Why? I want our CCF(RAF) ones to match the style, colour and width. I’m fed up with using green ones designed for the Army section (who don’t wear them anyway) which are too wide and therefore have to go halfway down the brassard, leaving no space below and looking gash. I’ve asked a supplier to knock up some in the same style and for some reason they are finding this tricky[/quote]
Bravo, good show. This would be an excellent area to try and regain standardisation about. Here’s some gen which you may already be fully aware of, but no harm in restating it.
As I understand it, although many CCFs now just wear a single mudguard design across all sections within a given school, each of the service sections should officially follow the design pattern of their parent organisation. Like many traditions, this has slipped over the years, but makes a lot of sense when applied.
So: although RN/RM sections should be red on navy blue, this was also the case for many Army sections, and appears to have become a bit of a default CCF standard design, even for RAF sections. There also appears to have originally been something of an original Army cadet forces tradition for mudguard colour choices that I never fully understood, which originated from regimental or corps badging at a divisional parenting level. This was also evident as wear within the ACF, way before the advent of CrumpledSoldier9til5, when classic No2 dress proto-FAD was still in vogue, and was also aligned to divisional affiliations (just for flavour, I think that Guards/Household div affilliated formations may have been blue letters on red, Light div may have been white on green, infantry/corps may originally been whatever upon whichever, but the point being this was irrespective of ACF or CCF(Army). This level of ‘standardisation’ may have pushed some schools to adopt their own independant colour schemes (appropriately, or otherwise), as the calm logic of the Air Force solution appears to have frequently been over-printed by Army colour schemes in many CCF (RAF) sections.
The proper thread colour for ATC mudguards (by which I mean the reduced size RFC-pattern heel-print worn on brassards) is light-blue. This was also the case for the classic full-size lettered mudguards worn on RAF No1 dress (and on '72 pattern No2 jackets, plus the preceding BD blouses). This explains why all Air Training Corps squadron numbers badges are still BIG (correctly) sized, in comparison with the tiny heel-print formation badges. The use of the (current) official ‘wrongly sized’ heel-print badges by ATC cadets on No1 dress always looks particularly wrong, in my opinion. Resurrecting the proper-sized classic muddie for ATC No1s is probably too late (in view of the almost re-brand within the Org to ‘RAF Air Cadets’), but it would get my vote.
For your excellent enterprise in trying to get RAF-pattern brassard badges resurrected at your RAF section- I’d recommend you try asking the Cadet Kit Shop (nee Cadet Supply Department, as-was) for a quote. Would a heel-print ATC/RFC design work-out better for you than a straight arc? That might keep more space on the brassard- always a useful factor. It’d be nice to think that your lead on this might be taken up in the RAF sections at other schools…
ps there’s an interesting related thought, now: presumably the CACWO would have the right to enforce any set dress standard within the CCF(RAF)? In conjunction with Sqn Ldr CCF? I take it CACWO will be an Org rather than Corps appointment, like CAC herself.