New Zealand Army Stores Accounting: 1845-1963: Part 1 -1845 -1918

The evolution of New Zealand Army stores accounting from 1845 to 1963 reflects the broader transformation of the nation’s military logistics from its colonial origins to a modern, structured system. This study is not a deep dive into the intricate details and complexities of New Zealand military stores accounting but rather an introductory overview of a system that has incrementally evolved over 180 years.

Initially modelled on British military accounting principles, New Zealand’s unique defence requirements—shaped by its geographical isolation, force structure, and operational demands—necessitated continuous refinement. Accounting practices have continuously evolved since the first musket was issued to the militia in 1845. However, it wasn’t until The Public Stores Act of 1867 that structured inventory control and accountability measures were formally introduced. This legislation laid the foundation for military store accounting, marking a significant step towards the professionalisation of the Defence Stores Department. These measures ensured crucial oversight and efficiency in military logistics, particularly highlighted by the demands of the South African War and the two World Wars, underscoring the need for a robust and adaptable system capable of sustaining large-scale military operations.

By the mid-20th century, New Zealand had developed a sophisticated store accounting framework. The introduction of NZP1: Volume I—Stores Accounting in 1951 marked a milestone, formalising the policy regulating the army’s store management. The subsequent 1962 revision further streamlined procedures, ensuring the system remained relevant amid evolving logistical complexities.

New Zealand’s innovations in stores accounting did not go unnoticed. In 1963, the Australian Army sought guidance from New Zealand to modernise its system, acknowledging the effectiveness of the NZ Army’s approach. This recognition underscored New Zealand’s competence in military logistics, demonstrating that despite its smaller size, its expertise had broader strategic significance.

Structure of this Study

  • Part One will examine the period from 1845 to 1918, tracing the evolution of New Zealand’s military stores accounting system from its British colonial origins to a structured, modern framework comparable to those of New Zealand’s allies by 1914. The demands of the First World War tested the system’s efficiency and resilience, exposing strengths and weaknesses that would shape post-war reforms.
  • Part Two will cover the period from 1918 to 1945, during which the lessons learned from the First World War were applied to improve inventory control, procurement efficiency, and financial oversight. Economic constraints of the interwar years prompted refinements to stores accounting, leading to the introduction of cost accounting in 1921 and the formalisation of logistical procedures in 1927. The rapid mobilisation for the Second World War tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, accelerating the adoption of modernised inventory tracking and decentralised supply chain management. By 1945, these wartime adaptations had laid the foundation for a more sophisticated and accountable military logistics system.
  • Part Three will examine the period from 1946 to 1963, focusing on the transition from wartime supply chains to a peacetime military logistics infrastructure. The post-war period saw efforts to streamline surplus disposal, re-establish long-term procurement strategies, and integrate emerging technologies into stores accounting. By 1963, the system had matured into a mature manual store accounting framework, ensuring greater efficiency, accountability, and interoperability.

Military Stores Accounting and Its Distinctions from Commercial Stores Accounting

The primary goal of military stores accounting is to ensure that soldiers on the frontlines, tradesmen in workshops, and medical staff in field hospitals have the necessary tools and equipment to carry out their duties effectively. This involves managing administrative burdens through the command and supply chains and ensuring all required controls are in place for the long-term sustainment and capability maintenance.

Military stores accounting is a specialised system designed to manage and track the acquisition, storage, distribution, and disposal of military supplies. Unlike commercial stores accounting, which primarily focuses on cost control and financial profitability, military stores accounting prioritises accountability, operational readiness, and the efficient utilisation of resources to meet operational outputs.[1]

Differences Between Military and Commercial Stores Accounting

FeatureMilitary Stores AccountingCommercial Stores Accounting
ObjectiveEnsuring operational readiness and accountabilityMaximising profit and minimising costs
Nature of InventoryIncludes depreciable assets, expendable, consumable, repairable, and non-expendable itemsPrimarily consumable and depreciable assets
Accounting SystemUses strict regulatory frameworks and controlled issue systemsFocuses on balance sheets and profit margins
Lifespan of ItemsItems can remain in service for decades with periodic refurbishmentItems are typically depreciated and replaced
ValuationBased on operational utility rather than market priceBased on market valuation and depreciation
Security and ControlStrict control due to security concernsLess stringent control mechanisms

Classification of Military Stores

Military stores are classified into several categories based on their usage, longevity, and maintenance requirements:

  1. Expendable Stores – Items that are used once and cannot be reused (e.g., ammunition, medical supplies, fuel). These are issued as required and accounted for under strict consumption controls.
  2. Consumable Stores – Items that are used over time and require replenishment (e.g., rations, lubricants, batteries). While they are used up gradually, they still require accountability and stock rotation.
  3. Repairable Stores – High-value equipment that, when damaged or worn, can be repaired and reissued rather than disposed of (e.g., weapons, radios, vehicles). These items are often tracked using maintenance logs and servicing records to maximise their lifespan.
  4. Non-Expendable Stores – Permanent assets that remain in service for extended periods (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, large-calibre weapons). These items require detailed asset management and condition assessments.

The Long-Term Use of Military Equipment

Unlike commercial organisations, where items are often replaced once they end their economic life, military assets— from clothing to high-value or technologically complex equipment—are maintained, refurbished, and upgraded to extend their service life. For example:

  • Small Arms: Some rifles and sidearms remain in service for decades through regular maintenance and upgrades.
  • Vehicles: Military transport vehicles, such as trucks and armoured vehicles, can be refurbished multiple times before decommissioning.
  • Aircraft and Naval Assets: Large defence assets, including ships and aircraft, are often modernised with new technology and systems rather than being replaced outright.
  • Uniforms and Gear: Certain clothing items and equipment are subject to phased replacement cycles, where only components are updated as needed.

The Importance of Accountability in Military Stores Accounting

Military regulations are always subservient to Government legislation and regulations, especially Treasury rules regarding the expenditure of public monies. Military stores accounting is not a single system, but a collection of specialised accounting frameworks developed to manage different commodities such as ammunition, rations, fuel, vehicles, and technical spares. As military technology has advanced, these systems have evolved parallel to meet modern armed forces’ complex logistical demands.

Accountability is central to military stores accounting, ensuring that every piece of issued equipment is tracked to guarantee:

  • Proper usage and maintenance,
  • Prevention of loss or theft,
  • Compliance with operational requirements,
  • Efficient resource allocation during deployments.

Military store personnel are responsible for maintaining detailed records, conducting audits, and ensuring strict adherence to regulations. These rigorous accounting and inventory control measures ensure that military resources remain available and serviceable when required. Beyond merely tracking financial transactions, military stores accounting is a critical function that underpins military operations’ effectiveness, security, and sustainability.

Early Developments in Stores Accounting

From 1845, Quartermaster staff managing militia stores and then Volunteer stores from 1858 followed British military procedures. The Defence Stores were formally established in 1862, predating Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton’s appointment as Inspector of Defence Stores in 1869. Although Gorton assumed leadership in 1869, the Defence Stores had already been functioning, supporting the colonial military effort.[2]

Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton

The 1867 Public Stores Act, implemented under Gorton’s administration, introduced structured accounting procedures.[3]  The Defence Stores Department issued circulars and administrative guidelines to ensure proper accountability and management of military supplies. Gorton’s rigorous approach laid the foundation for the 1871 Public Stores Act, which regulated government-wide stores management and standardised accounting practices.[4]

1870-ammunition-stocktake

Despite Gorton’s achievements in strengthening accountability, his strict enforcement and meticulous oversight drew criticism, leading to the abolition of the Stores Inspection Department in 1877.[5]  However, his Defence Stores procedures remained robust, and a culture od accountability was established within Defence Stores. Thirty years later, Colonel George Macaulay Kirkpatrick of General Kitchener’s staff validated them in 1910, finding them comparable to British military standards.

Stores records were maintained by a system of indents and vouchers, with balances maintained in ledger books. The Defence Stores were required to provide annual reports of stocks on an annual basis, ensuring accountability and transparency in military logistics. These practices laid the foundation for the modern systematic inventory control and efficient stores management.

Example of a Ledger book

Development of the Artillery Stores (1880s Onwards)

As New Zealand expanded its Garrison Artillery and introduced new guns, equipment, and ammunition, additional accounting and management procedures became necessary. This was beyond the scope of the existing Defence Stores Department, requiring the expertise of military professionals.

In conjunction with Defence Storekeeper Captain Sam Anderson, Sergeant Major Robert George Vinning Parker, formerly of the Royal Garrison Artillery, developed a system of Artillery Stores Accounting. Parker was in charge of artillery ledgers and stores at Auckland, Wellington, and Lyttelton, ensuring the proper tracking and maintenance of artillery supplies. He continued in this role until 1889 when he was reassigned to Dunedin.[6]

Replacing Parker as the Artillery Ledger Keeper was Regimental Sergeant Major and Instructor in Gunnery Frederick Silver. Silver’s expertise in artillery logistics positioned him as a key figure in the continued refinement of artillery accounting systems. Following the death of Captain Sam Anderson in December 1899, Silver applied for the role of Ledger Keeper in the Defence Stores. Given his extensive experience and close working relationship with Anderson, Silver believed he was the ideal candidate.[7] However, due to his seniority, James O’Sullivan, the Chief Clerk of the Defence Stores, was awarded the role of Defence Storekeeper.[8]

Despite this, Silver was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Defence Stores, transitioning from the Permanent Militia on 25 June 1900. While his new role introduced additional responsibilities, Silver managed Artillery Ledgers seamlessly within the Defence Stores framework.[9]

The relationship between the Defence Stores and the Artillery was cooperative, with both functions operating as a single organisation. The Defence Stores was crucial in supporting the artillery’s logistical needs, ensuring that munitions, equipment, and essential supplies were readily available. The interconnected nature of these two functions allowed for a streamlined approach to military logistics, where artillery-specific requirements were integrated within the broader supply framework managed by the Defence Stores.

This integration led to an efficient system that balanced military necessity with stringent logistical oversight.

Organisational Reforms and the Defence Council (1906)

With the passage of the Defence Act Amendment Act 1906 on 28 October 1906, the Defence Council was established, providing the New Zealand Military Forces with a structured headquarters for the first time. The Act introduced specific staff functions, including:

  • Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance): Responsible for artillery armament, fixed coastal defences, and ordnance supplies.
  • Director of Stores: Responsible for clothing, personal equipment, accoutrements, saddlery, harnesses, small arms, ammunition, machine guns, transport, vehicles, camp equipment, and all stores required for the Defence Forces.[10]

As part of this reform, James O’Sullivan was confirmed as Director of Stores for New Zealand and appointed Quartermaster and Honorary Captain in the New Zealand Militia. Silver was designated as Assistant Defence Storekeeper, continuing to oversee Artillery Ledgers, which—despite falling under the purview of the Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance)—remained under Defence Stores control.

Despite these improvements, officers and Quartermaster staff in volunteer units were still elected annually, leading to inconsistency in stores management. Many units functioned more like social clubs than military organisations, resulting in disorganised stores accounts. This led to frequent discrepancies between supplies provided by the Crown and actual inventory.

The continued reliance on part-time and volunteer Quartermasters highlighted the need for further professionalisation of the quartermaster within the New Zealand Military, a challenge that would persist as the New Zealand Military transitioned into the modern era.

The Defence Act 1909 and the Transition to a Citizen Army

The Defence Act 1909 marked a significant transformation in New Zealand’s military organisation, laying the groundwork for a citizen-based Territorial Army and ending the Volunteer System.[11] This fundamental shift required extensive adjustments within the Defence Stores Department to support the expanding force structure.

For O’Sullivan, Silver, and the Defence Stores Department, the challenge was to continue modernising stores and logistics to meet the demands of a rapidly growing army. As the Territorial Force expanded, so did the logistical requirements, necessitating a more structured and professional approach to store management.

On 1 June 1910, Silver’s position was redesignated as Assistant Director of Military Stores, and he was appointed a Quartermaster with the rank of Honorary Lieutenant in the New Zealand Militia. His expertise and leadership played a crucial role in ensuring the Defence Stores Department could support the evolving needs of the New Zealand Military.

Guidance on the duties related to the management of stores

In 1910, Lord Kitchener, renowned as “The Empire’s foremost soldier,” visited New Zealand and thoroughly reviewed its military forces.[12]  His assessment led to significant reforms within the NZ Military, including establishing the New Zealand Staff Corps (NZSC) and the New Zealand Permanent Staff (NZPS) in 1911. These changes aimed to create a professional cadre of officers (NZSC) and enlisted personnel (NZPS) capable of providing expert guidance and efficient administration to the Territorial Force units.

Lord Kitchener’s visit critically evaluated the military’s capabilities, revealing deficiencies in equipment care, maintenance, and overall responsibility. The existing Regimental Quartermaster Sergeants (RQMS) lacked the necessary skills, underscoring the need for a professional RQMS cadre.

The Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand, which came into effect on 5 May 1911, established the command and administrative structure of the Forces.

The overall responsibility for military stores and equipment was placed under the Commandant of the Forces, with specific duties delegated to key officers and commanders at various levels.

Senior Officers Responsible for Stores and Equipment

  • Quartermaster General
    • Managed mobilisation stores, including policies on reserves of clothing, equipment, and general stores.
    • Determined scales of clothing, equipment, and stores needed for troops.
    • Oversaw mobilisation arrangements for food, forage, clothing, stores, and equipment.
  • Director of Supplies and Transport
    • Managed the supply of food, forage, fuel, and lighting.
    • Responsible for Army Service Corps technical equipment.
  • Director of Equipment and Stores
    • Oversaw clothing, equipment, and general stores.
    • Managed supplies of stationery, forms, and books.
    • Provided vehicles and technical equipment, except those for Artillery and Engineers.
    • Supervised the storage and distribution of small arms and ammunition.
  • Director of Ordnance and Artillery
    • Established reserve scales for arms, ammunition, and technical equipment for Artillery and Engineer units.
    • Managed the provision and inspection of guns, small arms, and ammunition.
    • Oversaw machine guns, Artillery and Engineer vehicles, and technical stores.
  • Director of Medical Services
    • Provided advice on and inspected all medical equipment to ensure it met operational standards.
  • Director of Veterinary Services
    • Provided expert advice on veterinary stores and equipment.

District and Unit Responsibilities

At a regional level, Commanders of Districts were responsible for maintaining the efficiency of forts and armaments, including all associated buildings, works, stores, and equipment. They also played a key role in ensuring financial prudence by overseeing officers responsible for spending and stores management.

At the unit level, the Commanding Officer had a broad set of responsibilities, including:

  • Maintaining discipline, efficiency, and proper administrative systems within the unit.
  • Ensuring accountability for public equipment, clothing, and stores.
  • Overseeing the maintenance and cleanliness of all issued arms.
  • Managing the proper receipt and distribution of rations and fuel.
  • Ensuring daily ration inspections were conducted in the presence of an officer.

Other Regimental Officers, such as Company Commanders, even those in temporary appointments, were also responsible for:

  • The equipment, ammunition, clothing, and stores assigned to their company.
  • Ensuring soldiers maintained personal cleanliness and proper care of their uniforms, arms, and accoutrements.
  • Supervising the quality and adequacy of rations provided to troops.

Finally, the 1911 Regulations clearly stated that any officer or individual responsible for public stores was strictly forbidden from lending any article under their charge unless expressly sanctioned by their Commanding Officer (CO). This regulation reinforced strict accountability and control over military stores, ensuring that all equipment, clothing, and supplies were used solely for authorised military purposes. [13]

To maintain proper accountability and management of military stores, Defence Stores personnel and unit Quartermasters followed detailed policies and procedures outlined in official publications, including:

  • Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand
  • Financial Instructions and Allowances Regulations for NZ Military Forces
  • Regulations for Clothing and Equipment of NZ Military Forces
  • NZ Dress Regulations
  • Prices Vocabulary of Stores
  • NZ Mobilisation Regulations

Additional guidance was also found in operational reference materials, such as:

  • Field Service Regulations
  • Training Manuals
  • Field Service Pocket Books

The responsibilities established in 1911 laid the foundation for the structured management of military stores, setting a precedent for all future stores accounting procedures. These early frameworks ensured accountability, efficiency, and operational readiness, embedding core logistical principles underpinning military supply chain management today. While titles and organisational structures have evolved, the fundamental tenets of logistical oversight, resource management, and financial accountability have remained steadfast. Successive iterations of Defence Orders, regulations, and policies have refined and expanded these responsibilities, ensuring their continued relevance and adaptability to the evolving operational and strategic needs of the New Zealand Defence Force in the modern era.

Standardising Stores Management and Training

In November 1911, thirty young men from military districts attended an intensive three-week training course at the Defence Stores Department in Wellington to address this. This comprehensive training, overseen by O’Sullivan, included:

  • Weapon storage, inspection, maintenance, and accounting
  • Storage, inspection, and maintenance of leather items (e.g., saddlery and harnesses)
  • Storage and upkeep of canvas and fabric equipment
  • Packing procedures for stores
  • Maintenance of records and documentation

The candidates successfully passed the examinations and were appointed as RQMS under General Order 112/10. Notably, this was the first military trade-related stores course conducted in New Zealand.

“Staff of the Quarter-master General—men who passed as Quarter-master instructors and are being drafted to the various districts, Colourised by Rairty Colour

To ensure consistency across districts, a conference of District Storekeepers was held in Wellington in August 1913. O’Sullivan noted their dedication to maintaining accountability for government property, highlighting their investment in their work.

Historically, annual military camps were managed ad hoc with inconsistent equipment scales. With the establishment of the Territorial Army, the Defence Stores Department introduced standardised camp equipment requirements in 1913.

To streamline supply chain management, temporary Ordnance Depots were established at brigade camps in 1913. Personnel received training under the Director of Equipment and Stores, and roles were assigned as follows:

  • Ordnance Officer: District Storekeeper Auckland (Lieutenant Beck)
  • Two clerks
  • Four issuers

Following the success of the 1913 camps, the system was expanded in 1914, with each regional storekeeper acting as an Ordnance Officer and staff numbers increasing to six clerks and twelve issuers.

Takapau Divisional Camp, 1914. Te Papa (1362454)

Strategic Assessment, Preparedness and Mobilisation

In early 1914, General Sir Ian Hamilton inspected New Zealand’s forces, assessing approximately 70% of personnel. He noted that the Territorial Force was “well-equipped and well-armed” but recommended looking to Australian models for future Ordnance development. O’Sullivan’s annual report for 1914 confirmed that the Defence Stores Department was in a strong position, with ample stocks of small arms, ammunition, clothing, and web equipment.

The 1914 mobilisation was the first test of the reorganised and reequipped New Zealand military forces since the South African War. The challenge was immense: raising, equipping, and dispatching an expeditionary force while maintaining the coastal defence garrisons and the Territorial Army for homeland security. O’Sullivan’s Defence Stores supported this effort, which, under his leadership, played a crucial role in successfully mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF).

The groundwork for the NZEF was laid in March 1914 when General Alexander Godley issued mobilisation regulations, adapted from British Army directives, to guide the formation of an expeditionary force. New Zealand’s commitment to supporting Britain in the event of war had been reinforced at the 1907 and 1911 Imperial Conferences, yet it was only in 1912 that Godley, confident in the growth of the Territorial Army, shifted focus to preparing for an overseas force.

As part of this preparation, Godley identified three likely tasks for the NZEF:

  1. Seizure of German Pacific possessions.
  2. Deployment to protect Egypt from a Turkish attack.
  3. Fighting in Europe alongside British forces.

By mid-1914, New Zealand’s military reorganisation was three years into an estimated seven-year process.

Although at full operational strength, confidence in the military’s preparedness was high. Annual training camps had been completed, and unit stores had been restocked. A major stocktake was planned for August 1914—marking the first such effort in two years, as the 1913 stocktake had been postponed due to industrial strikes.

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 set off a chain of events leading to war. On 30 July, Defence Headquarters instructed District Headquarters to begin precautionary war preparations. By 1 August, partial mobilisation schemes were underway, and further instructions on the composition of the NZEF followed on 2 August.

Each military district contributed a fully equipped infantry battalion, a mounted rifle regiment, artillery, engineers, and medical subunits. These units were to be drawn from the permanent forces, Territorial Force, and reserves. District Storekeepers supported by unit Quartermasters were critical in equipping these units with stores drawn from existing regiments and regional mobilisation depots.

On 3 August, Quartermaster General (QMG) Colonel Alfred William Robin issued detailed instructions regarding individual equipment. Territorial soldiers were to report with their complete kit, while reservists would collect theirs from their regiments. Quartermaster staff were given guidance on recording the transfer of equipment in regimental ledgers.

With war declared, New Zealand’s government announced on 7 August that an Expeditionary Force of 7,000–8,000 men would be mobilised. The response was overwhelming, with thousands of volunteers rushing to enlist. Having had several days’ notice, District Headquarters swiftly implemented mobilisation plans.

Godley’s assumption that the NZEF’s first task would be the seizure of German Pacific territories was proven correct. By 11 August, the New Zealand force for German Samoa—comprising 1,413 personnel—was fully equipped by the Defence Stores and ready for deployment. Additional stores were assembled at Wellington’s wharf for embarkation. The force landed on 29 August, securing Samoa without resistance.

Meanwhile, mobilisation camps were established across New Zealand:

  • Auckland (Alexandra Park) – District Storekeeper Captain William Thomas Beck set up a mobilisation store, assisted by Sergeant Norman Joseph Levien.
  • Christchurch (Addington Park) – Captain Arthur Rumbold Carter White managed the Canterbury District mobilisation store.
  • Dunedin (Tahuna Park) – Captain Owen Paul McGuigan handled equipping recruits, many of whom had no prior military training.
  • Wellington (Awapuni Racecourse) – The Defence Stores in Wellington directly supported the mobilisation effort.

As the central hub for Defence Stores, Wellington managed the receipt and distribution of equipment nationwide. Public appeals were made for short-supply items like binoculars and compasses. On 14 August, approval was granted for each soldier to receive a second pair of boots—typically, the second pair had to be purchased at a reduced rate.

Mobilisation was not simply a matter of sending troops overseas; it also involved ensuring the ongoing reinforcement of the NZEF and maintaining the Territorial Army at home. Planning for NZEF reinforcements commenced alongside the main mobilisation effort to sustain the force in the field. It was determined that 20% reinforcements would be provided six weeks after the NZEF’s departure, with a further 5% arriving monthly thereafter.

Trentham Camp was selected as the primary training and equipping centre for reinforcement drafts, where the Camp Quartermaster Stores, under Lieutenant (Temporary Captain) Thomas McCristell, played a critical role in ensuring personnel were properly outfitted before deployment. The scale of this task was immense, with store personnel working late into the night to issue uniforms and equipment to the steady stream of reinforcements. While the focus remained on sustaining the NZEF, efforts were also required to maintain the Territorial Army at home, ensuring a trained force remained available for local defence and future deployments. Mobilisation was not a single event but a continuous process that demanded careful logistical planning and execution to sustain the war effort.

Beyond issuing equipment, the Camp Quartermaster Stores also served as a training ground for new Quartermasters destined for overseas service. Selected candidates underwent instruction in key logistical functions, including clothing and equipping troops, managing camp equipment, organising ammunition supplies, and overseeing water distribution and field kitchen setup. This training ensured that reinforcements were well-equipped and supported by skilled personnel capable of sustaining operations in the field.

By September 1914, the Defence Stores had successfully equipped the NZEF. On 24 September, General Godley thanked the Defence Stores staff for their efforts, acknowledging their crucial role in the mobilisation process. However, controversy soon followed.

On 26 October, after ten days at sea, Godley sent a note to Minister of Defence Colonel James Allen, alleging irregularities in Defence Stores operations and implying that O’Sullivan and his staff might be engaging in misappropriation. Despite recognising O’Sullivan’s significant contributions, Godley recommended auditing the Defence Stores’ accounting systems. This unfounded allegation ultimately led to O’Sullivan’s resignation, overshadowing the department’s achievements in successfully mobilising and equipping both the Samoa Expeditionary Force and the NZEF.

New Zealand’s largest military deployment to date placed immense logistical demands on the Defence Stores. The department leveraged pre-war procurement contracts while employing competitive tendering to secure uniforms, equipment, and supplies. This approach facilitated rapid expansion, with Buckle Street in Wellington emerging as a key logistical hub. However, the sheer volume of supplies soon exceeded capacity, necessitating the leasing of commercial storage facilities beyond the department’s central depots in Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin.

As military activity intensified, the establishment of the Palmerston North District Store in early 1915 significantly enhanced logistical capabilities, particularly for units stationed in the lower North Island. This expansion underscored the growing need for decentralised supply operations, improving the efficiency of equipment distribution.

The rapid wartime expansion placed immense strain on both personnel and logistics. Despite increasing responsibilities, the department received only minimal increases in permanent staff, forcing heavy reliance on temporary workers to meet operational demands.

As the war progressed, concerns over procurement methods and accounting procedures led to mounting external scrutiny. In 1915, a Commission of Inquiry was launched to examine the Defence Stores’ business practices, financial controls, and purchasing procedures. While the Commission found no evidence of misconduct, it recommended procedural improvements to enhance transparency and efficiency. In response, the government established the Ministry of Munitions, which took over procurement and supply chain management, streamlining logistical operations..

Supporting the NZEF (1915–1921)

The New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) formed its own New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) in 1915, recognising the need for a more structured military logistics system. This corps provided dedicated logistical support for the NZEF and residual units until 1921. This development was critical as the demands of modern warfare required a more organised and professional approach to supply chain management, equipment maintenance, and ordnance distribution.

Initially, the NZEF relied heavily on British supply lines and logistical structures, with Quartermasters embedded within units managing day-to-day supply requirements. However, as operations expanded and the need for self-sufficiency grew, the establishment of the NZAOC provided a more formal system of procurement, storage, distribution, and maintenance of military stores. The Centre of mass for the NZAOC within the New Zealand Division was the Assistant Director of Ordnance Stores (DADOS) and his staff, who operated in concert with regimental quartermasters, who remained responsible for issuing and maintaining personal and unit equipment at the frontline.

Quartermasters played a pivotal role in ensuring that troops were properly equipped, fed, and clothed and worked closely with the NZAOC to ensure seamless logistical support across different theatres of war, from Gallipoli to the Western Front and the Middle East.

By 1918, the NZAOC had become a critical component of the NZEF’s supply chain, with depots in the UK and the DADOS operating dumps in key operational areas. As the war concluded, the Corps played a crucial role in the demobilisation process, managing the return of surplus equipment, disposal of unserviceable stores, and redistributing serviceable assets to remaining military units and government departments.

The NZAOC continued to support New Zealand’s post-war military commitments until 1921. The lessons learned during the Great War laid the foundation for future developments in ordnance and supply management, shaping the logistics framework of the post-war army.

The role of Quartermasters and the NZAOC in supporting the NZEF between 1915 and 1921 was instrumental in ensuring that New Zealand troops remained equipped and operationally effective throughout the war. Their contributions sustained the force in combat and established enduring logistical principles that continued influencing military store management in the following decades.

Home Service Stores Accounting

On the home front, military authorities pushed for the complete militarisation of stores accounting, aiming to align New Zealand’s system with British Army Ordnance practices. This led to a significant leadership change in 1916, with Major Thomas McCristell replacing James O’Sullivan as Director of Equipment and Stores. Under McCristell’s leadership, the department underwent a comprehensive reorganisation, transitioning into a formal military structure.

By 1 February 1917, the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department (NZAOD) and NZAOC were officially established, replacing the Defence Stores Department. This milestone ended 48 years of civilian-led military logistics, marking a shift towards a fully integrated, military-controlled Ordnance service.

Concurrent with the establishment of the Home Service NZAOC, formal Ordnance Procedures were published, and the Regulations for the Equipment of the New Zealand Military were updated. These replaced all previous instructions and formed the foundation for New Zealand’s modern military logistics system.

Conclusion: Towards a Modern Military Stores Accounting System

The period from 1845 to 1918 laid the foundational principles of New Zealand Army stores accounting, evolving from ad hoc militia supply practices to a structured, professional system aligned with British military standards. Early efforts, such as the 1867 Public Stores Act and the establishment of the Defence Stores Department, introduced much-needed oversight and accountability, ensuring military forces were adequately equipped for colonial conflicts and later global engagements.

The early 20th century saw increasing refinement in stores management, with greater formalisation under the Defence Act 1909, the creation of a structured supply organisation, and the introduction of rigorous accounting and inventory control measures. The mobilisation for World War I tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, demonstrating their strengths and the need for further development. The establishment of the NZEF NZAOC in 1915 and the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department and Corps in 1917 signified a pivotal transformation, shifting military logistics from civilian oversight to a dedicated military-run system. The experiences of World War I reinforced the importance of accurate, efficient, and adaptable stores accounting systems, setting the stage for continued evolution in the interwar and post-World War II periods. The next part of this study, New Zealand Army Stores Accounting: 1919–1945, will examine how the lessons learned from wartime operations influenced peacetime logistics, the modernisation of accounting frameworks, and the growing role of technology and centralised control in military supply chain management.


Notes

[1] Australian Defence Force, “Logistics Series – Supply,” Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 4.3  (2004): 1.1-1.16.

[2] “Colonial Defence Force Act 1862,” ed. General Assembly of New Zealand (1, Wellington, 1862). http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/cdfa186226v1862n32291/.

[3] General Assembly of New  Zealand, “The Public Stores Act 1867,”  (1867), http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_bill/psb1867831178.pdf.

[4]“The Public Stores Act 1871,” ed. General Assembly of New Zealand (Wellington, 1871).;”Lieut-Colonel Edward Gorton,” New Zealand Gazette, Issue 1, 26 January 1872, 619.

[5] “Reductions,” Thames Advertiser, Volume XI, Issue 2938, 30 May 1878, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THA18780530.2.10.; “The Government Brander,” Saturday Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 130 (Wellington), 5 January 1878, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SATADV18780105.2.13.

[6] Archives New Zealand, “Robert George Vining Parker,” Personal File, Record no R23513898 (Wellington) 1885-1925, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE18683088.

[7] Archives New Zealand, “Frederick Silver,” Personal File, Record no R23513983 (Wellington) 1976-1900, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE19149654.

[8] “Defence Storekeeper Appointed,” New Zealand Gazette No 98 p. 2154., 29 November 1900, 4.

[9] Archives New Zealand, “Frederick Silver.”

[10] “Defence Act Amendment Act 1906 (6 EDW VII 1906 No 41),” 1906, accessed 30 December 2021, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/daaa19066ev1906n41250/.

[11] Peter Cooke and John Crawford, The Territorials (Wellington: Random House New Zealand Ltd, 2011), 153.

[12] Paul William Gladstone Ian McGibbon, The Oxford companion to New Zealand Military History (Auckland; Melbourne; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2000), 369.

[13] “Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand “, New Zealand Gazette 5 May 1911.;


Linton Camp: The Evolution of a Military Logistics Hub

For 80 years, Linton Camp has played a pivotal role in military logistics for the New Zealand Army. Initially established to support ordnance storage and supply, it has become a key logistics hub. Despite its strategic significance, much of its infrastructure has remained unchanged for decades, reflecting a broader trend of neglect and underinvestment in military logistics. This article explores the historical development of Linton Camp’s warehousing functions, infrastructure challenges, and the long-overdue investment in modern facilities to enhance its operational effectiveness. While this article serves as a starting point for discussions on NZDF logistics modernisation, it is not intended to provide a strategic and comparative analysis of broader defence policies.

Early Developments: Palmerston North’s Ordnance Store (1914–1921)

In 1914, Major James O’Sullivan, Director of Equipment and Stores, recommended establishing a district store in Palmerston North to improve distribution efficiency and reduce transport costs. This led to the creation of the Palmerston North Ordnance Store in early 1915, managed by District Storekeeper Frank Edwin Ford.

NZ Army Ordnance Stores, 327 Main Street, Palmerston North circa 1930. Palmerston North Libraries and Community Services
NZ Army Ordnance Stores, 327 Main Street, Palmerston North circa 1930. Palmerston North Libraries and Community Services

With the formation of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) on 1 July 1917, the Palmerston North Ordnance Store was incorporated as the “Palmerston North Detachment – NZAOC.” However, by December 1921, the detachment was disbanded as part of post-war reorganisation efforts.

World War II and Post-War Expansion (1941–1957)

The onset of World War II necessitated a major expansion of military logistics infrastructure. In early 1942, the Central Districts Ordnance Depot (CDOD) was established at the Palmerston North Showgrounds. This was later renamed No. 2 Ordnance Sub Depot on 1 August 1942. By 1943/44, the Main Ordnance Depot in Trentham established a Bulk Sub-Depot at Linton Camp to support Central District operations.

Palmerston North Showgrounds, Cuba Street, 1939. Palmerston North Libraries and Community Services

A fire at No. 2 Ordnance Sub Depot on 31 December 1944 caused stock losses amounting to £225,700 ($38.5 million in 2024). Despite this, the depot remained operational until 14 December 1945, when its functions were transferred to Trentham’s Main Ordnance Depot and Linton’s Bulk Sub-Depot.

Recognising the need for sustained logistical support, No. 2 Ordnance Depot was re-established at Linton Camp on 1 October 1946, absorbing the Bulk Sub-Depot from Trentham. Under Captain W.S. Keegan’s command, the depot also maintained ammunition sub-depots at Belmont, Makomako, and Waiouru, a vehicle sub-depot at Trentham, and a stores sub-depot at Waiouru. In 1948, the depot was officially reverted to its 1942 designation of CDOD.

Throughout the late 1940s and 1950s, storage facilities at Linton, which utilised many of the wartime buildings, were expanded, including the construction of warehouses CB26 and CB27 on Dittmer Road between 1949 and 1950. However, infrastructure challenges persisted, culminating in another fire in one ordnance store on 15 February 1953, destroying a significant quantity of stores and records valued at £11,695 ($1.4 million NZD in 2024).

Buildings CB26 and CB27 on Dittmer Road

Infrastructure Challenges and Growth (1957–1990s)

In 1957, the Central Districts Vehicle Depot (CDVD) was relocated from Trentham to Linton, requiring the transfer of prefabricated buildings from Fort Dorset (CB14, CB15, CB16, and CB17). Storage limitations remained a persistent issue, prompting a 1958 site investigation that recommended constructing a 125,000 sq. ft. (11,612.88 sq. m) ordnance depot as part of a broader Logistic Precinct, integrating RNZASC and RNZEME elements. However, the project never materialised, leaving temporary prefabricated buildings—intended as a short-term solution—still in use today.

Central Districts Ordnance Depot, Linton Camp 1958
Central Districts Vehicle Depot and Central Districts Ordnance Depot, C1959

Infrastructure expansion continued, with CDOD completing a new headquarters building (CB18) in 1961 and a dedicated clothing store (CB4) in 1963. In 1968, the depot was rebranded as 2 Central Ordnance Depot (2COD), and plans were made to expand the clothing store by 45,000 sq. ft. (4,180.64 sq. m). Budget constraints later reduced the extension to 25,000 sq. ft. (2,322.57 sq. m), with construction completed by 2 Construction Squadron, RNZE in 1972. 5 Movements Company, RNZALR, now utilises this building.

2COD/2 Supply warehouse

On 16 October 1978, the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) transferred supply responsibilities to the RNZAOC, leading to the formation of 2 Supply Company. This company absorbed 24 Supply Platoon (Rations) and assumed control of the RNZASC Ration Store. By 1990/91, the original 24 Supply Platoon Ration Store located by the railhead outside of Linton Camp was decommissioned and replaced with a purpose-built ration store.

Reorganisations continued, with 2 Supply Company being redesignated as 5 Composite Supply Company in 1985 and 21 Supply Company in 1990. In 1992, the Ready Reaction Force Ordnance Support Group (RRF OSG) was transferred from 3 Supply Company in Burnham and absorbed into 21 Field Supply Company, supported by the construction of additional low-cost shelters (CB34a, CB34b, and CB35).

Modernisation Efforts and the Linton Regional Supply Facility (2024–Present)

Despite ongoing structural changes, Linton’s logistical buildings have remained largely unchanged for decades, with some of its warehouses now over 80 years old. The reliance on ageing infrastructure has long underscored the broader challenges facing NZDF logistics, with minimal investment in modernisation.

Recognising these deficiencies, the NZDF has finally committed to a major infrastructure upgrade with the construction of the Linton Regional Supply Facility. Ground was broken in late 2024, with work commencing in February 2025. This long-overdue project will consolidate multiple logistics functions into a single, modern building designed to streamline military supply operations.

According to Deputy Chief of Army, Brigadier Hamish Gibbons:

“The Linton Regional Supply Facility will provide a modern and fit-for-purpose capability for our logistics personnel. It will allow us to effectively and efficiently manage and control the limited resources we have, ensuring they are available to enable training and operations.”

This investment marks a significant step towards addressing Linton’s decades-long neglect of logistics infrastructure. While Linton’s legacy in army warehousing is one of adaptability and endurance, its continued effectiveness in a modern defence environment will depend on sustained commitment to infrastructure development and logistical efficiency.

Conclusion

Linton Camp’s role in New Zealand’s military logistics has evolved significantly since its early days as an ordnance sub-depot. From the fires of 1944 and 1953 to decades of infrastructure neglect and challenges, the camp has persevered as a vital logistics hub. The construction of the Linton Regional Supply Facility represents a long-overdue but crucial modernisation effort. As the NZDF moves forward, ensuring continued investment in military logistics will be essential to maintaining operational readiness and efficiency.


The RNZAOC Icon: A Symbol of Heritage and Functionality

The RNZAOC Icon, a proud symbol of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), encapsulates the Corps’s heritage and functionality in a single design. Designed by Major T.D. McBeth (DOS 83-86) in 1971 at the direction of the sitting DOS Lieutenant Colonel GJH Atkinson (DOS 68-72), the cover design cleverly combined various aspects of the RNZAOC and was initially utilised as the cover design for the RNZAOC Newsletter the ‘Pataka’ and on unit plaques.

Description of the design

The design cleverly and meaningfully combines various elements that define the RNZAOC. Its foundation is the NATO map symbol for an ordnance unit, a stylised shield placed over two crossed swords, symbolising the core mission of the Corps: providing logistical and ordnance support to the New Zealand Army.

Design Colour

The icon incorporates the traditional ordnance colours of red, blue, and red, reflecting a heritage that dates back to the Board of Ordnance (1400s to 1855) and its historical connections with the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers. In the New Zealand context, these red and blue colours were prominently used on the Corps’ flag, tactical patches and signs, stable belts, and other insignia.

Symbolic Quadrants: A Visual Narrative

At the centre of the shield lies the RNZAOC badge, a symbol representing the history and legacy of the RNZAOC. This badge is related to the Colonial Storekeeper and subsequent organisations responsible for managing the New Zealand Army’s stores since 1840. It also signifies the alliance of the RNZAOC with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) and its broader family membership of the Commonwealth Ordnance Corps family.

The RNZAOC badge is surrounded by four distinct quadrants, each representing a unique aspect of the Corps.

Top quadrant

The top quadrant of the icon features a Traditional Māori Pātaka storehouse, an elevated structure historically used by Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, to store food, tools, weapons, and other valuables. These intricately designed buildings were central to Māori culture, serving practical and symbolic purposes.

The Maori Pataka is a small elevated outdoor house used for storing food or provisions. Most were not carved. Carved Pataka were only used to store precious treasures such as greenstone, jewellery, weapons, and cloaks. The more elaborate the carvings, the more important the person whose possessions were stored within. Photo Credit: https://www.virtualoceania.net/newzealand/photos/towns/queenstown/nz2481.shtml

In the context of the RNZAOC Icon, the Pātaka symbolises the Corps’ heritage and emphasises the essential role of sustainment storage and resource management. The Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) managed this function from 1910 until 1979, when responsibility for supply tasks such as rations and fuel was transferred to the RNZAOC.

Right quadrant

The right quadrant depicts a contemporary warehouse, symbolising the RNZAOC’s evolution into a modern organisation. This element reflects the Corps’ adoption of advanced infrastructure and practices to manage military supplies efficiently, demonstrating its commitment to meeting the demands of contemporary logistics.

The RNZAOC Award-winning warehouse at TGrentham was constructed for $1.6 million in 1988. In addition to the high-rise pallet racking for bulk stores, a vertical storage carousel capable of holding 12,000 detail items was installed later.

Bottom quadrant

The bottom quadrant features an RL Bedford truck, which was upgraded to the Unimog in 1984. This familiar workhorse of the New Zealand Army symbolises the Corps’ field operations. It highlights the vital role of the RNZAOC in efficiently ensuring that resources reach the front lines.

Left quadrant

The Left quadrant features the ‘Flaming A’ of the Ammunition Trade, representing the critical role of the Corps in handling, storing and supplying munitions, a responsibility that demands precision, expertise and dedication.

New Zealand Ammo Tech ‘Flamming A” Insignia with fern fonds adopted in 1988 to provide a unique New Zeland flavour to the insignia.

Central bar

The blue central bar of the icon is styled like a spanner, symbolising the RNZAOCs links as the parent Corps of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) and modern technical functions, including RNZAOC Workshops Stores Sections located within RNZEME Workshops, Tailors Shops, and Textile Repair Sections.

Variations of the Icon

Over the years, the RNZAOC Icon evolved. In 1984, the image of the RL Bedford truck was updated to feature the Mercedes-Benz Unimog, which replaced the RL Bedford after its retirement in 1989, following 31 years of service.

The Icon was also adopted as the base design for unit plaques, with some units placing the RNZAOC Crest above the Icon and substituting it in the centre of the icon with a symbol relevant to their specific unit.

A Long-term Legacy

The RNZAOC icon is a visual homage to the Corps’ diverse contributions and rich legacy. Blending traditional, modern, and operational elements highlights the RNZAOC’s steadfast dedication to supporting New Zealand’s defence capabilities. This emblem connects the past, present, and future, symbolising identity and pride for those who have served in the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. As the icon of the ‘To the Warriors Their Arms’ website, it pays tribute to the RNZAOC and all the antecedent corps that now form part of the RNZALR, ensuring their memory and significance remain relevant.


Modernising the New Zealand Army Uniform: The “Dress for the 90s” Initiative

In 1985, the New Zealand Army embarked on the “Dress for the 90s” initiative, a comprehensive effort to modernise and streamline its uniform policy. This initiative aimed to address inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the Army’s clothing system, which had developed without a coherent long-term vision since the Second World War. Despite incremental updates, the Army’s uniform inventory had become a patchwork of outdated items, including 1940s-era garments, Jungle Greens introduced in 1958 (with minor updates in the 1960s), and the Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM) uniforms introduced in 1975 for temperate climates.

The Need for Modernisation

The impetus for change was underscored by an Army Clothing Survey conducted in 1984. The survey revealed widespread dissatisfaction among personnel with the variety, practicality, and utility of the uniforms. Common concerns included:

  • Overcomplexity: A wide array of uniform types resulted in inefficiency.
  • Operational Mismatches: Uniforms often lacked adaptability to diverse operational environments.
  • Aging Designs: Many garments were outdated and no longer met modern standards for durability, comfort, or appearance.

Feedback from soldiers highlighted a need to rationalise the uniform range, focusing on designs that were practical, complementary, and suited to operational requirements.

The “Dress for the 90s” Proposals

Drawing on the feedback from personnel and ongoing clothing projects, the “Dress for the 90s” paper outlined a roadmap for modernising New Zealand Army uniforms. The proposals prioritised functionality, financial efficiency, and alignment with the Army’s evolving operational needs. Key recommendations included:

Combat Clothing

Combat clothing was a central focus, with the aim of creating a cohesive and functional wardrobe for field use. Recommendations included:

  • DPM Wet Weather Gore-Tex Jackets and Over-Trousers: Designed to improve protection in temperate and wet climates.
Combat Dress – Wet Weather
    Combat Dress – Wet Weather

    • DPM “Sandri” Smock: Proposed as a replacement for the existing DPM smock, enhancing functionality and comfort.
    Combat Dress – Cold Weather
    • DPM Combat Jersey: A modern replacement for the green training jersey.
    Combat Dress – Cool Weather
    • Lightweight Woollen Shirt: For use in temperate climates, offering improved comfort and adaptability.
    Combat Dress – Temperater
    • DPM Shirt and Trousers for Hot Climates: Tailored for wear in tropical and arid environments.
    Combat Dress – Hot Weather
    Combat Dress – Hot Weather

    Barrack Dress

    The proposals aimed to extend the existing concepts of service dress to improve practicality and aesthetic appeal:

    • Bomber-Style Jacket: Proposed as a walking-out dress, offering a contemporary and functional option.
    Barrack Dress – Walking Out
    • Summer Service Dress Updates: Replacement of the dark green summer “Dacron” uniforms with a short-sleeved version of the existing service dress shirt, compatible with the training jersey for cooler climates.
    Barrack Dress – Working Cool
    Barrack Dress – Working Warm

    Ceremonial and Mess Dress

    Minimal changes were proposed for ceremonial and mess dress, with the intention to preserve traditional designs while maintaining quality standards.

    Barrack Dress – Ceremonial

    Physical Training (PT) Dress

    Recognising the importance of physical training in Army culture, a redesign was suggested to modernise PT uniforms, enhancing both functionality and the Army’s professional image.

    Issuing Procedures and Accounting System

    The initiative also proposed significant changes to the clothing issuance and accounting system to improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness:

    1. Barrack, Service, and Mess Dress: These uniforms were to remain on a permanent issue system, supported by Uniform Upkeep Allowances (UUA).
    2. Combat Clothing: Issued on a long-term loan basis with a free exchange system to account for wear and operational needs. This approach aimed to eliminate the UUA for combat clothing, reducing administrative and financial overheads.
    3. Comprehensive Accounting System: The School of Army Administration was tasked with developing a robust system for tracking issued and loaned items, ensuring accountability and minimising losses.

    Cost Implications

    A detailed financial analysis of the initiative projected significant savings, both in terms of initial implementation and long-term operational costs. Key estimates included:

    • Total Savings: NZD 77,095 in 1985 (equivalent to NZD 189,800 in 2024).
    • Annual Savings: NZD 566,542 in 1985 (equivalent to NZD 1,394,000 in 2024).

    The cost savings were expected to accumulate progressively, as the changeover was designed to be self-funding.

    Supplementary Notes and Recommendations

    The paper also provided supplementary recommendations to enhance the uniform system further:

    • Creation of a combined overcoat/raincoat, modelled on the British Macintosh.
    • Addition of identifiable Army-issue PT gear, such as a sweatshirt or tracksuit top.

    The recommendations aimed to categorise Army uniforms into five clear types:

    1. Ceremonial Dress
    2. Barrack Dress
    3. Combat Dress
    4. Mess Dress
    5. PT Dress

    Implementation and Outcomes

    While the “Dress for the 90s” proposals were not immediately adopted in full, several key items were introduced incrementally over the following years:

    • DPM Wet Weather Jackets and Over-Trousers: Introduced in 1985, these were manufactured using “Entrant” fabric instead of Gore-Tex for cost efficiency. Designs were subsequently refined.
    • DPM Sandri Smock: Rolled out in 1985, this item received mixed feedback and was eventually replaced by an updated DPM smock in the mid-1990s.
    • Woollen Shirts: Issued in 1985 but faced divisive reception, leading to their withdrawal in favour of the DPM shirt in the early 1990s.
    • DPM Shirt: Trialled in 1985, this garment was gradually adopted and became standard by 1988.
    • DPM Combat Jersey: Introduced on a trial basis but not adopted for general use.
    • Barrack Dress: Significant updates were delayed until the mid-1990s, when the outdated Dacron uniforms were replaced by the Service Dress for All Ranks (SDAR).

    Conclusion

    The “Dress for the 90s” initiative represented a landmark effort to rationalise and modernise New Zealand Army uniforms. While the full scope of the proposals was not immediately implemented, the initiative established a clear direction for future updates. The incremental introduction of key items laid the groundwork for a more cohesive, functional, and cost-efficient uniform system, ensuring that the New Zealand Army’s clothing policy remained aligned with its operational and professional requirements.[1]


    Notes

    [1] “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-87,” Archives New Zealand No R17311898  (1984).


    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.

    The Camp Kettle, or “Dixie”, A Long-Serving Field-Cooking Implement

    The camp kettle, more commonly known in British Army usage as the “dixie”, was one of the most enduring pieces of military field-cooking equipment. Long before the appearance of mobile cookers and travelling kitchens, it provided a simple and robust means of boiling food, heating water, carrying cooked rations, and serving meals in camp or in the field. Its continued appearance in New Zealand Defence reports and camp-equipment returns reflected its practical value. It was not a sophisticated item, but it was one of the basic implements on which regimental cooking depended.

    The standard British pattern was an oval, lidded vessel of about three gallons capacity, fitted with a bail handle so that it could be carried or suspended over a fire. Earlier examples were generally made of tinned iron or tinned sheet metal, while later examples were made from aluminium. The lid increased its usefulness, as it could be used as a frying pan, platter, or serving tray. In this form the camp kettle was not merely a cooking pot, but a multi-purpose field implement suited to the realities of camp and campaign life.

    Example of a Camp Kettle held by the NZ Army Museum. © 2026 National Army Museum Te Mata Toa

    In practice, camp kettles sat at the centre of the older system of improvised field cookery. They could be used in trenches, over open fires, alongside Aldershot ovens, or with makeshift field kitchens formed from earth, brick, or scrap material. They were particularly suited to boiled meals such as stews, curries, soups, vegetables, tea water, and other hot rations that could be prepared in bulk and served into soldiers’ mess tins. Their portability also allowed cooked food to be moved forward from the cookhouse or field kitchen to troops who could not easily return to the kitchen area.

    Example of a Camp Kettle lid held by the NZ Army Museum. © 2026 National Army Museum Te Mata Toa

    The importance of the camp kettle lay in its adaptability. It could cook, carry, reheat, and serve. This made it a bridge between the improvised camp kitchens of the Volunteer period and the more formalised cooking systems of the Territorial era. Even after the adoption of Salamander, Lune Valley, Sykes, and Imperial Pattern travelling cookers, camp kettles remained necessary. The new cookers improved efficiency, fuel economy, and mobility, but they did not remove the need for simple vessels in which food and hot water could be handled at unit level.

    For New Zealand’s military, the camp kettle therefore represents continuity within a period of change. The move towards purpose-built field cookers from 1912 onwards marked a major advance in military catering, but it rested on an older foundation of basic camp equipment, practical cookery skill, and adaptable implements. The camp kettle was one of those quiet constants, a practical item that had served from the nineteenth century and remained in use well into the mid-twentieth century.

    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.