Materials Handling Equipment (MHE) in the New Zealand Army, 1988

Materials Handling Equipment (MHE) is often an overlooked yet critical component of military logistics, providing the backbone for efficient movement and management of supplies and equipment across the supply chain. Despite its essential role, MHE frequently suffers from neglect regarding investment, modernisation, and strategic planning.

In 1988, recognising the operational necessity of MHE, the New Zealand Army highlighted its importance in enhancing logistics efficiency and operational adaptability. This recognition was formalised in the Army Equipment Policy Statement (AEPS) No. 63, updated in 1989, which provided a framework for the development and employment of MHE within the Army.

This article examines the New Zealand Army’s approach during this period, exploring the capabilities, policies, and operational roles assigned to MHE. By reflecting on these measures, this article underscores the often-underappreciated significance of MHE and the need for sustained attention to ensure this vital capability continues to meet modern operational demands.

The Scope of AEPS No. 63

AEPS No. 63, updated in September 1989, established clear guidelines for MHE—equipment primarily designed for materials handling. It excluded items with secondary materials-handling roles, such as engineer plant, air delivery, or recovery equipment, while advocating for consideration of these items during acquisition to maximise their utility.[1]

Definitions and Standardisation

AEPS No. 63 introduced precise definitions to guide the Army’s logistical operations:

  • Materials Handling: Movement of materials across warehouses, production processes, and shipping areas.
  • Container Handling: Management of ISO containers, modular shelters, and specialised military modules.
  • Standard Pallet: The NATO pallet had specific dimensions (1000mm x 1200mm x 175mm).
  • Special Purpose Pallets: Customised for specific loads or transport types, such as 436L air transport pallets.
  • Standard Unit Load (SUL): Defined dimensions for palletised, non-palletised, or containerised loads.

The categorisation of MHE into Depot MHE (designed for paved surfaces) and Field MHE (capable of operating on uneven or soft ground) ensured a tailored approach to logistics.

ISO Containers and Modular Shelters

The Army’s MHE policy detailed specific container and shelter requirements:

ISO Containers

  • 20-Foot (6.10m) 1C Cargo Container: Maximum gross weight of 24,000kg; tare weight of 2,230kg.
  • 10-Foot (3.05m) 1D Cargo Container: Maximum gross weight of 10,160kg; tare weight of 1,260kg.

Modular Shelters

  • 20-Foot (6.10m) 1C Shelter: Gross weight of 3,000kg.
  • 13-Foot 2in (4.012m) 1DX Shelter: Specialist shelters with tare weight of 15,800kg and gross weight of 4,000kg. Over 80 in service, across eight varients
    • Quartermaster
    • Machine/Welding
    • General Engineering
    • Automotive Repair
    • Small Army Repair
    • 230VAC Repair
    • Binner Storage
    • Automative Repair
  • 10-Foot (3.05m) 1D Shelter: Prototype variant used for peacetime storage.
  • 1EX Shelters (Steel and Aluminium): Dimensions and weights varied, tailored for roles such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and radio signal units.
New Zealand Army 13′ Shelter Non-Expandable

Operational Necessity of MHE

MHE’s primary role was to handle bulk equipment and supplies efficiently, minimising manual labour and maximising logistical throughput. Key operational requirements included:

  1. Depot and Field MHE to manage the Army’s range of ISO containers and modular shelters.
  2. Compatibility with the logistic supply chain for handling bulk supplies from home bases to forward operational areas.
  3. Use of ISO Containers for bulk movement, primarily within logistics hubs, while palletised loads extended to unit echelons.

MHE usage spanned all points of the supply chain, including:

  • Point of Entry (POE): Comprehensive MHE and container handling equipment (CHE) to manage diverse loads.
  • Forward Maintenance Group (FMG): Similar to POE but with less CHE capabilities and more reliance on modular distribution systems (MDS)
  • Brigade Maintenance Area (BMA): Limited range of MHE and MDS for further bulk-breaking.
  • Unit-Level Support: Field MHE to handle specialised and palletised combat supplies.

Desired Characteristics of MHE

To meet the operational requirements, MHE was expected to possess the following attributes:

  1. Field MHE:
    • Mobility on and off-road.
    • Medium all-wheel drive capability.
    • Operability across a range of climatic conditions.
    • Compatibility with tactical transport systems and NZ Army fuel standards.
  2. Depot MHE:
    • Operability on paved surfaces.
    • Compliance with civil standards.
    • Versatility in aisle widths and container de-stuffing.
    • Use of multiple fuel types, including electricity.

MHE in Service (1988)

The New Zealand Army maintained an extensive inventory of MHE, categorised as Depot MHE, Field MHE, and Modular Distribution Systems (MDS). Key equipment included:

Depot MHE

  • Forklifts from brands like Lansing Bagnall, Toyota, and Komatsu, with capacities ranging from 1000kg to 10,000kg.
  • Electric forklifts for ammunition areas.

Field MHE

  • Rough terrain forklifts, including;
  • 22 x Leesander RT25.
  • 3 x Hough models.
  • 2 x Eager Beavers utilised by 5 Movements Squadron, RNZCT.[2]
Leesander RT25

Modular Distribution Systems

  • MDS ranging from 2-tonne to 10-tonne capacities, complemented by 10-tonne lifting beams.
Modular Distribution Systems (Container Lifting Device) https://mdsc-systems.ee/en/references/lifting-devices/

Strategic Interoperability and International Standards

The Army’s MHE policy emphasised standardisation with equipment used by allies, ensuring seamless interoperability. Key guidelines and standards included:

  • STANAGs: Specifications for field and depot MHE.
  • ISO Standards: Governing modular shelters and containers.
  • Overseas Studies: Leveraging insights from ABCA, Australia, Canada, and the UK.

Distribution Policy

The distribution of MHE was tailored to align with operational requirements, with RNZAOC units holding the majority of the equipment, followed by RNZCT units, and smaller quantities allocated to other Army units. This arrangement prioritised strategic deployment to maximise logistics efficiency and maintain operational readiness.

Conclusion

In 1988, MHE was a vital asset for the New Zealand Army, forming the backbone of efficient logistics operations in both peace and conflict. The AEPS No. 63 established a comprehensive framework for the acquisition, deployment, and standardisation of MHE, paving the way for the phased retirement of RT25s and Eager Beavers in favour of more capable Skytrak 10000NZ RFTL and Matbro RFTL from 1995. By facilitating bulk handling of supplies and equipment, MHE significantly reduced manpower demands while enhancing operational efficiency, underscoring its indispensable role in New Zealand’s military logistics.


Notes

[1] “Equipment and Supplies – Overall Policy – Material Handling Equipment,” Archives New Zealand Item No R7934643  (1988).

[2] “Equipment And Supplies – Overall Policy – Medium Lift Rough Terrain Forklift  (4000- 5000 kg),” Archives New Zealand Item No R6822831  (1983-1995).


New Zealand Army Stores Accounting (1939-1944): Overcoming Wartime Supply Challenges

Between 1939 and 1944, the New Zealand Army’s home-front logistics functions undertook a monumental task. They faced significant obstacles in maintaining accurate record-keeping and inventory control, dealing with challenges such as limited storage capacity, a shortage of experienced personnel, and high turnover rates.  At the peak of this period, nearly 200,000 regular, Territorial, and Home Guard troops were mobilised and dispersed in numerous units across New Zealand and the Pacific, all in need of weapons, ammunition, clothing, and equipment. The scale of their operation was immense, and their efforts were crucial to the war effort. Supplying and maintaining this force, especially as they were dispersed and many required specialised and technical resources, was a testament to the dedication and resourcefulness of the personnel tasked with stores accounting.

With allied forces unable to stem the Japanese offensive in Asia and the Pacific and invasion likely, the situation’s urgency demanded swift and efficient mobilisation. However, the constant reshuffling of personnel and frequent transfers of equipment and ammunition between units added further complexity. Organisational changes and equipment shortfalls were frequent, compounding the difficulty of building up and sustaining military readiness at home while supporting New Zealand’s deployed forces overseas. Despite these hurdles, the New Zealand Army’s logistics efforts achieved significant milestones. Their resilience and adaptability in the face of immense national and global pressure are a source of admiration.

The Accounting System

Like the armies of Canada and Australia, the New Zealand Army was organised and equipped in line with British doctrine, with the New Zealand Army General Staff determining the Army’s organisation with local modifications to fit New Zealand’s unique requirements. These organisational structures were formalised through three main types of documents:

The Order of Battle (ORBAT): This outlined the number and composition of formations, detailing the units they commanded following the General Staff’s policy decisions.

The War Establishment (WE): This document specified each unit’s authorised staffing and structure, which were, in most cases, identical to the British Army war establishments.

The Unit Equipment Table (Form NZ 483): These defined each unit’s authorised stores and equipment. Examples of Equipment Tables approved from July 1939 were:[1] [2]

  • Form NZ 483-2: – HQ of a Mounted Rifle Brigade
  • Form NZ 483-3: – HQ of Infantry Brigade
  • Form NZ 483-5: – HQ of Infantry Brigade and Attached Troops
  • Form NZ 483-6: – HQ of a Medium Regiment, NZ
  • Form NZ 483-21: – A Mounted Rifle Regiment (Horse)
  • Form NZ 483-22: – A Mounted Rifle Squadron (Motorised)
  • Form NZ 483-23: – An Independent Mounted Rifle Squadron
  • Form NZ 483-24: – A Motor Regiment
  • Form NZ 483-32: – A Medium Battery
  • Form NZ 483-52: – A Field Company, RNZE
  • Form NZ 483-61: (a) – HQ of a District Signals Company
  • Form NZ 483-61: (b) – No 1 Sect, A District Signals Company
  • Form NZ 483-61: (c) – No 2 (M.R Brigaded Section) A District Sigs Coy
  • Form NZ 483-61: (d) – No 3 (Fd Arty Bde Sect) A District Sigs Coy
  • Form NZ 483-61: (e) – No 4 (Med Arty Bde Sect) A District Sig Coy
  • Form NZ 483-61: (f) – No 5 (Inf Bde Sect) A District Sig Coy
  • Form NZ 483-71: – An Infantry (Mixed) Battalion
  • Form NZ 483-72: – An Infantry (Mixed) Battalion (Fortress)
  • Form NZ 483-73: – No 2a (LMG) Platoon, for a Fortress Bn
  • Form NZ 483-76: – A Detached Rifle Company, National Military Reserve
  • Form NZ 483-81: – A Composite Company, ASC
  • Form NZ 483-82: – A Reserve MT Company, ASC
  • Form NZ 483-83: – A Composite Company, AHQ Reserve Group
  • Form NZ 483-91: – A Field Ambulance (Mechanised)
  • Form NZ 483-101: – A Light Aid Detachment, NZAOC

Changes to the unit organisation often stemmed from General Staff policy decisions regarding equipment scales—such as weapons, vehicles, and wirelesses—resulting in corresponding amendments to the War Establishments and Unit Equipment Table Form NZ 483 tables.

Each unit maintained both ‘peace’ and ‘war’ establishments. While the peace establishment included reduced personnel and resources for peacetime training, the war establishment detailed the full complement of men and equipment needed for active service. From 1939, regular and territorial units in New Zealand began mobilising to war strength with reservists, integrating the Territorial Force and recruits through the New Zealand Temporary Staff (NZTS), marking the shift to a wartime footing.

With an established table of what stores they should hold, A unit or sub-unit knew exactly what equipment they were responsible for, including spades, shovels, axes, etc. They would also have items of controlled stores usually identified with a serial number – the controlled stores would include compasses, binoculars, wristwatches, etc., which, when issued, would be signed for. When losing a controlled item, a Board of Inquiry was conducted to establish the circumstances of loss and determine who (usually the soldier) should pay for it.

The Company Quartermaster Sergeant (CQMS), whose rank could be Sergeant, Staff Sergeant of Warrant Officer Class Two, or, of course, the Company Commander, was responsible for the accountability of the unit or sub-unit stores. Standards of accountability for unit stores varied, with some units conducting regular kit checks and publishing lists of soldiers with deficiencies and the amount they owed in unit routine orders.

Manual Systems and Administrative Burden

The Army stores accounting system applied to all units of the New Zealand Army. It was based on a unit ledger, supported by inventories, vouchers, schedules, and scales of issue, which recorded all store items and transactions in the unit. All entries in ledgers were to be supported by a voucher, and all vouchers were cleared by posting to the ledger or annotated with a reference to another voucher or to the point of issue. Stores could only be struck off charge by one of the following:

  • An Issue Voucher, signed by the recipient of the stores
  • A Certificate Issue Voucher, where the recipient was not required to sign for the stores
  • A Board of Survey or Certificate of Condemnation
  • By an application to write of Army Stores

Units such as NZAOC depots, MT Branch depots, mobilisation units and Camp Quartermaster Stores were classed as accounting units. They managed their stocks with a ledger card system using the NZ161 Ledger card.[3]

Field Force units maintained their NZ Equipment Table as the main ledger, recording all items issued to the unit and their distribution.

Photograph of World War II servicewomen unloading pillows. Ref: PAColl-8846. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22327559

 While effective, the system was inflexible compared to today’s digital Inventory Management systems. Under the pressures of wartime, maintaining rigorous documentation proved challenging, and adherence to procedural norms was sometimes relaxed to expedite supply to forces in the Pacific and Home Defence.

Mobilisation and Training Impact

In 1941, brigade and district manoeuvres escalated the army’s activity tempo, and early in 1942, the entire Territorial Force was mobilised, and tactical responsibilities with the Home Guard were formalised. Many units operated in active service conditions, with newly trained Quartermasters and staff often lacking prior military store management experience. The potential threat of invasion by Japanese forces added a sense of urgency and pressure, making training and equipping all available troops the top priority, even if it meant sacrificing strict clerical accuracy.[4]

Members of the New Zealand Home Guard receiving equipment. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch:Photographs relating to World War 1939-1945. Ref: DA-00477. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22871820

Before total mobilisation, many of the Regular and Territorial Force personnel and civilian staff skilled in stores accounting had deployed overseas with the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF) in the Middle East or with the Brigade Group in Fiji. This left domestic units staffed by officers and NCOs with limited military stores experience, often stationed in field locations without adequate storage facilities. Despite these challenges, the dedication and commitment of these officers and NCOs were unwavering, even as ongoing personnel rotation severely hindered inventory management.

Progress in Accounting Practices

By late 1943, the strategic situation had stabilised, and the threat of invasion was removed, with the demobilisation of the Home Guard and Territorial Force underway by early 1944. As part of this process, comprehensive audits of unit accounts were conducted. Despite some losses due to unrecorded stores, the overall value of missing inventory remained relatively low compared to the total volume managed. The following table presents the total amount written off from April 1939 to March 1944, which was £259,200 (equivalent to $28,119,860 in 2024).

Note that “Deficiencies” – representing faulty accounting – contributed £84,710 ($9,165,191.67 in 2024). Including estimates for undetailed years, this figure suggests that deficiencies represented less than 40% of the total write-offs.[5]

Reflecting on Wartime Logistics and Accountability

During the peak demand period of 1942 and early 1943, stores accounting took a secondary role to the urgent need to supply the mobilised units efficiently. The New Zealand Army was not only receiving large shipments of war material from the United Kingdom and North America but also managing the distribution of substantial volumes of the same equipment for both Pacific deployments and Home Defence, prioritising speed over strict procedural adherence. While this approach led to some irregularities, major scandals were avoided, and only minor cases of misappropriation occurred. This flexibility demonstrates the staff’s pragmatic approach to balancing efficiency and accountability under extreme conditions, ensuring operational needs were met without compromising integrity.

Lessons for Contemporary Military Stores Accounting

This analysis provides a perspective for modern logistics professionals, especially when using contemporary data management systems. Despite the sophisticated features of these platforms—like precise tracking and real-time reporting—the effectiveness of these tools is often linked to the skills and judgment of the personnel who operate them. The lessons from the New Zealand Army’s wartime experiences demonstrate that the strategic use and flexibility in stores accounting can be crucial in emergencies. However, suppose the benefits of the modern systems are not being fully realised. The root cause likely lies in the organisation’s skill sets for managing and leveraging these resources.

Rigidly following procedures can sometimes hinder progress, just as it did in the past when wartime conditions demanded quick and adaptable responses. For today’s logistics leaders, the real challenge is recognising when to exploit the flexibility offered by modern data systems and when to relax procedural controls. Balancing this requires training and experience, especially in crises where the pressure to deliver supplies efficiently can tempt managers to bypass standard processes. While this may be necessary temporarily, the quick restoration of standard procedures is essential to maintaining accountability and data quality.

The key is adaptability, but only to the extent that it does not lead to long-term compromises in record-keeping and operational integrity. If modern data management tools are underperforming, investing in staff training and developing the necessary expertise could ensure these advanced systems are used to their full potential.

Notes

[1] “New Zealand Equipment Tables -Provisional,” New Zealand Army Order 164  (1 July 1939).

[2] “New Zealand Equipment Tables -Provisional,” New Zealand Army Order 216  (1 October 1941).

[3] “FORMS AND BOOKS: Forms adopted,” New Zealand Army Order 266  (1 October 1939).

[4] “QMG (Quartermaster-Generals) Branch – September 1939 to March 1944,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541150  (1944).

[5] “Appendices to Report on QMG (Quartermaster-General’s) Branch,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541151  (30 June 1944).


From Volunteer to Territorial: The Evolution of Field Cooking in New Zealand’s Military 1908-1915

The history of field cooking in New Zealand’s military from the 19th to the early 20th centuries showcases a journey marked by resilience, ingenuity, and progress. Initially, the New Zealand military relied on the sometimes-questionable ability of regimental cooks, who managed to provide sustenance for the troops despite adverse conditions and makeshift equipment. However, the need for more efficient cooking solutions became apparent as the military evolved into a Territorial Force.

The introduction of mobile field kitchens, inspired by innovations such as Karl Rudolf Fissler’s “Goulash Cannon,” represented a significant advancement. Nonetheless, the ingenuity of a New Zealand Territorial Officer truly revolutionised New Zealand Military field cooking with the creation of the “Salamander” cooker. Renowned for its remarkable efficiency and versatility, this cooker enabled the preparation of large quantities of food with minimal fuel consumption.

Initially compared to other models from England, like the Lune Valley and Sykes cookers, the Salamander’s superior efficiency, fuel economy, and suitability for New Zealand’s unique conditions quickly set it apart. The New Zealand Defence Department’s subsequent procurement of additional units underscored the Salamander cooker’s pivotal role in New Zealand’s military catering capabilities.

Although the outbreak of World War I shifted priorities, the innovations and lessons from this period laid a crucial foundation for New Zealand’s future military logistics and catering practices. This commitment to enhancing soldiers’ conditions through improved field cooking solutions highlights New Zealand’s dedication to adaptability and innovation in military operations.

Volunteer to Territorial

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, participants in New Zealand’s volunteer encampments relied heavily on the unwavering dedication of regimental cooks for their sustenance. Undeterred by the elements, these cooks operated makeshift camp kitchens, often little more than shallow trenches dug into the ground over which they balanced pots and pans. Despite the challenges of these temporary structures, which required significant setup and operation time, the cooks persevered. Meals, though taking up to four hours to prepare, were a testament to their resourcefulness and commitment.

Efforts to create mobile, horse-drawn kitchens had been ongoing, with one of the earliest and most successful examples being designed in the late 1800s by a young German named Karl Rudolf Fissler. Fascinated by steam engines, Fissler developed the Feldkochherd or Feldküche by 1892, a mobile field kitchen with a unique boiler system. This innovation, quickly nicknamed the “Goulash Cannon” or ‘Gulaschkanone’ due to the furnace tube’s resemblance to a cannon barrel, allowed for the preparation of complete menus. Inspired by Fissler’s invention, France and England soon created their own versions of the Goulash Cannon.

As New Zealand’s military transitioned from a volunteer force to a Territorial Force, the lessons from the war in South Africa remained fresh. The importance of not only ammunition supply but also the supply of hot rations was crucial, as it could be the deciding factor in morale and battle effectiveness.[1] This ensured that the quest for more efficient methods of sustaining troops remained a priority. Initially looking to England for solutions, New Zealand ultimately developed a local alternative. This homegrown innovation propelled the nation to the forefront of field cooking technology, demonstrating its commitment to improving its military personnel’s conditions and its ability to adapt and innovate.

The early Territorial years

The Defence Act of 1909 disbanded the existing volunteer forces and established the Territorial Force, supported by conscription. A pivotal moment in this reform came with the appointment of Major General Alexander Godley as Commandant of the New Zealand Military Forces in December 1910. Under his leadership, the military’s organisational structure was revitalised, and key command and staff appointments were made. As the army reorganised, it became clear that a modern catering system was necessary to support the large numbers of men entering camps and training together. To manage the procurement and distribution of rations, the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) was officially designated as a unit of the Territorial Force on 12 May 1910. However, the responsibility for cooking rations remained with the regimental cooks.

Regimental cooks in the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century were masters of improvised field cooking. They were skilled at building a remarkable range of makeshift field stoves and ovens, using wood, oil or coal for fuel. They prepared meals in Aldershot ovens and trenches, or makeshift walls constructed from bricks mortared with mud, using frying pans, 8 and 20-gallon boilers, and camp kettles. In October 1912, forty-seven candidates from the Territorial Army were selected for an intensive month-long training course at Trentham to improve the standard of cooking across the New Zealand Forces. This pioneering course covered kitchen work and cooking techniques suitable for field conditions, including practical exercises. Although these methods were effective, they were also time-consuming, required considerable effort from the cooks, and were static and unsuitable for an army on the march.

Single Filed Oven (Aldershot Oven) School of Cookery Camp, Trentham 1912. Joseph Zachariah, DONZ Collection
Long trenches with camp kettles and hot plate. School of Cookery Camp, Trentham 1912. Joseph Zachariah, DONZ Collection

In March 1911, a mobile cooking solution was proposed to New Zealand when Wellington engineering firm Richardson Blair and McCabe Limited, the sole New Zealand agents for the Lune Valley Engineering Company of Lancaster, England, sent a copy of the 1910 Lune Valley Portable Field Cooker catalogue to James O’Sullivan, the New Zealand Director of Military Stores. O’Sullivan then forwarded it to the Quartermaster General (QMG) for consideration. A year later, in March 1912, Richardson Blair and McCabe Limited followed up with the 1911 Lune Valley Engineering catalogue. The QMG acknowledged receipt on 12 March 1912, noting that the catalogue’s contents had been reviewed and would be considered should the Defence Department require any of the items listed.[2]  Although the New Zealand military seemed uninterested in cooking technologies, officers posted to England noted the latest innovations, which they used to develop a broad user requirement for the New Zealand Military Forces.

While attending Staff College at Camberley in 1912, Major George Spafford Richardson of the New Zealand Staff Corps (NZSC) submitted a report regarding field cooking ovens to the New Zealand Government. Richardson noted the advanced cooking arrangements at various Territorial Camps, attributing the improvement mainly to the quality of ovens. One such oven, observed with the Berks Yeomanry, particularly caught his attention — the ‘Tortoise oven,’ capable of cooking for 600 men. Its lightweight and portability, even during marches, impressed Richardson, who advocated for similar ovens in New Zealand.

Tortoise Field Cooking Ovens for Camp purposes, No 3. Archives New Zealand R11096710 Cooking equipment – Cooking ovens as used by Imperial troops re – Obtaining for use in New Zealand

On 15 August 1912, Major Richardson’s report reached the New Zealand Defence Department, prompting Major General Godley to recommend to Cabinet the acquisition of 16 ‘Tortoise Ovens’ for the Territorial Force’s Annual Training Camps. This proposal was swiftly approved on 7 September 1912, with £480 allocated for the purchase.

To expedite the acquisition process, a cable instructing the procurement of the ovens was dispatched from the Prime Minister’s office to the High Commissioner in London on 9 September. Major Richardson was tasked with determining the specific requirements, reaching out to Major Lewis Rose of the Berkshire Yeomanry for details on the ovens mentioned in his report.  By 14 October 1916, Major Rose confirmed his regiment’s use of Portway’s Portable ovens, No 3, and expressed satisfaction with their performance. He provided Richardson with the manufacturer’s contact information and a catalogue.

Informed by Major Rose’s feedback, Richardson told the High Commissioner that the ‘Tortoise Ovens’ were suitable for stationary camps and marches. He cautioned against considering a wheeled cooker currently undergoing British army trials, citing its limited utility and advising awaiting improvements. Subsequently, on 18 October, Tortoise Stove Works of Halstead Essex submitted a quotation for 16 Tortoise Field Cooking Ovens, No 3, with five shelves, at a total cost of £441.13.9. They offered to conduct final inspections within six weeks of acceptance, facilitating onward delivery to New Zealand.

Despite his preferences, Richardson conceded that he would like Colonel Alfred William Robin to inspect the ovens before making any purchase decision. Colonel Robin was New Zealand’s most experienced officer at the time. He had served as a volunteer since 1878, and in September 1899, he was commissioned into the New Zealand permanent forces. Notably, he commanded the first New Zealand contingent to South Africa. In December 1906, Robin was appointed to the newly established Council of Defence as Chief of the General Staff, becoming the first colonial to hold the country’s highest military position. Upon Godley’s appointment as the commandant of the New Zealand Forces, Robin assumed the role of adjutant and QMG.

In February 1912, Robin became the New Zealand representative on the Imperial General Staff at the War Office in London. During this time, he actively participated in discussions regarding training dominion forces. Additionally, he studied ordnance, administrative services, and the movement of troops by land and sea.[3]  Moreover, Robin prepared a mobilisation scheme for dominion territorial forces as part of his duties. His extensive experience and expertise made him an asset in military matters, including evaluating equipment such as ovens.

Concurrent with Richardson’s reports, Robin thoroughly evaluated cookers and travelling kitchens and their suitability for use by the New Zealand Forces. In a report sent to Headquarters New Zealand Forces on 15 November 1912, Robin identified five classes of cookers and travelling kitchens for evaluation purposes during his investigation of field cookers.

  • Class 1 – Cookers or Kitchens carried on “General Service” or Forage wagon, cooking while on the march.
  • Class 2 – Cookers, Stove or ovens for cooking while in camp, but not adapted to cook on the march.
  • Class 3 – Travelling Kitchens on special vehicles, either limbered or on a single wagon, cooking while on the march.
  • Class 4 – Cookers or Kitchens above named using oil or paraffin as a fuel.
  • Class 5 – Cookers or Kitchens above named using wood, coal, coke or any consumable material as fuel.

Based on these classes, Robin summarised his report and his findings as follows.

  1. If to burn Oil Fuel, should not be sent to New Zealand.
  2. If not suitable for cooking on the march, but only for fixed camps. What space and weight are they for Transport purposes?
  3. There are several reputable firms in New Zealand that make all classes of fixed stoves and ranges. These could be made in New Zealand, suitable to local conditions at less cost and saving freight from England.
  4. Are cooking utensils included in the cost?
  5. How many men will No 3, as per tender, cook for?
  6. These stoves are excellent for Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers Mess at Yeomanry and Territorial Camps, where even the rank and file are catered for as if in a hotel. Here, for roast purposes, they may cook for 250, but in New Zealand, where men consume more than double the quantity of meat, their capacity would only be half at most of the above.
  7. Such stoves or cookers are not a government issue. Regiments buy for themselves.
  8. Robins’s main contention was that New Zealand could best produce cookers for fixed camps.

Robin recommended against the ‘Tortoise Ovens,’ stating that while they were suitable for specific cooking tasks, they fell short of meeting New Zealand’s requirements. Instead, he proposed considering either the War Office pattern Traveling kitchen, which was still under development, or a similar piece of equipment developed by Captain Arthur Sykes, Quartermaster of the Princess Victoria (Royal Irish Fusiliers). In Robin’s opinion, both options offered excellent features that better suited New Zealand’s needs.[4]

As Robin’s reports underwent analysis by the Defence Staff in Wellington, attention turned to the impending Brigade camps. A December 1912 inventory of camp equipment revealed a shortage of cooking implements across all districts. Consequently, the QMG instructed the Director of Equipment and Store to seek quotations for 43 Aldershot Cooking Ovens with dishes.[5] The distribution plan allocated 12 ovens to each of the Auckland, Canterbury, and Otago Districts, with seven designated for the Wellington district. One Aldershot oven (comprising two parts with two ends) and one baking dish were dispatched from Wellington to each district as samples to facilitate the process. Additionally, quotation forms were provided to enable each district to obtain quotations from local manufacturers. However, due to some local innovation initiated by Lieutenant James Ferdinand Groom Roberts, the Quartermaster of the 5th Wellington Regiment, the requirement and request for tenders were premature and were cancelled in February 1913.[6]

The Salamander Cooker

An engineer draftsman by trade, Roberts possessed extensive military experience, including eight years of service in the 2nd Royal Warwick Volunteer Regiment in the United Kingdom, followed by service in the 1st Battalion Wellington Rifles since 1909. In February 1912, he assumed the role of Quartermaster of the 5th Wellington Regiment. Amidst his varied responsibilities as Battalion Quartermaster and later as Brigade and Coast Defence Supply Officer, Roberts dedicated considerable thought to improving the regimental kitchen. His aim was to create a solution that could efficiently boil the billy while on the march, ensuring that meals could be promptly served when the regiment halted.

To meet these objectives, Roberts sought to develop a solution that was lightweight, sturdy, fuel-efficient, powerful in cooking capabilities, simple to construct, and, above all, mobile. After careful consideration and planning, and concurrent with Richardsons and Robins’s examination of field catering solutions in England, Roberts unveiled his prototype to the Defence Force on 8 November 1912.

With tables set with black-handled knives and forks, enamel plates and mugs, jars of jam, stacks of butter, and loaves of bread, the aroma emanating from Roberts’ Camp Stove tantalised the hungry men, heightening their anticipation for the forthcoming meal. Typically, a meal in a camp setting could take up to four hours to prepare, including the time needed to construct the oven. However, the self-contained cooker that Roberts demonstrated proved remarkably efficient. In just one and a half hours, it produced a meal for an audience of 300. This efficiency was further underscored by the stove’s ability to achieve such results using only one hundred-weight of coal (equivalent to 50kg) while still preparing an impressive array of food consisting of;

  • Three carcases of mutton
  • 120lbs of fore-quarter beef (approximately 55kg)
  • 45lb of silversides (about 20kg)
  • Potatoes
  • Onions

Additionally, it kept 75 gallons (approximately 340 litres) of water boiling. Remarkably, the stove still had the capacity to accommodate another carcase of mutton for roasting easily and steamed two more pots of vegetables.[7]

The demonstration at the Buckle Street Drill Hall was well received, prompting further testing of the cooker in its mobile configuration. This test took place from 29 November to 1 December 1912, during which H Company (Victoria College) of the 5th Regiment embarked on a three-day trek through the hills east of Wellington under field conditions. When the company reached South Makara, dinner consisted of a clear soup, roast beef and mutton, boiled vegetables, boiled plum duff, and jam roll. Other meals throughout the weekend were similarly elaborate and easily digestible, demonstrating the usefulness of Roberts’ cooker.[8]

Roberts 2a Oven (Travelling) for 250 Men. Archives New Zealand R22432833 Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling

Marketed as the “Salamander”, Robert’s cooker was a marvel of simplicity and efficiency, ingeniously utilising every inch of space. Half of each side was a water reservoir, each tank holding approximately 40 gallons (181 litres). These reservoirs provided boiling water for tea and helped retain the oven’s heat. The front halves house the ovens, while on top are the steamers, resembling kerosene tins placed lengthwise in wire baskets. Potatoes and vegetables are steamed with hot water poured in, generating steam for cooking.

The process of cooking a large meal with the cooker was fascinating to observe. After filling the water reservoirs and lighting the fire, the oven was brought to the required heat in about 20 minutes. Then, trays of meat were placed inside the ovens, and pans of peeled potatoes went into the steamers. The cook’s role then mainly involved stoking the fire and occasionally checking the meat until the meal was ready, ensuring everything was cooked simultaneously.

An advantage of the cooker is its ability to prepare everything simultaneously. Thanks to the heat generated by the boiling water in the tank, preparations can be made in the morning before moving off, and the meal can be cooked as the vehicle travels.

The cooker was designed to be versatile, allowing it to be operated in various setups. It could function either dismounted in a standing kitchen, mounted on a GS Trailer in its mobile configuration, or in its most common arrangement, akin to a field gun and limber. In this configuration, the cooker replaces the gun, while the limber portion houses large food storage compartments capable of carrying up to 250 pounds (113kgs) of meat, 150 gallons (680 Litres) of water, along with provisions such as potatoes, tea, coffee, and cocoa.

When unlimbering, the limber was detached from the cooker wagon with a king bolt and split pin. A strut was then extended from under the second carriage to keep it upright. The cooker stood with its funnel facing forward, protected by a screen against cold winds. Union bolts secured the cooker in position, and footboards allowed the cook to access and operate the oven doors easily.

Behind the cooker, ample floor space allows the chef to work comfortably. Fuel storage boxes were located underneath the rear of the carriage, accessible through floor lids. Every aspect of the cooker was designed to facilitate the cook’s tasks, with easy access to all parts, even while travelling. The detachability of the limber offers advantages such as adjusting to changing wind directions and easy mobility in search of provisions. Both carriages are mounted on sturdy springs for a smooth ride, and the cooker carriage is equipped with a ratchet brake for stability on slopes.[9]

Acknowledging the diverse needs of the military and the necessity to accommodate units of various sizes, the Salamander was available in the following sizes with all models, including transport cart, larder, tank and fuel bunker:[10]

NoTo Cook forApprox WeightNotes
0201 cwt (50kg)Without boiler
0a201 cwt (50kg)With boiler
1a402 cwt (101kg)With boiler
1b6021/2 cwt (127kg)With boiler
1c1003 cwt (152kg)With boiler
1d1504 cwt (203kg)With boiler
22005 cwt (254kg)With boiler
2a25051/2 cwt (279kg)With boiler
33006 cwt (304kg)With boiler
3a4007 cwt (355kg)With boiler
45009 cwt (457kg)With boiler
5100013 cwt (660kg)With boiler
Roberts No 4 (Stationary) for 250 Men. Archives New Zealand R22432833 Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling

Headquarters of New Zealand’s Military Forces were impressed with the Salamander cookers and supported by Richardsons and Robin’s reports on developments in the United Kingdom, where units could procure items like field cookers using Regimental funds, General Godley authorised New Zealand units to purchase Salamander cookers under the same arrangement, an option which the 10th Mounted Rifles Regiment took up and acquired their own Salamander cooker.  To support the Brigade camps planned for the next Easter, the Defence Department purchased 24 No 4 (500man) Salamander cookers in early 1913.[11]

The initial purchase of 24 Salamander stoves were issued on the proportion of two per regiment in preparation for the Easter Brigade Camps at Cambridge, Oringi, Yaldhurst and Matarae. These proved to be a resounding success, enabling regimental cooking to be carried out in more favourable circumstances. An additional benefit was that the Salamander cookers provided savings in labour and fuel. The savings in fuel were substantial enough to pay for the initial purchase of the cookers, leading to the recommendation that additional cookers be purchased for subsequent camps.[12]

From May 1913, Roberts undertook a series of visits to Australia to demonstrate his ovens. He provided demonstrations to Australian Officers and Quartermasters, including Colonel Selheim QMG, Colonel Dangar, Chief of Ordnance, Captain Marsh, Director of Supplies and Transport, Major Forsyth, Director of Equipment, and Mr Pethebridge, Secretary for Defence, who all expressed their satisfaction at the completeness and success of the “kitchen.”[13]

Roberts Cooker Mounted on GS Wagon for Australian Trials

With interest in the Salamander oven growing, Roberts registered the Salamander Filed Cooker Company (Australasia) in March 1913 with a capital of £3600 in £1 shares and began marketing his range of cookers not only to the New Zealand and Australian Militaries but also as a solution for railway work, contractors, shearers and flax millers’ camps, and even race meetings.[14]

As Roberts developed the Salamander cooker, this was parallel to work undertaken in Australia by Boer War veteran James F. Wiles of Ballarat. Wiles had joined the 7th Australian Infantry Regiment in 1903 and, during his time with this regiment, determined that the cooking system in the field needed improvement. This led him to invent and patent the Wiles Travelling Kitchen and enter competition with Roberts in the Australian market.

Following the success of the Salamander cookers during the 1913 Camps, an additional 11 No 4 (500 Man) and 16 2a (250 man) Salamander cookers were obtained and distributed to all the military districts with the distribution in May 1914 been;

  • No 4 (500 Man)
  • Auckland -9
  • Wellington – 10
  • Canterbury – 8
  • Otago – 8
  • No 2a (250 man)
  • Auckland -4
  • Wellington – 4
  • Canterbury – 4
  • Otago – 4[15]

A course of instruction conducted in October 1913, attended by sixty-two territorial soldiers, included training on the Salamander Cooker along with traditional methods.

During the 1914 camps, the Salamander cookers enabled regimental cooking to be carried out under more favourable conditions and again ensured considerable labour and fuel savings. The Salamanders also eliminated the need to provision for large numbers of camp ovens, frying pans, and boilers, the stock of which would have required considerable augmentation due to much of the pre-1914 stock having become unserviceable from past usage.

Providing an additional capability to the Salamanders were two Lune Valley travelling cookers that had been imported using Regimental funds by the 9th (Wellington East Coast) Mounted Rifles. A Sykes travelling cooker from England had also been received from England and allotted to the mounted brigade for the 1914 Takapau camp. [16]

Lune Valley Field Cooker for 500 Men. Archives New Zealand R24764956 Lune Valley Engineering Company, Lancaster – Portable field cooker

Resuming his appointment as QMG on his return from England, Robin requested that the three types of cookers (Roberts, Lune Valley and Sykes) be placed in competition during the Takapau Camp and reported on by a Board of Officers from the Army Service, Medical and Veterinary Corps. For the report, Robins’s terms of reference that the board of offices was to report on were;

  • Haulage and state of horses etc.
  •  Consumption of fuel per day or meal.
  • Nature of meals cooked, viz stews, Boils, Roast, Vegetables etc. and state when cooked.
  • Time of cooking, and if meals are ready at times ordered.
  • General suitability of the vehicle for NZ Conditions, weight per horse, the width of the track, if suited to road track, if considered strong enough for continued work, or vehicle could be lightened.
  • Comparison as to ease, or otherwise, of issue of cooked meals, from the cooker to the Unit.
  • Facilities for carrying any cooked rations and groceries, supply of hot water. Is the stated capacity of each Cooker possible, ie, does a 250-man Cooker etc, actually cook that amount on a colonial ration?
  • Any other points notices.

On 9 May 1914, the board of officers assembled at Takapau Camp. The board consisted of:

  • President: Lt Col J Sandtmann, 9th (Wellington East Coast) Mounted Rifles
  • Members:
    • Captain N.C Hamilton, ASC
    • Major A.R Young, NZVC
    • Major P.R Cook, NZMC

The board inspected and evaluated the three types of cookers, weighing each type’s advantages and disadvantages. However, a full evaluation was not possible due to a shortage of cookers, which necessitated the reallocation of the trial Salamander cooker from the  Mounted Brigade to the kitchen of the 7th (Wellington West Coast) Regiment; additionally, severe weather conditions prevented the conduct of the planned travelling trial. Regardless of this, the board’s report was nonetheless submitted to Colonel Chaytor, the Commander of the Wellington Military District. It was incomplete but based on their best observations.

Of the three cookers evaluated, the board concluded that the Lune Valley oil-fed cooker best met New Zealand’s requirements for the following reasons:

  • Economy of fuel and labour.
  • Ease of carrying 48 hours supply of fuel on the vehicle itself.
  • Compactness.
  • Freedom from risk of spilling.
  • Routine absence of smoke.
  • Facilities for adjusting the degree of heat.
  • Repeated reliability of cooking.
  • Ease of cleaning.

Despite positive feedback on the Salamander cookers since their introduction in 1913, the board concluded that the Salamander travelling cooker was unsuitable due to its weight and the lack of a mechanism to prevent food from overcooking if troops were late for set mealtimes.

Although the Salamander cooker was not trialled at Takapau Camp in its travelling configuration, D (Mountain) Battery of the Field Artillery had used one during their April camp, which included a trek from Palmerston North to Wellington. They were satisfied with its performance, preparing meals of stews and roasts that were generally ready within one and a half hours of reaching camp. The battery used a mixture of coal and wood for fuel, finding wood more satisfactory than coal for heating.[17]

The test of War

Soldier using a field oven, Egypt. Ref: DA-00639 Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23078026

The declaration of war on 4 August 1914 and subsequent mobilisation shifted all efforts towards providing trained personnel for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF). The NZASC expanded its role at home and as part of the NZEF, taking on responsibility for bakeries and butcheries. However, despite ensuring the provision of necessary food items to units, cooking remained the responsibility of each unit. Further, Salamander cookers were purchased for the main mobilisation camp soon established at Trentham; however, it is less certain if units of the NZEF departing for overseas service deployed with Salamander cookers. General Order 312, which detailed the composition and strength of the NZEF, only provided an allocation of General Service (GS) horse-drawn wagons for the use of regimental cooks.[18] By January 1915, it became clear that the New Zealand units encamped in Egypt required field cookers. The NZEF Headquarters in Egypt placed orders through the High Commissioner in London for eight Imperial Pattern cookers. These cookers, supplied by the Lune Engineering Company, were delivered directly to the NZEF in Egypt.

Roberts’ efforts to break into the Australian market in May 1913 proved somewhat successful. The Australian military, benevolent organisations (which then gifted the cookers to individual units), and commercial organisations such as railways, all purchased Salamander Cookers. However, Roberts’ biggest success came after several trials comparing the Salamander Cooker against the Sykes Travelling Kitchen and the Australian Wiles Travelling Kitchen. Roberts won a contract to supply 40 Salamander Cookers to the Australian military.

1st order of 40 Roberts Travelling Cookers for Australia. Archives New Zealand R22432833 Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling

In the spirit of Australian sportsmanship, James Wiles was not pleased with the initial trial results. He convinced the Australian authorities to conduct a second round of trials, which eventfully led to Wiles supplying over 300 of his travelling kitchens to the Australian military during the war.[19]

By May 1915, as new battalions were formed at Trentham, there was a strong desire to equip them as thoroughly as possible, including with travelling cookers. Feedback from the Australians on their Salamander cookers was positive, noting they were satisfactory for infantry use but had limited utility for mounted units.

Robin, now commanding New Zealand forces, strongly advocated for purchasing New Zealand-made equipment, believing it would benefit the units by allowing them to become accustomed to the cookers before deployment. However, the Takapau report still influenced the decision to recommend the Lune Valley Engineering product over the Salamander cooker. Additionally, eight Imperial Pattern cookers from Lune Valley Engineering were already in service with the NZEF in Egypt.

Given these factors, purchasing eight more Imperial Pattern Cookers from Lune Valley Engineering in England was approved. It must be noted that the Lune Valley Engineering Travelling cookers purchased from England in 1915 were manufactured to the Imperil Pattern standard. Not the same pattern as the Lune Valley Engineering cookers trailed in 1914. The main difference was that the cookers trailed in 1914 were oil-fired. In contrast, the Imperial Pattern cooers were multi-fuel and could be fired by wool, coal, or oil.

The Imperial Pattern Travelling Filed kitchen body consists of a rectangular-shaped steel frame covered with steel sheets. The kitchen included two 75-lb capacity Steel pots fitted with trunnion plates and pins that prevented spillage when travelling over rough ground. One steel frying pan fitted with handles was also provided for use when one of the pots was removed. The body was also fitted with two roasting or baking ovens fitted with baking tins; under each oven was a receptacle for drying green wood. It fitted with a central fire grate with two funnels that could be folded down for travelling. A shovel, rake, poker, lifting bar and stirring rake carried on buckets attached to each side of the body were also provided. A limber was also provided with an additional two stew pots and storage space for rations and condiments and could be used as a serving area.

Soldiers preparing food, 1000 yards of the front line, Colincamps, France. Ref: 1/2-013114-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23131784

The failure to support the New Zealand industry by adopting the Imperial Pattern Cooker was a wise decision for New Zealand regarding training and logistics. The NZEF’s main contributions to the war effort were an Infantry Division and a Mounted Brigade. Although these formations were small and primarily equipped similarly to their British and Imperial counterparts, their contribution and quality far exceeded their size. Unlike Australia and Canada, which had the mass and industrial capacity to field national-specific equipment, New Zealand did not have this luxury.

A Wellington Regiment’s field kitchen near the front line, World War I. Ref: 1/2-013518-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22696605

Roberts continued to supply cookers to the New Zealand Military throughout the war, equipping the numerous training camps, hospitals, and rehabilitation facilities necessary to support the war effort at home. However, his focus shifted from mobile kitchens to static ones. Following the war’s end in 1918 and the rapid demobilisation and reduction of forces in the interwar period, there was little need for new equipment until existing stockpiles were depleted. It is possible that some Roberts Salamander travelling cookers remained in use with New Zealand’s Territorial Regiments post-1919, but no evidence has been found to support this.

While Roberts’ Salamander Kitchen was an excellent product, it would have been logistically challenging to support it on the other side of the world during wartime. Suppose Roberts had had a few more years to market and improve his product, increase production output, or issue licences to overseas manufacturers. In that case, he might have achieved the same success as Wiles did in the 1940s with the Wiles Junior Field Kitchen, which was adopted by New Zealand in 1952 and remained in service until the 1980s.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolution of field cooking in New Zealand’s military from the 19th to the early 20th centuries reflects a remarkable journey of innovation, adaptation, and perseverance. Initially relying on the resourcefulness and commitment of regimental cooks, who worked under challenging conditions with makeshift equipment, the New Zealand military recognised the need for more efficient and practical solutions as they transitioned to a Territorial Force.

The introduction of mobile field kitchens, particularly inspired by Karl Rudolf Fissler’s “Goulash Cannon,” marked a significant advancement. However, New Zealand ultimately developed its own innovative solution with the “Salamander” cooker, designed by Lieutenant James Ferdinand Groom Roberts. This cooker showcased remarkable efficiency, versatility, and practicality, capable of quickly preparing large quantities of food with minimal fuel. Its success in various camps and demonstrations underscored its value and led to widespread adoption within the military.

Despite initial competition and comparisons with other cookers, such as the Lune Valley and Sykes models, the Salamander’s advantages in efficiency, fuel economy, and suitability for New Zealand’s conditions were evident. The Defence Department’s support and procurement of additional units further cemented its role in enhancing military catering capabilities.

The onset of World War I shifted priorities, yet the lessons learned and innovations developed during this period laid a foundation for future military logistics and catering practices. The dedication to improving soldiers’ conditions through better field cooking solutions exemplifies New Zealand’s commitment to adaptability and innovation in military operations.


Notes

[1] Clayton, A. (2013). Battlefield Rations: The Food Given to the British Soldier For Marching and Fighting 1900-2011, Helion.

[2] (1911). “Lune Valley Engineering Company, Lancaster – Portable field cooker.” Archives New Zealand Item No R24764956.

[3] O’Shea, P. (1966). “ Alfred William Robin.” Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved 2 June 2024, from https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3r25/robin-alfred-william.

[4] (1912). “Cooking equipment – Cooking ovens as used by Imperial troops re – Obtaining for use in New Zealand.” Archives New Zealand Item No R11096710.

[5]  The Aldershot Oven comprised two sheets of iron, approximately 1500mm long, rolled into a semi-circular shape. Each sheet is reinforced on each end and in the middle with an iron bar riveted to it. One sheet is slightly larger than the other, with a lip that slips under the rim of the other sheet. The oven includes two semi-circular ends.  The Aldershot oven was a ‘ground oven’, in which the fire burns in the oven and must be raked out before the bread is put in. The bread is baked by the heat retained in the oven’s walls. (1910). Manual of military cooking, Prepared at the Army School of Cookery. London Printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by Harrison and sons.

[6] (1912). “Cooking equipment – Cooking ovens supply to be obtained locally.” Archives New Zealand Item No R11096711.

[7] (1912). Argentine Shipments. Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 114. Wellington.

[8] (1912). Territorials. Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 133. Wellington.

[9] (1915). Travelling Cooker Operated in Camp. Herald No 12149(Melbourne, Vic). Melbourne, Vic.: 1.

[10] (1915). “Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling.” Archives New Zealand Item No R22432833.

[11] (1912). “Cooking equipment – Field cooking ovens – For use of units in camp or at manoeuvres.” Archives New Zealand Item No R11096715.

[12] (1913). “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the period 28 June 1912 to 20 June 1913.” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives.

[13] (1913). FEEDING AN ARMY. Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 – 1954). Melbourne, Vic.: 10.

[14] Initial shareholders were: J.F.G Roberts £1920, R St J Beere £600, E.W Hunt £300, J.S Barton £180, J.G Roach £180, J J Esson £180, A.S Henderson £120, J McIntosh £120.  (1913). Companies Registered. Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 10. Wellington.

[15] O’Sullivan, J. (1914). “Report of the Director of Equipment & Stores for the year ending 31 March 1914.” Archives New Zealand Item No R22432126.

[16] (1914). “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the period 20 June 1913 to 25 June 1914.” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives.

[17] (1915). “Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling.” Archives New Zealand Item No R22432833.

[18] (1914). Troopships; Embarkation Orders; Daily Field States; and a large chart of ‘New Zealand Expeditionary Forces – Personnel’ as at 1 June 1915). Archives New Zealand Item ID R23486740. Wellington.

[19] (1915). THE CAMP COOKER QUESTION. Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 – 1954). Melbourne, Vic.: 6.


NEW ZEALAND ARMY – 1956

In 1955, the New Zealand Army found itself poised for significant transformation. The eruption of the Korean War and the escalating conflict in Malaysia compelled New Zealand to reassess its military strategy. Structured and equipped to provide an Expeditionary Force centred around a division supporting British forces in the Middle East, the evolving political situation in Asia placed the army on the cusp of a paradigm shift. This strategic shift redirected the focus of deployment from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, marking a crucial juncture in the army’s trajectory. [1] This article provides insights into the organisational and equipment state of the New Zealand Army of 1956 as it pivoted towards service in Asia.

Command and Control

Chief of the General Staff – Major-General C. E. Weir, CE., CBE., DSO.

Vice-Chief of the General Staff – Brigadier R. C. Queree, CBE., DS0.

Adjutant-General – Brigadier L. W. Thornton, OBE.

Quartermaster-General – Brigadier J. R. Page, CBE., DSO.

Strength

Regular Force

  • Authorised Strength – 4200
  • Actual Strength
    • Officers:          552
    • Other Ranks:   3276
    • Total:               3828

Territorial Force

NZ Army 3 Pl HB Regiment, 19th intake, Linton Military Camp, February 1956. Crown Studios Ltd :Negatives and prints. Ref: 1/1-033934-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22364964

Under the Compulsory Military Training Act of 1949, all males, whether European or Māori, became liable for military service upon reaching 18 years of age. Trainees had to undergo 14 weeks of intensive, full-time training, three years of part-time service, and six years in the Army Reserve. By 31 March 1956, 50,846 men had been trained under this scheme. The strength of the Territorial Force in 1956 was:

  • Officers:         
    • 1440
  • Other Ranks:  
    • 25846 – Effective Strength
    • 10065 – Completed whole-time training available for part-time training from 1 April 1956
    • 1760 – Held on strength but not available for training
    • Total                37671

School Cadet Corps

School Cadet Units were maintained at schools and were voluntarily for male students aged 14 to 18. In 1956, 807 officers and 38,032 cadets served in 140 secondary school cadet units.[2]

Organisation

Except for units of the NZ Cadet Corps, the following units comprised the New Zealand Army, which was organised into Army Troops, District Troops and the New Zealand Division:[3]

Army Troops

  • Army Headquarters
  • The Army Schools
  • Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps Depot RNZAC.
  • Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals Depot.
  • School of Military Engineering, RNZE
  • Royal New Zealand Army Medical Corps Depot.
  • Army Headquarters, Wireless Training Troop, RNZ Sigs.
  • Main Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC
  • Small Arms Ammunition Production Proof Office, RNZAOC
  • Inspecting Ordnance Officer Group, RNZAOC
  • Trentham Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
  • Papakura Camp Hospital, RNZAMC
  • Waiouru Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
  • Linton Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
  • Burnham Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
  • Army Headquarters, Dental Section, RNZDC
  • Whenuapai Dental Section, RNZDC.
  • Hobsonville Dental Section, RNZDC.
  • Ohakea Dental Section, RNZDC.
  • Woodbourne Dental Section, RNZDC.
  • Wigram Dental Section, RNZDC
  •  Services Corrective Establishment.

District Troops

  • Headquarters, Northern Military District.
    • Headquarters, Area 1, Auckland
    • Headquarters, Area 2, Tauranga.
    • Headquarters, Area 3, Whangarei.
    • Headquarters, Area 4, Hamilton.
    • Narrow Neck Camp (.(Incl Fort Cautley).
      • 9th Coast Regiment, RNZA
      • 9th Coast Regiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
    • Papakura Camp.
      • Northern District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
      • Papakura Dental Section, RNZDC
      • Northern District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC.
    • Waikato Camp.
      • Northern District Company, RNZASC.
      • Northern District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
      • Northern District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
      • Northern District Ammunition Depot, RNZAOC
      • Northern District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC
      • Northern District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC
      • Northern District Workshop, RNZEME.
  • Headquarters, Central Military District.
    • Headquarters, Area 5, Wellington.
    • Headquarters, Area 6, Wanganui.
    • Headquarters, Area 7, Napier.
    • Headquarters, Area 8, New Plymouth.
  • Waiouru Camp.
    • Central District Workshop (Waiouru), RNZEME.
    • Waiouru Dental Section, RNZDC.
  • Linton Camp.
    • Central District Training Depot.
    • Central District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
    • Central District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
    • Central District Company, RNZASC.
    • Central District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
    • Central District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC.
    • Central District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC.
Army Personnel wearing Medals, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North
Attribution + NonCommercial
https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/246a3281-6b19-423a-9fed-00cf6de767a1
  • Trentham Camp.
    • Central District Ammunition Depot, ‘RNZAOC
    • Central District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC.
    • Central District Mechanical Transport Workshop (Trentham) RNZEME.
    • Central District Armament and General Workshop (Trentham), RNZEME.
    • 2nd General Hospital, RNZAMC
    • Trentham Dental Section, RNZDC.
  • Fort Dorset Base Camp
    • 10th  Coast Regiment, RNZA.
    • 10th CoastRegiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
  • Headquarters, Southern Military District,
    • Headquarters, Area 9, Nelson.
    • Headquarters, Area 10, Christchurch.
    • Headquarters, Area 11, Dunedin.
    • Headquarters, Area 12, Invercargill.
    • Burnham Camp
      • 11th Coast Regiment, RNZA.
      • 11th Coast Regiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs
      • Southern District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
      • Southern District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
      • Southern District Company, RNZASC.
      • Otago University Medical Company, RNZAMC.(Dunedin)
      • Southern District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
      • Southern District Ammunition Depot, RNZAOC.
      • Southern District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC.
      • Southern District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC.
      • Southern District Mechanical Transport Workshop (Burnham), RNZEME.
      • Southern District Armament and General Workshop (Burnham), RNZEME.
      • Burnham Dental Section, RNZDC.
      • Southern District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC

New Zealand Division

  • Headquarters, New Zealand Division.
    • Headquarters, New Zealand Division Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
  • Headquarters, RNZA, New Zealand Division.
    • 1st Field Regiment, RNZA.
      • 1st Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 2nd Field Regiment, RNZA.
      • 2nd Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 3rd Field Regiment, RNZA.
      • 3rd Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 4th Medium Regiment, RNZA.
      • 4th Medium Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 5th Light Regiment, RNZA.
      • 5th Light Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 6th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RNZA.
      • 6th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 12th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RNZA.
      • 12th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment Workshop, RNZEME.
    • 1st Locating Battery, RNZA.
  • Headquarters, 1st Infantry Brigade.
    • 1st Battalion, The Northland Regiment, RNZ Inf.
    • 1st Battalion, The Auckland Regiment (Countess of Ranfurly’s Own) RNZ Inf.
    • 1st Battalion, The Hauraki Regiment, RNZ Inf.
    • Headquarters, 1st Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
  • Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Brigade.
    • 1st Battalion, The Wellington Regiment (City of Wellington’s Own)RNZ Inf.
    • 1st Battalion, The Wellington West Coast and Taranaki Regiment. RNZ Inf.
    • 1st Battalion, The Hawkes Bay Regiment. RNZ Inf.
    • Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
  • Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Brigade.
    • 1st Battalion, The Nelson, Marlborough, and West Coast Regiment, RNZ Inf.1st Battalion, The Canterbury Regiment RNZ Inf.1st Battalion, The Otago and Southland Regiment, RNZ Inf.
    • Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME
  • Headquarters, 4th Armoured Brigade.
    • 1st Armoured Regiment (Waikato), RNZAC.
      • 1st Armoured Regiment (Waikato} Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 4th Armoured Regiment (Wellington and  East Coast), RNZAC.
      • 4th Armoured Regiment (Wellington and East Coast) Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 1st Armoured Car Regiment (New Zealand Scottish), RNZAC.
      • 1st Armoured Car Regiment ,(New Zealand Scottish) Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
  • Headquarters, RNZE, New Zealand Division
    • 1st Field Engineer Regiment, RNZE.
      • 1st Field Engineer Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 4th Field Park Squadron, RNZE.
      • 5th Independent Field Squadron, RNZE
  • 1st Divisional Signal Regiment, RNZ Sigs.
    • 1st Divisional Signal Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
  • Headquarters, Commander RNZASC, New Zealand Division.
    • 1st Transport Company, RNZASC.
      • 1st Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 4th Transport Company, RNZASC.
      • 4th Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
    • 6th Transport Company, RNZASC.
      • 6th Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME
    • Headquarters, 21st Supply Company, RNZASC.
    • 1st Supply Platoon, RNZASC.
  • Headquarters, RNZAMC, New Zealand Division.
    • 1st Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
    • 2nd Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
    • 3rd Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
    • 1st Field Dressing Station, RNZAMC.
    • 1st Casualty Clearing Station, RNZAMC.
    • 1st Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
    • 2nd Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
    • 3rd Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
  • Headquarters, Commander RNZAOCs, New Zealand Division.
    • 1st Divisional Ordnance Field Park, RNZAOC.
Anti Tank Platoon, Special Company, 16th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North
Attribution + NonCommercial
https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/03b0653f-c589-46e5-934e-22b8f6c41763
  • Headquarters, Commander RNZEME, New Zealand Division.
    • 1st Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
    • 2nd Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
    • 3rd Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
  • 1st Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
  • 2nd Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
  • 3rd Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
  • 1st Divisional Provost Company, RNZ Pro.

Overseas Units

  • New Zealand Army Liaison Staff London
    • New Zealand Army Liaison Staff Melbourne
    • New Zealand Fiji Cadre.
    • Headquarters, New Zealand Kayforce.
      • A Transport Platoon (Korea), RNZASC.
    • The New Zealand Special Air Service Squadron. (Malaya)

Note: Apart from the New Zealand Women’s Army Corps (NZWRAC) depot, there were no standalone NZWRAC units, with all members distributed across units of the NZ Army

Equipment

After the First World War, the New Zealand Army underwent re-equipment, acquiring enough equipment to outfit an Infantry division, Artillery Brigade, and Mounted Rifle Brigade.[4] However, by 1934, much of this equipment had reached the end of its operational life. In line with mechanisation experiments, the first wave of modern uniforms and equipment began to be introduced into New Zealand’s service, including Anti-Aircraft Artillery, Bren Guns, and Universal Carriers from 1938.[5]

The advent of the Second World War saw the comprehensive re-equipment of the New Zealand army. By 1946, it was equipped on par with its peers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, with the available equipment viewed as sufficient for the immediate post war training purposes.[6]

MMG Platoon, Special Company, 15th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/a97629cc-4f4b-4ad9-9260-811bcf3ef3ec

Between 1946 and 1950, the demand for new or additional equipment was minimal. However, during this time, all remaining pre-war field artillery was replaced with more modern systems developed during the war. Substantial advancements occurred from 1950 onward, including the introduction of new Land Rover 4-wheel-drive vehicles, Centurion tanks, Armoured Cars, and anti-armour weapons, as well as the initial deployment of the Larkspur radio system. However, despite this purchase of a token amount of equipment, much of the army’s World War Two equipment although in service for less than twenty years was facing bulk obsolescence and included the following equipment.

Weapons and Communications Equipment

TypeModelQty (If known)
RiflesLee Enfield No4 Mk1 and Mk1*40000
RiflesLee Enfield No 1 Mk324000
RiflesRifles No 8 Mk3 .22-in 
RiflesX8E1 FN FAL 7.62mm Rifles for troop trials22
PistolsRevolver Smith & Weston No2 .38-inch 
PistolsPistol, Signal No1 Mk3 
Submachine GunSten 9mm Mk 2 & Mk 3 
Machine GunBren. 303-inch 
Machine GunVickers .303-inch 
Machine GunBrowning .30-inch 
Machine GunBESA MK1,2 and 3 
MortarOrdnance SBML two-inch mortar430
MortarOrdnance ML 3-inch mortar 
MortarOrdnance ML 4.2-inch Mortar36
Anti-ArmourM20 Mk2 3.5-inch Rocket Launcher57
Anti-Armour120mm BAT L2 Recoilless Rifle18
Anti-ArmourOrdnance QF 6-pounder 
Anti-ArmourAnti-Tank Grenade No 94 (ENERGA) 
Field ArtilleryOrdnance QF 25-pounder Mk2 
Field ArtilleryBL 5.5-inch (140mm) calibre,  Mk 312
Anti-Aircraft ArtilleryBofors 40 mm L/60 gun396 (most in storage)
Anti-Aircraft ArtilleryQF 3.7-inch Mk3193 (most in storage)
Coast ArtilleryBL 9.2inch Mk XV6
Coast ArtilleryBL 6-inch Mk XXIV3
Coast ArtilleryBL 6-inch Mk XXI6
Coast ArtilleryBL 6-inch Mk VII2
Coast ArtilleryQF 6-Pounder, 10 cwt Twin4
RadarRadar, Anti-Aircraft No 3, Mark 79
Range FinderRange Finder No 12 Mk VII 
RadiosWireless Set No. 19 
RadiosWireless Set No. 22 
RadiosWireless Set No. 31 
RadiosWireless Set No. 33 
RadiosWireless Set No. 38 
RadiosWireless Set No. 48 
RadiosWireless Set No. 52 
RadiosWireless Set No. 53 
RadiosWireless Set No. 62 
RadiosWireless Set No. 88 
RadiosWireless Set No ZC 1 Mk II (NZ) 
MOR Platoon, Special Company, 13th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/bbb5c07a-6cae-443c-affe-6141015ee1a1
Signals Platoon, Special Company, 14th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/4a24b2bf-4bfd-4784-8daf-4efb919b14e6

Vehicles

In 1939, the New Zealand Army inventory of vehicles consisted of.

  • 6 Motorcycles
  • 2 Cars
  • 54 Tracks and tractors

By 1944, this fleet had expanded to 20311 vehicles of all types from the United States, Canada and Great Britain.[7]  Reductions of surplus vehicles due to the war’s end had reduced this holding to 10931 vehicles in 1945. Operational wear and tear and a shortfall in unit maintenance capability further reduced the fleet, necessitating placing most vehicles into regional Vehicle Depots managed by the RNZOAC. Under this system, units maintained a minimum of vehicles for routine activities; however, before an exercise, the unit’s additional vehicle requirement was drawn from the supporting Vehicle Depot.

ModelQty (If known)
Centurion Mk 33
Valentine Mk 3 and V 
Daimler Mk II ‘Dingo’ scout car84
Daimler Mk 2 Armoured Car11
NZ Pattern Wheeled Carrier Mk 2 
Universal LP2A Carrier& 
Motorcycle BSA M20 
Motorcycle Indian Model 741B 
Land-Rover Series 1 80″384
Willys Jeep 
AEC Matador 4×4 artillery tractor 
Bedford MWC 200Gallon Water Cart 
Bedford MWC Ambulance 
Bedford QL GS 
Bedford QLB Light Anti-Aircraft Tractor 
Chevrolet C60 Wireless Truck 
Chevrolet C60L 4 x 4 Wrecker 
Chevrolet C8AX  Compressor 
Chevrolet C8AX Ambulance 
Chevrolet C8AX GS 
Chevrolet C8AX Water Truck 
Chevrolet C8AX Wireless 
Chevrolet Field Artillery Tractor 
Diamond T 968 4-ton 6×6 
Diamond T 969A Recovery 
Diamond T 980 12-ton 6×4 
Federal 6×4+4 20-ton Transporter 
Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt Fire Appliance 
Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt GS 
Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt Tipper 
Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt Wireless 
Ford F61-L LWB Recovery Vehicle/Holmes 
GMC 6×4 CCW Binned Stores 
GMC 6×4 CCW GS 
GMC 6×4 CCW Shower 
GMC 6×4 CCW-353 GS 
GMC 6×4 CCW-353 Tipper 
Guy FPAX 
Leyland Retriever, 6×4  Searchlight 
Leyland Retriever, 6×4 Breakdown Gantry 
Leyland Retriever, 6×4, Machinery, Type A 
Leyland Retriever, 6×4, Machinery, Type Z 
Scammell Pioneer R100 Artillery Tractor 
Scammell Pioneer SV2S Heavy Recovery Vehicle 
Ward La France M1A1 Recovery Vehicle 
Trailer 15KVA Lister Generator 
Trailer Dental 
Trailer FBE (Folding Boat Equipment) 
Trailer Recovery 6 Ton 6 Wheel No1 Mk11 
Trailer Water Purification 
B. Platoon, Royal New Zealand Army Service Corp, 14th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/ffc2f263-a7d8-4991-9235-df0ed9ea9ee4

Painting of Equipment and Vehicles

In the interest of smart turnout, weather protection and economy, all mobile artillery equipment and trailers and all “B” and “C” vehicles were in peacetime painted to a glossy finish using Paint, PFU, Deep Bronze Green, High Gloss.

All “A” Vehicles and non-mobile artillery equipment, searchlights, etc,  were painted to a matt finish using Paint, PFU, Deep Bronze Green, Matt Finish.[8]

Rationing

The RNZASC was responsible for overseeing all catering operations within the army. This included managing ration scales and supply organisation, including ration stores, cold stores, and butcher shops. Additionally, the RNZASC coordinated the activities of cooks and stewards stationed in camp and field kitchens. Bulk stocks of rations received from civilian suppliers were held in Supply Platoons and divided into ration breaks tailored to the needs of individual kitchens, depending on the strength of dependent units. Bulk field feeding was facilitated by RNZASC field kitchens, which provided essential sustenance in various operational settings. Unlike other contemporary military forces, the New Zealand Army did not utilise ration packs. Instead, units were supplied with canned or fresh food from the existing ration scale, allowing units to prepare meals while in the Field for shorter periods, ensuring flexibility and adaptability to different operational demands.

Specialised RNZASC Field Catering equipment included.

  • Cookers Portable No 1
  • Cookers Portable No 2
  • Cookers Portable No 3
  • Wiles’ Junior’ Mobile Cooker trailer
  • Wiles’ Senior’ Mobile Cooker trailer
  • Portable Field Cookhouse
  • Portable Mess Kit Wash up Kit.
  • Portable Meat Safe
School of Cookery, 15th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/70f9084d-362c-48ea-aeb4-0a048790d5be

Clothing and Personal Equipment

Following World War Two, with Ordnance Stores well stocked and NZ industry well positioned to support any surge in demand, the NZ army retained the familiar combination of woollen serge Battle Dress (BD) and Khaki Drill (KD) and Demin range of uniforms that had served it well during the war years. However, by 1955, the high tempo of training required to maintain a division supported by CMT, operations in Korea, and a likely commitment to ongoing operations in Southeast Asia highlighted deficiencies of the current ranger of uniforms. While the BD uniforms remained suitable for use in temperate and colder climates, the Army Clothing Committee identified a requirement to develop a summer training dress for use in NZ that would also be satisfactory for jungle operations, in response to the Army Dress Committee, Captain J.A Dixie of the Defence Scientific Corps of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) provided a comprehensive report on Tropical Clothing. Reviewing World War Two and post-war scientific research on the problem of tropical clothing by the United States and Commonwealth, Dixie’s report provided the principles that guided the selection of a suitable NZ Army range of tropical uniforms and equipment.[9]

In December 1955, the Army Board approved the transition of uniforms with BDs retained as winter dress in NZ and KDs to be phased out in favour of uniforms manufactured in Drill Green (DG) for summer and working dress.

Detailed below are the uniform scales of issues that were to be affected by the most significant uniform transition since 1940.

1955 Scales of Uniform issue.

Scale 1Regular Soldiers, including Regular Force Cadets.
Scale 2Regular Physical Training Instructors.
Scale 3Regular Officers.
Scale 4Regular Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
Scale 5Regular soldiers of the NZANS.
Scale 6Territorial Recruits.
Scale 7Territorial soldiers.
Scale 8Territorial Officers.
Scale 9Territorial Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
Scale 10Territorial Soldiers of the NZANS.
Scale 11Territorial Officers of the NZANS.
Scale 12Cadets of the Cadet Corps.
Scale 13Cadet Corps Officers.
Scale 14Special Clothing.
Scale 15Camp Necessities: Supplementary scales.
Scale 16Welfare Workers in Army Camps.
Scale 17Canteen Council Employees.
Scale 18Individual Provision: Women’s Services.
Scale 19Clothing and Necessaries to be in Possession of Soldiers Committed to Detention Barracks.
Scale 20Hospital Patients.

Headdress

Blue berets were designated for Physical Training Instructors. Additionally, officers (excluding RNZAC) were issued blue berets to be worn with Uniform Blue No 1.

The introduction of the Cap Battledress (Cap BD), commonly known as the Ski Cap, commenced in 1954 as a replacement for the Cap GS (Lemon squeezer). Members of the RNZAC were not required to wear the Cap BD, as they retained the Black Beret adopted in 1942 as their headdress.

The standard combat helmet was the Helmet, Steel, Mark II (Brodie), with special helmets for motorcycle riders and armoured crew members.

On Parade Nov 1954, 14th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/69e57e1d-e1c1-4bb8-ab5f-0366a915b787

Battle Dress

The 37 Pattern Battle Dress (BD) served as New Zealand soldiers’ standard winter uniform and walking-out attire during World War II and subsequent years. This uniform, featured the following  key components:

  • Blouse: Fashioned from durable wool serge fabric, the blouse featured a buttoned front with concealed buttons. It boasted two breast pockets and two internal pockets, while the straight sleeves typically came with adjustable cuffs for added comfort and versatility.
  • Trousers: Crafted from the same resilient wool serge material as the blouse, the trousers boasted a practical button-fly design. They were equipped with two internal pockets, one rear pocket and a map pocket on the left leg. Adjustable side tabs on the waistband ensured a personalised fit for each wearer.
  • Web Anklets: Designed to keep the trouser bottoms securely in place, the web anklets prevented them from riding up or becoming loose during movement. This maintained a tidy and uniform appearance and offered protection against debris and insects entering the footwear.
  • BD Skirts were provided for female soldiers of the NZWRAC and NZANS

An upgraded pattern of Battle Dress was introduced in New Zealand known as the Pattern 52 BD, however from 1956, due to the considerable number of older patterns in circulation, the issue of the 52-Patt BDs was limited to regular soldiers and officers until stocks of the older pattern were wasted out.

Khaki Drill

During summer months, the woollen BD uniform proved impractical, leading to the issuance of Khaki drill attire. This summer uniform comprised:

  • Shirt, drill, Khaki
  • Shirt, Bush, OR, No 1 or No 2
  • Shirt, Officers, Khaki
  • Shorts, drill, Khaki
  • Trouser, drill, Khaki
  • Hosetops, Khaki, and Puttees, Short
  • Skirts, Khaki (NZWRAC and NZANS)

Working Dress

Recognising the unsuitability of both the BD and Khaki Drill uniforms for rigorous activities, a Denim working dress was provided. This ensemble included:

  • Jacket, Denim
  • Trousers, Denim

These garments were intended to withstand the demands of heavy-duty work while maintaining functionality and durability for soldiers in various tasks and environments, with overalls issued in addition to denims for tradesmen.

Camouflage

In 1952,  1500 sets of Khaki Drill Jackets and Trousers were dyed green and issued to the three military districts (250 sets per district) and NZ Division (750 sets) as camouflage clothing for training. The status of these by 1956 is unknown.

Footwear

Boots

Boots were ankle-high, lace-up ammo boots consisting of

  • Boots, ankle, Rank and File R&F, IP (or NZ). These boots had pebble-grained leather uppers with leather soles fitted with heel plates, toe plates and sole studs (hobnails).
  • Boots, ankle, officers, black. Officers’ boots had heel plates, but lacked the sole studs and toe plates because they could afford to replace the soles.

Other footwear

  • Shoes, canvas, rubber sole.
  • Shoes, officers, black, heavy.
  • Shoes, officers, black, light.
  • Shoes, NZWRAC, tan
  • Boots, Motorcyclists
  • Sandals, leather
  • Overshoes – issued to personnel employed in Magazines, Cookhouses at Ordnance Stores with concrete floors.

Wet and cold weather clothing

  • Issued to Soldiers
    • Coats, waterproof, Other Ranks
    • Gloves Woolen
    • Greatcoat, dismounted, 1940-patt.
    • Jersey, pullover, Type A
    • Jersey, pullover, Type B
  • Issued to Officers
    • Caps Comforter
    • Cardigan
    • Coats, trench or waterproof
    • Gloves, leather, brown, lined.
    • Gloves, leather, brown, unlined
    • Greatcoats
    • Jersey, pullover, Type A
    • Scarves , Khaki
  • Special Clothing issue
    • Boots, rubber knee
    • Capes, waterproof
    • Coats, oilskin
    • Hats, oilskin
    • Jackets, oilskin
    • Jerkin, Sleeveless Leather

Badges

  • Arm and appointment badges
    • Brass or Worsted SD
    • Cap & Collar
      • Other Ranks – brass
      • Officers – gilt
    • Rank
      • Worsted SD (Other Ranks)
      • Brass on Bands, wrist, KD, WO
      • Shoulder, worsted of gilt (Stars or Crowns)

    Web Equipment

    While New Zealand received substantial information regarding research and development efforts by the British Army aimed at enhancing web equipment, many of the new British designs were still in the development phase and not yet ready for deployment. [10]  However, with over 60,000 sets of the 37-Pattern equipment in circulation in New Zealand, supplemented by older items like the 08 Pattern pack, it was ensured that this equipment would remain in service for the foreseeable future.

    Conclusion

    In conclusion 1956 marked a crucial juncture for the New Zealand Army, necessitating strategic adaptations in response to evolving global conflicts. The army transitioned from its traditional role supporting British forces in the Middle East to engaging in operations in Southeast Asia. This shift prompted organisational restructuring, equipment modernisation, and adjustments to clothing and logistical operations. By aligning itself with the United Kingdom and Australia, the New Zealand Army was positioned to meet the challenges of the battlefields of the 1960s.


    Notes

    [1] Damien Fenton, A False Sense of Security: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978, Occasional Paper / Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand: No. 1 (Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington, 1998), 49.

    [2] “Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 April 1955 to 31 March 1956,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1956 Session I, H-19  (1956).

    [3] “Composition of the New Zealand Army,” New Zealand Army Order 26-27/56, 9 May 1956.

    [4] “H-19 Defence Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding the Forces,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives  (1920): 11.

    [5] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the Chief of the General Staff,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, (1939).

    [6] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 June 1950 to 31 March 1951,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives  (1951).

    [7] “Appendices to Report on Qmg (Quartermaster-General’s) Branch,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541151  (1944).

    [8] “Vehicles and Artillery Equipments, Painiting Of,” New Zealand Army Order 75/50, 9 May 1950.

    [9] Army 213/1/92 DSIR Tropical Clothing Dated 3 October 1955. “Clothing – Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment, ”Clothing.

    [10]  86/Dev/54 (SWV1) Instructions for Troop trials of Z2 Experimental Load Carrying Equipment, 1954;”Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189098  (1944 -1966).


    NZ Defence Stores July 1870 – June 1871

    Head Office – Wellington

    • Inspector of Stores – Edward Gorton
    • Clerk – George Simpson Lockie

    Wellington Defence Stores -Mount  Cook Depot, Buckle Street

    • Storekeeper – Henry Elmhirst Reader
    • Clerk – Alexander Crowe
    • Armourer Edward Metcalf Smith
    • Armourer – Edwin Henry Bradford
    • Arms Cleaners
      • William Warren
      • John Shaw
      • James Smith
      • Walter Christie
    • Magazine Keeper –  William Corliss

    Auckland Defence Stores – Albert Barracks

    • StoreKeeper – William St Clair Tisdall
    • Clerk – John Blomfield
    • Clerk – John Price
    • Armourer – George Evitt
    • Arms Cleaners
      • Thomas Gibbins
      • Charles Phillips
      • William Cook Rockley
      • John Penligen
    • Magazine Keeper – John Broughton

    District Sub Storekeepers

    District Sub Storekeepers at:[1]

    • Hamilton
    • Tauranga
    • Opotiki
    • Te Wairoa (Rotorua)
    • Tauranga
    • Napier
    • Marton
    • Wanganui
    • Patea
    • New Plymouth
    • Blenheim
    • Nelson
    • Christchurch
    • Hokitika
    • Dunedin
    • Invercargill

    Defence Stores Stock Holdings

    As of 17 August 1870, Small Arms, Ordnance and Ammunition in military use in New Zealand consisted of:[2]

    In Store

    Small Arms

    • Snider (All Patterns)  2293
    • Medium Hay Pattern                                                                   7726
    • Enfield Pattern 1853                                                                   1460
    • Rifle Breech Calisher & Terry                                                       26 
    • Rifle Sword Short Enfield Pattern 1853                               33
    • Rifle Spencer                                                                                     4
    • Rifle Mont Storm                                                                              5
    • Percussion Muskets Pattern 1839                                    222
    • Carbine Breech Calisher & Terry                                                284
    • Carbine Muzzle Enfield Artillery Carbine                                 67
    • Carbine Revolver Colt                                                                     4
    • Carbine Percussion Various Types                                             12
    • Revolvers, Various types                                                               215
    • Swords Cavalry                                                                                  153

    Ordnance

    • RBL 40 Pounder                                                                                2
    • RBL 6 Pounder                                                                                  2
    • 24 Pounder Howitzer                                                                     3
    • 42/5 inch Mortars                                                                            11
    • 6 Pounder Carronade                                                                     1
    • 3 Pounder Smooth Bore                                                                 1

    Small Arms Ammunition

    • Snider                                                                                                   470228
    • Enfield                                                                                  1804983
    • BL Carbine                                                                          251324
    • Revolver                                                                              287148
    • Precussion Muisket                                                         160152

    Ordnance

    • Cartridge                                                                             14145
    • Shot/Shell                                                                           22806

    On Issue

    Small Arms

    • Snider (All Patterns)                                                       208
    • Medium Hay Pattern                                                      9263
    • Enfields Pattern 1853                                                      6473
    • Rifle Breech Calisher & Terry                                       7
    • Rifle Sword Short Enfield Pattern 1853                     224
    • Rifle Spencer                                                                      4
    • Percussion Muskets Pattern 1839                              1007
    • Carbine Breech                                                                  1271
    • Carbine Muzzle Enfield Artillery Carbine                 218
    • Carbine Revolver Colt                                                     2
    • Carbine Percussion Various Types                             267
    • Revolvers, Various types                                               934
    • Swords Cavalry                                                                  903

    Ordnance

    • RBL 12 Pounder                                                                6
    • RBL 6 Pounder                                                                  4
    • 6 Pounder Brass Gun                                                      1
    • 24 Pounder Howitzer                                                     7
    • 32 Pounder Iron Guns                                                    3
    • 24 Pounder Iron Guns                                                    8
    • 12 Pounder Iron Guns                                                    5

    By August 17, 1870, the inventory of Camp Equipment, Implements, and Saddlery utilised by the New Zealand Military comprised the following items:

    In Store

    • Tents, Circular                    326
    • Tents, Indian                      30
    • Tents, F.O Marquee        13
    • Waterproof Sheets         523
    • Blankets                               647
    • Axe Felling                          166
    • Axe Pick                               1036
    • Hook Fern                           115
    • Hook Bill                               91
    • Spade                                   1298
    • Shovel                                  1214
    • Wheel Barrow                   413
    • Mattocks                             111
    • Cross Cut Saw                    41
    • Saddle Riding                     285
    • Bridles                                  262
    • Pack Saddles                      101

    On Issue

    • Tents, Circular                    130
    • Tents, Indian                      14
    • Waterproof Sheets         58
    • Blankets                               275
    • Axe Felling                          235
    • Axe Pick                               239
    • Hook Fern                           90
    • Hook Bill                               35
    • Spade                                   400
    • Shovel                                  291
    • Wheel Barrow                   85
    • Mattocks                             18
    • Cross Cut Saw                    14
    • Saddle Riding                     48
    • Bridles                                  48
    • Pack Saddles                      47[3]

    Inspections

    While not a comprehensive compilation, Gorton, in his role as Inspector of Stores, carried out inspections during the specified period at the following locations:

    • July 1870, Auckland
    • August 1870, Wanganui and Napier
    • December 1870, Wanganui and Auckland
    • April 1871, Christchurch
    • May 1871, Dunedin
    • June 1871, Auckland, Tauranga, Thames

    Mount Albert Powder Magazine

    In February of 1871, newspapers carried reports about a rumour circulating regarding the arrest of an individual suspected of attempting to ignite the powder magazine at Albert Barracks. These allegations’ accuracy remained uncertain, spurring a call to implement strict measures to safeguard the magazine from potential incidents. Interestingly, changes had occurred after the British Garrison’s departure; formerly, not even a lit pipe or cigar would have been permitted past the vigilant sentry at the gates. However, the entry regulations had since been relaxed, even allowing for firing rockets within the Barrack-square on multiple occasions. This alteration raised concerns about the decline in vigilance.[4]

    Adding to the discomfort was the realisation that the amount of powder stored within the Albert Barrack magazine exceeded the quantity recorded in official documents. The concern stemmed from the potential for an explosion capable of causing catastrophic damage to Auckland, resulting in the loss of numerous lives across a wide area. Given the magazine’s central location within a densely populated city, urgent appeals were directed towards the authorities, urging them to exercise the utmost caution and explore the possibility of relocating the magazine to a safer site.. Satisfyin the demand of the local population, an announcement was made in March that the Powder Magazine was to be transferred from Albert Barrack to Mount Eden.[5] In May of 1871, the process of soliciting bids for the construction of a powder magazine at Mount Eden was initiated.[6]

    Rifle Sights

    After a thorough inspection of a batch of rifles by the armourers revealed unauthorised modifications to the sights, Gorton issued a directive in November 1870. This directive brought attention to the fact that specific rifles had been subject to unauthorised alterations to their back sights. Gorton’s instruction explicitly stated that any rifles found to have been altered should be immediately returned to the stores. Additionally, he warned that volunteers using the modified rifles during Government prize competitions would be disqualified.

    Iron Sand Experiments

    Armorurer and Artificer Edward Metcalf Smith had amassed several years of experience in the iron industry before commencing a gunsmith apprenticeship at the Royal Small Arms factories in London and Enfield, followed by a tenure at the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich. Arriving in New Zealand in 1861 as the Garrison Armorer, he progressed to the role of armourer for the Taranaki Militia and Taranaki Rifle Volunteers in 1864. While in Taranaki, he developed a keen interest in establishing a viable iron industry using Taranaki iron sands.[7]

    By 1871, Smith had relocated to Wellington, assuming the position of Defence Armourer. Leveraging the resources of the Armourers shop, he persisted in refining his iron sand smelting process through experimentation and innovation.[8]


    Notes

    [1] District Sub Storekeepers roles encompassed dual responsibilities. These holders often held other functions, such as Militia Drill Instructors or Sub Storekeepers for the Public Works Department. In certain instances, Armed Constabulary Sub-Storekeepers also undertook the role of District Sub Storekeepers.

    [2] Inspector of Stores Edward Gorton, Reporting on system of Store Accounts and with returns of Arms Ordnance Ammunition ans various Stores, Archives New Zealand Item ID R24174887, (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 17 August, 1870).

    [3] Edward Gorton, Reporting on system of Store Accounts and with returns of Arms Ordnance Ammunition ans various Stores.

    [4] “The Power magazine  “, New Zealand Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 2196 (Auckland), 8 February 1871, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18710208.2.11.

    [5] “Local Epitome,” New Zealand Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 22i8 (Auckland), 6 March 1871, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18710306.2.5.

    [6] “The Power magazine  “, New Zealand Herald, Volume VIII, Issue 2278 (Auckland), 15 May 1871, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH18710515.2.14.

    [7] “Edward Metcalf Smith,” NZETC.victoria.ac.nz. , 1993, accessed 9 April, 2023, https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/2s31/smith-edward-metcalf.

    [8] “Experiments with Iron Sand,” Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXVII, Issue 4901, 27 May 1871, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DSC18710527.2.19.


    NZ Army Camouflage 1949-1979

    In the 1960s, the New Zealand Army introduced a distinct camouflage pattern for its lightweight individual shelters. The pattern was a unique blend of blotches and brushstrokes, featuring dark green and olive-green blotches, russet brushstrokes, and a lime green background. This design remained in use for over two decades and piqued the interest of camouflage enthusiasts. This article will delve into the history of this camouflage pattern.

    During the Second World War and through the 1950s, the standard combat uniform of the New Zealand Army was the khaki drill, which proved to be largely ineffective as camouflage in a jungle environment. In response, modifications were made to the standard khaki drill uniforms in 1942 at three different camouflage sections in Auckland, Christchurch, and Wellington by manually applying a camouflage pattern using spray equipment. This resulted in a mottled scheme with little recognisable design, which functioned more effectively than the plain khaki drill in the jungle combat zones of the Pacific theatre. Several thousand of these uniforms were in service by 1943 and saw action with the 3rd Division/2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the Pacific, specifically in the battle of the Treasury Islands and the action of Vella Lavella in the Solomon Islands.

    Following the disbandment of the 3rd Division in 1944, no further use was made of these expedient combat suits. In the post-war era, as the New Zealand Army was reorganised and equipped into a Divisional structure supported by a Compulsory Military Training (CMT) scheme, advice was sought from Australia and the United Kingdom on using camouflage clothing for field craft and battle drills in peace and war.

    Australia was waiting for the United Kingdom to decide on camouflage clothing before formulating an Australian policy. In October 1949, the United Kingdom clarified their position on camouflage clothing, stating that the new combat clothing for temperate areas would be coloured ‘Olive Drab’ (SCC15). Troop trials of the combat suit in SCC15 were underway in the UK, BAOR and MELF to be completed by 31 March 1950. It was, however, thought that disruptive camouflage may be better than plain SCC15, but no further decision on this point would be taken until the reports of the troop trials had been studied.

    As this reply from the United Kingdom was indefinite, New Zealand took the position in November 1949 that dying suits of Khaki Drill uniforms Olive drab would provide a suitable camouflage uniform for New Zealand infantry units undertaking field craft and battle drills. Trials of bulk dying of Khaki Drill uniforms were undertaken by Taylor Drycleaning of Wellington in January 1950, with 2397 camouflage (Olive Drab) jackets and 2393 trousers distributed to the three Military Districts in May 1950, and a further batch of 1488 jackets distributed in February 1952. With the adoption of Drill Green uniforms in December 1955, the requirement for the dyed camouflage suits passed, and they were progressively wasted out of service.

    By 1962 the New Zealand Army was embarking on a program of modernisation of its clothing and equipment. Enquiries with industry indicated to the Quartermaster General (QMG) that it was technically possible to manufacture Parkas, Overtrousers, Shelters Lightweight and Bedrolls with a camouflage effect if required.

    The advice provided to the QMG from the Directors of Infantry and Training indicated that as Parkas and Overtrousers were primarily used only for training within New Zealand, Olive Green or some other inauspicious shade be used. Although a Recommendation was made that there was no requirement to have a camouflaged bedroll and they too should be Olive Green, there was merit in having camouflaged shelters.

    The green New Zealand lightweight Shelter had been developed from the Australian shelter with an initial purchase of 5910 commencing in late 1965 to selected Field Force and District training pools. The New Zealand lightweight shelter was fitted with the same fittings allowing two shelters with the addition of poles and flaps to be joined to form a two-person tent.

    It was recommended that a camouflage pattern of irregular shapes about 12 inches in diameter, 12 inches apart, should be printed against the Olive green base colour to break up the outline of the green shelters. Dark Brown was suggested as the camouflage colour. However, further trials were required to determine the best size and colour.

    SME Trials

    With the requirement to camouflage personal shelters with the suggested pattern of irregular patches of dark brown patches against an Olive Green background, the New Zealand School of Military Engineering (SME) was tasked on 28 March 1963 to investigate the problem to determine the best size and colour for the personal shelters. SME was given until 30 April 1963 to report on their progress. However, to allow the required resources to be purchased and comprehensive trials conducted, SME submitted their report in December 1963.

    SME produced samples using a mixture of commercial off-the-shelf paints and paints mixed to meet US Army specifications, the commercial colours of the Interlux brand were.

    • Matt Manilla (Yellow Brown)
    • Matt Venetian Red
    • Matt Almond Green
    • Matt Copper Mist
    • High Gloss Black
    • Blackboard Black

    The Interlux colours were hand and spray painted on shelters in the following patterns

    • Disruptive painting using French curves to join adjacent colours
    • Disruptive painting of straight lines to join adjacent colours to produce a triangle effect.
    • Painting by dabbing with a 2-inch paintbrush

    The paints to US Army specifications were chosen from US Manual FM5-22 Camouflage Materials and mixed by the International Paint Company Laboratory to obtain the best match possible. The colours were

    • No 6 Earth Brown
    • No 7 Forest Green
    • No 8 Olive Drab
    • No 9 Field Drab
    • No 11 Light Green
    • No 12 Light Stone

    The US Colours were hand and spray painted using the following patterns,

    • Three colour overlays by dabbing with a paintbrush
    • Three-colour cam net effect with 7-inch diamonds and 2-inch stripes
    • Two-colour cam net effect with 4-inch diamonds and 1-inch stripes.
    • Two colour disruptive painting.

    Each scheme was tested over a month to determine weathering, flexibility and ease of application.

    It was found that both types of paint weathered well and remained flexible. The US Colours were found easier to apply with the schemes in the US Colours that had been dabbed with a paintbrush, produced a good camouflage effect.

    Each painted shelter was then photographed without regard to the background from a distance of 20 feet which provided an accurate indication of the colour schemes and design, leading to the selection of six schemes for a final test.

     In the final series of tests, the six selected schemes were arranged against as many backgrounds as possible and then photographed from different distances. The No1 Scheme (Interlux Black and Copper Mist Disruptive Pattern) was found to have the best concealment against foliage. The No 3 Scheme (US Colours of Earth Brown, Olive Drab, Light Green, Light Stone in a Dabbed pattern) provided the best concealment against light backgrounds.

    Overall, the SME trial found no colour or pattern suitable for all backgrounds. Although all the types of paints trailed were easy to apply, did not fade and were flexible, it was found that the paints specifically mixed to the US Colour specifications were superior to the commercial types. The results of this trial and the practicality of hand painting individual shelters and developments in industrial cloth printing methods did not encourage further development of this idea.

    Seeking advice on Australian camouflage developments, it was found that although the Australian Army was developing a camouflage material for use on their Smock Tropical Lightweight and sub-unit command post shelters, there was no intent or Australian requirement for a camouflaged lightweight shelter.

    1960’s Australian Army Smock Tropical Lightweight and sub-unit command post shelter Camouflage pattern. Robert McKie Collection

    However, the New Zealand Army’s requirement for lightweight camouflaged shelters remained with further development aimed at procuring printed material that could be manufactured into shelters. Based on the SME trial, the desired colours were to be based on a dabbed pattern, including the US colours of Earth Brown, Olive Drab, Light Green, Light Stone Forest Green and Field Drab.

    Type A, B C and D Trials

    New Zealand industry was approached to provide a polyester cloth printed with a camouflage pattern coated with polythene for durability. In August 1964 agreement was reached between the New Zealand Army and textile agents Read & Gibson Limited and their Japanese principles, the Marubeni-Iida Company Limited, to provide fifty-yard lengths of six different screen-printed designs with the option to roller print the designs in the future if the technical difficulties in roller printing were resolved.

    At least four samples of the new cloth and patterns were received in December 1964, from which samples for trial were selected in February 1965. with the two preferred items manufactured for trial as,

    • Type A – Even pattern
    • Type B -Streaky Pattern

    The two samples that were rejected and not preferred were also manufactured into shelters for trial as

    • Type C, and
    • Type D.

    In addition to the shelters, two designs of capes were manufactured from the same batch of material and labelled as

    • A1 and A2
    • B1 and B2

    The A1 and B1 capes were fitted with Velcro fastenings, while the A2 and B2 capes had dome fittings. There is no record of the trials for the cape, and it is assumed that the concept did not progress past the prototype phase.

    1RNZIR  were then tasked to determine the best camouflage pattern for use in Southeast, with the brief to test the shelters under varying conditions of terrain, light and climate with the report to indicate,

    • Acceptance of one or other patterns
    • Any alterations required to the shade or shape

    By August 1965, 1RNZIR had completed their initial trials on the A, B, C and D types. All four samples were field tested in the primary jungle, secondary growth, padi, rubber and low scrub under a variety of light conditions in Malaya and Sarawak. Sufficient variations in climate, vegetation and light were experienced to allow a thorough test of all the camouflage patterns to be completed. The same two pers trialled all patterns to allow comparisons to be made on the spot.

    The most notable point about all patterns was that the primary colour was too dark. This darkness caused the actual pattern to become almost invisible from about 40 yds distance wherever any overhead cover existed, this distance increasing to about 60 yds in open country. This made the whole shelter appear much darker than the surroundings by day, even in the primary jungle, and consequently, the value of any pattern was lost. Viewed from distances less than those stated, the shelters looked like a piece of waterproof material that someone had tried in vain to camouflage instead of blending in with the background. This fault applied equally to all patterns.

    • Type A. Apart from the dark primary colour, this pattern was found to be overly intense. The shapes should be slightly larger and more spread out. Shadows, which these patterns are doubtless intended to represent, are not found as close as is depicted in this pattern.
    • Type B. As with Type A, allowing for the dark primary colour, the pattern was a little too intense, although not to the same extent as Type A. If this design were more distinct, it would blend in with the surroundings better than any of the other trial designs.
    • Type C. This design failed to blend in well under very few conditions for the reasons mentioned with Type A, and B. Shadows do not form this close together. It must be appreciated that it was not easy to make a fair comparison with a small square of material as opposed to a full-sized shelter, but the comments apply as near as possible.
    • Type D.  Same as Type C, but more suited than Type C as the intensity is modified.

    It was summarised that all the patterns were printed on a background that was too dark and did not make for good camouflaging by day. All patterns were too intense, and any attempt to merge the shelters into shadows or leaves on the ground was lost from relatively short distances. The whole shelter merely became a dark shape which, while more challenging to identify than the Australian equivalent, did not achieve the aim.

    The recommendations were to adopt Pattern B with reduced intensity (not so much mosaic per sq. yd) and to make the basic colouring lighter.

    Type E, F and G Trials

    Taking on board 1RNZIR trial feedback, in October 1965, three other camouflage cloth samples were received from the manufacturer for 1 RNZIR to conduct further trials on. Labelled as E, F and G, insufficient material was available to manufacture shelters suitable for trial. It was considered that local ‘ad hoc’ arrangements could reasonably assess that camouflage effect by 1 RNZIR

    Despite the limitations placed on 1RNZIR by the small samples of the material provided, a trial report was submitted in December 1965, with testing carried out for one month in the areas adjacent to Terendak Camp at Malacca.

    • Type E. This pattern failed to achieve a sufficient contrast within itself and consequently contrasted too much with the surrounding foliage. Although the colours were natural, there was insufficient variety. The proportion of camouflage colour to primary colour was good, however.
    • Type F. A good pattern incorporating a suitable balance of light and dark natural colours blended into jungle surroundings well and broke up its outline. The uneven and irregular patches of colour assisted in this, and the proportion of coverage was satisfactory.
    • Type G. This pattern was too vivid and tended to attract attention rather than remain inconspicuous. The shapes and proportions of colours were suitable, but the choice of colours prevented acceptance.

    Sample F was recommended as the most satisfactory pattern produced so far, and it was felt that if adopted, it could be suitable for ponchos and shelters and clothing and equipment.

    The issue of Camouflaged Combat Clothing was discussed in 1965. However, the general feeling in Army Headquarters was that the Army could not produce camouflaged combat clothing of pattern satisfactory as a walking-out dress. Until then, Jungle Greens and Battle Dress were to remain the standard uniforms. However, any items designed for use in the field, such as parkas, bedrolls and shelters, should be camouflaged with principal development focused on developing suitable camouflage patterns and colours.

    Type F Pattern Trials

    With the sample pattern Type F accepted by 1 RNZIR, it was proposed to manufacture 12 shelters in the pattern and material for further trials in Malaysia, Borneo, Vietnam and possibly Thailand and 80 yards of material ordered from the manufacturer. By May 1966, the order of 80 yards had been received. However, it was in two parts, 15.5 yards, that had been Auto printed (labelled as A from a material using a cheaper automatic printing process, resulting in a slight difference in the depth of colour but no difference in the pattern. A Proto-type process was utilised to manufacture the remainder of the consignment (labelled as B). For the trial, the current green Lightweight Shelters manufacturer, the National Mortgage & Agency Limited, Jute and Bag Section in Dunedin, manufactured two ‘A’ shelters and six ‘B’ shelters. These were dispatched by the Director of Ordnance Services (DOS) by ait to the following units overseas for trials.

    • 1RNZIR
      • 1 Shelter Lightweight Camouflaged ( Labelled A)
      • 3 Shelter Lightweight Camouflaged ( Labelled B)
      • 4 Shelter lightweight (NZ Current Issue)
    • 161 Battery
      • 1 Shelter Lightweight Camouflaged ( Labelled A)
      • 3 Shelter Lightweight Camouflaged ( Labelled B)
      • 4 Shelter lightweight (NZ Current Issue)

    All shelters were dispatched complete with end pieces but did not include poles and pins.

    The trial by 1RNZIR and 161 Battery were to address the following questions

    • were the individual colours suitable under all light and background conditions?
    • Was the size and shape of the pattern satisfactory?
    • Did the camouflaged shelter shine under certain weather conditions?
    • Did the camouflage pattern marry up along the join in the material of each shelter?
    • Did the camouflage pattern marry along the join when constructing a two-person shelter?
    • Was there any loss in efficiency due to the ‘Auto-printing’ on the shelter labelled ‘ A’?
    • How did the camouflaged shelter compare to the Australian and current New Zealand green shelters?

    The conclusion of the report was to include one of the two following statements,

    • A camouflaged shelter is required for SE Asian combat conditions, and the proto-type camouflaged shelter fully meets this requirement.
    • A camouflaged shelter is required for SE Asian combat conditions, and the proto-type camouflaged pattern and colours need to change in the following ways, stating the required changes.
    • A camouflaged shelter is NOT required for SE Asian combat conditions, as the current New Zealand green shelter fully meets the requirements.
    • A camouflaged shelter is NOT required for SE Asian combat conditions, as the current Australian shelter fully meets the requirements.

    1RNZIR and 161 Battery conducted their trials and submitted their trial reports by the end of 1966, with both units stating that a camouflaged shelter was required. 1RNZIR recommended that the yellow base colour was too light and that ends were not required. 161 Battey proposed a dark green colour to replace the yellow base and wanted to retain the ends but of a different design.

    Type F (B) Trial pattern

    Type H and J Trials

    As both 1 RNZIR and 161 Battery considered the background colour of both the Type F pattern shelters inadequate, two new patterns were produced using a darker background colour. In June 1967, two shelters, Type H and J, were issued to 1 RNZIR and 161 Battery for further evaluation. This trial aimed to determine which colour combinations were the most acceptable under operational conditions in SE Asia and whether further minor changes were necessary. The trial conducted was to test the camouflage colours only and not the shelter design, as some non-standard fittings had been included .in the new shelters to ensure the shelters could be produced in the shortest possible time. The reverse side of the material was not as matt as were the previous shelters, but this was to be corrected in the final production of the accepted material.

    Trials of the H and J-type shelters were completed by February 1968, with reports from both units inconclusive. However, both units agreed that despite the time limitations of the trial, Type H was the most suitable. In March 1968, satisfied that no further trials were required, Army HQ directed that all trial shelters from 1 RNZIR and V Force be returned to New Zealand.

    On 21 March 1968, camouflage material in the type H Pattern was catalogued in the supply systems as 8305-98-102-3124 Cloth, Polyester Coated 2-3oz sq yd, 36in, Camouflage Pattern

    In 1971, an initial order was placed for 132,000 yards of new camouflaged material, which was intended to be used to manufacture 10,000 shelters for the New Zealand Forces in Southeast Asia. This order also allowed for the establishment of maintenance and manufacturing reserves, reducing reliance on the Australian supply chain.

    The 6,700 green shelters purchased by the New Zealand Forces since 1963 had an annual wastage rate of 270, meaning that they were gradually being depleted. The large-scale distribution of the new camouflage shelters did not occur until 1979 due to a reduction in operational and training commitments after the Vietnam War ended and National Service ceased in 1972.

    With the introduction of combat uniforms in British DPM in December 1975, the shelter camouflage material was only extended to two-person tents, bedrolls and mittens. With more modern materials in DPM progressively introduced for field equipment, the New Zealand camouflage material and pattern were wasted out of service from the mid-1990s.


    2 Supply Company – Unit History 1977-1983

    Units of the New Zealand Army must maintain a diary in which all matters connected with the unit are concisely but clearly recorded. Using Army Form New Zealand 144 (AFNZ 144), a unit provides a daily account of the unit’s activities, with entries providing the location and a brief description of the key events. Entries can be listed merely as” Ordinary Routine”, with others providing a more detailed account of the unit’s activities.

    The following transcripts of 2 Supply Companys have been copied from the original typed and handwritten AFNZ144 sheets. Much of the original wording has been retained, but most abbreviated words and phrases have been included in full to improve readability. Some additional information from the 1979 and 1982 Paraka Newsletter related to 2 Supply Company has also been included.

    1977

    1 February 1977

    Acting upon a directive from Army General Staff, 2 Central Ordnance Depot’s Unit History Sheet was initiated, and below gives an outline of 2 Central Ordnance Depot’s history to date.

    Palmerston North has had a 26 Year association with 2 Central Ordnance Depot. This association began with the setting up of No 2 Ordnance Sub-Dept, in the Palmerston North Showgrounds in 1941. The No 2 Ordnance Sub-Depot continued to operate until 31 Jan 1945. At which point it was destroyed by fire.

    In early 1946 the Depot was moved out to Linton Camp, and in 1948 was renamed Central District Ordnance Depot.

    1959 signified the beginning of 2 Central Ordnance Depot, as it is known today, with the construction of a vehicle sub- depot. The re-building was continued, and in 1963 a new clothing store was completed, on the site that is now the main store.

    2 Construction Squadron commenced work on 2 Central Ordnance Depot’s new stores building in 1969. It was originally planned to measure 45000 square feet; however, this was eventually reduced to the present 25000 square feet. The new building was designed to be an extension of the store built in 1963.

    On 7 Nov 1972, 2 Central Ordnance Depot’s new store’s building was completed. At a cost of $143,000 and 43298 man-hours, and 2 Central Ordnance Depot took on its present shape.

    15 April 1977

    1430 -The depot began Exercise Makomako. Twenty-three personnel moved, by convoy, to the exercise area, the Makomako ammunition area.

    1515 – Tentage (11 x 11), was erected around the cookhouse. The weather had taken a turn for the worse and by 1815 everyone was wet and cold. Dinner was served, cooked by one of 2CODs civilian staff Mr “Charles” Jones (Ex Chef).

    16 April 1977

    0600 – Reveille, breakfast and clean up

    0830 – The group was divided into two sections. Each section was then given as sketch map with four rendezvous marked. Aim: To reach each rendezvous and complete the task assigned to the rendezvous. Both sections achieved the aim.

    1600 – Debrief

    17 April 1977

    0700 – Reveille, breakfast, broke camp and returned to Linton by 1130hrs

    1978

    12 July 1978

    The highlight of July was RNZAOC Corps Day. It started ln the usual manner with Coffee Royale. Then it was back to work for the rest of the morning.

    The afternoon began with the annual Necker Trophy (Senior V Junior Volleyball). It was won by the Seniors, three games to nil, (there’s still life in the old timers). For the remainder of the afternoon a debrief on the game was held.

    A formal dinner was held in the 600 Man Mess that night and a good time was had by all.

    27 July 1978

    On the 27 July 1978 the account was handed over from Lt Knutson (W ) to Lt D’Ath (W ).

    28 July 1978

    2 COD have adopted an ex-RAOC Officer who served in both wars and now resides at an old folks home in Fielding. This gentleman, Capt H.J Harris, celebrated his 84th Birthday on this date. To mark the occasion the Depot Sergeant Major (WO1 B.J Quinn) travelled to Feilding, wished the old soldier “Happy Birthday” from 2COD and gave him a birthday cake that WO1 Quinn’s wife had made. Suffice to say the old boy was delighted, as were the staff of the old folks home.

    15-17 August 1978

    The WO1s attended the second Corp Warrant Officers Seminar at Trentham (the last one was held in 1073), and a Formal Dinner was held on the 16 Aug. The Seminar itself was very informative with all WO1s being brought up to date on the problems and changes which are happening within the Corps.

    22-24 August 1978

    The Inter-Corp Rugby Tournament was held at Linton, with four members from the unit included in the Ordnance team. The Director of Ordnance Services visited the Depot on the 23-24 an gave his moral support to the Rugby Team. The Ordnance team did very well been narrowly beaten in the Semi Final by 10-9 against the Engineers.

    31 August 1978

    The Depot was visited by 40 children (ages ranginfn5-12) from the Masterton YMCA.

    6 September 1978

    DADOS FF Command and Unit Q Officers held a conference with 2 COD staff to allocate items in short supply during the Annual Camp of units.

    8 September 1978

    A class of twelve Massey University Students of a Strategy and Warfare Class visited for a discussion on Logistics.

    19 September 1978

    Major Quested spent the day in 2 COD on a familiarisation tour.

    28 September 1978

    All military personnel had a grouping practice on Sappers Line Range prior to Annual Battle Shoot, which is to be held next month.

    29 September 1978

    Five personnel posted into the unit to increase establishment for its new role next month.

    4-5 October 1978

    All military personnel of the Depot took part in the Annual Range Classification Shoot at Putiki Range Wanganui

    11-14 October

    Two members of the Depot (Sgt B.C Smith and WO1 D.J Keen) participated in the first regional Bowls Tournament at Burnham. Both players for the Central Region which won the Hamilton Shield, and also the North Versus South which was also won by the North. SSgt Smith also played against the Canterbury election which was lost 11/2 points to 21/2 points.

    16 October 1978

    The Depot had a change of role and has been renamed 2 Supply Company. The new role involves a Static Depot with a Tech Stores Section, a Gen Stores Section and a Bath Section, which is known as 22 OFP, which is the Field Force part of the Company. Approximately 2500 cards were raised for initial scaling of these sections. Quantity 25 receipts have been received at this time.

    30 October 1978

    Brig R.W Morris, Director of Supply Australia visited the Company.

    6- 8 November 1978

    Major K.A Watson, WO1 R.A Bird and Mr D Walker attended Support Finance Conference at Fort Dorset to finalise Financial Allocations for 1978/79.

    9-29 November 1978

    Capt D.A D’Ath attended the Foodstuffs and POL Course at RAAOC Centre, Bandiana, Australia. The Course was to assist in the rationalisation and re-organisation.

    14-16 November 1978

    WO1 E.A Bird was present at the Supply Depot Commanders Conference held at Trentham. At the Conference the proposed transfer of the Supply Role from RNZASC to RNZAOC was discussed.

    12-14 December 1978

    Major K.A Watson attended the Senior Officers Corps Conferenced at Burnham. During the conference the first RNZAOC Association Meeting was held, and disposal of Corps Funds discussed.

    22 December 1978

    2 Supply Company closed down for the Christmas Breaks with only a Skelton staffing on call until 3 January 1979.

    1979

    15 January 1979

    2 Supply Company staff commenced preparations for Annual Camp Issues of Camp Equipment. A Mobile Ordnance team was activated to assist 2 Fd Hosp, 7 WnHb and 5 WWCT’s Annual Camp. This team was organised and run by WO1 J.A Sayers. SSgt Hawthorn assisted in the tailoring requirements for the issue of Dacrons to personnel of 7 RNZIR at their Camp.

    1 February 1979

    Captain M Telfer (TF) was posted from 2 Fd Wksp Stores Sect to 22 OFP as Officer Commanding.

    22 OFP consists of:

    1. The Headquarters – accommodation Capt Max Telfer (TF) the OC, Sgt Bob Hodgetts the Admin Sgt/Park Quartermaster Sergeant/Recruiting NCO/TF Administrator of Part Time Soldiers, and 2Lt Lindstrom, when he arrives from OCTU to take up the appointments of SCO/Trg Officer.
    2. PC & A – manages and controlled by SSgt K/J Moore (Manager Stock Control) and his work force. K.J is currently the leader of 22 OFP pack
    3. Gen and Bath Section – according to the establishment this section will be manned by part time soldiers (TF).
    4. Tech Stores Section – is commanded by Sgt (Peewee) Haerewa and a faction of young up and coming soldiers who will assist in the smooth operation of the OFP ‘Pataka’.

    7 February 1979

    Recruiting for 22 OFP commenced

    22 February 1979

    Wing Commander J Penny visited 2 Sup Coy as part of his programme to see all Supply Companies. He briefed unit personnel on the purification programme on System S7 and the enhancement to the existing system.

    23-25 March 1979

    22 OFP held their first Training Weekend as a Unit. Unfortunately, due to adverse conditions they were unable to hold the weekend as planned in Makomako. Instead, personnel used the time to update their bookwork.

    30 Mar 1979

    OC and SCO attended the Commanders Conference chaired by Col D.R Kenning Commander 2 TFR. This was the first to be held by 2 TFR since the Army Re-organisation took place.

    2-4 April 1979

    A Regional Seminar on Stores Accounting was held at SME Linton. The Seminar was run by the Q Wing of School of Army Administration and was attended by all. Regional Q Reps. Capt D.A D’Ath, WO1 Sayers and.WO2 Lyle were 2 Sup Coy Reps.

    6-8 April 1979

    22 OFF held a Field. ·Training Weekend for RF and TF personnel at Makomako.

    16-19 April 1979

    The RNZAOC Senior Officers Conference was held at Trentham and OC 2 Sup Coy attended.

    18 April

    All SNCOs attended a Formal Dinner at Trentham in honour of Lt Col A.J. Campbell on his retirement from RF.

    19-20 April 1979

    An Accounting Officers Conference was held at RNZAOC School to coincide with DOS Formal Dinner. The Dinner was to farewell Lt Col A.J. Campbell from the Regular Force. Capt D’Ath attended.

    20-22 April 1979

    22 OFP carried out training on Infantry Minor Tactics for both RF and TF Personnel at Makomako.

    12 May 1979

    RNZAOC assumed responsibility of providing POL and Rations to the Army. Those RNZASC personnel wishing to change their Corps to RNZAOC did so and were presented with Corps Belts and Hat Badges by the OC. The Following are those who changed

    • WO1 R.A Bird
    • Sgt Y.F Tasker
    • Cpl I.T Bovey
    • Pte H.A Clifton
    • Pte G.J Hassan
    • Pte E.D Russell

    14 May 1979

    CATO Major B Squires visited 2 Sup Coy to inspect, discuss location and view in operating the new Link Belt machine.

    24 May 1979

    Capt P.M. Cunninghame attended the DOS Mini Conference in Auckland. This was the first to be held at HQ NZLF

    29 May 1979

    A Support Finance Procedures Conference was held at 2 Sup Coy. All Regional QMs and RQMSs attended, and the meeting was chaired by May Stevenson from NZLF.

    3-4 July 1979

    OC and SCO attended a Logistic/Works Conference held by NZLF at Papakura Camp. The two day Conference covered most aspects of Logistics such as Finance, MD 6s etc

    14-15 July 1979

    22 OFP held a Training Weekend for TD Personnel. At this weekend lectures on Ordnance Procedure were held on Saturday with an introduction to Truck Driving and Maintenance on the Sunday.

    18 July 1979

    SCO & T, RNZAOC Directorate visited 2 Sup Coy to look at various areas of training withing the Company.

    23-24 July 1979

    The Director of Ordnance Services, Lt Col P.M Reid visited 2 Sup Coy on a Staff Liaison visit. While at Linton he visited the other Ordnance establishments.

    27 July 1979

    Sgt R.J Eden was released from the Regular Force.

    30 July 1979

    WO2 D.L Lyle was posted to 4 Sup Coy, Waiouru and tool up the appointment of SWO.

    30 July 1979

    SSgt P.F Neilson was posted to 2 Sup Coy as MSC and promoted to WO2.

    6 August 1979

    Capt P.W Cunninghame set sail for Great Britain to commence a four month tour on Exercise Long Look. It is intended that he be stationed at a vehicle depot during his stay.

    6 August 1979

    Capt D.A D’Ath attended Grade 3 Staff and Tactics Course

    17 August 1979

    WO2 J.A Sayers relinquished his position as SWO and departed on a two year tour of Singapore at NZAOD.

    25 August 1979

    WO2 B.T Thompson, after completing two years in Singapore, takes up the position of WO Vehicles.

    21-24 September 1979

    Inter-Corps Rugby was staged in Linton Camp between RNZCT, RNZE, RNZEME and RNZAOC.

    28 September 1979

    SSgt P.C Dellabarca was released from Regular Force.

    11 October 1979

    A Chief Clerks Seminar was held in Linton Camp and Sgt J.V. Takuta was 2 Sup Coy’s representative. The presentations were on Clerking and Man-Management, and Clerical Workmanship.

    23 October 1979

    Maj K.A. Watson held an OC’s Hour for 2 Sup Coy Military and Civilian staff. At this meeting the OC reported on coming events such as Ex Tripwire, Annual Camp and Ex Truppenamt.

    24-25 October 1979

    SSgt R.N. Turner attended the AT/ATOs Conference at Burnham. Items discussed were EOD Matters, Ammo Storage problems, and General Matters.

    25-28 October 1979

    Maj K.A. Watson and Sgt J. V. Takuta manned the CRAOC Cell for Higher Control on Ex Tripwire. Capt D.A. D’Ath attended on the 2 TFR staff. The CPX was to be a rehearsal for Truppenamt next year.

    7-8 November 1979

    WOI B. J. Quinn attended RNZAOC Conductors Seminar at Trentham.

    7-9 November 1979

    OC attended Senior Officers Conference at Trentham.

    12 November 1979

    2 TFR Command Inspection Team headed by Lt Col B. Sinclair carried out an inspection of the Company.

    1-2 December 1979

    22 OFP Weekend Camp at Makomako which consisted of Inf Minor Tact. Lt Col Fodson visited the training weekend.

    10 December 1979

    Captain Gush posted in from 1 Base Sup Bn.

    12 December 1979

    Pte’s Brooks and Smith promoted to T/LCpl

    14 December 1979

    Sgt McKay posted in from 1 Sup Coy. Mr D Martin retired.

    17 December 1979

    Captain D’Ath posted to 2 TFR

    18 December 1979

    Captain D’Ath marched in as Acting Officer Commanding (Major Watson on Leave).

    Captain Cunninghame returned from “Ex Long Look”

    19 December 1979

    Pte Leatherby posted in from RF Cadet School.

    Unit issued vehicles and stores for Annual Camps assisted by 4 Sup Coy

    24 December 1979

    Unit closed down for Christmas

    Mr T Gray passed away.

    1980

    1 January 1980

    Unit Reopened

    2 January 1980

    Issued vehicles for Truppenamt II.

    Preparation of Main Store for Truppenamt II.

    Receipt of vehicles and stores from Anula Camps and checking for re-issue for Truppenamt II.

    12 January 1980

    First Annual Camp for 22 OFP (combined with 1 Sup Coy)

    16 January 1980

    Major Watson returned from leave – Captain D’Ath marched out to 2TFR

    22 January 1980

    Major Hopkins posted in (from HQ NZLF) to become Officer Commanding on Major Watson’s retirement.

    25 January 1980

    22 OFP returned from Annual Camp.

    30 January 1980

    Lt Col Reid arrived at the unit for Major Watson’s farewell.

    31 January 1980

    Major Watson retired.

    Major Hopkins took over as Officer Commanding of 2 Supply Company.

    7 February 1980

    OC returned to Takapuna for household removal.

    8 February 1980

    Half of Main Storehouse cleared for Truppenamt II.

    8-9 February 1980

    2IC, SWO and SSgt Smith on call for Issued to Truppenamt II.

    12 February

    OC moved into army house, Linton.

    14 February 1980

    22 OFP March Out to Truppenamt II.

    15 February 1980

    LCpl Bird posted to Ngāruawāhia.

    16 – 17 February 1980

    2IC, SWO and SSgt Smith on call for Issued to Truppenamt II.

    18 February 1980

    100% Stocktake started on Bulk A/C

    23 February 1980

    Hand back of stores Ex Truppenamt II started.

    23 -24 February 1980

    Working weekend for all military and limited civilians – receipts from Truppenamt II.

    24 February 1980

    22 OFP March in Ex Truppenamt II.

    Annual Camp Ex Tasman – Ex Solomon Issues being made.

    29 February 1980

    100% Stocktake completed in storehouses.

    3 March 1980

    Pte’s Coley, Wiggins and Geary Marched in Ex AMO Cse at Wigram.

    4 – 5 March 1980

    7 March 1980

    Capt Harris RAOC (Rtd) died in Feilding – WO1 Quinn attended the funeral service.

    WO2 Neilson on Compassionate leave.

    19 March 1980

    Advance Party departed Linton for Annual Shoot at Landguard Bluff.

    20 March 1980

    Main Party departed Linton for Annual Shoot at Landguard Bluff.

    21 – 22 March 1980

    TF element of the unit arrived at Linton for Annual Shoot at Landguard Bluff.

    23 March 1980

    Annual Range Shot completed – RF/TF dispersed

    28 February 1980

    Freedom of Palmerston North Parade held.

    Sgt G Fowler posted to Sylvia Park.

    11 April 1980

    2000hrs Capt Gush called out by Ord Duties – Supplies for Fiji

    13 April 1980

    Major Hopkins plus 6 pers issued tentage to Ohakea for Fiji

    14 April 1980

    6 Pers delivered and loaded aircraft for Fiji

    14 – 22 April 1980

    Investigation by Capt Williams on Social Club

    14 – 18 April 1980

    OC on CGS Study Week

    20 April 1980

    WO1s Quinn/Bird on RNZAOC Conference in Ngāruawāhia.

    22 – 24 April 1980

    OC on RNZAOC Senior Officer Conference.

    23 April 1980

    WO1s returned from RNZAOC WO’s Conference.

    24 April 1980

    Capt Bostock visited re AIU Account Audit

    28 April 1980

    OC Returned from RNZAOC Senior Officer Conference.

    Establishment Team comprising Major Golightly and Lt Col Dixon Arrived. (Departed 30 Apr)

    10-11 May 1980

    4 x TF Pers March In to attend Ex Tropic Dawn

    Court of Inquiry commence re Social Club Activities

    12 May 1980

    14 Junior Ranks Marched into 2 TFR for Ex Tropic Dawn

    14 May 1980

    14 Junior Ranks completed

    16 May 1980

    Capt Cunninghame farewelled from the unit on posting to Waiouru

    17 -18 May 1980

    OC attending POSB at Waiouru

    19 May 1980

    Cpl (W ) Wetere reported to the unit on posting

    Visit by ALWO

    28 May 1980

    Visit by DOS

    ORs March In Ex Tropic Dawn – Proceeding on Standdown.

    5 June 1980

    Unit First Aid/Fire/MHE course started

    13 -15 June 1980

    OC and 2IC attended 2 TFR Tac Study WE

    15 June 1980

    Unit First Aid/Fire/MHE course completed

    19 June 1980

    Unit First Aid/Fire/MHE course started

    29 June 1980

    Unit First Aid/Fire/MHE course completed

    8 July 1980

    OC visit to 1 Base Sup Bn re Corps Day

    10 July 1980

    SCO on PA Leave

    11 July 1980

    2Lt David Palmer March in and assumes the appointment of 2IC 22 OFP and Trg Officer.

    12 July 1980

    RNZAOC Corps Day celebrations – unit parades with Base Sup Bn Trentham, returns for Linton for unit dine and dance.

    14 -15 July 1980

    CATO visit to Makomako

    16 July 1980

    Unit pers visit to SME for demonstrations.

    17 July 1980

    Three unit pers selected for Corps Rugby Squad.

    18 July 1980

    OC proceeding on PA Leave pm today and Stock Control Officer acting OC whilst OC on leave. SCO returned from PA Leave today.

    22 July 1980

    Camp held a Beating of the Retreat parade.

    5 August 1980

    Pers from Unit attended funeral servicers for the late Sgt Morgan RNZE.

    Unit notified of fatal accident concerning LCpl Armstrong (TF).

    7 August 1980

    Visit by DOS – Linton/Palmerston North RNZOC All Ranks formal dinner.

    Pers from unit attended funeral services for the late LCpl Armstrong.

    11 August 1980

    2IC attended conference at HQ 2 TF – Log study weekend

    OC returned from Annual Leave

    12 August 1980

    2IC attended finance conference at HQ 2 TFR

    16-17 August 1980

    Unit CPX training weekend RF/TF Officers and Snr NCOs.

    20 August 1980

    OC and MSC visit to EDP.

    26 August 1980

    C&WS Team visit to Unit.

    1 September 1980

    OC and MSC attended one day ILMS Conference at HQLF.

    2 September 1980

    Def Auditor arrived to carry out Coy audit.

    13-14 September 1980

    2Lt Palmer attended trg w/e Nga

    19-21 September 1980

    RNZAOC – RNZCT – RNZE – RNZEME – Corps Rugby started and completed with a win to RNZCT.

    23 September 1980

    Debrief of audit with OC, 2IC and MC Horne.

    26 September 1980

    Cpl (w ) Wetere on leave and discharged.

    26 September 1980

    Band 2 Cse ended as a result 7 passed – 1 required retesting.

    29-30 September 1980

    Unit party attended funeral of WO1 (Retd) B.I Moore at Gisborne.

    4-5 October 1980

    TF Driver Training Weekend

    13 October 1980

    OC attended ABCA presentation at ATG

    14 October 1980

    OC attended Real Admin Conference ATG

    20 October 1980

    Colonel Kenning presented Lt Guilford Badges of rank on unit parade

    21 October 1980

    SCO and WO1 Bird to Fort Dorset for finance conference

    OC commenced SNCO interviews

    28 October 1980

    OC to Trentham for Senior Officer Conference RNZAOC

    28-30 October 1980

    Unit Rep to Base Sup Bn – Checking outstanding clothing demands.

    30 October 1980

    Visit by incoming DRC and Regional Secretary.

    31 October 1980

    Unit members to Waiouru for Round the Mountain Run.

    19 November 1980

    Issues of loans to units – for Annual Camp.

    27-29 November 1980

    Annual Range Shoot.

    1 December 1980

    WO2 Neilson arrived for handover of MSC duties from WO2 Moore.

    Stocktake of Tech Sect and verification of Part Nos began prior to going on S7.

    4 December 1980

    WO2 Neilson gave ILMS presentation to PC&A staff.

    Authority received to raise new Laon A/C.

    5 December 1980

    Handover of MSC finalised.

    8 December 1980

    OC, MSC and Supply Pl Cmdr attended 2 TFR Trg Conf at Linton.

    11 December

    Sgt Jones Marched in Ex Singapore.

    16 December 1980

    2Lt Palmer farewelled from unit and was received on behalf of the RNZAC by Lt Col McComish(DRC)

    17 December 1980

    Unit children’s Christmas party

    Returns of Annual Camp being received from 5WWCT, 2 Fd Wksp, 5 Spt Sqn

    19 December 1980

    Most units within Camp closed down – 2 Sup Coy interior economy.

    22 December 1980

    Exterior economy for all staff.

    23 December 1980

    WO1 E Ray retired.

    23 December 1980

    Unit closed down for Christmas 12.0 hours.

    1981

    5 January 1981

    Company returned after Christmas break – Annual Camp Issues commenced.

    9 January 1981

    OC on leave until 15 Jan.

    4 x LIP Pers employed.

    12 January 1981

    2 x LIP Pers started employment.

    14 January 1981

    1 x LIP Pers started employment.

    15 January 1981

    OC returned from leave.

    16 January 1981

    Visit and presentation by Maj Maitland, Sgt Ryan and Sgt Johnson, Comd 2TFR, OC and Snr NCO attended presentation on new warehouse.

    WO1 Quinn on leave.

    20 January 1981

    Visit by Maj Hicks and WO1 Orr – Apprentices.

    OC, MSC and Sup Pl rep attended Real Admin Conference for Triad at Waiouru.

    21 January 1981

    OC attended DCM until 23 Jan.

    23 January 1981

    OC returned form DCM

    2 X LIP pers resigned.

    26 January 1981

    1 x LIP Pers Commenced work – 1 x LIP Pers resigned.

    27 January 1981

    1 x LIP Pers commenced work.

    28 January 1981

    Visit by Cols Kenning and Andrews to Coy – Barrack Guard of Honour carried out by Unit Reps.

    2 February 1981

    LCpl Boustridge Marched In ex 4 Sup Coy.

    6 February 1981

    5 WWCT Commenced hand back of Annual Camp Stores.

    7 February 1981

    2 Tpt Regt Commenced hand back of Annual Camp Stores.

    Pte (w ) Watts admitted to Palmerston North Hospital.

    12 February 1981

    Three staff members to RNZAOC School attending Field Phase.

    13 February 1981

    Advance Party departed for Ex Triad.

    14 February 1981

    Main Body departed for Ex Triad.

    Pte (w ) Watts discharged from Hospital – on sick leave.

    18 February 1981

    SSgt Holley awarded NZ Badge holder for Softball.

    24 February

    7WNHB commenced hand back of Annual Camp Stores.

    28 February 1981

    Issues to Janal Ulu contingent.

    5 March 1981

    SSgt Joyce March Out to RNZAOC School to attend Band 5 Course.

    6-31 March 1981

    Clearing Annual Camp loan stores.

    1 April 1981

    SSgt Joyce returned ex Band 5 Cse (passed).

    3 April 1981

    2 x Mini Project pers resigned.

    7 April 1981

    OC Conference.

    10 April 1981

    Last 2 Mini project pers resigned (Time Up).

    14 April 1981

    OC Conference.

    15 April 1981

    Mrs Tolson resigned and returned to Auckland.

    21 April 1981

    OC Conference.

    22 April 1981

    LCpl Hassan promoted to T/LCpl.

    Cpls Thorby, Hill, Clifton, Reddish, Kennedy and Rolston attempted band 4.

    24 April 1981

    Contractors arrived to upgrade PC&A building.

    Log Conf with AQM to discuss unit finance.

    25 April 1981

    Unit paraded with Pahiatua RSA for ANZAC Day dawn parade.

    28 April 1981

    OC Conference.

    29 April 1981

    OC to CCS Study W/E, then to Senior Officer RNZAOC.

    2IC assumes appointment of OC.

    4 May 1981

    OC returns from Corp Conf and resumes command

    7 May 1981

    Ptes Leatherby, Makutu, Coley, Watts, Hooper and LCpl Rolston attend First Aid Course at Burnham

    16 May 1981

    LCpl Thorby married to LCpl Geary.

    18 May 1981

    Pte’s Coley and Watts returned from course. Ptes Leatherby and Makutu on PAL.

    20 May 1981

    Sgt Roche Marched into unit ex Singapore.

    25 May 1981

    Miss K Tuhua employed as Ledger Clerk.

    27 May 1981

    Visit by Brig Hamilton – Col Andrews.

    28 May 1981

    Visit by DOS and DDOS.

    10 June 1981

    OC on course at RNZAOC School.

    22 June 1981

    Camp Census on Welfare subject taken today.

    Promotion of Sgt Haerewa to T/SSgt.

    23 June 1981

    Issues commence for Tropic Dawn.

    24 June 1981

    SO2/SO3 Log visited unit to discuss Loans and PSI.

    26 June 1981

    Mrs E Houlton (Provision) resigned

    Sgt Jones (Provision) posted to 2TFR as ACCTG ALWO.

    Camp visit by Brig Hamilton DGPL – Discussion with Offrs rans SNCO- evening meal with Offrs

    29 June 1981

    WO1(Cdr) Quinn TOD to Waiouru for Exercise Captive Lightning.

    1982

    Headquarters

    • OC                                          Major Hopkins
    • Trg/Admin Officer            Lt Guildford
    • SWO                                      WO1 Keen
    • CSM                                       WO2 Joyce
    • Chief Clerk                          Sgt Takuta
    • Juniors                                  LCpl Hiroti &  Pte (w ) Dutch

    PC&A

    • WO2 K.J Moore
    • SSgt P.R Haerewa
    • Cpl M.C Thorby
    • Cpl B.P Boyes
    • LCpl D.M Thorby
    • LCpl L.E Coley
    • LCpl R.E Rolston
    • Pte A.C Leatherby
    • Pte G Makutu

    Warehouse

    • WO2 Barry Taylor

    Issues

    • Cpl Hill
    • LCpl Herewini
    • Pte Wishart
    • Pte Nigel Sims
    • Pte A.J Newell
    • Mr Les Hewitt
    • Miss Janine Waniuk

    Receipts

    • Mr Alistair Toogood
    • Mrs Isobel Cockburn

    Camp Equipment/RSDG

    • SSgt John Holley
    • Pte Shane Bray
    • Mr Bernard Summers
    • Mr John Sapwell
    • Mr Bill Hamiln

    TRS

    • SSgt Hewitt
    • Pte Wiltshire
    • Pte Cooper
    • Spr Ken Marshall

    DSS

    • Sgt Chris Hill
    • Mr Gerry Grieve

    Tailor shop

    • SSgt Arthur Hawthorn
    • Mrs Joy Lynn

    Vehicle Group

    • WO2 Robbie Turner
    • Sgt McKay
    • Cpl Paul Reddish
    • Pte Rei Watt
    • Mr Dave Hardway

    24 Supply Platoon

    • SSgt Bill Donohugh
    • SSgt Vonnie Tasker
    • Sgt Mick Kennedy
    • LCpl Peter Thompson
    • LCpl Rodger Tombleson
    • LCpl Robyn Hooper
    • LCpl Ross Fearon

    5 January 1982

    Started work for year

    6-10 January 1982

    Preparing issues for Annual Camp.

    11 January 1982

    Band 3 Cse commenced.

    Letter received from Crippled Children Society thanking us for donating $406 to adopt a child project.

    14 January 1982

    New DRC Lt Col D.G Flux in Camp.

    20 January 1982

    First Camp Parade for year.

    26 January 1982

    Pte Bray March into unit Ex WTD.

    WO1 D.J Keen USO Cse Int Centre Papakura

    Sgt P.J Roche Cse UN Ammo MKG at RNZAOC Sch Trentham.

    18-19 January 1982

    Recce Lt Guildford/WO2 Turner Cape Palliser Area for unt exercise.

    3 February 1982

    TF move in for Annual Camp.

    8 February 1982

    Unit Photograph taken.

    Commander 2 TFR Visit – Annual Camp.

    10 February 1982

    Visit to unit by Brig A.T Mortiboy MBE EC (TF Advisor).

    15 February 1982

    Visit to unit by Maj Gen Williams.

    19 February 1982

    Unit Barbeque RF/TF.

    20 February 1982

    Unit Clean up Annual Camp.

    24 February 1982

    Visit by VDU pers from EDP.

    25 February 1982

    Visit by WO1 C.W Roulston, SSgt L Allen RAAOC.

    10 March 1982

    Band 3 Cse finished, all passed (7): Newell, Wilson, Makutu, Leatherby, Hooper, Thompson, Tombleson.

    16 March 1982

    RFL for unit pers

    26 March 1982

    Promotion Sgt Hill, Sgt Kennedy, LCpl Leatherby.

    30 March 1982

    Lt Col Vickers visit Makomako Area.

    21 April 1982

    LS&GC Parade (Camp).

    Unit Sports – soccer.

    OC to Corps Conference.

    23 April 1982

    Recce Wo2 Joyce, Sgt Eden, Sgt Hodgetts – Pohangina Valley.

    25 April 1982

    Unit Parade for ANZAC Day – Foxton.

    6 May 1982

    Lecture on new purchasing procedures.

    14 May 1982

    LCpl Rolston promoted T/Cpl.

    15-16 May 1982

    Unit Exercise Ruahine Ranges.

    31 May 1982

    Visit by CATO to Makomako.

    June 1982

    Audit of Bulk Account.

    Visit by Command Secretary.

    Log Seminar attended by Unit Reps.

    Visit by DRC to Warehouse.

    WO2 Moore posted OLOW 1 TFR.

    Lt Guildford attended RNZCT exercise in Fiji as Admin Officer

    1 July 1982

    Pte Gleeson posted to 2 Sup Coy from WTD Basic Training.

    19 July 1982

    Recce Ruahine Ranges, OC, CSM for unit exercise.

    2 Sup Coy UPF Subs, fixed at $3 per quarter.

    23 July 1982

    DRC visit.

    30 July 1982

    NZ P108 Tentage Handbook was despatched to all units.

    5-6 August 1982

    Unit Exercise Ruahine Ranges OC, CSM & 6 others.

    10 August 1982

    2 Supply Barrack Guard for CGS.

    11 August 1982

    2 Supply Barrack Guard for CGS.

    12 August 1982

    Unit Regt Dinner – Guests Col Commandant, DRC, Camp Commandant, Camp RSM.

    14-15 August 1982

    Unit CPX W/E TF/RF Offrs/SNCOs.

    19 August 1982

    SSgt Hewitt RNZAOC reunion Rep at meeting in Trentham.

    WO2 Taylor/Sgt McAvinue recon Wanganui area for Unit exercise.

    20 August 1982

    SSgt Hawthorn posted R&D Defence HQ.

    15 September 1982

    Farwell to Cpl Finn from the Army

    17 September 1982

    OC visits Waiouru for a recce for A/Camp

    22-23 September 1982

    Unit supplies 4 pers for tree planting in Linton Camp.

    27-30 September 1982

    Ex Huia One, Range Shoot and Air drop.

    1-2 October 1982

    Ex Huia One, Range Shoot and Delivery Points.

    14 October 1982

    Participated in annual Charter Parade in Palmerston North.

    LCpl S Dutch admitted to Hospital (Palmerston North)

    16 October 1982

    14 members of the Company participated in the Round the Mountain relay race.

    27 October 1982

    2 pers attend Jnr Clerk AA Course.

    28 October 1982

    2 Sup Coy Pers start T82.

    9 November 1982

    Pte Wright posted into 2 Sup Coy

    18 November 1982

    RNZAOC Reunion meeting

    15-19 November 1982

    LCpl Herewini represented 2 Sup Coy in the North Island Southern Region Forklift Competition.

    19 November 1982

    OC and Sgt Jones attended the finance conference in Fort Dorset.

    20 November 1982

    Unit participation in the ceremony of the beating of the retreat.

    30 November 1982

    Provision personnel of 1 BSB at Trentham Camp visited the unit.

    1 December 1982

    34th TF Intake RNZAOC Corps Training was conducted at 4 Sup Coy

    7-9 December 1982

    Junior Supplier Competition wan by LCpl Leatherby.

    10 December 1982

    Unit Xmas close down function

    13 December 1982

    Interunit competition 1BSB/2 Sup Coy Akatarawa relay race.

    24 December 1982

    2 Sup Coy closed down for the year

    1983

    4 January 1983

    2 Sup Coy resumed normal operations after Xmas closedown.

    10 January 1983

    Capt Gush posted to 2 TFR, Lt Guildford now SCO.

    12 January 1983

    2 pers attended B5 Suppler Course.

    17 January 1983

    Pte Gleeson attended Ammunition Accounting Course.

    18 January 1983

    Sgt Takutu attending Civil Clerks course.

    Sgt (w ) Williscroft attending MSC phase of the Band Five Suppler Course.

    25 January 1983

    LCpl(w ) Hooper farewelled to 3 Sup Coy.

    7 February 1983

    Lt M.R Taylor posted to 2 Sup Coy as Training Officer.

    8 February 1983

    Cpl A Ferguson posted to 2 Sup Coy (Main Store),

    12-26 February 1983

    2 Sup Coy and 2 Fd Sup Coy participated in A/Camp 83, Waiouru

    14-18 February

    Maj N.A Hitchings TOD to NZLF.

    16-17 February 1983

    2 x 2 Sup Coy pers to 5 TML Sqn, Whenuapai.

    4 March 1983

    Farwell Major S.D Hopkins – outgoing OC 2 Sup Coy.

    7 March 1983

    Major S.D Hopkins/Major N.A Hitchings official handover date.

    6 April 1983

    Col Andrews, 2 TFR Commander to visit 2 Sup Coy.

    7-10 April 1983

    3 x 2 Sup Coy pers to Ex Jalan Ulu, LCpl T.R Hiroti, Pte S.K Bray, Pte N.B Sims.

    15 April 1983

    LCpl R.T Woon returned from Basic (TF to RF)

    13-15 April 1983

    Head of Corps conference attended by Major N.A Hitchings.

    18 April 1983

    Major S.D Hopkins released from NZ Army.

    18-22 April 1983

    SSgt Hewitt, Pte’s Wiltshire and Marshall, ex Royal Tent.

    25 April 1983

    ANZAC Day – 2 Supply Company participated on ANZAC Day parade at Foxton.

    Sgt B.I Evans posted in as Ammo Tech

    28 April 1983

    Major N.A Hitchings and Lt N.A Guildford visit RNZAOC Directorate.

    1 May 1983

    Sgt P/J Roche posted to s Sup Coy as CAT.


    New Zealand Army Combat Boots – 1945 -1980


    Up to the Second World War, New Zealand Army boots generally had leather-soled ankle boots whose design had only undergone minor changes since 1912. Military boot development was catapulted during the Second World War with new designs and materials providing boots suitable for all terrains and climates found on Battlefields worldwide. As the post-war New Zealand Army was reorganised and reequipped to provide a division to fight in the Middle East, the decolonisation conflicts that swept Southeast Asia drew New Zealand into an unfamiliar type of warfare. New Zealand was not experienced or equipped to fight in harsh tropical environments but adapted quickly and became experienced practitioners of Jungle warfare. Initially equipped with British and Australian stocks of tropical equipment, it soon became apparent that New Zealand troops needed modern equipment. By 1959, the New Zealand Army undertook various research and development initiatives to improve its equipment in conjunction with scientific institutions and industry. This article provides an overview of the New Zealand Army’s post-war boot development, transitioning from a boot originating in the 19th century to a modern mid-20th century Combat boot.

    Flush with wartime stocks of boots, the post-war New Zealand Army had no immediate need to upgrade its boots. However, by the mid-1950s, the limitations of the current range of leather-soled boots were becoming evident, especially in the jungles of Malaya, and the search for alternatives began for an improved boot design. To achieve this, the Quarter masters branch of the army called on the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Research Association for assistance in developing a boot with increased waterproof properties that could withstand prolonged wear without undue fatigue.[1]

    Jungle greens and Jungle boots as worn by New Zealand Forces in Malaya from 1955. NZ National Library Ref: EP/1956/0031-F

    In conjunction with footwear manufacturers and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Association developed four types of boots, which were trialled by the 2nd Battalion, New Zealand Regiment, in 1958. The latest type of ankle boot with a Directly Moulded Sole (DMS) from the United Kingdom was also tested alongside the four New Zealand samples.[2] From this initial user trial, feedback shaped an interim specification for two types with identical uppers but different soles, one of rubber and the other of leather. Thirty pairs of each type were made, and a further series of trials began with the 1st Battalion at Burnham Camp in early May 1960. Thirty trial subjects were chosen to wear each boot type for three days to see how easily they could be broken in. After that, they tested the boots for wear and comfort until February 1961.[3]

    1956 Ankle Boots. Lee Hawkes Collection
    Sole of 1956 Ankle boots. Lee Hawkes Collection

    The result of the trial was the adoption of the Ankle Boot Rubber Sole (Ankle Boot RS). An ankle boot similar in design to the current boot, the Ankle Boot RS was several ounces lighter than those currently in use, also included was rotproof terylene stitching and nylon laces. The nylon laces were so popular with the troops that all the boots returned after user trials came back without laces. The new design had a “Commando” style rubber sole. The Commando style rubber sole was developed in the 1930s by English rubber maker Itshide, who switched from producing toys and brushes to producing this new kind of rubber sole for use on army boots during WWII. The benefit of the Commando sole was the grip provided by the shape of the jagged cleats on the sole, which proved ideal for providing stability on the roughest terrain. The New Zealand version of the Commando sole had slightly shallower cleats with an angled edge to prevent mud or small stones from wedging between them and was marketed as the “Kiwi Army Boot”. Production of the New Zealand Ankle Boot RS began in August 1961; however, with large quantities of the previous type of boot still in the supply system, it would take until 1964 to waste out the old stock.[4]

    As with the previous boot design, the Ankle Boot RS required wearing a gaiter to prevent mud and derbies from entering the boot. The type of gaiter then in use was the 37-pattern web gaiter. Concurrent with the boot trial, thirty pairs of Australian Army gaiters were also tested. The long dark green Australian gaiter was introduced into Australian service in 1945 and had a light metal stiffener up one side to prevent wrinkling and a strap passing under the boot’s instep. Finding favour with the troops, these were also planned to be adopted for the New Zealand Army. However, problems in adopting the Australian gaiter would drive the development of the next iteration of New Zealand’s Army Boot.[5]

    A pair of Australian Army canvas gaiters painted black. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C993356

    Although the Australian gaiter could have probably been purchased off the shelf directly from Australian manufacturers, such items should have been manufactured in New Zealand. However, it was found that due to the exorbitant costs encountered in producing the Australian pattern gaiter in New Zealand, this project was abandoned, and the gaiter requirement was re-evaluated. Although no specific General Staff requirement was stated, it was decided to develop a calf-length boot to replace the Ankle Boot RS and 37-pattern gaiters with a calf-length combat boot.

    New Zealand 37-pattern Gaiter. Lee Hawkes collection

    Based on the new Ankle Boot Rubber Sole (Ankle Boot RS), two high boots, type A and B, were manufactured by experienced New Zealand footwear manufacturers Sargood, Son and Ewen.[6] The type A and B boots included hooks instead of eyelets and a strap and buckle arrangement similar to the American M-1943 Combat Boot.  

    United States Army M-43 composition sole combat service boot, or “double buckle boot”. https://www.usww2uniforms.com/BQD_114.html

    As a result of the initial user trials in New Zealand and Malaysia using the Type A and B boot, the design of the boot was refined into the Type C boot. In May 1964, ten examples of the Type C Boot were manufactured, incorporating improvements suggested by the user trials:

    • The sole and foot portion to be exactly the same as the Ankle Boot RS.
    • The height from ground level to the top of the boot was to be 101/2 inches.
    • There were to be six eyelets on the lower portion of each side of the closure and six boot hooks on the higher portion of each side (similar to the green jungle boot issued in Malaya).
    • The boot tongue was to be of a thinner variety and should not be longer than the height of the boot.
    • There were to be no straps or buckles.
    • The measurement around the top of the boot was to be no greater than 121/2 inches from edge to edge.[7]

    Successful feedback on the Type C boot saw a small number purchased and introduced into service in June 1966 to enable further trials to be carried out to determine if the new pattern boots were suitable for combat in tropical conditions. Further trials by New Zealand Forces in South Vietnam and selected units in New Zealand commenced in November 1967

    With the New Zealand contingent in South Vietnam serving alongside the Australians, the length of the New Zealand contingent’s supply chain and its low requirements made it necessary to modify the clothing replenishment system and link into the Australian lines of supply, resulting in New Zealand troops in Vietnam receiving Australian tropical clothing and boots.[8] This was a modification of the system used in Malaysia since 1955, when New Zealand troops in Malaysia drew their tropical clothing requirements, including jungle boots, from British sources.

    Concurrent with New Zealand’s combat boot development was an Australian programme to develop a modern combat boot. Initially utilising jungle boots left over from the Second World War, the Australians soon developed and trialled a new DMS boot design with leather uppers and a moulded sole. After some initial user trials, an initial order of 10,000 pairs of the new Australian DMS Combat boot was placed in July 1956 for delivery to Australian troops in Vietnam by December 1965.[9]

    Australian Black leather general purpose (GP) boots. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1195209

    By 1968, New Zealand troops in South Vietnam were officially utilising the trial New Zealand combat boot and the Australian DMS Combat boot. Unofficially many New Zealand troops also wore the America Jungle boot. A survey conducted at the start of the November 1967 trial showed that 108 New Zealand soldiers preferred the Australian boot and only 42 the New Zealand boot. A further survey conducted in March 1968 revealed that 121 New Zealand soldiers preferred the Australian boot. The most significant reasons given for the preference were that the Australian boot was:

    • Lighter and more robust than the NZ item.
    • Had a directly moulded sole.
    • It was made of better-quality leather.
    • Had a vastly superior appearance.
    • It had a very good and snug fit when broken in.
    Private Wayne Lindsay, Whiskey One Company, inspects an RSA Christmas parcel from New Zealand circa 1968. Note that Private Lindsay is wearing the American Pattern Jungle boots, and there are Australian DMS Combat boots and New Zealand Combat boots under his bed. Image courtesy Noel Bell via https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/photo/private-wayne-lindsay-rsa-christmas-parcel

    Feedback also included the increasingly evident requirement for a Jungle boot similar to the United States pattern to be provided to New Zealand Forces in tropical environments.[10]

    After the November 1967 operational and training trials of the New Zealand combat boot, it was found that the recommendations of the various trial teams were not in agreement, and a Footwear Study Group was appointed to review the trial information.[11] In July 1969, the Footwear Study Group concluded that the New Zealand Combat boot, with certain modifications, was superior to the ankle Boot RS in meeting New Zealand training conditions. However, it was agreed that the New Zealand Combat Boot did not meet the tropical operational requirements, and further research was required to find a boot to meet New Zealand’s tropical requirements. US, Canadian, and UK policies supported this, concluding that one boot could not satisfy both a temperate and tropical requirement. It was noted that the Australians restricted their DMS combat boot to South Vietnam, with troops in other theatres outside Australia continuing to wear ordinary boots and gaiters; however, the US tropical combat boot was procured for issue in South Vietnam to the Australian SAS only. Overall, the New Zealand findings were that the main advantage of the New Zealand Combat Boot was that it could replace two items (Ankle boot RS and gaiter); it provided superior ankle and instep support and improved appearance, and it should be accepted as a replacement for the Ankle Boot RS. A tropical patrol boot was also recommended to be developed to meet the specific environmental conditions found in Southeast Asia.[12]

    There was little doubt that the Australian DMS combat boot was more popular with New Zealand troops. It was accepted that the DMS production technique proved a superior product, but at the time, New Zealand’s footwear industry did not yet have the required technology to manufacture DMS boots, but there was no doubt that the New Zealand Combat boot would incorporate a DMS sole at a future date as New Zealand industry caught up. However, adopting the New Zealand Combat boot would be based on fiscal reasoning. Based on the 1969 production run of 2893 pairs for New Zealand Vietnam Force maintenance, the cost of a pair of New Zealand combat boots was $10.50 (2022 NZ $200.20), compared to $19.23 (2022 NZ $366.64) for the Australian DMS boots. With the Ankle Boot RS priced at $8.18 (2022 NZ $156.61) and Garters at $1 (2022 NZ $19.15), it was considered that a superior boot was replacing two items (Ankle boot RS and gaiter) with only a slight increase of the cost. [13]

    On 3 December 1969, the New Zealand Combat Boot was renamed as the Boot GS (High) and formally introduced into service to progressively replace the Ankle boot RS and gaiter as existing stocks of those items wasted out and all period contracts for their manufacture terminated.[14]

    With a stock of 19,120 Ankle Boots RS and 21,612 Web Anklets held in Ordnance Depots and Clothing Stores, the priority of issue for the introduction of the Boot GS (High)was to:

    • NZ Forces in Southeast Asia
    • Regular Force Recruits
    • Regular Force maintenance in New Zealand
    • The Territorial Force

    The Boot GS (High) nomenclature had been changed to Boot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP) by February 1971. With 12,126 pairs of Ankle Boot RS remaining in stock, it was anticipated that with issues to National Service intakes and the Territorial Force, stocks would be exhausted by the end of 1971.[15]

    During the New Zealand Combat Boot trial, it was identified that cooks of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) required a boot with a flat sole for safety on wet surfaces. Fortunately, the Government Footwear Inspector had developed Cooks Galley Boots at Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) instigation in the mid-1960s. First adopted by the RNZN and then the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF), consideration to issuing RNZASC Cooks Galley boots were first made in 1968.[16] With a non-skid pattern rubber sole and a continuous leather front to stop spilt boiling fat and other liquids from entering the boot, RNZASC user trials were conducted from 1970 with initial issues to all RNZASC cooks from 1972.[17]

    By February 1974, New Zealand’s Forces in South Vietnam had been withdrawn, and the tripartite Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom (ANZUK) Force based in Singapore had been dissolved. The 1st Battalion Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (1RNZIR) and its supporting units remained in Singapore as the New Zealand army components of the New Zealand Force Southeast Asia (NZFORSEA). Logistic arrangements in place since 1955, which allowed New Zealand to rely on the British for tropical clothing and equipment, had progressively been wound down from the late 1960s as New Zealand developed and grew its line of tropical clothing. Although the development of a tropical patrol boot had been recommended to be developed to meet the specific conditions found in Southeast Asia, the transition of New Zealand Army units in Singapore to a peacetime garrison and peacetime funding restrictions saw the requirement for a New Zealand jungle boot placed on the back burner. The Boot Man GP was found to be sufficient for most training in the tropics. Although many individuals purchased surplus American, British or Malaysian jungle boots and some small-scale unit trials did occur, the development of a New Zealand jungle boot ceased.

    In 1980 the New Zealand footwear manufacturer John Bull won the contract for the supply of combat boots to the New Zealand Military. Already a manufacturer with a high reputation and experienced in producing military footwear, John Bull’s manufacturing processes were enhanced through a significant equipment and modernisation program. The John Bull-manufactured Boot Man GP was a DMS boot that retained the same style of leather uppers as the previous boot. New Zealand also supplemented stocks of the John Bull Boot GP with the Australian pattern DMS Combat Boot manufactured in New Zealand by King Leo. Both patterns of Boot GP were progressively introduced into service from 1980, with stocks of the previous Boot GP wasted out by 1985.

    The New Zealand Army finished the Second World War with pretty much the same boot that had been issued to soldiers in 1912. However, the lessons of the Second World War and developments in boot technology had not gone unnoticed. With the assistance of the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Association, footwear manufacturers and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, a New Zealand Combat boot was developed. Due to the limitations of the technology available to New Zealand’s footwear industry, New Zealand’s efforts would always be five to ten years behind those of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. However, a viable and cost-effective boot that met most of the training and operational requirements of the New Zealand army throughout the 1970s and 80s resulted from New Zealand’s limited resources. Although this article only provides an overview of New Zealand’s combat boot development, it provides a starting point for further research into this overlooked aspect of New Zealand’s military history.


    Notes

    [1] “General News – Army Boots,” Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28883, 1 May 1959.

    [2] Although the United Kingdom accepted and introduced it into service in 1961, the UK DMS boot was rejected by New Zealand because, at this stage, it could not be made in New Zealand. “Many Changes in Gear for Modern N.Z. Soldier,” Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28958, 28 July 1959.

    [3] “New Army Boots Now in Production,” Press, Volume C, Issue 29594, 17 August 1961.

    [4] Ibid.

    [5] Army 213/19/69 Footwear for the NZ Army Dated 7 August 1969. “Boots and Shoes – Development of Combat Boots,” Archives New Zealand No R17187902  (1963-1969).

    [6] 213/19/55/Q(D) Purchase of High Boots for user trials 26 May 1964. Ibid.

    [7] 213/19/69 7 May 1964. Ibid.

    [8] “New Combat Clothes Being Tested,” Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30802, 14 July 1965.

    [9] “Boots Trouble Aust. Troops,” Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30801, 13 July 1965.

    [10] HQ NZ V Force 212/19/69 Footwear Trials 9 April 1968. “Boots and Shoes – Development of Combat Boots.”

    [11] Army 213/19/69/SD Footwear Study Group 23 October 1968. Ibid.

    [12] Army 213/19/69 Footwear for the NZ Army 14 July 1969.Ibid.

    [13] Army 213/19/69 Footwear for the NZ Army 7 August 1969. Ibid.

    [14] Army 213/19/69DQ(M) dated 3 December 1969. Ibid.

    [15] HQ Home Command HC 8/6/1/ORD 1 Introduction of Boots Mans GP 26 April 1971. Ibid.

    [16] Army 213/19/69 Footwear for the NZ Army 7 August 1969. Ibid.

    [17] HQ Home Command HC 8/6/1/ST Boots Galley Cooks 11 May 1972. Ibid.


    New Zealand Military Load Carrying Equipment, 1945 – 1975

    Military Personal Load Carrying Equipment, often referred to in the New Zealand vernacular as “webbing”, is the assortment of belts, straps, pouches and other accessories which, when assembled, allows an individual soldier to easily and comfortably carry the tools of their trade, such as ammunition, rations and water to sustain them for short periods. Many period photos of New Zealand soldiers on operations and training from the Vietnam War era to the 1990s provide the impression of an army equipped with an eclectic range of Australian, British and American equipment. This view of New Zealand’s army’s equipment was partly correct. To see how this view was shaped, this article provides an overview of New Zealand’s military load-carrying equipment evolution from 1945 to 1975.

    Commander-in-chief, United States Army of the Pacific, General R.E Haines (right) watching weapon training at Waiouru. 2 May 1970 Evening Post

    During World War Two, Operations in Malaya, Burma and the Pacific identified many shortfalls in the suitability of training, tactics and equipment, resulting in the Lethbridge Mission to the Far East during the late war. As a result of the report of the Lethbridge Mission, it was decided to modify the standard 37-pattern equipment to make it lighter in weight, rot-proof and more water-repellent and thus more suitable for use in tropical conditions. This development of the 37-pattern equipment led to the approval of a new pattern known as the 1944-pattern.[1] Post-war, further development of the 37 and 44-Pattern equipment led to troop trials of the Z2 experimental Load Carrying Equipment, which transitioned into the 1958-pattern equipment.[2]

    Following World War Two, the Load Carrying Equipment in use by the New Zealand Army was the British 1937-pattern equipment. The 37-pattern equipment was introduced into New Zealand service in 1940, replacing the 1908-pattern equipment that had been in service since 1912. As 37-pattern equipment remained the standard web equipment of the New Zealand Army, the deployment of New Zealand troops to Malaya placed New Zealand in the position of deploying troops to a theatre with equipment that had long been identified as unsuitable. To maintain compatibility with other commonwealth forces in Malaya, 44-pattern equipment from British stocks in Malaya was issued to New Zealand troops in Malaya.

    Example of 37-pattern equipment. Image: Simon Moore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwnMIdynO8Y

    . Given the environment that New Zealand troops could be expected to operate in and aware of the developments in load-carrying equipment, the New Zealand Chief of General Staff (CGS) requested and received one set of M1956 Web equipment from the United States for trials in 1959.[3]  The American M1956 Load-Carrying Equipment (LCE) had been accepted for United States Army service, with distribution well underway by 1961.

    In October 1960, the New Zealand Director of Infantry and Training demonstrated the following web equipment to CGS.

    • 44-pattern Equipment
    • 58-pattern Equipment
    • M1956-pattern Equipment

    A report by a New Zealand Officer attached to the Australian Jungle Training Centre at Canungra supported this demonstration with a comprehensive report describing the research and development of Infantry clothing and equipment undertaken by the Australians. The New Zealand report described the Australian trials of the M1956 LCE alongside the 58-pattern equipment. The M1956 was chosen by the Australians, who intended to manufacture it in Australia.[4] However, it was considered unlikely that either the 1956 LCE or 58-pattern equipment would be available to New Zealand until at least 1965, when the initial distribution to the United States and British armies was expected to be completed. Aware that all 44-pattern equipment had been earmarked for use in Malaysia and that it was still in production, New Zealand’s CGS approved the purchase of 6000 sets of 44-pattern equipment to re-equip elements of the New Zealand Army.[5]

    Example of 44 pattern equipment, British Corporal, Malaya, Early 1950s. Image Simon Moore https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2346362332163840&set=a.421629590114595

    Following advice from the UK, the 44-pattern equipment in use with the Fare East Land Forces (FARELF) was to be wasted out as the 58-pattern equipment was introduced, implying that the New Zealand Battalion would need to be equipped with the 58-pattern equipment before the ceasing of maintenance of the 44-pattern by FARELF. With this in mind, a recommendation was made to purchase 6000 sets of 58-pattern equipment instead of the 44-pattern equipment.[6]

    Example of 58-pattern equipment. Image Simon Moore. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=2080097568790319&set=pcb.2080098398790236

    In a June 1961 memorandum to Cabinet, the Minister of Defence highlighted that the current 37-pattern equipment used by the New Zealand Army was not designed for Jungle operations and was unsuitable for carrying the extra equipment the soldier engaged in this type of warfare required. No longer used by the British Army in any part of the world, the stage had been reached where the replacement of the 37-pattern should be delayed no longer. As the 58-pattern could not be made available to New Zealand for some time and field trials had cast doubt on its suitability for use in the Southeast Asia theatre, it was considered that re-equipping of the New Zealand Army should proceed with the 44-pattern equipment. The 44-pattern equipment had proved itself and was known to be suitable in the theatre where New Zealand troops were most likely to be employed. It was assumed that by the time the 44-pattern equipment needed replacement, the full facts on the suitability of the 58-pattern and the M1956 web equipment would be available to make a more informed decision on its adoption by New Zealand. It was recommended that Cabinet approve £45645 plus freight to purchase 6000 sets of 1944 Pattern equipment. [7]

    By October 1961, it became clear that the 58-pattern was to be the standard issue web equipment for all United Kingdom forces worldwide and that distribution to the forces in Malaya was to happen much earlier date than earlier expected. Because of this, the Army secretary desired further investigations on the suitability of 58-pattern web equipment and, if favourable, confirm costs and potential delivery dates. With the requirement for web equipment again in flux, the submission to purchase 6000 sets of 44-pattern equipment was withdrawn pending further research.[8]

    By May 1962, plans for reorganising the New Zealand Army from a Divisional to Brigade Structure were under implementation.[9]  With approximately 50000 complete sets of 37-pattern equipment distributed to units or held in stores, this was deemed suitable to equip the bulk of the Territorial Force and Training units. The 58-pattern equipment was now in serial production and was the standard issue for all United Kingdom troops, with distribution to operational units in Malaya and Germany underway. Information received earlier was that because of limited production, stocks of 58-pattern would not be available for release to New Zealand for some years had been revised. It was now possible that the release of 58-pattern equipment to meet New Zealand’s requirements could be achieved earlier than anticipated. Based on this revised information, New Zealand’s Cabinet approved funding of £58750 on 10 October 1961 for 6000 sets of 58-pattern Web Equipment. [10]

    Before placing a firm order for New Zealand’s requirements of 58-pattern equipment, reports received from Malaya in late 1962 indicated that the 58-Pattern equipment was, in its present form, unsuitable for use in operational conditions in South-East Asia.[11] It was anticipated that modifying the 58-pattern equipment to suit the conditions would take two to three years, an unacceptable delay in procurement as far as New Zealand is concerned.[12]

    As the decision on New Zealand’s web equipment remained in flux, the New Zealand Battalion in Malaysia continued to be equipped with the 44-pattern equipment maintained under a capitation agreement with the United Kingdom. At New Zealand’s expense, one hundred sets of 44-pattern equipment were also maintained at New Zealand Battalion Depot at Burnham Camp to support reinforcements.

    M1956 Web Equipment

    As the time factor involved in modifying the 58-pattern equipment was unacceptable, and New Zealand was receiving an increasing amount of American equipment, the American M1956 pattern web equipment was decided to trial. The M1956 equipment had already been introduced into the Australian army, so twenty sets were purchased from Australian stocks for New Zealand’s trials.[13]

    Following user experience in Malaya revealing that the 58-pattern equipment was falling short of the requirements for jungle operations, a series of investigations and user trials established that the US M1956 pattern equipment was suitable for use by the New Zealand Army. The funding for 6000 sets of 58-pattern Web Equipment was requested to be reprioritised to purchase 10000 sets of M1956 equipment direct from the United States and 400 sets of 44-pattern equipment to equip the increment for the FARELF held in New Zealand.[14]

    With funding endorsed by the Minster of Defence and approved by the Cabinet, orders were placed for 10000 sets of M1956 web equipment direct from the United States. The first consignment arrived in New Zealand in early 1964, with 289 sets immediately issued to the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) and 16 Field Regiment, Royal New Zealand Artillery.

    Instructions for distributing the M1956 web equipment were issued in June 1964 by the Quartermaster General. The initial purchase of 10000 sets of M1956 web equipment was to be issued to the Combat Brigade Group (CBG) and Logistic Support Group (LSG) units. Units of the Combat Reserve Brigade Group (CRBG) and Static Support Force (SSF) were to continue to use the 37-patten webbing.

     NMDCMDMOD (for CMD Trentham UnitsSMDMOD StockIssued SAS/ 16 Fd Regiment
    CBG & LSG312230304012028310289
    1st Reinforcement Reserve3162606198  
    School of Infantry 40    
    TOTAL343833304072226310289

    As the issue of M1956 equipment progressed, units of the CBG and LSG were to hand back stocks of 37-pattern equipment to their supporting District Ordnance Depot except for

    • 08-pattern packs and straps
    • 37-pattern belt, waist web
    • Frogs bayonet No 5[15]

    The 37 Pattern belt, waist web, was to be retained by all ranks as a personal issue authorised by NZP1 Scales 1, 5, 8 or 9. The belt and bayonet frog were to be worn with Nos 2A, 64, 6B, 7A and 7B orders of dress when other equipment items were not required to be worn.

    Equipment Maintenance Policy Statement (EMPS) 138/67 issued by Army Headquarters on 20 November 1964 detailed that except for the CBG and LSG, 16000 sets of 37-pattern equipment were to be maintained for use by remaining elements of the New Zealand Army.[16]  EMPS 145/65 was issued on 12 February 1965, detailing the management of 44-pattern equipment in New Zealand. The First Battalion of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (1RNZIR) in Malaysia was to remain equipped with the 44-pattern web equipment maintained by the UK under the existing capitation agreement. Other than 100 sets of 44 Pattern Web equipment maintained at the Battalion Depot in Burnham, there was no provision for equipping 1RNZIR Reinforcements and increments of 31 Medium Radio Sub Troop who could be expected to deploy to Malaysia at any time. EMPS 145/65 rectified this by establishing a stockholding of 400 sets of 44-pattern equipment at the Main Ordnance Depot (MOD) at Trentham

    Approval was granted in November 1965 by Army HQ for the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps (RNZAC) and NZSAS to blacken their M1956 web equipment. The Royal New Zealand Provost Corps (RNZ Pro) was also approved to whiten their M1956 web equipment. This approval only applied to unit holdings, not RNZAC, NZSAS or NZ Pro members attached or posted to other units.[17]

    By April 1967, most of the New Zealand Army was equipped with the M1956 equipment. The exceptions were.

    • The New Zealand Forces in Malaysia and South Vietnam, who used both the M1956 and 44-pattern equipment
    • The SSF, National Service Training Unit (NTSU) and New Zeeland Cadet Corps (NZCC), who still retained the 37-pattern equipment

    The manufacture of 37-pattern equipment had long been discontinued, and New Zealand stocks had reached the point where although having considerable holdings of individual items, based on the belts as the critical item, only 9500 sets of 37-pattern equipment could be assembled.

    Based on the projected five-year supply to the NTSU, Army Schools, Camps and the NZCC plus 10% maintenance per annum, there was a requirement for 12000 sets of 37-pattern equipment. Arranging production to meet the shortfalls was deemed cost-prohibitive, and as continued maintenance could not be guaranteed, it was decided that additional sets of M1956 equipment were to be purchased. The additional sets were to be purchased on a phased program over several financial years, with 5000 sets of 37-pattern retained for the NZCC.

    Disposal of the 37-pattern was to be phased over three years.

    • 1967 all items surplus to 9500 sets
    • 1968 3000 Complete sets
    • 1969 all remaining 37 Pattern equipment less 5000 sets for the NZCC.[18]

    M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE)

    In 1967 the New Zealand Army trialled three sets of the M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE). Not specifically designed to replace the M1956 equipment, the M1967 equipment was designed for use in tropical environments and was introduced into the United States Army service in 1968.

    The New Zealand trials found that the M1967 equipment was comfortable and weight-wise was similar to other web equipment in use. The pack worn on the belt was found to be heavy when fully loaded, and a pack similar in size to the 44 Pattern should be introduced, and the belt pack reduced in size by one-third.

    It was identified that all the pouches required stiffening and that the plastic fasteners were not firmly attached to the pouches, although easy to operate. While using Velcro was found simple to operate, it was seen as a disadvantage due to noise and its inclination to pull apart when wet or under stress.[19]

    Although the M1956 was still being introduced into the New Zealand Army, limited quantities of the M1967 equipment were introduced from 1969-72 with no plans for large-scale procurement. Nevertheless, the design of the M1972 All-Purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment (ALICE) incorporated many of the features of the M1967 equipment, and it was introduced into the New Zealand Army service in the 1980s.

    Example of M-1967 MLCE. Image Simon Moore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwj59bifFMk

    Although the 44-pattern web equipment continued to be used by New Zealand units in Southeast Asia, by October 1967, the decision had been made to standardise the M1956 equipment across the New Zealand Army, and no stocks of the 44-pattern equipment were to be retained in New Zealand.   All stocks of 44-pattern web equipment held by the MOD in Trentham for 1RNZIR Reinforcements and increments of 31 Medium Radio Sub Troop were issued to 1 RNZIR based at Terendak camp in Malaysia. As this stock held by 1RNZIR was wasted out, it would be replaced by M1956 web equipment. [20]

    Large Ammunition Pouches

    The Australian experience had shown that although the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR) Magazines fitted inside the M1956 ammunition pouch, it was a tight fit, especially when the webbing was wet. The initial solution was to modify 37-pattern pouches and fit them to the M1956 equipment. By 1967 the Australians had developed an indigenous ammunition pouch for the M1956 equipment., The Australian Ammunition Pouch Large (8465-66-026-1864) was manufactured out of cotton duck material and measured 81/4 inches high by 4 inches wide and 3 inches deep.

    Australian Pouch Ammunition Large

    To ascertain the suitability of the Australian large ammunition pouch for New Zealand service, fifty Australian pouches were sourced as a standardisation loan in 1968.[21] Feedback for the troop trials identified a lack of stability in the closure of the lid, causing the loss of ammunition and magazines. Following an investigation by the R&D Section, the RNZAOC Textile Repair Sections (TRS) modified the Australian pouches by replacing the lid fasteners with the same fasteners found on the standard American M1956 pouch and stiffing the fastener tabs. The modifications proved satisfactory in further Army Trials, and a new specification (DRDS-ICE-1) was produced with four Standard Samples provided to 1 Base Ordnance Depot (1 BOD).[22]  The modified New Zealand Pouch was codified in the New Zealand supply system as Pouch Ammunition Large (6746-98-103-4039).[23]

    Detail of New Zealand Large Ammunition Pouch riveted lid fasteners

    Although the R&D Section had ascertained that the manufacture of the pouches was possible in New Zealand using imported components, the initial production run of 20000 pouches was contracted through the Australian Department of Supply to be included in the current Australian production run.[24]  By 1974 the first production run of 20000 had been completed and returned to 1 BOD for distribution, with 2/1 RNZIR in Burnham one of the first units to receive the new pouches. In May 1974, 2/1 RNZIR submitted defect reports stating that the pouches were poorly designed, with the canvas tongue used to secure the lid failing, pouches becoming insecure, and magazines dropping out.[25]

    The investigation by the Directorate of Equipment Policy and the R&D Section found that the faults were not a design problem but a quality assurance issue in that the pouches had not been manufactured following the specification.[26]   Comparing the Australian-manufactured pouches against the specification, the R&D Section identified the following visually detected defects.

    1. Canvas used to manufacture strap-holding assembly instead of webbing.
    2. Clip end strap is wrongly sized.
    3. Release tab is of incorrect thickness.
    4. Polypropylene stiffener not inserted in release tab.
    5. The male fastener is not secured to the PVC stiffener.
    6. The reinforcement piece behind the male fastener is not included (between the PVC stiffener and lining).
    7. Additional smaller reinforcement piece inserted between the outer cover and the male fastener.
    8. Broad arrow marked on the outer cover and not specified.

    Of these defects, only serials 3 to 7 were directly considered to contribute to the deficiencies and the initial concerns raised by 2/1RNZIR and would require rectification, and a modification instruction was produced.[27]  Modification of the pouches would take until September 1977 to be completed.[28]

    Due to the Broad Arrow Mark included on the first batch of 20000 New Zealand Large Ammunition Pouches, collectors often misidentify these items as Australian pouches.

    White Web

    By 1973, 37-pattern belts, rifle slings and bayonet frogs remained in use as ceremonial items. Whitened using proprietary shoe cleaner and paint, these items were badly worn with the whitener flaking easily and were easily marked by weather, fingerprints and the rubbing of other equipment. The M1956 pattern web belt was not considered suitable as a replacement as it was operational equipment requiring the breaking up of complete web sets to provide items for ceremonial events. Following the British lead, the Army Dress Committee approved a polythene, four-ply woven fabric of similar appearance and texture to the 37-pattern equipment in October 1973 as a replacement for the whitened 37-pattern equipment. The sling and bayonet frog designed for the SLR would be purchased with chromed or brass fittings. The material for the belts was provided on rolls which could be cut to the required size. Buckles and keepers were 37-pattern buckles and keepers drawn from existing stocks that had been chromed and polished.[29]

    Combat Pack

    By 1974, one of the few pre-1945 items of load-carrying equipment remaining in New Zealand service was the 08-pattern pack. Long identified as an unsuitable item, several trials had been conducted since the mid-1960s to find a replacement combat pack. Although a few alternative items had been investigated as a replacement, the 08-pattern pack remained the principal combat pack of the New Zealand Army.

    In 1969/70, the requirement for 15000 combat packs to replace the 08-pattern pack was identified. Following evaluation by the equipment sponsor, the Australian Army Combat Pack was selected as a basis for developing a New Zealand combat pack. The Australian pack was chosen from a wide range of military and civilian packs, with the design modified to meet the particular training requirements of New Zealand. The modifications to the Australian pack were limited to comply with the following:

    • The pack must be compatible with Australian Army equipment.
    • The pack must be compatible with M1956 equipment currently in New Zealand service.

    Against the advice of the R&D section, the Australian pack was modified by the New Zealand Army without a proper study being conducted.[30] The decision to bypass the R&D process resulted in a prototype process that extended from 1972 to 1974.[31] By June 1974, trials on the prototypes resulted in the setting of a standard design for a production run of one hundred packs for further trials.[32]

    New Zealand modified Combat pack

    The New Zealand version of the Australian combat pack was eventually accepted into service in 1975/76. Never a satisfactory pack, the R&D section began investigations to find a replacement in the early 1980s. Hoping to leverage the experience of New Zealand Mountaineers to produce a modern pack, Army R&D embarked on the Onward Pack project. Manufactured by Hallmark Industries of Hamilton, the Onward pack was an innovative modular design that allowed the main pack to be broken down into a patrol pack and a light belt order,

    The Basic layout of the Onwards pack was a main compartment divided into a main compartment and a sleeping bag compartment divided by a zip-away divider. The upper compartment was divided into the main storage area and internal space for an AN/PPC-77 set. External access to the main compartment was via a large snow collar with outlets for the radio antenna and handset built into the lid. External access to the lower sleeping bag section was provided by a zip which allowed the bottom half of the compartment to drop down. Internal sleeping mat storage was included as part of the harness and backpack. Three external removal pouches were provided, one on each side attached by domes and a larger pouch mounted on the centre front of the pack by buckles body. Behind the Large centre pouch, securing straps were provided to secure an Entrenching Tool. These three external pouches were fitted with belt loops, which allowed them to be removed and fitted to either the pack’s waist belt or standard pistol belt as a light belt order.

    A small patrol pack designed to hold an ANPRC-77 Set was also provided as part of the Onward pack., The patrol pack could be mounted to the top of the Onward Pack or by utilising the pack’s shoulder straps, worn as a standalone pack. The Patrol pack was also fitted with a fluorescent recognition panel in a zip-up compartment.

    Despite the host of features and the additional space provided compared to the Australian pack, the Onward Pack was fraught with issues. The proprietary plastic clips were prone to failure, and the body-hugging ‘alpine’ design caused causing severe prickly heat on users in the tropics of Southeast Asia. These and other issues with the Onward Pack contributed to an extended development period as attempts were made to rectify them. As these and other minor faults were addressed to meet the immediate needs of users while the Onward Pack was perfected, the medium American ALICE pack was introduced as an interim replacement in 1984.[33] Eventually, attempts to rectify the Onward Pack were abandoned and the ALICE pack was formally adopted as the New Zealand Army pack.

    Conclusion

    Entering the Second World War with web equipment of the same pattern used since 1912, New Zealand’s Force soon began to be re-equipped with the most modern British web equipment, the 37-pattern from early 1940. Near the end of the war, New Zealand was kept abreast of the development of web equipment, and when New Zealand troops arrived in Malaya in the early 1950s, they were issued with the most modern type available for jungle warfare, the 44-pattern. As the New Zealand Army reorientated from providing a division to serve in the Middle East to providing a Brigade Group to serve in Southeast Asia, it could not wait for the British to develop their new 58-pattern for tropical conditions and examine other types. Following Australia’s lead, the American M1959 equipment was adopted in 1964, with components of this type serving thought to the early 2000s. With five types of web equipment either adopted or trialled between 1945 and 1974, it is no surprise that components got intermingled. This led to Kiwi soldiers’ preferences and experiences leading them to create webbing sets that they found practicable rather than options prescribed in SOPs or instruction books leading to the outside impression of the New Zealand army been one equipped with an eclectic range of Australian, British and American equipment.


    Notes

    [1] 86/Development/47 (SWV1) Report on the Development of Personnel Fighting and Load Carrying Equipment 1942-48 February 1949. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189098 (1944 -1966).

    [2] 86/Dev/54 (SVW1) Instruction for troop trials of Z2 Experimental Load Carrying Equipment ibid.

    [3] New Zealand Joint Services Mission Washington DC JSM 1/3/13 ARM US Army Load Carrying Equipment (Web) dated 23 September 1959ibid.

    [4] Attachment to JTC – Canungra dated 21 October 1960 “Stores – New Infantry Equipment for New Zealand Army,” Archives New Zealand No R17189007 (1959-1970).

    [5] Army 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment dated 20 December 1960 “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

    [6] Army 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment dated 20 December 1960ibid.

    [7] Memorandum Minister of Defence to Cabinet dated June 1961ibid.

    [8] 246/60/12/adm Army Secretary to Minister of Defence 2 October 1961ibid.

    [9] Damien Fenton, A False Sense of Security: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978, Occasional Paper / Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand: No. 1 (Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington, 1998), 111-20.

    [10] Army 246/60/12/Q(E) Brigade Group Equipment Replacement Web Equipment dated 8 May 1962 “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.” -pattern equipment

    [11] BM 2 to FE16002SD General HQ FELF to The War Office (Brig Q Eqpt) 1958 Pattern Web Equipment dated 4 October 1962: ibid.

    [12] 57/62 NZ Army Liaison Staff, London to Army HQ dated 17 October 1962 ibid.

    [13] Army 246/60/12Q(E) Sample US Pattern Web Equipment dated 12 December 1962 ibid.

    [14] 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment for the Field Force dated 18 October 1963 ibid.

    [15] Army Reqn 208/63/Q(E) dated 9 June 1964 -Distribution of M1956 Web Equipment “Cookers – Web Equipment: Pattern ’37,” Archives New Zealand No R17189095 (1940-1971).

    [16] EMPS 138/64 of 20 Nov 1964 ibid.

    [17] Army HQ Army246/60/12/PS3 of 19 Nov 1965 ibid.

    [18] Defence (Army) 246/60/2 of 26 April 1967 ibid.

    [19] 1 Ranger Squadron NZSAS, Trial Report US Lightweight Equipment dated 21 March 1968″Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189099 (1966 -1969).

    [20] Army 246/60/12/Q(E) EMPS 145/65 Frist Revise dated 5 October 1967 ibid.

    [21] “Cookers  – Web Equipment: Slings, Bandoliers, Ammunition Pouches: Development,” Archives New Zealand No R17189101 (1968-1970).

    [22] Def HQ/R&D Section 82/1974 dated 28 Jun 1974.”Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches,” Archives New Zealand No R17231111 (1972-1977).

    [23] 246/60/2 of 122055ZNOV70 NZDWN to 1BOD Trentham “Cookers – Web Equipment: Pattern ’37.”

    [24] Army 246/60/70 dated 9 December 1971. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches.”

    [25] FF 65/38/18/SD Modification of Ammunition Pouch item 10 May 1974. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

    [26] Army 246/60/17/EP. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches.”

    [27] R&D Section Minute no 160/1975 dated 21 November 1975. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

    [28] Army 246/60/17/SP 22 Pouches Ammunition 22 September 1977. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

    [29] “Army Dress Committee Decision – White Web,” Archives New Zealand No R17188112 (1973).

    [30]  R&D Section 67/1974 Packs Combat date 13 June 1974. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Waterproof Pack,” Archives New Zealand No R17231110 (1972-1974).

    [31] Army 246/60/12/EP Sponsor Enquiry Field Pack Olive Green 2 July 1972. Ibid.

    [32] Army 246/60/12/ EP Minutes of the final meeting on the acceptance of the Combat Pack held at Army General Staff on 8 June 1973. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984,” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).

    [33] Inf 26.3 Minutes of a meeting to consider Project Foxhound developments held at Army General Staff 8 June 1984. Ibid.


    Behind the scenes at Takapau

    It is said that a picture says a thousand words, and this postcard of the Takapau Divisional Camp of April-May 1914 is such a picture. While it tells part of the story of the neatly 4839 Territorials who attended the camp, it also provides an insight into the tremendous logistical effort by the Defence Stores Department to provide the stores and equipment required by the largest Territorial camp ever held in New Zealand.

    Between April and May 1914, 18,882 Territorial Soldiers of New Zealand’s citizen army attended five main camps across New Zealand. 

    • the Auckland Military Districts camp was at Hautapu, near Cambridge,
    • the Canterbury Military Districts camp was split between Kowai, near Springfield, with the Marlborough and Nelson units camping at Tapawera, near Nelson.
    • the Otago Military Districts Camp was at Matarae, in Central Otago
    • The Wellington Military Districts were held at Takapau in Hawkes Bay.

    To oversee the management of the Camp Equipment and other Ordnance Stores required, the District Storekeepers of each Military District were appointed as Ordnance Officers for the duration of the camp and provided with a staff of eighteen Territorial Soldiers trained in the duties required of an Ordnance Depot.

    The District Storekeepers were

    • Honorary Lieutenant William Thomas Beck, District Storekeeper, Auckland
    • Honorary Lieutenant Arthur Rumbold Carter White, District Storekeeper, Christchurch
    • Honorary Lieutenant Mr Owen Paul McGuigan, District Storekeeper, Dunedin
    • Mr Frank Edwin Ford District Storekeeper, Nelson
    • Honorary Major James O’Sullivan, Defence Storekeeper Wellington

    Based on the numbers that attended the Takapau Camp and the Camp Equipment scale of 1913, the following quantities indicate the Camp Equipment required. Provided from the Defence Stores in Wellington, two trainloads were required to move the stores from Wellington to Takapau to pre-position before the camp.

    • Axes, felling, helved, 122
    • Axe. Pick, 160
    • Buckets, Water, 1937
    • Basins, Wash hand, 2023
    • Boilers with lid, 20 Gal, 100
    • Boilers with lid, 9 Gal, 100
    • Candlesticks, bayonet, 2023
    • Choppers, Meat, 100
    • Crowbars (if required) 190
    • Dishes, meat, 1711
    • Kettles, camp, 1543
    • Lantern s, stable, 348
    • Racks, arm, tent (Large loop), 1259
    • Spades, 274
    • Shovels, 274
    • Tents, circular, complete, 1773
    • Marquees, 65
    • Ropes, picket, 20 yards 115
    • Brooms, bass, 128
    • Sheets, ground, 8350
    • Rakes, iron 16in ,128

    How much of this equipment was available in the District Storehouses is unknown. However, it is known that in 1914 the NZ Military had a sufficient stock of tents to accommodate the whole Territorial Force at the full establishment, including

    • 3651 tents (circular)
    • 181 marquees,
    • 30 operating tents, and
    • 98 bivouac tents

    The concept of the Camp Ordnance Depots was that as the unit advance parties arrived, the required number of camp equipment stores were issued from the Ordnance Depot to the unit Quartermaster Staff, usually under the control of the Regimental Quartermaster Sergeant.

    On completing the camp, the RQMS was required to return all the stores to the Ordnance depot and remain available to finalise any accounts for losses and damages. Following the closedown of the camp, the stores were then loaded onto trains and returned to the District Stores, ready for the next activity.

    The Ordnance Depots also held a stock of clothing and equipment available as replacements or for sale. For example, the Takapau Camp Ordnance Depot sold 1000 boots and 250 blankets.

    The Divisional Camps of 1914 were only the second time Ordnance Depots had been established at annual camps and proved successful. There is no doubt that they would have stood up again for the planned camps in 1915. However, the logistical framework of the 1914 Divisional Camps served as a dress rehearsal for the August 1914 mobilisation and contributed to the raising and dispatching overseas of the largest, best trained and equipped force to be dispatched from this country in the 20th century.