US military in kilts

[arrogcow]

OVREXPOSED - a new member here - just posted saying that he work a UK to a civilian atire allowed military function. Rather than hijack that thread, I've started this one, but I've had some thoughts on military kilts. First I've noticed that many of us kilt wearers are former (or curent) military (both here and on the UK Yahoo group - a poll there indicated about 50% military service).

I think that the military in general needs to adopt a modern kilt, plain and simple.

Using UK's survival model as an example (not that the Army wouldn't create their own):

I can carry more stuff in the pockets than in BDU pockets.

They are so much cooler (temp), and if you've ever been out on a Cat 4 day (and in Iraq every day is a Cat 4 day), you know about the militarys attempts to keep soldiers cool.

For cammoflage purposes, they present a more irregualr shillouette than pants, so actually do the job better.

In fact there are only two places in the military, I at first thought of that a kilt would be detrimental. I say at first, because I think even now, that they do become a good idea.

First, in tanks (I'm an ex tanker), mobile artillery, other moving equipment. Then I remembered, that in cases like this we always wore a Nomex suit anyway. Taking off the kilt at the time you put on the Nomex and you have one less layer of clothing so you stay cooler.

Second is during a chemical attack. The Army's (and presumably the Marine's) NBC gear is designed to go on extreemly quickly to save your life in an attack. At first I thought that trying to bunch a kilt under the NBC suit would be a problem, but then I remembered that the UK Survival is designed that it can be worn without a belt. It takes a half second to rip the kilt off and let it fall. So it really takes no more time to tp put on an NBC suit, again the cooling factor since actually wearing less clothing (again very important in Iraq) and finally all your stuff is accessible since the kilt isn't under the NBC suit unlike the BDU pants where you can no longer get to your pockets.

The only remaining problem I see is that the cost (of casual kilts) seems a little prohibitive, but even that is not really a factor. First, the govt would be buying in such quantities that prices would go down.

Second, a soldier actually needs fewer uniforms. I never was able to wear BDU pants (or jeans for that matter) more than two days without washing (unless I was really desperate or in the field). However, I go weeks between washings of any of my kilts with no notice at all.

So how do we propose kilts to the military?

Adam

[Doc Hudson]

It would never work Adam!

It is far too sensible and intelligent for the government to ever adopt such a plan.

BTW, I think it is a fine idea and your points are very well thought out. Unfortunately, that is the very reason the military will never adopt it.

[Shay]

Also- there is no 'short' option for men like there is for women in formal uniforms- on a hot day, a woman can wear a skirt, but a man has to wear long pants. I always thought of that as descrimination.

They probably wouldn't be everyday wear, but there are already military tartans that would work nicely.

[arrogcow]

Also- there is no 'short' option for men like there is for women in formal uniforms- on a hot day, a woman can wear a skirt, but a man has to wear long pants. I always thought of that as descrimination.

They probably wouldn't be everyday wear, but there are already military tartans that would work nicely.

I was specifically refering to a cammo kilt instead of BDU pants, but I definitely think that the US Army tartan should actually be allowed for dress wear as well, or at least a solid with branch stripe. Again Green to replace Class A's.

And yes I realize that it is too practical for the military to impliment.

Adam

[Shay]

See, I was thinking along the lines of 'blues' that we wore in the Air Farce. I think that's more immediately accessible as a formal uniform to military minds.

[davedove]

I really don't see it happening for field wear, mainly because of the NBC situation. Granted, tearing off something designed like a utilikilt only takes a "half-second" (and that's assuming there's no belt), that's still an additional step before the clothes are donned. In NBC environments, a half-second can kill.

Also, in infantry type combat, when you're not moving you're on the ground, because a prone person is a smaller target. However thin it might be, the pants are a layer of protection between your legs and the ground.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to think of objections.

[James]

For dress wear could you not cite your own Civil Wat traditions, where at least at the outset some units [reserve?] apparently were kilted.

However for actual field use-very questionable!

Think here of the members of 15 Div-caught on the wire at Loos.

So I'd suggest an assault course in a kilt before trying it on for active service wear.

James

[arrogcow]

I really don't see it happening for field wear, mainly because of the NBC situation. Granted, tearing off something designed like a utilikilt only takes a "half-second" (and that's assuming there's no belt), that's still an additional step before the clothes are donned. In NBC environments, a half-second can kill.

Also, in infantry type combat, when you're not moving you're on the ground, because a prone person is a smaller target. However thin it might be, the pants are a layer of protection between your legs and the ground.

I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to think of objections.

Actually when I meant half second, think that it actually would take less time to rip off a kilt than to stuff bulky cargo pockets into the NBC gear.

True pants do offer a layer of protection when on the ground (also when walking through bruch). However, other services (non US) do offer a short pant with uniforms, what do they do to protect legs?

Adam

[Shay]

True pants do offer a layer of protection when on the ground (also when walking through bruch). However, other services (non US) do offer a short pant with uniforms, what do they do to protect legs?

They don't, they're for hot-weather, non-threatening situations.

[macwilkin]

For dress wear could you not cite your own Civil Wat traditions, where at least at the outset some units [reserve?] apparently were kilted.

However for actual field use-very questionable!

Think here of the members of 15 Div-caught on the wire at Loos.

So I'd suggest an assault course in a kilt before trying it on for active service wear.

James

That would be the 79th New York Regiment, which wore a kilt of Cameron of Erracht tartan -- however, there is great debate among historians if the kilt was actually worn by the 79th in the field in 1861 -- most evidence points to trews in the Cameron of Erracht tartan, and by the end of the war, standard Union Army issue trousers.

However, there was a proposal in 2002 to the Governor of New York to "reactivate" the 79th and adopt the kilt again for non-combat uniforms.

Cheers,

Todd