The US Institute of Heraldry (military)

[Byrd]

So here's a neat (and unusual) site that I was introduced to today: the US Institute of Heraldry, which is all about military logos and designs:

Right here:  The Institute of Heraldry | Home (army.mil)

There's a wealth of information and some very intriguing pages.  I think the US Space Force has some of the oddest shoulder patches around:  tioh.army.mil/Catalog/HeraldryList.aspx?CategoryId=11019&grp=15&menu=Uniformed Services -- the Space Operations Squadron frankly looks like Emperor Palpatine contemplating blowing up a basketball (in my humble opinion) and the Space Range patch is... uh.. well... I'm not sure what the message is here.

The heraldry of the other services is well documented (ever wonder what all the bars on a soldier's chest mean?  Here ya go!  Ribbons--Order of Precedence (army.mil)) but Space Force is one of those "who designs these things?" grab bag.

The US Space Force site has some information on how they designed their logos:  The design of culture: US Space Force emblems > United States Space Force > Article Display


The whole discussion (where I found these tasty links) was on another board and was about this image:


Which is noted on Wikipedia (now I'm doing the rabbit holes for you.  You can thank me later:  Space Delta 18 - Wikipedia) -- and is LIVING PROOF THAT PEOPLE TODAY DON'T UNDERSTAND SYMBOLS, CONFOUND IT!  (the sphinx that they've got is the symbol for pharonic power.  The one they SHOULD have used (which means wisdom) is the Greek sphinx.)

And I have *no* idea why they'd put the coffin mask of a pharaoh on their logo.  Undoubtedly it represents something to them... but I'm equally sure they have no idea that it's a piece that covered the coffin of a pharaoh and is not actually a symbol of what they think it is.)

Feh.  Bad research.

But amusingly bad research.  Anyhoo -- enjoy the weirdness!

[Maxmars]

I regret not seeing this sooner.  I agree that it is a real problem that people seem to be careless and thoughtless when they "do" symbols.

The example you show is almost heartbreaking.  A Sarcophagi mask... an Egyptian sphinx.... really?

I'll reserve my cynical and smarmy remarks...

[Byrd]

I regret not seeing this sooner.  I agree that it is a real problem that people seem to be careless and thoughtless when they "do" symbols.

The example you show is almost heartbreaking.  A Sarcophagi mask... an Egyptian sphinx.... really?

I'll reserve my cynical and smarmy remarks...

Oh, do be cynical and smarmy.  I probably thought much the same.

[Spectral Entity]

Most of the time, our patches are designed in-house by junior enlisted. We’re all a bunch of nerds so obviously try to think of something that looks badass while staying within the parameters set forth ie must somehow relate to the mission and such.

[Maxmars]

Oh, I don't really blame the 'creators' for their submissions.  The motivations and execution of such things are largely benign and genuine.

The people I do have some 'reservations' about are the "specially educated" military "ring-knocking" leadership, who never fail to demonstrate how little they know and how little they care, outside of being acclaimed for their "standing."  These are the folks usually 'responsible' sanctioning a selection of patches, tags, and their design approval.

Once, I was fortunate enough to work with a unit stationed for a time in South Korea... their unit patch was designed as stated, by the local members of the unit... it featured a phrase relevant to South Korea... "Land of the Morning Calm."  Once approved, the "leadership" proceeded to select a company to produce them... when they arrived and were distributed we were dismayed... the unit patch displayed the graphic well, but the phrase read "Land of the Morning Clam."

The officer reportedly blamed the poor staff for the error... (They never submitted such a patch...)

The patch was scratched and rescinded, I understand... the truth was easily discovered; the officer never actually reviewed the sample patch... too busy for such minutiae.... it was "beneath him."

This happens more frequently than many might think.  Not that it is ever "on the record."

In the above case offered for the thread... we will likely never know who looked at it and said... "Yes, let's go with that."
 
But I expect they know little of what symbols mean, or how important the discipline of heraldry should be in these cases.  Either that or malfeasance is afoot.