Why the dislike for the Wing patch?

[carnold1836]

First I want to say I am glad the wing patch came off of the blues. However, why does it seem that most people have a great deal of dislike for it on the BDUs? Same goes with sqdn or group patch. I can see people's dislike of the ES patch, personally I like the T-34 over the dog any day if I had to wear one and I do.

Just curious, no flames please, I bruise easy. 

[mmouw]

I think that most everyone wants our BDUs to look more Air Force like and they think no patches. The AF BDUs have up to three patches that could potentially be worn. That doesn't include badges. I think that on CAP BDUs, if you have blue and white on it screams for more. Once you have seen what they look like with the patches, it looks bare with out.

[RiverAux]

Unit patches are a fine, longstanding military tradition and I think they're fine for BDUs.  Didn't like them on the blues at all though. 

Its odd that we're getting rid of probably the most justifiable patch on the uniform and keeping a bunch of others that REALLY clutter things up.

[Major_Chuck]

I'm really okay with the Wing patch being on the BDU's or any other field uniform.  However I did not like them on the Blues at all.

The problem I have with patches on BDU's is that they should be either subdued on the camo ones or blue/white on the blue field uniform.  The whole Ronald McDonald Mickey Mouse Club look of multi colors is tacky.

[Pylon]

I have a Wing patch on my BDUs now.

But if I buy a new set of BDUs, I probably won't sew one on.  Why?  One less thing for me to buy, one less thing to try and get sewn on right.  I'm all for simplicity when it comes to our uniforms.  I understand the wing patches have a long history within our organization.  It's nothing against the wing patches themselves. In fact, if I didn't have to put the flag on, I wouldn't sew that on either.  I'd much prefer the 'slick sleeves' look.

I volunteer for this, and buy my uniforms out of my own pocket, so in my opinion I'd much rather opt for less whenever practical.  Heck, I don't even wear wings or badges on my BDUs.

[DogCollar]

I have a Wing patch on my BDUs now.

But if I buy a new set of BDUs, I probably won't sew one on.  Why?  One less thing for me to buy, one less thing to try and get sewn on right.  I'm all for simplicity when it comes to our uniforms.  I understand the wing patches have a long history within our organization.  It's nothing against the wing patches themselves. In fact, if I didn't have to put the flag on, I wouldn't sew that on either.  I'd much prefer the 'slick sleeves' look.

I volunteer for this, and buy my uniforms out of my own pocket, so in my opinion I'd much rather opt for less whenever practical.  Heck, I don't even wear wings or badges on my BDUs.

I agree 100%.  Simple, clean, classic...more "uniformity", less distinctiveness.  Just my opinion.

[LtCol White]

The blues look much better without the wing patch. The prob most have with patches on the BDU's is the rainbow of colors that is created. Combine this with members who fill every blank space with some sort of patch on their BDU's and you get a cluttered, cartoon look that isnt very professional.  Patches shoudl really be limited to Wing, Group, Squadron patches.

Our image is a big part of our relationship that needs mending with USAF. Appearance is a HUGE part of this. In this case, less is more. If our uniforms follow closer to USAF guidelines, this will help.

Having USAF's response to seeing CAP personnel on base  as "WTF is that?" when they see a walking patch display does not promote professional image.

[A.Member]

First I want to say I am glad the wing patch came off of the blues. However, why does it seem that most people have a great deal of dislike for it on the BDUs? Same goes with sqdn or group patch. I can see people's dislike of the ES patch, personally I like the T-34 over the dog any day if I had to wear one and I do.

Just curious, no flames please, I bruise easy. 

Well, to be frank, I don't like the "Boy Scouts" look.  I'm not interested in having a ton patches plastered all over my shirts - especially when they are every color in the rainbow.  As other posters have stated, it looks tacky.

As soon as the requirement for a Wing patch was rescinded, I removed it from my BDU's.  IMO, aside from the name tapes and rank, the only thing that should be worn on the BDU's are the specialty badges.  If our patches were subdued, I might be open to wearing one or two - but they're not.

[fyrfitrmedic]

 Like I said in another thread - simplicity is its own elegance.

It's not just the wing patch; it's the whole array of garish and gaudy patches that violate any heraldic sensibilities and make the CAP uniform look too much like a BSA uniform run amok.

[JohnKachenmeister]

My problem:

"Do as I say, not as I do."

If you want to develop a squadron or group patch, most wings require, as they should, that you meet USAF heraldry standards.

Do ANY of the wing patches, however, meet USAF heraldry standards?  There might be one or two, maybe.  I don't think so, though.

[MIKE]

Rather than have wings or units require wear of an optional patch, it would have been better just to phase them out over time.

[DNall]

The reason they were cut back is we've been functionng as 52 seperate little CAPs & no one could tell a Wing CC what to do cause they elect everyone above them in the chain & have total authority over their state & its distinctive set of laws. Well, that got way out of control. CAP is a national organization. We have no choice but to recognize states beause of varriable state laws, but that doesn't mean we need to encourage or tolerate sectarian thinking by having unneeded patches that just cost people money.

I think you'll find the biggest complaint it that bright full-color anything looks incredibly stupid, childish, & unprofessional on BDUs, and more is worse than less. If they were subdued to semi-subdued to very understated & worn according the current AF system then people would be more accepting, not happy, but accepting. As it is it just looks clownish & damages everything from recruiting & retention to credibility on missions - the broader profrssional image issue does anyway & this is a big part of a key factor in it.

[flight dispatcher]

My 2 cents:

I see nothing wrong with the Wing Patch on the AF BDU's or BBDU's. Nothing wrong with showing pride in which Wing you belong to.

[Hawk200]

The reason they were cut back is we've been functionng as 52 seperate little CAPs...

To me it seems like replacing the wing patch with a flag would have made this a little clearer, but they didn't. They removed wing patches and added the flag in a different place. If the mandate had been to remove the wing patch, and place the flag in the same position, it probably would have been a little more accepted.

Plus, you could just use flightsuit flag stock, instead of using a flag configuration that is now heavily associated with the Army. When the Air Force wore flags on BDUs/DCUs it was traditionally worn on the left shoulder anyway(at least it was when I was active AF).

I think you'll find the biggest complaint it that bright full-color anything looks incredibly stupid, childish, & unprofessional on BDUs, and more is worse than less. If they were subdued to semi-subdued to very understated & worn according the current AF system then people would be more accepting, not happy, but accepting. As it is it just looks clownish & damages everything from recruiting & retention to credibility on missions - the broader profrssional image issue does anyway & this is a big part of a key factor in it.

I've thought about this, and it makes sense to me. Seems like we should focus on producing patches with semi-subdued colors. Instead of red, use maroon. Instead of white, use tan or a mocha color, even gray if suitable. For blue colors, use navy blue. Bright greens should be replaced with something more the color of pine. Use darker yellows, burnt yellow or darker golds. Even orange colors can be darkened a good bit. And of course, our nametapes and badges could use white on navy blue colors.

And no, I'm not a fashion designer, I just have greater color differentiation than most people. Can be a little annoying at times.

[Major Carrales]

In texas the Wing Patch is required on the BDUs. 

In any case, many of you who are making the case for subdued patches et al miss the point.  Who are we hiding from?  Plus, some are saying that the "wings" discussed in another thread should not be metallic for fear of confusion with the USAF, yet the diametric opposite is being argued for here?

I would be willing to make the case that the colored patches are a heritage item from WWII and the 1950s.

Just leave it as it is and move on.

[floridacyclist]

I think that the only reason they are asking for more subdued colors is that bright cartoony colors look...well dumb on camouflaged cloth. I like the one person's suggestion that all patches be designed with this in mind and use colors that complement the uniform rather than clashing with it, ie muted reds and blues, greys instead of whites, darker greens etc.

[davedove]

I will agree that the bright patches do look bad on the camouflage uniform.  But I also agree with Major Carrales - Who are we hiding from?  The camouflage pattern makes absolutely no sense for our missions.  We are not trying to hide from an enemy; we are trying to find people, and being seen makes that easier.  Hence, we put a bright orange vest on over the camouflage.  Something is just not right about that.

[Hawk200]

For those that ask "Who are we hiding from?" the answer is "Noone". The point you folks are missing is that we are discussing appearance of the uniform. People desire a professional appearance, not a cartoonish one. Hard to be taken seriously with that many colors on your uniform.

Besides, it's a moot point. If you're doing any operations, especially in the woods, you need to have on an orange vest for safety reasons. An orange vest is a practical piece of equipment, and negates any subdued or semi-subdued patches. Arguing against patches being toned down under the  "Who are we hiding from?" argument is a point with little practical foundation to it.

Something else to consider as to putting a vest on over utilities. Army and Air Force gate guards wear a bright vest over BDUs all the time. Air Force personnel doing recovery of a downed aircraft in CONUS wear orange vests as well. Not like it's never done.

If it's dark, or in the woods, wear your vest. You should have one anyway. Unless someone has a problem with being safe in a practical manner?

[Monty]

I had just completed a 20-min draft of a response and then, well....thought to myself, "why?"

Simon Needsabadge  and Johnnie Hatesthebling won't care anyway.

So....Wing Patch:  On...off...makes no difference to me, my CAP service, or anyone else's.

Next?

[DNall]

The reason they were cut back is we've been functionng as 52 seperate little CAPs...

To me it seems like replacing the wing patch with a flag would have made this a little clearer, but they didn't. They removed wing patches and added the flag in a different place. If the mandate had been to remove the wing patch, and place the flag in the same position, it probably would have been a little more accepted.

Plus, you could just use flightsuit flag stock, instead of using a flag configuration that is now heavily associated with the Army. When the Air Force wore flags on BDUs/DCUs it was traditionally worn on the left shoulder anyway(at least it was when I was active AF).

I think you'll find the biggest complaint it that bright full-color anything looks incredibly stupid, childish, & unprofessional on BDUs, and more is worse than less. If they were subdued to semi-subdued to very understated & worn according the current AF system then people would be more accepting, not happy, but accepting. As it is it just looks clownish & damages everything from recruiting & retention to credibility on missions - the broader profrssional image issue does anyway & this is a big part of a key factor in it.

I've thought about this, and it makes sense to me. Seems like we should focus on producing patches with semi-subdued colors. Instead of red, use maroon. Instead of white, use tan or a mocha color, even gray if suitable. For blue colors, use navy blue. Bright greens should be replaced with something more the color of pine. Use darker yellows, burnt yellow or darker golds. Even orange colors can be darkened a good bit. And of course, our nametapes and badges could use white on navy blue colors.

And no, I'm not a fashion designer, I just have greater color differentiation than most people. Can be a little annoying at times.

Right! I'd prefer white on OD tapes & even a little more semi-subdued then that, BUT I don't think AF would approve of that as it is, so compromise & I'm with ya 100%. The flag for Wing path and back on the correct shoulder, especially so we can use standardized patches, is a great idea too. I was just for removing it & every other unnecessary thing, but I could go for that.

Far as who are we hiding from... you know I'm taking SOS right now. I'm in the Profession of Arms section. There it talks about how over 60% of AF officers do not have a job that directly relates to combat or direct combat support, & only about 4-6% are pilots. YET, we all need a "warrior" attitude of mission-centric, driven, shared objectives, team player, attitude or the AF will literally fall apart, that they have to be extra vigilant about this in the AF because the majority of people are not paid to fight. Pretty straight forward right?

So here I am looking at CAP, the corporate movement, people thinking we don't really work for the AF, that they are merely one of many customers & their vision doesn't have anything to do with our objectives. You have lots of CAP members acting like this is a flying club or the boy scouts, and just all around not taking CAP seriously as solemn committment of duty to serve, protect, defend, & in fact build the American way of life. Whatever, term it how you see it.

So then I look back & the retarded looking BDUs we have to wear & ask myself, where's the picture of solidarity? Where's the thing that inspires & encourages people to think like they're part of the team & be driven to the greater stategic mission we share w/ our parent service? Where's the dedication to something greater than the little tactical situation of your local unit? What are we hiding from you ask? How about the place in people's brains & the kind of people in society that don't want to put their lives & fortunes at risk to serve this cause we share with the AF. How's that for an answer? Little idealistic? Sure maybe, but what's wrong with that? We need some psychological ploys to help people understand what this is all about.

[Major Carrales]

I think that the only reason they are asking for more subdued colors is that bright cartoony colors look...well dumb on camouflaged cloth. I like the one person's suggestion that all patches be designed with this in mind and use colors that complement the uniform rather than clashing with it, ie muted reds and blues, greys instead of whites, darker greens etc.

I agree, patches designed in muted colors would be optimal.

[Major Carrales]

For those that ask "Who are we hiding from?" the answer is "Noone". The point you folks are missing is that we are discussing appearance of the uniform. People desire a professional appearance, not a cartoonish one. Hard to be taken seriously with that many colors on your uniform.

Besides, it's a moot point. If you're doing any operations, especially in the woods, you need to have on an orange vest for safety reasons. An orange vest is a practical piece of equipment, and negates any subdued or semi-subdued patches. Arguing against patches being toned down under the  "Who are we hiding from?" argument is a point with little practical foundation to it.

Something else to consider as to putting a vest on over utilities. Army and Air Force gate guards wear a bright vest over BDUs all the time. Air Force personnel doing recovery of a downed aircraft in CONUS wear orange vests as well. Not like it's never done.

If it's dark, or in the woods, wear your vest. You should have one anyway. Unless someone has a problem with being safe in a practical manner?

The Air Force and Army have a different mission than us, their primary mission is combat.  That being said, their basic uniform should provide camo in the field of combat operations.  Thus, putting an orange vest over a unifrom who's design is based on comabt operation when conducting SAR or the like is quite logical.    The Civil Air Patrol, who will never see a ground combat operations never needs camo.  Thus, to put an organe safety vest over a camo uniform worn by people whose primary mission will never be combat is a bit disingenuous.   The fact that there are bright patches is pretty moot when one looks at that.

One could say that CAP would have a distinctive FIELD UNIFORM based on the purpose of SAR.

Remember, however, the BDU is a link betweeen the USAF and CAP.  They have to make a distinction.  Colorful patches and ultramarine nametapes is the most distinct way to show the different.  Subdued patches are examples of poser/pretenderism at its worst.

Solution:  Design patches that use muted colors that reflect symbolism  (not cartoony) and are based on USAF healdry.

[DNall]

Joe,
First of all check my last post there right quick for another line of logic on this.

Second, we wear BDUs cause they're designed to be a rugged uniform that'll stand up to field conditions & are avail from surplus which is an effort to keep costs down. That's not the case for alternatives. That uniform is standardized in the military for cost purposes as well. Which is one reason you'll see it worn by people in the military who will never EVER see combat, much less ground combat. It's the standard military utility uniform.

Besides costs & practical utility, it's worn for psychological reasons, so everyone thinks in terms of solidarity w/ the warfighters. That's important for a logistics officer in Deleware to remember when he screws up it harms the warfighting effort. Now when you're in CAP & running a mission & you're not doing a very good job, that costs more money. Where's that come from again? The moeny we save goes to warfighting. The money we waste takes away from it. I think it'd be good it we thought in terms of solidarity. Unforms, what they look like, & how they're worn are part of that, a bigger part than a lot of people give them credit for.

[MIKE]

As I've mentioned... At this point, they should've just canned wing patches all together.  Redesigning the patches to be like AF patches and moving them to the pockets of the BDU/Field Uniform is probably too late in coming now that sources indicate that the AF plans to discontinue the patches on the ABU.

[Major Carrales]

As I've mentioned... At this point, they should've just canned wing patches all together.  Redesigning the patches to be like AF patches and moving them to the pockets of the BDU/Field Uniform is probably too late in coming now that sources indicate that the AF plans to discontinue the patches on the ABU.

In a few years I think CAP will totally do away with the Wing patches so all this meshegas on them is wasted energy.

I think unit sheilds may have a future on letterleads and the like but the cost of producing patches for wear is somewhat of a waste.

[MIKE]

I think unit sheilds may have a future on letterleads and the like but the cost of producing patches for wear is somewhat of a waste.

Yep, that's what I'm saying.

[DNall]

the cost of producing patches for wear is somewhat of a waste.

Boy, you ain't kiddin. I can promise you I got better things to spend 400 bucks on than a bunch of patches it'll take me years upon years to sell & I don't want to wear anyway.

[A.Member]

The Air Force and Army have a different mission than us, their primary mission is combat.  That being said, their basic uniform should provide camo in the field of combat operations.  Thus, putting an orange vest over a unifrom who's design is based on comabt operation when conducting SAR or the like is quite logical.    The Civil Air Patrol, who will never see a ground combat operations never needs camo.  Thus, to put an organe safety vest over a camo uniform worn by people whose primary mission will never be combat is a bit disingenuous.   The fact that there are bright patches is pretty moot when one looks at that.

One could say that CAP would have a distinctive FIELD UNIFORM based on the purpose of SAR.

So, would you have us wear some ridiculous blaze orange outfit so that half of the membership would be confused for pumpkins while the other half looks like escapees from the local workhouse?  That some wings wear those obnoxious hats is bad enough.  

Seriously, I do understand what you're trying to say but think you overlook two important points:

1.  We have a relationship with USAF.  Part of that relationship requires us to occasionally work as their auxiliary.  IMO, this also includes the Cadet Programs, which are military based in structure so as to develop leadership skills.  The uniform is a fundamental part of this.

2.  There is a reasonable work-around for SAR missions (vests) which provide visibility while still allowing one to keep their dignity!

Woodland BDU's really aren't a problem.

[Major Carrales]

The Air Force and Army have a different mission than us, their primary mission is combat.  That being said, their basic uniform should provide camo in the field of combat operations.  Thus, putting an orange vest over a unifrom who's design is based on comabt operation when conducting SAR or the like is quite logical.    The Civil Air Patrol, who will never see a ground combat operations never needs camo.  Thus, to put an organe safety vest over a camo uniform worn by people whose primary mission will never be combat is a bit disingenuous.   The fact that there are bright patches is pretty moot when one looks at that.

One could say that CAP would have a distinctive FIELD UNIFORM based on the purpose of SAR.

So, would you have us wear some ridiculous blaze orange outfit so that half of the membership would be confused for pumpkins while the other half looks like escapees from the local workhouse?  That some wings wear those obnoxious hats is bad enough.  

Seriously, I do understand what you're trying to say but think you overlook two important points:

1.  We have a relationship with USAF.  Part of that relationship requires us to occasionally work as their auxiliary.  IMO, this also includes the Cadet Programs, which are military based in structure so as to develop leadership skills.  The uniform is a fundamental part of this.

2.  There is a reasonable work-around for SAR missions (vests) which provide visibility while still allowing one to keep their dignity!

Woodland BDU's really aren't a problem.

A point I am trying to make is not that the BDU is ridiculous, but rather the nature of the arguemnt and disingenuous points being made about "colored" patches that are not subdued on teh BDUs.  Some people don't fully grasp that the reasons for these patches were likely rooted in making a key noticable difference between CAP unifroms and USAF uniforms. 

Imagine this...how many CAP Officers would likely be mistaken for a USAF officer if the patches were subdued as well as nametapes...ranks?  Many more...I am sure.

The idea that colored patches make us look unprofessional is a strech at best and disinegnuous at worst.  Unprofessional would be totally wrong wear, poor hygine, slovenly appearance and, above all, poor preformance of the mission.

Let's end this mundane topic...it is wasting cyberspace!!!

[Hawk200]

The Air Force and Army have a different mission than us, their primary mission is combat.  That being said, their basic uniform should provide camo in the field of combat operations.  Thus, putting an orange vest over a unifrom who's design is based on comabt operation when conducting SAR or the like is quite logical.    The Civil Air Patrol, who will never see a ground combat operations never needs camo.  Thus, to put an organe safety vest over a camo uniform worn by people whose primary mission will never be combat is a bit disingenuous.   The fact that there are bright patches is pretty moot when one looks at that.

So now we get into the "We don't need camo" argument. It's a continuing argument with little to show for it. I didn't even mention SAR, I mentioned regular military operations in which wearing an orange vest is commonplace. Those instances are not occasional or infrequent occurrances, they are day-to-day operations. You're refusing a valid point that is based on legitimate facts.

BTW, for informational puposes: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=disingenuous

Remember, however, the BDU is a link betweeen the USAF and CAP.  They have to make a distinction. 

Yeah, they do. But there are distinctions between Army BDUs, Air Force BDUs, Marine BDU's, and Navy BDU's. If people can't tell the difference, why should we have garish colors?

And you also pointed out why we have camo.

Colorful patches and ultramarine nametapes is the most distinct way to show the different.

Distinct? Yes. Professional? No.

Subdued patches are examples of poser/pretenderism at its worst.

Wearing a uniform of the military when you're not is viewed as "poser/pretenderism". The colors aren't relevant. It won't change to being viewed that way. That happens now.  

Solution:  Design patches that use muted colors that reflect symbolism  (not cartoony) and are based on USAF healdry.

We don't need to base on Air Force heraldry, we need to base it on CAP heraldry. We have more history than they do. They may be our mother branch, but we still have our own unique history.

Muted colors would give a professional balanced appearance. How long you would be at work if you went in wearing ridiculously mismatched clothes? Probably not long. And don't tell me it doesn't happen that way. I know better, and so do you.

[Hawk200]

Imagine this...how many CAP Officers would likely be mistaken for a USAF officer if the patches were subdued as well as nametapes...ranks?  Many more...I am sure.

You're intentionally distorting the point. Most people here do not advocate going to the same tapes as the Air Force (which are green cloth, blue lettering). What they are advocating is wearing darker tags, mostly navy blue cloth with white lettering. Show me someone that will confuse us with any branch of service with those colors, and I'll show you someone who thinks everybody in the Air Force flies an F16.

The idea that colored patches make us look unprofessional is a strech at best and disinegnuous at worst.

I'm guessing that you just haven't dealt with the people that look at it that way. Either that or you stuck your head in the sand, and decline to acknowledge it.

Let's end this mundane topic...it is wasting cyberspace!!!

In other words, nobody is agreeing with you, so you don't want to talk about it.

I'll make you a deal though, don't argument with my points, and I won't argue yours. Fair enough?

[A.Member]

The idea that colored patches make us look unprofessional is a strech at best and disinegnuous at worst. 

I disagree with you there.  While they certainly aren't the sole contributing factor, they definitely are a factor.  The BSA comparison is not a stretch.  They are tacky.  A better approach is to go without.

[MIKE]

I think we might be drifting a bit here.

[Hawk200]

I think we might be drifting a bit here.

Point taken.

[DNall]

Maybe we are, but the argument on Wg patches roots in what people think our BDUs should look like.

Far as this distinguish from the AF argument, I think people are forgeting the history. They didn't give us these tapes to set up apart. These came from a time when AF & CAP wore exactly the same white on ultramarine tapes. We also had the blue CAP slides at that time.

AF merely said we didn't need fully subdued tapes. There's nothing that says white (gold in the case of Maj/2Lt) on OD is not okay. No one's ever asked. Many SDFs do that & they go on active duty bases & out of state bases wearing that stuff where they are just as civilian as we are, and they're an even better kept secret than we are. If you can't tell the difference w/ White, silver, gray, or gold on OD from dark blue or black on OD, you got real problems.

The professional appearance thing is real simple. People in the military or out in the rest of the world got no idea what our uniform manual says. They got what they personally know about the military, and that's the standard by whcih they judge everything else, including us. It's a simple matter of meeting expectations as nearly as possible. The degree to which you do that is the degree to which you're awarded credibility based on your grade before you open your mouth, and that first impression is all important, it opens or closes most of the doors you'll come to. The uniform can't save you if you act like an idiot after you open your mouth. And being great at that point can't make up for the pre-judgement they've already made about you.

[SAR-EMT1]

This is a general uniform question: As far as the marine blue / white tapes on the BDUs are concerned when did we get stuck with them? Was it when we had maroon epulets on the Blues?   I am just curious as to when -if ever- we had subdued tapes.

[Major Carrales]

The Air Force and Army have a different mission than us, their primary mission is combat.  That being said, their basic uniform should provide camo in the field of combat operations.  Thus, putting an orange vest over a unifrom who's design is based on comabt operation when conducting SAR or the like is quite logical.    The Civil Air Patrol, who will never see a ground combat operations never needs camo.  Thus, to put an organe safety vest over a camo uniform worn by people whose primary mission will never be combat is a bit disingenuous.   The fact that there are bright patches is pretty moot when one looks at that.

So now we get into the "We don't need camo" argument. It's a continuing argument with little to show for it. I didn't even mention SAR, I mentioned regular military operations in which wearing an orange vest is commonplace. Those instances are not occasional or infrequent occurrances, they are day-to-day operations. You're refusing a valid point that is based on legitimate facts.

BTW, for informational puposes: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=disingenuous

Remember, however, the BDU is a link betweeen the USAF and CAP.  They have to make a distinction. 

Yeah, they do. But there are distinctions between Army BDUs, Air Force BDUs, Marine BDU's, and Navy BDU's. If people can't tell the difference, why should we have garish colors?

And you also pointed out why we have camo.

Colorful patches and ultramarine nametapes is the most distinct way to show the different.

Distinct? Yes. Professional? No.

Subdued patches are examples of poser/pretenderism at its worst.

Wearing a uniform of the military when you're not is viewed as "poser/pretenderism". The colors aren't relevant. It won't change to being viewed that way. That happens now.  

Solution:  Design patches that use muted colors that reflect symbolism  (not cartoony) and are based on USAF healdry.

We don't need to base on Air Force heraldry, we need to base it on CAP heraldry. We have more history than they do. They may be our mother branch, but we still have our own unique history.

Muted colors would give a professional balanced appearance. How long you would be at work if you went in wearing ridiculously mismatched clothes? Probably not long. And don't tell me it doesn't happen that way. I know better, and so do you.

You just seem to want to argue about this.  I don't really care if we have Woodland camo or colored patches...if the manual says buy it and wear it, that is what I am going to do.  That is the point we all miss here.  We get pumped on reinventing the wheel and discussions devolve into fights.

People make statements about the patches and BDUs that give a false appearance of simple frankness and we build on that.


Here is some real  simple frankness , "Wear your patches if your Wing mandates it, do not if it does not.  If you have an issue with it run it up the channels to have it changed.  There are a lot of people here that want us to look like the USAF when we are not the USAF and cannot live with the fact they there have been made distinctions (including patches, ultramarine nametapes and other distinctions)   They refer to this as 'unprofessional' and make a lot of noise.

What else do we want... the USAF allowed us to put the rank on our BDU covers.  They are not going create a situation where some CAP officer can be mistaken for a USAF officer.  That means...no subsured patches, not subdued ranks, no subdued nametapes and no metal grade insignia.

Just injoy what yo uhave before the constant pushing of the envelope results in us losing it all!!!"

That is simple and frank...

[Camas]

As far as the marine blue / white tapes on the BDUs are concerned when did we get stuck with them?

  In the early '60's, AF personnel started wearing fatigues with those blue/white tapes and collar rank insignia for officers so it might have started there.  Here we are - 45 years later - and we're still wearing them.

  Back on topic - I've never disliked the wing patches but I don't miss them.  Less stuff to sew on uniforms and that's always a good thing.

[Major Carrales]

This is a general uniform question: As far as the marine blue / white tapes on the BDUs are concerned when did we get stuck with them? Was it when we had maroon epulets on the Blues?   I am just curious as to when -if ever- we had subdued tapes.

The USAF used to have a similar "white on blue" scheme but that was lost in I beleive the 1970s.  If my eyes did not deceive me, the USAF were a slightly different color that was still blue (my have been faded_  The Civil Air Patrol has never, to my understanding and research, has sub-dued nametapes.

Likely, it never will.   Ask the CAP Knowledge Base what that cannot be true.

[DNall]

Yeah well, wings especially & NB as a whole respond to what members make a buch of noise about. If a lot of people get huffed up about some uniform change & it maintains long enough for the slow NB process to work its way around, then they'll ask AF for it.

Again, we've had white/blue tapes since the AF had white on blue tapes. They were never given to us as a punishment, they were jsut never changed cause no one ever asked for a compromise like white on OD or white on dark blue.

[Major Carrales]

Yeah well, wings especially & NB as a whole respond to what members make a buch of noise about. If a lot of people get huffed up about some uniform change & it maintains long enough for the slow NB process to work its way around, then they'll ask AF for it.

Sorry, but I don't believe in mutiny and, well frankly, "pocket terrorism" to effect change in CAP.  There are channels to follow.  I hav elong asked you to officially submit these ideas instead of "making noise" here so some CAP BIG-WIG can read them and say... "Eureka!!!  Das is Wunderbar!!!"

If you really want to effect change, PM multiple people here ...debate your ideas with them.  Agree on a consensus, and submit the same idea in BULK.  That sends a message...what's more, and official message that can be acted upon. 

Hoping some Col will read this and make the converting leap to your side is pipedreaming, circumnaviagtes the system (if successful) and seems to create fighting that is documented for the enemies of CAP to read and stoke their fires with.

[DNall]

Excuse me? Mutiny? Terrorism? Slow down there buddy. A military commander that can put people in jail for not doin what they're told had better listen very closely to what his people want or he's going to fail in everything he does & not be a commander very long. That's even more the case when dealing with volunteers.

Lots of ideas have been submitted, and by the way you do NOT send ideas blind up your chain for approval. There's no protocal for that & it WILL be rejected probably w/o being looked at. There's a LONG preface process to selling a corporate office on sponsoring an idea, and it does NOT begin with sending it in, it ends there, & then a whole second long drawn out process beings. You should know this by now. This is networking!

No "enemy" of CAP cares anything about uniforms. Anybody that has issue with CAP is plenty capable of digging up their own dirt far more devestating than anything we've ever talked about here. The conversations you see here tend to supress that kind of thing. We talk about the same stuff any group of members would talk about around the water cooler. This is the same kind of conversations people in the real military have between each other on any range of subjects, including uiforms, & there to it's the same process of change - the unofficial is the meaningful step & it proceeds the formal official process. If you don't like the conversation, tactics, or whatever, then don't participate.

[Monty]

If you don't like the conversation, tactics, or whatever, then don't participate.

So what happens if the board has been so inundated with uniform threads and proposed changes that some of the other folks that MIGHT have been interested in other topics leave?  I may enjoy a restaurant, but if they have turned the music volume up and are playing "boom boom" rap music non-stop, I'm outta there......as would be many of my friends and associates....

[Major Carrales]

Excuse me? Mutiny? Terrorism? Slow down there buddy. A military commander that can put people in jail for not doin what they're told had better listen very closely to what his people want or he's going to fail in everything he does & not be a commander very long. That's even more the case when dealing with volunteers.

Lots of ideas have been submitted, and by the way you do NOT send ideas blind up your chain for approval. There's no protocal for that & it WILL be rejected probably w/o being looked at. There's a LONG preface process to selling a corporate office on sponsoring an idea, and it does NOT begin with sending it in, it ends there, & then a whole second long drawn out process beings. You should know this by now. This is networking!

No "enemy" of CAP cares anything about uniforms. Anybody that has issue with CAP is plenty capable of digging up their own dirt far more devestating than anything we've ever talked about here. The conversations you see here tend to supress that kind of thing. We talk about the same stuff any group of members would talk about around the water cooler. This is the same kind of conversations people in the real military have between each other on any range of subjects, including uiforms, & there to it's the same process of change - the unofficial is the meaningful step & it proceeds the formal official process. If you don't like the conversation, tactics, or whatever, then don't participate.

Have it your way...you have already called CAP leadership "retards" in another thread.  In another thread you said you would be "fine" if the USAF dismantled CAP. I just don't think your methods are ethical.

[Major Carrales]

If you don't like the conversation, tactics, or whatever, then don't participate.

That is what is screwed up in our nation today.  People don't vote for the same asinine reason. 

I have a vested interest in seeing CAP propser as what it is.  When these topics become the center of fodder for CAP's opponents and critics, I'm gonna speak up and tell you like I see it.

When people are questioning the worth of Civil Air Patrol and we pull off 9-11, Katrina & Rita, Fire Watch adn countless rescues; it does not help when there are posts ad infinitum on redesigning "wings," "patches" and other things to make us look "more like the USAF."

We are part of the USAF family...but we are not members of the USAF.  We are civilians dedicated to service and givers of our time and money.  If you want subdued rank and patches and qualify...enlist in the USAFR or Air National Guard.  If you want CAP to look like the USAFR or Air National Guard, I am sorry.  We don't need to mock our servicemen by pretending we are one with them when we are not.

We are what we are and I am proud of it.  If CAPM 39-1 says to wear subdued tapes et al I will do it.  If not, cut it out already.

We are lucky to have what we have in wearing an AF style unform at all, if it continues to be our main focus, we may lose even that.

Again, obey the manual and stop trying to make more things for us to buy!!!

[DNall]

I didn't say I'd be fine w/ AF dismantling CAP, but if that ever becomes what's best for the country & AF then it should be done.

Anybody changing a patch just to change the wording from USAF Aux to CAP & thinking that gets them free of PCA is an idiot & should have asked the AG's office,  the majority or minority consel to HASC, or the DoD legal folks. Any one of them would have told them he who has the gold makes the rules & you can't escape that cause it's convenient.

I'm not attacking anyone here, but I don't like being called mutinous or a terrorist for talking about trying to get a professional & credible appearance on our uniforms in line with expectations. There's a lot of other sections to this forum & alot of other threads. If you don't like what's being said & your only response to a discussion is to be defensive & lash out at others then maybe you should not post in that particular thread.

[SAR-EMT1]

Yeah well, wings especially & NB as a whole respond to what members make a bunch of noise about. If a lot of people get huffed up about some uniform change & it maintains long enough for the slow NB process to work its way around, then they'll ask AF for it.

Again, we've had white/blue tapes since the AF had white on blue tapes. They were never given to us as a punishment, they were just never changed cause no one ever asked for a compromise like white on OD or white on dark blue.

I don't mean to offend anyone by saying this. However ,it seems to me that the compromise that should be sought is getting Rid of the WHITE. I don't care so much for my name being in white when my uniform is black, brown, and tan. IF CAP / USAF Identification is a problem then lets go back to the OD uniform from the 60's/ 70's but with subdued tapes.  But get rid of the eye catching items on the BDUs that means: no wing patch, no full color flag, no white tapes etc.  subdued CAP or USAF Aux, subdued name, subdued wings/ gtm/ems badges.

I am not playing Air Force.
I don't care if the subdued color is maroon and OD green just not white or any other ostentious color. To me this issue - is about how our uniforms should highlight a clean, uncluttered, non- gaudy appearance. To me any bright items - color wing patches, white name tapes etc... is gaudy and unprofessional.

[Major Carrales]

I'm not attacking anyone here, but I don't like being called mutinous or a terrorist for talking about trying to get a professional & credible appearance on our uniforms in line with expectations. There's a lot of other sections to this forum & alot of other threads. If you don't like what's being said & your only response to a discussion is to be defensive & lash out at others then maybe you should not post in that particular thread.

We have a "professional & credible appearance on our uniforms in line with expectations,"  it is a myth we have otherwise.  Again, we are not the USAF.

If one wears their uniform as it should be worn it is "professional & credible" in that we are a civilain Auxiliary, of the USAF.  Not a combat unit...we don't need subdued patches or nametapes.  Its fine as it is.  Crack down on poor usage and wear of the uniform and you don't have to add/change a blasted thing.

Your desire to circumnavigate the system is mutinous.  Your desire is to get around official channels in hopes that some certain high ranking officer might see your idea and you won't have to fool with Wing Commanders, a Group Commander and a Squadron Commander is not the most "military way."  That is, actually, quite unethical.  Inciting an uprising among CAP Officers to get what you want and pressure them to do so is tantamount to terrorism and coersion.  We are not here to pressure the National Board, if you have an idea lobby up the chain and let the validity and merit of your idea ring forth true.

Thank for telling me to "shut up" in so many words... "If you don't like what's being said & your only response to a discussion is to be defensive & lash out at others then maybe you should not post in that particular thread. "  Next time just come out and say it.

By the way, I'm done here.  Let's take a break and return as friends later.

[DNall]

By the way, I'm done here.  Let's take a break and return as friends later.

Second, and no disrespect intended by the way.

[Major Carrales]

By the way, I'm done here.  Let's take a break and return as friends later.

Second, and no disrespect intended by the way.

None taken.

I'm sure that you will agree that how one handles "heated debate" is a test of character.   

[aveighter]

Really Joe?  Mocking?  I wouldn't describe those of us who wear the uniform in accordance with custom and regulation (all of them) as mocking anything or anyone.  Quite the contrary.   Pride and honor come to mind, but not mocking.  Also, I am "one with them" no pretending about it.  I am disturbed that you are not "one with them", I always thought you were.

I am well aware of "what we are" and am just as proud of it as I am of my Honorable Discharge.  While attending the various graduations, commissioning and wing presentation ceremonies of the sons of aveighter I have always done so in the appropriate uniform because I am proud who we are, who they are and that we (or most of us anyway) "are one with them.

Don't worry, I'll keep this between you and me.  The boys still think you're "one with them".

[SAR-EMT1]

If you don't like the conversation, tactics, or whatever, then don't participate.

it does not help when there are posts ad infinitum on redesigning "wings," "patches" and other things to make us look "more like the USAF."

Excuse me Major, but taking a page from my membership in the USCG-Aux. Our uniforms look EXACTLY like the USCG and they even say - USCG-AUX on the tape.
Within that spectrum I feel that having to wear a tape that says "CAP" and not USAF-AUX is a punch in the face by the Air Force.

We are part of the USAF family...but we are not members of the USAF.  We are civilians dedicated to service and givers of our time and money.  If you want subdued rank and patches and qualify...enlist in the USAFR or Air National Guard.  If you want CAP to look like the USAFR or Air National Guard, I am sorry.  We don't need to mock our servicemen by pretending we are one with them when we are not.

Again Sir, but you just contradicted yourself.
We ARE A PART OF THE USAF FAMILY Thus we are member of the USAF. We are part of the "TOTAL FORCE" - to take a phrase from my ROTC  training- AD, Guard, Reserve,Civilian AND Auxiliary.

(In fact in the class we were listed before 'civilian' and were described by the instructor as serving " in a manner parallel to the Reserve working to meet domestic missions" To ME that description says something) [ It says the Air Force WANTS us in the fold IF we can get our act together] -

The problem here is that the USAF is treating us like a stepchild because they have"
A- forgotten us (in terms of mission capability)
B- found that we are unworthy of attention
OR C- because of 'CAP INC' and some in the membership have created a buffer and even gone so far as to state " we aren't part of the Air Force" .

Well Major, we are part of the Air Force. We are the Air Force Auxiliary. Air Force is in the title. And last time I checked my ID said Air Force. We've all taken AFIADL 00013. An Air Force correspondence course. Our HQ is at an Air Force Base, not in a civilian office high rise.

We are lucky to have what we have in wearing an AF style uniform at all.

That may be Sir, but in the CG-Aux, I can earn and wear AD ribbons on my Coast Guard Uniform. I augment at AD coast Guard units and I carry a Coast Guard Identification. - Again taking a page from the Coast Guard:
The Coast Guard .mil website lists the Auxiliary. Where is CAP on AF.mil? -

While the Armed Airmen provide Strength Internationally, So we provide Aid and Assistance Domestically. Do we carry weapons? No. But neither do 99% of airmen (or any other service member I venture) on our stateside bases .


I do not mean this post to be seen as an attack Major. I mean no one any ill will, nor do I mean to give myself a poor reputation on this board.  

It just Inflames me to hear someone accuse a CAP member of "playing Air Force" when in fact, we ARE Air Force, but have just forgotten.  Are we Active duty? Guard, Reserve? no  
Do we now, and can we in the future prove of value to the USAF its mission and its strength? I believe it can and should.  
We are more akin to the Reserves then one might think.
We meet roughly as often as they, both have civilian jobs, We take AFIADL courses, as they may be called up and sent to -Stan, so we too may be called up at 3 am to get an ELT, or help with a flood or hurricane or whatever.  It is not that anyone is better or worse. We have a separate mission.  

We just need to perform up to the expected level of professionalism so that we as a whole as an Auxiliary may become worthy of that mission.

Thank you for your time, I apologize about the length

[MIKE]

Because this thread has continued to depart from the original subject, and become somewhat heated... Lock.