The New Zealand Army Ordnance Badge: A Mark of Disgrace or a Legacy of Service?

1 Comment

The Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC) insignia underwent significant transformation between 1912 and 1996, reflecting both its British heritage and New Zealand’s distinct military identity. Inspired by the insignia of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC), the RNZAOC badge shared common design elements with its counterparts in Australia, Canada and India while incorporating unique national features that set it apart.

A persistent myth surrounding the adoption of the RAOC insignia is the so-called “Mark of Shame”, a misconception that has overshadowed the true significance of the badge. This article will explore the evolution of the RNZAOC insignia and dispel the “Mark of Shame” myth, highlighting how the badge symbolised professionalism, heritage, and the vital role of the Ordnance Corps within the New Zealand Military Forces.

Evolution of the New Zealand Ordnance Badge

Pre-War (pre-1914)
Ordnance duties were managed by the Defence Stores Department and Royal New Zealand Artillery until the formation of the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) in 1912 to formalise armourer roles.

First World War (1914–1919)
The New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was established in 1915 to support the NZEF. Early on, modified British AOC badges were used until New Zealand-specific designs were introduced.

NZEF NZAOC Insignia 1916-1919

Post-War (1917–1937)
Separate badges were created for the New Zealand Army Ordnance Department (NZAOD) and NZAOC, incorporating the letters “NZ” into the traditional RAOC design.

Modernisation (1937–1947)
A 1937 design competition produced a new badge, blending RAOC elements with New Zealand-specific inscriptions. These badges were made in brass, bronze, and gilt finishes.

Post-1947 to 1996
In 1948, the annulus inscription changed to the Order of the Garter motto, aligning the badge with the British RAOC insignia. The riband continued to feature “Sua Tela Tonanti,” reinforcing the Corps’ heritage. Following Queen Elizabeth II’s ascension in 1952, the crown transitioned from the Tudor to St Edward’s design in 1955.

Despite its adaptations, the badge consistently reflected the legacy of ordnance service and its alignment with Commonwealth traditions.

Origins of the “Mark of Shame” myth

The Crimean War (1853–1856) exposed the deep inefficiencies in Britain’s military logistics system, highlighting outdated practices and a lack of preparedness for the demands of modern warfare. Two key organisations, the Board of Ordnance and the Commissariat, bore much of the responsibility for the logistical failures.

British artillery battery at Sebastopol by William Simpson, 1855. A colonel commented that a contemporary illustration depicted them ‘dressed as we ought to be, not as we are … we’ve neither the huts, fur hats, boots or anything in the picture’.- This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID ppmsca.05697.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons :Licensing., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26750110

The Board of Ordnance

The Board of Ordnance supplied arms, ammunition, and engineering materials for the war effort. Despite its critical role, the organisation struggled to meet the logistical demands of a large-scale conflict. Inefficient bureaucratic structures, outdated procurement practices, and poor coordination led to frequent delays in delivering essential supplies. While the Board’s shortcomings were significant, they were primarily operational and less visible to the public compared to the more immediate failures of the Commissariat.

Board of Ordnance device, the Tower of London.Image source: en.wikipedia.org

The Commissariat

The Commissariat, responsible for providing troops with food, transport, and general supplies, faced far harsher criticism. Its inability to move resources effectively from ports to the front lines resulted in devastating consequences for the soldiers. Supplies rotted in warehouses while troops endured starvation, disease, and exposure. The lack of transport infrastructure, poor organisation, and insufficient planning paralysed operations compounded the suffering of the already overburdened military.

Watercolour, ‘Commissariat Difficulties: scene during the Crimean War, 1854-1856’, by William Simpson, Crimea, 1854. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O600580/commissariat-difficulties-scene-during-the-watercolour-simpson-william-ri/

Public outrage in Britain intensified as reports of soldiers’ hardships reached home, fuelled by media coverage and the accounts of figures like Florence Nightingale. The troops’ suffering became a national scandal, tarnishing the Commissariat’s reputation and prompting demands for reform.

Myth: The “Mark of Shame”

The Ordnance Board badge shield design, featuring three cannons and three oversized cannonballs, has long been the subject of a persistent myth. This rumour claims that the badge symbolises a logistical blunder by the Board of Ordnance during the Crimean War. Allegedly, the Board failed to supply the correct ammunition to the Artillery.[1] As a result, the cannonballs in the Ordnance Arms were deliberately depicted out of proportion to the guns. According to the myth, this exaggerated design was adopted as a permanent “mark of disgrace,” inherited by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) as a lasting reminder of that failure—a supposed “mark of shame.”[2]

Debunking the Myth: The Ordnance Badge and the Crimean War

The persistent myth linking the Ordnance badge to a logistical blunder during the Crimean War lacks any historical basis. In reality, the badge’s design predates the war by centuries, and its elements have no connection to the events or failures of that conflict.

  • Historical Origins: The three cannons and cannonballs featured on the shield were associated with the Board of Ordnance as early as the 15th century. The shield motif was formally adopted as part of the Board’s Coat of Arms in 1823, decades before the Crimean War.
The Board of Ordnance’s service to the Nation and the esteem in which they were held by successive Governments was recognised by the grant of Armorial Bearing in 1806; the grant was confirmed in
1823.
  • Design Practicality: The oversized cannonballs were deliberately designed to ensure visibility on small badges and insignia. If drawn to scale, the cannonballs would be too small to be discernible, making them impractical for use in such contexts.[3]

While the Crimean War exposed significant logistical shortcomings in Britain’s military system, including failures by the Board of Ordnance and the Commissariat, no evidence links these issues to the Ordnance badge. Its central elements reflect centuries of heraldic tradition rather than a supposed “mark of shame.” Far from symbolising failure, the badge is a proud emblem of the Corps’ enduring heritage and operational contributions.

Broader Impact

The logistical failures of the Crimean War had far-reaching consequences for Britain’s military system. The shortcomings of the Board of Ordnance and the Commissariat underscored the need for modernisation and led to sweeping reforms after the war. The Board of Ordnance was disbanded in 1855, and its responsibilities were transferred to the newly established War Office, while the Commissariat underwent significant restructuring to improve its efficiency. These reforms marked the beginning of a transition toward more centralised and streamlined military logistics.[4]

A Legacy of Service

On 17 July 1896, Queen Victoria granted royal approval for the Ordnance Arms to be used by the Army Ordnance Department and Army Ordnance Corps as their official Regimental Badges. The Corps considered this recognition a great honour.[5]

The badge’s adoption by Commonwealth nations—including Canada, Australia, India, and New Zealand—further underscores its historical and operational significance. Myths such as the so-called “Mark of Shame” misrepresent the badge’s true meaning and detract from its rich legacy.

Conclusion

The New Zealand Ordnance Badge reflects centuries of heraldic tradition and military significance, celebrating the Corps’ enduring commitment to supporting its nation’s defence. Unlike the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC), which, on its formation in 1993, incorporated elements from each of its antecedent corps’ badges—including the Ordnance shield—into its new emblem, the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) took a markedly different approach, on its formation in 1996, the RNZALR distanced itself from the legacies of its antecedent corps and adopted a badge of entirely new design—a clean slate symbolising a fresh start.

While the RLC chose to honour the combined heritage of its predecessor corps, the RNZALR’s decision to forge a unique identity reflected a desire to mark a new era for logistics within the New Zealand Defence Force. Nevertheless, the New Zealand Ordnance Badge is a proud emblem of excellence and adaptation, aligned with New Zealand’s military history. Far from symbolising failure, it underscores the Corps’ significant contributions to the defence of its nation and highlights its capacity for evolution and resilience.

Notes

[1] “Is the ‘mark of shame’ rumour about the RLC and the RAOC true?,” Army History, 2023, accessed 28 January, 2025, https://www.forcesnews.com/heritage/army-history/mark-shame-rumour-true-about-rlc-and-raoc.

[2] “The Crimean Mark of Disgrace,” Ordnance Insignia of the British Army, History & Arms of the Board of Ordnance (Ordnance Board), 2004, https://www.wargm.org/WASC/Files/wasc_2322_00.pdf.

[3] Comerford, “The Crimean Mark of Disgrace.”

[4] Brigadier A.H Fernyhough C.B.E. M.C., A short history of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (London: RAOC, 1965).

[5] Comerford, “The Crimean Mark of Disgrace.”

The Archaeopteryx: A Misunderstood Symbol of Military Mobility and Adaptability

Leave a comment

The Archaeopteryx celebrated as one of the earliest known birds and a symbol of evolution, has long been associated with fuel units in military organisations. Officially adopted by the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC) and the Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC), its use in New Zealand remains informal, linked primarily to 47 Petroleum Platoon and its successor units. However, this emblem is often misunderstood as the mythical phoenix due to its appearance and symbolic attributes.

https://dino.fandom.com/wiki/Archaeopteryx

RLC Use

The Archaeopteryx first appeared in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) fuel units and featured prominently on unit signs, plaques, and insignia. The Archaeopteryx symbol was retained when the RAOC transitioned into the RLC in 1993. However, it was never officially adopted as a trade identifier or an authorised uniform patch. Unofficial patches, often worn on overalls, are occasionally encountered.

The Archaeopteryx emblem is depicted in a fossil-like style, with outstretched wings and detailed feathered limbs, symbolising adaptability and evolution.

RAAOC Use

The Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC) formally embraced the Archaeopteryx, going beyond its traditional use on signs and plaques. The RAAOC authorised it as a trade badge for the Operator Petroleum (Op Pet) trade.

RAAOC officers may wear the Archaeopteryx badge upon completing the British or United States Army Petroleum Officers Course. Other ranks qualify after completing the required Op Pet courses, as RAAOC policy outlines.[1] This badge mirrors the RAOC/RLC Archaeopteryx design, adding a wattle wreath to reflect Australian heritage.

https://dino.fandom.com/wiki/Archaeopteryx

The New Zealand Context

In contrast to its formal adoption by the RAOC/RLC and RAAOC, the New Zealand Army has never officially recognised the Archaeopteryx. Instead, it has served as an unofficial emblem for 47 Petroleum Platoon and its successor units since the 1980s.

Unofficial patch worn by 47 Petroleum Platoon, RNZAOC, on the left arm of overalls. The patch was 100mm in diameter and was embroidered red on a dark blue background. Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army distinguishing patches, 1911-1991, Wellington, N.Z.1995

New Zealand Army fuel functions, now a sub-specialty within the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) Logistic Specialist Trade, have evolved over decades. Initially part of the RNZASC Supply Branch, the role transitioned to the RNZAOC Supplier Trade in 1979 and eventually into the RNZALR in 1996. Officers who attended the Officer Long Petroleum Courses in the United Kingdom during the 1970s and beyond played a key role in introducing the Archaeopteryx to the New Zealand Army, embedding it as an informal yet enduring symbol.[2]

Despite the absence of formal recognition, the Archaeopteryx remains familiar with unofficial unit patches, signs, and souvenir items associated with New Zealand fuel units.

Why the Archaeopteryx?

The adoption of the Archaeopteryx by military fuel units reflects its symbolic alignment with their role and mission:

  1. A Symbol of Evolution and Adaptability: The Archaeopteryx embodies evolution as a transitional species between dinosaurs and modern birds. Similarly, military fuel units have adapted to support increasingly mechanised military forces and evolving fuel technologies.
  2. Connection to Mobility: The Archaeopteryx, one of the earliest known flyers, symbolises mobility—a cornerstone of military logistics. Fuel units play a parallel role, enabling the movement of military machinery across challenging environments.
  3. Historical Adoption During Mechanisation: The mechanisation of warfare in the 20th century, with vehicles, tanks, and aircraft becoming critical assets, created a need for specialised fuel units. The Archaeopteryx became a fitting emblem of their vital function during this transformative period.
  4. Symbolism and Representation: Its depiction with outstretched wings and feathered limbs conveys dynamism and versatility, mirroring the qualities of petroleum units. The fossil connection to oil-rich layers underscores its relevance to the petroleum industry and military fuel operations.
Fossil of an Archaeopteryx found near Workerszell, Germany, in 1951 Photograph: Sally A. Morgan/Corbis. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/07/archaeopteryx-natural-history-museum-london

Misinterpretation as a Phoenix

The Archaeopteryx is frequently mistaken for the phoenix due to its depiction of fiery colours or outstretched wings. While the phoenix represents mythical rebirth, the Archaeopteryx symbolises real-world evolution and adaptability—essential to sustaining military forces.

The Modern Legacy

Today, the Archaeopteryx serves as a symbol for RLC and RAAOC fuel units. Whether officially recognised or informally adopted, it represents adaptability, evolution, and mobility—the core tenets of military fuel units. However, the persistent misidentification as a phoenix highlights the need to educate and clarify the emblem’s unique history and significance.

By embracing the Archaeopteryx for what it truly represents—a link between past and present, evolution and functionality—RNZALR Petroleum Operators can honour its legacy while exemplifying the qualities that make them indispensable to military logistics.

Unofficial interpretation of a modern New Zeland Army Archaeopteryx badge utilising fern fonds introduced to provide a unique New Zeland Flavour to trade badges in 1988

Notes

[1] Chief of Army, Australian Army Dress Manual (Defence Publishing, Library and Information Service, Department of Defence, CANBERRA  ACT  2600 2019). https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/Army-Dress-Manual-AL5.pdf.

[2] Greer Roberts, A History of the Petroleum Centre RLC West Moores (1996).

Should Challenge Coins Be Collected or Earned?

Leave a comment

Challenge coins have become a familiar and accepted tradition within international military and organisational cultures. These small metal medallions or coins are tokens of camaraderie, achievement, and recognition. Challenge coins are crafted to symbolise military units, organisations, or events. Challenge coins often feature detailed images of unit insignias or emblems and usually include the unit motto and other related details. Challenge coins are not simply decorative items but represent organisational history, build connections, and reflect the shared values of their bearers.

Traditionally, challenge coins have been earned or gifted to recognise qualifying or exceptional service to an organisation or presented as a gesture of respect to guests or visitors. As such, the presentation of a coin is frequently steeped in formality after a meeting or activity, creating a memorable moment for the recipient. However, as the frequency and popularity of challenge coins have expanded, the methods and primary purpose of obtaining challenge coins has ignited a debate about the meaning and appropriate use of challenge coins.

The Evolution of Challenge Coins in New Zealand

In New Zealand, challenge coins are a recent addition to New Zealand military traditions, heavily influenced by the integration of American military culture. Historically, New Zealand military units followed British customs, favouring wall-mounted plaques to commemorate service or unit affiliations. Although attractive and often personalised by engraving the recipient’s details onto the plaque, plaques’ use and long-term retention have practical limitations compared to challenge coins. Plaques are large, unwieldy and often expensive, rendering them unsuitable for modern mobile lifestyles.

Challenge coins offer an ideal alternative. Compact and portable, they retain the symbolic weight of plaques but are much easier to carry, share, and display. Their popularity has also been fuelled by the increasing collaboration between New Zealand and other Western military forces, particularly the United States, in coalition operations such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Pacific. By default, they have become the accepted international military gesture of mutual respect and camaraderie, fostering bonds between allied nations and their personnel.

What Makes Challenge Coins Unique?

Challenge coins are not only distinguished by their portability and ease of display but, by extension, by the traditions which have evolved around them. For example, the ‘challenge’ aspect stems from a popular game among military members: One person produces his coin, and others in attendance must also present theirs. The unfortunate individual unable to show their coin may be required to pay a fine, often buying a round of drinks or undertaking some other challenge to compensate. Despite being a light-hearted and frivolous tradition, it reinforces a sense of pride, belonging and shared experiences among coin holders. Understanding this context deepens the appreciation for a coin’s significance.

As with other international forces within the New Zealand Military, challenge coins have become the standard token of appreciation and recognition of membership of a unit or organisation. A challenge coin’s significance is that it represents a relationship, achievement, or shared experience recognised by the presentation or awarding of a challenge coin at a significant event or ceremony.

Collecting vs. Earning Coins

The growing popularity of challenge coins has sparked a debate on their appropriate use. Should challenge coins only be collected by those who earn or have been gifted them, or is it acceptable for anyone to collect them? This debate is at the heart of the challenge of coin culture, and understanding both sides can help you form your own opinion.

On the one hand, purists argue that challenge coins should ideally be earned or presented as gifts. Coins presented in camaraderie, gratitude or recognition will carry value and significance to the holder, providing the holder and those viewing the coin a record of service and shared experience, fostering a deep sense of esprit de corps. Purists contend that selling or trading such coins undermines the purpose and traditions associated with challenge coins.

Conversely, collectors often perceive challenge coins simply as artefacts with attractive designs, emblems, and mottos, frequently forgetting or not understanding the military and organisational history they represent, making them fascinating objects of study that, although evoking a sense of fascination, they lack the respect that a challenge coin represents. However, some organisations will produce coins for public release for fundraising or promotional purposes; these can be considered fair game for enthusiasts.

Balancing Tradition and Modernity

The key distinction lies in the intent. Coins awarded for exceptional service or specific achievements carry a unique weight that cannot be replicated simply by purchase or trading. Ownership of presented or gifted coins through purchase or trade diminishes their significance. However, collecting coins intended for sale can provide an alternative pathway to recognise and promote genuine coins’ traditions, a balance that draws a line between earning and collecting.

In New Zealand, the rise of challenge coins has also marked a shift in how the military and increasingly veteran groups commemorate and recognise their members. Where plaques once dominated as the preferred form of recognition, challenge coins have taken their place, blending the practicality of modern life with the weight of tradition. Challenge coins now serve as reminders of service, solidarity and esprit de corps, ensuring that those who serve are honoured in meaningful and enduring ways, instilling a sense of respect and honour in the audience.

Whether earned or collected, respect for challenge coins and their traditions is paramount. Challenge coins are more than a token souvenir; they are symbols of pride, belonging, and the bonds forged in service. As their use continues to evolve, they provide a powerful tool for telling the stories and sacrifices of those who have served and those who continue to serve in the New Zealand Military.