Modernisation, Mobilisation, and Early Integrated Logistics Thinking in the New Zealand Army
In May 1939, Major-General P. J. Mackesy, C.B., D.S.O., M.C., submitted his report on the Military Forces of New Zealand. Prepared after a short but intensive inspection, the report has not acquired the same place in New Zealand defence history as the earlier assessments associated with Scratchley, Jervois, Fox, Babington, or Kitchener. Those reports, and the reforms or controversies that followed them, are comparatively well recorded. Mackesy’s report, by contrast, remains less visible, despite being written only months before the outbreak of the Second World War and despite its clear relevance to New Zealand’s final pre-war military preparations.
Read in isolation, Mackesy’s report appears to belong to the pre-war world of Imperial defence planning, Territorial Force mobilisation, coast defence, ammunition reserves, mechanisation, and ordnance services. Yet when considered against the principles of modern capability management and Integrated Logistics Support (ILS), it reveals something more enduring. Mackesy did not create integrated logistics thinking in the New Zealand Army, nor did he use the terminology of modern ILS. Rather, his report provides an early and clear example of the same underlying logic, that equipment, ammunition, personnel, training, storage, mobilisation, reserves, finance, procurement lead times, accommodation, and technical support had to be treated as connected parts of one military capability system.
This distinction matters. Mackesy was not arriving to modernise an entirely dormant Army. By 1939, the New Zealand Army was already in the throes of modernisation. Modern equipment had been ordered, some had arrived, and the Army staff were attempting to keep pace with contemporary British doctrine, mechanisation, mobilisation planning, and the implications of modern weapons. The problem was not total inactivity, but incompleteness. Mackesy’s significance lay in reinforcing an existing direction of travel, exposing the remaining gaps, and turning modernisation from a matter of equipment acquisition into a whole-force capability problem.
The later expansion of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) demonstrates why that distinction matters. By 1942, the Ordnance Depot and Ordnance Workshops establishments had both been expanded and treated as Dominion establishments. In other words, manpower was managed nationally across New Zealand rather than permanently assigned to a single depot or workshop. The depot system provided the national machinery for receipt, accounting, storage, issue, and distribution, while the workshop system provided the technical capacity for inspection, repair, modification, maintenance, and specialist support. This wartime growth shows that the support problem Mackesy identified was not theoretical. Once modern equipment, ammunition, vehicles, and technical stores entered service, the Army had to build the support organisation beneath them. In modern ILS terms, the Mission System forced the Support System to expand.
The modern NZDF ILS Capability Management Handbook describes ILS as critical to cost-effective planning, integration, optimisation of through-life support, and the sustainment of safe capability. It links ILS to affordability, Whole-of-Life Cost awareness, preparedness, availability, and Defence resilience. Mackesy was not applying that formal framework in 1939, but his method, and the Army’s subsequent treatment of Recommendations 42 and 43, anticipated many of its principles.
This article, therefore, does not argue that Mackesy invented modern ILS, nor that his report can be used as a direct measure against contemporary logistics practice. Rather, it argues that Mackesy’s report provides a historically useful example of integrated logistics thinking before the term existed. It also offers contemporary logisticians a professional reminder, not a judgment, that military capability is only credible when the support system beneath it is understood, resourced, tested, and sustained.
Put simply, Mackesy was asking whether the Army’s equipment, people, stores, transport, workshops, training and facilities could work together as a real wartime system.
For readers unfamiliar with modern logistics terminology, the central idea is simple. A military capability is more than the equipment listed on an inventory. It also depends on the people trained to use it, the ammunition and spares held for it, the facilities that store and maintain it, the transport that moves it, and the systems that account for and sustain it. Modern ILS gives that idea a formal structure. Mackesy’s report shows that the same logic was already evident in the New Zealand Army’s planning in 1939.
Major-General P. J. Mackesy and the circumstances of the report
Major-General Pierse Joseph “Pat” Mackesy, C.B., D.S.O., M.C., was a senior British Army officer of the Royal Engineers and a decorated veteran of the First World War. He was commissioned into the Royal Engineers in 1902, served in a range of operational and staff appointments, and by the late 1930s was an experienced Imperial officer with a professional background in command, training, mobilisation, and military organisation. His standing mattered because he was not a casual visitor or political commentator, but a senior officer able to assess New Zealand’s forces against contemporary British military practice.
His report on the Military Forces of New Zealand was prepared at the request of His Majesty’s Government in New Zealand after the Pacific Defence Conference. The United Kingdom authorities made his services available to the New Zealand Government for a few weeks, and he began his investigations in Auckland on Monday, 1 May 1939. By 22 May 1939, he had submitted his report to Army Headquarters, Wellington.[1]
Mackesy was careful to acknowledge the limits of his inquiry. He stated that it was impossible for one individual, in only three weeks, to investigate in detail all the activities and points of importance connected with the military forces of a country the size of New Zealand. Nevertheless, he had sought to obtain a fair and thorough general view of the problems involved. He also emphasised that his recommendations would require careful investigation before any action could be taken.[2]
He also made clear that the report was not an official British Government or War Office directive. The opinions, views, and recommendations were his own, and he alone was responsible for them. This gave the report a direct and candid tone. Mackesy told the Prime Minister that he understood plain and honest words were required, but he also stressed that where he criticised what he found, he did not intend criticism of individuals or groups. His purpose was to look at conditions as they existed and suggest how they could reasonably be improved.[3]
The timing was significant. The report was written only months before the outbreak of the Second World War, at a moment when the deteriorating international situation was testing New Zealand’s defence assumptions. Mackesy’s task was therefore not academic. He was examining whether the New Zealand Army, particularly its Territorial Force, mobilisation arrangements, equipment, ammunition reserves, training system, accommodation, and ordnance services, could meet the demands likely to be placed upon it in war.
Mackesy in the tradition of British defence inspection reports
Mackesy’s 1939 report also sits within a longer tradition of British officers inspecting, advising upon, and reporting on New Zealand’s defences. He was not the first senior Imperial or British officer to examine the country’s military arrangements, nor was his report an isolated event. From the late nineteenth century onward, New Zealand had repeatedly looked to British professional military expertise to assess its defence organisation, coastal protection, volunteer forces, mobilisation arrangements, and military efficiency.
Among the better-known examples were Major-General Sir Peter Henry Scratchley and Major-General Sir William Francis Drummond Jervois, whose work on colonial defence helped shape the port and coastal defence systems of Australia and New Zealand in the late nineteenth century.[4]
The pattern continued with Lieutenant-Colonel Francis John Fox, appointed Commandant of the New Zealand Permanent Militia in 1892. Fox inspected the Volunteer Force and produced a highly critical 1893 report, which caused a public and political stir for its uncompromising comments on the force’s condition and officers’ fitness for command.[5] Major-General Sir James Melville Babington, Commandant of the New Zealand Defence Forces from 1902, also produced formal reports on the Defence Forces of New Zealand.[6] Field Marshal Horatio Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener, later inspected New Zealand’s forces during his 1910 tour, contributing to the defence reform debate around compulsory military training and the wider reorganisation of Dominion defence.[7]
These earlier inspections and reports are reasonably well recorded in New Zealand defence history. Their recommendations, political reception, and subsequent reforms are traceable through parliamentary papers, newspapers, biographies, and later historical writing.
Mackesy’s report is different. Although it was prepared at a critical moment, only months before the outbreak of the Second World War, it appears to have attracted comparatively little sustained attention. The surviving archival record confirms that Mackesy submitted a formal report on the Military Forces of New Zealand on 22 May 1939, and that a later file addressed Recommendations 42 and 43, concerning modern equipment and ammunition reserves. Yet compared with Scratchley, Jervois, Fox, Babington, and Kitchener, there is a noticeable dearth of readily accessible secondary discussion on Mackesy’s findings and their subsequent influence. One possible reason is timing: war intervened almost immediately, shifting attention from broad reform to urgent mobilisation. Another may lie in Mackesy’s later wartime reputation. Within a year of advising New Zealand, Mackesy was associated with the controversial Norwegian campaign and was recalled after his handling of the Narvik operation enraged Prime Minister Winston Churchill. According to later accounts, Mackesy refused to commit his troops to what he considered “the sheer bloody murder” of an “arctic Gallipoli”, prompting Churchillian accusations of “feebleness and downright cowardice”. Although he avoided court-martial, Mackesy never again held field command.[8] While there is no clear evidence that New Zealand consciously suppressed or distanced itself from Mackesy’s report for that reason, his subsequent fall from favour may have made him a less convenient figure to acknowledge publicly.
That relative silence is significant. Mackesy’s report came at the hinge point between peacetime economy and wartime mobilisation. Unlike some earlier reports, it was not followed by a long period of public debate or gradual reform. The declaration of war rapidly overshadowed the broader recommendations, and attention appears to have narrowed to the most immediately actionable parts of the report, especially Recommendations 42 and 43 on modern equipment and ammunition reserves.[9] The follow-up papers show that these recommendations were implemented as a programme covering ammunition reserves, modern fighting and technical equipment, and the magazine, garage, and storage accommodation required to support them.[10]
For that reason, Mackesy’s report deserves to be recovered and re-examined. It belongs in the same broad tradition as Scratchley, Jervois, Fox, Babington, and Kitchener, but its significance lies in its timing. It was a final pre-war external assessment of the New Zealand Army before the demands of the Second World War forced theory into action. Its relative neglect has obscured the degree to which the Army’s wartime mobilisation priorities, especially modern equipment, ammunition reserves, mechanisation, and storage, were already being framed through a recognisably integrated logistics lens.
A report on the Army as a system
The structure of Mackesy’s report is revealing. Its table of contents moved beyond narrow questions of manpower or equipment and examined Regular Forces, the Territorial Force, the Special Reserve, Cadet Units, training, accommodation, mobilisation preparations, mechanisation, modern fighting equipment, ammunition, trained reserves, publicity, ordnance services, and financial administration.[11]
This breadth is important. In modern capability language, Mackesy was examining a range of inputs that would now be recognised across the PRICIE construct. The NZDF ILS Handbook describes PRICIE as the fundamental inputs to capability, covering Personnel, Research and development, Infrastructure and organisation, Concepts, doctrine and collective training, Information technology, and Equipment, logistics and resources.[12]
Mackesy did not use that vocabulary, but his report covered many of the same areas. He did not treat modern equipment as a stand-alone answer. He saw that equipment without trained personnel, ammunition, storage, transport, maintenance, and mobilisation arrangements did not constitute real military capability.
Mackesy’s central concern was that New Zealand’s military arrangements gave the appearance of a force without necessarily providing the substance of one. His analysis was rooted in a simple but enduring question:
Could the New Zealand Army actually perform the tasks expected of it in war?
He concluded that, under existing conditions, it could not do so with confidence.
Mission System and Support System
The modern NZDF ILS Handbook describes capability from an ILS perspective as the combination of a Mission System and a Support System. The Mission System is the part of the capability that directly performs the operational function, such as aircraft, ships, armour, communications, or, in Mackesy’s case, modern weapons and vehicles. The Support System is the totality of support infrastructure, resources, services, people, processes, and systems that enable the Mission System to be supported and operational objectives to be achieved.[13]
This distinction helps explain why Mackesy’s report remains relevant. His concern was not only that the New Zealand Army lacked sufficient modern Mission Systems, such as contemporary weapons, vehicles, and technical equipment, but also that the supporting system around them was incomplete. Ammunition reserves, trained personnel, mobilisation depth, magazines, garages, stores, training arrangements, and sources of supply all had to be provided if modernisation was to become a real capability.
In modern ILS terms, Mackesy was not simply asking, “What equipment does the Army need?” He was asking, “What system of support is required to make that equipment usable, sustainable, and available in war?”
Not modernisation from a standing start
It is important not to overstate Mackesy’s role as though he arrived in New Zealand to instruct an entirely dormant Army to modernise from scratch. By 1939, the New Zealand Army was already in the throes of modernisation. The process was slow, constrained by finance, dependent on British supply, and uneven in its results, but it was real. Since the mid-1930s, the Army had been placing orders for modern equipment, updating mobilisation planning, experimenting with mechanisation, and attempting to keep pace with contemporary British doctrine.
This is an important qualification to the common claim that New Zealand entered the Second World War wholly unprepared and equipped no better than it had been in 1918. The reality was more complex. Material deficiencies remained serious, but the Army was not intellectually or administratively stagnant. From 1934, the Director of Ordnance Services, Major Thomas Joseph King, worked to ensure that key ordnance positions were held by competent and experienced personnel. At the same time, New Zealand staff followed British doctrinal developments as closely as practicable, including changes in Field Service Regulations, mechanisation, training, mobilisation planning, and the implications of modern weapons.[14]
The same was true in the Army Service Corps. Although New Zealand’s transition from horse transport to motor transport was slow, it was already underway by the time Mackesy arrived. As late as the mid-1930s, each military district still retained one horse transport section and only one motor transport section, yet the direction of travel was clear. Major-General J. E. Duigan reported in 1937 that successful wartime transportation depended upon the efficient employment of civil resources and that the Army was now dependent on the motor industry for its mobility. Trials conducted in 1936 and 1937 had shown that motor transport could replace horse-drawn unit transport, and Duigan stated that this would be universally adopted in future. By 1938, despite the limited number of trucks and lorries held by the New Zealand Military Forces, Territorial Army Service Corps units were already conducting increasingly motorised convoy training.[15]
The archival record supports this more nuanced interpretation across both equipment and logistics. A 1938–39 Ordnance file shows a range of modern stores and equipment either on order, received, or being managed through requisition. These included Bren guns and components, Bren gun maintenance spares, 3-inch mortars, 2-pounder anti-tank guns and equipment, wireless sets No. 9 and No. 11, anti-gas equipment, Boys anti-tank rifles, portable cookers, tentage, medical equipment, signalling equipment, and large quantities of ammunition.[16]
The follow-up material to Mackesy’s report makes the same point. In relation to specialised vehicles, it noted that equipment requirements had to be considered as a whole and obtained from the most suitable source. It also recorded that the Army Department’s existing programme already provided for 39 Bren carriers, with six received and a further twelve on order, and eighteen six-wheeled field artillery tractors, with twelve previously ordered tractors already received.
Mackesy’s significance, therefore, was not that he invented the requirement for modernisation. Rather, he validated and sharpened it. He exposed the scale of the gap between partial modernisation and a force capable of mobilisation to the war establishment. The Army had begun to move beyond its First World War equipment base, and its staff were attempting to keep abreast of modern doctrine and equipment trends. Still, the process remained incomplete, under-resourced, and insufficient for the demands that war would impose.
A fair reading is that Mackesy reinforced an existing direction of travel and gave it strategic urgency. He turned modernisation from a series of equipment orders, doctrinal updates, and mobilisation preparations into a whole-force capability problem. The issue was no longer simply whether New Zealand had begun ordering modern equipment. It was a question of whether that equipment, together with trained personnel, ammunition reserves, storage, transport, maintenance, mobilisation depth, and supporting infrastructure, could be integrated into a force ready for war.
The iceberg effect
The modern ILS Handbook uses the “iceberg effect” to explain why ILS is necessary. It notes that capability planning and procurement have traditionally focused on equipment acquisition, while failing to account for Whole of Life Cost and Through Life Management. The visible acquisition cost is on the surface, while beneath it lie the larger, often less visible costs and requirements associated with operations, distribution, maintenance, training, technical data, supply support, test and support equipment, software, and disposal. The Handbook states that all these elements should now be considered early and planned across the life cycle, from policy and strategy to disposal.[17]
Figure X: The ILS “iceberg effect”, showing how acquisition cost is only the visible portion of capability cost. Mackesy’s 1939 report anticipated this logic by linking modern weapons and vehicles to ammunition reserves, storage, magazines, garages, training, personnel, and procurement lead times.
Mackesy’s report and the follow-up work on Recommendations 42 and 43 show that the Army was already grappling with a similar problem in 1939. Modern weapons could not be considered in isolation. They required ammunition reserves, practice stocks, storage, magazines, garages, trained personnel, replacement depth, and a procurement plan that recognised lead times and sources of supply.
In other words, Mackesy saw beneath the surface of acquisition. He understood that the mere purchase of modern equipment would not solve the Army’s problem unless the less visible support system was also resourced.
The danger of paper capability
One of Mackesy’s most powerful themes was the difference between paper strength and usable strength. His examination of the Auckland defences showed this clearly. The 13th Heavy Battery required 338 all ranks for war manning of the fixed defences, but at the time of his visit, it had only a fraction of that number available. The Fortress Battalion had a war establishment of 773 all ranks, but a strength of only 320, of whom about sixty were considered physically unfit for war service.[18]
This was more than a manpower complaint. Mackesy was testing the force against its assigned task. A unit might exist on paper, but if it could not be manned, trained, equipped, and mobilised when required, it was not a real capability. This is directly comparable with modern capability assurance. Modern ILS and capability management similarly ask whether a capability is available, supportable, deployable, and sustainable, not merely whether it exists on an equipment register or establishment table.
Mackesy’s criticism was especially relevant because the Army’s mobilisation model relied heavily on the Territorial Force expanding rapidly in an emergency. He saw that this expansion would not be simple. Men might have little or no training. Units would need to be built up from inadequate peacetime strengths. Composite units would disintegrate on mobilisation into their component regiments. The gap between peacetime organisation and wartime effectiveness was therefore not administrative. It was operational.
Normalisation of deviance and the acceptance of military risk
A further way to read Mackesy’s report is as an early warning against what would now be called the normalisation of deviance.[19] The New Zealand Army had not suddenly become under-prepared in 1939. Rather, the condition Mackesy described had developed over time. Reduced establishments, obsolete equipment, inadequate reserves, limited training opportunities, insufficient accommodation, and reliance on rapid improvisation had gradually become accepted as normal peacetime conditions.
This was not necessarily the result of neglect by any one individual. Mackesy himself was careful not to criticise individuals or bodies of individuals, and he acknowledged that earlier decisions may have appeared necessary at the time. The problem was more systemic. Successive economies, assumptions, and deferrals had created a situation in which the Army’s deficiencies were visible but had not yet forced decisive correction.[20]
The extent to which these deficiencies had already become visible was demonstrated by the so-called “Four Colonels’ Revolt” of May 1938. Colonels Neil Lloyd Macky, C. R. Spragg, A. S. Wilder, and F. R. Gambrill publicly challenged official assurances about the state of the Territorial Force, arguing that New Zealand’s citizen army had been reduced below what was required for national defence, that recruiting and training were inadequate, and that morale had suffered. Their action breached military regulations and led to their posting to the retired list, but it also exposed the depth of professional unease within the senior Territorial leadership. Mackesy’s report should therefore be read against this background. He was not the first to identify the Army’s weaknesses.[21] Still, his external assessment gave formal shape to concerns that experienced New Zealand officers had already risked their careers to express.
In modern ILS terms, Mackesy was forcing decision-makers to confirm the impact of inaction. The ILS Handbook states that ILS principles include recognising constraints, focusing ILS effort where it will deliver the greatest benefit, and confirming the impact of any inaction.[22] Mackesy’s report did precisely that. He showed that what had become administratively familiar in peace would become dangerous on mobilisation.
The Army could still parade, train, administer, and maintain the outward form of a military system, but the underlying support structure was fragile. It lacked sufficient trained personnel, modern equipment, ammunition reserves, replacement weapons, accommodation, and mobilisation depth. Because those weaknesses had existed for some time without immediate disaster, they risked being accepted as the norm.
The declaration of war changed the calculation. What had been tolerable as a peacetime economy became a mobilisation risk. Mackesy’s report, therefore, demonstrates the danger of treating chronic under-resourcing as an acceptable condition. The absence of an immediate crisis had made shortages familiar, and that familiarity had made them appear manageable. Yet war removes the margin that peacetime under-resourcing depends upon.
Mackesy’s anti-improvisation principle
Mackesy’s report contains one of the clearest statements of the principle that underpins modern ILS. He warned that unless matters had been studied in peace, confusion and unnecessary loss of life and treasure would result when war forced unexpected action. He accepted that improvisation in war was possible but added that improvisation without previous thought and training was a costly expedient.[23]
This is, in essence, the logic of ILS. It exists to prevent an organisation from discovering too late that the ammunition reserve is inadequate, the spares are unavailable, the technical documentation is missing, the training pipeline is incomplete, the facilities are unsuitable, the supply chain lead time is too long, or the force cannot be sustained under operational conditions.
Mackesy’s language was that of 1939. The principle was timeless. A capability must be prepared before it is required. It cannot be wished into existence on mobilisation.
Recommendations 42 and 43, from report to action
The strongest evidence of ILS-like thinking appears in the follow-up work on Mackesy’s Recommendations 42 and 43, concerning the supply of modern equipment for the Army and the provision of ammunition reserves. The memorandum submitted by Major-General J. E. Duigan, Chief of the General Staff, in August 1939 divided the matter into three connected parts.
Part A dealt with the provision of reserve ammunition for weapons already in possession or already ordered. Part B dealt with the provision of modern fighting and technical equipment for the Territorial Force, together with the necessary ammunition reserves for new weapons. Part C addressed the magazine, garage, and storage accommodation required to house the equipment and ammunition covered by Parts A and B.
This structure is crucial. The Army was not simply proposing to buy modern weapons. It was linking weapons to ammunition, reserves, accommodation, garages, magazines, and storage. It also recommended that the projects be considered as a whole and that, if approved in principle, provision be made over a period of years, in line with the time required to obtain the various types of equipment and ammunition. Immediate local expenditure on accommodation was recommended, while enquiries were to be made into the most satisfactory sources of supply, taking account of both cost and delivery date.
This is ILS in all but name. Modern ILS would frame the same issue in terms of supportability, facilities, supply support, support equipment, training consumption, war reserves, procurement phasing, and whole-of-life cost. The 1939 language was different, but the logic was closely aligned.
The same logic is evident in the wartime expansion of the NZAOC. In 1937, the Ordnance establishment was still being framed around peacetime assumptions, limited mechanisation, and a relatively small depot and workshop structure. The Director of Ordnance Services had warned that if any great development of mechanisation occurred during the next five years, the Ordnance Workshop establishment would probably prove inadequate.
By 1942, that warning had become reality. The scale of mobilisation, equipment receipt, ammunition storage, inspection, accounting, repair, and issue had made the pre-war structure insufficient. War Cabinet approved an amended Ordnance Depot establishment of 30 officers and 1,019 other ranks, distributed across Trentham, Northern District, Central District, and Southern District. In parallel, it authorised a revised Ordnance Workshops establishment of 425 all ranks, comprising 15 officers and 410 other ranks, covering the workshops at Trentham, Devonport, and Burnham. Both the Ordnance Depot and Ordnance Workshops establishments were to be treated as Dominion establishments, rather than as separate fixed establishments for each depot or workshop.[24]
The scale of that support system is clearer when the pre-war and wartime establishments are placed side by side.
| Ordnance function | Pre-war establishment position, 1937–38 | 1942 wartime establishment | What changed |
| Ordnance Depots | Small mixed military and civil establishment, framed around peacetime assumptions and the existing Territorial Force | 30 officers and 1,019 other ranks, a total of 1,049, across Trentham, Northern District, Central District, and Southern District | Depot support became a national supply, storage, accounting, receipt, issue, and distribution system |
| Ordnance Workshops | The limited workshop structure was considered vulnerable if mechanisation expanded. The 1938 Armament Section proposal included 3 officers, 9 WO1 artificers, and 25 other ranks across Trentham, Devonport, and Burnham | 15 officers and 410 other ranks, a total of 425, covering Trentham, Devonport, and Burnham | Technical repair, inspection, modification, and maintenance became a national sustainment function |
| Establishment principle | Localised peacetime structure | Both depot and workshop establishments are treated as Dominion establishments. |
This was significant. It meant that NZAOC manpower was being managed as a national support capability, adaptable and transferable in response to the changing pressures of mobilisation, storage, repair, inspection, and distribution. The depots represented the system’s supply, accounting, storage, receipt, issue, and distribution functions. The workshops represented the technical sustainment arm, including armament artificers, instrument artificers, wireless artificers, carpenters and joiners, painters, plumbers and tinsmiths, blacksmiths and welders, electricians, clerks, storemen, and labourers.
Taken together, these two NZAOC establishments show that modernisation did not stop at acquisition. Modern equipment had to be received, inspected, accounted for, stored, issued, repaired, modified, maintained, and technically supported. In modern ILS terms, the Mission System had forced the expansion of the Support System beneath it.
Equipment, ammunition, reserves, and war wastage
The follow-up paper on Recommendations 42 and 43 showed that the Army was already thinking in terms of holdings, orders, war reserves, and annual practice expenditure. In Part A, the schedules showed ammunition held in the Dominion or on order, what was considered necessary as a war reserve, and what expenditure was required for annual practice.[25]
Part B extended this logic to modern weapons and technical equipment. It identified the nature and number of modern weapons and equipment required to replace or supplement obsolete or obsolescent equipment, to complete the Territorial Force war establishment, and to provide a 25 per cent reserve. It also calculated the ammunition required for those new weapons on a similar scale. [26]
This was not a narrow procurement. It was capability planning. It connected equipment to force structure, reserves, ammunition, training, and replacement needs. The inclusion of a 25 per cent reserve reflected an understanding that war consumes equipment as well as ammunition. Weapons break, vehicles wear out, losses occur, and reinforcements require training and equipping. The Army was therefore not planning merely for possession, but for endurance.
The scale of the problem is clearer when the weapon and ammunition returns are viewed across the period from 1939 to 1944. In August 1939, New Zealand’s modernisation remained uneven. Older weapons such as the 18-pounder, 4.5-inch howitzer, 60-pounder, and 6-inch howitzer still formed part of the artillery inventory, while modern weapons such as the 25-pounder, 2-pounder anti-tank gun, Bren gun, Bofors 40-mm anti-aircraft gun, and 3.7-inch anti-aircraft gun were either on order or still being discussed. By March 1944, the position had changed dramatically. Quartermaster General returns show 255 25-pounders, 219 2-pounder anti-tank guns, 226 6-pounder anti-tank guns, 10,991 Bren guns, and very large ammunition holdings, including 920,701 rounds for the 25-pounder, 423,259 rounds for the 2-pounder anti-tank gun, 428,023 rounds for the 3.7-inch anti-aircraft gun, and 608,984 rounds for the Bofors 40-mm. These figures show that Mackesy’s concern was not theoretical. Modernisation required not only weapons, but reserves, ammunition, storage, distribution, trained personnel, and a system capable of sustaining war consumption.
| Weapon or ammunition type | 1939 position | Later wartime position | Significance |
| 25-pounder guns | Requirement identified | 255 by 1944 | Modern field artillery standard |
| 2-pounder anti-tank guns | 16 On order against 90 required | 219 by 1944 | Early anti-tank modernisation |
| 6-pounder anti-tank guns | At the prototype stage | 226 by 1944 | Later response to armour threat |
| Bren guns | 40 available, 312 on order | 10,991 by 1944 | Expansion of modern infantry firepower |
| 25-pounder ammunition | Initial Requirement of 58000 rounds identified | 920,701 rounds by 1944 | Shows ammunition burden of modernisation |
| Bofors 40-mm ammunition | Initial Requirement of 10000 rounds identified | 608,984 rounds by 1944 | Reflects growth of AA defence requirements |
The problem of obsolete equipment
The need for this enlarged Ordnance support system was reinforced by the condition of the equipment itself. The follow-up material to Mackesy’s report made clear that the Territorial Force remained heavily dependent on old equipment. Apart from coastal defences and a few items of modern equipment already obtained or on order for the Field Force, much of the Territorial Force’s equipment remained of the pattern used in the previous war. Existing small arms were insufficient to equip the Territorial Force at war strength, and, except for rifles, there were no reserve weapons to replace war wastage or train reinforcements. [27]
This was a strikingly modern supportability problem. A force may possess equipment, but if that equipment is obsolete, insufficient, unsupported, or lacks reserves, the capability remains fragile. Mackesy and the Army Board understood that modernisation had to address both first-line equipment and depth. It was not enough to equip the first increment of a force. The system had to be capable of replacing losses, training reinforcements, and sustaining the force over time.
Lead time, source of supply, and industrial reality
The follow-up paper also recognised the hard limits imposed by procurement lead times and industrial capacity. It noted that new equipment could not be obtained from Great Britain until more than twelve months after the outbreak of war, and that even if ordered immediately under peace conditions, delivery would take place only over several years, depending on manufacturing time and the priority given to New Zealand’s orders. It also observed that ordering requirements in instalments were uneconomical and would not necessarily produce earlier or more uniform delivery.[28]
This is another point of strong alignment with modern ILS and capability management. Today, this would be described as supply chain risk, industrial capacity, source-of-supply analysis, procurement phasing, delivery risk assessment, and schedule dependency. In 1939, it was practical military administration. New Zealand could not assume that equipment would be available when war came. It had to consider where equipment could be sourced, how long it would take to arrive, what priority New Zealand would receive, and whether local expenditure could begin immediately on the supporting infrastructure.
Facilities as part of the capability
Part C of the follow-up paper addressed magazine, garage, and storage accommodation. It estimated the additional accommodation needed for ammunition already on order, ammunition under Part A, ammunition under Part B, vehicle garage accommodation, and general storage.
This is one of the clearest examples of the programme’s support logic. Modernisation was not treated as complete once weapons or vehicles had been ordered. The Army needed somewhere to store ammunition safely, somewhere to garage vehicles, and somewhere to hold equipment. The capability, therefore, depended on the estate as much as on the equipment itself.
This point is reinforced by the 1940 summary of estimated Army expenditure. Although prepared before Japan entered the war, the report is significant because it was already looking beyond immediate equipment purchases to the infrastructure required for mobilisation, home defence, training, storage, maintenance, and sustainment. In that sense, it anticipated many of the pressures that would later become urgent after the Pacific War began. Alongside weapons, ammunition, vehicles, and general equipment, the summary included provision for buildings, water supply, roads, hospital accommodation, officers’ quarters, ordnance stores, garages, and workshops.[29]
The range of facilities identified in the 1940 expenditure summary shows that infrastructure was being treated as a mobilisation requirement.
| Facility or infrastructure item | Evidence from the 1940 expenditure summary | Capability significance |
| Buildings and camp infrastructure | Buildings, water supply, roads, hospital accommodation, officers’ quarters, and other camp works were included | Shows that mobilisation required a physical estate able to house, train, administer, and sustain an expanded force |
| Ordnance stores | Provision was included for Ordnance stores | Equipment and ammunition required controlled storage, accounting, preservation, and issue facilities |
| Garages | Garage provision was included | Mechanisation required vehicle accommodation, protection, maintenance access, and controlled fleet management |
| Workshops | Workshop provision was included | Weapons, vehicles, instruments, and technical stores required repair, modification, maintenance, and inspection facilities |
| Magazine and ammunition accommodation | The wider Mackesy follow-up programme identified magazine, garage, and storage accommodation as part of the equipment and ammunition problem | Ammunition reserves were only useful if they could be safely stored, managed, protected, and issued |
| Roads and water supply | Roads and water supply were included as expenditure items | Camps, depots, magazines, and workshops required basic infrastructure before they could function as military facilities |
The table illustrates that facilities were not an administrative afterthought. They were part of the support system that allowed weapons, ammunition, vehicles, stores, and personnel to become usable military capability. The timing sharpens the significance. In 1940, New Zealand was not yet at war with Japan, but the Army was already identifying the estate and infrastructure requirements that would underpin mobilisation and home defence. When the Pacific War later made the threat to New Zealand more immediate, many of these requirements were no longer theoretical.
Training and the human system
Mackesy also understood that trained people were central to capability. His report criticised the absence of regular units, the scattering of regular personnel across instructional and administrative duties, and the lack of a trained force available for mobilisation to protect while the Territorial Force prepared itself. He also noted that officers lacked opportunities to exercise tactical command in peace.[30]
Again, this reflects a whole-system view. Equipment required trained operators, trained commanders, trained instructors, and training areas. The Army’s problem was not merely material. It was institutional. Modern weapons, vehicles, ammunition, stores, workshops, garages, and magazines could not generate capability unless trained personnel existed to use, account for, maintain, repair, distribute, and command them.
The wartime expansion of the NZAOC reinforces this point. By 1942, the Ordnance Depot and Ordnance Workshops establishments had both become Dominion establishments, reflecting the need to manage trained manpower nationally rather than as a series of isolated local appointments. The depots required personnel able to handle receipt, accounting, storage, issue, and distribution, while the workshops required armament artificers, instrument artificers, wireless artificers, tradesmen, clerks, storemen, and labourers able to support increasingly technical equipment. The growth of the NZAOC was therefore not simply an increase in numbers. It was the creation of a trained human support system beneath modernisation.
The modern ILS Handbook identifies training support as one of the 10 ILS elements, involving the resources, skills, and competencies necessary to acquire, operate, support, and dispose of a capability system. It also identifies personnel as a separate ILS element, covering human resources and the prerequisite training, skills, and competencies required to acquire, install, test, train, operate, and support the capability system throughout its life cycle. Mackesy’s concern with Regular Forces, Territorial training, instructors, officers, cadets, and reserves fits closely with that logic.
Mapping Mackesy against the modern 10 ILS elements
The NZDF ILS Handbook lists 10 ILS elements: engineering support, maintenance support, supply support, packaging, handling, storage and transportation, training support, facilities, support and test equipment, personnel, technical data, and computer support.[31] Mackesy’s report and the follow-up work do not align with all these equally, but the comparison is revealing.
| NZDF ILS element | The Mackesy-era equivalent visible in the reports | Alignment |
| Engineering support | Modern equipment selection, mechanisation, suitability of weapons and vehicles | Partial |
| Maintenance support | Garages, stores, vehicle support implications, mechanisation | Partial |
| Supply support | Ammunition reserves, war reserve stocks, replacement weapons, source of supply | Strong |
| Packaging, handling, storage and transportation | Magazines, garages, storage accommodation, specialised vehicles, delivery timelines | Strong |
| Training support | Regular, Territorial and Cadet training, instructors, annual camps, reinforcement training | Strong |
| Facilities | Magazine, garage, store accommodation, training areas | Strong |
| Support and test equipment | Limited evidence in the reviewed material | Weak or implicit |
| Personnel | Regular Force, Territorial Force, reserves, instructors, officers, quartermasters | Strong |
| Technical data | Not clearly visible in the reviewed documents | Weak |
| Computer support | Not applicable to 1939 | Not applicable |
This mapping helps keep the argument balanced. Mackesy was not applying modern ILS in full. There is little visible evidence of what would now be called technical data management, configuration management, Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability analysis, Level of Repair Analysis, Failure Modes, Effects, and Criticality Analysis, or computer support. But the strongest areas of alignment, supply support, training support, facilities, personnel, storage, transportation, and supportability planning, are precisely the areas most central to whether a mobilisation force could be made real in 1939.
Whole-of-life awareness, not modern Whole of Life Costing
The ILS Handbook states that Whole of Life Cost incorporates all costs attributable to a capability throughout its life cycle, and that many of these costs are incurred during the In-Service phase, even though key cost decisions are made much earlier.[32] Mackesy’s work should not be described as Whole of Life Costing in that modern technical sense. It did not model all costs across acquisition, operation, support, upgrade, and disposal.
However, it did move well beyond simple purchase cost. The follow-up work considered capital costs, ammunition reserves, annual practice expenditure, magazines, garages, storage accommodation, delivery times, sources of supply, and phased expenditure over several years.[33] That was not modern Whole-of-Life Costing, but it was a clear form of whole-of-support awareness.
This distinction matters. It avoids anachronism while preserving the core argument. Mackesy was not using a modern costing model, but he was applying the broader principle that capability costs do not end with equipment acquisition.
Was Mackesy’s report parked?
It would be fair to say that Mackesy’s report was initially parked, but that phrase needs careful handling. It was not simply ignored. Mackesy himself stated that his suggestions would require careful investigation before action could be taken. That gave the Government and the Army Department room to treat the report as a major advisory document rather than to implement it in full immediately.
In May 1939, New Zealand was still technically at peace. Mackesy’s broader recommendations, covering the Regular Force, Territorial Force, training, pay, prestige, reserves, cadets, accommodation, mobilisation, equipment, ammunition, ordnance services, and financial administration, represented a substantial reform agenda. It was unlikely that such a programme would be adopted in its entirety within weeks.
Once war was imminent, however, the position changed. The report appears to have been used selectively, with attention narrowing to those parts that could be translated most directly into urgent military preparedness. Recommendations 42 and 43, dealing with modern equipment and ammunition reserves, received particular attention. A memorandum of 22 September 1939 confirms this shift, noting that the original estimates had been prepared on a peacetime basis and that urgent orders had since been placed for 18-pounder gun ammunition, 4.5-inch howitzer ammunition, and 100 Marmon-Herrington adapters fitted to vehicles.[34]
Mackesy’s report, therefore, became less a comprehensive reform blueprint and more a menu of urgent war-preparedness measures. The deeper structural issues, such as the creation of regular units, institutional training reform, and the broader status of the Army, did not receive the same immediate attention. What moved first were the recommendations most directly connected to mobilisation, equipment, ammunition, mechanisation, storage, and mobility.
ILS as formalised old-fashioned military planning
The comparison with modern ILS should not be overstated. Mackesy was not applying a formal ILS framework. His report does not show modern logistics support analysis records, reliability and maintainability modelling, configuration management databases, digital technical data, performance-based support contracts, or through-life governance structures.
The ILS Handbook describes modern ILS as structured, iterative, life cycle-based, and linked to Through Life Support, Systems Engineering, Logistics Support Analysis, Whole of Life Costing, supportability testing, configuration management, RAM, and other technical disciplines. Mackesy’s 1939 work was not that.
Yet the underlying method is unmistakably aligned. Mackesy and the subsequent Army Board work treated capability as an integrated system. They considered personnel, training, equipment, ammunition, reserves, accommodation, storage, mobilisation, source of supply, lead time, cost, and delivery. The later expansion of the NZAOC Depot and Workshops establishments as Dominion establishments, together with the 1940 expenditure planning for buildings, roads, water supply, ordnance stores, garages, and workshops, shows that this logic moved beyond paper analysis into practical mobilisation planning. The Army understood that a force could not be judged by its nominal existence, or by equipment on order, but by its ability to mobilise, train, store, issue, repair, move, reinforce, and sustain itself under wartime conditions.
This is the essential point. Modern ILS did not invent the idea that a military capability must be supportable. It formalised an older military truth.
Contemporary reflections for logisticians
Mackesy’s report should not be read as a simple checklist against which to judge contemporary logistics practice. The strategic setting, technology, force structure, governance, and scale of modern defence capability are vastly different from those of 1939. Nor should the report be used to imply that modern logisticians are repeating the failures of an earlier generation. Its value lies elsewhere. It provides a historical case study in how supportability, preparedness, and sustainment can determine whether military capability is real or merely assumed.
For contemporary logisticians, the first reflection is that capability must be understood as a system. Mackesy’s report did not treat weapons, vehicles, ammunition, personnel, training, storage, accommodation, and mobilisation as separate subjects. He examined them as interdependent parts of one military problem. The subsequent wartime expansion of NZAOC depots and workshops, and the inclusion of facilities such as stores, garages, workshops, roads, water supply, and accommodation in 1940 planning, reinforce the same point. A capability may be acquired through equipment, but it is delivered through the support system that allows it to be stored, issued, maintained, repaired, moved, supplied, trained, and sustained.
The second reflection is that gaps are easiest to tolerate when they have become familiar. Mackesy did not describe an Army that had suddenly become deficient. He described a force that had adapted over time to shortages, workarounds, obsolescence, limited reserves, inadequate establishments, and constrained training. In modern terms, this highlights the importance of identifying the impact of inaction. A shortage that has been managed for years may still be a real operational risk when circumstances change.
The third reflection is that mobilisation and sustainment cannot be improvised at the point of crisis. Mackesy’s warning about improvisation without previous thought and training remains relevant, not because the conditions of 1939 are directly comparable to today, but because the principle is enduring. Supply chains, storage, maintenance arrangements, trained personnel, technical data, contracts, transport, infrastructure, workshops, and reserves all require time, investment, facilities, and deliberate planning before they are needed.
The fourth reflection is that modernisation is not complete when equipment is ordered. New Zealand was already modernising before Mackesy arrived, with modern equipment received, further items on order, and staff attempting to remain current with British doctrine. Yet Mackesy’s report showed that partial modernisation was not enough. Equipment had to be connected to ammunition reserves, trained users, storage, transport, maintenance, repair, mobilisation depth, and supporting infrastructure. The 1942 Ordnance establishments and the 1940 facilities planning show the practical consequence of that principle: modernisation created a support burden that had to be manned, housed, equipped, and sustained.
Finally, Mackesy’s report demonstrates the value of honest external examination. His assessment was not perfect, nor was it a full implementation plan, but it forced attention onto the relationship between stated capability and actual readiness. For logisticians, that is perhaps the most useful enduring point. The purpose of logistics advice is not simply to support decisions already made, but to clarify what those decisions require if the capability is to be safe, available, supportable, repairable, and sustainable.
Read this way, Mackesy’s report is not a judgment on the present. It is a reminder that logistics has always been central to the credibility of military capability. The language has changed, and modern ILS has formalised the process, but the professional obligation remains familiar: to ensure that capability can be generated, supported, and sustained when required.
Conclusion
Major-General Mackesy’s 1939 report should be read not simply as a criticism of the New Zealand Army, but as a whole-force capability assessment. He arrived when the Army was already modernising, but that modernisation remained incomplete. His value lay in exposing the gap between equipment acquisition and usable military capability.
The follow-up work on Recommendations 42 and 43, together with the later expansion of Ordnance Depot and Ordnance Workshops establishments, demonstrates that this was not an abstract concern. Modern weapons, vehicles, ammunition, and technical stores required reserves, storage, magazines, garages, workshops, trained personnel, accounting systems, repair capacity, and distribution arrangements. The 1940 facilities planning reinforces the same point. Before the Pacific War made the threat to New Zealand more immediate, the Army was already identifying the estate and infrastructure needed to support mobilisation and home defence.
Measured against the modern NZDF ILS Handbook, Mackesy’s work was not ILS in the contemporary technical sense. It lacked the formal structures, terminology, analytical tools, and governance of modern capability management. Yet it clearly reflected the principles that ILS now formalises; early attention to supportability, recognition of whole-of-support requirements, integration of Mission System and Support System considerations, and the need to design capability that can actually be prepared, used, maintained, repaired, and sustained.
For contemporary logisticians, Mackesy’s report is best read as a historical reflection rather than a judgement. It reminds us that logistics is not a secondary activity performed after capability decisions have been made. It is part of the capability itself. Equipment without trained people, ammunition, spares, storage, transport, maintenance, infrastructure, workshops, repair capacity, and mobilisation depth is not a complete military capability.
The terminology has changed, the governance has become more formal, and the tools have become more sophisticated, but the underlying principle remains the same:
A capability is not real until it can be trained, equipped, supplied, stored, moved, maintained, repaired, reinforced, and sustained when required.
Notes
[1] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939),” Archives New Zealand No R18871665 (1939).
[2] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[3] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[4] Roderick MacIvor, Citizen Army: The New Zeland Wars Lost Official History (Wellington: Defence of New Zealand Study Group, 2025), 214-15.
[5] Paul William Gladstone Ian McGibbon, The Oxford companion to New Zealand Military History (Auckland; Melbourne; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2000), , 180.
[6] J Babington, “Defence Forces of New Zealand (Report on the) by Major General J.M Babington, Commandant of the Forces,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1902 Session I, H-19 (1902), https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1902-I.2.3.2.29.
[7] “Defence of the Dominion of New Zealand (Memorandum on the),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1910 Session I, H-19a (28 February 1910), https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1910-I.2.3.2.30.
[8] N. Smart, Biographical Dictionary of British Generals of the Second World War (Pen & Sword Military, 2005).
[9] “Organisation for National Security, Chiefs of Staff Committee – Recommendations No 42 – 43 of Mackesy report – Supply of modern equipment for the army and the provision of reserves of ammunition, September 1939,” Archives New Zealand No R16640388 (1939).
[10] “Organisation for National Security, Chiefs of Staff Committee – Recommendations No 42 – 43 of Mackesy report – Supply of modern equipment for the army and the provision of reserves of ammunition, September 1939.”
[11] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[12] Defence Logistic Command – Integrated Logistics Support Centre of Expertise, Integrated Logistics Support in Capability Management Handbook Third Edition (New Zealand Defence Force, 2022).
[13] Defence Logistic Command – Integrated Logistics Support Centre of Expertise, Integrated Logistics Support in Capability Management Handbook Third Edition.
[14] “Debunking the Myth of New Zealand’s Military Unpreparedness During the Interwar Period,” To the Warrior His Arms, History of the Royal New Zeland Army Ordnance Corps and it predecessors, 2025, 2026, https://rnzaoc.com/2020/12/21/ordnance-in-the-manawatu-1915-1996/.
[15] James Russell, “Brigadier Stanley Crump – An Underappreciated New Zealand Military Logistics Commander: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand” (Massey University, 2022).
[16] “QMG (Quartermaster General) – Ordnance “, Archives New Zealand No R18527870 (9 January 1937 – 1939).
[17] Defence Logistic Command – Integrated Logistics Support Centre of Expertise, Integrated Logistics Support in Capability Management Handbook Third Edition.
[18] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[19] D. Vaughan, The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA (University of Chicago Press, 1996).
[20] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[21] Ian McGibbon, The Oxford Companion to New Zealand Military History, 179-80.
[22] Defence Logistic Command – Integrated Logistics Support Centre of Expertise, Integrated Logistics Support in Capability Management Handbook Third Edition.
[23] Defence Logistic Command – Integrated Logistics Support Centre of Expertise, Integrated Logistics Support in Capability Management Handbook Third Edition.
[24] “Establishments – Ordnance corps,” Archives New Zealand No R22441743 (1937-1968).
[25] “Organisation for National Security, Chiefs of Staff Committee – Recommendations No 42 – 43 of Mackesy report – Supply of modern equipment for the army and the provision of reserves of ammunition, September 1939.”
[26] “Organisation for National Security, Chiefs of Staff Committee – Recommendations No 42 – 43 of Mackesy report – Supply of modern equipment for the army and the provision of reserves of ammunition, September 1939.”
[27] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[28] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[29] “Chief of the General Staff: Gun Ammunition, general army equipment and New Zealand Force numbers,” Archives New Zealand No R22849606 (1940).
[30] “NZ Forces – Army -Report on the military forces of NZ by Major-General Mackesy (22 May 1939).”
[31] Defence Logistic Command – Integrated Logistics Support Centre of Expertise, Integrated Logistics Support in Capability Management Handbook Third Edition.
[32] Defence Logistic Command – Integrated Logistics Support Centre of Expertise, Integrated Logistics Support in Capability Management Handbook Third Edition.
[33] “Organisation for National Security, Chiefs of Staff Committee – Recommendations No 42 – 43 of Mackesy report – Supply of modern equipment for the army and the provision of reserves of ammunition, September 1939.”
[34] The reference to “100 Marmon-Herrington adapters fitted to vehicles” appears to relate to four-wheel-drive conversion equipment supplied by the American firm Marmon-Herrington. These adapters were not simply minor spare parts, but conversion assemblies that allowed standard commercial vehicles, usually built as two-wheel-drive trucks, to be adapted for military use with improved cross-country mobility. Such kits typically involved the fitting of a driven front axle, transfer case, driveline modifications, and associated mounting components. Their inclusion alongside urgent ammunition orders shows that, by September 1939, New Zealand’s preparations were extending beyond stockpiling munitions to improving the field mobility of its vehicle fleet; “Trucks converted with Marmon-Herrington All-Wheel Drive Conversion Kits,” Marmon-Herrington military vehicles, 2002, 2026, https://www.mapleleafup.nl/marmonherrington/truck.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com.
