Uniform Insignia Forum

Hi Everyone!

Presented here are my colour illustrations of the insignia of rank worn by the officers, warrant officers and enlisted personnel of the United States Air National Guard (ANG).

These insignia are updated due to the ANG shield now being in colour.
The insignia is also shown without the specialty insignia, which would normally be displayed along with the rank.

Chuck Anderson
UniformInsignia Forum Administrator
cbakiteskites@yahoo.com

Another great work, mate)) And a deep respect again))
But I would like to discuss with you some aspects concerning the general approach to the rank insignia construction.
You see, rank insignia resembles any heraldic symbols, and I was working with an industrial heraldry for quite a long while. And I remember 3 main rules of the industrial heraldry:

1. The logo has to have a clear meaning (must reflect the peculiarity of the branch/industry it represents)
2. The logo has to be as less complicated as possible to be accepted ergonomically by any person.
3. The logo does not have to lose its meaning in black&white image.

As one of the best examples they showed the Mercedes-Benz logo - the three-pointed star in a circle, which means the superiority in all three elements - in Air, in Water and on Earth.

And sometimes it looks like the most of rank insignia had been elaborated without any ergonomic approach. For example, by physiology the human being is able to recognize immediately from 1 to 3 similar close-located elements, or up to 4 simple a bit dispersed elements - and this is taken into consideration, say, in USA land forces enlisted insignia: the main number of chevrons is 3, and the main number of arcs is 3 as well. And all these ranks are recognizable with one short glance. But when the number of similar elements exceeds 3, the man has to spend more time to "calculate" the number of chevrons/planks/arcs which is very inconvenient. So, when I see, for example, the USAF rank insignia, with up to 6 close-located arcs, it looks like their creators decided to complicate the life of military men to force them to spend more time calculating the number of arcs.
If you remember, in one of sections of this forum I suggested my view of Galactic Rank Insignia, and I made it taking into consideration all mentioned above.
So, it would be very interesting to hear your opinion concerning the rank insignia ergonomic issue.

Dorward wrote:Another great work, mate)) And a deep respect again))
But I would like to discuss with you some aspects concerning the general approach to the rank insignia construction.
You see, rank insignia resembles any heraldic symbols, and I was working with an industrial heraldry for quite a long while. And I remember 3 main rules of the industrial heraldry:

1. The logo has to have a clear meaning (must reflect the peculiarity of the branch/industry it represents)
2. The logo has to be as less complicated as possible to be accepted ergonomically by any person.
3. The logo does not have to lose its meaning in black&white image.

As one of the best examples they showed the Mercedes-Benz logo - the three-pointed star in a circle, which means the superiority in all three elements - in Air, in Water and on Earth.

And sometimes it looks like the most of rank insignia had been elaborated without any ergonomic approach. For example, by physiology the human being is able to recognize immediately from 1 to 3 similar close-located elements, or up to 4 simple a bit dispersed elements - and this is taken into consideration, say, in USA land forces enlisted insignia: the main number of chevrons is 3, and the main number of arcs is 3 as well. And all these ranks are recognizable with one short glance. But when the number of similar elements exceeds 3, the man has to spend more time to "calculate" the number of chevrons/planks/arcs which is very inconvenient. So, when I see, for example, the USAF rank insignia, with up to 6 close-located arcs, it looks like their creators decided to complicate the life of military men to force them to spend more time calculating the number of arcs.
If you remember, in one of sections of this forum I suggested my view of Galactic Rank Insignia, and I made it taking into consideration all mentioned above.
So, it would be very interesting to hear your opinion concerning the rank insignia ergonomic issue.

Hi Dorward!

As far as the ergonomics go (with reference to the USAF insignia), it is not at all hard for people to differentiate between the many chevrons and arcs for each rank.
Not only is there a change in numbers of the arcs from rank-to-rank, but there are changes in shape as well.

From the very first day a person enters the USAF they learn to differentiate between the rank insignia at a glance, and it's not at all for difficult once one is familiar with them.

When I was in the USAF, (when E4 was an NCO rank), one could easily see that anyone with three stripes and above was an NCO.

Other nations such as Turkey, the Philippines and the Dominican Republic use stripes similar to that of the USAF.

So, it's not as difficult to differentiate between the enlisted USAF ranks as one might think, (people do it all the time.)

Chuck

In my opinion it is difficult to see the difference btw E-5 and E-6, but perhaps that doesn't matter in the USAF; I assume they both are addressed as "Sergeant"and no one needs to salute them.

/Luke

Hi Everyone!

Actually, it's not difficult to differentiate between one enlisted rank and another in the USAF!
Once a person gets used to the stripes, it becomes second nature and a person can tell at a glance what rank the person is.

One stripe, two stripes and then three stripes are easy to tell at a glance.
Then, with the three stripes (Sergeant) as a constant, there's only one stripe and then two stripes below added (Technical Sergeant), and that also is a constant.

With the five stripes of Technical Sergeant as a constant, there's only one chevron, then two chevrons and then three chevrons above for the top three NCO ranks. Those are not difficult to differentiate either.

Chuck

A short story devoted to non-ergonomic rank insignia - I've invented it when looked through Brazilian enlisted ones))

[url=http://pic.lg.ua/s/6BF4C][img]http://pic.lg.ua/x/11/12ddc4/md_869e55ef.jpg[/img][/url]

… Somewhere in Brazil. Twilights.

Spotter: ”Watching an object. Looks like our target. Remind me, what is his feature?”
Sniper: “He is to be in a Brazilian Master Sergeant’s uniform. Six close chevrons. They promised he’s the only Master Sarge here”.
Spotter: ”Roger. Ok, I’m pretty sure, this is our man. DAMN!”
Sniper: “WHAT?!”
Spotter: “Another appeared. With same insignia… Almost...”.
Sniper: “Almost or with same? Maybe he’s a Staff Sarge? Five close chevrons?”
Spotter: “Damn, I cannot see clearly – it’s too dark… Let me calculate his chevrons. One… two… Oh no!”
Sniper: “What’s now?”
Spotter: “They decided to chat. Ok, I’ll try to compare the height of their insignia”.
Sniper: “Do it fast. We have no time!”
Spotter: “I know. Ok… DAMN! Does he have a pain in his ass?”
Sniper: “I cannot help you – my scope’s viewing angle is too narrow”
Spotter: “Shut up. Ok, trying to calculate again. One… two… DAMN! Why cannot they speak without gesticulation?”
Sniper: “Well, the national feature – hot Brazilian guys…”
Spotter: “Again… One… Two… DAMN! Freeze! I promise I’ll kill him!”
Sniper: “Be sure – otherwise what are we here for?”
Spotter: “One… two… DAMN DAMN DAMN! I can’t spot these f***ing chevrons!”
Sniper: “ Time is almost out! DO SOMETHING!”
Spotter: “ DAMN! SHOOT 'EM BOTH!”