Not to resurrect a really old topic. So I wanted to start a new topic on what we know today.
My question is regarding Heraldry Standards for CAP specifically Squadron and Group patches. Remembering that in the Air Force, shield-shaped emblems are for groups and higher; squadrons use a disc.
So what about CAP?
Thanks for sharing ...
As I understand it, that's the way CAP runs things too.
Several squadrons I know of (mine included) have redesigned their crests to fit with the USAF style of a one-rocker-above/one-below a disc in the past couple of years.
I don't think my Group has a crest.
WRT Wing crests...the AF heraldry standards go out a window. Some of the wings still have very goofy looking crests. Redesign to the AF standard would be a BIG improvement.
Quote from: CyBorg on October 24, 2012, 12:01:43 PM
As I understand it, that's the way CAP runs things too.
Several squadrons I know of (mine included) have redesigned their crests to fit with the USAF style of a one-rocker-above/one-below a disc in the past couple of years.
I don't think my Group has a crest.
WRT Wing crests...the AF heraldry standards go out a window. Some of the wings still have very goofy looking crests. Redesign to the AF standard would be a BIG improvement.
I couldn't possibly agree more. Some wings have some out there wing patches. I think it should be thrown as a requirement that they all move to the standard shield and scroll within the next two years. They can still have their own emblem inside them, but a wing patch the shape of Kentucky with a horse head sticking out the top of it is a bit out there. I understand the Derby is really big in Kentucky, but what does it have to do with CAP? With is the other thing, it should have something to do with CAP.
No redesign on patches!! You lose some history in the process of converting a unique patch to "today's standards".
How does making a patch meet a standard lose history? Not taking a bite at you, just really wondering.
Even if every CAP unit patch were to get in line with the AF standards that do not apply to CAP, at great expense to volunteer members, what would that accomplish for CAP? Nothing.
Sometimes I think a lot of CAP members have a fetish for hyper-standardization. That sort of mindset is unhealthy for an organization because it chases innovation and creativity out.
Quote from: SamFranklin on October 24, 2012, 01:56:25 PM
Even if every CAP unit patch were to get in line with the AF standards that do not apply to CAP, at great expense to volunteer members, what would that accomplish for CAP? Nothing.
Sometimes I think a lot of CAP members have a fetish for hyper-standardization. That sort of mindset is unhealthy for an organization because it chases innovation and creativity out.
I'm not so sure I buy your arguments.
Standardizing unit emblems would cause "Great expense to volunteer members"? Wing and unit patches are optional; nobody needs to buy a new patch. We don't pre-print letterhead anymore, so stationery doesn't cost to change.
Standardization of uniform items "chases innovation and creativity out"? Well, if that's true then I guess CAP must be devoid of creativity and innovation since we've standardized our specialty badges, our ribbons, our ES/ICS forms, our PD curriculum, and a million other things.
I can see points on both sides of the debate here. Yes, some "unique" history might be lost, but elements from the original can easily be incorporated into the new. I've redesigned a few patches to the Air Force style a number of times, and I've designed a few patches that are "Air Force style," too.
Although, if patches are redesigned, I think one thing that needs to be standardized is placement. This "wear it here if it's this, but wear it here if it's this," is inconsistent. Stick any organization designation patch in one spot, and be done.
I don't mind the idea of "Air Force styled" patches, it brings us closer.
If any one wants patches redesigned to an "Air Force style," send me a PM. I can knock one into a decent design in a week or three.
There is no existing national CAP standard. Some Wings do have standards similar to the Air Force way of doing things.
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
There is no existing national CAP standard. Some Wings do have standards similar to the Air Force way of doing things.
you might want to check into that... I'm pretty sure there has been a memorandum put out that all new patches must meet USAF heraldry specifications, it was put out along with templates for what that looks like.
Personally I think all patches should have to be changed.
Frankly, I have always been a little dissapointed that the Air Force never adopted our heraldry standards.
After all, we have been around years longer than they have, and designed and adopted hundreds of patches, unit crests, etc. before the USAF was even born.
We have patches designed by Disney artists for our wartime role and patches worn by our members into combat. Wing patches worn by our members for nearly 70 years.
It would be a shame to lose all that history just to conform to some new-fangled rules that have changed before and will undoubtedly change again.
Heck, The Institute of Heraldry (http://www.tioh.hqda.pentagon.mil/TIOH/TIOH_history.aspx) (TIOH) itself didn't even exist until 1960.
It's not our fault they were late to the party.
;)
Jedi Master Ned has a wicked sense of humour, to be sure...
FWIW, some wings do require wing patches, so for them, there would be an added expense to replace the patches.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Quote from: SarDragon on October 24, 2012, 07:52:39 PM
FWIW, some wings do require wing patches, so for them, there would be an added expense to replace the patches.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
ILWG has re-done our wing patch. I haven't worn one since they became optional, but I do believe there was a gracious sundown period for the old design.
Ned-
It may be true that TIOH did not exist until 1960. But before TIOH took over, heraldry was maintained by the US Army Quartermaster Department for the US Army, the US Army Air Corps, the US Army Air Force, and then the US Air Force. In turn, they used those concepts and school of thought that were introduced by France and Great Britain.
If you visit West Point's Museum, they would tell you that their Minerva shield had to be redesigned, since initially it did not conform to Heraldry standards. I have copies of US Army regiments requesting Distinctive Unit Insignias addressed to the US Army Quartermaster where the DUI was approved or rejected based on classic Heraldric concepts. These requests are dated 1940.
Heraldry is not "USAF" or "CAP."
It is a concept that goes beyond that. It is a tradition just like the military salute. We always salute with our right hand, held at a certain angle, with the arm at a certain angle. No service modifies it. No nation itself, except Great Britain. Which to me, the Briton's way of saluting is more akin to the story of a knight opening the visor. But this is outside this topic.
Flyer
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 24, 2012, 05:27:40 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on October 24, 2012, 05:18:36 PM
There is no existing national CAP standard. Some Wings do have standards similar to the Air Force way of doing things.
you might want to check into that... I'm pretty sure there has been a memorandum put out that all new patches must meet USAF heraldry specifications, it was put out along with templates for what that looks like.
A memo (unless it is in the form of an ICL from the national commander (if they can still even do that under the new governance structure)) doesn't over ride the current regulation which leaves patch approval entirely in the hands of the wing commanders. I strongly believe that CAP patches should meet USAF standards, but as of right now that is not nationally required.
Simple solution, even thoughI don't believe this is a problem, mandate that all new patches meet heraldry standards and the traditional patches remain the same. If a squadron/group/wing/region decides to redesign their patch in the future, they meet the standards.
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 24, 2012, 08:11:06 PM
No service modifies it. No nation itself, except Great Britain. Which to me, the Briton's way of saluting is more akin to the story of a knight opening the visor. But this is outside this topic.
Even then, the Royal Navy uses the same salute we do, as do the RAN, RNZN and RCN.
(http://c69011.r11.cf3.rackcdn.com/8125d2bae742425db13bc835428c661e-0x0.jpg)
Prince Philip
All three Canadian services have used it since their forces were integrated in 1968.
(http://unambig.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/salute.jpg)
Colonel David Cochrane, RCAF
And the French salute is totally different...
(http://media.artdiamondblog.com/images2/VillepinSalute.jpg)
So "tradition" can be modified...it's valuable but not immutable.
Cyborg-
Did I not imply it was immutable? No. When I stated one nation appeared to be saluting with the hand reversed - although I alluded to Great Britain, it turned to be France. But at the same time, again, you point the things I pointed. The arm. The right arm, not the left. Hand to the brim or the eye.
Which goes to this.
CAP members complain about the CAP Heraldry Office in redesign of patches, etc...
But their decision follows USAF Heraldic standards...
Which follows US Army Heraldic standards (TIOH)...
Which follows US Army's Quartermaster standards...
Which follows Great Britain's (mostly) and France's (to a minor extent).
That is why there is no specific "CAP Heraldry standards" as Heraldry precedes CAP. By a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong stretch of years...
Flyer
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 24, 2012, 08:07:58 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 24, 2012, 07:52:39 PM
FWIW, some wings do require wing patches, so for them, there would be an added expense to replace the patches.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
ILWG has re-done our wing patch. I haven't worn one since they became optional, but I do believe there was a gracious sundown period for the old design.
Yes, and most of the new guys love it and the old guys hate it. The patch was originally supposed to be the the wing HQ insignia and not the new wing patch. When we switched over with Scamguard, we had to buy up all the old patches which I am told mysteriously disappeared from wing HQ. There is a movement afoot to bring back the old patch which I whole heartedly agree with.
As for the AF following the Army Heraldry standards, I used to be a member of the 25th ID. I don't think the "Electric Strawberry" fits any kind of heraldry standard.
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 24, 2012, 09:24:34 PM
Did I not imply it was immutable? No. When I stated one nation appeared to be saluting with the hand reversed - although I alluded to Great Britain, it turned to be France.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to infer that.
Plus, you are correct, Britain and all Commonwealth Dominions Army/AF personnel (except Canada), salute palm-out (as do the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), as depicted by the contrasting smart salutes given by Lt Gen Duane Theissen, USMC and Lt Gen Rhys Jones, New Zealand Army.
(http://www.mch.govt.nz/files/nwmsmall4.JPG)
As to heraldry...maybe ours
does go back further than the AF itself, but since we are the Auxiliary of the Air Force (NUTS to AUXON/OFF) it seems only logical that we follow the pattern of our parent service.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 24, 2012, 08:07:58 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 24, 2012, 07:52:39 PM
FWIW, some wings do require wing patches, so for them, there would be an added expense to replace the patches.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
ILWG has re-done our wing patch. I haven't worn one since they became optional, but I do believe there was a gracious sundown period for the old design.
The specific direction was that the patch remains optional, but anyone putting together a new uniform must wear the new version. I choose not to wear it.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 25, 2012, 01:13:39 AM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 24, 2012, 08:07:58 PM
Quote from: SarDragon on October 24, 2012, 07:52:39 PM
FWIW, some wings do require wing patches, so for them, there would be an added expense to replace the patches.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
ILWG has re-done our wing patch. I haven't worn one since they became optional, but I do believe there was a gracious sundown period for the old design.
The specific direction was that the patch remains optional, but anyone putting together a new uniform must wear the new version. I choose not to wear it.
Right, but as a BDU in CAP can easily last 5+ years, those folks with the old patches are given a VERY gracious sundown on them.
Quote from: Eeyore on October 24, 2012, 08:53:04 PM
Simple solution, even thoughI don't believe this is a problem, mandate that all new patches meet heraldry standards and the traditional patches remain the same. If a squadron/group/wing/region decides to redesign their patch in the future, they meet the standards.
I concur.
Reviewing patches I have seen all kinds of shapes and if it has been around 20 to 70 years why not keep it. But anything new should meet standards.
Cyborg-
Yes, you are right 100% on two things. 1) Nuts to Aux on/off. 2) We should follow the USAF.
However the point I was making is that someone was implying that since the USAF is new the USAF heraldry, therefore, is new. I find nothing of that. USAF heraldry continues from the TIOH, which continues from US Army Quartermaster, and up.
Someone else stated that "there was nothing Army heraldic with the Tropical Lightning DUI." My answer to that is this. In Heraldry, a very important thing is symbolism. You mean that volcanoes (DUI) and Taro plant (patch) are not found in Hawaii? And the Lightning flash is not connected with the name Tropical Lightning?
Not all Army or Air Force DUI will have traditional symbols but will have some sort of symbols where someone can make connections. Take the DUI for the Harbor Defenses of Sandy Hook, Army command inactivated in 1942. Includes a dark lighthouse between two flaming shells. It makes allusion to the Revolutionary War when the light of the lighthouse at Sandy Hook, the entrance to the Port of New York, was turned off so the British fleet had to slow down. The flaming shells represent Sandy Hook as an Army proving ground before that function was transferred to Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
Do we find a lighthouse in traditional heraldry? I think not.
Take the DUI of the 60th Coast Defense (Antiaircraft Artillery) regiment, aka 60th Air Defense Artillery Battalion, and redesignated otherwise in a long history. Part of it includes a searchlight beam, meaning their promptness to defend the sky during both day and night.
Do we find searchlight beams in traditional heraldry? I think not.
Sometimes to continue lineage, the military has arbitrarily stated "those two units are connected because lineage has to be continued."
(Have to return to work, will edit and continue this later)
(Continue my old train)
The lineage of the 60th Coast Artillery (Antiaircraft Artillery) Regiment, inactivated in 1946 then reactivated as the 60th ADA Battalion, and renamed several times thereafter goes back to the First World War. This was achieved by an Army edict.
The 60th Coast Artillery Regiment of WWI was inactivated and dissolved after the war ended. Then in 1923 or 1924 the Army activated the 60th Coast Artillery Battalion. The officers claimed from the Quartermasters Dept the lineage of the earlier 60th CA regiment. The answer was "those are two different units, the 60th CA WW I and the 60th CA Battalion. No lineage connection is possible."
Two years later, the 60th Coast Artillery was expanded, I seem to remember was designated 60th Coast Artillery (Harbor Defense) Regimentand guess what? The orders stated "there is a connection between the 60th CA WWI and the 60th Coast Artillery (1923) for the lineage and history to continue."
Flyer
That's the thing right there. A unit patch, wing group or squadron should depict something of what the unit is... Worded badly I know.
But, what would you think if you saw a patch for a squadron called the ravens with a patch depicting a phoenix? My first thought is, wow, do they not know what a raven is? Do they really think that is a raven?
Same thing with the Kentucky wing patch, Oh cool flying horses...
The 101st ABN DIV patch comes from something older than the unit itself...
The 1001st (Yes 1001st) in the Civil war had an eagle named old Abe who went into battle with them and he perched on a shield... Thus the screaming eagle depicted on a shield.
What do horses have to do with CAP?
Manfred-
Sorry, I do not see the interpretation between a flying horse and the Kentucky patch. There are no wings sprouting directly from the horse, thus false interpretation. When you look at the history of Kentucky, then the meaning of the patch becomes clear:
The Kentucky Derby.
:o
Duh!
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 25, 2012, 08:24:52 PM
Manfred-
Sorry, I do not see the interpretation between a flying horse and the Kentucky patch. There are no wings sprouting directly from the horse, thus false interpretation. When you look at the history of Kentucky, then the meaning of the patch becomes clear:
The Kentucky Derby.
:o
Duh!
Flyer
ha, before you duh at me, read my previous post where I said that I understand the ky Derby is big... Duh
But what in the world does the Derby have to do with CAP? Please give me a decent answer.
Somebody has to fly in all that mint...
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 25, 2012, 10:51:01 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 25, 2012, 08:24:52 PM
Manfred-
Sorry, I do not see the interpretation between a flying horse and the Kentucky patch. There are no wings sprouting directly from the horse, thus false interpretation. When you look at the history of Kentucky, then the meaning of the patch becomes clear:
The Kentucky Derby.
:o
Duh!
Flyer
ha, before you duh at me, read my previous post where I said that I understand the ky Derby is big... Duh
But what in the world does the Derby have to do with CAP? Please give me a decent answer.
I don't think it has anything to do with CAP. I think it's just a symbol of what people associate Kentucky with. I'm sure you could look at a bunch of different Wing patches and see something either of historical, or popular, significance. IIRC, didn't NCWG's patch have the Wright Flyer on it at one time?
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 26, 2012, 03:23:47 AM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on October 25, 2012, 10:51:01 PM
Quote from: flyer333555 on October 25, 2012, 08:24:52 PM
Manfred-
Sorry, I do not see the interpretation between a flying horse and the Kentucky patch. There are no wings sprouting directly from the horse, thus false interpretation. When you look at the history of Kentucky, then the meaning of the patch becomes clear:
The Kentucky Derby.
:o
Duh!
Flyer
ha, before you duh at me, read my previous post where I said that I understand the ky Derby is big... Duh
But what in the world does the Derby have to do with CAP? Please give me a decent answer.
I don't think it has anything to do with CAP. I think it's just a symbol of what people associate Kentucky with. I'm sure you could look at a bunch of different Wing patches and see something either of historical, or popular, significance. IIRC, didn't NCWG's patch have the Wright Flyer on it at one time?
And the Wright flyer is connected to CAP, or the other way around could be said, one of our milestone achievements is the Wright brothers award. So, it is connected, also, aerospace education is one of our missions, so, there is another connection.And I agree there are other wing patches that have things on them that have nothing to do with CAP, or the Air Force. So, Why are they there? Maybe there should be a set standard for what is on the wing patch, something to do with CAP, or aerospace, or emergency services on every wing patch. Take the Indiana patch, very simple, a shield with a blue field, with pilot style wings, with the number 52 in them above and white stripes, with CAP in the middle . patriotic, simple, and sharp. Keep it, while putting it on the shield and scroll. Pawg, a keystone with the LL on it in the shield and scroll. Simple elegant designs on the shield and scroll.
..and the California Wing patch. It's got a golden state. That's obvious. With with wings. .. "California .. Wing".
Or the flying banana.
Hawaii Wing? The Pineapple is riding the wave. Or flying in front of it. :)
Manfred-
You are right, probably I was wrong on "Duhing!" ya.
To continue the list of Wing patches with no connection to CAP. Puerto Rico's patch has a palm tree, if I recall.
Maybe the connection is "what do I like after a CAP mission," the answer being "enjoying a Pina Colada (coconut, pineapple, and a secret ingredient)" or "relaxing on a beach."
>:D
I do agree with you in that future patches should be tied more to CAP's missions, history, or activities. However, for those Wings with historical patches, there should be some exemption.
Going back to PR Wing Patch, maybe I am wrong, but I seem to remember there was originally another Wing patch that was more closely connected to CAP. If I find it, I will disclose that.
Flyer
When I was in GAWG, our patch was a white circle, bordered with blue, with a BIG red GA inside and the blue and red prop in the center. What did this have to do with ANYTHING? I never found out. Made no sense to me whatsoever, but then it was redesigned sometime in the 90s to a white building or something on a lighter blue background. Then, more recently, it was redesigned again to a shield configuration, despite a grass-roots campaign by a former Spaatz cadet to go back to the GA patch. I still don't know what any of it means. But it made sense to someone, at some point.
Clearly, it stood for Georgia...:)
The IL Wing patch was an eagle with the state of IL at its center. Now that eagle is inside the shield of the new patch.
Or "Go Away!" ;)
http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/index.html#Gallery (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/index.html#Gallery)
Very interesting website they do have dates when WING patches were approved however a lot is just "TBD" or unknown. The HIWG patch dates prior to HI even becoming a state.
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 27, 2012, 07:46:54 AM
Clearly, it stood for Georgia...:)
Yeah, I got that much, :P but what did it represent other than that? Nothing of historical value or CAP-ness.
Quote
The IL Wing patch was an eagle with the state of IL at its center. Now that eagle is inside the shield of the new patch.
I guess the point to be made was that many wing patches had or have nothing to do with CAP, but things that are in popular culture and whatnot, as well as symbols of the state. I still don't get WIWG's patch. Wisconsin with a big 42 in the center, but the charter number begins with 48. Maybe it's a GLR thing?
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 27, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 27, 2012, 07:46:54 AM
Clearly, it stood for Georgia...:)
Yeah, I got that much, :P but what did it represent other than that? Nothing of historical value or CAP-ness.
Quote
The IL Wing patch was an eagle with the state of IL at its center. Now that eagle is inside the shield of the new patch.
I guess the point to be made was that many wing patches had or have nothing to do with CAP, but things that are in popular culture and whatnot, as well as symbols of the state. I still don't get WIWG's patch. Wisconsin with a big 42 in the center, but the charter number begins with 48. Maybe it's a GLR thing?
Most of the wing patches that have numbers on them reflect the old region/wing numbering system that was used way back when. For instance, Illinois has a 61 on the patch even though its charter numbers began with 11 until we started this GLR-IL-XXX nonsense. The 61 stood for 6th Region, 1st Wing. And WI has a 62 not a 42 on their wing patch.
Many of these wing patches reflect something of the state. Take KY for instance. Yes, the Kentucky Derby is a big event, but the patch could also reflect Kentucky's fame for breeding thoroughbred horses which is worldwide. Ask Queen Elizabeth.
Yes, many of our wing patches don't reflect any direct relation to CAP, but they do reflect the message that the members of the wings that adopted them wanted to convey. That is "This is who we are!" I like the old patches. I sometimes think from some of the discussions I hear about these things that they are less about wanting to meet the AF heraldry standard than some Wing King wanting to make his mark. For years after they leave, they can walk around and point to some member wearing the new patch and say, "I did that.".
Quote from: ol'fido on October 27, 2012, 07:41:21 PM
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 27, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 27, 2012, 07:46:54 AM
Clearly, it stood for Georgia...:)
Yeah, I got that much, :P but what did it represent other than that? Nothing of historical value or CAP-ness.
Quote
The IL Wing patch was an eagle with the state of IL at its center. Now that eagle is inside the shield of the new patch.
I guess the point to be made was that many wing patches had or have nothing to do with CAP, but things that are in popular culture and whatnot, as well as symbols of the state. I still don't get WIWG's patch. Wisconsin with a big 42 in the center, but the charter number begins with 48. Maybe it's a GLR thing?
Most of the wing patches that have numbers on them reflect the old region/wing numbering system that was used way back when. For instance, Illinois has a 61 on the patch even though its charter numbers began with 11 until we started this GLR-IL-XXX nonsense. The 61 stood for 6th Region, 1st Wing. And WI has a 62 not a 42 on their wing patch.
Many of these wing patches reflect something of the state. Take KY for instance. Yes, the Kentucky Derby is a big event, but the patch could also reflect Kentucky's fame for breeding thoroughbred horses which is worldwide. Ask Queen Elizabeth.
Yes, many of our wing patches don't reflect any direct relation to CAP, but they do reflect the message that the members of the wings that adopted them wanted to convey. That is "This is who we are!" I like the old patches. I sometimes think from some of the discussions I hear about these things that they are less about wanting to meet the AF heraldry standard than some Wing King wanting to make his mark. For years after they leave, they can walk around and point to some member wearing the new patch and say, "I did that.".
Sorry, I just looked at an old WIWG patch I had, and it was a 62, not 42. My bad. ARWG used to have a Razorback over a white Arkansas silhouette, and now it's a circle with a reverse tab or whatever under it, with the state flag in the middle.
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 27, 2012, 06:22:08 AM
When I was in GAWG, our patch was a white circle, bordered with blue, with a BIG red GA inside and the blue and red prop in the center. What did this have to do with ANYTHING? I never found out. Made no sense to me whatsoever, but then it was redesigned sometime in the 90s to a white building or something on a lighter blue background. Then, more recently, it was redesigned again to a shield configuration, despite a grass-roots campaign by a former Spaatz cadet to go back to the GA patch. I still don't know what any of it means. But it made sense to someone, at some point.
While the first GAWG patch was, indeed, sort of funny-looking (IMHO) but clearly stood for "Georgia", the second one - the one you described as a white building or something - is actually the central design of the Georgia state seal. It's three columns, representing "Wisdom, Justice, Moderation," with the overarching "Constitution" and a Minuteman standing between two of the columns. The current GAWG patch is a portion of the newly-adopted state flag in the shield design.
Jack
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 27, 2012, 06:50:12 PM
Quote from: usafaux2004 on October 27, 2012, 07:46:54 AM
Clearly, it stood for Georgia... :)
Yeah, I got that much, :P but what did it represent other than that? Nothing of historical value or CAP-ness.
Quote
The IL Wing patch was an eagle with the state of IL at its center. Now that eagle is inside the shield of the new patch.
I guess the point to be made was that many wing patches had or have nothing to do with CAP, but things that are in popular culture and whatnot, as well as symbols of the state. I still don't get WIWG's patch. Wisconsin with a big 42 in the center, but the charter number begins with 48. Maybe it's a GLR thing?
The numbers on wing patches have to do with the original numbering system for wings. 42 would be Area(?) 4, Wing 2. Illinois is Area 6, Wing 1. NJ is Area 2, Wing 2.
The new numbering system started with an alphabetical list of the Wings, and assigned numbers from 1 to 52. Exceptions are AK, HI, and PR. DC fits in as National Capitol Wing.
Here's a monograph (http://www.incountry.us/cappatches/library/art-pres/hn-number.pdf) that explains it all.
Quote from: ColonelJack on October 28, 2012, 01:59:38 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 27, 2012, 06:22:08 AM
When I was in GAWG, our patch was a white circle, bordered with blue, with a BIG red GA inside and the blue and red prop in the center. What did this have to do with ANYTHING? I never found out. Made no sense to me whatsoever, but then it was redesigned sometime in the 90s to a white building or something on a lighter blue background. Then, more recently, it was redesigned again to a shield configuration, despite a grass-roots campaign by a former Spaatz cadet to go back to the GA patch. I still don't know what any of it means. But it made sense to someone, at some point.
While the first GAWG patch was, indeed, sort of funny-looking (IMHO) but clearly stood for "Georgia", the second one - the one you described as a white building or something - is actually the central design of the Georgia state seal. It's three columns, representing "Wisdom, Justice, Moderation," with the overarching "Constitution" and a Minuteman standing between two of the columns. The current GAWG patch is a portion of the newly-adopted state flag in the shield design.
Jack
I was wondering if you were going to shed some light on this for me.
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 28, 2012, 06:39:41 AM
Quote from: ColonelJack on October 28, 2012, 01:59:38 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 27, 2012, 06:22:08 AM
When I was in GAWG, our patch was a white circle, bordered with blue, with a BIG red GA inside and the blue and red prop in the center. What did this have to do with ANYTHING? I never found out. Made no sense to me whatsoever, but then it was redesigned sometime in the 90s to a white building or something on a lighter blue background. Then, more recently, it was redesigned again to a shield configuration, despite a grass-roots campaign by a former Spaatz cadet to go back to the GA patch. I still don't know what any of it means. But it made sense to someone, at some point.
While the first GAWG patch was, indeed, sort of funny-looking (IMHO) but clearly stood for "Georgia", the second one - the one you described as a white building or something - is actually the central design of the Georgia state seal. It's three columns, representing "Wisdom, Justice, Moderation," with the overarching "Constitution" and a Minuteman standing between two of the columns. The current GAWG patch is a portion of the newly-adopted state flag in the shield design.
Jack
I was wondering if you were going to shed some light on this for me.
Actually, that was GAWG patch with the "GA" done up in a Civil Defense font with a prop and circle in the centre was not adopted until late 1950, and was technically the SECOND Georgia Wing patch. The FIRST Georgia Wing Patch (in two variants), worn on CAP uniforms from 1941-1950 was the state seal, surrounded by a circle that read "GEORGIA STATE DEFENSE CORPS", and also "GEORGIA STATE GUARD/GEORGIA STATE AIR GUARD", because from 1941-1950, Georgia Wing CAP was the Air Division of the Georgia State Guard, the same state military organisation that exists as the Georgia State Defense Force now. Currently, the Georgia State Air Guard consists of only 2 officers: whomever is the sitting GAWG Commander, who is legally appointed a Colonel and aide-de-camp to the Governor (and who wears the current CAP uniform); and the Georgia Adjutant General, MGEN Butterworth, who wears an AF Blue uniform with State of Georgia Buttons, two metal stars on each epaulet, and bright silver "GA" collar brass in place of the US ones.
Quote from: skymaster on November 02, 2012, 02:44:58 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 28, 2012, 06:39:41 AM
Quote from: ColonelJack on October 28, 2012, 01:59:38 AM
Quote from: Garibaldi on October 27, 2012, 06:22:08 AM
When I was in GAWG, our patch was a white circle, bordered with blue, with a BIG red GA inside and the blue and red prop in the center. What did this have to do with ANYTHING? I never found out. Made no sense to me whatsoever, but then it was redesigned sometime in the 90s to a white building or something on a lighter blue background. Then, more recently, it was redesigned again to a shield configuration, despite a grass-roots campaign by a former Spaatz cadet to go back to the GA patch. I still don't know what any of it means. But it made sense to someone, at some point.
While the first GAWG patch was, indeed, sort of funny-looking (IMHO) but clearly stood for "Georgia", the second one - the one you described as a white building or something - is actually the central design of the Georgia state seal. It's three columns, representing "Wisdom, Justice, Moderation," with the overarching "Constitution" and a Minuteman standing between two of the columns. The current GAWG patch is a portion of the newly-adopted state flag in the shield design.
Jack
I was wondering if you were going to shed some light on this for me.
Actually, that was GAWG patch with the "GA" done up in a Civil Defense font with a prop and circle in the centre was not adopted until late 1950, and was technically the SECOND Georgia Wing patch. The FIRST Georgia Wing Patch (in two variants), worn on CAP uniforms from 1941-1950 was the state seal, surrounded by a circle that read "GEORGIA STATE DEFENSE CORPS", and also "GEORGIA STATE GUARD/GEORGIA STATE AIR GUARD", because from 1941-1950, Georgia Wing CAP was the Air Division of the Georgia State Guard, the same state military organisation that exists as the Georgia State Defense Force now. Currently, the Georgia State Air Guard consists of only 2 officers: whomever is the sitting GAWG Commander, who is legally appointed a Colonel and aide-de-camp to the Governor (and who wears the current CAP uniform); and the Georgia Adjutant General, MGEN Butterworth, who wears an AF Blue uniform with State of Georgia Buttons, two metal stars on each epaulet, and bright silver "GA" collar brass in place of the US ones.
Here is a picture of the first variant of the 1941-1950 Georgia Wing Patch:
(http://i.imgur.com/ljyux.jpg)
And here is that Wing Patch as worn on flight clothing at the CAP Tow Target Base in Albany, GA in 1943, by our first GAWG Commander, LTC Winship Nunnally and another GAWG CAP officer:
(http://i.imgur.com/wdHZ4.jpg)
I think that this one is that you might have been thinking of as the first GAWG patch, and you are correct in one sense of the word; it was the first GAWG patch worn on an Air Force blue Uniform, an the one worn for the longest period of CAP history so far:
(http://i.imgur.com/gZQSP.jpg)
According to Major Lee Regan's work, the bottom in the preceding post is the first Georgia Wing patch, dating from 1950. There is no mention of the GSDC patch, apparently because it was not a CAP patch.
Quote from: SarDragon on November 02, 2012, 04:07:51 AM
According to Major Lee Regan's work, the bottom in the preceding post is the first Georgia Wing patch, dating from 1950. There is no mention of the GSDC patch, apparently because it was not a CAP patch.
Well, it could be argued that, if a uniform item was mandated either by order or regulation, by competent military authority (state OR federal), in wartime no less, as a legally required part of a CAP uniform of the period within that state, that makes that item a CAP uniform item. That designator can very well be the difference between being considered a "lawful combatant" covered by the Geneva Convention, or a spy/saboteur to be shot on sight.
Skymaster-
The information you posted regarding the GA CAP wing, it can be argued that GA Wing did not exist until after the creation of CAP since there was no mention of CAP in either the seal or the info you posted.
Is/are there any letters, memos, or orders that state something similar to "the GA Guard is attached to CAP?" Or like other units that flew during 1941-1950 used the triangular propeller inside a blue circle?
Flyer
Quote from: flyer333555 on November 02, 2012, 01:41:52 PM
Skymaster-
The information you posted regarding the GA CAP wing, it can be argued that GA Wing did not exist until after the creation of CAP since there was no mention of CAP in either the seal or the info you posted.
Is/are there any letters, memos, or orders that state something similar to "the GA Guard is attached to CAP?" Or like other units that flew during 1941-1950 used the triangular propeller inside a blue circle?
Flyer
It had to do with state law that was (an still is) in effect in the state of Georgia. Due to some certain "unpleasantness" from 1861-1865, it is ILLEGAL for a resident of the state to perform military drill, or wear a military uniform of any type, or carry even deactivated or replica weapons in a formation, unless that person is a member of the organised militia of the state. That was why all GAWG officers wore the GSDC device and held commissions in the Georgia State Guard 1941-1950. Otherwise, most of our programs would have been a violation of state law. It is also, BTW, why all GAWG vehicles carry a State of Georgia government tag, and is part of the reason why the newest wing patch doesn't say "CAP" on it anywhere.
Sounds like it would be easier to remove the law...
Quote from: skymaster on November 02, 2012, 04:14:39 PM
It had to do with state law that was (an still is) in effect in the state of Georgia. Due to some certain "unpleasantness" from 1861-1865, it is ILLEGAL for a resident of the state to perform military drill, or wear a military uniform of any type, or carry even deactivated or replica weapons in a formation, unless that person is a member of the organised militia of the state. That was why all GAWG officers wore the GSDC device and held commissions in the Georgia State Guard 1941-1950. Otherwise, most of our programs would have been a violation of state law. It is also, BTW, why all GAWG vehicles carry a State of Georgia government tag, and is part of the reason why the newest wing patch doesn't say "CAP" on it anywhere.
Hmm, I'm not sure that I'm buying that explanation, especially the part about that still being the law unless you are alleging that all GA CAP members are breaking the law every meeting night....
BTW, it is pretty common for wing patches to not mention CAP.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2012, 05:38:30 PM
BTW, it is pretty common for wing patches to not mention CAP.
Which is part of the issue I have. They should all have something to do with CAP. Or atleast CAP history and tradition, or aerospace history, or SAR.
They mostly do.. since it's beens said that a picture is worth more than words .. it doesn't have to say it, to say it.
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 02, 2012, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2012, 05:38:30 PM
BTW, it is pretty common for wing patches to not mention CAP.
Which is part of the issue I have. They should all have something to do with CAP. Or atleast CAP history and tradition, or aerospace history, or SAR.
Why in the world should a Wing patch mention CAP? Does every AF wing patch reference the USAF?
All those other big name tapes and patches on our uniform do a good enough job advertising that we are in CAP -- no need to put it on a wing patch too.
Now, if a wing WANTS to put CAP on their patch, I'm ok with that even if it is a little redundant.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2012, 07:43:01 PM
Quote from: manfredvonrichthofen on November 02, 2012, 06:18:28 PM
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2012, 05:38:30 PM
BTW, it is pretty common for wing patches to not mention CAP.
Which is part of the issue I have. They should all have something to do with CAP. Or atleast CAP history and tradition, or aerospace history, or SAR.
Why in the world should a Wing patch mention CAP? Does every AF wing patch reference the USAF?
All those other big name tapes and patches on our uniform do a good enough job advertising that we are in CAP -- no need to put it on a wing patch too.
Now, if a wing WANTS to put CAP on their patch, I'm ok with that even if it is a little redundant.
Which is why a LOT of USAF wing,command, and organization patches look pretty much the same. In other words, BORING.
They would look more exciting if each had "USAF" or "Air Force" on them?
No they would look better if they had a little more originality to them.
I went online, searched the Georgia Code, which is the State law. It does not mention CAP. Maybe it does somewhere, but a quick search would/should have yielded something...
Flyer
Quote from: RiverAux on November 02, 2012, 05:38:30 PM
Quote from: skymaster on November 02, 2012, 04:14:39 PM
It had to do with state law that was (an still is) in effect in the state of Georgia. Due to some certain "unpleasantness" from 1861-1865, it is ILLEGAL for a resident of the state to perform military drill, or wear a military uniform of any type, or carry even deactivated or replica weapons in a formation, unless that person is a member of the organised militia of the state. That was why all GAWG officers wore the GSDC device and held commissions in the Georgia State Guard 1941-1950. Otherwise, most of our programs would have been a violation of state law. It is also, BTW, why all GAWG vehicles carry a State of Georgia government tag, and is part of the reason why the newest wing patch doesn't say "CAP" on it anywhere.
Hmm, I'm not sure that I'm buying that explanation, especially the part about that still being the law unless you are alleging that all GA CAP members are breaking the law every meeting night....
BTW, it is pretty common for wing patches to not mention CAP.
The organised militia definition has been expanded over the years to include military auxiliaries, as well as ROTC and JROTC, and programs that receive state funding through Georgia DOD (CAP is included as a line item there), that have a recognised ID card that identifies the holder as a member of the said group. The Official Code of Georgia is not the ONLY law in Georgia. Decisions of various courts, budgets, and cabinet-level departmental policies all carry equal weight with the OCGA. And if the Governor and Adjutant General say that you are a State DOD resource/force multiplier, well, you get the idea. (Plus various 10th and 14th Amendment issues).
Quote from: skymaster on November 03, 2012, 12:20:02 AM
The organised militia definition has been expanded over the years to include military auxiliaries, as well as ROTC and JROTC, and programs that receive state funding through Georgia DOD (CAP is included as a line item there), that have a recognised ID card that identifies the holder as a member of the said group. The Official Code of Georgia is not the ONLY law in Georgia. Decisions of various courts, budgets, and cabinet-level departmental policies all carry equal weight with the OCGA. And if the Governor and Adjutant General say that you are a State DOD resource/force multiplier, well, you get the idea. (Plus various 10th and 14th Amendment issues).
OMG this is wrong on so many levels that it is almost dangerous. "Organized militia" has a very specific set of meaning under state laws and I challenge you to show me a Georgia law (which is the only thing that matters) that says that CAP, ROTC, or JROTC is part of the organized militia.
Well, you can't. I checked Georgia law and the organized militia in Georgia consists of the Army and Air National Guards, Georgia State Defense Force and the Naval Militia (which isn't currently organized in GA). Basically you're claiming that CAP is part of the state military establishment which might actually be some sort of other crime in the state.
This is an incredibly important point -- there are all sorts of crazy gun nut militia types out there claiming to be the "militia" and if you're going around claiming that CAP is part of the organized militia (meaning subject to state military law) then you're really going to give CAP a bad name.
The fact that CAP may have some sort of office within the GA DOD and that it gets funding from the state in no way makes CAP part of the organized militia.
You really need to show some facts to back up this claim or stop making it before you really start misleading a lot of other GA CAP folks and getting the Wing in serious trouble.
Now, GA law does have a pretty standard prohibition on wear of military uniforms and like almost all there isn't any exception made for CAP. However, since the federal military gives us authority to wear these uniforms I doubt any state has ever prosecuted a CAP member for doing so.
Quote from: RiverAux on November 03, 2012, 12:49:20 AM
Quote from: skymaster on November 03, 2012, 12:20:02 AM
The organised militia definition has been expanded over the years to include military auxiliaries, as well as ROTC and JROTC, and programs that receive state funding through Georgia DOD (CAP is included as a line item there), that have a recognised ID card that identifies the holder as a member of the said group. The Official Code of Georgia is not the ONLY law in Georgia. Decisions of various courts, budgets, and cabinet-level departmental policies all carry equal weight with the OCGA. And if the Governor and Adjutant General say that you are a State DOD resource/force multiplier, well, you get the idea. (Plus various 10th and 14th Amendment issues).
OMG this is wrong on so many levels that it is almost dangerous. "Organized militia" has a very specific set of meaning under state laws and I challenge you to show me a Georgia law (which is the only thing that matters) that says that CAP, ROTC, or JROTC is part of the organized militia.
Well, you can't. I checked Georgia law and the organized militia in Georgia consists of the Army and Air National Guards, Georgia State Defense Force and the Naval Militia (which isn't currently organized in GA). Basically you're claiming that CAP is part of the state military establishment which might actually be some sort of other crime in the state.
This is an incredibly important point -- there are all sorts of crazy gun nut militia types out there claiming to be the "militia" and if you're going around claiming that CAP is part of the organized militia (meaning subject to state military law) then you're really going to give CAP a bad name.
The fact that CAP may have some sort of office within the GA DOD and that it gets funding from the state in no way makes CAP part of the organized militia.
You really need to show some facts to back up this claim or stop making it before you really start misleading a lot of other GA CAP folks and getting the Wing in serious trouble.
Now, GA law does have a pretty standard prohibition on wear of military uniforms and like almost all there isn't any exception made for CAP. However, since the federal military gives us authority to wear these uniforms I doubt any state has ever prosecuted a CAP member for doing so.
O.C.G.A. 38-2-275 (2010)
38-2-275. Unlawful wearing of uniforms and devices indicating rank; penalty
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person except members of components of the armed forces of the United States, members of the organized militia of this or any other state, members of associations wholly composed of persons honorably discharged from the armed forces of the United States, and members of associations wholly composed of children of veterans of any war of the United States to wear any uniform or any device, strap, knot, or insignia of any design or character used as a designation of grade, rank, or office such as are by law or by regulation, duly promulgated, prescribed for the use of the organized militia or similar thereto, provided that this Code section shall not apply to cadets of military schools, the Boy Scouts of America, or to persons wearing on the stage any such uniform at theatrical or like performances.
(b) Any person violating subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
ยง 38-2-277 - Unauthorized military bodies prohibited; exceptions; support by counties or cities prohibited; penalty for membership
O.C.G.A. 38-2-277 (2010)
38-2-277. Unauthorized military bodies prohibited; exceptions; support by counties or cities prohibited; penalty for membership
(a) No body of men other than the organized militia, components of the armed forces of the United States, and bodies of the police and state constabulary and such other organizations as may be formed under this chapter shall associate themselves together as a military unit or parade or demonstrate in public with firearms.
(b) Associations wholly comprised of military personnel honorably discharged from the service of the United States and benevolent and secret organizations may parade in public with swords. Students in educational institutions where military science is a prescribed part of the course of instruction may drill or parade with firearms in public under the supervision of their instructors. This Code section shall not be construed to prevent parades in public with firearms by authorized organizations of the organized militia of any other state.
(c) No political subdivision of this state shall raise or appropriate any money toward arming, equipping, uniforming, or in any other way supporting, sustaining, or providing drill rooms or armories for any such unauthorized organizations.
(d) Any person who actively participates in an unauthorized military organization or who parades with any unauthorized body of men as set forth in subsection (a) of this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
And as far as the history, I trust the word of two former Wing Commanders and the family of our FIRST GAWG Commander as a source.
wow...what a can of worms i kicked over. my apologies.
skymaster, neither of those quotes from GA law have anything to do with your assertion that CAP members in GA are part of the organized militia.