Jump to content


Reversed Color Transitional Ranks?

Started by all-bull , Apr 14 2010 02:06 PM

  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 all-bull

all-bull
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,063
  • 2,620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:va

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:06 PM

Hello,
I think that these are the Korean War era transitional ranks, although I could be wrong. My question concerns the reversed colors.....Is this a manufacturer error, or does it mean something else? THANKS!!

Attached Images

  • 88th_009.JPG


#2 sigsaye

sigsaye
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,104
  • 4,519 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Bowling Green KY. USA

Posted 14 April 2010 - 02:58 PM

One color meant combat arms, the other support. I don't remember which was which, the Army types will have to settel that.
Steve Hesson

#3 Teamski

Teamski
  • Members
    • Member ID: 3,043
  • 11,470 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Delaware

Posted 14 April 2010 - 04:00 PM

Yellow on dark blue for combat troops, vice versa for non-combat....

-Ski

#4 US82Bravo

US82Bravo
  • Members
    • Member ID: 8,013
  • 415 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 14 April 2010 - 04:51 PM

Sorry Teamski.... Gotta' disagree.

Source - The Institute of Heraldry - History of Army Enlisted Ranks

1948.Changes made by Department of the Army Circular No. 202, dated 7 July 1948, discontinued the Sergeant 4th grade and recruit was added as the 7th grade effective 1 August 1948. The new insignia was smaller (2 inches wide) and the colors changed. Combat insignia worn by combat personnel were gold color background with dark blue chevrons, arc and lozenge. Insignia worn by noncombat personnel were dark blue with gold color chevrons, arcs, and lozenge. The circular also deleted the Technicians effective 1 August 1948.

Chevrons were revised in 1951 to the larger green on dark blue types.



Larry

#5 Jason G

Jason G
  • Members
    • Member ID: 271
  • 3,330 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Peeples Publik of Murr

Posted 14 April 2010 - 05:45 PM

The 'small' chevrons were pretty much hated army wide from what I've read and heard. Worn part way into the Korean war, changed in the middle of it.

#6 KurtA

KurtA
  • Members
    • Member ID: 322
  • 5,089 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 15 April 2010 - 03:24 AM

Sorry Teamski.... Gotta' disagree.

Source - The Institute of Heraldry - History of Army Enlisted Ranks

1948.Changes made by Department of the Army Circular No. 202, dated 7 July 1948, discontinued the Sergeant 4th grade and recruit was added as the 7th grade effective 1 August 1948. The new insignia was smaller (2 inches wide) and the colors changed. Combat insignia worn by combat personnel were gold color background with dark blue chevrons, arc and lozenge. Insignia worn by noncombat personnel were dark blue with gold color chevrons, arcs, and lozenge. The circular also deleted the Technicians effective 1 August 1948.

Chevrons were revised in 1951 to the larger green on dark blue types.
Larry

I think were the confusion comes in is that there is a pretty good internet site that covers the history of US Army Chevrons. The site incorrectly identifies the color combos for these combatant and noncombatant chevrons. Their photos are correcly labeled, but the text is wrong. Many of us reference that site to quickly check things. Here it is : http://howardlanham....ngchevrons.html
Kurt

#7 Siamundo

Siamundo
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,744
  • 633 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alabama

Posted 11 December 2011 - 07:44 AM

Hello, I had a question or two I might hope someone might be able to answer. With regards to the blue and gold chevrons, when were the larger full size types in use? I have seen many of the smaller 2" versions but none of the larger versions until I recently ran across this pair. Are they scarce, or was this just the first pair I have seen? I have pictured one next to the smaller 2" size for comparision purposes. Were they an iterim size and style in between the small blue and gold style and the larger OD and dark blue? Thank you in advance.

Attached Images

  • blue1.jpg
  • blue2.jpg


#8 craig_pickrall

craig_pickrall

    Deceased Forum Co-Founder

  • IN MEMORIAM
    • Member ID: 5
  • 11,253 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Central Virginia, USA

Posted 11 December 2011 - 08:33 AM

I think those large chevrons were used on the Dress Blue uniform. They were worn by honor guards, special occasions, etc. They were not used in the same time frame of the small chevrons.

#9 seanmc1114

seanmc1114
  • Members
    • Member ID: 1,761
  • 2,773 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Reynolds, GA

Posted 12 December 2011 - 06:17 AM

I think were the confusion comes in is that there is a pretty good internet site that covers the history of US Army Chevrons. The site incorrectly identifies the color combos for these combatant and noncombatant chevrons. Their photos are correcly labeled, but the text is wrong. Many of us reference that site to quickly check things. Here it is : http://howardlanham....ngchevrons.html
Kurt

I love this quote from the website you linked to:

"During the period 1948-1951 the Army experimented with two-inch chevrons, originally as an economy measure. Combat units wore gold on blue and noncombat units wore blue on gold."

So does that mean the Army decided to try to save money on the manufacture of the enlisted rank patches by making them smaller, and thus requiring less material? But at the same time they couldn't resist creating a whole new classification system requiring two different color schemes and thus requiring two different manufacturing styles? That couldn't possible have added to the manufacturing costs, could it?

#10 El Bibliotecario

El Bibliotecario
  • Members
    • Member ID: 2,215
  • 850 posts
  • Location:SW

Posted 13 December 2011 - 02:07 PM

I love this quote from the website you linked to:

"During the period 1948-1951 the Army experimented with two-inch chevrons, originally as an economy measure. Combat units wore gold on blue and noncombat units wore blue on gold."

So does that mean the Army decided to try to save money on the manufacture of the enlisted rank patches by making them smaller, and thus requiring less material? But at the same time they couldn't resist creating a whole new classification system requiring two different color schemes and thus requiring two different manufacturing styles? That couldn't possible have added to the manufacturing costs, could it?


You are making the classic mistake of attributing common sense to a bureaucracy.

During the mid '60s when the army was debating giving an insignia of rank to E2s and adding a rocker to E3s, I recall reading an arguement that estimated how many miles of thread and work hours it would take to achieve this dubious 'improvement.' So naturally the army went ahead with it.

#11 Lee Ragan

Lee Ragan
  • Members
    • Member ID: 97
  • 2,451 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Odessa, Texas

Posted 13 December 2011 - 03:15 PM

The change to the small stripes wasn't so much an economy measure, but the Army had this bright idea that for some reason, cloth insignia worn on the sleeves should be smaller cause somebody in the Pentagon thought it would look better! :think: Needless to say, it didn't work out.
Emerson's book "Chevrons", explains the reasoning behind the adoption of these chevrons.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


In Memory of Co-Founder GREG MILLS ROBINSON, a.k.a. "Marine-KaBar"
(February 17, 1949 - March 5, 2011)