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.

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The Crimean War (1853–1856) exposed the deep inefficiencies in Britain’s military logistics system, highlighting outdated practices and a lack of preparedness for the demands of modern warfare.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.

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.

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.

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.

• 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.”