close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

1st Cav Patch

Discussion in 'US Army Forum' started by MSW, Jul 19, 2006.

  1. MSW

    MSW

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    USA
    I was having lunch today and some active duty US Army guys in BDU's came in.

    One of them had a typical 1st Cav Patch on his right shoulder. I believe this indicates that he had served in combat with the 1st Cav. If I remember right, left shoulder, is the current unit and right shoulder is the last unit you served with in combat.

    This patch was a camo patch but the head of the horse was turned to the side. Almost looking down.

    These guys were regular US Army in the new BDU's. The kind with the velcro patch areas.

    I know what a standard 1st Cav Patch looks like. It was Airmobile when I was in the Army and the horse's head was always straight up. My father was also in 1st Cav in Korea and he wore the same patch on his right shoulder. I've gone to the 1st Cav website and looked at the current patch and my memory is correct.

    Anybody know what this might indicate? The patch appeared to be a standard US Army issued patch. It was mounted correctly but the horses head was looking down.

    Any clue why on this patch the head of the horse was almost looking at the ground?

    I was going to ask them but they go away before I could catch up with them.
     
  2. Sgt_Gold

    Sgt_Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    NY
    What you probably saw is the most recent trend in the Army uniform. When the Army decided to wear the flag on the right sleeve of the BDU\ACU uniform, it was decided to wear it in reverse so it would look like it was standing out in the wind. Wearing it the correct way would make it look like the Soldier was walking backwards. This has also been done with vehicles and trailers. I've noticed that units like the Cav that have foward facing symbols on their unit patches have been reversing the patch for wear on the right shoulder. Since the velcro for unit patches is on the sleeve pocket, and the pocket is sharply angled foward, it would make the horse on the blanket 'look' down. If someone were to wear the original patch, the horse would be loking up at the sky.
     

  3. MSW

    MSW

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2005
    Messages:
    1,408
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    USA
    Thanks. That could be it. I may have to track this guy down and find out for sure.

    The new BDU look is a lot different than the starched stuff we used to wear.

    It is one of those things that could drive me crazy.

    Thanks for the reply.
     
  4. FDC

    FDC

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    Unauthorized and faddish as hell, but the 1st Cav isn't the only unit to do this recently.
     
  5. Cav

    Cav

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,305
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    The Great State of Texas

    FYI the 1st Cav patch has had a reversed combat patch for years (over 15 years that I know of), and its authorized............well as authorized as the 2nd Armored Div was aloud to wear there patch on there left chest.
     
  6. FDC

    FDC

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    219
    Likes Received:
    0
    http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/uniform/ALARACT%20030-2006.doc

    1st Cav isn't the only unit that is wrong.;)

    UNCLASSIFIED//

    PRECEDENCE TO: PRIORITY DTG: 061520Z FEB 06
    PRECEDENCE CC: PRIORITY
    TYPE: AUTODIN
    FROM PLA: PTC WASHINGTON DC//AL MAN//
    SUBJECT: ALARACT 030/2005 CORRECT COPY
    TEXT:
    PAAUZYUW RUEOMFN0291 0382020-UUUU--RUHQDAU.
    ZNR UUUUU ZUI RUEOMCE0604 0382021
    P 061520Z FEB 06
    FM PTC WASHINGTON DC//AL MAN//
    TO ALARACT
    ZEN/RMY/OU=ORGANIZATIONS/OU=ADDRESS LISTS/CN=AL ALARACT(UC) BT UNCLAS QQQQ
    SUBJ: ALARACT 030/2005 CORRECT COPY
    UNCLASSIFIED//
    THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN SENT BY THE PENTAGON TELECOMMUNICATIONS CENTER ON BEHALF OF DA WASHINGTON DC//DAPE-HR-IR//
    SUBJECT: SHOULDER SLEEVE INSIGNIA (SSI) AND SHOULDER SLEEVE INSIGNIA-FORMER WARTIME SERVICE (SSI-FWTS) 1. AR 670-1, 3 FEB 05, WEAR AND APPEARANCE OF ARMY UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA.
    2. THE PURPOSE OF THIS MESSAGE IS TO REEMPHASIZE THE WEAR POLICY FOR BOTH THE SSI AND SSI-FWTS. COMMANDERS AND LEADERS AT ALL LEVELS WILL COMPLY WITH AR 670-1, PARAGRAPH 28-16, PARAGRAPH 28-17, AND APPENDIX F.
    3. UNITS ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THEIR SSI, OR SSI-FWTS WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF (DCS), G-1. A MIRROR IMAGE SSI-FWTS IS CONSIDERED A MODIFICATION.
    4. TO DATE, THE DCS, G-1 HAS NOT APPROVED ANY AUTHORIZATIONS FOR UNITS TO WEAR A MIRROR IMAGE SSI-FWTS NOR HAVE ANY APPROVALS BEEN GRANTED FOR UNITS TO MODIFY THEIR SSI OR SSI-FWTS.

    5. blah, blah, blah, more Army reg stuff.
     
  7. Cav

    Cav

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,305
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    The Great State of Texas
    Seems like it might be a new regulation. I know that many regs have exceptions, and DA can authorize some changes, such as 2nd AD's SSI worn on the left chest, or the 1-9 Infantry Manchu belt buckle being worn with BDU's or Class A's. I will have to look further into this as some things are grand fathered in and some are not. Luckly I live next to Ft Hood.
     
  8. Avenger069

    Avenger069 Cyber Warrant

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Metro Detroit
    I know for a long time division commanders were allowing these things and no one really said a thing. The two most popular that I seen mentioned recently have been 1st Cav and 1st ID (wearing the red one as combat and left shoulder when assigned to the division). Both of these have been struck down by DA.

    I think the reason that the policy is now being enforced more is because there are just so many soldiers now that have combat patches and the practice became very visible beyond the division boundaries.

    What many people thought were exceptions never really were. They were just local policy that was never sactioned by DA. I can't speak of the other examples you have given but I know the 1st Cav and 1st ID were not doing the right thing.
     
  9. Cav

    Cav

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    1,305
    Likes Received:
    15
    Location:
    The Great State of Texas
    Add the 101st to that. Funny that its happened for so long as reg happy as some units are.
     
  10. Sgt_Gold

    Sgt_Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    400
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    NY
    Apparently no one told the 1st ID they couldn't wear their big red one. I was 1st ID and we are the only unit in the Army that wears the full color insignia on out combat uniform. Granted it's only a red one on a green or tan background so it's not too loud. If that's changed I'd like to see the memo.

     
  11. Avenger069

    Avenger069 Cyber Warrant

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Metro Detroit
    You are right and that's exactly what I am saying...1st ID still wears it but this is a LOCAL POLICY for 1st ID. It is not authorized beyond the division borders and is questionable within them. You can't show an Army Regulation that states it is authorized. All you will find is a local policy memo from the 1st ID or a 1st ID Reg (not AR). As far as I know 1st ID has been told but they continue to do it.

    AR 670-1(Feb 05) , Chap 28, para 17, subpara c (page 239) specifically states that the non-subdued SSI-FWTS patch is for wear on the Army green uniform coat, and that the subdued patch is for wear on BDU variants and field jackets.

    FDC in this thread published a clarification memo that came out this year that states no changes have been authorized to what can be worn.

    I don't know how many of you here have access to the NCO Net knowledge network through AKO but this has been a heated discussion before. Here are a few highlights:

    ---------------------------------------------------
    An email from SGM Morales at DAs uniform policy department:

    From: Morales, Walter O. SGM, Army G-1
    Sent: Monday, September 13, 2004 9:04 AM
    To: Nominative CSM List
    Cc: Croom, Michael L SGM Army G-1; Crosier, Lon H SGM Army G-1
    Subject: Requests for Modified Combat Patches (UNCLASSIFIED)


    Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
    Caveats: NONE

    Ladies and Gentlemen:

    I would like to take this opportunity to make you aware that the Army G1 disapproved a request from a command to modify its unit insignia so it would face forward when worn as a combat patch. The 'take away' message here is that changes to insignias tend to distract from their historical significance; therefore, changes to insignias will not be approved unless there was a heraldic design error or the design has become offensive through changing societal sentiment.

    So far, I can give an account of two instances where the command decided to make the change to its insignia w/o prior approval from HQDA. Request your support in discouraging Commanders from engaging in this practice. The end result has been the same in both instances, the command wasted funds without proper authorization, and it had to go back and revert to the original insignia...the one approved by The Institute of Heraldry.

    Thanks for your continued support!

    SGM Walter O. Morales
    Headquarters, Department of the Army
    Proponent Uniform Policy

    ---------------------------------------------------
    A further follow up/clarification from SGM Morales was this:


    Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
    Caveats: NONE

    You should wear the green with black one "1". The green with the red "1" is an UNAUTHORIZED insignia the Division has opted to continue to wear despite being unauthorized.

    SGM Morales
    HQDA, Uniform Policy