To a civilian, it is often said that you cannot smell a photograph. Yet to a servicemember who has spent time living under canvas, the image of an Army tent will immediately bring back the memory of wet, musty canvas, shaped by rain, earth, and long use in the field.
Tentage rarely features prominently in military history. It is usually treated as little more than camp equipment, a background detail to more visible systems such as weapons, vehicles, and communications. Yet the history of tentage in the New Zealand Army reveals something far more significant. It exposes persistent tensions in logistics, recurring problems of standardisation, and, ultimately, a fundamental shift in how the Army understood its own infrastructure.
From the late nineteenth century through to the Cold War, tentage evolved from a loosely managed collection of stores into a structured, scalable capability. That evolution was not driven primarily by innovation in design, but by the gradual recognition that shelter, like any other military function, required system-level thinking.
The Wellington Regiment encamped at Lake Wairarapa, with a Vickers machine gun 1957. Bell tents and Marquees in the background. Evening post (Newspaper. 1865-2002) :Photographic negatives and prints of the Evening Post newspaper. Ref: EP/1957/0455-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23162008
Origins: Camp Equipment Without Structure
In the late nineteenth century, tentage in New Zealand was not treated as a defined capability. It existed within the broad administrative category of “camp equipment,” grouped alongside cooking utensils, tools, and general field stores.[1] It was something to be issued when required, not something to be structured or scaled.
By 1902, the Defence Forces held approximately 1,650 tents and 70 marquees.[2] These holdings were sufficient for volunteer camps, but they reveal little evidence of systemisation.
New Zealand also remained dependent on British supply. Tents were largely imported as “Imperial pattern” equipment, and attempts at local manufacture failed to meet the required standards, particularly in waterproofing and material quality.[3]
Tentage at this stage was therefore not only unstructured, but also externally dependent.
Expansion Without Integration: The Territorial Era
The introduction of universal training and the Territorial Force in the early 1910s transformed both the scale and visibility of the tentage problem.[4] Camps grew larger, more frequent, and more organised, exposing the limitations of an unstandardised system.
By 1914, tentage holdings had expanded significantly. The Army held
This reflects a layered system, better understood through British doctrine.
NZ Army. Camp. Soldiers in Bell Tents Note Wooden Flooring and Canvas Brailled up for Ventilation. New Zealand.; Unknown Photographer; c1920s; Canterbury Photography Museum 2022.2.1.336
Bell tents remained the core accommodation system, forming the basis of a wider and increasingly complex tentage ecosystem. The circular tents recorded in official returns, almost certainly bell tents or their C.S. (Circular, Single) variants, provided the primary shelter for soldiers and remained dominant into the early twentieth century, evolving through successive marks and continuing in service into the Second World War. Alongside these were marquees, which served as headquarters, mess, and storage, and a range of specialised tents supporting medical and field roles. Additional tentage, including recreation marquees provided by organisations such as the YMCA and Salvation Army, further expanded the scale and diversity of camp infrastructure.[6]
Beneath this apparent variety lay a more structured yet still evolving nomenclature, inherited from British practice. Tentage increasingly came to be defined by systems such as General Service (GS), Indian Pattern (IP), and Universal marquee designations, reflecting distinctions in role, construction, and weight. Indian Pattern tents, in particular, introduced weight-based classifications such as 40-lb, 80-lb, 160-lb, and 180-lb designs, which signalled a move toward scalable and role-specific shelter systems, from small command tents through to large accommodation structures. The 180-lb and 160-lb tents were especially significant, as they were designed as versatile general-purpose shelters and progressively replaced a range of earlier specialist tents, including telegraph, wireless, and ridge types.
Environmental and medical considerations also exerted a strong influence on tent design and use. Flysheets were introduced to mitigate heat build-up in tropical climates, while mosquito- and sandfly-proof tents were developed in response to the persistent threat of disease. Space allocation reflected similar concerns. Whereas barracks allowed approximately 60 square feet per man, this was reduced to as little as 12 square feet under canvas, significantly increasing the risk of disease transmission in crowded camps.
Taken together, these developments demonstrate that pressures toward rationalisation, standardisation, and functional differentiation were already present within British and New Zealand tentage systems. Yet despite this growing sophistication, tentage remained fundamentally unstructured. It existed as a collection of types, however refined, rather than as an integrated and scalable system of capability.
War as a Stress Test
The First World War placed this arrangement under sustained pressure. Large training camps relied heavily on tentage to accommodate thousands of troops, while mobilisation and reinforcement flows demanded rapid expansion and redistribution of equipment.[7]
What the war revealed was not a lack of tents, but a lack of structure. The Army could enumerate and issue tentage but could not always ensure completeness or functionality.
Interwar Stagnation and Wartime Repetition
The interwar period did little to resolve these issues. Financial constraints limited training and curtailed camps, and there was little opportunity for systematic reform.[8]
The Second World War repeated the pattern on a larger scale. Existing stocks were used intensively, supplemented by local manufacture of bell tents and additional procurement of marquee-type tents.[9]
Despite this effort, the underlying system remained unchanged.
Waiouru Camp 1940
The Shift to System Thinking
The decisive transformation occurred in the decades following the Second World War. By the 1950s, the limitations of the existing approach were increasingly apparent.
The traditional model, based on enumerating equipment against establishments, could not ensure that equipment formed a complete or functional capability.
The introduction of structured entitlement systems, including the New Zealand Entitlement Tables (NZET), New Zealand Complete Equipment Scales (NZCES), and New Zealand Block Scales (NZBS), marked a fundamental shift. Tentage was no longer treated as an isolated item, but as part of a defined system.[10]
This shift is reflected in the formalisation and refinement of NZBS, which defined holdings as integrated capability groupings rather than individual items.
Modularity and the Australian System
The adoption of the Australian modular tent system in the 1960s and 1970s provided the physical expression of this new approach and marked the transition into the tentage systems that would remain in service for the next fifty years. Where earlier tentage had consisted of bell tents, marquees, and weight-classified Indian Pattern designs, each treated as discrete types, the new system defined tents by standardised dimensions and by their ability to be combined into larger configurations.
A rationalised range of tent sizes was introduced, typically:
11 × 11 feet
14 × 14 feet
30 × 20 feet
40 × 20 feet
This replaced earlier arrangements built around named tent types with a scalable, dimension-based framework. Under this model, tentage was no longer treated as discrete items, but as modular components within a wider camp system, enabling deliberate planning and repeatable layouts.
Standard functional allocation became possible:
11 × 11 ft – administrative and office functions
14 × 14 ft – personnel accommodation
30 × 20 ft – messing, medical, and communal facilities
40 × 20 ft – workshops, maintenance, and technical spaces
This modularity allowed camps to be scaled, reconfigured, and adapted to operational requirements, rather than constrained by the limitations of specific tent types.
Exercise Sothern Katipo 2017
Critically, this development aligned with the introduction of structured entitlement systems such as NZET, NZCES and NZBS. Within these frameworks, tentage was no longer accounted for simply as quantities held, but as part of a defined capability set incorporating:
The effect was a fundamental conceptual shift, from asking “How many tents are held?” to “What complete camp capability can be generated?” In this sense, the modular tent system represented not just a change in equipment design but a visible expression of a broader transition in military logistics, from enumeration to system-based capability management.
The significance of this system lies not simply in standardised sizes but in its inherent modularity. As set out in contemporary Australian Army instructions, tents such as the extendable 30 × 20 general-purpose designs were engineered to be expanded and linked through additional panels and structural components, allowing multiple tents to be joined into continuous covered spaces.
NZDF tents on Whanganui Hospital’s front lawn. Photo Eva de Jong
In practical terms, this enabled the creation of integrated field facilities rather than isolated structures. Headquarters could be expanded laterally to incorporate planning and communications areas; medical facilities could be connected to form treatment and ward spaces; and workshop complexes could be developed as continuous covered environments for maintenance and storage. Tentage was no longer a collection of shelters but a field infrastructure system that could be configured to meet specific operational requirements.
The introduction of blackout liners further enhanced this capability, allowing internal lighting to be used during hours of darkness with minimal light leakage. This enabled sustained night-time command, administrative, and maintenance activity while maintaining light discipline and reducing visual signature.[11]
This transition did not occur in isolation. Weapons and Equipment Policy Committee (WEPC) records from the mid-1960s demonstrate that camp equipment, including tentage, was considered within broader equipment-planning and capability frameworks rather than as standalone stores.[12] At the same time, RNZAOC organisational reporting reflects a growing emphasis on structured provisioning, centralised control, and the alignment of equipment holdings with defined operational roles and unit requirements.[13]
The modular tent system, therefore, aligned directly with the evolving entitlement framework during this period. Tentage was no longer issued as individual items, but as part of a coherent, scalable capability. In doing so, it replaced the earlier type-based approach with one built on structure, adaptability, and interoperability, a framework that underpinned New Zealand Army tentage well into the late twentieth century.
Evolution in Practice: Overlap Rather Than Replacement
The transition from traditional tentage to modular systems was gradual and characterised by sustained overlap rather than replacement. British-pattern tents, including General Service and Indian Pattern designs, remained in use alongside newer modular systems, reflecting both the durability of earlier equipment and the practical realities of military provisioning.
30×20 and marquee used as officers’ tents during No. 75 Squadron Exercise Waltz Time at Kaikohe and Kerikeri 1968. Crown Copyright 1968, New Zealand Defence Force
Legacy tents were not immediately withdrawn with the introduction of modular designs. Instead, they continued to serve in training environments, reserve holdings, and secondary roles, where their limitations were less critical. In some cases, lighter General Service tents remained in service into the late 1980s, illustrating that replacement was governed as much by condition and utility as by doctrinal change.
Operational experience also shaped retention. Heavier canvas tents, particularly the 180 lb Indian Pattern design fitted with flysheets, were often found to be better suited to tropical and monsoon conditions in Southeast Asia. Their durability, ventilation, and ability to shed heavy rainfall made them more practical in theatre than some newer designs. As a result, these tents remained in use in operational contexts, particularly in Malaysia and Singapore, until New Zealand’s withdrawal in 1989.
This overlap highlights a consistent feature of New Zealand Army logistics: adaptation through retention. Capability was not built through wholesale replacement, but through layering. New systems were introduced alongside existing holdings, progressively reshaping capability without disrupting it.
This pattern sits within a broader transformation. For much of its history, tentage existed as a collection of stores, sufficient in quantity but lacking the structure required to generate coherent capability. The introduction of entitlement systems and modular tentage fundamentally altered this, reframing tentage as part of an integrated system aligned to operational requirements rather than simply holdings on charge.
Even so, the shift was evolutionary. Older systems persisted alongside new ones, and improvement was incremental rather than immediate. This pragmatic approach ensured continuity while allowing the Army to progressively develop a more flexible and effective field infrastructure.
In the end, tentage ceased to be merely equipment held in store and became a deliberate, scalable capability. Through modular design and system-based management, it enabled the Army to generate protected, interconnected, and sustainable working environments capable of supporting operations continuously, day and night.
And for those who have lived under canvas, it remains more than a system or a capability. The image of an Army tent still carries the unmistakable memory of wet, musty canvas, a reminder that behind every logistics system lies the lived experience of those it sustains.
On 4 December each year, soldiers, gunners, and explosive specialists around the world pause to mark Saint Barbara’s Day. For New Zealand’s military ammunition community, the day has a special resonance. Saint Barbara was the patron saint of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC). Although the Corps was disestablished in 1996, she remains the spiritual patron of those whose work brings them closest to explosive risk, especially the current generation of Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) Ammunition Technicians.
This commemoration is not about imposing religious belief or expecting devotion in a modern, pluralist Army. Instead, it is about recognising shared values. Saint Barbara’s story, whether read as faith, legend, or metaphor, offers a powerful way of talking about courage, duty of care, and professionalism in dangerous work.
From Heliopolis to the Ordnance Corps
According to tradition, Barbara lived in the late Roman Empire at Heliopolis in Phoenicia, now associated with Baalbek in modern Lebanon. Born into a wealthy pagan household, she questioned the gods she had been taught to worship when she looked out from the tower in which her father kept her secluded and reflected on the ordered beauty of the world around her. In time, she converted to Christianity in secret. When her father discovered this, he handed her over to the authorities and ultimately carried out her execution himself.
Her refusal to renounce her convictions, even under torture, and the lightning that, according to legend, later killed her father and the official who condemned her, led to Barbara being associated with sudden death, lightning, and fire. As warfare evolved and gunpowder weapons became central to battle, she was adopted as patroness of artillerymen, armourers, military engineers, miners, tunnellers, and anyone whose livelihood involved explosives and the possibility of instant, catastrophic harm. The Legend of Saint Barbara
When the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) adopted Saint Barbara as its patron, that tradition passed into the wider family of Commonwealth ordnance corps. The RNZAOC, with its own responsibility for ammunition supply, storage, and maintenance in New Zealand, in turn adopted her as patron saint.
Beyond 1996: Saint Barbara and the RNZALR
The disestablishment of the RNZAOC in 1996 and the formation of the RNZALR did not diminish Saint Barbara’s relevance to New Zealand soldiers. The work did not change; only the cap badge did. Ammunition Technicians, in particular, continue to live daily with the realities that made Barbara a symbolic figure in the first place: sudden danger, technical complexity, and the need for calm, disciplined action when things go wrong.
On paper, Saint Barbara is a figure from late antiquity. In practice, her patronage captures something very contemporary about the RNZALR Ammunition Technician trade:
Technical mastery under pressure – handling, inspecting, and disposing of explosive ordnance where a single lapse can have irreversible consequences.
Quiet, unshowy bravery – the kind that rarely makes headlines but underpins every live-fire activity, every range practice, and every deployment where ammunition is moved, stored, or rendered safe.
Duty of care to others – ensuring that everyone else can train and fight in relative safety because someone has accepted responsibility for the dangerous end of the supply chain.
In that sense, Saint Barbara’s Day is as much about the living as it is about any distant martyr. It is an opportunity for the wider Army to pause and acknowledge that the safe availability of ammunition, which is often taken for granted, depends on a small community of specialists and their support teams.
A Day Of Tradition, Not Testimony
In a modern New Zealand Army, not everyone is religious, and fewer still are likely to be familiar with the details of early Christian hagiography. That is not the point. Commemorations like Saint Barbara’s Day function as regimental and professional traditions, not as tests of personal belief.
Marking the day can mean different things to different people:
For some, it may be a genuine act of faith, honouring a saint whose story inspires them.
For others, it is a way of respecting the heritage of their trade and the generations of RNZAOC and now RNZALR personnel who have done this work before them.
For many, it is simply a moment to reflect on the risks inherent in explosive work, to remember colleagues injured or killed in training and operations, and to recommit to doing the job as safely and professionally as possible.
In that sense, the story’s religious origins are less important than the shared meaning it has acquired over time. Saint Barbara becomes a symbol of the values that matter in ammunition work: integrity, courage, vigilance, and loyalty to those you serve alongside.
Contemporary Relevance: Commitment In A Dangerous Trade
In the modern world, the management of ammunition and explosives is governed by detailed regulations, sophisticated science, and digital systems, ranging from hazard classifications and compatibility groups to electronic inventory control and safety management frameworks. Yet, at its core, it still depends on human judgment and ethical commitment.
Saint Barbara’s Day offers a valuable lens for talking about that commitment:
Commitment to safety – understanding procedures not as bureaucracy, but as the accumulated lessons, sometimes paid for in blood, of those who went before.
Commitment to team – recognising that no Ammunition Technician works alone, and that a strong safety culture depends on everyone feeling empowered to speak up, check, and challenge.
Commitment to service – remembering that, whether in training at home or on operations overseas, the work is ultimately about enabling others to succeed and come home alive.
When Ammunition Technicians and their colleagues mark Saint Barbara’s Day, they are not stepping out of the modern world into a medieval one. They are taking a moment within a busy, technologically advanced, secular military environment to acknowledge that some fundamentals have not changed: courage, conscience, and care for others still matter.
Keeping The Flame Alive
Although the RNZAOC passed into history in 1996, its traditions did not vanish. They were carried forward into the RNZALR and live on in the customs, stories, and professional identities of those who wear the uniform today. Saint Barbara is one of those enduring threads.
On 4 December, when a small group gathers in an Ammuniton depot, unit lines, a mess, or a deployed location to raise a glass or share a few words in her honour, they are standing in continuity with generations of ordnance soldiers, armourers, gunners, and explosive specialists across time and across the Commonwealth. They are also quietly affirming something vital about themselves.
In the end, Saint Barbara’s Day is less about religion and more about recognition: recognition of a demanding craft, of the people who practise it, and of the responsibility they carry on behalf of the wider Army. For the RNZALR Ammunition Technicians of today, as for the RNZAOC of yesterday, she remains a fitting patron for those who work, quite literally, at the explosive edge of military service.
“Wars are won by logistics.” – General Omar Bradley, United States Army
Lightsabers and Supply Chains
Every saga needs heroes. In the Star Wars universe, our gaze is drawn to the Jedi’s calm resolve, the roar of X-Wings in formation, and the clash of empires in the stars. But behind every act of heroism lies a less glamorous, often invisible force—logistics. Whether it’s fuelling starfighters, feeding battalions, or evacuating casualties under fire, logistics is the backbone of every conflict in the galaxy.
This reality mirrors our own. Logistics has always underwritten armies ‘ success from ancient campaigns to modern joint operations. Star Wars, while fantastical, often reflects the unspoken truth of warfare: that victory depends not just on courage and firepower but also on the capacity to sustain the fight.
Galactic Warfare Demands Galactic Logistics
Star Wars operates on a staggering scale. Fleets traverse parsecs in seconds. Planetary invasions occur with blitzkrieg speed. Yet such operations imply a logistical tail that’s as complex as it is colossal.
Star Destroyers the size of cities require fuel, oxygen, food, and spare parts.
Stormtrooper legions need rations, ammunition, transport, and medical support.
Rebel bases operate in secrecy but still need to power life support, fabricate equipment, and plan for evacuation.
Without the effort of countless anonymous logisticians—pilots, engineers, technicians, clerks, and droids—the machinery of war grinds to a halt. The unsung heroes of Star Wars are not only those who fly or fight, but those who fix, move, and sustain.
The Empire: Industrial Efficiency and Fragile Overreach
The Galactic Empire reflects the classic paradigm of a centralised military machine—impressive in might, but vulnerable in complexity. Its logistics system is massive, standardised, and heavily dependent on control of infrastructure.
Centralised Production: Planets like Kuat, Fondor, and Corellia are naval shipyards, constructing capital ships on assembly lines.
Fleet Supply Chains: Star Destroyers often act as autonomous bases, capable of deploying TIE squadrons, supporting troops, and conducting repairs. Yet they still rely on regular resupply convoys, garrison worlds, and fuel stations.
Clone and Conscription Models: The transition from the clone army to a conscripted stormtrooper corps signals a shift from precision to scale. Training, equipping, and deploying millions requires standardised logistics, but at the cost of adaptability.
Ultimately, the Empire’s strength is also its weakness. Like any overstretched power, it struggles with local unrest, regional shortages, and bureaucratic inflexibility. The Death Star—icon of ultimate control—was a logistical black hole, requiring vast resources to build, man, and maintain. Its destruction at Yavin wasn’t just symbolic—it devastated Imperial supply planning and morale.
The Rebellion: Logistics by Necessity
The Rebel Alliance, by contrast, is a textbook case in asymmetric logistics. Operating with limited resources, it employs decentralised, improvised, and resilient methods to survive and strike back.
Patchwork Fleets: Rebel ships are a mix of old models, captured craft, and converted civilian freighters. Their maintenance depends on scavenging, skilled technicians, and a culture of adaptability.
Mobile Bases: From Dantooine to Hoth, rebel headquarters are short-term, self-contained hubs. They must be defensible, resource-accessible, and easily evacuated.
Underground Supply Networks: Smugglers, sympathetic systems, and covert contractors serve as lifelines. Think of it as a galaxy-wide version of the WWII French Resistance’s logistics web.
These constraints breed innovation. At Scarif, rebel logisticians coordinate a high-risk infiltration to secure the Death Star plans. At Endor, limited forces are supported by maximum terrain exploitation. The Rebellion’s logistical doctrine is fluid, mission-specific, and centred on sustaining morale and momentum over material supremacy.
Case Study: The Battle of Hoth
The Rebel base on Hoth provides a rich example of the interplay between logistics, terrain, and combat.
Environmental Adaptation: The extreme cold forces unique solutions, such as thermal regulation, environmental suits, and animal transport (tauntauns) due to droid freezing.
Sustainment: Every supply item had to be brought in by smuggling freighters. Food, fuel, spare parts, and medical supplies were constantly in short supply.
Evacuation Planning: Using GR-75 transports with fighter escorts, the escape plan exemplifies prioritised withdrawal under duress—a classic logistician’s challenge.
Hoth is a triumph of ingenuity but also a reminder of risk. Without enough time or redundancy, even the best-laid logistical plans can be scuppered by surprise, attrition, or weather.
Droid Labour and Supply Chain Automation
Droid labour is one of the most understated but powerful assets in the Star Wars universe. Logistics droids serve in roles from inventory control and loading to starship maintenance and medical triage.
MSE-6 Mouse Droids scurry about starships with repair orders or encrypted data.
Gonk Droids serve as portable power units, sustaining machinery in remote environments.
Protocol and Astromech Droids assist with translation, navigation, and tactical computing—functions akin to modern command support tools.
This automation enables leaner human footprints, faster operations, and reduced fatigue. In modern military terms, this parallels using autonomous vehicles, digital inventory systems, and AI-powered logistics forecasting.
The Clone Wars: Large-Scale Conventional Logistics
During the Clone Wars, the Grand Army of the Republic represents conventional logistics on a galaxy-wide scale. Its campaigns mirror real-world total war scenarios, such as WWII or Cold War-era NATO doctrine.
Standardisation: Clones used the same kit, flew standardised craft, and operated under unified command. This enabled predictability in supply, training, and repairs.
Integrated Support: Republic naval forces functioned as mobile forward operating bases. Venator-class Star Destroyers provided logistics, medical aid, and reinforcements.
Contract Manufacturing: Systems like Kamino and Geonosis provided clone soldiers and droid enemies on industrial scales, raising ethical supply chains and issues of military-industrial dependence.
One aspect that is often overlooked is the role of medical and recovery operations. Scenes of med stations, bacta tanks, and casualty evacuation by LAATs reveal the vital role of health services in sustained operations.
Strategic Vulnerabilities: Logistics as a Target
Throughout Star Wars, we witness the targeting of logistics as a strategic priority:
Rogue One’s mission to steal the Death Star plans was a classic case of logistics intelligence gathering.
The Rebel assault on the Death Star’s exhaust port targeted a vulnerability in systems design.
In The Last Jedi, the First Order’s hyperspace tracking depleted the Resistance’s fuel reserves, cutting off their mobility and forcing attritional withdrawal.
Disruption of supply, denial of movement, and exploitation of logistical weaknesses are hallmarks of effective strategy. Star Wars echoes timeless truths from Hannibal’s destruction of Roman depots to the modern doctrine of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/AD).
Moral Logistics: Sustaining Sentients, Not Just Systems
Military logistics is not just about materiel—it’s about people. Troopers need food, shelter, rest, and psychological support. Fighters, medics, engineers, and even commanders need more than blasters to endure campaigns.
Casualty Care: Scenes of bacta tanks, surgical droids, and field hospitals show a robust but underrepresented aspect of war.
Morale and Rotation: Clone troopers often fought long campaigns without leave, while rebels rotated between fronts and support tasks. Sustaining morale is a strategic imperative.
Civilian Impact: Wars fought across star systems disrupt trade, displace populations, and trigger humanitarian crises. Relief logistics—though seldom depicted—are implied by the political backdrop.
Modern logisticians understand that sustainability includes welfare, ethics, and long-term planning. This is the soul of responsible operations.
The Forgotten Heroes of the Galaxy
Behind every cockpit and command post stands a silent corps of logisticians. They don’t feature on posters but keep ships flying and armies moving.
The deck chief who patches an X-Wing.
The loader who moves a crate onto a freighter.
The technician who calibrates hyperspace coordinates under fire.
The pilot flying an unarmed supply run through a contested sector.
These figures echo real-world logisticians—from Monte Cassino’s mule drivers to today’s digital supply coordinators. They are the pulse of operations, embodying flexibility, precision, and resolve.
Conclusion: May the Force Sustain You
Star Wars dazzles with spectacle. But underneath the lightsabers and blaster fire lies a truth every military professional knows: you cannot win what you cannot supply.
The galaxy’s wars are not just tales of good and evil—they’re narratives of fuel lines, convoy routes, maintenance bays, and depot clerks. Here, in the shadows of strategy, logistics quietly writes the outcome of every battle.
On this Star Wars Day, let us honour the unseen—the quartermasters, the movement controllers, the fixers and feeders, both fictional and real. Whether in a galaxy far, far away or on Earth today, their mission is the same:
ANZAC Day is a sacred day of remembrance and gratitude in New Zealand. It is a day when we pause to honour the breadth of military service—those who stormed the beaches and scaled the ridgelines, and those who sustained them from behind the lines. Among these often-unsung heroes are the men and women of the Ordnance Corps. Ordnance soldiers have provided the New Zealand Army with the weapons, ammunition, equipment, and logistical support necessary to fight, survive, and succeed for over a century. Their role has always been vital, even if it has been carried out of the limelight.
But what exactly is an Ordnance soldier?
At their core, Ordnance soldiers are Logistics Specialists and Ammunition Technicians—responsible for ensuring that every frontline soldier has what they need, when they need it. They manage everything from the smallest screw in a field weapon to the vast stocks of food, clothing, and ammunition that sustain entire armies. Their work includes storage, distribution, accounting, repair, salvage, and technical inspection. In short: if it moves, fires, feeds, or protects, it likely passed through the hands of Ordnance personnel.
The roots of military ordnance stretch deep into history. The first recorded Ordnance Officer in the British military was appointed in 1299 to manage siege equipment, such as catapults and battering rams. Over time, these responsibilities evolved into a professional and structured system of military storekeeping and supply, one that reached New Zealand in the 1840s with the arrival of British Imperial forces.
By the 1860s, as the Imperial presence waned, the responsibility for military logistics was gradually handed over to New Zealand personnel. The Defence Stores Department was formally established in 1869 to oversee the nation’s military stores. This marked the beginning of New Zealand’s independent ordnance tradition. In 1917, during the First World War, the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was officially formed, taking over duties from the Defence Stores Department. The Corps provided critical support throughout the war and maintained the Army through the interwar years.
With the Second World War outbreak, the Ordnance Corps expanded dramatically. To support 2NZEF, the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) was raised for overseas service, while a separate NZOC served as the NZAOCs Territorial element. In 1942, the engineering and maintenance functions of the NZOC operating in the Middle East were separated to form the New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME). This change was mirrored in New Zealand in 1946, when workshops were transferred from the NZAOC to the newly created NZEME.
In recognition of its wartime service, King George VI granted the “Royal” prefix to the Corps on 12 July 1947, making it the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC). That same year, the territorial and regular elements were merged into a single corps that would serve with distinction for the next half-century.
Every ANZAC Day, we reflect on the legacy of the Ordnance soldier—from the dusty cliffs of Gallipoli and the battlefields of North Africa to the supply depots of World War II, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the humanitarian missions of the late 20th century. Their story did not end with the close of the Cold War. In 1996, the RNZAOC was amalgamated with the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT) and the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) to form the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR)—a unified, modern logistics formation designed to meet the evolving demands of military operations in the 21st century.
The legacy of the Ordnance soldier lives on today in every RNZALR Logistic Specialist and Ammunition Technician. Their story is not just a historical record—it is the very foundation of the RNZALR. Their values of resilience, quiet courage, and professional excellence continue to shape the New Zealand Army’s ability to sustain and succeed at home and abroad.
Gallipoli and the First World War: The Storekeeper on Anzac Beach
The story of the New Zealand ordnance soldier begins amid the brutal landing at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. Captain William Beck, a New Zealand Staff Corps officer, was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (DADOS) for the New Zealand and Australian Division. According to several accounts, Beck was the first New Zealander ashore at ANZAC Cove, leading the landing of Godley’s divisional headquarters under intense fire.
His task was immense. Amid the beachhead’s chaos, confusion, and carnage, Beck quickly set about establishing a makeshift ordnance dump right on the shoreline—improvising with salvaged crates, scattered supplies, and a growing stream of urgently needed materiel. As soldiers surged inland and casualties mounted, Beck and his small team organised the distribution of ammunition, rations, clothing, and basic field stores to units already under fire in the hills above. Without shelter, maps, or proper infrastructure, this operation became a lifeline to the forward troops.
Supplies on the beach at ANZAC Cove 1915. Athol Williams Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library
Beck worked under relentless fire, including from a remarkably accurate Turkish artillery piece that pounded the beachhead daily. Nicknamed “Beachy Bill” by the troops, the gun became infamous for zeroing in on the supply areas, and Beck’s improvised depot was one of its most frequent targets. The name, according to some accounts, was given in ironic tribute to Captain Beck himself, whose unwavering presence under fire seemed to draw the enemy’s attention as reliably as the tides. Despite the danger, Beck remained calm and courteous, continuing to perform his duties in conditions that would have driven many to cover. His efforts earned him the enduring moniker “the brave storekeeper on Anzac Beach.” He became a quiet legend among his peers. General Sir William Birdwood, commanding the ANZAC forces, was said to personally check on Beck during his rounds, out of admiration and concern. Beck’s courage and composure under fire became emblematic of the Ordnance Corps’ ethos: professionalism in adversity, and mission before self.
Though he was later evacuated due to illness caused by the stress of battle in August 1915, Captain Beck’s role at Gallipoli demonstrated how critical logistics were to the survival and sustainment of fighting troops—and that the Ordnance soldier was not a rear-echelon presence, but a frontline enabler in every sense.
Following the Gallipoli campaign, the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) was reorganised and redeployed to the Western Front in France and Belgium, as well as to the Sinai and Palestine campaigns in the Middle East. What began in 1914 as a two-man effort—Beck and Sergeant Norman Levien—expanded rapidly into a structured logistics organisation. In 1917, the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was formally established as a dedicated branch of service, recognising its work’s increasingly specialised and essential nature.
On the Western Front, Ordnance personnel established and managed supply dumps and armourers’ workshops across the scarred landscapes of the Somme, Messines, and Passchendaele. They worked in trenches, mud, and snow—often within range of enemy artillery—ensuring that troops had the bullets, boots, tools, and trench stores required to sustain a static war of attrition.
Their responsibilities went well beyond basic supply. Ordnance units also operated salvage sections to recover, repair, and repurpose battlefield equipment—a critical function in conserving resources and maintaining operational tempo. They ran mobile repair facilities and oversaw essential services like bath and laundry units, which not only preserved hygiene in the harsh conditions of trench warfare but also boosted morale and prevented disease. These services reflected the Ordnance Corps’ holistic approach to sustaining soldiers, not just with materiel, but with cleanliness, comfort, and care in brutal circumstances.
In the Middle East, NZAOC detachments supported mounted operations across the harsh deserts of Sinai and Palestine. Operating in support of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Ordnance soldiers adapted their methods to suit long, exposed supply lines and the mobile nature of desert warfare. They managed camel trains, improvised field depots, and operated forward repair points—often little more than canvas shelters in the sand—to keep men and animals in the fight. Salvage and maintenance tasks were equally essential here, where resupply could be days away and every item had to be made to last.
By the end of the First World War, the NZAOC had grown into a compact, disciplined, and highly respected corps. From the mud of Flanders to the sands of Beersheba, their work underpinned New Zealand’s military effort. Though rarely seen in official war photographs or commemorated in mainstream histories, their contributions were vital. They demonstrated that logistics was not a sideline to combat—it was its backbone. They also laid the foundation for a professional military logistics tradition in the RNZALR today.
The Second World War and Beyond: Backbone of the Battlefield
During the Second World War, the NZAOC matured into a seasoned and indispensable pillar of military capability. Whether supporting the fight abroad or maintaining the war effort at home, Ordnance personnel were the engine behind the Army’s ability to project and sustain force across multiple theatres of war.
North Africa and Italy: Desert Sands and Mountain Passes
In the North African campaigns of 1941–42, Ordnance units operated across Egypt and Libya’s vast, unforgiving deserts, supplying the 2nd New Zealand Division during pivotal battles such as Operation Crusader and El Alamein. Supply depots were often under canvas, exposed to enemy air raids and desert winds. Light Aid Detachments worked tirelessly in the blistering heat to keep tanks, trucks, and artillery in the fight, repairing on the move and recovering damaged equipment under fire.
A dedicated Ordnance Convoy Section was raised to support the increasing volume and complexity of operations. Its task was to move stores and equipment from rear areas to forward supply points, filling a critical gap when the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) could not meet demand. These convoys ensured a continuous flow of tools, spare parts, and personal equipment to the front, often through contested or poorly marked desert tracks.
The NZ Divisional Salvage Company also operated until late 1941, recovering and repurposing valuable battlefield materials—everything from damaged vehicles to discarded equipment. This function saved resources and contributed to operational sustainability by rapidly recycling assets back into the supply chain.
Ordnance support also extended to troop welfare. Mobile Bath and Laundry Sections accompanied the Division to provide frontline hygiene services, which were essential in preventing disease, exchanging clothing, maintaining morale, and improving the force’s overall combat effectiveness. Their presence in forward areas helped ensure that troops remained as healthy and combat-ready as conditions allowed.
Fred Kreegher, New Zealand Ordnance Field Park, sorting out stores in the rear of his Bin Truck. The Noel Kreegher collection
When the Division redeployed to Italy in late 1943, the harsh desert gave way to snow-covered mountains and treacherous river valleys. But the demands on Ordnance personnel did not ease. During gruelling campaigns at Monte Cassino and through the Po Valley, the NZOC once again delivered. Ordnance Field Parks and dumps were established within range of enemy guns, and equipment was recovered, repaired, and reissued under complex and often perilous conditions.
These layered capabilities—convoy operations, salvage and recovery, technical maintenance, and personal support—ensured the Division could manoeuvre and fight confidently, knowing its logistical tail was secure. The Ordnance Corps wasn’t simply supporting the fight—it was integral to sustaining it.
The Pacific Theatre: Islands of Sustained Effort
While New Zealand’s main expeditionary force focused on Europe and the Mediterranean, many New Zealand troops were also deployed to the Pacific. Here, the NZAOC supported the 3rd New Zealand Division across island bases in New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Fiji. These were remote and logistically challenging environments—characterised by tropical diseases, heavy rain, mud, and dense jungle.
Ordnance detachments established supply points, maintained stores, repaired equipment, and ensured operational readiness across scattered islands. These locations often lacked established infrastructure, requiring personnel to be resourceful and adaptable. Camp maintenance, local procurement, and even salvaging enemy materiel became part of the day-to-day tasks.
Although the 3rd Division never saw major set-piece battles like those in North Africa or Italy, it did undertake several opposed amphibious operations and complex island-clearing operations, most notably in the Solomon Islands campaigns at Vella Lavella, Treasury Islands, and Green Island. These landings were tactically complex and logistically demanding, requiring close coordination between combat troops and supporting elements. The Division’s presence helped safeguard New Zealand’s Pacific interests and contributed meaningfully to the broader Allied campaign in the South-West Pacific Area. The Ordnance Corps was instrumental in keeping this contribution viable—its soldiers operated under arduous conditions, far from public view but never from operational necessity.
The Home Front: Sustaining the War Machine
Back in New Zealand, the Ordnance Corps played an equally vital—if often overlooked—role in sustaining the nation’s war effort. Depots at Trentham, Hopuhopu, Burnham, Palmerston North and Waiouru became crucial hubs for receiving, inspecting, storing, and distributing supplies to deployed units. The scale of this effort was immense: weapons, uniforms, vehicle parts, ammunition, and medical supplies flowed in and out of these depots on a daily basis.
Ordnance staff oversaw procurement, stock accounting, and quality control, ensuring that New Zealand’s contribution to the global conflict was met efficiently and precisely. In addition to servicing the expeditionary forces, these depots supported the Home Guard, Territorial units, and mobilisation centres. When new battalions were raised or re-equipped, Ordnance issued the kit and ensured everything was fit for purpose. This included the units of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force deployed overseas, as well as the three Divisions and supporting arms raised for home defence. These domestic formations—charged with protecting New Zealand from possible invasion—required full logistical support, from uniforms and webbing to weapons, ammunition and transport. Ordnance Corps personnel were central to ensuring these forces were ready to respond, maintaining a continuous flow of supplies while adapting to changing wartime demands.
“Repairing despatch riders’ motor-cycles. Photo of mechanics and motorcyclists repairing motorcycles at a field workshop during military manoeuvres in Northland.” Auckland Weekly News, 23 December 1942, p.14
Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections AWNS-19421223-14-03
The wartime workforce also included women, with members of the New Zealand Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (NZWAAC) taking on duties in Ordnance depots, handling clerical tasks, managing stores, and supporting logistics operations nationwide. Their involvement further highlights the adaptability and inclusivity of the Ordnance mission in meeting the demands of total war.
Post-war Transition
Post-war deployments saw Ordnance personnel serve in Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, and beyond—often integrated within British, Australian, or Commonwealth logistics formations. Though New Zealand’s contribution to these conflicts was modest in size, the professionalism and impact of its Ordnance soldiers were significant. In the Korean War (1950–53), New Zealand’s primary combat force—16th Field Regiment—was supported by a small but capable number of logistics specialists. Ordnance staff embedded within allied supply chains, managing stores, issuing ammunition, and repairing equipment under the demanding conditions of the Korean Peninsula’s harsh winters and mountainous terrain.
During the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960) and the subsequent Indonesian Confrontation (1962–1966), New Zealand troops operated in dense jungle environments that tested their combat and logistics capabilities. Ordnance soldiers were seconded as individuals to the New Zealand Battalion or British units, where they maintained supply lines through monsoon rains, oppressive humidity, and remote jungle bases. Their tasks ranged from maintaining small arms and issuing jungle kit to managing the complex movement of stores between staging areas and patrol bases—a vital function in an environment where regular resupply was challenging and sometimes depended on airdrops or riverine transport.
Although New Zealand did not deploy a complete Ordnance unit in Vietnam, RNZAOC personnel were seconded individually to Australian and United States forces. These included roles such as supply officers, ammunition controllers, and non-commissioned officers (NCOS) stationed at key logistics hubs like Nui Dat and Vung Tau. Working in a high-tempo combat zone, they handled everything from weapons and clothing to fuel, spare parts, and ammunition—often under the threat of enemy attack. The complexity of the Vietnam conflict demanded rapid response times, adaptability, and technical proficiency, all of which the Ordnance soldiers delivered in spades.
Beyond direct deployments, Ordnance personnel were also deeply involved in supporting the considerable effort required to sustain a deployable division maintained under New Zealand’s national service and conscription scheme during the Cold War. This mobilisation model meant that the RNZAOC was responsible for equipping, maintaining, and provisioning a standing force-in-being that could be rapidly expanded in times of crisis. Warehouses and mobilisation stores across the country were stocked with weapons, webbing, clothing, communications equipment, and general supplies—ready to be issued to citizen-soldiers if called upon. The planning, accounting, and logistical foresight required to maintain this latent capability were immense, and it stood as a testament to the professionalism of the Corps.
Across these theatres and responsibilities, Ordnance personnel served in austere and unpredictable environments. Whether embedded with an allied supply unit in the jungle or managing stockpiles for national mobilisation, they maintained the flow of materiel that kept New Zealand’s military effort credible and ready. Though they rarely received public recognition, their contribution was the vital connective tissue that made readiness a reality.
Peacekeeping and Modern Missions: From Mogadishu to the Pacific
In the late 20th century, as New Zealand’s defence priorities shifted toward peacekeeping and international humanitarian support, Ordnance soldiers once again rose to meet the challenge—this time under the flag of the United Nations. The 1992 deployment to Somalia marked a pivotal moment in New Zealand’s operational history and the modern evolution of the RNZAOC. In response to a deteriorating humanitarian crisis fuelled by civil war and famine, the UN launched a multinational intervention to secure aid routes and stabilise the region. New Zealand’s initial contribution to this effort—the New Zealand Supply Detachment—consisted primarily of 28 RNZAOC personnel, marking the first time in decades that an Ordnance-led contingent was deployed operationally in its own right.
Arriving in Mogadishu in December 1992 as part of the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), the detachment was tasked with establishing a functioning logistics capability in a highly hostile and volatile environment. Somalia’s capital had no functioning government, no stable infrastructure, and was riddled with armed factions. Despite the risks, the RNZAOC personnel immediately began establishing supply chains, securing local procurement channels, and distributing food, water, and stores to support the broader UN mission. They set up New Zealand’s main camp at the now well-known base called “Taniwha Hill,” which would symbolise Kiwi resilience amid chaos.
New Zealand soldiers leave their camp to conduct a patrol. NZDF Offical
Working out of hastily converted shipping containers and tents in the sweltering heat, the team operated under constant threat of gunfire, looting, and militia activity. Despite the mission’s peacekeeping label, it quickly became apparent that they were operating in a conflict zone. Convoys were escorted, personal weapons were always carried, and supply runs often meant travelling at high speed through hostile streets to avoid ambush. One RNZAOC NCO recalled travelling with a rifle propped between his knees, ready to return fire if necessary—a stark contrast to the logistics roles typically performed at home.
As the situation deteriorated, a second and larger contingent of 43 logistics personnel (including reinforcements from the RNZAOC and other corps) deployed in 1993 as the New Zealand Supply Platoon. This platoon was accompanied by an infantry protection element from 1 RNZIR, marking New Zealand’s first combat deployment of infantry since the Vietnam War. This reinforced the seriousness of the mission and highlighted the increasing danger and the blurred lines between combat and combat service support. Operating as an integrated platoon, the team performed with professionalism and efficiency, earning the respect of allied forces for their adaptability, calm under pressure, and ability to keep essential supplies flowing under fire.
The New Zealanders remained through some of the mission’s most violent episodes, including the events surrounding the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident in October 1993. Positioned nearby, the RNZAOC soldiers bore witness to the heavy fighting yet carried on their duties with unwavering determination. When many international contingents began withdrawing, the New Zealand logistics team continued to operate until mid-1994, one of the last Western elements to depart the theatre.
The Somalia deployment reaffirmed the modern Ordnance soldier’s place at the heart of New Zealand’s deployable military capability. It demonstrated that RNZAOC personnel were not only logisticians, but also frontline enablers—capable of operating in fluid, high-risk environments and delivering under extreme pressure. “Taniwha Hill,” New Zealand’s base in Mogadishu, was regularly subjected to gunfire and mortar attacks, and Kiwis operated in volatile zones with little margin for error. Yet the RNZAOC platoon carried out their duties with quiet professionalism and resolve, ensuring UN and coalition forces remained supplied and mission capable.
This ongoing legacy of service continues under a new banner. In 1996, the RNZAOC was formally disestablished as part of an Army logistics reorganisation. Its personnel, functions, and traditions were integrated into the newly formed RNZALR, uniting the RNZAOC, RNZCT, RNZEME, and Quartermaster staff into a single, cohesive regimental structure. This transformation ensured that the enduring values and capabilities of the Ordnance Corps would carry forward into a modern, agile logistics force aligned with contemporary operational requirements.
Since then, RNZALR Logistic Specialists and Ammunition Technicians have continued to support peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in theatres such as Bosnia, the Sinai, East Timor, and Afghanistan. During the East Timor operation (1999–2002), logistics units played a crucial role in sustaining one of New Zealand’s largest overseas deployments since the Korean War. Their work—whether managing supply convoys, setting up field depots, or coordinating humanitarian assistance—underscored the critical importance of logistics as an enabler and a key factor in mission success.
Domestically, RNZALR Logistics personnel have remained indispensable. From supporting civil defence during the Canterbury earthquakes to managing logistics and providing personnel to support Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and maintaining daily sustainment across Defence camps and bases, they remain central to New Zealand’s readiness and resilience. In every setting, whether at home or abroad, the legacy of the Ordnance soldier lives on through the actions and professionalism of the RNZALR.
Roll of Honour: Service Remembered, Sacrifice Recognised
The story of the Ordnance Corps is also one of loss. The New Zealand Ordnance Roll of Honour lists 63 names of those who died while serving in our logistics and stores organisations—from the Defence Stores Department of 1862 to the RNZAOC’s integration into the RNZALR in 1996. Among them:
Captain Sam Anderson (1899), Defence Storekeeper
Captain Arthur Duvall (1919), New Zealand Army Ordnance Department
Temporary Major William Knox (1941), Divisional Ordnance Field Park, North Africa
Private Russell John Casey (1994), 1 Logistic Regiment, RNZAOC
Each of these individuals—and the many others on the Roll—represents a life dedicated to service, often given in conditions far from home and with little fanfare.
Remembrance and Honour
Each ANZAC Day, we renew our vow: “We will remember them.” In remembering, we broaden our gaze to include those who served without seeking recognition—those who issued the boots, drove the convoys, repaired the radios, and ensured that the warriors had their arms.
The Ordnance Corps soldiers were not mere auxiliaries but the enablers of victory, the sustainers of peace, and the standard-bearers of discipline and duty. Their legacy is not just one of historical interest, but a living ethos that endures in the RNZALR.
As the Last Post echoes and the nation falls silent, let us remember the battles won and the thousands of acts behind the lines that made those victories possible. The story of the Ordnance soldier is one of dedication, innovation, and unheralded bravery.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning— We will remember them. Lest we forget.
The evolution of New Zealand Army stores accounting from 1845 to 1963 reflects the broader transformation of the nation’s military logistics from its colonial origins to a modern, structured system. This study is not a deep dive into the intricate details and complexities of New Zealand military stores accounting but rather an introductory overview of a system that has incrementally evolved over 180 years.
Initially modelled on British military accounting principles, New Zealand’s unique defence requirements—shaped by its geographical isolation, force structure, and operational demands—necessitated continuous refinement. Accounting practices have continuously evolved since the first musket was issued to the militia in 1845. However, it wasn’t until The Public Stores Act of 1867 that structured inventory control and accountability measures were formally introduced. This legislation laid the foundation for military store accounting, marking a significant step towards the professionalisation of the Defence Stores Department. These measures ensured crucial oversight and efficiency in military logistics, particularly highlighted by the demands of the South African War and the two World Wars, underscoring the need for a robust and adaptable system capable of sustaining large-scale military operations.
By the mid-20th century, New Zealand had developed a sophisticated store accounting framework. The introduction of NZP1: Volume I—Stores Accounting in 1951 marked a milestone, formalising the policy regulating the army’s store management. The subsequent 1962 revision further streamlined procedures, ensuring the system remained relevant amid evolving logistical complexities.
New Zealand’s innovations in stores accounting did not go unnoticed. In 1963, the Australian Army sought guidance from New Zealand to modernise its system, acknowledging the effectiveness of the NZ Army’s approach. This recognition underscored New Zealand’s competence in military logistics, demonstrating that despite its smaller size, its expertise had broader strategic significance.
Structure of this Study
Part One will examine the period from 1845 to 1918, tracing the evolution of New Zealand’s military stores accounting system from its British colonial origins to a structured, modern framework comparable to those of New Zealand’s allies by 1914. The demands of the First World War tested the system’s efficiency and resilience, exposing strengths and weaknesses that would shape post-war reforms.
Part Two will cover the period from 1918 to 1945, during which the lessons learned from the First World War were applied to improve inventory control, procurement efficiency, and financial oversight. Economic constraints of the interwar years prompted refinements to stores accounting, leading to the introduction of cost accounting in 1921 and the formalisation of logistical procedures in 1927. The rapid mobilisation for the Second World War tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, accelerating the adoption of modernised inventory tracking and decentralised supply chain management. By 1945, these wartime adaptations had laid the foundation for a more sophisticated and accountable military logistics system.
Part Three will examine the period from 1946 to 1963, focusing on the transition from wartime supply chains to a peacetime military logistics infrastructure. The post-war period saw efforts to streamline surplus disposal, re-establish long-term procurement strategies, and integrate emerging technologies into stores accounting. By 1963, the system had matured into a mature manual store accounting framework, ensuring greater efficiency, accountability, and interoperability.
Military Stores Accounting and Its Distinctions from Commercial Stores Accounting
The primary goal of military stores accounting is to ensure that soldiers on the frontlines, tradesmen in workshops, and medical staff in field hospitals have the necessary tools and equipment to carry out their duties effectively. This involves managing administrative burdens through the command and supply chains and ensuring all required controls are in place for the long-term sustainment and capability maintenance.
Military stores accounting is a specialised system designed to manage and track the acquisition, storage, distribution, and disposal of military supplies. Unlike commercial stores accounting, which primarily focuses on cost control and financial profitability, military stores accounting prioritises accountability, operational readiness, and the efficient utilisation of resources to meet operational outputs.[1]
Differences Between Military and Commercial Stores Accounting
Feature
Military Stores Accounting
Commercial Stores Accounting
Objective
Ensuring operational readiness and accountability
Maximising profit and minimising costs
Nature of Inventory
Includes depreciable assets, expendable, consumable, repairable, and non-expendable items
Primarily consumable and depreciable assets
Accounting System
Uses strict regulatory frameworks and controlled issue systems
Focuses on balance sheets and profit margins
Lifespan of Items
Items can remain in service for decades with periodic refurbishment
Items are typically depreciated and replaced
Valuation
Based on operational utility rather than market price
Based on market valuation and depreciation
Security and Control
Strict control due to security concerns
Less stringent control mechanisms
Classification of Military Stores
Military stores are classified into several categories based on their usage, longevity, and maintenance requirements:
Expendable Stores – Items that are used once and cannot be reused (e.g., ammunition, medical supplies, fuel). These are issued as required and accounted for under strict consumption controls.
Consumable Stores – Items that are used over time and require replenishment (e.g., rations, lubricants, batteries). While they are used up gradually, they still require accountability and stock rotation.
Repairable Stores – High-value equipment that, when damaged or worn, can be repaired and reissued rather than disposed of (e.g., weapons, radios, vehicles). These items are often tracked using maintenance logs and servicing records to maximise their lifespan.
Non-Expendable Stores – Permanent assets that remain in service for extended periods (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, large-calibre weapons). These items require detailed asset management and condition assessments.
The Long-Term Use of Military Equipment
Unlike commercial organisations, where items are often replaced once they end their economic life, military assets— from clothing to high-value or technologically complex equipment—are maintained, refurbished, and upgraded to extend their service life. For example:
Small Arms: Some rifles and sidearms remain in service for decades through regular maintenance and upgrades.
Vehicles: Military transport vehicles, such as trucks and armoured vehicles, can be refurbished multiple times before decommissioning.
Aircraft and Naval Assets: Large defence assets, including ships and aircraft, are often modernised with new technology and systems rather than being replaced outright.
Uniforms and Gear: Certain clothing items and equipment are subject to phased replacement cycles, where only components are updated as needed.
The Importance of Accountability in Military Stores Accounting
Military regulations are always subservient to Government legislation and regulations, especially Treasury rules regarding the expenditure of public monies. Military stores accounting is not a single system, but a collection of specialised accounting frameworks developed to manage different commodities such as ammunition, rations, fuel, vehicles, and technical spares. As military technology has advanced, these systems have evolved parallel to meet modern armed forces’ complex logistical demands.
Accountability is central to military stores accounting, ensuring that every piece of issued equipment is tracked to guarantee:
Proper usage and maintenance,
Prevention of loss or theft,
Compliance with operational requirements,
Efficient resource allocation during deployments.
Military store personnel are responsible for maintaining detailed records, conducting audits, and ensuring strict adherence to regulations. These rigorous accounting and inventory control measures ensure that military resources remain available and serviceable when required. Beyond merely tracking financial transactions, military stores accounting is a critical function that underpins military operations’ effectiveness, security, and sustainability.
Early Developments in Stores Accounting
From 1845, Quartermaster staff managing militia stores and then Volunteer stores from 1858 followed British military procedures. The Defence Stores were formally established in 1862, predating Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton’s appointment as Inspector of Defence Stores in 1869. Although Gorton assumed leadership in 1869, the Defence Stores had already been functioning, supporting the colonial military effort.[2]
Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton
The 1867 Public Stores Act, implemented under Gorton’s administration, introduced structured accounting procedures.[3] The Defence Stores Department issued circulars and administrative guidelines to ensure proper accountability and management of military supplies. Gorton’s rigorous approach laid the foundation for the 1871 Public Stores Act, which regulated government-wide stores management and standardised accounting practices.[4]
1870-ammunition-stocktake
Despite Gorton’s achievements in strengthening accountability, his strict enforcement and meticulous oversight drew criticism, leading to the abolition of the Stores Inspection Department in 1877.[5] However, his Defence Stores procedures remained robust, and a culture od accountability was established within Defence Stores. Thirty years later, Colonel George Macaulay Kirkpatrick of General Kitchener’s staff validated them in 1910, finding them comparable to British military standards.
Stores records were maintained by a system of indents and vouchers, with balances maintained in ledger books. The Defence Stores were required to provide annual reports of stocks on an annual basis, ensuring accountability and transparency in military logistics. These practices laid the foundation for the modern systematic inventory control and efficient stores management.
Example of a Ledger book
Development of the Artillery Stores (1880s Onwards)
As New Zealand expanded its Garrison Artillery and introduced new guns, equipment, and ammunition, additional accounting and management procedures became necessary. This was beyond the scope of the existing Defence Stores Department, requiring the expertise of military professionals.
In conjunction with Defence Storekeeper Captain Sam Anderson, Sergeant Major Robert George Vinning Parker, formerly of the Royal Garrison Artillery, developed a system of Artillery Stores Accounting. Parker was in charge of artillery ledgers and stores at Auckland, Wellington, and Lyttelton, ensuring the proper tracking and maintenance of artillery supplies. He continued in this role until 1889 when he was reassigned to Dunedin.[6]
Replacing Parker as the Artillery Ledger Keeper was Regimental Sergeant Major and Instructor in Gunnery Frederick Silver. Silver’s expertise in artillery logistics positioned him as a key figure in the continued refinement of artillery accounting systems. Following the death of Captain Sam Anderson in December 1899, Silver applied for the role of Ledger Keeper in the Defence Stores. Given his extensive experience and close working relationship with Anderson, Silver believed he was the ideal candidate.[7] However, due to his seniority, James O’Sullivan, the Chief Clerk of the Defence Stores, was awarded the role of Defence Storekeeper.[8]
Despite this, Silver was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Defence Stores, transitioning from the Permanent Militia on 25 June 1900. While his new role introduced additional responsibilities, Silver managed Artillery Ledgers seamlessly within the Defence Stores framework.[9]
The relationship between the Defence Stores and the Artillery was cooperative, with both functions operating as a single organisation. The Defence Stores was crucial in supporting the artillery’s logistical needs, ensuring that munitions, equipment, and essential supplies were readily available. The interconnected nature of these two functions allowed for a streamlined approach to military logistics, where artillery-specific requirements were integrated within the broader supply framework managed by the Defence Stores.
This integration led to an efficient system that balanced military necessity with stringent logistical oversight.
Organisational Reforms and the Defence Council (1906)
With the passage of the Defence Act Amendment Act 1906 on 28 October 1906, the Defence Council was established, providing the New Zealand Military Forces with a structured headquarters for the first time. The Act introduced specific staff functions, including:
Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance): Responsible for artillery armament, fixed coastal defences, and ordnance supplies.
Director of Stores: Responsible for clothing, personal equipment, accoutrements, saddlery, harnesses, small arms, ammunition, machine guns, transport, vehicles, camp equipment, and all stores required for the Defence Forces.[10]
As part of this reform, James O’Sullivan was confirmed as Director of Stores for New Zealand and appointed Quartermaster and Honorary Captain in the New Zealand Militia. Silver was designated as Assistant Defence Storekeeper, continuing to oversee Artillery Ledgers, which—despite falling under the purview of the Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance)—remained under Defence Stores control.
Despite these improvements, officers and Quartermaster staff in volunteer units were still elected annually, leading to inconsistency in stores management. Many units functioned more like social clubs than military organisations, resulting in disorganised stores accounts. This led to frequent discrepancies between supplies provided by the Crown and actual inventory.
The continued reliance on part-time and volunteer Quartermasters highlighted the need for further professionalisation of the quartermaster within the New Zealand Military, a challenge that would persist as the New Zealand Military transitioned into the modern era.
The Defence Act 1909 and the Transition to a Citizen Army
The Defence Act 1909 marked a significant transformation in New Zealand’s military organisation, laying the groundwork for a citizen-based Territorial Army and ending the Volunteer System.[11] This fundamental shift required extensive adjustments within the Defence Stores Department to support the expanding force structure.
For O’Sullivan, Silver, and the Defence Stores Department, the challenge was to continue modernising stores and logistics to meet the demands of a rapidly growing army. As the Territorial Force expanded, so did the logistical requirements, necessitating a more structured and professional approach to store management.
On 1 June 1910, Silver’s position was redesignated as Assistant Director of Military Stores, and he was appointed a Quartermaster with the rank of Honorary Lieutenant in the New Zealand Militia. His expertise and leadership played a crucial role in ensuring the Defence Stores Department could support the evolving needs of the New Zealand Military.
Guidance on the duties related to the management of stores
In 1910, Lord Kitchener, renowned as “The Empire’s foremost soldier,” visited New Zealand and thoroughly reviewed its military forces.[12] His assessment led to significant reforms within the NZ Military, including establishing the New Zealand Staff Corps (NZSC) and the New Zealand Permanent Staff (NZPS) in 1911. These changes aimed to create a professional cadre of officers (NZSC) and enlisted personnel (NZPS) capable of providing expert guidance and efficient administration to the Territorial Force units.
Lord Kitchener’s visit critically evaluated the military’s capabilities, revealing deficiencies in equipment care, maintenance, and overall responsibility. The existing Regimental Quartermaster Sergeants (RQMS) lacked the necessary skills, underscoring the need for a professional RQMS cadre.
The Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand, which came into effect on 5 May 1911, established the command and administrative structure of the Forces.
The overall responsibility for military stores and equipment was placed under the Commandant of the Forces, with specific duties delegated to key officers and commanders at various levels.
Senior Officers Responsible for Stores and Equipment
Quartermaster General
Managed mobilisation stores, including policies on reserves of clothing, equipment, and general stores.
Determined scales of clothing, equipment, and stores needed for troops.
Oversaw mobilisation arrangements for food, forage, clothing, stores, and equipment.
Director of Supplies and Transport
Managed the supply of food, forage, fuel, and lighting.
Responsible for Army Service Corps technical equipment.
Director of Equipment and Stores
Oversaw clothing, equipment, and general stores.
Managed supplies of stationery, forms, and books.
Provided vehicles and technical equipment, except those for Artillery and Engineers.
Supervised the storage and distribution of small arms and ammunition.
Director of Ordnance and Artillery
Established reserve scales for arms, ammunition, and technical equipment for Artillery and Engineer units.
Managed the provision and inspection of guns, small arms, and ammunition.
Oversaw machine guns, Artillery and Engineer vehicles, and technical stores.
Director of Medical Services
Provided advice on and inspected all medical equipment to ensure it met operational standards.
Director of Veterinary Services
Provided expert advice on veterinary stores and equipment.
District and Unit Responsibilities
At a regional level, Commanders of Districts were responsible for maintaining the efficiency of forts and armaments, including all associated buildings, works, stores, and equipment. They also played a key role in ensuring financial prudence by overseeing officers responsible for spending and stores management.
At the unit level, the Commanding Officer had a broad set of responsibilities, including:
Maintaining discipline, efficiency, and proper administrative systems within the unit.
Ensuring accountability for public equipment, clothing, and stores.
Overseeing the maintenance and cleanliness of all issued arms.
Managing the proper receipt and distribution of rations and fuel.
Ensuring daily ration inspections were conducted in the presence of an officer.
Other Regimental Officers, such as Company Commanders, even those in temporary appointments, were also responsible for:
The equipment, ammunition, clothing, and stores assigned to their company.
Ensuring soldiers maintained personal cleanliness and proper care of their uniforms, arms, and accoutrements.
Supervising the quality and adequacy of rations provided to troops.
Finally, the 1911 Regulations clearly stated that any officer or individual responsible for public stores was strictly forbidden from lending any article under their charge unless expressly sanctioned by their Commanding Officer (CO). This regulation reinforced strict accountability and control over military stores, ensuring that all equipment, clothing, and supplies were used solely for authorised military purposes. [13]
To maintain proper accountability and management of military stores, Defence Stores personnel and unit Quartermasters followed detailed policies and procedures outlined in official publications, including:
Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand
Financial Instructions and Allowances Regulations for NZ Military Forces
Regulations for Clothing and Equipment of NZ Military Forces
NZ Dress Regulations
Prices Vocabulary of Stores
NZ Mobilisation Regulations
Additional guidance was also found in operational reference materials, such as:
Field Service Regulations
Training Manuals
Field Service Pocket Books
The responsibilities established in 1911 laid the foundation for the structured management of military stores, setting a precedent for all future stores accounting procedures. These early frameworks ensured accountability, efficiency, and operational readiness, embedding core logistical principles underpinning military supply chain management today. While titles and organisational structures have evolved, the fundamental tenets of logistical oversight, resource management, and financial accountability have remained steadfast. Successive iterations of Defence Orders, regulations, and policies have refined and expanded these responsibilities, ensuring their continued relevance and adaptability to the evolving operational and strategic needs of the New Zealand Defence Force in the modern era.
Standardising Stores Management and Training
In November 1911, thirty young men from military districts attended an intensive three-week training course at the Defence Stores Department in Wellington to address this. This comprehensive training, overseen by O’Sullivan, included:
Weapon storage, inspection, maintenance, and accounting
Storage, inspection, and maintenance of leather items (e.g., saddlery and harnesses)
Storage and upkeep of canvas and fabric equipment
Packing procedures for stores
Maintenance of records and documentation
The candidates successfully passed the examinations and were appointed as RQMS under General Order 112/10. Notably, this was the first military trade-related stores course conducted in New Zealand.
“Staff of the Quarter-master General—men who passed as Quarter-master instructors and are being drafted to the various districts, Colourised by Rairty Colour
To ensure consistency across districts, a conference of District Storekeepers was held in Wellington in August 1913. O’Sullivan noted their dedication to maintaining accountability for government property, highlighting their investment in their work.
Historically, annual military camps were managed ad hoc with inconsistent equipment scales. With the establishment of the Territorial Army, the Defence Stores Department introduced standardised camp equipment requirements in 1913.
To streamline supply chain management, temporary Ordnance Depots were established at brigade camps in 1913. Personnel received training under the Director of Equipment and Stores, and roles were assigned as follows:
Ordnance Officer: District Storekeeper Auckland (Lieutenant Beck)
Two clerks
Four issuers
Following the success of the 1913 camps, the system was expanded in 1914, with each regional storekeeper acting as an Ordnance Officer and staff numbers increasing to six clerks and twelve issuers.
Takapau Divisional Camp, 1914. Te Papa (1362454)
Strategic Assessment, Preparedness and Mobilisation
In early 1914, General Sir Ian Hamilton inspected New Zealand’s forces, assessing approximately 70% of personnel. He noted that the Territorial Force was “well-equipped and well-armed” but recommended looking to Australian models for future Ordnance development. O’Sullivan’s annual report for 1914 confirmed that the Defence Stores Department was in a strong position, with ample stocks of small arms, ammunition, clothing, and web equipment.
The 1914 mobilisation was the first test of the reorganised and reequipped New Zealand military forces since the South African War. The challenge was immense: raising, equipping, and dispatching an expeditionary force while maintaining the coastal defence garrisons and the Territorial Army for homeland security. O’Sullivan’s Defence Stores supported this effort, which, under his leadership, played a crucial role in successfully mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF).
The groundwork for the NZEF was laid in March 1914 when General Alexander Godley issued mobilisation regulations, adapted from British Army directives, to guide the formation of an expeditionary force. New Zealand’s commitment to supporting Britain in the event of war had been reinforced at the 1907 and 1911 Imperial Conferences, yet it was only in 1912 that Godley, confident in the growth of the Territorial Army, shifted focus to preparing for an overseas force.
As part of this preparation, Godley identified three likely tasks for the NZEF:
Seizure of German Pacific possessions.
Deployment to protect Egypt from a Turkish attack.
Fighting in Europe alongside British forces.
By mid-1914, New Zealand’s military reorganisation was three years into an estimated seven-year process.
Although at full operational strength, confidence in the military’s preparedness was high. Annual training camps had been completed, and unit stores had been restocked. A major stocktake was planned for August 1914—marking the first such effort in two years, as the 1913 stocktake had been postponed due to industrial strikes.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 set off a chain of events leading to war. On 30 July, Defence Headquarters instructed District Headquarters to begin precautionary war preparations. By 1 August, partial mobilisation schemes were underway, and further instructions on the composition of the NZEF followed on 2 August.
Each military district contributed a fully equipped infantry battalion, a mounted rifle regiment, artillery, engineers, and medical subunits. These units were to be drawn from the permanent forces, Territorial Force, and reserves. District Storekeepers supported by unit Quartermasters were critical in equipping these units with stores drawn from existing regiments and regional mobilisation depots.
On 3 August, Quartermaster General (QMG) Colonel Alfred William Robin issued detailed instructions regarding individual equipment. Territorial soldiers were to report with their complete kit, while reservists would collect theirs from their regiments. Quartermaster staff were given guidance on recording the transfer of equipment in regimental ledgers.
With war declared, New Zealand’s government announced on 7 August that an Expeditionary Force of 7,000–8,000 men would be mobilised. The response was overwhelming, with thousands of volunteers rushing to enlist. Having had several days’ notice, District Headquarters swiftly implemented mobilisation plans.
Godley’s assumption that the NZEF’s first task would be the seizure of German Pacific territories was proven correct. By 11 August, the New Zealand force for German Samoa—comprising 1,413 personnel—was fully equipped by the Defence Stores and ready for deployment. Additional stores were assembled at Wellington’s wharf for embarkation. The force landed on 29 August, securing Samoa without resistance.
Meanwhile, mobilisation camps were established across New Zealand:
Auckland (Alexandra Park) – District Storekeeper Captain William Thomas Beck set up a mobilisation store, assisted by Sergeant Norman Joseph Levien.
Christchurch (Addington Park) – Captain Arthur Rumbold Carter White managed the Canterbury District mobilisation store.
Dunedin (Tahuna Park) – Captain Owen Paul McGuigan handled equipping recruits, many of whom had no prior military training.
Wellington (Awapuni Racecourse) – The Defence Stores in Wellington directly supported the mobilisation effort.
As the central hub for Defence Stores, Wellington managed the receipt and distribution of equipment nationwide. Public appeals were made for short-supply items like binoculars and compasses. On 14 August, approval was granted for each soldier to receive a second pair of boots—typically, the second pair had to be purchased at a reduced rate.
Mobilisation was not simply a matter of sending troops overseas; it also involved ensuring the ongoing reinforcement of the NZEF and maintaining the Territorial Army at home. Planning for NZEF reinforcements commenced alongside the main mobilisation effort to sustain the force in the field. It was determined that 20% reinforcements would be provided six weeks after the NZEF’s departure, with a further 5% arriving monthly thereafter.
Trentham Camp was selected as the primary training and equipping centre for reinforcement drafts, where the Camp Quartermaster Stores, under Lieutenant (Temporary Captain) Thomas McCristell, played a critical role in ensuring personnel were properly outfitted before deployment. The scale of this task was immense, with store personnel working late into the night to issue uniforms and equipment to the steady stream of reinforcements. While the focus remained on sustaining the NZEF, efforts were also required to maintain the Territorial Army at home, ensuring a trained force remained available for local defence and future deployments. Mobilisation was not a single event but a continuous process that demanded careful logistical planning and execution to sustain the war effort.
Beyond issuing equipment, the Camp Quartermaster Stores also served as a training ground for new Quartermasters destined for overseas service. Selected candidates underwent instruction in key logistical functions, including clothing and equipping troops, managing camp equipment, organising ammunition supplies, and overseeing water distribution and field kitchen setup. This training ensured that reinforcements were well-equipped and supported by skilled personnel capable of sustaining operations in the field.
By September 1914, the Defence Stores had successfully equipped the NZEF. On 24 September, General Godley thanked the Defence Stores staff for their efforts, acknowledging their crucial role in the mobilisation process. However, controversy soon followed.
On 26 October, after ten days at sea, Godley sent a note to Minister of Defence Colonel James Allen, alleging irregularities in Defence Stores operations and implying that O’Sullivan and his staff might be engaging in misappropriation. Despite recognising O’Sullivan’s significant contributions, Godley recommended auditing the Defence Stores’ accounting systems. This unfounded allegation ultimately led to O’Sullivan’s resignation, overshadowing the department’s achievements in successfully mobilising and equipping both the Samoa Expeditionary Force and the NZEF.
New Zealand’s largest military deployment to date placed immense logistical demands on the Defence Stores. The department leveraged pre-war procurement contracts while employing competitive tendering to secure uniforms, equipment, and supplies. This approach facilitated rapid expansion, with Buckle Street in Wellington emerging as a key logistical hub. However, the sheer volume of supplies soon exceeded capacity, necessitating the leasing of commercial storage facilities beyond the department’s central depots in Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin.
As military activity intensified, the establishment of the Palmerston North District Store in early 1915 significantly enhanced logistical capabilities, particularly for units stationed in the lower North Island. This expansion underscored the growing need for decentralised supply operations, improving the efficiency of equipment distribution.
The rapid wartime expansion placed immense strain on both personnel and logistics. Despite increasing responsibilities, the department received only minimal increases in permanent staff, forcing heavy reliance on temporary workers to meet operational demands.
As the war progressed, concerns over procurement methods and accounting procedures led to mounting external scrutiny. In 1915, a Commission of Inquiry was launched to examine the Defence Stores’ business practices, financial controls, and purchasing procedures. While the Commission found no evidence of misconduct, it recommended procedural improvements to enhance transparency and efficiency. In response, the government established the Ministry of Munitions, which took over procurement and supply chain management, streamlining logistical operations..
Supporting the NZEF (1915–1921)
The New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) formed its own New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) in 1915, recognising the need for a more structured military logistics system. This corps provided dedicated logistical support for the NZEF and residual units until 1921. This development was critical as the demands of modern warfare required a more organised and professional approach to supply chain management, equipment maintenance, and ordnance distribution.
Initially, the NZEF relied heavily on British supply lines and logistical structures, with Quartermasters embedded within units managing day-to-day supply requirements. However, as operations expanded and the need for self-sufficiency grew, the establishment of the NZAOC provided a more formal system of procurement, storage, distribution, and maintenance of military stores. The Centre of mass for the NZAOC within the New Zealand Division was the Assistant Director of Ordnance Stores (DADOS) and his staff, who operated in concert with regimental quartermasters, who remained responsible for issuing and maintaining personal and unit equipment at the frontline.
Quartermasters played a pivotal role in ensuring that troops were properly equipped, fed, and clothed and worked closely with the NZAOC to ensure seamless logistical support across different theatres of war, from Gallipoli to the Western Front and the Middle East.
By 1918, the NZAOC had become a critical component of the NZEF’s supply chain, with depots in the UK and the DADOS operating dumps in key operational areas. As the war concluded, the Corps played a crucial role in the demobilisation process, managing the return of surplus equipment, disposal of unserviceable stores, and redistributing serviceable assets to remaining military units and government departments.
The NZAOC continued to support New Zealand’s post-war military commitments until 1921. The lessons learned during the Great War laid the foundation for future developments in ordnance and supply management, shaping the logistics framework of the post-war army.
The role of Quartermasters and the NZAOC in supporting the NZEF between 1915 and 1921 was instrumental in ensuring that New Zealand troops remained equipped and operationally effective throughout the war. Their contributions sustained the force in combat and established enduring logistical principles that continued influencing military store management in the following decades.
Home Service Stores Accounting
On the home front, military authorities pushed for the complete militarisation of stores accounting, aiming to align New Zealand’s system with British Army Ordnance practices. This led to a significant leadership change in 1916, with Major Thomas McCristell replacing James O’Sullivan as Director of Equipment and Stores. Under McCristell’s leadership, the department underwent a comprehensive reorganisation, transitioning into a formal military structure.
By 1 February 1917, the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department (NZAOD) and NZAOC were officially established, replacing the Defence Stores Department. This milestone ended 48 years of civilian-led military logistics, marking a shift towards a fully integrated, military-controlled Ordnance service.
Concurrent with the establishment of the Home Service NZAOC, formal Ordnance Procedures were published, and the Regulations for the Equipment of the New Zealand Military were updated. These replaced all previous instructions and formed the foundation for New Zealand’s modern military logistics system.
Conclusion: Towards a Modern Military Stores Accounting System
The period from 1845 to 1918 laid the foundational principles of New Zealand Army stores accounting, evolving from ad hoc militia supply practices to a structured, professional system aligned with British military standards. Early efforts, such as the 1867 Public Stores Act and the establishment of the Defence Stores Department, introduced much-needed oversight and accountability, ensuring military forces were adequately equipped for colonial conflicts and later global engagements.
The early 20th century saw increasing refinement in stores management, with greater formalisation under the Defence Act 1909, the creation of a structured supply organisation, and the introduction of rigorous accounting and inventory control measures. The mobilisation for World War I tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, demonstrating their strengths and the need for further development. The establishment of the NZEF NZAOC in 1915 and the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department and Corps in 1917 signified a pivotal transformation, shifting military logistics from civilian oversight to a dedicated military-run system. The experiences of World War I reinforced the importance of accurate, efficient, and adaptable stores accounting systems, setting the stage for continued evolution in the interwar and post-World War II periods. The next part of this study, New Zealand Army Stores Accounting: 1919–1945, will examine how the lessons learned from wartime operations influenced peacetime logistics, the modernisation of accounting frameworks, and the growing role of technology and centralised control in military supply chain management.
Notes
[1] Australian Defence Force, “Logistics Series – Supply,” Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 4.3 (2004): 1.1-1.16.
[4]“The Public Stores Act 1871,” ed. General Assembly of New Zealand (Wellington, 1871).;”Lieut-Colonel Edward Gorton,” New Zealand Gazette, Issue 1, 26 January 1872, 619.
[11] Peter Cooke and John Crawford, The Territorials (Wellington: Random House New Zealand Ltd, 2011), 153.
[12] Paul William Gladstone Ian McGibbon, The Oxford companion to New Zealand Military History (Auckland; Melbourne; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2000), 369.
[13] “Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand “, New Zealand Gazette 5 May 1911.;
The RNZAOC Icon, a proud symbol of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), encapsulates the Corps’s heritage and functionality in a single design. Designed by Major T.D. McBeth (DOS 83-86) in 1971 at the direction of the sitting DOS Lieutenant Colonel GJH Atkinson (DOS 68-72), the cover design cleverly combined various aspects of the RNZAOC and was initially utilised as the cover design for the RNZAOC Newsletter the ‘Pataka’ and on unit plaques.
Description of the design
The design cleverly and meaningfully combines various elements that define the RNZAOC. Its foundation is the NATO map symbol for an ordnance unit, a stylised shield placed over two crossed swords, symbolising the core mission of the Corps: providing logistical and ordnance support to the New Zealand Army.
Design Colour
The icon incorporates the traditional ordnance colours of red, blue, and red, reflecting a heritage that dates back to the Board of Ordnance (1400s to 1855) and its historical connections with the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers. In the New Zealand context, these red and blue colours were prominently used on the Corps’ flag, tactical patches and signs, stable belts, and other insignia.
Symbolic Quadrants: A Visual Narrative
At the centre of the shield lies the RNZAOC badge, a symbol representing the history and legacy of the RNZAOC. This badge is related to the Colonial Storekeeper and subsequent organisations responsible for managing the New Zealand Army’s stores since 1840. It also signifies the alliance of the RNZAOC with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) and its broader family membership of the Commonwealth Ordnance Corps family.
The RNZAOC badge is surrounded by four distinct quadrants, each representing a unique aspect of the Corps.
Top quadrant
The top quadrant of the icon features a Traditional Māori Pātaka storehouse, an elevated structure historically used by Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, to store food, tools, weapons, and other valuables. These intricately designed buildings were central to Māori culture, serving practical and symbolic purposes.
The Maori Pataka is a small elevated outdoor house used for storing food or provisions. Most were not carved. Carved Pataka were only used to store precious treasures such as greenstone, jewellery, weapons, and cloaks. The more elaborate the carvings, the more important the person whose possessions were stored within. Photo Credit: https://www.virtualoceania.net/newzealand/photos/towns/queenstown/nz2481.shtml
In the context of the RNZAOC Icon, the Pātaka symbolises the Corps’ heritage and emphasises the essential role of sustainment storage and resource management. The Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) managed this function from 1910 until 1979, when responsibility for supply tasks such as rations and fuel was transferred to the RNZAOC.
Right quadrant
The right quadrant depicts a contemporary warehouse, symbolising the RNZAOC’s evolution into a modern organisation. This element reflects the Corps’ adoption of advanced infrastructure and practices to manage military supplies efficiently, demonstrating its commitment to meeting the demands of contemporary logistics.
The RNZAOC Award-winning warehouse at TGrentham was constructed for $1.6 million in 1988. In addition to the high-rise pallet racking for bulk stores, a vertical storage carousel capable of holding 12,000 detail items was installed later.
Bottom quadrant
The bottom quadrant features an RL Bedford truck, which was upgraded to the Unimog in 1984. This familiar workhorse of the New Zealand Army symbolises the Corps’ field operations. It highlights the vital role of the RNZAOC in efficiently ensuring that resources reach the front lines.
Left quadrant
The Left quadrant features the‘Flaming A’ of the Ammunition Trade, representing the critical role of the Corps in handling, storing and supplying munitions, a responsibility that demands precision, expertise and dedication.
New Zealand Ammo Tech ‘Flamming A” Insignia with fern fonds adopted in 1988 to provide a unique New Zeland flavour to the insignia.
Central bar
The blue central bar of the icon is styled like a spanner, symbolising the RNZAOCs links as the parent Corps of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) and modern technical functions, including RNZAOC Workshops Stores Sections located within RNZEME Workshops, Tailors Shops, and Textile Repair Sections.
Variations of the Icon
Over the years, the RNZAOC Icon evolved. In 1984, the image of the RL Bedford truck was updated to feature the Mercedes-Benz Unimog, which replaced the RL Bedford after its retirement in 1989, following 31 years of service.
The Icon was also adopted as the base design for unit plaques, with some units placing the RNZAOC Crest above the Icon and substituting it in the centre of the icon with a symbol relevant to their specific unit.
A Long-term Legacy
The RNZAOC icon is a visual homage to the Corps’ diverse contributions and rich legacy. Blending traditional, modern, and operational elements highlights the RNZAOC’s steadfast dedication to supporting New Zealand’s defence capabilities. This emblem connects the past, present, and future, symbolising identity and pride for those who have served in the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. As the icon of the ‘To the Warriors Their Arms’ website, it pays tribute to the RNZAOC and all the antecedent corps that now form part of the RNZALR, ensuring their memory and significance remain relevant.
Field cooking equipment plays a vital role in maintaining the health and morale of troops in the field, directly impacting operational effectiveness. This article focuses on the major pieces of field cooking equipment the New Zealand military used from World War II to the present, offering a historical overview of their development, use, and eventual replacement. It intentionally excludes ancillary equipment such as refrigerators, hotboxes, water heaters and section cooking equipment to concentrate on the core cooking systems essential for food preparation in field conditions.
From introducing the No. 1 Burner during the mobilisation for World War II to adopting modern systems like the SERT PFC 500, each innovation reflects the evolving requirements of military field operations. This article highlights the importance of reliable and efficient food preparation and underscores the logistical ingenuity required to sustain forces in diverse and often challenging environments.
Through this exploration, we gain a deeper appreciation for the critical role field cooking solutions play in ensuring that troops remain well-fed and ready to meet the demands of military service.
The No 1 Burner
As New Zealand mobilised in September 1939, one of the many equipment deficiencies identified was the lack of portable cookers for preparing meals in the field. The coming war was anticipated to be one of mobility, rendering traditional cooking methods unsuitable. In response, the Army approached the New Zealand Ministry of Supply to procure 72 portable cookers for the First Echelon, with the possibility of an additional two for the Second Echelon. Samples were made available from existing Army stocks to facilitate the manufacture of the portable cookers.[1]
The portable cooker required by the Army was the No. 1 Hydra Burner, a petrol-burning device developed and patented by Lewis Motley in the 1920s. After 12 years of trials and refinement with the British Army, it was officially adopted as the No. 1 Hydra Burner, becoming the primary cooking and heating device for the British Army by 1939. The burner was designed to cook food in various ways using 6-gallon pots and frying pans, either by using a trench dug in the ground or a purpose-built stand on hard surfaces. The No. 1 Hydra Burner could also be used with Soyer or Fowler field stoves, providing flexibility in field cooking arrangements.
Cookers, Portable, No 1, Burner Unit, S.B. Type “F” (Cat No JA7360).
With samples of the No. 1 Burner available from New Zealand Army stocks, tenders were invited to supply 72 burner units and their associated parts and 432 hot boxes, dishes, fry pans, and stands.
Tendering Process and Contracts
The tendering process involved several prominent New Zealand engineering firms, such as:
National Electrical & Engineering Co. Ltd., Wellington
Precision Engineering Co. Ltd., Wellington
Hardleys Ltd., Auckland
D. Henry & Co. Ltd., Auckland
Alex Harvey and Sons, Auckland
Ultimately, the contract for the burners and associated components was awarded to D. Henry & Co. Ltd., while Hardleys Ltd. took responsibility for the hot boxes and dishes. Delivery commenced in late 1939, and the equipment was completed in early 1940.
The burner unit manufactured by D. Henry & Co. featured a notable redesign from the original Hydra No. 1 Burner. It incorporated an air pump into the fuel vessel and modified the filling cap with a coil around the orifice. The updated design became the No. 1 Burner (New Pattern).
Expansion of Use
By July 1940, plans were underway to equip the Territorial Force fully, necessitating the procurement of an additional 260 No. 1 Burner units. Accessories for field cooking, such as 6-gallon cooking containers, frying pans, and baffle plates, were also ordered in large quantities. To ensure distributed cooking capability down to the section level, 396 Portable Cookers No. 2 and 207 Portable Cookers No. 3 were planned to be added to the inventory.
The distribution of equipment to the Ordnance Depots at Trentham, Ngāruawāhia, and Burnham ensured that units across the country were adequately supplied. Each depot received a portion of the 260 additional burners and 96 spare units and their respective accessories.
Operational Challenges and Adaptations
The No. 1 Burner (New Pattern) was not without its challenges. Upon entering service, numerous faults were reported, including:
Difficulty maintaining pressure
Issues with the nozzle
Fuel leakage from the air pump
Many problems were exacerbated by using outdated instruction manuals, which referenced the original Hydra No. 1 Burner rather than the updated version. Ordnance Workshops conducted inspections to address these issues, and the manufacturer took remedial actions. Despite these efforts, the burner remained a critical component of the Army’s field cooking solutions throughout the war.
Cooks preparing Christmas dinner in the NZ Division area in Italy, World War II – Photograph taken by George Kaye. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch Ref: DA-04932-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23073864
Post-War Usage and Decline
Following World War II, the No. 1 Burner remained in service, a testament to its robust design and utility. However, technological advancements and the introduction of lighter, more efficient equipment gradually led to its decline. In 1964, the adoption of M37 cooking cabinets began to replace the No. 1 Burner in many roles. By 1973, the burner was no longer listed as an item of supply in New Zealand Army scaling documents.[2]
Wiles Cookers
Early in World War II, the Australians developed and introduced the Wiles Senior and Junior Mobile Steam Cookers into their military service. Over 500 Junior Cookers were used by the Australian forces, earning positive feedback from American forces, who also adopted several units.[3]
In 1943, the New Zealand Commissioner of Supply acquired photos and blueprints of the Wiles Cookers and General Motors in Petone indicated they had the expertise and capacity to manufacture the cookers locally if the New Zealand Army placed an order. However, as the Army already had sufficient stocks of the No. 1 Burner, they decided against adopting the new cookers. Despite this, the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) showed some interest. In 1942, the RNZAF received a Wiles Senior Field Kitchen (trailer) and a mobile cookhouse, which was later transferred to the Army.[4]
Trailer [‘Wiles Senior’ Army Field Kitchen trailer]. The Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT).
By 1948, the New Zealand Army still lacked a mobile field cooker and conducted extensive trials of a Wiles Cooker at Trentham. The trials demonstrated that the Wiles Cooker was well-suited to New Zealand’s field conditions. However, the United Kingdom was concurrently testing mobile field cookers, and no immediate action was taken to purchase the Wiles Cooker, as New Zealand hoped to adopt a standard cooker based on the British pattern.
In 1951, the UK trials concluded, selecting a two-wheeled trailer-mounted steam cooker to meet British requirements. However, several factors made it unlikely that New Zealand would obtain these British-pattern cookers for several years. Consequently, the idea of purchasing the Wiles Cooker from Australia was revisited.
Re-evaluation of the Wiles Cooker revealed that it met UK specifications and offered several advantages:
Fuel Efficiency: The cooker uses a lightweight fuel, consuming only 25% of the standard fuel used. Alternative fuels like scrub, deadwood, or dry rubbish are available. The cooker could run on wood, coal, or oil.
High Cooking Pressure: Significantly reduced cooking times.
Nutritional Benefits: High-pressure steaming preserves many vitamins in vegetables.
Versatility: Three-course meals could be prepared, cooked, and served with minimal discomfort or inconvenience.
Multiple Cooking Methods: The cooker supported roasting, steaming, and frying.
Mobility: Meals could be prepared while the cooker was in transit.
Hot Water Supply: A continuous flow of hot water was available for washing up.
Among the models available, the Junior Mobile Trailer Cooker was considered the most suitable for training cooks, supporting sub-unit camps and weekend bivouacs, serving as a reserve for national emergencies, and equipping mobilisation efforts.[5]
In 1951, the Wiles Junior Cooker was priced at £747 Australian (approximately NZD 44,130.80 in 2024). In July of that year, the New Zealand Cabinet approved an expenditure of £10,520 NZ Pounds (approximately NZD 696,003.20 in 2024) to purchase 16 Wiles Junior Cookers.[6]
Entering service in 1952, the New Zealand Army’s experience with the Wiles Cooker closely mirrored the challenges faced by the Australian Army. By the late 1970s, the Wiles Cooker had become obsolescent and was no longer in production. Several key issues highlight its unsuitability for continued use:
Deterioration and Serviceability – The Wiles Cookers had progressively been withdrawn from service as repair costs now exceed the One-Time Repair Limit (OTRL).
Fuel Challenges – The cooker relied on solid fuel, which was increasingly impractical. Procuring solid fuel was difficult and required significant time and labour for preparation. Liquid or gaseous fuels were then considered far more suitable due to their efficiency, availability, and ease of use.
Maintenance and Support – The boilers required regular inspection and testing by RNZEME. Suitable repair parts and major components were no longer available, making maintenance increasingly challenging and costly.
Operational Deficiencies—The Wiles Cooker used rubber hoses to channel cooking steam and hot water, imparting an unpleasant flavour to food and beverages. These inefficiencies compromise food quality, negatively impacting soldier morale in field conditions.
Obsolescence and Reliability – The New Zealand equipment dated back to the 1950s based on a World War II design which had surpassed its economic life expectancy, with the Wiles Cooker unreliable and unable to meet the operational demands of the modern Army.[7]
Army cooks use a Wiles Junior Mobil Cooker during an exercise near Oxford in Canterbury (NZ) in 1959. National Army Museum (NZ) Ref . 1993,1912 (5691)
The Wiles Cooker was quietly withdrawn from New Zealand Army service in the late 1970s as they were an obsolete, costly to maintain, and operationally inefficient equipment. The less mobile M-1937 and M-1959 Field Stoves provided field cooking functionality until a new mobile trailer was introduced into NZ Army service in 1985.
M-1937 and M-1959 Field Ranges
The Cooker, Field Range M-1937(M37), is a United States equipment introduced during World War II as a robust and versatile field cooking system designed to support forces in diverse and challenging environments. Compact, durable, and fuelled by a gasoline burner, the M37 can prepare meals for up to 75 personnel, depending on the menu. Its design emphasises portability and adaptability, allowing it to be used for baking, boiling, and frying with the appropriate accessories. Constructed from corrosion-resistant materials, it was built to endure the harsh conditions of field operations.
In New Zealand, the M37 was likely first acquired by the RNZAF and the 3rd New Zealand Division from United States Forces stocks, particularly for operations in the Pacific Theatre, where reliable hot meals were essential. Photographic evidence indicates that New Zealand forces used the M37 as early as 1956, highlighting its durability and effectiveness. Its formal adoption by the New Zealand Army likely occurred in the early 1960s as part of broader post-war efforts to standardise and modernise military equipment. The M37’s reliability in providing hot meals under challenging conditions made it an invaluable asset for field operations.
Boy Entrants School publicity.
View of the camp kitchen “cook house” at the Rainbow Valley camp.
By 1982, the New Zealand Army introduced the Cooker, Field Range M-1959 (M59), as an upgraded successor to the M37. While retaining many of the original M37 components, the M59 incorporated several improvements. The M59’s design improvements increased heat output and reduced cooking times. Adding improved safety features and compatibility with existing M37 parts eased its integration into New Zealand Army operations.
Despite the introduction of the M59, the M37 remained in service, often used alongside its successor. Both systems have continued to be a mainstay of field catering operations, supported by modern enhancements such as Gas Burner Units (GBUs) and Multi-Burner Units (MBUs). In 2024, the New Zealand Army received additional cabinets from Australia, further extending the operational lifespan of these systems. However, a growing challenge is the scarcity of replacement parts, including the original pots, pans, and utensils, which are no longer manufactured. This limits the ability to sustain these cooking systems in the long term, providing a challenge to the NZ Army to maintain proven systems with the need for investment in modern, sustainable field catering solutions.
Kärcher Field Kitchen
In 1985, the New Zealand Army introduced 28 Kärcher Tactical Field Kitchen 250 (TFK 250) units into service. Originally developed in 1984 for the German Armed Forces, the TFK 250 was adopted the following year. This highly mobile field kitchen can efficiently prepare meals for up to 250 personnel in demanding environments. Its modular cooking system includes multiple chambers, allowing a variety of dishes to be prepared simultaneously. Designed for versatility, the TFK 250 can operate using gas, diesel, or solid fuel, making it adaptable to available resources. Mounted on a robust trailer with off-road capability, it is well-suited for deployment in remote or rugged terrains. The unit’s energy-efficient heating system ensures reduced fuel consumption and rapid meal preparation, while its stainless steel surfaces simplify cleaning and sanitation. Quick to set up and dismantle, the TFK 250 meets the dynamic demands of operational environments with ergonomic controls for ease of use. Widely used by over 50 countries, humanitarian organisations and disaster response teams, the TFK 250 is renowned for its reliability, adaptability, and ability to function in extreme conditions. By the time production ceased in 2020, Kärcher had manufactured 3,000 of these mobile catering systems at their plant in Obersontheim, Germany.[8]
From 1985, the TFK250 became the cornerstone of NZDF field catering support. Supplemented by the M37/59 Field Ranges, it provided hot meals to New Zealand servicemen and women both at home and on operations around the world. Originally planned with a Life of Type (LOT) of 33 years set to expire in 2018, the TFK250’s LOT was extended by an additional seven years to 2025, bringing its total service life to an impressive 40 years.
To replace the TFK250 and reintroduce laundry, shower, and ablution capabilities, the NZDF launched the Field Operational Hygiene and Catering System (FOHCS) project. This force modernisation initiative encompassed catering, shower, ablution, and laundry platforms. A request for proposals was issued on 27 March 2019, with the submission period closing on 12 May 2019, seeking a range of equipment to meet these objectives.[9]
The contract for the FOHCS requirement was awarded to Australian Defence Contractors, Nowra-based Global Defence Systems (GDS), with deliveries scheduled for completion by 2022. The platforms delivered by GDS were developed in collaboration with the French manufacturer SERT, a leader in deployable life support solutions for over 25 years. To ensure the NZDF maintained a robust sovereign sustainment capability throughout the equipment’s lifecycle, some components were manufactured in New Zealand, with engineering support services also available locally.[10]
The catering portion of the solution provided by GDS included ten SERT PFC 500 transportable kitchen platforms.[11] The PFC 500 is installed on a modular platform designed to fit various logistic configurations, such as a trailer, two platforms in a 20’ dry ISO container, or on a flat rack.
SERT PFC 500 transportable kitchen platforms (GDS)
Each PFC 500 unit has four stainless steel gastronorm cooking modules: the MultiSert multifunction kettle, the Big CombiSert combined oven, and the DuoSert fan-assisted oven with a hot plate on top. These units are highly energy-efficient, featuring the latest-generation components and SERT’s advanced high-efficiency burners, resulting in low electric power consumption. Additionally, the units are powered by a low-power generator, ensuring full autonomy in the field.
The expandable platform provides users with a sheltered work area measuring 14 m², elevated 40 cm above the ground for ease of use and protection.[12]
Despite nearly 70 years of experience demonstrating the utility of trailer-mounted field kitchens—for training cooks, supporting sub-unit camps and weekend bivouacs, aiding national emergencies such as earthquake recovery and flood relief, and supporting significant national events—the PFC 500 is not trailer-mounted. Instead, it is mounted on a platform requiring specialised material handling equipment (MHE) and vehicles for transport, which limits its utility. Consequently, despite being delivered in 2022, the PFC 500 has not yet been utilised for any significant events, such as disaster response, national hui and tangis. Meanwhile, the TFJ205 and M37/59 have continued to serve effectively, raising questions about the suitability of modern defence procurement decisions.
Conclusion
Field cooking equipment has been a cornerstone of New Zealand military logistics, ensuring that troops are well-fed and operationally effective in a variety of challenging conditions. From the No. 1 Burner’s ingenuity during World War II to the versatile M37/59 and the robust TFK 250, each system has contributed significantly to maintaining the health and morale of soldiers in the field. However, the NZDF’s latest procurement—the SERT PFC 500—has raised concerns about the organisation’s ability to learn from its own history and past successes.
The No. 1 Burner demonstrated the importance of adaptability, while the M37/59 and TFK 250 further underscored the value of functionality, flexibility, and mobility in field cooking systems. These systems not only meet operational requirements but also adapted to evolving military and humanitarian needs, proving their worth in national emergencies and international deployments.
In contrast, the SERT PFC 500 reflects a worrying departure from these principles. Its reliance on platform-mounted configurations requiring specialised material handling equipment and vehicles has limited its usability and undermined its intended purpose. This is particularly concerning given that the TFK 250 and even older M37/59 systems remain functional and continue to provide critical support in the field and for domestic disaster relief. Despite the NZDF’s modernisation goals, the PFC 500 lacks the versatility, mobility, and proven reliability that characterised its predecessors.
The NZDF’s choice of the SERT PFC 500 raises questions about its procurement processes and ability to prioritise operational needs over theoretical specifications. While the PFC 500 may offer advanced technology, its lack of practical flexibility and mobility represents a step backwards, especially compared to the legacy systems it replaced. This oversight suggests that the NZDF has “dropped the ball” with this procurement despite decades of valuable lessons in field cooking logistics.
Hopefully, this article will not only highlight these shortcomings but also encourage further research into this often-overlooked yet vital area of military logistics. By investigating historical successes, contemporary challenges, and future requirements, researchers and policymakers alike can ensure that future field cooking systems are innovative, practical, resilient, and aligned with the realities of modern military operations. Only by learning from past successes and failures can the NZDF develop solutions that effectively support its personnel in the field and beyond.
Notes
[1] Memorandum Defence Purchase Division to the Factory Production Controller dated 2 October 1939. “War, Transport Supply – Portable Benzine Cookers,” Archives New Zealand Item No R20947073 (1939-1943).
[2]Index to New Zealand Army Scaling Documents, vol. Issue No 7 (Trentham: Scales Section, RNZEME Directorate, 15 January, 1973). .
[3] Memorandum from the Office of the Director of Production to the Munitions Controller dated 26 July 1943. “War, Transport Supply – Portable Benzine Cookers.”
[5] Memorandum to Cabinet from Minster of Defence Subject: Purchase of Wiles Mobile Steam Cookers for NZ Army Dated 4 July 195. “Army Equipment.- General,” Archives New Zealand Item No R20821850 (1950-1957).
[6] Minute: Secretary of the Cabinet to Minister of Defence Subject: Purchase of Wiles Mobile Steam Cookers for NZ Army Dated 12 July 1951. “Army Equipment.- General.”
[7] “Standardisation -ABCA America/Britain/Canada/Australia] Army Standardisation – Quartermaster – Organisational Equipment – Bakery And Cooking,” Archives New Zealand Item No R6822201 (1974-1986).
Amid the tumultuous landscape of World War Two, a Mobile Bath Unit emerged as a contributor to the triumph of the 2nd New Zealand Division in the Middle East and Italy. Picture this: battle-weary troops, having endured weeks of relentless pursuit through deserts and muddy fields in pursuit of the enemy, suddenly find themselves in a surreal moment. Covered in grime and exhaustion, they are met by an extraordinary sight – a unit ready to offer them a hot shower and a complete change of clothing. This transformation is nothing short of miraculous, revitalising soldiers’ spirits amid the hardships of war. The impact on morale is so profound that one can surmise that, at times, the enemy may have deliberately targeted Bath units for elimination, recognising their pivotal role. This article provides historical context on the NZEF Mobile Bath unit, which operated from 1941 to 1945, spanning Egypt, Syria, and Italy. It sheds light on the unit’s vital role in the overall success of the 2nd New Zealand Division during this pivotal period of World War Two.
Following the British model, the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) incorporated a Bath unit into its organisational structure and war establishment. This unfamiliar capability posed challenges to the NZEF leadership, as they lacked experience in this field. There was considerable uncertainty about whether this responsibility fell under Ordnance or the Medical Corps, leading to delays in forming this units. On 15 November 1940, confirmation was received from NZEF liaison staff in London that Bath services did indeed fall under Ordnance responsibility.
Discussions persisted throughout 1941 regarding establishing a Bath unit, with the primary issue being whether this unit should be formed, equipped, and trained in New Zealand before deployment to the Middle East or formed from within the existing structure of the NZEF. Despite these ongoing deliberations, the NZEF Order of Battle was updated on 17 April 1941 to include a Divisional Mobile Bath Unit as part of the NZEF.
Authorisation for the formation of these units under the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) was granted on 31 August 1941, with the Mobile Bath unit scheduled for formation on 6 September 1941.
In September 1941, a unit twenty-one strong, consisting of one officer and twenty other ranks, was formed through a call for volunteers. Most of the personnel initially came from infantry units. The initial officer Commanding (OC) was 2nd Lieutenant Astly. On 16 September 1941, the unit was assembled at the Engineer and Ordnance Training Depot (E&OTD).
Following the unit’s formation, most personnel spent five days at the Helwan prisoner of war camp, familiarising themselves with a British-run Bath unit. Upon their return to their depot, they discovered that their equipment had not arrived, and it was uncertain whether such equipment was even in Egypt.
Courses on compass work and similar activities began but became tedious. It was at this point that the unit undertook a crucial task. In the day’s scorching heat, they manually laid approximately 2560 cubic feet of concrete and constructed the entire set of buildings that would house the 6th Division Workshops. This gruelling work lasted for about three months, during which pieces of the unit’s equipment were gradually acquired piecemeal from various Base Ordnance Depots (BODs).
In early 2 December, Lieutenant P. Hawkins assumed command. On 10 January 1942, the unit left Maadi camp for the Canal Zone, where they served alongside the NZ Division on the Great Bitter Lake. They also provided showers to Indian and British troops at Kabrit, Fayid, and other locations in the zone. Despite facing minor challenges, such as a four-day sandstorm, they accomplished valuable work. Two incidents stood out during this time: a raid on a nearby airfield by enemy planes and a fire that destroyed the Shaftes picture theatre.
Vehicle Tactical Sign, NZ Division Mobile Bath Unit (1941)
The NZ Division moved to Syria in February, and the bath unit followed on 13 March. Without their own transport, the Bath unit relied on other units, often unloading and camping in various locations on-route. They reached Baalbeck on 20 March and began working alongside the 27th Battalion machine gunners, performing several months of essential tasks, including laying concrete floors by a creek fed by historic springs.
Syria provided an interesting change from the Egyptian sands, with the unit’s OC arranging many fascinating day trips to cities like Beirut, Damascus, Aleppo, Tripoli, and even Turkey. When the Division was hastily recalled to Egypt, the unit returned on 20 June, calling at the small town of Zahlie for a few days, where they joined up with the mobile laundry. Leaving on 29 June for Kfar Vitkin in Palestine. And then making stops along the way before arriving back in Maadi Camp. In July, they reorganised and left for the western desert, beginning operations at Burg el Arab in August.
After nearly a month in Burg el Arab, their water supply was requisitioned for urgent needs, leading to their return to Maadi Camp. The unit was temporarily disbanded, with the disinfector returned to BOD to allow full credit to be extended to the New Zealand Government, effectively covering its entire cost. The bath equipment was retained as an asset of New Zealand and stored at the E&OTD, anticipating potential future deployment in other theatres of operation.
On 22 August 1942, eleven Other Ranks from the Bath Unit were transferred back to their respective depots. The formal disbandment of both the NZ Divisional Mobile Bath Unit occurred on 30 September 1942, with the OC and remaining Other Ranks of the bath unit transferred to other branches of the NZOC on the understanding that if the bath capabilities were to be regenerated, these men would be released to train and have the unit fully operational within a matter of days.
In September 1943, the Bath unit was reformed at Maadi as 1 NZ Mobile Bath Unit, with 2nd Lieutenant D. Ewing in charge. The personnel remained the same in number, including two members from the previous unit who provided valuable information. However, the shower did not function as expected.
In October 1943, the NZ Division and the newly formed 1 NZ Mobile Bath Unit conducted a covert move from Egypt to the southern regions of Italy. In late October, the flight personnel left Alexandria, with the unit Drivers and equipment departing Port Said for Italy. After some travel, they arrived near the Sangro River and commenced operations. Despite challenges, the unit improved its functioning, and on New Year’s Eve, they faced a heavy snowstorm that transformed their surroundings. Despite the adversity, they carried on with their work.
As the Division moved to the Fifth Army front, the unit went to Atessa and proceeded northwest, proving invaluable to the Mobile Laundry unit by towing heavy trailers. In November 1943, the NZ Division ADOS expressed the intention to streamline administration by placing the Mobile Bath Unit under the command of the Officer Commanding the Mobile Laundry Unit. This move aimed to achieve greater efficiency in the management of both units.
On 16 February 1944, the NZ Mobile Bath Unit was disbanded, and concurrently, the NZ Mobile Laundry Unit was rebranded as the NZ Mobile Laundry and Bath Unit (NZ Mob Laundry & Bath Unit).
This restructuring aligned the New Zealand organisation with the British Army War Establishment II/293/1 of December 1943, categorised as a Type B: Mobile Field Laundry and Bath Unit. The mobile bath component of the MLBU consisted of four independent shower sections, one attached to each brigade and one remaining with the laundry.
Water for showers was drawn from a stream or other suitable supply by an electric pump, heated in a locally designed boiler fired with oil and water, and passed into a shower room, a tent with duckboards laid out inside, where six showers were available. A larger tent forming a dressing room opened into the shower tent. The water supply was continuous, and men could use as much as they pleased, within reasonable limits, with the duration of showers determined by the number waiting to go through. The showers used two hundred gallons of water an hour, and each section could manage 500- 600 men daily.
Vehicle Tactical Sign 2 NZ Mobile Laundry and Bath Unit (1944)
The figures below show the number of men who received showers. In cases where the numbers are low or incomplete, this can be attributed to the lack of recorded data during the Division’s advance or during periods when sufficient shower facilities were available within the Divisional area, rendering the full-time operation of mobile units unnecessary. An example of this was when the Division was billeted around Trieste.
Throughout the Italian campaign, the NZ Mob Laundry & Bath Unit supported the NZ Division, often deploying detachments to provide frontline units with essential services. The unit continued its service until it was disbanded as part of the NZEF on 8 December 1945.
A significant function of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps as part of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force during the First World War was managing the New Zealand Divisional Laundries and Baths. The Laundry and Bath functions helped to maintain the New Zealand Division’s hygiene by providing the opportunity for regular bathing, the exchanging of underclothing and socks and the delousing of uniforms. Although the NZ Division s Laundry and Bath functions were interconnected with its neighbouring Divisions and supporting Corps, this article’s focus is on providing a snapshot of the NZ Divisions Laundry and Bath operations from October 1916 to June 1918.
At the onset of the First World War, partly due to the lessons learnt in the South African War and the more recent Balkan Wars, the British Army had a reasonable understanding of the importance of hygiene in the field and published The Manual of Elementary Military Hygiene in 1912.[1] However, as with any military doctrine, the practical application of the field hygiene lessons learnt took time to become effective in the early years of the War. However, by the time the New Zealand Division arrived at the Western Front in mid-1916, the British Army had a rudimentary Laundry and Bath system at the Corps and Divisional levels into which the New Zealand Division was integrated into.
Command and Control
Initially, as the New Zealand Division took over the existing Laundry and Baths from British units, these functions were initially vested as a responsibility of the New Zealand Medical Corps, who provided officers and men to supplement he existing civilian staff.[2] In line with British practice both the Divisional Laundry and Baths came under the control of the Division Headquarters “Q” Branch, and from 21 December 1916, the New Zealand Division, Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (DADOS) was the officer responsible for the running of the Divisional Laundry and Baths.[3]
Baths
The Bathing concept was that four Bathhouses were to be established in a Divisional area: usually one Bathhouse for each Infantry brigade and one Bathhouse for the rest of the Division. The concept was that Soldiers were to rotate through Bathhouse on a schedule to allow the entire Division to be bathed once every ten days. In the early years of the war, Bathing facilities were rudimentary, with Baths ranging from breweries or fabric processing plants to Beer barrels cut in half.[4]
Although initially built on an ad-hoc basis using whatever resources were available, by 1917 most Bathhouses in the New Zealand Division were built and operated on a uniform pattern: [5]
A typical Bathhouse was be operated as follows.
The men enter at 1, Undress and hand their Service Dress and valuables in at 2(Obtaining receipt) and dirty underclothes at 3.
They then have a hot shower in D
While the men are having their showers, the seams of their Service Dress Tunics and Trousers were ironed to kill lice, and small repairs were undertaken.
Upon completing the shower, the men enter F, collect a towel, clean underclothes at 4 and their Service Dress and valuables at 5. Dress and leave by 6.
All Towels and dirty underclothes are sent from the baths to the Divisional Laundry daily, and a supply of clean or new items received in exchange.
In June 1918, the system of delousing the soldier’s Service Dress clothing was improved using the Thresh Disinfector Delousing Chamber. As soldiers passed into the Bathhouse, the soldier’s Service Dress was turned inside out and handed over to the Thresh operators. The Garments were hung up inside the Thresh’s airtight chamber and sealed. Coke braziers then heated the airtight chamber, and after the garments had been treated by this method for 15 minutes, they were found to be entirely free form lice and eggs.[6]
Personnel employed in the Divisional usually consisted of
Locally employed civilian women for ironing and mending.
Depending on the ebb and flow of the battle and the New Zealand Division’s movement, between October 1916 and June 1918 the DADOS War Diary records that Bathhouses to support the NZ Division were established in over thirty-four separate locations.[8] On most occasions, existing bathhouses were taken over from other Divisions. If there were no existing Bathhouse or the ones taken over were not deemed suitable, NZ Engineers were employed to construct new bathhouses.[9]
Plan for the NZ Divisional Baths as Vauchelles. Archives New Zealand
By June 1918, the New Zealand Divisional Bathhouse system was operating effectively and bathing on average between 700 – 800 troops daily, with 46411 men passing through the Divisional Bathhouses in total.[10]
New Zealand soldiers recently in the trenches outside the Divisional Baths, France. Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association :New Zealand official negatives, World War 1914-1918. Ref: 1/2-013160-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23139145
Soldiers after leaving the line wait their turn for a bath. Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association :New Zealand official negatives, World War 1914-1918. Ref: 1/2-012817-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23097155
Laundry
On most occasions, as the Division relieved an existing Division in the area and took over the existing Divisional Laundry as a going concern. However, there were occasions when a Laundry needed to be established from the ground up, such as when the Division Laundry and Baths at Pont de Nieppe were destroyed by enemy shell fire in April 1917.[11]
The Divisional Laundry received dirty garments from the Baths, (underclothes, socks, and towels) they were disinfected, washed, and mended and placed into a reissue pool.[12]
Usually, the Divisional Laundry placed indents on the supply chain for new items to replace items beyond repair, however, in January 1918 authority was granted for the Divisional Baths to hold a pool of new clothing to me maintained consisting of: [13]
5000 shirts
13100 vests woollen
12450 Drawers Woollen
12700 Towels
19000 pairs of socks
By 1918 the average output from the New Zealand Divisional Laundry was 35,000 – 40,000 garments per week.
Personnel employed in the Divisional Laundry usually consisted of.
Between October 1916 and June 1918, as the NZ Division moved, the NZ Divisional Laundry was also relocated and established in new locations, some of the known sites were
October 1916 Located at Estaires.
Pont de Nieppe, Laundry destroyed by enemy shellfire, 12 April 1917
18 to 25 April 1917 Established at Steenwerck, Handed over to the 8th Division.
Before and during the German 1918 Spring Offensive, the Divisional Laundry was located at.
RenninghelstOuttersteene Westoutre
Abbeville
Socks
Socks were an unlikely enabler; in the extreme conditions found in the mud-filled trenches, clean, dry socks were often the difference between life and death. When feet are constantly wet, as they often were in the trenches, they begin to rot. Gangrene sets in, and often the only remedy is amputation. In the First World War, 75,000 British troops died due to complications caused by trench foot.[15]
Acutely aware of the need for clean socks, the New Zealand Division maintained a system where socks were exchanged daily. To facilitate the daily exchange, a dry sock store was run in conjunction with the Bathhouses. Here dry socks were drawn daily by units in the line in exchange for dirty socks. The dirty sock was then be backloaded to the Divisional Laundry and exchanged for clean socks.
Once received by the Divisional Laundry, the dirty socks if damaged, were mended, washed, and once dried, treated with camphor (as prevention against trench foot) before being placed into the exchange pool.
By May 1918, the disruption caused by the 1918 German Kaiserschlacht offensive had affected the supply routes with the railway service from the Laundry at Abbeville becoming irregular, and it was taking 6-7 days for trucks to travel the short distance to replenish Bathhouses with clean underclothing and socks. However, given the hygiene and morale benefits that clean socks brought, the need to maintain the sock exchange system to the forward troops was a priority. Therefore, close to the front, under the supervision of the NZAOC, a small sock washing depot was established with Sixteen men from the Divisional Employment Company in May 1918. Socks were sorted with torn or holey socks returned to the Laundry for mending, with the remainder of the socks washed by hand. In fine weather, the drying was done outside, if it was wet, the socks were hung on wires from the ceiling of a room and dried employing coke braziers. The men did excellent work, and output was 4 to 5 thousand pairs daily and kept up an adequate supply.[16]
Soldiers washing socks during World War I, Bus-les-artois, France. Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association :New Zealand official negatives, World War 1914-1918. Ref: 1/2-013179-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23052031
New Zealand soldiers washing socks in wooden tubs near the New Zealand Divisional Headquarters at Bus-les-artois, 7 May 1918. Photograph taken by Henry Armitage Sanders Nº H-563 Photo source – Alexander Turnbull collection at the National Library of New Zealand. (Colorized by Marina Amaral from Brazil) https://www.facebook.com/marinamaralarts/?fref=nf See less
Gumboots
As the western front settled down into the routine of trench warfare in the winter of 1915, the time spent in the saturated trenches by British troops was limited to thirty-six hours during which the wearing of gumboots became widespread in the water-soaked areas.[17] The use of gumboots helped minimise the effects of mud and water on exposed feet, thus limiting Trench foot occurrences. Based on the early success of gumboots, contracts were placed with the North British Rubber Company (now Hunter Boot Ltd) to manufacture over 1,185,000 pairs of Gumboots for the British army during WW1.[18]
Boots were classed as Trench Stores and usually only issued to a division when it was on the line. The NZ Division was typically provided with around 6000 pairs, pooled, and issued from a Gumboot Store. The Gumboot store was designed with drying racks and heaters to allow the wet gumboots to be dried and prepared for reissue.
Plan for Drying Apparatus for Rubber Boots. Australian Imperial Force Unit War Diaries, 1914-1919 – Australian Corps Baths and Laundries, 2 – June 1916 – April 1918.” Australian War Memorial Archives Collection No AWM4 18/1/1 PART 2 (1918)
This article provides a small snapshot of how the Laundry and Bath functions contributed to maintaining the New Zealand Division’s hygiene by providing the opportunity for regular bathing, the exchanging of underclothing and socks and the delousing of uniforms. Although the playing a small but significant role in maintaining the combat effectiveness of the New Zealand Division, the efforts of the NZ Division DADOS Staff, the men of the Divisional Employment Companies and the locally employed civilian staff in maintaining the Laundry and Bath operations are worthy of further study to expand the historiography of New Zealand’s First World War combat enablers.
Notes
[1] Martin C. M. Bricknell and Colonel David A. Ross, “Fit to Fight – from Military Hygiene to Wellbeing in the British Army,” Military Medical Research 7, no. 1 (2020).
[2] Major J.S Bolton, A History of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (Trentham: RNZAOC, 1992), 71-72.
[3] “2nd Australia & New Zealand Army Corps [2anzac], Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Ados) – War Diary, 1 December – 31 December 1916,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487340 (1916).
[4] Janet Macdonald, Supplying the British Army in the First World War, vol. , (Pen and Sword military, 2019), , 143.
[5] “An Account of the Working of the Baths Established in the Divisional Areas in France,” Archives New Zealand Item No R24428508 (1918).
[6] “Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division – New Zealand Division – Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Dados) – War Diary, 1 June – 30 June 1918,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487667 (1918).
[7] From May 1917 drawn from No 1 NZ (Divisional) Employment Company.
[8] Based on the DADOS War Diaries Bathhouses were established at, Neuve-Eglise, Selles, Balinghem,Merck-Saint-Liévin, Watou Area, Vlamertinge, Poperinghe, Canal Bank, Bayenghem, Potijze, Hondichen, Staple, Halifax Camp, Caistre, Béthencourt, Louvencourt, Pas, Nauchelles, Pont de Nieppe, Blendecques, Café Belge
[9] Peter D. F. Cooke, Won by the Spade: How the Royal New Zealand Engineers Built a Nation (Exisle Publishing Ltd, 2019), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 199.
[10] “Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division – New Zealand Division – Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Dados) – War Diary, 1 June – 30 June 1918”
[11] “Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division – New Zealand Division – Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Dados) – War Diary, 1 April – 30 April 1917,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487653 (1917).
[12] “An Account of the Working of the Baths Established in the Divisional Areas in France.”
[13] “Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division – New Zealand Division – Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Dados) – War Diary, 1 January – 31 January 1918,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487662 (1918).
[14] From May 1917 drawn from No 1 NZ (Divisional) Employment Company.
[16] “Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division – New Zealand Division – Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Dados) – War Diary, 1 June – 30 June 1918.”
[17] Susan Cohen, Medical Services in the First World War (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2014).
The role of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) during the First World War is one that has remained untold, if not forgotten. While the contribution of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF), its commanders, battles and significant units is well recorded, the narrative on the Logistic Services of the NZEF has been universally biased towards the larger of the Logistic Services; the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC), with the contribution of the NZAOC, seldom mentioned. The significance of the NZAOC is that from 1914 to 1919, the NZAOC was the body charged with supplying and maintaining the weapons, ammunition, clothing and equipment of the NZEF and, as such, was a key enabler towards the success of the NZEF. The main NZAOC functions were within the NZ Division under the control of the NZ Division Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (DADOS). Additionally, as part of the NZEF Headquarters in London, the NZAOC managed a range of ordnance functions in support of the NZEF. This article examines the role of the NZAOC as it grew from an initial mobilisation strength of two men in 1914 into a small but effective organisation providing Ordnance services to the NZEF.
New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps Badge, 1916-1919 (Robert McKie Collection 2017)
Unlike the Australians, who were in the early stages of establishing their Ordnance Corps under with the assistance of a British Ordnance Officer in 1914, New Zealand was without a uniformed Ordnance Corps on the declaration of war in 1914.[1] The formation of the NZAOC had been a topic of discussion and indecision from as early as 1900, and despite the transformational reforms of the New Zealand Defence Act of 1909, there was little appetite to decide on formation of the NZAOC.[2] However, the need for personnel trained in Ordnance duties was understood, with some training and experimentation in the provision of Ordnance Services carried out in the Brigade and Divisional Camps of 1913 and 1914, laying the foundation for the mobilisation of August 1914.[3]
Section 5 of General Order 312, issued in August 1914, established Ordnance Services as part of the NZEF. This order authorised as part of the Division Headquarters establishment; a DADOS, one clerk and a horse.[4] Appointed to the position of DADOS was Honorary Captain William Thomas Beck of the New Zealand Staff Corps,[5] with the position of Clerk filled by Sergeant Norman Joseph Levien, a general storekeeper who had enlisted into the 3rd Auckland Regiment on the outbreak of war.[6] Beck and Levien both assisted in equipping troops for overseas service at the Avondale camp before embarking with the main body of the NZEF.[7]
Disembarking in Egypt on 3 December 1914 and armed with The Ordnance Manual (War) of 1914, Beck was provided with the following guidance on his role as DADOS;
“To deal with all matters affecting the Ordnance services of the division. The DADOS would manage the state of the clothing and equipment on the charge of the units composing the division and would from time to time advise the officers in charge of the stores which in all probability would be required for operations”.[8]
NZAOC Captain W T Beck, Ordnance Depot Shrapnel Gully Gallipoli 1915
One of Becks first tasks was to establish a shared depot with the NZASC at Zeitoun, with NZEF Order No 9 of 10 December 1914 detailing the instructions for submitting demands to the DADOS Ordnance Depot.[9] Working alongside their Australian and British counterparts, Beck and Levien had their staff enhanced with the addition of six soldiers from 28 December 1914.[10] With no experience of the British Ordnance systems and procedures, Levien was attached for a short period to the British Army Ordnance Corps Depot at the Citadel in Cairo to study the ordnance systems in use and adapt them for use by the New Zealand Forces.[11] As the preparations for the Dardanelles campaign began to unfold, the NZAOC begin to take shape with Levien, and Sergeant King from the Wellington Regiment commissioned from the ranks to be the first NZAOC officers on 3 April 1915.[12]
To support the upcoming Dardanelles operation and ensure the flow of stores forward, Alexandra was to be the main Ordnance Base Depot. The cargo ship ‘SS Umsinga’, which had been fitted out in the United Kingdom with many of the Ordnance Stores anticipated to support the operation, acted as the forward Ordnance Depot.[13] As part of the New Zealand preparations, Beck was the DADOS for the New Zealand & Australian Division (NZ & A Div). At Alexandra, Levien secured premises at No. 12 Rue de la Porte Rosette and Shed 43, Alexandra Docks, for a New Zealand Ordnance Depot. The Australians also established a similar Depot at Mustapha Barracks and at No 12 Bond Store on Alexandra Docks.[14] King remained at Zeitoun as the Officer in Charge of the Ordnance Depot at Zeitoun Camp to manage the reception of reinforcements and bring them up to theatre scales as they arrived from New Zealand.
Rue de la, Porte Rosette, Alexandria, Egypt. Public Domain
Concentrating off the Island of Lemnos from April 10, the ANZAC, British and French invasion fleets invaded Turkey at three locations on the morning of April 25. The 1st Australian Division landed first at around 4 am on 25 April, with Godley’s Headquarters leading the NZ & A Div ashore at around 9 am, with Beck, according to Christopher Pugsley, the first New Zealander ashore as part of Godley’s Force.[15]
As Beck landed, the 1st Australian Division DADOS Lt Col J.G Austin was supervising the cross-loading of ammunition and Ordnance stores in a rudimentary Logistics Over-the-Shore (LOTS) operation using a small fleet of lighters.[16] As the lighters unloaded and the stores transferred to a hastily established ordnance dump just off the beach, issues of ammunition had begun to be issued to replenish the men fighting in the hills,[17] and Beck was immediately committed to establishing his domain as DADOS of the NZ & A Div. Under Austin, who had taken control of the Ordnance operations in the ANZAC sector,[18] Beck remained as the DADOS of the NZ & A Div until August.
Supplies on the beach at ANZAC Cove 1915. Athol Williams Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library Ordnance Depot Shrapnel Gully, Gallipolli. Alexander Turnbull Libary
Assisting Beck with the more onerous physical work and the management of the depot staff was Staff Sergeant Major Elliot Puldron.[19] Beck’s service at Gallipoli was reported in the Hawera & Normanby Star on 24 June 1916.
“Finally, there was Captain William Beck, an ordinary officer. “Beachy Bill” was in charge of the store – a miserable little place – and whenever he put his nose out of the door bullets tried to hit it. The Turkish gun in Olive Grove was named after him, “Beachy Bill.” The store was simply a shot under fire, and Bill looked out and went on with his work just as if no bullets were about. He was the most courteous and humorous, and no assistant at Whiteley’s could have been more pleasing and courteous than the brave storekeeper on Anzac Beach. General Birdwood never failed to call on Captain Beck or call out as he passed on his daily rounds, asking if he were there, and they all dreaded that someday there would be no reply from a gaunt figure still in death. But Captain Beck was only concerned for the safety of his customers. He hurried them away, never himself”.[20]
As a result of the rigours of the campaign, Beck was evacuated from Gallipoli in August, with Levien replacing him as DADOS. From mid-September, the exhausted New Zealanders withdrew to Lemnos for rest and reconstitution. King and Levien switched roles, with Levien appointed the Chief Ordnance Officer (COO) of Sarpi camp with the responsibility for re-equipping the depleted NZ & A Div. Returning to Gallipoli in November, King remained with the NZ & A Div as the DADOS and Levien remained on Lemnos. Both men returned to Egypt in December after the NZ & A Div withdrew from Gallipoli.
Now with sufficient New Zealand reinforcements available, the NZEF was expanded and reorganised into an Infantry Division, which served on the Western Front and a Mounted Rifle Brigade, which remained in the Middle East.[21] As a consequence of the logistical lessons learnt on the Western Front by the British Army Ordnance Corps(AOC), the existing NZ Ordnance cadre expanded into a modest unit of the NZEF.[22] In the NZ Division, the Staff of the DADOS expanded from the original officer, clerk and horse in 1914 into a staff of several officers, warrant officers, SNCOs, men and dedicated transport.[23] The NZAOC in the Mounted Rifle Brigade worked under the Australian DADOS of the ANZAC Mounted Division, with the Ordnance establishment for each Mounted Brigade Headquarters consisting of a warrant officer, sergeant clerk and corporal storeman.[24]
Beck had been identified to continue as the NZ Division DADOS, but continual ill-health had resulted in his return to New Zealand in November. Godley selected Lieutenant-Colonel Alfred Henry Herbert as an officer with the right business acumen to replace Beck. Herbert was the first Mayor of Eketahuna and a successful business owner who ran a chain of general stores in north Wairarapa, the challenge of managing the NZAOC well suited to his experience.[25] Herbert had previously commanded the Maori Contingent and then the Otago’s on Gallipoli, and in January 1916, was transferred into NZAOC as the NZ Division, DADOS and Officer Commanding of the NZEF NZAOC.[26] As Herbert took command, additional officers and soldiers were transferred to the NZAOC to complement the men already serving in the NZAOC.[27]
Lieutenant-Colonel Alfred Henry Herbert, NZAOC. aucklandmuseum/Public Domain
As Herbert prepared his men for the move to France, he had the formidable task of instructing them in the necessary ordnance procedures and duties that they were expected to carry out in France. Almost all of Herbert’s men had seen service on Gallipoli and adapted themselves to their new circumstances to provide their mates on the front with the best possible service. Not all the original NZAOC officers remained with the NZ Division; King became ill with enteric fever and was invalided back to New Zealand to become a foundation member of the NZAOC in New Zealand on its formation in 1917.[28] Levien (and two Other Ranks) remained in Egypt attached to NZEF Headquarters, where he closed the Alexandra Depot and disposed of the vast stockpile of stores that the NZEF had accumulated over the past year. Departing Egypt in May 1916, Levien did not rejoin the NZ Division but remained with the Headquarters NZEF as the NZEF COO in the United Kingdom.[29]
A significant duty of the DADOS and his staff was to vet all indents submitted by NZ Division units. Herbert and his staff were to check on these indents and keep records of the receipt and issues of stores to prevent placing excessive demands. Herbert’s role was not to obstruct legitimate demands but to accelerate their processing and see that the stores, when received, were issued without delay. Herbert later reminisced at a Returned Servicemen’s meeting that his role was “to see that all units were properly equipped, at the same time endeavouring to ensure that no one ” put it across him ” for extra issues”.[30] The DADOS did not typically hold stocks of any kind, but as experience grew, the DADOS held a small reserve of essential items.[31] An example of the items held by the DADOS were gumboots and socks.[32]
A crucial role of the DADOS was to ensure that all damaged or worn stores that were fit for repair were exchanged for new or refurbished items and the damaged items returned to the appropriate repair agency. Under the responsibility of the DADOS, an Armourer Staff Sergeant was attached to each infantry battalion in the early years of the war. It was later found to be a much better plan to remove the armourers from Battalions and form a division armourers shop equipped with all the tools and accessories necessary for the repair of small arms, machine guns, bicycles, primus stoves, steel helmets and other like items, allowing them to be repaired and reissued with much higher efficiency than if left with an individual Battalion armourer.[33] Also under the supervision of the DADOS were the Divisional boot repair shop and Divisional Tailors shops. These shops saved and extended the life of hundreds of pairs of boots and clothing suits.
In May 1916, shortly after arriving in France, the DADOS was directed to provide one officer, one sergeant and two corporals for the Divisional Salvage Company, with the OC of the Pioneer Battalion providing four Lance Corporals and 24 Other ranks. The duties of the NZ Divisional Salvage Company were;
“The care and custody of packs of troops engaged in offensive operations; The care of tents and canvas of the Division; The salvage of Government property, and also enemy property, wherever found; The sorting of the stuff salved, and dispatch thereof to base.”[34]
Although initially reporting to the Corps Salvage Officer, entries in the DADOS war diaries indicate that the Divisional Salvage Company was an integral part of the DADOS responsibilities.[35]
The appointment of Divisional Baths and Laundry Officer was another DADOS responsibility from December 1916.[36] The Division endeavoured to maintain facilities to provide the entire Division with a Bath and a change of clothing every ten days.[37] The Divisional Baths and Laundry provided a welcome respite for soldiers from the front; soiled clothing was handed in as soldiers arrived and undressed, provided a hot bath or shower, and soldiers were then issued a clean uniform. The soiled uniform was inspected, cleaned and repaired if necessary and placed into stock, ready for the next rotation of soldiers to pass through.[38]
9/39 Temporary Major Charles Gossage OBE. National Library of New Zealand/public domain
Herbert remained as DADOS until 31 March 1918, when he relinquished the appointment of OC NZAOC and DADOS NZ Division to be the Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (ADOS) of XI Army Corps.[39] Herbert was replaced as DADOS by Lieutenant Gossage, who had recently completed an Ordnance course at Woolwich and was granted the rank of Temporary Captain while holding the position of DADOS. The appointment of OC NZAOC was taken up by Lieutenant Colonel Herbert Edward Pilkington. Pilkington was a New Zealand Artillery Officer with a flair for administration. Pilkington had acquitted himself well as the ADOS of XIX Corps during the retreat of the British 5th Army in March 1918 and was considered the most experience Ordnance Officer in the NZEF and was appointed NZEF ADOS on 30 June 1918.[40]
Before the arrival of Pilkington as NZEF ADOS, the headquarters of the NZEF in London had evolved into a self-contained administrative unit, with capably managed departments providing the full range of medical, pay, postal, and other administrative services to maintain the NZEF training camps in the United Kingdom as well as the NZEF units in France and the Middle East.[41] In his role as the NZEF COO, Levien undertook several initiatives to improve the logistical situation of the NZEF. Levien’s initial work included the establishment of the Sling Ordnance Depot and smaller sub-depots at all of the NZEF Training Camps and Hospitals throughout the United Kingdom.[42] Levien also established an Ordnance Depot at Farringdon Road, London to support these Depots.[43] Levien was always keen to reduce costs, and an example of his cost-saving efforts is that by a combination of switching clothing suppliers from the Royal Army Clothing Department (RACD) at Pilimlco to commercial suppliers and by repairing damaged clothing, these changes resulted in savings of 2019 NZD$9,788,232.00 in the period leading up to December 1917.[44]
Levien also studied the stores accounting procedures employed by the Australians and Canadians, and after discussions with Battalion Quartermasters and the Ordnance Officer at Sling, Levien submitted a modified stores accounting system that was adopted across the NZEF to provide a uniform and efficient method of accounting for stores. So successful was this system that it was adopted by the post-war NZAOC and proved very successful, with losses becoming comparatively negligible against the previous systems.[45] Levien also instigated the establishment of an independent NZEF audit department and a purchasing board to supervise purchasing by the NZEF. Levien, who finished the war a Major, was awarded an MBE and OBE for his efforts.[46]
The armistice of 11 November 1918 brought a sudden end to the fighting on the Western Front leading to the NZ Division marching into Germany to take up occupation duties at Cologne soon afterwards. Gossage and his staff were initially concerned with closing down or handing over the ordnance stores and infrastructure in France and Belgium and establishing the ordnance mechanisms required to support the NZ Division in Germany. The New Zealand occupation was short, and the NZ Division had disbanded by 26 March 1919.[47] With all of the NZ Division’s equipment requiring disposal, Gossage and his men were ordered to remain in Germany to manage the handing back of the Divisions equipment to British ordnance and dispose of the items unable to be returned by sale or destruction. Gossage eventually marched out for England on 2 May 1919.[48] Concurrent with the mobilisation activities undertaken by Gossage in Germany, the NZAOC in the United Kingdom swiftly switched activities from equipping the NZEF to demobilising the NZEF and all the ordnance activities associated with that task.
Army clothing at a New Zealand military ordnance store, England. Alexander Turnbull Library
Additionally, the NZAOC managed the return to New Zealand of the considerable amount of war trophies that the NZEF had accumulated [49] and the indenting of new equipment to equip the New Zealand Army into the early 1940s.[50] Under Captain William Simmons, the final OC Ordnance from 20 Feb 1920, the final remnants of the NZEF NZAOC were demobilised in October 1920, closing the first chapter of the NZAOC.[51]
In conclusion, this article provides a snapshot of the role of the NZAOC and its place within the NZEF. Charged with the responsibility of supplying and maintaining the weapons, ammunition, clothing and equipment of the NZEF, the NZAOC provided the NZEF with a near-seamless link into the vast Imperial ordnance system. The responsibilities of the NZAOC as part of the NZ Division extended from the traditional ordnance supply and maintenance functions to the management of the Divisional Baths, Laundries and Savage. In the United Kingdom, the NZAOC not only provided ordnance support to the troops undertaking training and casualties in hospitals but, under a process of continual improvements, streamlined logistics procedures and processes to enable the NZEF to make considerable savings. However, despite its success as a combat enabler for the NZEF, the legacy of the NZAOC was one of anonymity. The anonymity of the NZAOC was a consequence of its small size and its place in the organisational structure as part of the NZEF and Division Headquarters.
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Australia & New Zealand Army Corps [2ANZAC], Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (ADOS) – War Diary, 1 December – 31 December 1916.” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487340 (1916). “An Account of the Working of the Baths Established in the Divisional Areas in France.” Archives New Zealand Item No R24428508 (1918). Allied and Associated Powers, Military Board of Allied Supply. Report of the Military Board of Allied Supply. Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 1924. “Appendices to War Diaries, I – Lxii.” Item ID R23486739, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Beck, William Thomas.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. Bond, Alfred James.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914.| “Brave New Zealanders.” The Hawera and Normanby Star, Volume LXXI, Issue LXXI, , 24 June 1916. “Coltman, William Hall Densby “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Crozier, Lewis “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (DADOS) – War Diary, 1 April – 30 April 1918.” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487665 (1918). Drew, H. T. B. The War Effort of New Zealand: A Popular (a) History of Minor Campaigns in Which New Zealanders Took Part, (B) Services Not Fully Dealt with in the Campaign Volumes, (C) the Work at the Bases. Official History of New Zealand’s Effort in the Great War: V.4. Whitcombe & Tombs, 1923. Non-fiction. Equipment and Ordnance Depot, Farringdon Road, London – Administration Reports Etc., 18 October 1916 – 8 August 1918 Item Id R25102951, Archives New Zealand. 1918. “Geard, Walter John.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Gilmore, Arthur “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Gossage, Charles Ingram.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Grants of Temporary Rank, Appointments and Promotions of Officers of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force.” New Zealand Gazette 8 July 1915. “H-19 Defence Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding the Forces from 1 July 1922 to 30 June 1923.” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1923). “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the Period 28 June 1912 to 20 June 1913.” Appendix to the Journal of the House of Representives (1 January 1913). “Hamilton, Gavin “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “The Hautapu Camp.” Waikato Argus, Volume XXXV, Issue 5575, 4 April 1914. Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division. “New Zealand Division – Administration – War Diary, 1 May – 26 May 1916.” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487546 (1916). “Henderson, Joseph Roland.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Herbert, Alfred Henry “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Hutton, Frank Percy.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “King, Thomas Joseph.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Levien, Norman Joseph “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Little, Edward Cullen “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Lofts, Horace Frederick “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Macrae, Kenneth Bruce “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “New Zealand Army Ordnance Department and New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps Regulations.” New Zealand Gazette No 95, June 7 1917, 2292. “New Zealand Expeditionary Force – Army Ordnance Corps Daily Order No. 1 “. Archives New Zealand Item No R25958433 (1916). “O’brien, John Goutenoire “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Oldbury, Charles Alfred.” Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. Ordnance Manual (War). War Office. London: His Majesties Printing Office, 1914. “Pilkington, Herbert Edward “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Puldron, Elliot “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Returned Soldiers.” Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 136, 12 June 1922. “Road to Promotion.” Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 29, 4 February 1916. “Seay, Clarence Adrian “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Simmons, William Henchcliffe “. Personal File, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Territorials.” Evening Star, Issue 15018, 29 October 1912. “Troopships; Embarkation Orders; Daily Field States; and a Large Chart of ‘New Zealand Expeditionary Forces – Personnel’ as at 1 June 1915).” Item ID R23486740, Archives New Zealand, 1914. “Trophies and Historical Material – [War] Trophies – New Zealand Expeditionary Force [NZEF] – Shipment of to New Zealand, 21 September 1917 – 24 November 1919.” Archives New Zealand Item No R25103019 (1919).
New Zealand Ordnance Corps demobilisation Staff at Mulheim, Germany, Febuary1919. Alexander Turnbull Library/Public Domain
Secondary Sources
Australian Army. “Logistics.” Land Warfare Doctrine 4.0 (2018). Bolton, Major J.S. A History of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. Trentham: RNZAOC, 1992. Cooke, Peter D. F. Won by the Spade: How the Royal New Zealand Engineers Built a Nation. Exisle Publishing Ltd, 2019. Bibliographies, Non-fiction. Drew, H. T. B. The War Effort of New Zealand: A Popular (a) History of Minor Campaigns in Which New Zealanders Took Part, (B) Services Not Fully Dealt within the Campaign Volumes, (C) the Work at the Bases. Official History of New Zealand’s Effort in the Great War: V.4. Whitcombe & Tombs, 1923. Non-fiction. Forbes, Arthur. A History of the Army Ordnance Services. London: The Medici society, ltd., 1929. Harper, Glyn. Johnny Enzed: The New Zealand Soldier in the First World War 1914-1918. First World War Centenary History. Exisle Publishing Limited, 2015. Non-fiction. McGibbon, I. C. New Zealand’s Western Front Campaign. Bateman, 2016. Non-fiction. McDonald, Wayne. Honours and Awards to the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the Great War 1914-1918. 3rd edition ed.: Richard Stowers, 2013. Directories, Non-fiction. Pugsley, Christopher. Gallipoli: The New Zealand Story. Auckland [N.Z.] : Sceptre, 1990, 1990. Soutar, M. Whitiki! Whiti! Whiti! E!: Māori in the First World War. Bateman Books, 2019. Tilbrook, John D. To the Warrior His Arms: A History of the Ordnance Services in the Australian Army Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps Committee, 1989. Williams, P.H. Ordnance: Equipping the British Army for the Great War. History Press, 2018.
Notes
[1] Arthur Forbes, A History of the Army Ordnance Services (London: The Medici society, ltd., 1929), 229. [2] Major J.S Bolton, A History of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (Trentham: RNZAOC, 1992), 52-53. [3] Under the Director of Equipment and Stores, a fortnight course of instruction on ordnance duties was conducted at Alexandra Barracks in January 1913 to train selected Officers in Ordnance Duties. During the Brigade and Divisional camps of 1913 and 1914, each Brigade Ordnance Officer was allocated a staff of 2 clerks and 4 issuers, who had also undertaken training on Ordnance duties. , “Territorials,” Evening Star, Issue 15018, 29 October 1912.; “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the Period 28 June 1912 to 20 June 1913,” Appendix to the Journal of the House of Representives (1913). [4] “Troopships; Embarkation Orders; Daily Field States; and a Large Chart of ‘New Zealand Expeditionary Forces – Personnel’ as at 1 June 1915),” Item ID R23486740, Archives New Zealand 1914. [5] Beck was an experienced military storekeeper who had been a soldier in the Permanent Militia before his appointment as Northern Districts Defence Storekeeper in 1904. Beck was the Officer in charge of the Camp Ordnance for the Auckland Divisional Camp at Hautapu near Cambridge in April 1914, so he was well prepared for the role of DADOS “Beck, William Thomas,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914.; “The Hautapu Camp,” Waikato Argus, Volume XXXV, Issue 5575, 4 April 1914. [6] “Levien, Norman Joseph “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914. [7] “Beck, William Thomas.” [8]Ordnance Manual (War), War Office (London: His Majesties Printing Office, 1914). [9] “Appendices to War Diaries, I – Lxii,” Item ID R23486739, Archives New Zealand 1914. [10]Divisional Order 210 of 28 December transferred the following soldiers to the Ordnance Depot;
• Private Walter John Geard, Geard remained with Ordnance for the duration of the war • Private Arthur Gilmore, Gilmour remained with Ordnance for the duration of the war| • Private Gavin Hamilton, Worked At Alexandra Depot until returned to New Zealand in October 1915 • Private Lewis Crozier, Promoted to Sergeant 18 Feb 16, returned to NZ August 1917 • Private Horace Frederick Lofts, Transferred to NZASC October 1917 • Private Joseph Roland Henderson, Transferred to NZASC 25 February 1916
“Geard, Walter John,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Hamilton, Gavin “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Crozier, Lewis “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Lofts, Horace Frederick “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Henderson, Joseph Roland,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Gilmore, Arthur “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914.[11] “Levien, Norman Joseph “. [12]Thomas Joseph King was a qualified accountant and was to be the Corps Director in the interwar period and served in the 2nd NZEF as ADOS, “King, Thomas Joseph,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914.: “Grants of Temporary Rank, Appointments and Promotions of Officers of the New Zealand Expeditionary Force,” New Zealand Gazette 8 July 1915. [13] Forbes, A History of the Army Ordnance Services, 221-23. [14]“Levien, Norman Joseph “; John D Tilbrook, To the Warrior His Arms: A History of the Ordnance Services in the Australian Army (Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps Committee, 1989), 43. [15] Christopher Pugsley, Gallipoli: The New Zealand Story (Auckland [N.Z.]: Sceptre, 1990, 1990), 111. [16] Australian Army, “Logistics,” Land Warfare Doctrine 4.0 (2018): 7. [17] Lt Col Austin was a British Army Ordnance Department officer on secondment to the Australian Army as DOS before the war and served with the AIF on Gallipoli as the DADOS 1st Australian Division and later ADOS of the ANZAC Corps. Tilbrook, To the Warrior His Arms: A History of the Ordnance Services in the Australian Army 45. [18] Forbes, A History of the Army Ordnance Services, 229-30. [19] “Puldron, Elliot “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914. [20] “Brave New Zealanders,” The Hawera and Normanby Star, Volume LXXI, Issue LXXI, 24 June 1916. [21] I. C. McGibbon, New Zealand’s Western Front Campaign (Bateman, 2016), Non-fiction, 30-31. [22] “Road to Promotion,” Evening Post, Volume XCI, Issue 29, 4 February 1916.; Forbes, A History of the Army Ordnance Services, 151.[23] The NZAOC Establishment was published in the NZEF Orders of 18 Feb 1916. “New Zealand Expeditionary Force – Army Ordnance Corps Daily Order No. 1 “, Archives New Zealand Item No R25958433 (1916). [24] Tilbrook, To the Warrior His Arms: A History of the Ordnance Services in the Australian Army 55. [25] “Herbert, Alfred Henry “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914. [26] M. Soutar, Whitiki! Whiti! Whiti! E!: Māori in the First World War (Bateman Books, 2019), 185. [27] The officers and men transferred into the NZAOC in the period January/March 1916 included;
• Private Frank Percy Hutton • Sergeant Kenneth Bruce MacRae • 2nd Lieutenant Alfred James Bond • Company Sergeant Major William Henchcliffe Simmons • Company Sergeant Major William Hall Densby Coltman • Temp Sergeant Edward Cullen Little • Corporal John Goutenoire O’Brien • Corporal John Joseph Roberts • Private Clarence Adrian Seay • Sergeant Charles Ingram Gossage • Armourer Charles Alfred Oldbury
“Gossage, Charles Ingram,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Oldbury, Charles Alfred,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Seay, Clarence Adrian “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “O’Brien, John Goutenoire “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Little, Edward Cullen “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Coltman, William Hall Densby “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Simmons, William Henchcliffe “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Bond, Alfred James,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Macrae, Kenneth Bruce “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914; “Hutton, Frank Percy,” Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914.
[28] The New Zealand Army Ordnance Department and Corps were established as a permanent unit of the New Zealand Military Forces from 1 Feb 1917 “New Zealand Army Ordnance Department and New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps Regulations,” New Zealand Gazette No 95, June 7 1917. [29] “Levien, Norman Joseph “; “New Zealand Expeditionary Force – Army Ordnance Corps Daily Order No. 1 “. [30] “Returned Soldiers,” Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 136, 12 June 1922. [31] Military Board of Allied Supply Allied and Associated Powers, Report of the Military Board of Allied Supply (Washington: Govt. Print. Off., 1924). [32] Peter D. F. Cooke, Won by the Spade: How the Royal New Zealand Engineers Built a Nation (Exisle Publishing Ltd, 2019), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 199. [33] P.H. Williams, Ordnance: Equipping the British Army for the Great War (History Press, 2018). [34] Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division, “New Zealand Division – Administration – War Diary, 1 May – 26 May 1916,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487546 (1916). [35] Items Salved by the NZ Div Salvage Company in April 1918 included:
• One Bristol Airplane, • One Triumph Norton Motorcycle, • Three Douglas Motorcycles, • The following enemy stores; • 285 Rifles, • 10 Bayonets and scabbards, • 25 Steel Helmets, • Four Pistol Signal, • Three Mountings MG, • 62 Belts MG, • 32 Belt boxes MG, • 95 Gas respirators
“Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Dados) – War Diary, 1 April – 30 April 1918,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487665 (1918).
[36] “2nd Australia & New Zealand Army Corps [2anzac], Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Ados) – War Diary, 1 December – 31 December 1916,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487340 (1916). [37] Ideally, baths were established for each Brigade and one for the remainder of the Division; these baths were supported by a central Laundry “An Account of the Working of the Baths Established in the Divisional Areas in France,” Archives New Zealand Item No R24428508 (1918). [38] Glyn Harper, Johnny Enzed: The New Zealand Soldier in the First World War 1914-1918, First World War Centenary History (Exisle Publishing Limited, 2015), Non-fiction, 351-54. [39] “Herbert, Alfred Henry “. [40] “Pilkington, Herbert Edward “, Personal File, Archives New Zealand 1914. [41] H. T. B. Drew, The War Effort of New Zealand: A Popular (a) History of Minor Campaigns in Which New Zealanders Took Part, (B) Services Not Fully Dealt with in the Campaign Volumes, (C) the Work at the Bases, Official History of New Zealand’s Effort in the Great War: V.4 (Whitcombe & Tombs, 1923), Non-fiction, 248. [42] “Levien, Norman Joseph “. [43]Equipment and Ordnance Depot, Farringdon Road, London – Administration Reports Etc., 18 October 1916 – 8 August 1918 Item Id R25102951, Archives New Zealand (1918). [44] Ibid. [45] “H-19 Defence Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding the Forces from 1 July 1922 to 30 June 1923,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1923). [46] Wayne McDonald, Honours and Awards to the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the Great War 1914-1918, 3rd edition ed. (Richard Stowers, 2013), Directories, Non-fiction, 146. [47] McGibbon, New Zealand’s Western Front Campaign, 355. [48] “Gossage, Charles Ingram.” [49] “Trophies and Historical Material – [War] Trophies – New Zealand Expeditionary Force [Nzef] – Shipment of to New Zealand, 21 September 1917 – 24 November 1919,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25103019 (1919). [50] “O’brien, John Goutenoire “. [51] Simmons had served on the Samoa Advance party in 1914 and demobilised in October 1920, possibly one of the longest-serving members of the NZEF. “Simmons, William Henchcliffe “.
