact, all the AF's rank structures over the years have been a bit wonky compared to the other services, though of course the Coast Guard's is identical to the Navy.

It seems to me that I remember hearing that SrA's are only allowed to be MTI's now if they've already graduated ALS...but I cannot confirm that.  I would be all in favour of that.  My MTI was a SrA and only slightly above playground bully on the maturity curve...I am not inclined to really respect anyone who cannot complete a sentence without dropping a permutation of the "F" bomb.  All I really learnt from him is how to stay under his radar...he was not an "instructor" at all.  MTL and Tech School Instructor I think would be better than having SrA's as MTI's.

To me, the way that the Army has Corporal/Specialist is a bit inane.  My dad was one of the earliest Specialists (back then the Specialist grades went all the way up to SP9).  He told me that back then it was intended to be kind of an enlisted version of a warrant officer, where a troop could just be a "specialist" in their MOS and not have to worry about NCO responsibility.  Of course, now it's not that way at all.  "Specialist" is the exception, not the rule.  I have met very, very few "hard-stripe" Army Corporals but loads of Specialists.

In fact, very briefly, the Army flirted with the rank of Lance Corporal (1965-1968).

I just find it strange that the Army and Marines have "buck sergeants" but the AF doesn't.

The USAF eliminated the E-4 NCO because a) most of them were not doing NCO work.  b) The few who were, were being held to a higher standard, doing more work....but getting paid the same as the SrA.  C) It was a "give away" rank.  No competition, no quotas, just get your five level, go to NCO Prep, 4 years TIG and congratulations you are an NCO.

The idea was to make you compete for the NCO title.

I get why they got rid of E-4 Sergeant...but why not make it Sgt. E-5, like the other services?

Quote from: ZigZag911 on August 19, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
I get why they got rid of E-4 Sergeant...but why not make it Sgt. E-5, like the other services?

a) We are not the other services.  b) you would be "demoting" all those SSgts.  c) the transition phase had a long lead in time...so what do you do with all those E-4 Sgts who never made SSgt?   

It was just easiest to just say "after 1 Jan 19XY no more promotions to Sgt" and be done with it.

Don't forget the whole back and forth over the white/subdued star on the USAF stripes too.

Quote from: Salty on August 19, 2014, 11:17:44 PM
Don't forget the whole back and forth over the white/subdued star on the USAF stripes too.

I knew quite a few NCO's who were rubbed the wrong way by that when the rank structure was redone.

Quote from: Storm Chaser on August 19, 2014, 04:56:33 PM
Even the Army promotes most Specialists (E-4) to Sergeant (E-5), skipping Corporal (E-4).

Back when I was in the Army, we had one Corporal in the entire barracks building.  Every other E-4 (myself included) was a Specialist.