Wing Patches and AF Heraldry standards

[RiverAux]

Okay, so we know that CAP does not have any national standards for Wing, Group, or Squadron patches.  Some here have argued that we should either adopt by reference the AF standards (summarized here: http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/heraldry/heraldry.html ) or come up with something on our own in an attempt to standardize them to some extent. 

So, I was wondering how many CAP wing patches would meet the current AF standards if we adopted them.  Basically, AF wing patches use a shield shape (like the CAP command patch).  So, I went to Vanguard to look at the current patches and here is what I found:

Would you be surprised to learn that there isn't a single CAP wing that currently has a patch appropriate for a Wing level organization?  While there are a handful of Wings with something that is shield-shaped, none of them were exactly the right type of shield.  The predominant shape is the round shape appropriate for squadrons (according to AF standards).

So, if we went to the AF standards, or something very similar, we would find all our Wings out of compliance.  Personally, I bet all existing patches would be "grandfathered", and that only if a Wing wanted to change their patch would they have to meet the standard.  So, we would probably be stuck with "non-standard" patches for decades. 

Now, down at the squadron level I think we would see change more quickly.  Since they seem much more likely to make changes (because they ran out of the old patches or they never had one before, or at least not in recent memory), we would probably see most of them start to come into compliance sooner. 

[Major Carrales]

I think this is a bit of a non-issue. 

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, there is not any mandate to do so.  I suspect there never will be since CAP tradition and USAF tradition, while linked by the Auxiliary status, are rooted in very different traditions.

First off, the nature of the CAP's inception and creation of the Wings, local traditions going back to the 1940s mean that many of these patches are historical markers in their own sense.

Now, how and why would standardization of these patches benefit the units beyond extra cost? 

If you wanted a case of the famous MAJOR CARRALES hyperbole...I could see the perfect standardization of CAP Wing Patches to be like the Florida model with the CAP National "Cookie" with a rocker of the state's name.  Imagine that.

All the above is respectully submitted to spur debate and discussion.

[RiverAux]

As I said, I expect existing patches to be grandfathered in so extra cost wouldn't be an issue.  Just for reference, the AF would treat it differently -- they would require the patches to be changed to meet new standards.

Personally, I think having some standards is important to avoid getting more comic book characters and other just plain goofy patches being approved.  At the Wing level, I don't see this as much of a problem since they don't change very often anyway. 

I'm not quite as hung up on the shape of the patch, but it was an easy thing to research.  If I were to start a thread about which wing patches wouldn't meet my "goofiness" standards, that would be something else.   

But, if we were to adopt any sort of standrards for new patches, I don't see any reason for not adopting the AF way of doing things as long as we're writing a reg (or adopting their's by reference). 

[Major Carrales]

As the Commander of a Unit that has a patch with a so called "Comic Book" character on it I respectfully disagree. 

A few points, if I may, you expect existing patches to be grandfathered in so extra cost wouldn't be an issue.  Do you expect any new States or Commonwealths to be added to the Union?  If not, then your plan lacks solvency issues.  There is no significant reason, such as a mandate from the USAF or pressing matter, to do so.  It may harm tradition and it presents an issue of inherency in that the existing patches currrently exist and are in wear.

If the standards you set are your own, I will grant you your opinion.  I will also grant you that if there is to be a standard, then the USAF one is preferred.

[ThorntonOL]

If I remember right some of the goofy cartoony patchs have been around for quite a while, an have a histroy to them as Major Carrales said.

[RiverAux]

The primary reason for standards is for squadron patches.  As I said, they seem to change or new ones come into existence much more frequently and that is the area most patch-related discussions on this board have focused on.  I was just bringing the Wing patch situation to light as an interesting (to me) side note.  

Now that I think about it, changing Wing patches would probably be the easiest thing to do.  Think about it -- for squadron patches the squadron has to go through all the trouble of ordering them special made, but Wing patches are all made by Vanguard (or at least ordered by them).  Its not like Minnesota Wing has to send a shipment off to Vanguard to sell every year.

So, if we wanted to require Wings to meet the new standards, all you would have to do is set a deadline for the Wings to come up with a new design, have them send that design to Vanguard, and then say that after a certain date the only patches being sold would be the new ones.  Let all the patches currently sewn on uniforms be worn until no longer servicable.  This would get most of the old patches out of circulation within 5-10 years.  You could set a phase-out date for the old patches, but I wouldn't prefer it (cost/time and trouble issue).  

I certainly wouldn't require all squadrons with existing patches to change them to meet the standard since that would put a big burden and some cost directly on the squadrons.  And, lets face it, not all squadrons have the artistic or technical ability to come up with new designs anyway.  They just might not have the talent at any given time to do so.  So, I would let them keep the old ones and say that if you want to change anything, you'll need to also need to meet the new standard when you do so.  

[mikeylikey]

[RiverAux]

That isn't what Vanguard is picturing on their web site.  http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_402_404&products_id=7164

So, not my fault (always blame Vanguard when you can!)

But, its nice to know at least one would work.

[AlphaSigOU]

If the current USAF heraldic standard were applied to historic emblems, you'd see something like this (this is ONLY a comparison, though):

Historic 8th Air Force emblem:


Current 8th Air Force emblem:


Many of the traditional CAP wing patches would probably retain their design with minor changes to make them fit the shield shape; for the more unusually-shaped patches, retaining the traditional shape within the shield wouldn't be too difficult.

[mikeylikey]

The round wing patches are a throwback to the Army.  Anyway, in my opinion, Wing Patches have no place on the AF-style ANYTHING uniform.  The National Commander needs to update the policy letter, stating "Remove all wing patches, and they are no longer an optional item to be mandated by the wing Commanders".

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".  

   

[MIKE]

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, ...

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

[AlphaSigOU]

The round wing patches are a throwback to the Army.  Anyway, in my opinion, Wing Patches have no place on the AF-style ANYTHING uniform.  The National Commander needs to update the policy letter, stating "Remove all wing patches, and they are no longer an optional item to be mandated by the wing Commanders".

However, there will be a guaranteed revolt by certain wing kings (and queens) if that ever happened. "They'll pry the wing patch off my cold, dead left shoulder!"

[Major Carrales]

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

In terms of the rethoric here, most people of consequence support the USAF guideline; however we run into a rather strange happenstance.

1) most on here are not on the "committee" that produces the patches or the like and has no say in the matter.

2) Most are proud of their local patch designed locally and sometime with lots of tradition, so they have a sort of "Janus" view where they want a patch that conformes to the USAF but they also want their patch and its tradition to continue.

3) The cost of producing a new design is somewhat less than in the budget and most houses offering the service offer only certain shapes.  Custom is a bit more than people are willing to pay.

[Hawk200]

I think on ABU's you can wear 1 Occupational badge and wings.

Current message on the ABU says this:

"11. AERONAUTICAL, CHAPLAIN, AND OCCUPATIONAL BADGES AND REQUIRED DUTY SHIELDS ARE AUTHORIZED. OCCUPATIONAL BADGES ARE OPTIONAL. OTHER BADGES ARE NOT AUTHORIZED. AFI 36-2903, TABLE 5.2, NOTE 5, APPLIES TO THE ABU: A MAXIMUM OF THREE BADGES CAN BE WORN, WITH A MAXIMUM OF TWO ABOVE THE US AIR FORCE TAPE ON THE LEFT SIDE. A THIRD BADGE MAY BE WORN IF AUTHORIZED FOR PLACEMENT ON THE LEFT BREAST POCKET. THERE IS NO BADGE, PATCH OR INSIGNIA AUTHORIZED FOR WEAR ON THE RIGHT POCKET."

The practice of a badge only, or a badge and a wing went away when McPeak left. Allegedly, when McPeak was asked why only aircrew were allowed more than one, he supposedly said that those not aircrew didn't have any need to display a prior career field. (Note that I did say allegedly). The practice was discontinued when Fogleman took office.

With the current -2903, two sets of wings may actually be worn. From Table 5-2, Note 2 says: " When more than 1 aeronautical or space badge is worn, the second badge becomes optional."

As far as patches go, there are many people that have stated "We are not the Air Force". I think that a few patches would be fine, especially wing on one pocket, unit on the other, and a third "personal award" patch over the nametape. We need to keep stuff off sleeves, except NCO stripes. Wearing patches would differentiate us from the Air Force. Done tastefully (IOW no garish colors), it would look fine.

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, ...

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

I'd have to agree. There are a lot of units that have AF Heraldy type shapes, but I wouldn't agree with most.

[RiverAux]

1) most on here are not on the "committee" that produces the patches or the like and has no say in the matter.

If having any actual authority to order or recommend any change was a pre-requisite, not much would be discussed on CAP-Talk at all. 

[Major Carrales]

1) most on here are not on the "committee" that produces the patches or the like and has no say in the matter.

If having any actual authority to order or recommend any change was a pre-requisite, not much would be discussed on CAP-Talk at all. 

I'm talking about authority in the unit. 

For example, many who post here are not in their Squadron's commander. 

In fact, and this is not meant to be an insult to anyone, but one might conjecture that some people who might express certain things on certain matters on these forums likely do so because they are not in position in their sphere to change those things.  That is simply human nature. 

Thus, a person who might spout "out here" that all patches should conform to the standards, likely is in a unit where they could not make that a reality. Who knows, its possible.

That is a conjectural construct to prove the point, however, not being in a position to implement one's agenda is a fact of life in lots of circles.

[RiverAux]

I think you're making a big assumption there that is beside the point anyway.  As it stands now, squadrons, groups, or wings can design their patch the way they want and the only opinion that matters is that of the Wing Commander and they are under no obligation to follow AF standards, as I said at the beginning of the thread.  Though, I think I recall hearing that some wings do have heraldry standards that the Wing Commander would have to take into account (though he could change them too if he wanted). 

[Major Carrales]

I think you're making a big assumption there that is beside the point anyway. 

Yes, that was a big assumption.  I made it on purpose to highlight what migth be true with many.  It was not directed at anyone, but likely pretains to some.

Fact is, if you were a member of a unit that had a patch, and you wanted to make it conform to the mentioned standards, and the unit command and other CAP Officers were against the change...you would have little say, recourse nor chance of making your agenda (making the patch conform) come to frution.

[RiverAux]

If your wing has heraldry rules, please post them here for examples:

Here is Indiana Wing:http://inwg.cap.gov/Wing/Sections/Admin/Supplements/CAPM39-1,%20Sup%201.pdf

NOTES:
3. (ADDED) Organizations need visible symbols in the form of emblems to promote esprit de corps, morale, and a sense of heritage. New organizational emblems approved by the Indiana Wing Commander must meet the following requirements effective 1 Jul 07:
a. Eligibility. Groups and squadrons may have organizational emblems and mottoes. If a group or squadron uses or displays an emblem designed after 1 July 07, it must meet the following standards.
b. Approval Process: Units will submit an approval memorandum, through channels, for the Wing Commander's signature with a color picture file of the proposed unit emblem attached. An explanation of the symbolism of the patch should also be provided.
c. Form:
1) Groups: Group emblems will be displayed on a shield (see figure to the right). A group will put its designation or an approved motto on the scroll below the shield.
2) Squadrons: Squadron emblems will be displayed on a roundel (see figure to the right). A squadron will put its designation on a scroll below the disc and a motto, if one exists, on the scroll above the disk.
d. Heraldry. Designers are encouraged to look for Air Force heraldry
guidance at http://afhra.maxwell.af.mil/heraldry/heraldry.html.
Emblem designs and mottoes must:
* Reflect favorably on Indiana Wing, Civil Air Patrol, the United States Air Force, and the United States of America.
* Be original, distinctive, dignified, and in good taste (non-controversial).
* Emblems should include the Air Force colors of blue and gold and/or the Civil Air Patrol colors of red, white and blue. Total colors should generally not exceed three for the emblem.
* Emblems should typically include two or three design elements. Designers are reminded that clarity of design is important in helping others identify the unit emblem

IL Wing has an entire supplement: http://ilcap.org/ilsups/ILWGP1.pdf which seems to contain an exact copy of the AF heraldry web page I cited in the opening post. 

[Eclipse]

While most people here are keen on making sure their Unit patches conform to USAF Heraldy standards, ...

If the patch thread(s) are any example... I'd have to strongly disagree with that statement.

I agree, the only time people want to conform is if it doesn't mean they have to redesign theirs.

My wing currently has two patches - a "wing patch" which does not meet the guidelines, but would fall under the
"historical"allowances, and a command shield, recently adopted, for wear only by those on Wing staff as their "unit insignia".

IL Wing has an entire supplement: http://ilcap.org/ilsups/ILWGP1.pdf which seems to contain an exact copy of the AF heraldry web page I cited in the opening post. 

All units in ILWG creating new insignia are now held to the guidelines, and units with non-standard shapes and insignia are encouraged to consider redesigns.  I will take a chunk or credit on this as before we did our shield they had no idea there even >were< guidelines.

The supplement also includes an authoritative listing of all the heralds approved in the wing, which serves as authorization to wear it on the utility and flight suit as an option on the right shoulder.  You'd be amazed how many units never bothered to have their insignias reviewed and approved, which did cause some gnashing for a few.

[RiverAux]

The fact that Illinois has a general wing patch and also one for their wing headquarters element (separate from the wing headquarters squadron, informally known as the ghost squadron in most wings) brings up an interesting point:

Am I right to assume that in the Air Force, that if you were a member of the 999th Bomb Polishing Squadron which was a unit within the 999th Bomber Wing (or whatever they're called today), you would probably be wearing only the patch of the Squadron and only those on the 999th Bomber Wing staff would wear the Wing patch? 

If that is how it is done in the AF (correct me if I'm wrong), then in CAP the "correct" thing to do would be to eliminate the wear of the wing patch on the sleeve entirely (which we've almost done) and only allow the wear of the squadron patch by most members and the Wing patch only by wing staff members with placement being on the breast pocket for either of them.

 

[Eclipse]

Everyone in Illinois is a member of ILWG, not everyone in Illinois is on Wing Staff.

I don't see a particular issue with this, especially in light of the fact that ILWG has left the wing patch optional.

[Major Carrales]

If that is how it is done in the AF (correct me if I'm wrong), then in CAP the "correct" thing to do would be to eliminate the wear of the wing patch on the sleeve entirely (which we've almost done) and only allow the wear of the squadron patch by most members and the Wing patch only by wing staff members with placement being on the breast pocket for either of them.

The thing is that CAP is not like the USAF in its structure.  CAP is divided into Wings and Regions in an almost "States Rights" situation.  There is no "correct" correlation in that matter.  Unless CAP's structure too moved to match the USAF, there is no "correct" designation in this manner.

I will agree on the wear of Squadron patches.

[mikeylikey]

.......... especially in light of the fact that ILWG has left the wing patch optional.

That is why ILWG is AWESOME!

[Eclipse]

.......... especially in light of the fact that ILWG has left the wing patch optional.

That is why ILWG is AWESOME!

Yeah, buddy!

[JC004]

That isn't what Vanguard is picturing on their web site.  http://www.vanguardmil.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=6_390_402_404&products_id=7164

So, not my fault (always blame Vanguard when you can!)

But, its nice to know at least one would work.

Mikey's pictures, WHICH HE IS LOADING OFF MY SERVER AND USING MY BANDWIDTH, is the PAWG shield, which is worn by the wing HQ personnel, attached to the pocket of the BDU/Blueberry Uniform.

[RiverAux]

The thing is that CAP is not like the USAF in its structure.  CAP is divided into Wings and Regions in an almost "States Rights" situation.  There is no "correct" correlation in that matter.  Unless CAP's structure too moved to match the USAF, there is no "correct" designation in this manner.

Well, that is true to some extent.  But as long as we're using the squadron, group, and wing terminology we have to accept some of the consequences of that.  We have argued before about whether CAP Wings are really squadrons and that CAP squadrons are really flights, but thats beside the point here. 

[Major Carrales]

The thing is that CAP is not like the USAF in its structure.  CAP is divided into Wings and Regions in an almost "States Rights" situation.  There is no "correct" correlation in that matter.  Unless CAP's structure too moved to match the USAF, there is no "correct" designation in this manner.

Well, that is true to some extent.  But as long as we're using the squadron, group, and wing terminology we have to accept some of the consequences of that.  We have argued before about whether CAP Wings are really squadrons and that CAP squadrons are really flights, but thats beside the point here. 

You do realize that you are in the Civil Air Patrol, and that the Civil Air Patrol...in accordance with CAP policy and by its definitions in modern times, Civil Air Patrol uses Flights, Squadrons (Local), Group (Aministrative), Wing (State), Region (Sections of the Nation) and National Model?  The terms are defined by CAP, not USAF.  A Squadron in the USAF is not and will never be equal to a CAP Squadron.

Don't draw false conclusions from the terminology.  A squadron, by the same logic, should be a collection of fighting ships in a Naval arrangement.  Your main fallacy is using USAF terminology to define a CAP concept...apples and oranges.

[RiverAux]

So, somehow when CAP was formed they magically happened to chose the same names for their units as the Army Air Corps used for its units?  That there is no relationship at all?  Give me a break.   

These are not "CAP concepts".  They are Army/Air Force concepts that we adapted for our use when we were formed.  And at the time, they probably made even more sense since each CAP squadron was bringing multiple planes (privately owned) rather than the 1 corporate plane they typically have today.   The CAP Wing isn't really all that different than a state Air National Guard headquarters, though each of them probably has 1 or 2 wings underneath them.   

[RickFranz]

Let me see if I have this right.  The Wing patch in the form of a shield would be worn on the right pocket, unless there is a Squadron patch in the form of a disc.  Then the Squadron patch would take precedents over the Wing patch.  Is that it? 

[Eclipse]

Let me see if I have this right.  The Wing patch in the form of a shield would be worn on the right pocket, unless there is a Squadron patch in the form of a disc.  Then the Squadron patch would take precedents over the Wing patch.  Is that it? 

Wait, are you asking about regular wing patches? 

They are NEVER worn on the right breast pocket, regardless of whether a unit has an insignia or not.  The only place Wing patches are worn is the left shoulder of the BDU's, or the right shoulder of the flightsuit(s) and utilities.  In the majority of states, the wear is optional.

If you look on Vanguard, you will see what is currently approved for each state as the general membership wing patch.  It appears that the insignias some states have adopted as their wing staffers' "unit" insignia are not shown, which is probably fine, since the rank and file in a respective state can't wear them anyway.

[Major Carrales]

So, somehow when CAP was formed they magically happened to chose the same names for their units as the Army Air Corps used for its units?  That there is no relationship at all?  Give me a break.   

These are not "CAP concepts".  They are Army/Air Force concepts that we adapted for our use when we were formed.  And at the time, they probably made even more sense since each CAP squadron was bringing multiple planes (privately owned) rather than the 1 corporate plane they typically have today.   The CAP Wing isn't really all that different than a state Air National Guard headquarters, though each of them probably has 1 or 2 wings underneath them.   

Ho mummm...the way those terms are used in CAP have a special unique meaning in Civil Air Patrol.  it matter little the origin, much like I don't expect a squadron to have to form into a "square" because that might be the origin of the term.

The way we use the term squadron very much is a CAP concept.  Your second paragraph agrues against your point.  Under no circumstance are there other WINGS underneath the State Level.  CAP Wings have little in common with a State Air National Guard HQ, this contention of your is negated by the fact that there are Region and a National Level for them to answer to.

If I may be so bold, when talking about how CAP is structured it is often best to "keep it within the realm of CAP."  The relationships with other organizations you are drawing are not equal.

[Eclipse]

I agree, while many states treat ES quals and operations on basically a state level, many do not, and the entirety of the rest of the administrivia is distributed through lower echelons.

The majority of guard and reservist units have single points of meeting / training / operations within the state and the members are expected to travel there.  CAP, on the other hand, by design, is distributed throughout a given state for the practicality of a volunteer force serving the local community.

[BillB]

RiverAux, sorry to correct you, but the designations used by CAP that follow the Army Air Corp designations was not selected by CAP.  The numerical designations for Wings follwed the Army Air Corp numbers for the Army's administrative sysytem. Thus a CAP Wing in the Forth Air Corp area carried the first number 4, followed by a Wing designation, usuaully 1 thru 8. Thus Florida being in the 4th Air Corp district became 4-1. CAP Region bounderies also followed the USAAC numbered Corps bounderies.
CAP did start the Squiadron designation to match the USAAC concepts, but remember, most of the CAP members were World War 1 veterans and that came naturally.

[lordmonar]

Would you be surprised to learn that there isn't a single CAP wing that currently has a patch appropriate for a Wing level organization?  While there are a handful of Wings with something that is shield-shaped, none of them were exactly the right type of shield.  The predominant shape is the round shape appropriate for squadrons (according to AF standards).

The new NVWG patch is a standard USAF shield shaped patch.

[Ned]

Would you be surprised to learn that there isn't a single CAP wing that currently has a patch appropriate for a Wing level organization?  While there are a handful of Wings with something that is shield-shaped, none of them were exactly the right type of shield.  The predominant shape is the round shape appropriate for squadrons (according to AF standards).

The USAF is a newer organization than CAP, and it cannot be all that surprising that our insignia do not meet the standards of our sister organization.

After all, the USAF made up their rules long after we had developed the majority of our wing patches.

While there is no comparable CAP Institute of Heraldry, perhaps we should be asking why those USAF guys broke with our tradition and started making up all sorts of new-fangled and largely unnecessary rules when they could simply have followed our examples?

Ned Lee

[lordmonar]

Well there is the practical side of things as well.

Last December were rechartered from a cadet squadron to a composite squadron.

We got about 500+ squadron patches on hand that means we will have to eat about $750+ of merchandise and still put out another $750 to change a single word on our patches.

So I as CC ordered that we will still use the old patches until they are used up.  My guess is that it will be about 2-3 years before we use up the remaining patches.

If we suddenly implement a nation wide standard for patchs.....how much money will be wasted on this simply cosmetic change?

For my unit it will be a $750 direct loss (more like $1500 as we charge twice the unit price as a fund raiser).

Add to this.....the possiblity that we may just loose the patches all together when/if we switch to ABUs.

I agree that this is really a non-issue.  We can look at it again once we move to the ABUs.

[RickFranz]

Let me see if I have this right.  The Wing patch in the form of a shield would be worn on the right pocket, unless there is a Squadron patch in the form of a disc.  Then the Squadron patch would take precedents over the Wing patch.  Is that it? 

Wait, are you asking about regular wing patches? 

They are NEVER worn on the right breast pocket, regardless of whether a unit has an insignia or not.  The only place Wing patches are worn is the left shoulder of the BDU's, or the right shoulder of the flightsuit(s) and utilities.  In the majority of states, the wear is optional.

If you look on Vanguard, you will see what is currently approved for each state as the general membership wing patch.  It appears that the insignias some states have adopted as their wing staffers' "unit" insignia are not shown, which is probably fine, since the rank and file in a respective state can't wear them anyway.

My point is if we follow the Air Force, we would have no Wing Patches on our left shoulder.  I understand, but then we would wear a Command/Wing patch on the right pocket.  Unless you had a squadron patch which would take the Command/Wing patches place.  If we are going to follow the Air Force.  Then all wing patches would have to meet your new crest design.

[RickFranz]

^ The point is with the new ABU we will wear no patches, I guess???  So why is there such a big push on to get all of these patches to fit on something we will not even be able to wear them on?

Unless you use the designs on a Squadron t shirt or something.

[Eclipse]

Squadron insignias are worn and used in a lot more places than (optionally) on the left BDU shoulder.

Flightsuits and utility suits.

Unit t-shirts (as you mentioned)

Unit ball caps.

Unit PT gear.

Challenge coins.

Letterhead.

Web sites.

Facility signage.

Not to mention "affinitywear" like golf shirts, etc., which are not for operational wear but can be worn to work, etc.

[RickFranz]

^ point taken.

[RiverAux]

I'll say it again, if CAP were to adopt its own standards, whether or not they were based on the Air Force way of doing things, I fully anticipate all existing patches would be grandfathered in and that compliance would come gradually over time.  That being said, I think Wing patches COULD be made to come into compliance faster with no cost to members if that is what would be desired -- I think it unlikely though. 

By the way, the Air Force is not CAP's sister service.  It is our parent service.  If you want to get technical, they are are "adoptive" parents....

[Eclipse]

I'll say it again, if CAP were to adopt its own standards, whether or not they were based on the Air Force way of doing things, I fully anticipate all existing patches would be grandfathered in and that compliance would come gradually over time.

I agree, and I think this is basically what is happening today by default in the wings where attention is being paif to the USAF guidelines.  I don't see why a separate standard is needed, just adopt the USAF one.

That being said, I think Wing patches COULD be made to come into compliance faster with no cost to members if that is what would be desired -- I think it unlikely though. 

How?  Unless you're counting on the "optional" clause and members simply stop wearing them. 

My Wing has about 1200 members.  A decently rendered patch is at least $3-4 these days plus setup.

At "no cost" would require buying me 6-7 patches for the uniforms I am eligible to wear it on, but even if you assume that on average each member has two uniforms for the patch, that's between $3-6k per wing, or about $150,000-$300,000 for the whole org depending on the number of states.

That's a lot of gas money for patches, just to make the point that everyone is standards compliant.

I'm all for drawing the line, saying "from this day forward" and moving on.  Of course anyone could voluntarily redesign and front the cost themselves, etc.

[RiverAux]

Please see my post earlier in the thread to see how Wing patches could be changed at no member cost. 

Incidentally, while I think having some standard is necessary, I'm not totally wedded to the AF way of doing things.  I think it makes the most sense to adopt what they've got rather than re-inventing the wheel, but wouldn't fall on my sword to avoid something different.  For example, one might say that CAP wing patches are already about 90% standardized to a round patch, so why change them?  I could live with that so long as the non-standard ones get changed in some sort of reasonable process over time. 

[alamrcn]

Well, I suppose I should eventually say something here.
But first, let's let the ABU/ACU discussion from THIS particular thread go. Most everyone is aware that it's highly likely we'll go there someday. And we know that the change will dramatically change uniform badges and patches as we know them now. But for the sake of THIS discussion, let's just speak of patches at all levels, as unit emblems used for many purposes... OK?

Now, on Wing Patches...

Our shoulder patches are essentially "divisional" patches, designed for wear on the Army uniform. Look at the other shoulder patches from the same era (WWII-Korea) and they have no standardization of shape, size, or content.

Air Corps shoulder patches weren't far off from the other Army patches, however a trend of a blue disk did appear - maybe because they were designed all at once and not because of a regulation, I don't know. Although well known, it is usually forgotten in these discussions that our first [national] shoulder patch wasn't even Air Corps, it was Civil Defense.

Even as the first unit emblems were painted on the planes and jackets of Coastal Patrol Bases, state-level emblems started to emerge as well. Perhaps this was the most defined echelon of the infant organization at the time.

So what or who should change?

Well, I'm not really for or against this idea. I just like to sit back and observe and appreciate the history that we make. But what I think RiverAux is getting at makes sense...

Many wings have altered or completely changed their wing patches since the very first design - some more than a couple times. Simply setting a National-level heraldic standard for all FUTURE changes of wing/region level insignia, is not going to effect anyones budget anymore than it would had their not been a standard in place. So what is now, can stay - and anything new follows the new rules.

And the same for squadrons. If your unit comes up with a NEW design, the Wing CC has to make sure it follows the new rules. If your unit already has an approved design, they can keep the exact same emblem going and also reorder as further quantity is needed... Just no changes, or it will have to adapt to the standards.

The big issue on the table is Time... Cost vs. Uniformity

If deadlines and phaseouts are put in place, members will have to spend money before they would have naturally had to if there were no changes. If a "grandfather" clause is used, it would be a LOOONG time before we start to all wear the same thing. I see no solution that would please everyone.

While a new heraldry standard like this is possible, it's really not probable unless a future National CC makes it his/her pet project.... And we know how THAT sort of thing has played out in recent CAP history!

-Ace

For those who haven't found it yet...
http://www.incountry.us/CAPPatches/

[RiverAux]

Another approach that could be taken in regards to the Wing patches would be to just sort of ignore them since they may or may not be worn in some states depending on the whims of the commander and since they are basically standardized now.  But, we could require that any Wing staff patches (such as pictured for PA earlier) meet the AF heraldry standards for wings and have the shield shape). 

[Major Carrales]

Another approach that could be taken in regards to the Wing patches would be to just sort of ignore them since they may or may not be worn in some states depending on the whims of the commander and since they are basically standardized now.  But, we could require that any Wing staff patches (such as pictured for PA earlier) meet the AF heraldry standards for wings and have the shield shape). 

Now you're cookin' with gas!!!  I think that is the best idea on the matter to date.  I can tell you that Texas Wing as one such Wing Staff shield as do many other Wings!!!

[Eclipse]

works for me, where do I sign?

[afgeo4]

Why is this thread even around? When we get the ABU, we won't wear patches on it, just like USAF.

[jeders]

Why is this thread even around? When we get the ABU, we won't wear patches on it, just like USAF.

Because these patches are often also used for...

Squadron insignias are worn and used in a lot more places than (optionally) on the left BDU shoulder.

Flightsuits and utility suits.

Unit t-shirts (as you mentioned)

Unit ball caps.

Unit PT gear.

Challenge coins.

Letterhead.

Web sites.

Facility signage.

Not to mention "affinitywear" like golf shirts, etc., which are not for operational wear but can be worn to work, etc.

So I would say it's still a valid topic. The whole Aux On/Aux Off discussion aside, I think that adopting AF Heraldry standards and guidelines in this manner ...

Another approach that could be taken in regards to the Wing patches would be to just sort of ignore them since they may or may not be worn in some states depending on the whims of the commander and since they are basically standardized now.  But, we could require that any Wing staff patches (such as pictured for PA earlier) meet the AF heraldry standards for wings and have the shield shape). 

... would be great. Also the original replace by attrition idea for lower echelon units such as flights and squadrons sounds good as it doesn't put any great immediate financial burden on most people.

[RiverAux]

Why is this thread even around? When we get the ABU, we won't wear patches on it, just like USAF.

Big assumption.  Also, keep in mind that wing and squadron patches are worn on other uniforms that will probably continue to be in existence -- BBDUs, flight suit, utility uniform.

[Eclipse]

Why is this thread even around? When we get the ABU, we won't wear patches on it, just like USAF.

When did this become an ABU thread?  This is regarding heraldry and patches, where they are worn is actually
irrelevant to the discussion.

Assuming we are ever approved for the ABU:

It will be a phase-in with sundowns, so we'll likely have members wearing woodland camo well into the middle of
next decade.

Assuming no change in grooming standard, a significant percentage of members will still be in Blue field uniforms
indefinitely.

Wing insignia are worn on flight suits and utilities, not to mention all the other places a unit herald is used.

And with all the above said, I'll make the following bet: The first taker with a different opinion a VERY NICE steak dinner that once the ABU is approved, at a minimum the following will continue to be worn, in full bright colors.

Nametapes - white on ultramarine
Unit patches on right breast pocket
Optional patch on left breast pocket
Wing patch on left shoulder (optional in most states).

The only two rules:

Both the winner and I have to be still in CAP when the uniform is approved.
The winner comes to my area for dinner.
(If I win, I will come to your area for the dinner).

First Come, First makes the bet, I'll exchange contact info via PM with whomever accepts.

[Major Carrales]

Why is this thread even around? When we get the ABU, we won't wear patches on it, just like USAF.

Why would it be that it is so certain that the wear of the ABU will be without patches?  It seems to be, based on how we wear the BDU compared to the USAF that..."anything goes!"  Don't be suprised if the USAF were to mandate the wear of such patches and insignia to "highlight the Difference between CAP and USAF."

I just had to chime in with that...unpopular with the lot as that it, don't count it out.

It is my opinion that the Wing patches will be gone in the next generation of CAP Officers.  What I envision happening is that Wing after Wing stops their usage until only one of two have them.  The designs will likely continue for "morale" reasons until they pass into historical obscurity...turning up on e-bay from time to time.  

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that the wing patch removal was part of a larger plan to "nationalize" CAP that has been almost entirely reversed.  I don't see them coming back on the light blue shirts, but fully expect them to come back into their own on BDUs at some point. 

[alamrcn]

It is my opinion that the Wing patches will be gone in the next generation of CAP Officers.

Might be right. I was OK with them being removed from the AF blue uniforms - has JROTC done the same?

What I've said on other threads about Wing Patches, is if they continue to stick around that they become a "default" right breast pocket patch, unless replaced by a more immediate unit patch like group or squadron. This would be a simple change, but an important step away from our Army history (and divisional shoulder patches) and toward being able to closely follow some USAF heraldry design and older uniform location standards.

Would addressing these heraldry standards fall under CAPM 39-1 since we're mostly referring to patches, or CAPR 10-1 as emblem usage? I would think the later, however there is one other option...

Simply educate the masses through the Historian Specialty Track pamphlets. If this topic is something that Col Len and Lt Col Jim are interested in, it could be added to those periodicals to at least approach emblem design and heraldry. Purely for informative purposes, yes, but an official CAP document from the National-level nonetheless.

-Ace

[wacapgh]

Because these patches are often also used for...

Squadron insignias are worn and used in a lot more places than (optionally) on the left BDU shoulder.

Flightsuits and utility suits.

<snip>

Possibly another entry for the "Myths" section on CadetStuff.

CAPM 39-1 23 MARCH 2005 Table 6-4 , item 10: Organizational (Unit)Patch
embroidered centered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU or field uniform shirt or BDU or dark blue field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket. (See note 2.)

Note 2 is that a sample patch be sent to NHQ historian for file.

This is not a recent change, checking a copy of CAPM 39-1 dated 1 JULY 1997 Table 5-3, item 11:
Organizational (Unit) Emblems
Embroidered Centered on the lower portion of the right breast pocket of BDU shirt or field jacket between left and right edges and bottom of flap and pocket. May also be worn on right sleeve of jumpsuit.

In both versions, the manuals specifically mention "flightsuit" when a patch is authorized for wear on the flightsuit uniforms only (CAP Command Patch), several uniforms "BDU/field uniform and flightsuit" (ES Patch), and only with "BDU/field uniform" (Communications, Model Rocketry).

Going back at least a decade, the only uniform where a Unit Patch could have been worn on the shoulder was the CAP Jumpsuit  a.k.a. "Smurf Suit"

[Eclipse]

I am actually not even sure what you're trying to say above, but I can assure the regs support wearing an approved unit insignia in the following places:

Right breast pocket of Camo and blue BDUs.

Right shoulder or the flight suit and utility jumpsuit when approved as an optional insignia by the wing commander (which I can assure you mine is in the published supplement).

[NIN]

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.

[wacapgh]

The original suggestion was that wing patches should meet the USAF design standards. It was then expanded to include Unit (Squadron and Wing HQ) designs as well, and discussion of how many uniforms and cost to the members.

This is a national level proposal, and I was referencening the current national regulations.

A few years ago when we had wing patches on almost every uniform shirt, jacket or coat, this would have a lot bigger impact. At the national level we have reduced the number of uniforms where the patch can be worn and it's further lreduced by not being worn in all wings, so it might be feasable to adopt the guidelines without a huge impact on the members.

With 8 regions, 52 wings, and over 1000 units, I'm not going to attempt to cover any policies or suppliments that have been published below the national level

[mikeylikey]

Almost on topic.......where is the Hawk MTN Special Activity patch worn?  Breast Pocket, right?!?!  Why do people in PAWG who have been to hawk wear the Hawk patch in place of the wing patch on the shoulder while those that have not been to hawk are required to wear the wing patch there?!?!

Is this (or has this) happened in any other wings??  Or is PAWG just so jacked up beyond belief? 

Why can't Wing Commanders follow the rules???  Is there a letter from the National Commander or a National supplement that allows Wing Commanders to replace Wing Patches on the shoulder with whatever patch they want?  Is this a violation of 39-1?? 

[RiverAux]

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.

[PHall]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[RiverAux]

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.

[Tubacap]

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?

[RiverAux]

straying a bit....

[lordmonar]

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.

[Eclipse]

Sounds about right, where do I sign?

[RiverAux]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[RiverAux]

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. 

[alamrcn]

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

[mikeylikey]

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. 

[alamrcn]

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

[RiverAux]

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

[MIKE]

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.

[lordmonar]

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?

[mikeylikey]

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.   

[Major Carrales]

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. 

[RiverAux]

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. 

[MIKE]

Just get rid of the [darn] things.  There, done.