keith

[keith]

Of interest? Traditionaly the kilt should realy be worn by highlanders only,the tartan trews are the wear of lowlanders and lowland regiments of the British army.However things can be confusing in that,The Royal Highland Fusiliers,an amalgamation of The Royal Scots Fusiliers and The Highland Light Infantry,are A lowland regiment,as were their predecessors.All officers and other ranks of lowland regiments wear only trews,with the exception of the pipers.Highland soldiers are kitted with both kilts and trews.

[macwilkin]

Of interest? Traditionaly the kilt should realy be worn by highlanders only,the tartan trews are the wear of lowlanders and lowland regiments of the British army.However things can be confusing in that,The Royal Highland Fusiliers,an amalgamation of The Royal Scots Fusiliers and The Highland Light Infantry,are A lowland regiment,as were their predecessors.All officers and other ranks of lowland regiments wear only trews,with the exception of the pipers.Highland soldiers are kitted with both kilts and trews.

Keith,

The 9th Battalion Royal Scots, also known as the "Dandy Ninth", did wear kilts in Stewart Hunting tartan during the First World War. Same with 6th Battalion, HLI.

And technically, the three Anglo-Scottish regiments, the London Scottish, Liverpool Scottish and Tyneside Scottish all wore kilts, although not technically Highland regiments per se, although many members were Highlanders.

Yours Aye,

Todd

[Archangel]

Keith,

The 9th Battalion Royal Scots, also known as the "Dandy Ninth", did wear kilts in Stewart Hunting tartan during the First World War. Same with 6th Battalion, HLI.

And technically, the three Anglo-Scottish regiments, the London Scottish, Liverpool Scottish and Tyneside Scottish all wore kilts, although not technically Highland regiments per se, although many members were Highlanders.

Yours Aye,

Todd

quick add on: the Liverpool Scottish have an incredible website detailing trench warfare.

[An t-Ileach]

HLI wore Douglas tartan trews. I always thought they were a highland regiment, though. It was my theory that, being LI, it would be difficult to move at the speed that light troops march (140 [160 with the bugles]) wearing the kilt, although I don't know if they ever used light drill - the Cameronians did. I thought they'd been part of 51 (Highland) Div.

The Fusiliers were definitely a Lowland regiment, and formed part of 52 (Lowland) Div.

[macwilkin]

HLI wore Douglas tartan trews. I always thought they were a highland regiment, though. It was my theory that, being LI, it would be difficult to move at the speed that light troops march (140 [160 with the bugles]) wearing the kilt, although I don't know if they ever used light drill - the Cameronians did. I thought they'd been part of 51 (Highland) Div.

The Fusiliers were definitely a Lowland regiment, and formed part of 52 (Lowland) Div.

I'm pretty sure it was the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) that wore trews in Douglas tartan, whilst the HLI, now the RHF, wears Mackenzie.

T.

[Archangel]

I'm pretty sure it was the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) that wore trews in Douglas tartan, whilst the HLI, now the RHF, wears Mackenzie.

T.

very good, both confirmed on plate B of Osprey's Scottish Units in the World Wars.

That piece of information is going to get me to track down the story of kilts and Cameronians. Since they were the last to officially wear a kilt in combat, I had the impression they all wore kilts.

[macwilkin]

very good, both confirmed on plate B of Osprey's Scottish Units in the World Wars.

That piece of information is going to get me to track down the story of kilts and Cameronians. Since they were the last to officially wear a kilt in combat, I had the impression they all wore kilts.

You mean the Camerons -- The Osprey book has a misprint there, as to my knowledge, only the pipes & drums of the Cameronians wore kilts. ;)

Great book -- my copy is "dog-eared" now; I've had it for years and use it as a reference frequently.

Cheers,

Todd

[James]

A word of warning about British military uniforms, and the various printed sources.

A British regiment from any part of the British Isles was and is the parent/depot source that unified and supported the various battalions of the regiment. So whilst a battalion could be a fighting unit, the regiment it not.

The regiment could support untold numbers of battalions-ranging from those occupied on home defence, home guard, pioneer, and training, besides those with the potential to be used on active service as a part of the field army.

To confuse things further, there could be all sorts of organisations such as cadet units which would also wear the regimental badge. Besides in the days of Empire, local units which might wear the most exotic attire, yet be badged to a British regiment.

This leads to a situation where an apparently kilted regiment will have trousered battalions and other offshoots--or for all sorts of reasons the converse.

Too the whims of individual commanding officers can influence dress within a regiment: so whilst a regiment will have a set down uniform, this or that battalion could deviate and be doing it's own thing.

There was and is too the fickle war office-which at a whim might change uniforms, so kilted regiments became trousered or again vice versa.

So anyone who is looking to British army uniforms must first look to the Regiment at a particular time in history, then a specific battalion at that time-repeating the process for other times and other battalions. Therefore it is essential to realise that any reference book can only offer a snapshot of a particular unit at a certain moment in time.

A kilted English regiment-well not the regiment: but for historical reasons it was accepted that officers of one of the battalions could wear their own kilt with battle dress for walking out-leisure activites: find that in the book!

Sorry to be so unhelpful.

James

[davedove]

Those are all very good points, James. It's not enough to say I'm going to dress like the XYZ Unit; you also have to pick a particular time.

[macwilkin]

A word of warning about British military uniforms, and the various printed sources.

A British regiment from any part of the British Isles was and is the parent/depot source that unified and supported the various battalions of the regiment. So whilst a battalion could be a fighting unit, the regiment it not.

The regiment could support untold numbers of battalions-ranging from those occupied on home defence, home guard, pioneer, and training, besides those with the potential to be used on active service as a part of the field army.

To confuse things further, there could be all sorts of organisations such as cadet units which would also wear the regimental badge. Besides in the days of Empire, local units which might wear the most exotic attire, yet be badged to a British regiment.

This leads to a situation where an apparently kilted regiment will have trousered battalions and other offshoots--or for all sorts of reasons the converse.

Too the whims of individual commanding officers can influence dress within a regiment: so whilst a regiment will have a set down uniform, this or that battalion could deviate and be doing it's own thing.

There was and is too the fickle war office-which at a whim might change uniforms, so kilted regiments became trousered or again vice versa.

So anyone who is looking to British army uniforms must first look to the Regiment at a particular time in history, then a specific battalion at that time-repeating the process for other times and other battalions. Therefore it is essential to realise that any reference book can only offer a snapshot of a particular unit at a certain moment in time.

A kilted English regiment-well not the regiment: but for historical reasons it was accepted that officers of one of the battalions could wear their own kilt with battle dress for walking out-leisure activites: find that in the book!

Sorry to be so unhelpful.

James

Exactly, James -- that was my point for bringing up "The Dandy Ninth" of the Royal Scots -- this Battalion was not the "norm" for the Royal Scots, since it was a Lowland Regiment that normally wore trews. Same with the 6th HLI and the Anglo-Scottish regiments such as the London Scottish.

"Scottish Units in the World Wars", the aforementioned Osprey Book by ex-serviceman and military artist Mike Chappell does a very credible job at looking at all of the variations you mentioned for 1900-1945. Chappell examines a number of the Territorial Battalions and the variances in dress from the parent regiment.

T.