Subdued Squadron Patches

[PhoenixRisen]

Ok, so some of you may have seen my post that I'm in he process of designing a new squadron patch.  I noticed from the other patch design thread that someone mentioned "subdued" patches.  Being that my unit has a "subdued" patch, this peaked my interest.

I didn't want to hijack the other two threads, so I figured I'd put up a new one.

What I'd like to know is, is it "kosher" within CAP (specifically CAWG) to have "subdued" unit patches for BDU's?

I would ask my unit commander, but in a previous question to him about the history of our patch, he informed me that was way, way before his time at our Sq, and he had no clue.  This leads me to believe that he wouldn't know about the subdued ones we're authorized, too.

Any help on this one?

[Eeyore]

My old Sq in SoCal had a subdued patch. I thought it looked pretty sharp.

[♠SARKID♠]

I'm lost, what do you mean by subdued?

[RiverAux]

I'm not sure that there is anything in CAP regulations that require squadron patches to be brightly colored even though all the other stuff on our uniform is. 

FYI, "subdued" usually means that the patch is primarily green, brown, and black -- in other words colors that won't stand out and get you shot in the jungle. 

[PhoenixRisen]

I'm lost, what do you mean by subdued?

vs. 

[Eeyore]

The only image I can find of my old squadron's patch is on their homepage, http://sq47.cawg.cap.gov/ it's a jumbo sized patch...in space.

[PhoenixRisen]

Like I said, I realize that there are subdued patches (as my squadron has one), what I'd like to know is, is this legal?  Or is there anything prohibiting it?

[mikeylikey]

I don't think anything prohibits it.  I wish more patches were subdued!

[lordmonar]

Squadron patches must be authorised by the wing king....and there is no rule against it.

Having said that....why subue it when all the rest of your patchs are in color?

[O-Rex]

If the unit insignia is actually in subdued colors, then there's no reason that the patch shouldn't be.

But if the unit insignia is full color and the patch subdued, I'd have to ask 'why?'

[alamrcn]

I'm lost, what do you mean by subdued?

To further the explanation...

A subdued insignia has colors that have been "translated" - meaning the original colors have been changed to a deeper or darker pigmented set of colors. There is actually a conversion chart, check it out:
http://www.usafpatches.com/palette.shtml

So to actually subdue an emblem, you must first create a normal (referred to as "bright") version, kinda what O-rex referred to. If you make the emblem and patch from the ground up with colors like flag blue, garnet red, black, spruce green, etc... I guess that isn't really a subdued insignia.

Here's my squadron's patch, we used a mixture of subdued-ish colors and brights:
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/mn/mn104c.jpg
You'll see two sets of colors, the four from the BDUs (which kinda makes that part blend in), and those from our previous patch (which really jump out).

The improtant thing is that your patch is professional (subjective) and represents those who wear it. As long as your squadron commander (1st) up to your wing commander (last) approve the design, you're golden - er, olive drab!

-Ace

[Hawk200]

A subdued insignia has colors that have been "translated" - meaning the original colors have been changed to a deeper or darker pigmented set of colors. There is actually a conversion chart, check it out: http://www.usafpatches.com/palette.shtml

That's an interesting page. I always kind wondered which colors translated to which as far as the subduing process went.

Another bit of info to throw in the mix: The  brighter colors have been referred to as "vivid" colors. Doesn't seem to be a common term as "subdued", but it's pretty descriptive.

[teesquared]

Hmmm. I still don't understand the need to subdue. We're not trying to hide from anybody. It's kinda like wearing camos - we're not doing it to hide, we're doing it because they're widely available and cheap. IMHO, I say go with the bright. It's one more distinctive element from the AF uniforms.

[Hawk200]

Hmmm. I still don't understand the need to subdue. We're not trying to hide from anybody. It's kinda like wearing camos - we're not doing it to hide, we're doing it because they're widely available and cheap. IMHO, I say go with the bright. It's one more distinctive element from the AF uniforms.

One patch subdued is not going to hide anyone (or anything). Some people like to do it so there is less color on our uniforms, kinda reducing the visual shock (at times it can be). In other cases, it's for the novelty. Some just like to do it because the Air Force does.

Even if you subdue the squadron patch, we still have plenty of other patches that are (very) bright. It's not going to make us invisible or anything.

[ddelaney103]

Subdued patches is another case of "we want to look more 'military'" wannabe-ism.

It doesn't matter that none of our other patches are subdued, or that (except for AFSOC) you don't wear subdued patches on your flight gear or that subdued patches look stupid on the BBDU/blue jumpsuit, some gotta have them.

They're the Service Caps of field gear.

[teesquared]

So it would seem.

[RogueLeader]

Subdued patches is another case of "we want to look more 'military'" wannabe-ism.

So there is no option for: I don't want to hurt my eyes with bright colors?  Seriously, full color patches look good on Blues, but horrid on utilities.  Just like ultramarine blue nametapes.

[DNall]

I wear the very minimum on my BDUs, not even wings & GBD badge as of right now, because I detest the color explosion. It looks like an outta control girl scout merit badge sash threw up on my uniform. I absolutely believe that's the most ridiculously unprofessional thing in the world. It's not about some wanna be need to feel like I'm in the military (which would be kind of pointless since I actually am), it's about an innate need not to look like a complete moron. YMMV

Because of this, I do highly favor a semi-subdued patch design. There's a couple older threads discussing that. You don't have to cammo out a patch. It looks better though if you tone the colors down - maroon for red, dark blue background versus royal blue, etc. It can be made to look very good with just a little thoughtful effort.

The point of a unit patch is to build cohesion & esprit de corps. You can do what you want, but I'm not wearing some bright crap, where I might consider something more conservative & understated.

[PhoenixRisen]

Subdued patches is another case of "we want to look more 'military'" wannabe-ism.

[Consdering I started the thread...] No, it's not (but thanks for calling me a wannabe, anyways...).  I would've figured wearing camo and combat boots would've covered the "wanting to look more military"...  Or wanting to look military period.  (Most "civilians" can't tell the difference between CAP and the military anyways.)

I'd like to be able to show squadron pride.  I can't do this in Blues, as you can't wear patches on them.  BDU's, you can.  Does it hurt that I'd like to show squadron pride, while at the same time, try NOT to further the multi-colored, clown-suit look that we already have on our BDU's?

[ddelaney103]

Unit patches should be simple, distinct and visible symbols of the unit.  Subdued patches are a compromise between visibility and tactical needs - needs that CAP doesn't have.  The patches on a flightsuit are bright because they're not operating under a tactical constraint, just like us.

Choosing a subdued patch is adopting a military choice when you aren't operating under their constraints: the mark of a wannabe.

further, putting a subdued patch on a uniform otherwise marked with full color insignia will make that patch disappear as the viewer looks for the high contrast everything else has.

A full color patch does not need to be garish, though it does need both contrasting colors and distinctive symbols in order to best distinguish the unit from other units.  A simple patch (not trying to display the unit's entire history, location and missions helps) can be used to ID unit members, equipment and otherwise provide "branding" for the unit without being garish.

[jimmydeanno]

I don't think it's so much "wannabe" military - but pure asthetics.

Why do people try to coordinate the color of their tie with the color of their shirt? (rhetorical)

I don't think that full color patches look good with BDUs either because of the color scheme already provided.  I think that asthetically speaking, the subdued patches on BDUs would look better because it wouldn't clash with the pattern and colors in the fabric - just like matching a tie.

On the BBDU, subdued may not look as good - depending on what colors you chose to incorporate.  So full color might be better to put on that.

People just don't want to look tacky - they want to look professional and put together.  To many, full color on BDUs looks tacky.

[RiverAux]

Anyone who has seen a fully tricked out set of BDUs with all possible patches attached will need a retina transplant.  You know, I'm glad DNALL is back with us as I've found myself agreeing with almost everthing hes said recently (in this and other threads, though this wasn't the norm back when he was more active here last year. 

[ddelaney103]

Anyone who has seen a fully tricked out set of BDUs with all possible patches attached will need a retina transplant. 

Then don't wear all possible patches.

If the only way you'll wear a unit patch is color it so no one can see it, don't wear it.

Since a BDU-style patch is going to look funny on flightsuits or BBDU's, should we have a sage based patch (like ACU's) and a blue based patch (like Stargate SG-1) as well?

[RiverAux]

I don't, but then again I'm in the minority of BDU-wearing folks where I am. 

[DNall]

Anyone who has seen a fully tricked out set of BDUs with all possible patches attached will need a retina transplant. 

Then don't wear all possible patches.

If the only way you'll wear a unit patch is color it so no one can see it, don't wear it.

Since a BDU-style patch is going to look funny on flightsuits or BBDU's, should we have a sage based patch (like ACU's) and a blue based patch (like Stargate SG-1) as well?

The transplant is more for those that have to look at it.

It doesn't look professional to our customer base. They either are the military or have experience dealing with the national guard & other military resources. They have expectations based on those experiences for what is & is not professional.

Regardless of how you feel about it, we ARE sponsored by the AF, w/ mil supervision/oversight, & subsidized training/equipment. We are an informal (civilian/volunteer) arm of the AF, regardless of the legal technicalities there to protect all sides from lawsuits. You cannot escape that, no matter what. And if that ever goes away, so will CAP.

Our customers see that, and they extend it to a false impression that we are trained & capable to military standards. That & only that is why we get any missions from anyone, ever.

You (meaning CAP) have a choice to either reinforce that impression or detract from it. From a purely asthetic perspective, it just looks stupid, and that's unprofessional.

As I said before, it's quite easy to go with something we refer to as semi-subdued. That is that it's not actually camo, but that it has no bright colors, but a darker color pallete. Dark blue, black, maroon used on a smartly designed patch all look fine on both BBDU or BDU, and both flt suits too if you insist on wearing them there (versus say the wg patch or something like AFRCC-SMC that you should be wearing).

You don't have to be all wanna-be about it, but it's equally bad to be want-not-to-be. We're a big tent organization of people with diverse opinions & motivations. If you're going to design a unit patch, which is supposed to be about bringing people together under one banner for esprit, then it might be best to find that compromise that lets everyone find a happy place.

[DNall]

You know, I'm glad DNALL is back with us as I've found myself agreeing with almost everthing hes said recently (in this and other threads, though this wasn't the norm back when he was more active here last year. 

And thanks there bud. I do what I can with my now limited time.

[DNall]

I just wanted to cover something real quick that was bothering me:

...Subdued patches are a compromise between visibility and tactical needs - needs that CAP doesn't have.  The patches on a flightsuit are bright because they're not operating under a tactical constraint, just like us.

Choosing a subdued patch is adopting a military choice when you aren't operating under their constraints: the mark of a wannabe...

In the Army we wear US flags on our ACUs. The US flag is worn on military uniforms while deployed in a multi-national coalition exlusively so you can tell who is on your side & who is not with all the wierd uniforms running around (cause flags are more easily recognizable than camo patterns). It has absolutely zero to do with patriotism & never has from WWI to ACUs.

The Army currently wears a full color flag on ACUs while in the US, and wears ACUs practically all the time (versus class Bs), for one reason & one reason only. That is to show solidarity with the deployed force, period. There is no tactical or practical reason for me to wear that thing, yet it's there.

If I then tell you I think CAP BDUs should have OD backgrounds for tapes/grade/badges (w/ wht/gry embroidery), semi-subdued (not necessarily camo'd out) patches, yada yada... because, it shows solidarity with the parent organization that pays for our: planes, vans, radios, operational & developmental training, provides supervision/oversight, mgmt support, logistics/supply, the bulk of our missions, facilities support, etc etc.

Where has that logic failed? Why is it innately better to diverge from them just because it's possible? Why not the opposite?

[ddelaney103]

We are wearing the colors and bright patches worn by the AF on fatigues before the AF went camo.  The AF, not us, has decided to leave us in this coloration.

Further, we have corporate uniforms that are blue based because the AF decided some of our members can't wear the AF suit.

If we change the uniform, whatever changes we make should be usable across both uniforms and will need to be approved by the AF.  Wearing a subdued unit patch seems a way to edge around the system instead of changing the system.

[DNall]

CAP was in trouble with AF when we moved to BDUs. We got moved from blue to maroon grade slides soon thereafter.

AF's never said they wanted us to keep the full color stuff, and certainly not so much of it. They just said we shouldn't use tapes just like theirs cause the blue lettering on OD background in combination with normal officer grade made for potentially a bad misrecognition situation.

What a lot of SDFs do is OD backgrounds with color embroidery. If you ask around the AF (including leadership), that's prefered to what CAP looks like now.

Far as the ht/wt standards. There didn't used to be any. Then the AF created some for what it took to be a uniformed representative of the AF, and that included CAP. They allowed a 10% buffer so we wouldn't have to force out too many members. That wasn't good enough for CAP, so we created a seperate group of "uniforms." Those "uniforms" were actually completely civilian attire that could not be associated with the military or the AF in any way. Our modern corporate-style uniforms are actually uniforms and do become representative of the AF in appearance. That's really come about in just the last few years. It's not unreasonable to believe that at some point in the future they'll have a bit of a backlash to that. I don't believe we need to push anyone out over the issue, that's silly, but we do need to udnerstand we are part of the AF team & have to represent them, including in professional appearance.

[JayT]

What a lot of SDFs do is OD backgrounds with color embroidery. If you ask around the AF (including leadership), that's prefered to what CAP looks like now.

Who?

[Eclipse]

...we do need to understand we are part of the AF team & have to represent them, including in professional appearance.

Projecting a "professional appearance" has very little to do with height / weight tables and much more to do with attitude, fit, and configuration.

One only needs to look to most of the other auxiliaries, cadet organizations, and similar to see that people who are reasonably fit, but not mil-spec are perfectly capable of serving their country as needed on a part-time >FREE< basis.

[jeders]

One also only need look at some of our own members who don't know how to wear there own uniforms to see that the uniform doesn't make the man. Even if they are perfectly fit and clean shaved, they can still look unprofessional by having non-reverse reflective American Flag Patch and sideways oak leaves.

[ddelaney103]

Quick reality check here: AF-style uniforms are controlled by the AF and we can't change them w/o permission.

The MD Defense Forces (our SDF) wears gold on black tapes and full color patches on their BDU's.  Does that make them less professional than an SDF with OD tapes?

If the AF has a preference for our AF-style uniforms, they can just direct a change like they did with the maroon epaulets.

Finally, if you "ask around the AF," you're most likely to get "The Civil Air What?"

[RiverAux]

As has been mentioned, there is nothing that requires unit patches to be bright-colored -- entirely up to the discretion of the Wing Commander. 

[mikeylikey]

The MD Defense Forces (our SDF) wears gold on black tapes and full color patches on their BDU's. 

I know very little about Maryland, but aren't your state colors Black and Gold?  Like on your Flag??  Could that be the reason for the nametape and branch tape colors?

[ddelaney103]

The MD Defense Forces (our SDF) wears gold on black tapes and full color patches on their BDU's. 

I know very little about Maryland, but aren't your state colors Black and Gold?  Like on your Flag??  Could that be the reason for the nametape and branch tape colors?

Quite so - I was just pointing out that there were choices other than "look tactical" when picking colors.

[DNall]

...we do need to understand we are part of the AF team & have to represent them, including in professional appearance.

Projecting a "professional appearance" has very little to do with height / weight tables and much more to do with attitude, fit, and configuration.

One only needs to look to most of the other auxiliaries, cadet organizations, and similar to see that people who are reasonably fit, but not mil-spec are perfectly capable of serving their country as needed on a part-time >FREE< basis.

Yes, I agree. I'm not slamming on ht/wt tables. I do wish they'd lax up there a bit (body fat %), but that's not my call. Obviously there's some point where it gets out of hand & a line must be drawn in the sand. That's always going to seem arbitrary & discriminatory to some people, no matter where it is.

What I was responding to was a statement that sounded like the AF is victimizing us with these unreasonable standards. AF isn't doing this TO us. They set a standard for who is allowed to represent them in uniform. CAP then takes it on ourselves to reject that as a membership standard - I'm not saying we should or shouldn't do that, just that we do - and create our own alternative outside the AF's control. Just don't blame the AF for your woes. CAP does all this to ourselves.

Quick reality check here: AF-style uniforms are controlled by the AF and we can't change them w/o permission.

The MD Defense Forces (our SDF) wears gold on black tapes and full color patches on their BDU's.  Does that make them less professional than an SDF with OD tapes?

If the AF has a preference for our AF-style uniforms, they can just direct a change like they did with the maroon epaulets.

Finally, if you "ask around the AF," you're most likely to get "The Civil Air What?"

Of course AF permission is require. If you follow what I've said in other threads, you'll see me sayng we should voluntarily grant AF the same authority over the rest of our uniform items. It wouldn't be a legal requirement, but it would help resolve a lot of issues.

I'm aware of what MDDF wears. A couple SDFs use blk on OD, the large majority use color embroidery on OD. I may be mistaken, but I believe all are going to blk on digi when they get switched to ACUs. I think that came down from Army/NGB, but I'm not sure. I just know what they're doing here & a couple other places. SDFs vary widely in quality & relationship w/ their parent states & NG. That tends to be reflected in such uniform items. So yes, I am saying it reflects greatly on professionalism.

And, yes if you ask around the AF, most people will say "civil air who." If you then explain to them it's the uniformed aux... AFAMs... walking around in public, ealing w/ state/fed agencies... AF sent me... then they're going to look real hard at that color explosion uniform, swallow the little bit of puke back down, & walk away thinking about when their ETS date is. Or, maybe they'll just tell you what they think.

[alamrcn]

Jeez, some of you are like polititians who have to let their entire uniform platform be known on EVERY little uniform subject. We've already read your agruemnts in dozens of other threds, now get out from behind the podium and get back to the actual subject of "Subdued Squadron Patches".

Creating a dark or muted patch is NOT NOT NOT a subdued patch! You would have to first create a full color, vivid, rainbow bright color patch. THEN, you'ld have to make a darker, less bold version - i.e. SUBDUING the original patch.

If a squadron chooses to use the colors of maroon, olive, brown, black, etc to best represent them on their patch - that's fine, and they are NOT wanna-bes. A darker patch is just as good, no better nor worse, than the squaadron using day-glow orange in it's emblem. The only caviate to this is that there has to be a reason and enplanztion for the colors chosen. The "matching tie" analogy was perfect. If a matter of astetics leads a designer to choose one color over another, that's a perfectly good reason to make that choice.

So, until there are regulations at whatever level within your CoC restricting or focusing your unit's patch designing, do whatever in common sense that your unit feels best will represent them in emblem form.

Have fun designing it, be proud wearing it!

-Ace

[ddelaney103]

Creating a dark or muted patch is NOT NOT NOT a subdued patch! You would have to first create a full color, vivid, rainbow bright color patch. THEN, you'ld have to make a darker, less bold version - i.e. SUBDUING the original patch.

Please, don't whiz on my leg and call it rain.

Subdued patches are patches where color substitutions have been made to reduce contrast and make it more tactical.  Swapping the word "choices" for "substitutions" above doesn't change the end result - a more tactical patch.  "Subdued" refers to the relationship between the colors on the patch just as much as to the substitution method.

If a squadron chooses to use the colors of maroon, olive, brown, black, etc to best represent them on their patch - that's fine, and they are NOT wanna-bes. A darker patch is just as good, no better nor worse, than the squaadron using day-glow orange in it's emblem. The only caviate to this is that there has to be a reason and enplanztion for the colors chosen. The "matching tie" analogy was perfect. If a matter of astetics leads a designer to choose one color over another, that's a perfectly good reason to make that choice.

AF Heraldry (http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/heraldry/chapter_three.html) is pretty clear on the subject of color in design.  It advocates both the classic colors of historical heraldry and the importance of contrast in design:

A rule of thumb when assigning color to design elements is to use colors that contrast: dark on light, light on dark. Heraldry divides colors into metals -- gold (yellows) and silver (white, silver gray) -- and colors (reds, blues, greens). The cardinal rule of heraldry is no metal on metal and no color on color.

Now, of course, we don't have to follow their rules, but they do make the intent pretty clear: they expect the design of a patch to be clear and distinctive, which requires contrast.

The fact that our uniforms follow a older version of AF color scheme doesn't make us unprofessional - or at least the SAC Elite Guard didn't think so:



Now, you may disagree and you can petition for changes from the AF, but you have to accept that creating "low contrast patches" is an end run around the system to make the BDU wearers happy.

[DNall]

And just because a uniform is camoflauged doesn't make it a tactical uniform. It is a general utility uniform worn in all cases where the standard service uniform (blues) is not appropriate for the work.

Only a VERY small portion of the military, and most certainly the AF, is involved in ground combat, and a small porportion of that activity would benefit from any kind of camoflauge. It could just as easily be argued that we should put combatants in a highly identifiable uniform so we could tell who our guys are at a glance. Or, that since it's such a small number of people that need camo, that they should get it while everyone else uses a non-camo uniform (like BBDUs).

However, the military chooses not to do that. A big part of that reasoning is to make the wearers back home understand that they are part of the same force as the people putting rounds downrange and that such combat activity doesn't happen w/o everyone in the force doing their part. (ie the ACUs & flag on them item above)

I would argue to you, that CAP is also part of that total force. That is that in doing our ES mission, we save the AF literally millions upon millions of dollars - enough over our history to pay for the F22 program from R&D through final purchase - that is redirected back into the combat force.

Another reason the military puts each person in the same util uniform (BDUs) is economies of scale. It's just cheaper to make on kind of uniform instead of dif ones for every situation. Don't tell me about MARPAT/ACU/ABU/etc. That defies all logic & is a huge moronic waste of money, especially dif colored boots.

Likewise in CAP, we benefit from that same economies of scale. It makes the items less expensive on the market, and it more accessible through surplus.

Because of all that, among other things, I do believe it's highly appropriate for us to be in BDUs, and that they reflect the same (if you want to call it tactical then that's fine) sort of appearance that is expected on a military uniform. Anything else is a distraction to others because it's outside their expectations. If you need or want to wear BBDUs then you're welcome to do that. I got no problem making a patch that looks equally good on both uniforms, and doing so is by no means an "end run" of any sort.