GUEST,leeneia,

Setting aside the questions of warfare, I'm sure a kilt would be better garment to wear in intense heat that trousers. Although it would need to be a kilt with less bulk than the Scottish kilt.

Not necessarily so. During the South African (2nd Boer) War, considerable numbers of Highlanders were temporarily crippled in action by sunburn on the backs of knees and legs after lying out in the sun under fire.


NH Dave,

They weren't a practical item of wear during the first war, Arthur, what with the trench warfare and the mud.

Indeed, but the final nail in the coffin was the introduction of blister agents in the arsenal of toxic gases.

With the introduction of "universal" Battle Dress in 1937, kilts were dropped, much to the chagrin of Highland units who petitioned to keep them - until they saw the planned "Drawers, anti-gas" which would be required wear with the kilt in the war zone.
This ban on the kilt did not stop Regimental Colonels 'smuggling' many kilts to various theatres of operations for ceremonial wear (see the footage of parades by the 8th Army in the Middle East).

The kilt was returned for walking-out/parade dress after WW2 (1949 regulations?).

Walrus