Whilst the kilt is an ideal garment in many ways-it is not of necessity so for the infantry soldier in modern war.

Aside from the well documented problems of chemical warfare: there is well documented evidence that highland troops were more prone to certain diseases as a consequence of wearing the kilt, besides it's propensity for harbouring lice.

Too it can pick up an amazing amount of mud and other 'filth' so enhancing the soldiers burden and again risk of disease.

Too there are the practicalities of soldiering as discovered in both world wars - try living in a hole in the ground for a few days-best if raining: then crawling across fields-through barbed wire etc when wearing the kilt. Too the increased casualties caused by the kilt getting caught up when cossing obstacles.

The reality as senior officers knew was that the kilt is entirely unsuitable for modern warfare-yet at the same time they were faced with the reluctance of the kilted regiments for romantic reasons to give up the kilt when on active service.

Having said that there were instances of individuals wearing the kilt in all campaigns during WW2. Here a story to terrify all kilt wearers-of John Masters on a Chindit expedition using his intelligence officer's kilt[whilst being worn] as a blackout curtain so he could examine a map by matchlight when in close proximity to a Japanese position!

I do think there is a vital role for tradition to play in the maintenance of military morale/recruitment. However the kilt should be likened to American cavalry officers wearing their campaign hats [circa Indian wars]-not entirely appropriate for in and out of vehicles/helicopters-or when bits of metal are in the air.

James