Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2019, 09:12:12 PM
Home Help Login Register
News:

CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: History of The CAP Distinctive Grey/White Uniform -- Better Options?
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Send this topic Print
Author Topic: History of The CAP Distinctive Grey/White Uniform -- Better Options?  (Read 26275 times)
RVT
Banned

Posts: 272

« Reply #20 on: June 27, 2010, 07:29:13 PM »

The "U.S." cutouts (inexplicable to me that we can have those, but can't have blue epaulettes).

Could someone explain that?  They want us looking distinctive from the USAF and put "US" cutouts on the coat?  Huh?
Report to moderator   Logged
AlphaSigOU
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,169
Unit: PCR-NV-069

The Kwaj Drafter!
« Reply #21 on: June 27, 2010, 10:47:23 PM »

I wouldn't specify a particular brand/model, except as an example. As with the trousers, specific features:
White shirt, functional epaulets, non-pleated pointed pockets with pointed full flaps, and full placket (the part where the button holes are).

That spec opens up where you get them from - I can't wear the Van Husen shirts because I have a large neck (19.5) and I need a tall shirt. Van Husen doesn't make them in that size.

I like that spec description. Sucks that neither VH nor Pilot House sell larger neck sizes than 19. :(
Report to moderator   Logged
Lt Col Charles E. (Chuck) Corway, CAP
Gill Robb Wilson Award (#2901 - 2011)
Amelia Earhart Award (#1257 - 1982) - C/Major (retired)
Billy Mitchell Award (#2375 - 1981)
Administrative/Personnel/Professional Development Officer
Nellis Composite Squadron (PCR-NV-069)
KJ6GHO - NAR 45040
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,357

« Reply #22 on: June 27, 2010, 11:16:58 PM »

True, but Quartermaster Uniforms does - although it has a pleated back, since they sell it as an EMT shirt. And for less the Van Husen or Pilot House cost.
Report to moderator   Logged
ZigZag911
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,987

« Reply #23 on: June 28, 2010, 05:47:49 PM »

Good luck on getting that bird to fly with NHQ.

We had a perfectly fine, distinctive blue uniform with the CSU that could more easily be mistaken for a Soviet Air Force dress blue uniform or TSA uniform than anything the AF wears, especially with the modifications General Courter directed, and STILL they're deep-sixing it.  I think NHQ is allergic to anything blue that isn't the AF-type uniform, because they're so afraid that we're going to tick the AF off with anything blue and/or the fact that the CSU was a product of the previous Generalissimo.

Doing away with the modified CSU makes absolutely no sense.

In point of fact, it was the USAF that had major concerns regarding the CSU, and they were the ones requesting its elimination by CAP.

Well, on second thought, 'requesting' might be putting it mildly!!
« Last Edit: June 28, 2010, 06:32:52 PM by MIKE » Report to moderator   Logged
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,187

« Reply #24 on: June 28, 2010, 06:48:06 PM »

^Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.  I don't want to rehash the arguments of a previous thread however, I'm getting tired of the mis- information filtering down from some. 

Let's just say, for me, this is a very sore subject (and I was against this uniform from the start).
Report to moderator   Logged
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,756

« Reply #25 on: June 28, 2010, 07:00:07 PM »

In point of fact, it was the USAF that had major concerns regarding the CSU, and they were the ones requesting its elimination by CAP.

Cite please.

FW is 100% correct, but I'm curious what you will respond with.
Report to moderator   Logged


Short Field
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,003

« Reply #26 on: June 28, 2010, 07:04:30 PM »

Ok, I finally call troll here, and leave the thread with one comment:
Most uniform threads are troll treads.  Once in a blue moon there is a real question that a quick review of the regs and ICLs will not answer.  This forum keeps the soap box manufacturers in business.    ;D
Report to moderator   Logged
SAR/DR MP, ARCHOP, AOBD, GTM1, GBD, LSC, FASC, LO, PIO, MSO(T), & IC2
Wilson #2640
bosshawk
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 1,585

« Reply #27 on: June 28, 2010, 08:18:38 PM »

Sounds like another example of the three most dangerous words in CAP:  "somebody told me" or " I seem to remember seeing that somewhere".
Report to moderator   Logged
Paul M. Reed
Col, USA(ret)
Former CAP Lt Col
Wilson #2777
Lord of the North
Forum Regular

Posts: 127

« Reply #28 on: June 28, 2010, 08:55:10 PM »

For larger sizes in the Aviator Shirt you may wish to look at http://www.magandson.com/
Report to moderator   Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #29 on: June 30, 2010, 12:15:40 AM »

Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.

And it's really silly in the long run.  It is an attractive uniform that is well-liked by most CAP members.  I received several compliments on mine.

But I do think that the blue epaulettes should have had "CAP" embroidered on them (like in the "old days") and worn on both the shirt and service coat.

From what I know, it's demise came about for two reasons, both intrinsic to CAP:

NHQ wanted to rid itself of anything to do with the previous Generalissimo.

NHQ was afraid that the Air Force would be ticked off, when it had been in existence already for a few years, AF input was sought, received and acted on (i.e., metal grade on flight cap).

About the only area I know of where the AF was actually involved was some junior NCO's and Airmen who didn't know anything about CAP (which is the fault of the Air Force in not educating them) made some grumbles that "someone's playing officer with our uniform" to their first shirts.  National got wind of it and went into overreaction damage control at Warp 9, cure a headache with a guillotine mode.

Since it's being phased out, I don't understand why General Courter ordered the modifications that she did in her ICL.  If the modifications were kept in place and the uniform was kept, honestly you'd have to be a bit of a dullard to confuse it with an AF uniform.

I do hope, probably fruitlessly, that NHQ will rescind the phase-out order.
Report to moderator   Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
RVT
Banned

Posts: 272

« Reply #30 on: June 30, 2010, 12:39:46 AM »

Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.
I do hope, probably fruitlessly, that NHQ will rescind the phase-out order.
Get the February 2010 National Board minutes and read Agenda item 3C.  Its very specific on exactly what happened.

In addition on page 22 it gives a full history of how the grey & white uniform came to be.

It also makes me want to trade wing commanders with Michigan.
Report to moderator   Logged
The CyBorg is destroyed
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 3,707
Unit: Exiled

AuxBeacon News
« Reply #31 on: June 30, 2010, 01:20:52 AM »

Do you mean the National Board Agenda?

I read that, including the well-stated remarks of Colonel Saile.

However, I still maintain that the "low-light/distance/distinctiveness" of AFI 10-2701 can be made to say whatever one wants it to say.  It is poorly-worded, inaccurate and open to wide interpretation, including the canard that the CSU looked too similar to the Army blue service dress.

The grey-white is very similar to the German Bundeswehr's service uniform...confusion with that could occur!

http://tinyurl.com/2uaq5sb

Look especially at p. 9-11.

Basically, I take it to say that anything other than the grey/white will be disallowed if it has any sort of blue in it, which is a bit of a crock.
Report to moderator   Logged
Exiled from GLR-MI-011
FW
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 2,187

« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2010, 01:45:02 AM »

Sorry about this but, the Air Force had absolutely nothing (officially) to do with the demise of the "CSU".  And, after some pretty good research, I find that it happened entirely due to internal fears.
I do hope, probably fruitlessly, that NHQ will rescind the phaseout order.
Get the February 2010 National Board minutes and read Agenda item 3C.  Its very specific on exactly what happened.

In addition on page 22 it gives a full history of how the grey & white uniform came to be.

It also makes me want to trade wing commanders with Michigan.

The Winter NB minutes are a good read (I was present at the meeting and know full well what transpired there).  However, you must look at the November '09 NEC minutes if you wish to know how the "CSU" was axed.   Plus, for more insight on this topic, you need to know the players and history a bit closer. You also need to read the exhange between the Board of Governors and the CSAF.   I may no longer be on the NB or NEC but, I still know quite a few current members and, have quite a number of "contacts"....

What is; is.  We're not going to change anything now so, don't cry over it.  The CSU is finished.  The NEC spoke, the NB spoke and, it's over.  Live with it. However, my heart burn is on a different level. And, unless present trends change, I don't think we will be dealing with "better" options soon.
 
Oh, and by the way, the Michigan Wing/CC has been relieved, and, is under investigation....
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 11:20:34 AM by FW » Report to moderator   Logged
RVT
Banned

Posts: 272

« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2010, 04:24:25 AM »

The Winter NB minutes are a good read (I was present at the meeting and know full well what transpired there).  However, you must look at the November '09 NEC minutes if you wish to know how the "CSU" was axed. Oh, and by the way, the Michigan Wing/CC has been relieved, is now a LT Col and, is under investigation....

There was a motion to eliminate it and it carried.  If there was much debate about it it's not in the minutes.  I don't think I'm privy to the other conversations you refer to, if they were ever published at all.  I was just curious.  Its starting to sound like I should probably not be curious anymore.

I'm 5'10 and 174 Lb, I'll be wearing the McPeak jacket anyway, though it looks like I should be handing out little drinks & bags of peanuts in this thing.

Database must not have been updated yet, he still shows as an O6 and in unit 001, which is probably wing HQ.  But it was probably not a good idea to refer to the CG's briefing slides and say they were substantially wrong.  If the CSU did not exist for those who did not meet height/weight & grooming standards - why DID it exist?

In my case, all it would be for is if I looked in the mirror prior to a meeting and my hair had grown out of spec, which it often is.  But its a lot more work to keep a white shirt looking good than a blue one, it would never be my first choice.  Probably just grab the same polo shirt everybody else wears when that happens.

I assume when they referred to the "black jacket" as being retained they were referring to the leather one.
Report to moderator   Logged
arajca
Salty & Seasoned Contributor

Posts: 4,357

« Reply #34 on: June 30, 2010, 04:30:06 AM »

IIRC, the CSU existed for those not meeting h/w, but are meeting grooming standards.
Report to moderator   Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,626
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #35 on: June 30, 2010, 04:42:00 AM »

That is correct. And RVT, you're talking about the wrong Tony. It's Pineda, not McPeak.
Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Custer
Banned

Posts: 91

« Reply #36 on: June 30, 2010, 04:57:39 AM »

That is correct. And RVT, you're talking about the wrong Tony. It's Pineda, not McPeak.
The McPeak uniform was never intended to have anything on the shoulder and apparently was also not intended to have anything at all worn on the right side of it.  Trying to adapt it to look like the coat it replaced really didn't work.  Why didn't they just go back to the old coat after the "converted mistakes" wore out?  Or for that matter just ditch the whole thing.

The USAF botched their new uniform way before CAP ever did.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2010, 05:23:51 AM by Custer » Report to moderator   Logged
RVT
Banned

Posts: 272

« Reply #37 on: June 30, 2010, 05:31:31 AM »

That is correct. And RVT, you're talking about the wrong Tony. It's Pineda, not McPeak.
Sorry I wasn't clear there.  I don't even HAVE a TPU coat.  I have the regular USAF coat that makes me look like a Braniff airline steward.
Report to moderator   Logged
SarDragon
Global Moderator

Posts: 10,626
Unit: NAVAIRPAC

« Reply #38 on: June 30, 2010, 06:04:18 AM »

OK, help me out here.

We started with the Aviator shirt uniform, and then moved on to the Corporate Service Uniform (CSU, aka TPU). All of a sudden, Tony McPeak got into the discussion. Where did that come from?

We're talking about this:



Not this:

Report to moderator   Logged
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret
Eclipse
Too Much Free Time Award

Posts: 29,756

« Reply #39 on: June 30, 2010, 01:50:10 PM »

The current service jacket was designed by Gen. McPeak - before that it was the 4-pocket Tony Nelson style.

While the McPeak uniform was only worn in limited areas after the wear tests, and was changed almost immediately after he
stepped down, the jacket is still his legacy - especially for NCO's, it is little more than a regular sportcoat with USAF buttons.

Unlike most other services, if you changed the buttons no one would know it was a USAF uniform item.
Report to moderator   Logged


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7 Send this topic Print 
CAP Talk  |  General Discussion  |  Uniforms & Awards  |  Topic: History of The CAP Distinctive Grey/White Uniform -- Better Options?
 


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP SMF 2.0.14 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.08 seconds with 26 queries.
click here to email me