Why the dislike for the Wing patch?

[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.