During the interwar period, a popular myth emerged that New Zealand allowed its military to downsize so that by 1939, the country was woefully unprepared for war, with many contemporary studies highlighting that New Zealanders went to war no better equipped than their fathers in the First World War. While there is some truth to this narrative, a closer examination of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) and the broader activities of the New Zealand Army from 1931 to 1939 tells a more nuanced story. Despite material and personnel deficiencies, a keen awareness of global events prompted continuous military doctrines and preparations updates. These efforts ensured that, in the event of war, New Zealand could quickly mobilise not only the basic framework of an expeditionary force but also the necessary resources to support it in the long term.
Evidence of Preparedness
In 1931, the NZAOC had shrunk from a strength of 120 in 1930 to 21 officers and soldiers supported by a cadre of civilian staff in the Ordnance Depots and Workshops at Threntham, Hopohopu and Burnham. From 1934, Major Thomas Joseph King, the Director of Ordnance Services (DOS), ensured that critical positions were filled by competent and experienced personnel. Some were drawn from the existing NZAOC civil staff ranks (many were former NZAOC soldiers transferred to the civil staff in 1931), and others were recruited explicitly into the NZAOC, such as Allan Huia Andrews.
Jonathan Fennell, in his book Fighting the People’s War: The British and Commonwealth Armies and the Second World War, identifies that throughout the interwar years, the British Military establishment analysed the lessons of the previous war and interpreted contemporary developments. Updating doctrine throughout the 1930s, the British Military progressively transformed into a mechanised force armed with some of the era’s most advanced weapons and equipment. The Field Service Regulations (FSR), the tactical bible of British Commonwealth armies, was updated with at least four editions, proving that the British Army was willing to learn from past mistakes. Compared to the two German and French equivalent doctrine editions produced during the same period. Following the British lead, New Zealand kept as much abreast of these developments as practically possible.
Limited by the financial constraints of the time, training exercises and war games were conducted to keep military personnel sharp and ready from 1936. These exercises often simulated various scenarios, including mobilisation and deployment, ensuring that the army could respond effectively in times of crisis. Additionally, experiments with motor vehicles and motorcycles and testing modifications by the NZAOC workshops of WW1 artillery pieces fitted with pneumatic wheels and new carriages were undertaken.
Ford Marmon Herrington Artillery Tractor, Limber and 4.5-inch Howitzer
60 Pounder Guns showing both the original carriage and the New Zealand-built carriage
Detailed mobilisation plans were undertaken behind the scenes, with Lieutenant A.H. Andrews playing a pivotal role in updating and developing mobilisation scales. These plans included stockpiling essential supplies at Trentham, Burnham, and Hopuhopu and identifying critical infrastructure vital in supporting an expeditionary force, which saw new construction of logistic infrastructure at all camps. In terms of resources, the following equipment was on order from the United Kingdom in 1938:
Bren Guns complete with equipment and components – 248 (in addition to 100 ordered in 1936)
QF 2Pdr with equipment and accessories – 16
Wireless sets No. 9 and No. 11
Given that all the equipment was only accepted into British service from 1935, it is clear that by ordering these items, New Zealand was keen on modernising with the latest equipment and was equipped on a par with contemporary forces in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.
Soldier with Bren gun at Waiouru Army Training Camp, taken circa 1936-1938 by Errol Cliff Morton. . Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22316064
In addition, as the New Zealand Permanent Air Force (NZPAF) was preparing to transition independently from the army and become the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) in 1937, Major King of the NZ Army developed a new system for managing stores specifically for the RNZAF in 1936.
The New Zealand military leadership kept pace with global events and potential threats, which influenced the earlier planning and helped prevent the country from being caught entirely off guard when war eventually broke out. This global awareness likely also influenced the Four Colonels’ Revolt. Several senior officers, alarmed by the decline of the Territorial Force, protested directly to the press against the reforms of New Zealand Chief of Staff Major General Sir John Evelyn Duigan. As a result, they were placed on the retired list as punishment.
The Importance of a Balanced Approach
The interwar period underscored the importance of maintaining a long-term vision for military preparedness. While immediate readiness may have been compromised by budget cuts, strategic planning and resource mobilisation efforts ensured New Zealand could enhance its military capabilities.
Adapting and updating doctrines and strategies in response to global events proved crucial. This flexibility enabled New Zealand to sustain a level of preparedness that, though not immediately apparent, proved effective over time.
Effective collaboration and coordination among military branches and civilian authorities were essential for maintaining readiness. This ensured comprehensive coverage of all military operations, from logistics to combat readiness.
Lessons for the Modern Logistician
One of the key takeaways for modern logisticians is the importance of strategic foresight. The ability to anticipate future needs and plan accordingly can significantly impact readiness and response times in crises.
Effective resource management is crucial. During the interwar period, New Zealand stockpiled its limited available supplies and ordered advanced equipment for the next war to ensure readiness. Modern logisticians must ensure that resources are managed efficiently and critical supplies are readily available.
The experiments with motor vehicles and artillery modifications highlight the need for adaptability and innovation. Modern logisticians should continually seek ways to improve processes and equipment to maintain a competitive edge.
The importance of collaboration between military branches and civilian authorities cannot be overstated. Effective communication and coordination ensure that all aspects of logistics, from supply chains to support services, are streamlined and efficient.
Training exercises and war games prepared the New Zealand military despite financial constraints. Modern logisticians should emphasise continuous training and development to ensure personnel are always ready to respond effectively.
Interconnected Efforts of the NZAOC, Quartermaster General, and NZASC
The interwar efforts significantly contributed to the rapid expansion of the New Zealand logistics systems from 1939. It’s important to note that the work of the NZAOC wasn’t carried out in isolation but was part of a coordinated effort involving the Quartermaster General and the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC). The Quartermaster General’s office was pivotal in overseeing the overall logistical strategy and ensuring all branches worked together. The NZASC, responsible for supply and transport, worked closely with the NZAOC to ensure that rations, fuels, forage and transport services were efficiently managed and distributed. This integrated approach ensured that logistical operations were cohesive and effective, maximising the New Zealand Army’s readiness.
Conclusion
While it is acknowledged that New Zealand’s military faced significant downsizing during the interwar period, the assertion of complete unpreparedness by 1939 oversimplifies the historical context. The strategic appointments within the NZAOC, under Major King’s direction, and continuous updates to military doctrine exemplify proactive measures taken to maintain readiness amidst global uncertainties. Despite material and personnel shortages, training exercises from 1936 onwards and innovative adaptations in weaponry underscored New Zealand’s commitment to enhancing military capabilities.
This nuanced and proactive approach ensured New Zealand could swiftly mobilise and sustain an expeditionary force when needed, challenging the myth of its military unpreparedness during the interwar years. However, further study is necessary to fully grasp the intricacies of New Zealand’s military preparedness during this period. Detailed archival research, comparative analyses with other Commonwealth nations, and deeper exploration of socio-political influences on military policy would provide a more comprehensive understanding. Such research would illuminate the successes and limitations of New Zealand’s strategic decisions, offering valuable insights into military preparedness in times of global uncertainty.
For modern logisticians, the lessons from this period underscore the importance of strategic foresight, resource management, adaptability, collaboration, and continuous training—key components in ensuring a state of readiness in an ever-changing global landscape. The collaborative efforts of the NZAOC, the Quartermaster General, and the NZASC exemplify how integrated logistical planning and execution are critical to maintaining military effectiveness.
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.
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.
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.
If to burn Oil Fuel, should not be sent to New Zealand.
If not suitable for cooking on the march, but only for fixed camps. What space and weight are they for Transport purposes?
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.
Are cooking utensils included in the cost?
How many men will No 3, as per tender, cook for?
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.
Such stoves or cookers are not a government issue. Regiments buy for themselves.
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]
No
To Cook for
Approx Weight
Notes
0
20
1 cwt (50kg)
Without boiler
0a
20
1 cwt (50kg)
With boiler
1a
40
2 cwt (101kg)
With boiler
1b
60
21/2 cwt (127kg)
With boiler
1c
100
3 cwt (152kg)
With boiler
1d
150
4 cwt (203kg)
With boiler
2
200
5 cwt (254kg)
With boiler
2a
250
51/2 cwt (279kg)
With boiler
3
300
6 cwt (304kg)
With boiler
3a
400
7 cwt (355kg)
With boiler
4
500
9 cwt (457kg)
With boiler
5
1000
13 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;
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 Engineeringproduct 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.
[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.
[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.
[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.
“If you were an army cook on leave and met some of the troops accompanied by their girlfriends, wives or mothers, which would you rather hear them say: “There’s the chap who turns out the great meals I’ve told you about”; or, “That’s the bloke who murders good food?”
Question placed to trainee cooks by Sergeant-Cook Instructor Bourke (Paddy to all the camp) at Waikato Camp, 1942
Over the last two hundred years, the adage attributed to Napoleon, “An army marches on its stomach,” underscored the paramount importance of sustenance in military operations. In the annals of the New Zealand army, this principle has been diligently upheld, with meticulous attention paid to ensuring soldiers are well-fed, notwithstanding the challenges posed by varying locations and conditions. Establishing the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) units during the tumultuous periods of the First and Second World Wars is a testament to this commitment. NZASC units were principally charged with baking bread, butchering meat, and procuring and distributing fresh and packaged provisions to frontline units, playing a pivotal role in sustaining the morale and effectiveness of New Zealand forces during these conflicts. Even in more recent conflicts, such as those in Southeast Asia during the 1950s and 60s, New Zealand troops operated on ration scales notably more generous than their British counterparts, a testament to the nation’s dedication to the well-being of its service members. However, despite the recognition of logistical efforts in military history, a notable gap remains in the literature concerning the contributions of New Zealand Army cooks. While Julia Millen’s comprehensive work, Salute to Service: A History of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport, acknowledges the significance of Cooks from when they became part of the RNZASC in 1948, scant attention has been paid to the preceding 103 years, from 1865 to 1948.
This article draws upon primary sources and aims to redress this oversight by delving into the hitherto unexplored realm of New Zealand Army catering. By shedding light on the endeavours of these unsung culinary heroes, it seeks to enrich our understanding of the multifaceted efforts required to sustain a fighting force, thereby honouring their indispensable contributions to New Zealand’s military heritage.
Since the first New Zealand Militias were created in 1845, there was always a need to feed the militias when called out for service. Given the nature of Militia service and the fact that they would not serve far from their home location, their messing requirements would have been minimal. Some individuals would likely have been selected from within the ranks to collect any rations provided and prepare meals.
With the advent of the volunteer era in 1858, the New Zealand military became a mixed force of Infantry, Cavalry and artillery who, on occasion, would assemble for annual camps where units within a district would assemble and conduct combined training. While rations were paid through District Headquarters and Defence Stores, messing arrangements would be rudimentary, with men selected from within the ranks preparing the meals from the rations sourced from local vendors. This situation was mirrored in the Permanent Militia, which had staffed coastal defence forts and the military depot at Mount Cook in Wellington since the 1880s.
During New Zealand’s involvement in the war in South Africa, the issue of messing arose as large numbers of mobilising men were stationed in camps. Messing arrangements involved a combination of civilian contractors and regimental cooks. However, an inquiry into soldiers’ comfort, housing, and victualling at the Newtown Park Camp and Volunteer Billets revealed widespread dissatisfaction. Numerous complaints were lodged regarding the quality and quantity of rations provided, the low standard, and, at times, the lack of meals prepared by contractors and regimental cooks.[1] In South Africa, rations, following the British scale, were supplied by the British Army Service Corps (ASC), supplemented by fresh mutton acquired from the enemy and cooked by members of the contingent.[2]
After the conclusion of the South Africa War, interest in the military surged, prompting a reorganisation of the volunteer movement into a more robust and structured system of regiments and battalions. Despite discussions in 1904 regarding establishing a New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC), no decision was indicated in the Commandant of the Forces’ annual report on its formation.[3]
Further reorganisation in 1908 saw the ASC matter addressed by the Adjutant General, with discussions continuing into 1909. The Defence Act of 1909 disbanded volunteer forces and established the Territorial Force, supported by conscription. Major General Alexander Godley’s appointment as Commandant of the New Zealand Military Forces in December 1910 provided momentum for reform. In his first year, Godley revitalised the military’s organisational structure, made crucial command and staff appointments, and laid plans to develop the NZASC, which, though officially designated in May 1910, remained only a force on paper.[4]
Despite the Defence Stores Department’s existence since 1869, an ASC nucleus was lacking for forming new units. The proposed NZASC envisioned eight Transport and Supply Columns, divided into Mounted and Mixed Brigade units allocated to each of New Zealand’s four Military Districts and was to be organised by British ASC officer Henry Owen Knox, who arrived in New Zealand in June 1911 and later supported by four ASC officers and Warrant Offices from early 1913. While the NZASC would handle the procurement and distribution of rations, receipt and cooking remained a Regimental responsibility.
Under Godley’s command, the Territorial Army underwent rapid organisation, culminating in the inaugural brigade camps held in 1913. During these camps, the newly established NZASC established its initial depots, receiving supplies previously ordered by the Quartermaster General based on expected strength states and ration scales.
Forty-seven candidates across the Territorial Army were selected in October 1912 to undergo a comprehensive month-long training at Trentham. This pioneering catering course encompassed kitchen work and cooking techniques for field conditions, including practical exercises such as constructing and operating field ovens, fry pans, 8 and 20-gallon boilers and camp kettles.
Of the initial candidates, thirty-eight successfully qualified to supervise cooking for a regiment, with an additional seven attaining certification as company cooks. Unfortunately, two candidates were unable to qualify due to illness. For the 1913 camp, the establishment allowed for a Sergeant Cook per regiment, each granted an additional allowance of 1 Shilling 6 Pence a day (equivalent to 2024 NZD $16.16), while qualified company cooks received 1 Shilling a day (equivalent to 2024 NZD $10.10). Those who served as cooks during the camps were excused from further military training for the rest of the year.[5]
At Trentham, an additional course of instruction was conducted in October 1913, attended by sixty-two territorial soldiers. Thirty-two qualified as competent to supervise cooking for a regiment, making them eligible for appointment as sergeant cooks if vacancies existed within their units. Twenty-seven soldiers qualified as assistant or company cooks; unfortunately, three did not meet the qualifications.
By the end of 1913, this initiative provided the New Zealand Military with a potential pool of 104 trained cooks. However, it was recognised that further efforts were necessary to ensure a sufficient number of cooks would be available to meet the messing needs of the Territorial Force in the event of mobilisation.[6]
A System Under Strain, Lessons Unlearned in the Interwar Years
By the late 1930s, nearly two decades after the end of the First World War, there remained a persistent unease about the Army’s ability to feed its soldiers effectively. While institutional reforms had begun, contemporary commentary suggests that many of the fundamental issues experienced during the war had not yet been fully resolved.
A 1937 article in the Auckland Star, written by W. Revell Reynolds, provides a stark and unvarnished account of army catering during the First World War. Drawing on personal experience across training camps, Egypt, and Gallipoli, Reynolds described a system characterised not by scarcity, but by failure in execution.
Food, he noted, was often adequate at the point of issue, but was rendered unpalatable or even inedible through poor preparation. Cooks were frequently untrained and, in many cases, selected from those seeking to avoid frontline duties rather than for any culinary competence. Officers, for their part, were described as largely ignorant of catering and nutrition, with institutional focus placed elsewhere.
More concerning were allegations of systemic weaknesses in control and accountability. Reynolds pointed to instances of misappropriated allowances, questionable quality of supplied goods, and the hoarding or misallocation of rations. Whether exaggerated or not, such perceptions highlight a broader lack of confidence in the integrity of the supply and catering system at the time.
Perhaps most significantly, Reynolds drew a direct connection between poor nutrition and operational effectiveness. The absence of basic dietary components such as fresh vegetables, fats, and stimulants was linked to widespread illness, particularly dysentery and other gastrointestinal conditions, which were endemic in theatres such as Gallipoli. In this sense, catering was not merely a matter of comfort, but of survival.
Reynolds’ account suggests that the issue was not supply alone, but the absence of a professional system capable of turning rations into effective sustainment.
His concluding concern was forward-looking. Writing in 1937, Reynolds questioned how the Army intended to feed its soldiers in any future conflict, suggesting that without meaningful reform, the same deficiencies would re-emerge under the pressures of mobilisation.
The outbreak of the Second World War would force that reform. Under the pressures of mobilisation, the Army moved decisively toward a more professional, standardised, and controlled system of catering and supply, laying the foundations for the modern military catering capability.
The declaration of war and subsequent mobilisation halted any plans for further peacetime training of cooks, as all efforts shifted towards providing trained personnel for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. 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. Cooks were trained at the Army School of Instruction at Trentham, with further training conducted at NZEF camps in the United Kingdom.In New Zealand, military and civilian cooks fulfilled the necessary messing functions at various mobilisation and Territorial Camps, while unit cooks supported units in the field.
Cooks with first frozen mutton received in the desert during WWI. Hood, D : Photographs relating to World War I and II. Ref: 1/2-067444-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23212994
Wellington Regiment cooker, and men, within 1000 yards of the front line, Colincamps, France. Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association :New Zealand official negatives, World War 1914-1918. Ref: 1/2-013209-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22604005
During the interbellum period, the Army School of Instruction in Trentham ceased operations in 1921, with few records of formal training for Army cooks until 1938.
In 1937, the Special Reserve Scheme was introduced to provide personnel for the coast defence batteries and three infantry battalions of Fortress troops. Under this scheme, single soldiers underwent three months of continuous training, followed by a three-year commitment to attend training for 10 days annually, with an obligation to report for service within New Zealand in the event of a national emergency. During their three months of training, they were also allowed to attend technical college, free of charge, on a course of their choice. Facilitating the necessary training, the Army School of Instruction (ASI) was re-established at Trentham, supported by District Schools of Instruction (DSI) at Narrow Neck, Trentham, and Burnham.[7]
The first account of cooks participating in this training scheme saw a batch of seventy-two, nine of whom were cooks, enter Trentham in August 1938 for their initial military training, beginning their vocational training in January 1939 with three of the cooks going to Narrow Neck in Auckland and the other six to Fort Dorset.[8] Reviewing the work of the officers and men under his command, the Officer Command the Central Military District, Colonel E Puttick, commented in April 1939 that “there had never been any complaint about the food, and it was clear that the special reservists who had taken cookery training as their vocational course in the Army Training School at Trentham had received excellent instruction”.[9]
While Colonel Puttick may have been satisfied with the catering arrangements in his district, there was dissatisfaction with the quality of rations and cooks in the northern and Southern Districts. In May 1939, reports of sub-standard rations, the performance of civilian cooks at territorial Camps resulting in their packing up and walking out mid camp and the refusals of Territorial soldiers to work on mess fatigue parties led the District Commander, Colonel P.H Bell to call an all-day conference with his Quartermaster and Quartermaster Sergeants to consider the Army’s food problems, including the quality of rations and most importantly how to resolve the fundamental problem that the Army had no cooks of its own, engaging civilians for the period of camps. [10] In the Northern District, a deputation of civilian cooks led by Mr W. R Connolly, a cook with 37 years’ experience of cooking in military camps, went directly to the officer of the Star Newspaper with their grievances following a ten-day camp with A Squadron of the 4th Mounted Regiment. Joining the squadron on 3 May at Cambridge, they deployed to Rotorua, Tauranga, and Paeroa, finishing up at Narrow Neck on 12 May. The cook’s issue was that they were civilians contracted to work in a fixed camp and not on the march, and they were at much reduced rates than they had received before the depression.[11]
Despite these challenges, the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939 prompted a renewed focus on army catering. On the declaration of war, it was decided that New Zealand would contribute an Expeditionary Force. Initially, a “Special Force” was planned, with one battalion in each of the three military districts. The Special Force was later expanded into the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2 NZEF).
Three weeks before the Special Force encamped at Trentham, Acting Prime Minister Mr Peter Fraser and Minister of Defence Mr Frederick Jones visited the site to inspect preparations for the new mobilisation camp. During their visit, the Commandant of the ASI, Major J I Brook, hosted them for lunch. Impressed by the meal, they specifically requested the Regular Force Mess diet sheet and received positive feedback from regular soldiers on the meal quality. The Ministers inquired about the possibility of providing similar meals to the men of the Special Force. In response, Major Brook suggested that providing the same meals to the Special Force could be achieved if cooks were available and ample rations were provided. Following this discussion, permission was granted to establish an Army School of Cookery under the ASI.[12]
By December 1939, under the tutelage of a fully qualified army cookery instructor, the first batch of thirty-two men had completed their training at the Army School of Cookery, with a second batch completing their training on 8 December. Initial training was on the standard equipment found in any camp, typically three ovens able to bake for 120 men. Once qualified in the basics of camp cooking, training on the Portable Cooker No. 1 and other field cookery followed.[13]
As the 2NZEF established itself in Egypt, the significance of quality cooking was duly recognised. Although the Cooks selected for the First Echelon underwent training courses at the Trentham School of Cookery, they were not qualified cooks under Middle East conditions. They required instruction on breaking down bulk rations and handling food in the field, so arrangements were made to train New Zealand cooks at the Army School of Cookery in Cairo. Additionally, the services of a non-commissioned officer (NCO) from the 7th British Armoured Division was enlisted as an instructor to the 2 NZEF under the supervision of the Divisional Supply Column officer. With the second Echelon diverted to England, General Freyberg consulted the manager of the Lyons chain of restaurants, who was an adviser to the War Office on army catering, with arrangements made with the War Office in London for the secondment of four NCOs to the 2 NZEF to form the nucleus of the 2 NZEF cookery school. These NCOs accompanied the Second Echelon troops from England to Egypt.[14]
A typical New Zealand field cookhouse in the desert during World War II. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch :Photographs relating to World War 1914-1918, World War 1939-1945, occupation of Japan, Korean War, and Malayan Emergency. Ref: DA-00798-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23050225
With this reorganisation and expansion, the NZEF cookery school conducted thorough training and testing for cooks. Starting from February 1941, all cooks were required to be qualified either at the NZEF school or the Middle East school before being eligible for extra-duty pay.[15]
As the war progressed, the Army School of Cookery at Trentham continued to run regular courses. However, the demand for cooks necessitated the DSIs to conduct cookery instruction to train men as they were called up for the NZEF and Home Defence. In addition to male soldiers training as cooks, from 1939, the first females from Auckland Womans Service Corps were employed as cooks in Papakura Camp to supplement the civilian and military cooks. Although on the Army payroll, the initial female cooks were not considered serving soldiers. By June 1941, fifteen female cooks were working across all the Military districts. However, it was not until July 1942 that approval was given for the New Zealand Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) in New Zealand, formally establishing these female cooks as part of the military establishment.[16]
Cook from the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps putting meat in an oven to roast, for men at a World War II military camp in New Zealand. New Zealand Free Lance : Photographic prints and negatives. Ref: PAColl-8602-40. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22895614
By October 1942, three hundred men of the Territorial Force had received training at Ngawahiwaha Camp. The established ratio for cooks to troops was one cook for every 50 men, two for 100, three for 150, and an additional cook for every 100 additional men. Throughout the Army, the standard of cooking, in terms of variety and quality, had seen significant improvement. It was widely acknowledged that a properly trained army cook could secure employment in a civilian hotel or restaurant upon demobilisation.[17]
Sergeant “Paddy” Bourke, veteran army cook, turns the roast. He was in Egypt with the Expeditionary Force of a generation ago; (Evening Post, 13 April 1940). Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/17717327
In May 1944, the use of WACs as cooks had become a normalised and essential function of the war effort, with an article in the Dominion newspaper detailing the work of the 65 WAACs on the messing staff of Trentham Camp and providing details of the training of the latest batch of eighteen female cooks who had just completed a three-week cooking course the Trentham ASI.[18]It’s essential to recognise that New Zealand was not operating in isolation but rather observing developments across the armies of the British Empire as they transitioned from the regimental cook system to a more centralised and professional model. In the United Kingdom, the Cook trade was under the control of the Army Catering Corps (ACC) upon its creation in March 1941, forming as a subsidiary element of the Royal Army Service Corps Supply Branch. Australia followed suit in 1943, establishing the Australian Army Catering Corps. Canada took a similar approach, forming the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (RCASC) Catering Wing at No. 1 Reinforcement Unit in Britain in August 1942 to train cooks for the Army.
A cook with the 22 New Zealand Battalion, stokes up his fire in the forward areas near Rimini, Italy, 21 September 1944 during World War II. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch
The Canadian Army’s experience was that many cooks had previously been members of their unit. However, experience revealed that they were not necessarily skilled soldiers and often functioned as poor cooks tasked with feeding their comrades. Consequently, starting in 1942, all cooks were transferred to the RCASC, which then assigned them to the various units they were to serve. This change resulted in a rapid improvement in cooking standards.[19] Although New Zealand had adopted other British logistical organisational changes, such as the formation of the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, with enthusiasm, it was more reserved about any changes to its cooks, combining cooks into a single corps was not a wartime priority.
In 1944, New Zealand commenced the demobilisation process, which included disbanding the Home Guard and the standing down of elements of the Territorial Force. By the war’s conclusion in 1945, most of the forces stationed at home underwent rapid demobilisation. The 2NZEF was disbanded by 1946, aligning with the downsizing trend seen in many Western militaries. However, despite this size reduction, the Government and the Army hesitated to revert the military to its pre-war dimensions and structure. Instead, they opted to reorganise it into what became known as the Interim Army.
New Zeland Army Order 60/1947 of 1 August 1947 detailed the trade classification and promotion requirements of the Regular Force. This order retained cooks as two specific All Arms trades;
Cooks, Hospital. A Group A trade applicable to All Arms, including the New Zealand Army Nursing Service (NZANS)
Cooks (other than hospital cook). A Group B trade applicable to All Arms, including the NZWAAC
The Commandant of the ASI set the syllabus for the Cooks, hospital, and Cooks (other than hospital cooks). During his period, there was no steward’s trade.[20]
In 1947, three officers and four NCOs were brought out from Britain to raise the standards of catering in the New Zealand Army. This task included providing training and instruction in cooking and catering and guidance on ration scales and meal planning. With the New Zealand Army perceived as too small for a stand-alone Catering Corps, considering that the NZASC was responsible for the Supply function, Butchers and Bakers, it made sense to emulate the Canadian model and bring all cooks under the umbrella of the RNZASC.
To facilitate this transition, the Army Board approved the formation of a Catering Group as a section of the RNZASC. It issued New Zealand Army Instruction (NZAI) 2049 on 15 February 1948 detailing the Supplies and Transport Catering Group (STCG) formation. Initially, the STCG comprised of;
A Staff Officer (Catering) in the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at Army Headquarters.
District Catering advisers (NC0s) on the staff of the Districts Assistant Director Supply and Transport (ADST)
Instructors on the staff of the Army School of Instruction to operate a Catering Wing.
Cooks and kitchenhands on unit peace establishments.
The function of the STCG was to
To train and provide unit cooks and kitchen hands.
Instruction in and supervision of the management of the Army ration scale.
Improvement of standard of food preparation and cooking.
Advice on the installation and instruction in the operation of cooking appliances and kitchen equipment.
Despite NZAI 2049 bringing all army catering services under the jurisdiction of the RNZASC, the Cooks trade remained dispersed among various units. However, this issue was addressed with the implementation of NZAI 2147 in September 1948.[22]
No 2147. SUPPLIES AND TRANSPORT CATERING GROUP, RNZASC NZAI 1319 and 2049 are hereby cancelled.
Approval has been given for the formation of a catering Group in RNZASC. This group will be known as the Supplies and Transport Catering Group (abbreviated title STCG).
The functions of the STCG are – a. To train and provide unit, &c, cooks and messing staffs. b. Instruction in and supervision of the management of the Army Ration Scale. c. The preparation, cooking and serving of all rations. d. Advise on the installation and instruction in the operation of cooking appliances and kitchen equipment. e. Advise on the layout of mess buildings.
Initially the STCG will comprise- a. A Staff Officer (Catering) on the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at Army HQ. b. District catering advisers (NCOs) on the staff of ADs ST District. c. Instructors on the staff of ASI to operate a “Catering Wing”. d. Messing Staff of all units
In order to implement para 3 above, the following action will be taken:- a. From the date of publication of this instruction soldiers classified as “kitchen hands” or “Mess Orderly” will be classified as “probationer cook” or “mess steward” respectively. The terms “kitchen hands” or “mess orderly” will no longer be used. NOTES: – (i) For star classification purposes “probationer cooks” will form the “learner: class of the group “B” trade of cook and will be treated as Group “D” tradesmen (ii) Whenever the term “messing staffs” is used in this instruction, it will included “cooks,” “probationary cooks,” and “mess stewards” b. All cooks, probationer cooks, and mess stewards, other than of the NZWAC, will be posted to RNZASC. c. All messing staffs. including NZWAC messing staffs, in districts will be carried on the establishments of district ASC Coys under the sub heading of STCG. d. OsC Districts will allot messing staffs to units on the recommendations of DA DsST. e. Messing staffs, including NZWAC messing staffs, of Army HQ units will be carried on the establishments of the respective units under the sub heading STCG.
STCG messing staff strengths will be assessed according to unit messing strengths as follows:- a. Unit messing strengths will be taken as establishment strength less 20 per cent (to allow for personnel Living out). b. Cooks. – Cooks will be allocated to units on the following scale: i. One cook per unit all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 650. ii. One extra cook p er 90 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength in excess of 650. iii. One extra cook for each cookhouse in excess of one. iv. In addition, one chief cook (WO or NCO) for each unit. The rank of this WO or NCO shall be dependent on the strength of the messing staff serving in the unit concerned, in accordance with the scale laid down in para 6 below. c. Probationer Cooks:- i. Two probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength of 65 or under. ii. Four probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength in excess of 65 d. Mess Stewards: i. One mess steward for each 25 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength. ii. In addition, one mess steward for each 6 officers (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 42 officers. iii. When the number of officers exceeds 42, one extra mess steward for each 9 officers ( or portion thereof) on unit strength in excess of 42). iv. Mess stewards in any mess to include at least one NCO, except when total number of mess stewards is less than 3.
In calculating ranks of messing staff, the following guide will be used: In every 69 messing staff OR’s carried on establishment under STCG there may be 21 NCOs from Corporal upwards on the following scale: One Warrant Officer. Two Staff Sergeants. Six Sergeants. Twelve Corporals.
The chief cook in any unit will rank as the senior member of the messing staff, irrespective of the rank of the senior mess steward. He will be responsible for: a. The proper functioning of the messing staff. b. Close co-operation with the unit messing officer. c. Training of probationer cooks.
Amended establishments will be issued shortly.
New Zealand Army Instruction 2147, 15 September 1948
With this new directive, New Zealand Army cooks (NZWAC cooks and stewards, which remained a separate corps but were under technical control of the RNZASC for catering purposes, until 1977 when they joined the RNZASC) were finally consolidated into a single corps, allowing for a standardised training syllabus. Additionally, to enhance the catering function and provide a comprehensive messing service, the Stewards trade was formalised as part of the RNZASC. By the end of 1948, the groundwork had been laid for the RNZASC Catering trade to support the evolving New Zealand army.
In conclusion, the evolution of Army catering in New Zealand from 1845 to 1948 reflects a journey marked by adaptability, innovation, and a commitment to sustaining the morale and effectiveness of New Zealand’s military forces. During this period, New Zealand’s military catering underwent a significant transformation from rudimentary messing arrangements in the early militia days. However, the importance of well-fed troops was consistently recognised, as evidenced by the efforts to improve messing arrangements, the establishment of training programs for cooks, and the integration of civilian and military personnel into the catering function. Despite challenges such as dissatisfaction with rations and the shortage of trained cooks, the New Zealand Army continually sought to enhance its catering capabilities, particularly in response to the demands of wartime mobilisation. The establishment of the Army School of Cookery, the integration of female cooks into the military establishment, and the adoption of international best practices, such as those observed in the British and Canadian armies, demonstrate New Zealand’s commitment to modernising its catering services and ensuring the provision of quality meals for its troops. By consolidating army catering services under the RNZASC umbrella and formalising the Cooks and Stewards trades, the New Zealand Army laid the groundwork for a more structured and professional catering function as the country transitioned into the post-war era. By 1948, the stage was set for the RNZASC Catering trade to play a pivotal role in supporting the evolving needs of the New Zealand army, reflecting a legacy of culinary excellence and dedication to service.
Notes
[1] “Newtown Park Camp (Inquiry into Conduct of),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1901 Session I, H-19a (1901).
[2] “New Zealand Contingent (No 1): Extracts from Reports by Major Robin, Commanding New Zealand Contingent, to Officer Commanding Forces,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1900 Session I, H-06a (1900).
[3] J Babington, “Defence Forces of New Zealand (Report on the) by Major General J.M Babington, Commandant of the Forces.,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1904 Session I, H-19 (1904).
[4] Based on the British logistics system the NZASC was to be responsible for the Transport and the supply of forage, rations and fuel. The supply and maintenance of all small-arms, ammunition, accoutrements, clothing, and field equipment Stores was to remain a responsibility of the Defence Stores Department which in 1917 became the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. Robert McKie, “Unappreciated Duty: The Forgotten Contribution of New Zealand’s Defence Stores Department in Mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in 1914: A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand” (Massey University, 2022).
[5] “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 (1913).
[6] “Military Forces of New Zealand (Report by the Inspector General of Ther Overseas Forces on the),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1914 Session I, H-19a (1914).
[7] “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, (1938).
[8] “Vocational Training,” Wairarapa Times-Age, , 17 January 1939.
[9] “Military Camps,” Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 80, , 5 April 1939.
[11] “Walked out Army Cooks,” Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 114, , 17 May 1939.
[12] “Soldier Cooks,” King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4856,, 1 November 1939.
[13] “Diet for Troops,” King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4856,, 1 December 1939.
[14] William Graham McClymont, To Greece, vol. 4 (War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, 1959), 23.
[15] Thomas Duncan MacGregor Stout, New Zealand Medical Services in Middle East and Italy, vol. 12 (War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, 1956), 47.
[16] Iris Latham, The Waac Story (Wellington, New Zealand1986), 1-4.
[17] “Moral Builders NZ Army Cooks,” Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 13760,, 1 October 1942.
[18] “Waac’s New Role,” Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 207, , 30 May 1944.
[19] Arnold Warren, Wait for the Waggon: The Story of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (McClelland, 1961).
[20] “Special New Zealand Army Order 60/1947 – the Star Classification and Promotion of Other Ranks of Ther Regular Force,”(1947).
[21] “New Zealand Army Instruction 2049 – Supplies and Transport Catering Group, Rnzasc,”(1948).
[22] “New Zealand Army Instruction 2147 – Supplies and Transport Catering Group, Rnzasc,”(1948).
In the historical tapestry of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), 1972 is a pivotal year, marking twenty-two years since New Zealand’s initial involvement in combat operations in South Korea. The nation continued actively participating in conflicts such as the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation, and the South Vietnam War. Throughout this period, New Zealand maintained a robust part-time territorial army sustained by Compulsory Military Training, all aimed at creating a versatile, all-arms Combat Brigade Group.
However, 1972 marked a turning point. It witnessed the conclusion of Compulsory Military Training, resulting in a reduction in the Territorial Force and its transformation into a volunteer force. Concurrently, with the conclusion of New Zealand’s commitment to the Vietnam War, the country entered a phase marked by individual engagements in United Nations Peacekeeping operations, a eighty-day mission to Rhodesia, the establishment of a permanent peace monitoring force in the Sinai, and participation in exercises both in New Zealand and overseas. This era ushered in a period of peace for the New Zealand Army, with nearly two decades passing before the RNZAOC would deploy a unit into a combat environment once again.
As 1972 concluded and the New Zealand Army and the RNZAOC entered this new era, they did so with a cadre of well-trained and experienced warrant and non-commissioned officers. This article will delve into the RNZAOC Regular Officer Cadre of 1972, as documented in the New Zealand Army Graduation List Regular Officer of 31 Oct 1972.
The RNZAOC of 1972 consisted of around 350 Regular and Territorial Officers and Other Ranks, including Storeman Clerks, Ammunition Technicians, Auto Parts, Footwear Repairers, Motor Trimmers, Tailors, and Clerks across numerous units, including.
Main Ordnance Depot, Trentham
RNZAOC School, Trentham
1 Central Ordnance Depot, Hopuhopu
2 Central Ordnance Depot, Linton
3 Central Ordnance Depot, Burnham
1 Composite Ordnance Depot, Mangaroa
5 Advanced Ordnance Depot, Singapore
Workshops Stores Section in RNZEME Workshops’
As Staff in various Headquarters
At this stage, female soldiers belonged to the New Zealand Woman’s Royal Army Corps (NZWRAC), with many posted to RNZAOC units as integral members of those units.
The Graduation List Regular Officer is divided into three Parts.
Part 1 – Regular Officers
Part 2 – Regular Quartermaster Officers
Part 3 – Supernumerary List
Part 1 – RNZAOC Regular Officers
Lieutenant Colonels
Clifford Leaman Sanderson, psc
Geoffrey John Hayes Atkinson, MBE, M Inst PS
Majors
John Barrie Glasson, (T/Lt-Col 1 Jan 71)
Malcolm John Ross, psc (T/Lt-Col 20 Oct 72)
Captains
Arthur John Campbell, ANZIM, psc (T/Maj 1 Aug 68)
Piers Martin Reid, (T/Maj 1 Feb 69)
Michael Dawney Hunt, ANZIM (T/Maj 1 Feb 69)
Terence David McBeth, (T/Maj 1 Nov 69)
Ian Geoffrey Ross
Ronald Leslie Cross, psc (T/Maj 21 Jun 70)
Gary Malcolm Corkin
John Andrew Henderson
John Robert Hicks
David John Rees
Michael Joseph Cooper
Terence John Verrall
Lieutenants
Maxwell Frederick Newnham, (T/Capt 7 Mar 70)
Patrick Te Tahuri Puohotaua
Michael Alexender Cowan
John Francis Hyde, (T/Capt 1 Apr 71)
Kevin John Dreyer, (T/Capt 22 Jun 72)
Paul Edwin Dangerfield
Keith David Hansen
Mark David Stuart, BA (mil)
Peter Martin O’Brien
Grant William Blackburn
Second Lieutenants
Noel Anthony Hitchings
Allan Charles Lash
Part 2 – RNZAOC Quartermaster List
Captains and Quartermasters
William Maxwell Campbell, (T/Maj & QM 1 Aug 68)
Patrick George Burns, (T/Maj & QM 25 Apr 69)
David Ralph Hughes, T/Maj & QM 3 Jun 70)
Keith Alexander Watson
Ian Roy Larsen
Alan Paul Bezar
Lieutenants and Quartermasters
Donald Winter Stewart, (T/Capt & QM 22 Feb 71)
Hector Searle McLachlan, (T/Capt & QM 1 May 71)
Godfrey Edward Lee, (T/Capt & am 5 Apr 71)
Stewart McDonald Fussell, (T/Capt & QM 5 Apr 71)
John Edward Hancox, (T/Capt & QM 1 Jul 70)
Edward Vennell Sweet, (T/Capt & QM 11 Aug 71)
Alfred Stephenson Day, (T/Capt & QM 3 Sep 71)
James William Twist
Part 3 – RNZAOC Supernumerary List
Majors
Ronald George Henderson Golightly
Captains
Carleton Robert Duggan, (T/Maj & QM 14 Sep 68)
George Edward Butler, (QM) (T/Maj & QM 4 Aug 69)
Statistics on the RNZAOC 1972 Officers List
Duntroon Graduates- 1
Portsea Graduates -10
RF Cadets – 2
Served in other Corps before joining RNZAOC – 7
Operational Service
WW2 – 4
J Force – 2
K Force – 2
Malaya – 6
Vietnam – 15
Service and Age
1972 Average age – 36 years
Average age on leaving RNZAOC – 44 years.
Over 20 years of RNZAOC Service – 27
Cumulative amount of RNZAOC Service – 880 Years
Shortest Service in RNZAOC – 2 Years
Longest Service in RNZAOC – 36 Years
Average length of NZ Army Service – 62 Years
Average length of RNZAOC Service – 59 Years
Appointments
Chief of General Staff- 1
Director of Ordnance Services – 7
Chief Instructor RNZAO School – 8
Chief Ammunition Technical Officer – 3
Colonel-Commandant – 2
In 1972, the RNZAOC entered a transformative period, marked by changes in training, force structure, and the cessation of its involvement in the Vietnam War. The graduation list reflects a diverse group of officers, well-versed in various aspects of military service. As the RNZAOC transitioned into a new era characterised by peacekeeping missions and operational diversification, the officers of 1972 carried with them a wealth of experience and training, setting the stage for the Corps’ future endeavours. The statistical overview provides insights into the officers’ backgrounds, service history, and appointments, highlighting the depth of expertise within the RNZAOC during this pivotal time.
The beret is a type of cloth cap with a rich military history that originated in the Basque district of France. Since its adoption by the Royal Tank Regiment in 1924, the beret has become a symbol of military service across the globe. New Zealand is no exception, having adopted its first berets in 1938. The New Zealand military has a long and varied history of using this iconic headdress. In this article, we will explore the history of berets in New Zealand’s military and their significance in various corps and regiments of the New Zealand army.
The Royal Tank Regiment adopted this headdress on 5 May 1924. The decision to choose the beret was made during a dinner in 1917 when officers of the Tank Corps discussed the end of the war and what kind of uniform the corps would wear in peacetime. One of the officers suggested that the corps adopt a headdress of our allies, following the tradition of the British Army adopting some form of headdress belonging to its enemies after most wars.
Initially, the choice was between the Breton beret worn by the Tirailleurs Alpins and the Basque beret worn by the Chars d’ Assault, but neither of these patterns met with favour from the Tank Corps officers. After further consideration, they decided upon the pattern popular among English girls’ schools. Many girls were sent a letter explaining the situation, and many berets of various colours were received in reply. Eventually, the black beret was authorised after a stern contest with the War Office.
Berets were first used as a headdress in New Zealand in 1938 when new uniforms for the Territorial forces were introduced, including a black beret for motorcyclists of the Light Machine Gun Platoons and dispatch riders.[1]
Motorcyclists discontinued the black beret in February 1942 when the NZ Tank Brigade was granted permission to use it as its official headdress.[2]
On 17 February 1942, 2 NZ Tank Battalion Routine Orders posted the following notice,
“H.M the King as Colonel in Chief, Royal Tank Regiment, has signified his informal approval to an alliance between this Bde and the Royal Tank Regiment”. The ONLY personnel now authorised to wear black berets and tank patch are Army Tank Bn personnel with the sole exception of AFV School instructors only.[3]
Within the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF), The Divisional Cavalry in Egypt was the first to adopt the black beret. Later on, black berets were issued to most of the 4th New Zealand Armoured Brigade personnel in November 1942. A year later, soldiers serving in the 22 Battalion in Italy were issued a khaki beret to replace their field service cap.
4th NZ NZ Armoured Brigade Black Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection.
22 Battalion Khaki Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
In the years following World War II, the New Zealand Army expanded the use of berets to various units. The Royal New Zealand Army Nursing Service (RNZANS) was authorised to wear a light grey beret in 1946, and the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps (WAAC) was permitted to wear the khaki beret. However, the reintroduction of the traditional lemon squeezer as the official headdress of the New Zealand Army in February 1949 marked the end of the widespread use of berets by the NZ Army, with only the RNZAC, NZWRAC, and RNZANS authorised to use the beret as their headdress.
RNZAC Black Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
RNZNC Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
However, Dress Regulations updated in October 1952 permitted the wear of blue berets by Regular Physical Training Instructors and by officers when wearing Uniform, Blue, No 1.[4]
When Kayforce, the New Zealand military contribution to the Korean War, was mobilised, the khaki beret was reintroduced as the standard headdress for all of Kayforce. However, RNZAC personnel on secondment to British armoured units in Korea continued to wear the black beret. The khaki beret remained the headdress for Kayforce personnel until their withdrawal from Korea in 1955. Initial issues to Kayforce were from existing New Zealand Stocks, with an additional 10000 to provide adequate stocks for replacement and issue to Kayforce and NZWAC purchased from the United Kingdom in 1952.[5]
Kayforce Khaki Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
In 1954, the New Zealand Army Board decided to replace the existing khaki uniform of the New Zealand Women’s Royal Army Corps (NZWRAC) with a new uniform of tartan green with black accessories. The new NZWRAC uniform included a tartan green beret, which was authorised for wear on informal occasions. This change in uniform and the beret helped distinguish the NZWRAC from other units and symbolised their unique role within the army. The tartan green beret became an iconic part of the NZWRAC uniform and was worn with pride by its members.
In 1954, the Cap Battledress (Cap BD), known as the Ski Cap, was introduced as the official army headdress in New Zealand to replace the lemon squeezer hat.[6] However, this type of hat was not popular among the troops, particularly those in tropical climates. Despite the dissatisfaction, the Ski Cap remained the standard headdress until it was withdrawn from service in 1965.
In 1955, the New Zealand Special Air Service was formed, and they adopted the British airborne maroon beret as their official headgear. The adoption of the maroon beret by the NZSAS was a significant moment in the history of the New Zealand military. It reflected not only the elite status of the NZSAS but also the close relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In May 1955, an initial purchase was made to cover the issue of the maroon berets to selected personnel, as well as wastage and turnover, with the possibility of an increase in the size of the NZSAS. The purchase included 600 maroon berets, 500 anodised aluminium SAS badges, 60 embroidered SAS badges, and 60 sets of SAS collar badges. This move signalled a new era within the New Zealand military, and the maroon beret symbolised the high standards and specialised training of the NZSAS.[7] Despite the British SAS adopting a beige sand-coloured beret in 1956 and several opportunities to change, the NZSAS retained the maroon beret until 1986.
NZSAS Narron Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
In 1958, a review of beret stock in the New Zealand Army revealed that 3000 new and partially worn khaki berets were sitting idle in Ordnance stocks. The idea of utilising them as part of the No2 Other Ranks Service dress was considered. However, after some discussion by the Army Dress Committee, it was decided that the khaki beret did not match the No2 Other Ranks Service dress, and a Cap Service Dress was provided instead.[8]
Following the reactivation of 16 Field Regiment (16 Fd Regt) after its service in Kayforce, there was a desire to acknowledge the regiment’s service in Korea. In 1960, it was proposed by the headquarters of the regiment to adopt the stock of 3000 khaki berets to maintain the traditions of the original regiment and for their suitability in appearance.[9] However, the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Major General C.E. Weir, was focused on standardising and simplifying army dress and did not support the proposal. He wanted to eliminate multifarious kit and keep the headdress for the army as the Cap BD for walking out and a jungle hat for field service, with no other variations permitted. As a result, the application to wear khaki berets by 16 Fd Regt was declined, and they were asked to propose another way to commemorate their association with Korea.[10]
In Malaya, the 2nd New Zealand Regiment (2NZ Regt) surveyed the suitability of the Cap BD as a headdress for the tropics and found that berets would be more suitable. In October 1960, 2 NZ Regt requested 50 berets of different sizes and styles to test their suitability as a tropical headdress.[11] Concurrently, the Army Dress Committee agreed in principle that berets would replace the Cap BD as the army’s everyday headdress. In March 1961, it was suggested that a scarlet beret would be a suitable colour for the Infantry beret.[12]
The Army Dress Committee reopened the discussion on berets in its 16 June 1961 meeting and recommended that Khaki berets be issued to all corps without berets to replace Caps BD. However, at the 15 June 1961 Infantry Conference, it was pointed out that if berets were to be introduced, the Infantry colour should not be scarlet but a Dark Green.[13]
The Director of the Royal New Zealand Artillery (DRNZA) joined the conversation on 3 July 1961, stating that if the NZ Army adopted berets, the RNZA should adopt the distinctive style of headdress worn by other members of the Royal Regiment, such as the Royal Artillery (RS), Royal Canadian Artillery (RCA), and Royal Australian Artillery (RAA), and adopt a blue beret.[14]
Up to this stage, the colours of berets, if adopted, had not formally been discussed as it was assumed that existing stocks of khaki berets would be utilised alongside the existing berets worn by them.
The QMG was concerned about the shortage of khaki berets in stock, as only 6000 were available. As a result, there were not enough berets to equip the entire army or even to dye some to meet the needs of coloured berets for the Infantry and Artillery. In response to the Infantry’s desire for a dark green beret, the QMG expressed confusion and suggested that red was the traditional Infantry colour. The QMG also commented that they could not understand why the Infantry would want to adopt a dark green beret, making them appear like members of the Women’s Royal Army Corps (WRAC) or the Dental Corps.[16]
The Director of Infantry quickly replied that although red was the traditional Infantry colour, it was not traditional for Infantry to wear red berets. British Infantry, for example, wore an assortment of berets (of different colours) and bonnets, with the majority of British infantry regiments wearing berets of dark blue. Although Dark Green had been decided as the preferred Infantry colour, members of the Royal New Zealand Infantry did not wish to be confused with the NZWRAC or Dental Corps and the rifle green beret, as worn by the 3rd Green Jackets with whom the NZ Regt was in an alliance, was the preferred colour for the Infantry beret.[17]
On 17 August 1961, the Dress Committee reconvened and approved using coloured berets to represent Corps distinctions. The committee instructed the secretary to consult with the Corps’ Directors to determine their preferred colours based on the British Colour Council Dictionary of Standards. The type of headband, whether it was to be black or brown, was also to be specified.[18]
Reconvening on 14 November 1961, the Army Dress Committee examined the Corp’s preferences, but due to the DGMG dissenting on the proposed Rifle Green for the NZ Regt failed to reach an agreement. However, after further discussion with the Director Infantry on 16 November, the committee agreed to recommend the adopting of the following colours per the preferences of the various corps.[19]
Corps
Colour (BCC designation)
Headband
RNZA
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZE
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZ Sigs
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZASC
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZAOC
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZEME
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZDC
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RF CADETS
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZChD
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZAC
Black (Jet Black – BCC 220)
Black
NZ Regt
Green (Rifle Green – BCC 27)
Black
NZSAS
Maroon (Maroon – BCC 39)
Black
RNZAMC
Dull Cherry (Ruby – BCC 38)
Black
RNZ Pro
Blue (Royal Blue – BCC 197)
Black
NZAEC
Khaki (Khaki – BCC 72)
Brown
RNZNC
Grey (Grebe – BCC 82)
Black
NZWRAC
Green (Tartan Green – BCC 26)
Black
NZ Regt/ RNZIR Rifle Green Beret (2/1 Badge and backing). Lee Hawkes Collection
In September 1962, the Army Dress Committee met again and agreed that the recommendations made for coloured berets on 16 November 1961 should be cancelled and that the NZ Army should adopt a standard green beret for all corps except those whom Dress Regs already authorise to wear berets in other colours, i.e., Black (RNZAC), Maroon (NZSAS), Grey (RNZNC)and Green (NZWRAC). In support of this proposal, the justification was.
The requirement for Corps distinctions in the form of headdress has diminished considerably with the introduction of shoulder titles.
Green tones well with current and proposed Army uniforms and is ideal for training activities.
Introducing berets in all the colours previously agreed upon would create an unnecessary provisioning problem.[20][21]
The discussion on berets continued into 1963 with the decision made to retain the existing Black (RNZAC), Maroon (NZSAS), Grey (RNZNC)and Green (NZWRAC) but introduce blue berets for all other corps, including the Royal New Zealand Army Medic Corps (RNZAMC), NZ Provost and the New Zealand Army Education Corps (NZAEC) who initially requested Ruby, Royal Blue and Khaki berets.
By October 1964, sufficient stock was received, the policy surrounding the issue of Berets and the withdrawal of the Cap BD was finalised, and the Instruction for the distribution of Berets was released in February 1965.[22]
NZ Regt/ RNZIR Rifle Green Beret (2/1 Badge and backing). Lee Hawkes CollectionNZ Regt/ RNZIR Rifle Green Beret (2/1 Badge and backing). Lee Hawkes CollectionRNZASC Blue Beret. Lee Hawkes CollectionRNZA Blue Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
New Zealand Army Air Corps
In 1963, the New Zealand Army Air Corps (NZAAC) was established, and it became affiliated with the UK Army Air Corps on 6 March 1964. Major General J.H. Mogg, the Colonel Commandant of the Army Air Corps, granted permission for the NZAAC to don the Army Air Corps Light Blue beret and AAC badges.[23]
NZACC Light Blue Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Regular Force Cadets
In July 1972, a submission was made to the Army Dress Committee to introduce scarlet Berets (BCC 209 – Post Office red) as the authorised headdress for Regular Force Cadets instead of the blue berets worn since 1965. The proposal represented an extension of the present colour distinction of RF Cadets as evidenced in lanyards, chevrons, badges of rank and shoulder titles. [24]
Regular Force Cadet School Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Redesign of Beret
As a result of questions raised at the 29 November 1983 Army Dress Committee meeting on the design of berets, a study was initiated to be undertaken by the Deputy Director of Ordnance Services and by Army R&D to examine standard samples of berets produced by Hills Hats for the Australian and Singaporean Armies to see if one was of a better design with less cloth in the crown than currently on issue in the NZ Army.[25] This study resulted in the introduced a redesigned beret with less cloth in the crown and a cloth headband instead of the traditional leather headband.
Royal New Zealand Military Police
Following the 1981 rebranding of the Royal NZ Provost Corps to the Corps of Royal New Zealand Military Police (RNZMP), a request for a distinctive RNZMP beret in the corps colour of Royal Blue was submitted to the Army Dress Committee in November 1983.[26] This submission was approved, and by the end of 1984, all RF and most TF members of the RNZMP were wearing the new royal Blue beret.[27] As a result of a 1986 CGS directive for the RNZMP to replace their blue regimental belt because of its similarity with the NZSAS belt, the RNZMP director raised a submission to introduce a red belt and beret. Opinion on introducing a red belt and beret for the RNZMP was evenly divided, principally because of the clash with the RF Cadet school belt and beret.[28] This submission for the RNZMP to wear a red beret and belt was rejected by CGS, and the use of the royal blue beret remained extant.[29]
RNZMP Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Comparison between RNZMP Beret (left) and Standard Blue Beret (right). Lee Hawkes Collection
Royal New Zealand Chaplains Department
The Army Dress Committee received a proposal on 31 August 1984 regarding the possibility of Royal New Zealand Chaplains Department (RNZChD) personnel wearing a Royal Purple beret. At that time, Chaplains and fourteen other Corps wore the blue beret, and there was a desire to establish a distinctive beret that would readily identify the Chaplains and align with the colours associated with the Chaplaincy. The proposal suggested using Royal Purple (BCC219), the traditional colour of the Chaplains’ Department. It was proposed that the black leather rim of the beret would remain unchanged. This initiative aimed to complete the rebranding of the RNZChD, which had already commenced with the approval and production of the specifically designed NZ Cap Badge.[30]
However, on 27 November 1984, the recommendation to change the beret colour for the RNZChD was not approved. This decision was made due to the recent approval of a uniquely distinctive badge for the RNZChD, which was considered sufficient for identifying the Chaplains.[31]
Royal Regiment of New Zealand Artillery
On St Barbara’s Day, 4 December 1984, the Royal Regiment of New Zealand Artillery significantly changed by exchanging their blue berets for khaki ones. A departure from the tradition followed by gunners throughout the Commonwealth, who still wore blue berets. The decision to change the beret came from a feeling among gunners that, as the senior corps, they should have a distinctive headdress.
The Royal New Zealand Artillery believed that the khaki beret had already established a singular tradition since 1940 when 2NZEF wore it during World War II and by Kayforce in the Korean War. 16 Fd Reg, RNZA, was the principal army element of Kayforce, and the modern New Zealand gunners claimed the exclusive right to wear the khaki beret due to their association with this regiment.[32]
RNZA Khaki Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
New Zealand Special Air Service
Following at least two ‘show of hands’ votes by all available members of 1 NZSAS Group, with some resistance to change on historical principles by some unit members, a submission to change the colour of the beret to ‘sand’ was forwarded to the Army Dress Committee 24 May 1985 by the CO 1 NZSAS Group. Supported by the NZ SAS Colonel Commandant, Colonel Frank Rennie, the proposal was to remain consistent with the Australian SASR and UK 22 SAS and change the NZSAS beret colour from maroon to sand. While generally supported by the Army Dress Committee, there were reservations over the possible similarity in colour (should they change) with the new RNZA beret and over the fact that NZSAS, since its formation in the 1950s, had always had a maroon beret and it now considered a uniquely NZ item of dress. The chairman recommended the colour change to the CGS, noting the committee’s reservations.[33]
Concurring with the committee’s reservations, the CGS Major General John Mace did not initially support the change proposal. An original troop commander in 1955 and a squadron commander in 1960-62 and 1965-66. CGS counted that the proposed beret was too similar to the new RNZA beret and that while “the change might serve a purpose overseas, the Gp are permanently NZ based. There is historical and traditional significance in the red beret for NZSAS. The only development that would change my mind would be the finalisation of an airborne element for the NZ Army or a request signed by all serving members of the Gp.”
Taking the proposal back to the unit, the CO 1 NZSAS GP asked the unit members to vote in writing on whether or not they supported the change of beret colour. Cognisant that there were those within the unit who supported the change and those that favoured the traditional status quo. The CO asked the unit to consider the change based on the following considerations.
All para, quasi-para or airborne forces, including the Australian female parachute packers, appear to wear the maroon beret.
CGS had requested the preparation of a proposal to discuss the formation of an NZ airborne/para-trained force. This proposal would issue them a maroon beret once para qualified.
3 RAR had recently been issued the maroon beret.
The sand beret and RNZA beret are similar in colour but easily distinguishable. The badge would be the current embroidered badge which would distinguish the NS SAS from the SASR, which used a metal badge.[34]
In a vote undertaken by all badged serving members of the unit in which they indicated if they previously supported the change and if they now supported the change, the vote was unanimous in support of the change of beret colour. Eleven personnel who had previously not supported the change now supported the proposal.[35] On 24 January 1986, CGS authorised the NZSAS to wear the sand-coloured beret.[36]
NZSAS Sand Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals
At the Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals (RNZSigs) September 1986 Triennial Conference at Hopuhopu Camp, seventy RNZ Sigs Officers and Warrant Officers displayed enthusiasm for a change of beret colour and indicated that the new colour they preferred was Rifle Green. The reasoning for this choice of beret colour was based on the RNZSigs corps colours, representing the three media of communications of air, land and sea as represented on the Corps stable belt,
Dark Blue (the sea) – Royal Blue (BCC 197) (worn by RNZMP).
Green (the land) – Rifle Green (BCC 27)
Light Blue (the air) – Spectrum Blue (BCC 86)
A proposal requesting authority for RNZ Sigs pers to wear a Rifle Green beret was submitted to the Army Dress Committee on 29 September 1986.[37]
The recommendation was that the RNZSigs wear a rifle green beret because:
it would be a distinctive corps headdress
all other ‘teeth’ arms less RNZE have a distinctive beret
the colour is traditionally a ‘Signals’ colour
Although D Inf & SAS considered the colour too similar to that worn by RNZIR, most of the Dress Committee supported the change at the 3 November meeting of the Army Dress Committee.[38] Notification of the CGS approval of the RNZSigs beret was noted in the 12 May 1987 minutes of the Army Dress Committee.[39]
RNZSigs Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
New Zealand Intelligence Corps
The New Zealand Intelligence Corps (NZIC) was initially formed as part of the Territorial Force in January 1942 but was disbanded in 1947 as part of the post-war reorganisation. On 15 March 1987, it was re-established as a Regular Force Corps and named the New Zealand Army Intelligence Corps, which later reverted to its original title. Prior to the formation of the NZIC, individuals posted to intelligence positions unofficially wore the British Army Intelligence Corps Cypress Green Beret. When the NZIC was re-established in 1987, the beret was adopted as the official headdress of the NZIC.
New Zealand Intelligence Corps Cypress Green Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection.
One Army Beret
The New Zealand Army boldly moved on 16 August 1999 when CGS Major General Maurice Dodson issued a directive to adopt a “one army” beret. The directive aimed to create a sense of unity and pride among all soldiers and to simplify the number of coloured berets in the NZ Army. This resulted in the rifle green beret, previously reserved for the RNZSigs, becoming the standard beret for all officers and soldiers, except for the NZSAS, who retained their sand beret.
However, the transition to the “one army” beret was met with resistance, with many officers, soldiers, and veterans opposing the change. They were attached to their former beret colours and saw the change as unnecessary. This dissatisfaction was mirrored in 2001 when the United States Army moved to a “one army” beret for all soldiers, highlighting the powerful effect that symbols such as coloured berets can have on morale and unit pride. The NZ Army “one army” beret has endured despite the initial resistance. The New Zealand Cadet Coprs continued to wear the Blue Beret.
One Army Beret with QAMR Badge. Lee Hawkes Collection
Notes
“Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision.” Archives New Zealand No R17187783 (1952 -1965).
“Clothing: New Zealand Regular Forces: Scale of Issue.” Archives New Zealand No R17187790 (1950 – 1957).
“Conferences – Nedw Zealand Army Dress Committee.” Archives New Zealand No R17188110 (1962-67).
“Conferences – New Zealand Army Dress Committee.” Archives New Zealand No R9753141 (1970-73).
“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984.” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).
“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86.” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).
“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87.” Archives New Zealand No R17311897 (1986 – 1987).
“New Army Uniforms and Modern Military Vehicles for Dominion Forces.” New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23033, , 10 May 1938.
“New Zealand Army Instruction 164/1942.”(10 January 1942).
“St Barbaras Day.” The Press, 5 December 1984.
Thomas, Malcolm, and Cliff Lord. New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches, 1911-1991. Wellington, N.Z. : M. Thomas and C. Lord, 1995, 1995. Bibliographies, Non-fiction.
“Wearing of Black Beret & Tank Patch.” 2 NZ Tank Battalion R.O. 26/1943 (17 February 1942).
[1] “New Army Uniforms and Modern Military Vehicles for Dominion Forces,” New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23033, , 10 May 1938.
[2] “New Zealand Army Instruction 164/1942,”(1942).
[3] “Wearing of Black Beret & Tank Patch,” 2 NZ Tank Battalion R.O. 26/1943 (1942).
[4] Army 213/7/4/Q/Org Revised Appendix ‘M’ Clothing Scales Dated 3 October 1952. “Clothing: New Zealand Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives New Zealand No R17187790 (1950 – 1957).
[5] Application for Financial Authority, Khaki Berets 14 November 1952. “Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision,” Archives New Zealand No R17187783 (1952 -1965).
[6] Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches, 1911-1991 (Wellington, N.Z. : M. Thomas and C. Lord, 1995, 1995), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 128-29.
[7] Army 213/6/7/Q Application for Financial Authority, Berets for Special Air Squadron 31 May 1955.Ibid.
[8] Minutes of the 17 meeting of the Army Dress Committee, held at Army HQ on 9 October 1958.Ibid.
[9] Army 213/6/7/Arty Headdress – 16 Fd Regt 30 March 1960. Ibid.
[18] Minutes of the 29th meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 17 August 1961. Ibid.
[19] Minutes of the 32nd meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 16 November 1961. Ibid.
[20] Minutes of the 37th meeting of the Army Dress Committee at Army HQ on 12 Sept 1962. “Conferences – Nedw Zealand Army Dress Committee,” Archives New Zealand No R17188110 (1962-67).
[21] Minutes of the 37th meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 13 September 1962. “Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision.”
[23] NZACC Submission 9/84 to Army Dress Committee 7 August 1984. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984,” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).
[24] NC 8/2/2/ADC HQ Home Command Amendment to Army Clothing Scales Scarlet Berets: RF Cadets 21 July 1972. “Conferences – New Zealand Army Dress Committee,” Archives New Zealand No R9753141 (1970-73).
[25] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 29 November 1983. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86,” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).
[26] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 29 November 1983. Ibid.
[27] RNZMP Submission 3/87 to Army Dress Committee 30 September 1986. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87,” Archives New Zealand No R17311897 (1986 – 1987).
[28] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 3 November 1986. Ibid.
[29] RNZMP submission 3/87 to Army Dress Committee 30 September 1986.Ibid.
[30] RNZChD submission 11/84 to Army Dress Committee 31 August 1984. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984.”
[31] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 27 November 1984. Ibid.
[32] “St Barbaras Day,” The Press, 5 December 1984.
[33] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 24 May 1985. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86.”
[34] NZSAS 5252 Change of Colour for NZSAS Beret 27 September 1985. Ibid.
[35] Correspondence CO SAS to DInf &SAS 15 December 1985.Ibid.
[36] Army 220/5/103 DRESS-NZSAS PERS 24 January 1986. Ibid.
[37] Signals Directorate 1000/1 Submission to Army Dress Committee 29 September 1986. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87.”
[38] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 3 November 1986. Ibid.
[39] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 12 May 1987. Ibid.
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.
On 12 May 1979, Officers and Soldiers of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) marched onto paraded grounds on camps and bases across New Zealand and Singapore for the final time as the RNZASC was disbanded and its officers and soldiers split up between the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC) and the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT). Following a short ceremony, the RNZASC Butchers, Petroleum Operators and Suppliers exchanged their RNZASC Badges and Stable belts for those of the RNZAOC. The RNZASC Cooks, Drivers, Movements Operators and Stewards, while retaining the RNZASC Stable belt, exchanged their RNZASC cap badge for the new cap badge of the RNZCT and, in recognition of the contribution and history of the RNZASC, fitted on their left shoulder a new gold and blue lanyard. Marching off with a renewed sense of elan, the soldiers of the RNZCT would wear their gold and blue lanyard with pride for the next seventeen years. However, in the years since the RNZCT Lanyard was last worn, its origins have become clouded between myth and reality, which this article will correct.
The word lanyard originates from the French word ‘lanière’, which means ‘strap’, with accounts from the late 15th century French describing how soldiers and privateers utilised ropes and cords found on ships to keep their swords, cutlasses and pistols close at hand whilst working in ships’ rigging and during combat. As with any functional military kit, lanyards evolved, with French Cuirassiers using a braided lanyard to hold their swords in place, with adoption by most militaries following. In British use, lanyards became common, used to attach pistols to uniforms, and Gunners used them to fire Artillery. In widespread use for practical purposes, the adoption of lanyards as a decorative uniform item soon followed, with coloured lanyards denoting regiments and Corps and gold lanyards used to identify senior officers.
The lanyard that the RNZCT adopted was based on the United Kingdom’s Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) lanyard that was worn until the disestablishment of the RASC in 1965. A twisted core lanyard with gold and blue strands with button loops and fixed knots at both ends, its origins have become lost to history, and some separation of myth from reality is required.
Many myths surrounding the RASC lanyards are based on the supposed withdrawal of the Royal Artillery at some unknown battle, with the guns saved by either the RASC (or its earlier equivalents), Royal Engineers, or even the Ordnance Corps. With the guns saved, the Royal Artillery was made to wear a white lanyard, and the Corps that came to the rescue were awarded the privilege of wearing a coloured lanyard. The problem with this myth is that the British Army is an institution steeped in tradition and commemorates its victories and defeats in equal measure, and there is no supporting historical evidence of such an event happening. Although it does make for great barrack-room and mess banter between regiments and Corps, it is similar to the myth of the cannon balls being larger than the cannons placed on the Ordnance cap badge as a mark of shame due to a historic logistic cock up. Like the Ordnance badge, the explanation for the colours on the RASC lanyard is purely heraldic.
The heraldic origins of the RASC lie with the Board of Ordnance, whose colours were Red, Gold and Blue. A British government body established in the Tudor period, the Board of Ordnance’s primary responsibilities were to manage the lands, depots and forts required for the defence of the realm and its overseas possessions, supply munitions and equipment to both the Army and the Navy and maintain and direct the Artillery and Engineer corps. Through the Board of Ordnance. The RASC had a common background with the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers and Royal Army Ordnance Corps. The ASC’s roots as a uniformed military organisation can be traced to the Royal Waggoners.
Established in 1794 and then disbanded in 1799, the Royal Waggoners were reformed in 1802 as the Royal Waggon Train (RWT). Serving with distinction throughout the Napoleonic Wars, the regimental colours of the RWT were white and blue, which featured on the headdress, collars and cuff of the RWT uniform.
Corporal of the Royal Waggon Train,1815 Identifying the soldier as a member of the Royal Waggon Train are the White and Blue regimental cap or ‘chaco’, Collar and cuffs. https://www.facebook.com/Graveshistoricaluniforms
The RWT was disbanded in 1833, with its Supply functions (food, forage and Fuel) assumed by the Commissariat. Tarnished by its poor performance during the war in Crimea, the Board of Ordnance was disbanded in 1855. This resulted in the reorganisation of the British Army’s Logistic functions, including the resurrection of the transport functions of the RWT as the Land Transport Corps, which was then renamed the Military Train in 1856.[1] The provision of arms, ammunition and other critical stores was the responsibility of the Military Store Department which in turn would evolve into the Army Ordnance Corps. By 1864, the Commissariat and Military Train uniforms were both blue, with the Military Train continuing the tradition established by the RWT, with its uniform facings (collars, Cuffs and linings) being White.[2]
During the New Zealand Wars, the Commissariat, Military Train and Military Store Department all provided their respective specialist logistic functions in support of Imperial and Colonial units until the final withdrawal of imperial Forces from New Zealand in 1870. From 1869 to 1911, the Defence Stores Department coordinated supply and Transport functions required by the New Zealand Forces.
The Officers of the Commissariat, Military Train and Military Store Department were combined in 1869 into the Control Department, with the other ranks of the three branches combined into the Army Service Corps (ASC). A short-lived experiment in amalgamation, the Control Department was abolished in 1875 and replaced by the Commissariat Transport Department and Ordnance Store Department. In 1880 the Commissariat Transport Department was renamed the Commissariat and Transport Staff, with the ASC split into the Commissariat and Transport Corps and Ordnance Store Corps in 1881. The Commissariat and Transport Staff and Corps retained the Blue and White uniform distinctions with the 1883 Dress regulations noting that lace and cord fittings were to be gold.[3] In December 1888, the Commissariat and Transport Staff and the Commissariat and Transport Corp amalgamated into a new ASC, with, for the first time, officers and other ranks serving in a single unified organisation. The ASC retained blue and white as its regimental colours, and in recognition of the service provided by the ASC in its first South Africa campaign, gold was included as part of the ASC regimental colours to “represent the gold lace on the tunic and to impart character, distinctiveness and greater beauty”.[4]
In ASC use, lanyards were generally only worn by personnel of Horse Transport companies to carry hoof picks. In 1899, ASC Corps Order 39 permitted Field Glasses and Whistles to be worn and carried by ASC officers. The pattern of the whistle to be used was the same pattern used by the Metropolitan Police attached to a silk lanyard, the colour of the frock, which by this stage was Khaki.[5]
As a result of its service during the First World War, in 1918, the ASC received the “Royal” prefix becoming the RASC and was divided into Transport and Supply Branches.
From 1940 all British army vehicles were allocated Arm of Service (AoS) markings. Located on the offside front bumper or nearby and repeated on the offside rear, the AoS sign was a 9 in (23 cm) square with a background colour specific to each AoS. In the case of the RASC, the AoS sign was diagonal red over green. White digits explained the individual units within that AoS. Adopted by all commonwealth ASC units, including the NZASC, the RASC red over green AoS sign remained in British use until 1950, when replaced by a blue and gold sign.
RASC AoS Signs Red and Green – 1940-50: Bule and Gold – 1950 -1965
In 1941, the British Army introduced coloured AoS strips to be worn on both arms of the Battle Dress uniform, with the primary colour facing forward. The RASC AoS strip was gold and blue, with blue facing forward on both arms. The RASC adopted the RASC AoS Battledress colours for the RASC lanyard, which was approved for wear by all ranks on 1 June 1950.[6]
The RASC continued to wear a gold and blue lanyard until its Supply functions were absorbed by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC), and its Transport functions reformed into the RCT in 1965.[7] With the RASC gold and blue lanyard retired, the RCT adopted a blue lanyard.[8] A further evolution to British Army logistics occurred in 1993whern the RCT, the RAOC, the Army Catering Corps, The Royal Engineers Postal and Courier Service, and the Royal Pioneer Corps were all disbanded and reformed as the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC). With each foundation Corps of the RLC having values, traditions and dress embellishments, many compromises were made to carry as many as possible into the RLC. For example, the RAOC appointment of the Conductor was retained as a whole of RLC appointment. In the case of the RASC lanyard, it was also retained as the RLC lanyard.[9]
Following the departure of the Imperial Forces from New Zealand, the Defence Stores Department coordinated the Supply and Transport requirements of the New Zealand Forces. Based on the lessons of the War in South Africa, the Defence Act of 1909 laid the framework for a significant reorganisation of New Zealand’s Military Forces, including the formation of the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) on 12 May 1910 to be organised and trained by ASC Captain Henry Owen Knox.[10] Appointed as a Lieutenant Colonel in New Zealand’s Military Forces, Knox grew and shaped the NZASC in the years leading up to the First World War.
With the New Zealand Forces adopting a standard Khaki field service uniform, a system of distinguishing colour piping on cuffs, collars and epaulettes was introduced with GHQ Circular 10 of 2 February 1911 identifying white as the NZASC colour. The Dress Regulations of 1912 reinforced white as the NZASC distinguishing colour, expanding its use to stripes on trousers, forages caps and puggarees on felt slouch hats.[11] The use of white piping on Khaki uniforms ceased during World War One. However, the NZASC Khaki/White/Khaki puggaree remained in use until 1960, when the Lemon squeezer hat and Corps puggaree was replaced by the Cap Battledress (Cap BD).
New Zealand Army Service Corps Puggaree. Robert McKie collection
During the Second World War, white continued to be the colour used on NZASC uniform distinguishing patches, except for NZASC units of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the Pacific (2NZEF (IP)) who wore an unofficial patch in the RASC vehicle AoS colours of diagonal red over green on their puggarees.[12] After Serving with distinction in both World Wars, in 1946, the NZASC received the “Royal” prefix becoming the RNZASC. The RNZASC received further accolades for its service in Korea from 1950 to 1955, where the vehicles of 10 Transport Company RNZASC continued to use the diagonal red over green AoS sign with the digits 72.
During the 1950s, the RNZASC followed the British lead and ceased using the diagonal red over green AoS sign, replacing it with diagonal and horizontal blue and gold A0S signs, concurrently unit signage emblazoned with backgrounds of blue and gold became commonplace.
Allied with the RASC since 1921 and the RCT since 1965, the RNZASC was one of the last New Zealand Corps to seek approval to adopt a Stable belt. With some individuals already wearing the unauthorised RASC belt that had been discontinued in 1965, the RNZASC requested and granted permission to adopt the RCT pattern stable belt in September 1973.
Following the lead of the United Kingdom and Australia, who had reorganised their Supply and Transport services in 1965 and 1973, the RNZASC began the final planning to transform the RNZASC into the RNZCT in 1978. Eager to ease the restructuring of the Corps by incorporating linkages with the past in a dress embellishment, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Davies, the Director of Supply and Transport (DST) and Major Wally Fraser of the Supply and Transport Directorate introduced the idea of an RNZCT lanyard. Plaiting two samples by hand, Major Fraser provided two samples in the RASC colours of gold and blue for approval by the Army Dress Committee.[13]
Earlier attempts by other Corps to introduce lanyards had been previously rejected as the Army was unwilling to encourage a proliferation of unnecessary dress embellishments.[14] However, Lt Col Davis and Major Fraser provided a convincing argument with Army General Staff providing authority for wearing lanyards within the RNZCT at public expense in early 1979.[15] The new lanyards were to be manufactured by RNZASC personnel with the cordage provided by the RNZAOC. To allow the manufacture of the lanyards to be completed by 12 May 1979, based on a calculation of 2 meters of navy blue cordage and 1 meter of gold cordage for each lanyard, sufficient cordage was provided to each dependency by 1 April 1979, including sufficient cordage to manufacture 100 lanyards priority mailed to Singapore.[16] Following a flurry of manufacturing activity within RNAZSC units, sufficient RNZCT lanyards were produced before the change over parades on 12 May 1979, with the lanyard becoming an established RNZCT dress embellishment.
As only the cordage was provided at public expense, with the plating into a lanyard the responsibility of individual RNZCT soldiers, the Director of Transport Movements and Catering (DTMC), Lieutenant Colonel J.M Young was concerned about the differences in quality between lanyards and how that reflected on the RNZCT. The white Military Police and red Regular Force Cadet lanyards were provided and manufactured items, and the DRMC proposed in March 1986 that the RNZCT lanyard also be provided as a manufactured item.[17]
On reviewing the DMTC proposal, the Director of Ordnance Services (DOS), Lieutenant Colonel Terence McBeth, found that there was a discrepancy in the policy surrounding the RNZCT lanyards and that the policy be amended to bring the RNZCT lanyard policy into line with the other Corps that were entitled to lanyards.[18] Army General Staff endorsed the DOS’s recommendations, and from May 1986, the RNZCT Lanyard was provided as a standardised made-up lanyard.[19]
The RNZCT lanyard was worn on the left arm with pride by officers and soldiers of the RNZCT up to 1996 when in a similar initiative to the British Army’s formation of the RLC, the NZ Army also combined its logistic functions into a single Logistic Regiment. The significant difference between the British and New Zealand logistical changes was that the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) was also disestablished and included in the New Zealand Logistic Regiment.
On 9 December 1996, the Officers and Soldiers of the RNZCT, RNZAOC and RNZEME marched onto parade grounds on each camp and base. Corps flags were lowered, headwear and stable belts exchanged, and the Officers and Soldiers marched off as members of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR). The transition into the RNZALR was bittersweet for the soldiers of the RNZCT. RNZALR leadership took the opposite approach to the RLC, and rather than embracing its foundation Corps’ values and traditions, it divorced itself from the past and abandoned most linkages to the past, including the RNZCT lanyard.
A dress embellishment Intended to ease the formation of the RNZCT by incorporating linkages with the RNZASC, the RNZCT Lanyard was unimaginative and relied on colours representing the traditions of the RASC rather than the RNZASC. For the sixty years from 1911 to 1960, the RNZASC had an exceptional record of service in peace and war, represented by white, red and green. From 1911 to 1960, white was present on RNZASC uniforms as piping, distinguishing patches and puggaree. From 1940 until the mid-1950s, RNZASC vehicles in the Middle East, Pacific, Korea and at home wore the diagonal red and green AoS sign. With Gold and Blue only representing the RNZASC from the mid-1950s to 1979. However, despite its historical irrelevance, the RNZCT Lanyard was an attractive embellishment that provided soldiers of the RTNZCT with a sense of elan on parade and much banter in clubs and messes as they baited gunners with tall stories of how their predecessors had saved guns abandoned by the Artillery.
Notes
[1] “The Land Transport Corps,” Hansard 1803-2005 (1858).
[2] Horse Guards Adjutant-General, Dress Regulations for the Army (London: Printed under the Superintendence of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1864).
[3]Dress Regulations for the Army, (London: Printed under the Superintendence of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1883).
[4] “Yelow of Gold,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps (1945): 59.
[5] “Extracts from Corps Orders,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps (1899): 299.
[6] Len Whittaker, ” Lanyards,” The Military Historical Society (1985).
[7] “Formation of the Royal Corps of Transport,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps (1965): 7.
[8] “Badges, Chevrons, Titles, Embelishmets and Head Dress,” Clothing Regulations Pamphlet No 5. Table 56- Regimental Lanyards (1966).
[9] “Lanyard and Whistle Cords,” Army Dress Regulations Part 9 Section 7 Annex D (2017).
[10] “Captain H.O Knox,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps (1911).
[11]New Zealand Military Forces Dress Regulations, ed. New Zealand Military Forces (Wellington1912).
[12] Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches, 1911-1991 (Wellington, N.Z. : M. Thomas and C. Lord, 1995, 1995), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 57.
[13] Julia Millen, Salute to Service : A History of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport and Its Predecessors, 1860-1996 (Wellington : Victoria University Press, 1997, 1997), 415-16.
[15] S&T 14/1 dated 22 February 1979. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86,” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).
[16] DOS 109/4/Ord 5 Cordage for RNZCT Lanyard dated 5 March 1979. Ibid.
Military Personal Load Carrying Equipment, often referred to in the New Zealand vernacular as “webbing”, is the assortment of belts, straps, pouches and other accessories which, when assembled, allows an individual soldier to easily and comfortably carry the tools of their trade, such as ammunition, rations and water to sustain them for short periods. Many period photos of New Zealand soldiers on operations and training from the Vietnam War era to the 1990s provide the impression of an army equipped with an eclectic range of Australian, British and American equipment. This view of New Zealand’s army’s equipment was partly correct. To see how this view was shaped, this article provides an overview of New Zealand’s military load-carrying equipment evolution from 1945 to 1975.
Commander-in-chief, United States Army of the Pacific, General R.E Haines (right) watching weapon training at Waiouru. 2 May 1970 Evening Post
During World War Two, Operations in Malaya, Burma and the Pacific identified many shortfalls in the suitability of training, tactics and equipment, resulting in the Lethbridge Mission to the Far East during the late war. As a result of the report of the Lethbridge Mission, it was decided to modify the standard 37-pattern equipment to make it lighter in weight, rot-proof and more water-repellent and thus more suitable for use in tropical conditions. This development of the 37-pattern equipment led to the approval of a new pattern known as the 1944-pattern.[1] Post-war, further development of the 37 and 44-Pattern equipment led to troop trials of the Z2 experimental Load Carrying Equipment, which transitioned into the 1958-pattern equipment.[2]
Following World War Two, the Load Carrying Equipment in use by the New Zealand Army was the British 1937-pattern equipment. The 37-pattern equipment was introduced into New Zealand service in 1940, replacing the 1908-pattern equipment that had been in service since 1912. As 37-pattern equipment remained the standard web equipment of the New Zealand Army, the deployment of New Zealand troops to Malaya placed New Zealand in the position of deploying troops to a theatre with equipment that had long been identified as unsuitable. To maintain compatibility with other commonwealth forces in Malaya, 44-pattern equipment from British stocks in Malaya was issued to New Zealand troops in Malaya.
. Given the environment that New Zealand troops could be expected to operate in and aware of the developments in load-carrying equipment, the New Zealand Chief of General Staff (CGS) requested and received one set of M1956 Web equipment from the United States for trials in 1959.[3] The American M1956 Load-Carrying Equipment (LCE) had been accepted for United States Army service, with distribution well underway by 1961.
In October 1960, the New Zealand Director of Infantry and Training demonstrated the following web equipment to CGS.
44-pattern Equipment
58-pattern Equipment
M1956-pattern Equipment
A report by a New Zealand Officer attached to the Australian Jungle Training Centre at Canungra supported this demonstration with a comprehensive report describing the research and development of Infantry clothing and equipment undertaken by the Australians. The New Zealand report described the Australian trials of the M1956 LCE alongside the 58-pattern equipment. The M1956 was chosen by the Australians, who intended to manufacture it in Australia.[4] However, it was considered unlikely that either the 1956 LCE or 58-pattern equipment would be available to New Zealand until at least 1965, when the initial distribution to the United States and British armies was expected to be completed. Aware that all 44-pattern equipment had been earmarked for use in Malaysia and that it was still in production, New Zealand’s CGS approved the purchase of 6000 sets of 44-pattern equipment to re-equip elements of the New Zealand Army.[5]
Following advice from the UK, the 44-pattern equipment in use with the Fare East Land Forces (FARELF) was to be wasted out as the 58-pattern equipment was introduced, implying that the New Zealand Battalion would need to be equipped with the 58-pattern equipment before the ceasing of maintenance of the 44-pattern by FARELF. With this in mind, a recommendation was made to purchase 6000 sets of 58-pattern equipment instead of the 44-pattern equipment.[6]
In a June 1961 memorandum to Cabinet, the Minister of Defence highlighted that the current 37-pattern equipment used by the New Zealand Army was not designed for Jungle operations and was unsuitable for carrying the extra equipment the soldier engaged in this type of warfare required. No longer used by the British Army in any part of the world, the stage had been reached where the replacement of the 37-pattern should be delayed no longer. As the 58-pattern could not be made available to New Zealand for some time and field trials had cast doubt on its suitability for use in the Southeast Asia theatre, it was considered that re-equipping of the New Zealand Army should proceed with the 44-pattern equipment. The 44-pattern equipment had proved itself and was known to be suitable in the theatre where New Zealand troops were most likely to be employed. It was assumed that by the time the 44-pattern equipment needed replacement, the full facts on the suitability of the 58-pattern and the M1956 web equipment would be available to make a more informed decision on its adoption by New Zealand. It was recommended that Cabinet approve £45645 plus freight to purchase 6000 sets of 1944 Pattern equipment. [7]
By October 1961, it became clear that the 58-pattern was to be the standard issue web equipment for all United Kingdom forces worldwide and that distribution to the forces in Malaya was to happen much earlier date than earlier expected. Because of this, the Army secretary desired further investigations on the suitability of 58-pattern web equipment and, if favourable, confirm costs and potential delivery dates. With the requirement for web equipment again in flux, the submission to purchase 6000 sets of 44-pattern equipment was withdrawn pending further research.[8]
By May 1962, plans for reorganising the New Zealand Army from a Divisional to Brigade Structure were under implementation.[9] With approximately 50000 complete sets of 37-pattern equipment distributed to units or held in stores, this was deemed suitable to equip the bulk of the Territorial Force and Training units. The 58-pattern equipment was now in serial production and was the standard issue for all United Kingdom troops, with distribution to operational units in Malaya and Germany underway. Information received earlier was that because of limited production, stocks of 58-pattern would not be available for release to New Zealand for some years had been revised. It was now possible that the release of 58-pattern equipment to meet New Zealand’s requirements could be achieved earlier than anticipated. Based on this revised information, New Zealand’s Cabinet approved funding of £58750 on 10 October 1961 for 6000 sets of 58-pattern Web Equipment. [10]
Before placing a firm order for New Zealand’s requirements of 58-pattern equipment, reports received from Malaya in late 1962 indicated that the 58-Pattern equipment was, in its present form, unsuitable for use in operational conditions in South-East Asia.[11] It was anticipated that modifying the 58-pattern equipment to suit the conditions would take two to three years, an unacceptable delay in procurement as far as New Zealand is concerned.[12]
As the decision on New Zealand’s web equipment remained in flux, the New Zealand Battalion in Malaysia continued to be equipped with the 44-pattern equipment maintained under a capitation agreement with the United Kingdom. At New Zealand’s expense, one hundred sets of 44-pattern equipment were also maintained at New Zealand Battalion Depot at Burnham Camp to support reinforcements.
M1956 Web Equipment
As the time factor involved in modifying the 58-pattern equipment was unacceptable, and New Zealand was receiving an increasing amount of American equipment, the American M1956 pattern web equipment was decided to trial. The M1956 equipment had already been introduced into the Australian army, so twenty sets were purchased from Australian stocks for New Zealand’s trials.[13]
Following user experience in Malaya revealing that the 58-pattern equipment was falling short of the requirements for jungle operations, a series of investigations and user trials established that the US M1956 pattern equipment was suitable for use by the New Zealand Army. The funding for 6000 sets of 58-pattern Web Equipment was requested to be reprioritised to purchase 10000 sets of M1956 equipment direct from the United States and 400 sets of 44-pattern equipment to equip the increment for the FARELF held in New Zealand.[14]
With funding endorsed by the Minster of Defence and approved by the Cabinet, orders were placed for 10000 sets of M1956 web equipment direct from the United States. The first consignment arrived in New Zealand in early 1964, with 289 sets immediately issued to the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) and 16 Field Regiment, Royal New Zealand Artillery.
Instructions for distributing the M1956 web equipment were issued in June 1964 by the Quartermaster General. The initial purchase of 10000 sets of M1956 web equipment was to be issued to the Combat Brigade Group (CBG) and Logistic Support Group (LSG) units. Units of the Combat Reserve Brigade Group (CRBG) and Static Support Force (SSF) were to continue to use the 37-patten webbing.
NMD
CMD
MOD (for CMD Trentham Units
SMD
MOD Stock
Issued SAS/ 16 Fd Regiment
CBG & LSG
3122
3030
401
2028
310
289
1st Reinforcement Reserve
316
260
6
198
School of Infantry
40
TOTAL
3438
3330
407
2226
310
289
As the issue of M1956 equipment progressed, units of the CBG and LSG were to hand back stocks of 37-pattern equipment to their supporting District Ordnance Depot except for
The 37 Pattern belt, waist web, was to be retained by all ranks as a personal issue authorised by NZP1 Scales 1, 5, 8 or 9. The belt and bayonet frog were to be worn with Nos 2A, 64, 6B, 7A and 7B orders of dress when other equipment items were not required to be worn.
Equipment Maintenance Policy Statement (EMPS) 138/67 issued by Army Headquarters on 20 November 1964 detailed that except for the CBG and LSG, 16000 sets of 37-pattern equipment were to be maintained for use by remaining elements of the New Zealand Army.[16] EMPS 145/65 was issued on 12 February 1965, detailing the management of 44-pattern equipment in New Zealand. The First Battalion of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (1RNZIR) in Malaysia was to remain equipped with the 44-pattern web equipment maintained by the UK under the existing capitation agreement. Other than 100 sets of 44 Pattern Web equipment maintained at the Battalion Depot in Burnham, there was no provision for equipping 1RNZIR Reinforcements and increments of 31 Medium Radio Sub Troop who could be expected to deploy to Malaysia at any time. EMPS 145/65 rectified this by establishing a stockholding of 400 sets of 44-pattern equipment at the Main Ordnance Depot (MOD) at Trentham
Approval was granted in November 1965 by Army HQ for the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps (RNZAC) and NZSAS to blacken their M1956 web equipment. The Royal New Zealand Provost Corps (RNZ Pro) was also approved to whiten their M1956 web equipment. This approval only applied to unit holdings, not RNZAC, NZSAS or NZ Pro members attached or posted to other units.[17]
By April 1967, most of the New Zealand Army was equipped with the M1956 equipment. The exceptions were.
The New Zealand Forces in Malaysia and South Vietnam, who used both the M1956 and 44-pattern equipment
The SSF, National Service Training Unit (NTSU) and New Zeeland Cadet Corps (NZCC), who still retained the 37-pattern equipment
The manufacture of 37-pattern equipment had long been discontinued, and New Zealand stocks had reached the point where although having considerable holdings of individual items, based on the belts as the critical item, only 9500 sets of 37-pattern equipment could be assembled.
Based on the projected five-year supply to the NTSU, Army Schools, Camps and the NZCC plus 10% maintenance per annum, there was a requirement for 12000 sets of 37-pattern equipment. Arranging production to meet the shortfalls was deemed cost-prohibitive, and as continued maintenance could not be guaranteed, it was decided that additional sets of M1956 equipment were to be purchased. The additional sets were to be purchased on a phased program over several financial years, with 5000 sets of 37-pattern retained for the NZCC.
Disposal of the 37-pattern was to be phased over three years.
1967 all items surplus to 9500 sets
1968 3000 Complete sets
1969 all remaining 37 Pattern equipment less 5000 sets for the NZCC.[18]
M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE)
In 1967 the New Zealand Army trialled three sets of the M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE). Not specifically designed to replace the M1956 equipment, the M1967 equipment was designed for use in tropical environments and was introduced into the United States Army service in 1968.
The New Zealand trials found that the M1967 equipment was comfortable and weight-wise was similar to other web equipment in use. The pack worn on the belt was found to be heavy when fully loaded, and a pack similar in size to the 44 Pattern should be introduced, and the belt pack reduced in size by one-third.
It was identified that all the pouches required stiffening and that the plastic fasteners were not firmly attached to the pouches, although easy to operate. While using Velcro was found simple to operate, it was seen as a disadvantage due to noise and its inclination to pull apart when wet or under stress.[19]
Although the M1956 was still being introduced into the New Zealand Army, limited quantities of the M1967 equipment were introduced from 1969-72 with no plans for large-scale procurement. Nevertheless, the design of the M1972 All-Purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment (ALICE) incorporated many of the features of the M1967 equipment, and it was introduced into the New Zealand Army service in the 1980s.
Although the 44-pattern web equipment continued to be used by New Zealand units in Southeast Asia, by October 1967, the decision had been made to standardise the M1956 equipment across the New Zealand Army, and no stocks of the 44-pattern equipment were to be retained in New Zealand. All stocks of 44-pattern web equipment held by the MOD in Trentham for 1RNZIR Reinforcements and increments of 31 Medium Radio Sub Troop were issued to 1 RNZIR based at Terendak camp in Malaysia. As this stock held by 1RNZIR was wasted out, it would be replaced by M1956 web equipment. [20]
Large Ammunition Pouches
The Australian experience had shown that although the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR) Magazines fitted inside the M1956 ammunition pouch, it was a tight fit, especially when the webbing was wet. The initial solution was to modify 37-pattern pouches and fit them to the M1956 equipment. By 1967 the Australians had developed an indigenous ammunition pouch for the M1956 equipment., The Australian Ammunition Pouch Large (8465-66-026-1864) was manufactured out of cotton duck material and measured 81/4 inches high by 4 inches wide and 3 inches deep.
Australian Pouch Ammunition Large
To ascertain the suitability of the Australian large ammunition pouch for New Zealand service, fifty Australian pouches were sourced as a standardisation loan in 1968.[21] Feedback for the troop trials identified a lack of stability in the closure of the lid, causing the loss of ammunition and magazines. Following an investigation by the R&D Section, the RNZAOC Textile Repair Sections (TRS) modified the Australian pouches by replacing the lid fasteners with the same fasteners found on the standard American M1956 pouch and stiffing the fastener tabs. The modifications proved satisfactory in further Army Trials, and a new specification (DRDS-ICE-1) was produced with four Standard Samples provided to 1 Base Ordnance Depot (1 BOD).[22] The modified New Zealand Pouch was codified in the New Zealand supply system as Pouch Ammunition Large (6746-98-103-4039).[23]
Detail of New Zealand Large Ammunition Pouch riveted lid fasteners
Although the R&D Section had ascertained that the manufacture of the pouches was possible in New Zealand using imported components, the initial production run of 20000 pouches was contracted through the Australian Department of Supply to be included in the current Australian production run.[24] By 1974 the first production run of 20000 had been completed and returned to 1 BOD for distribution, with 2/1 RNZIR in Burnham one of the first units to receive the new pouches. In May 1974, 2/1 RNZIR submitted defect reports stating that the pouches were poorly designed, with the canvas tongue used to secure the lid failing, pouches becoming insecure, and magazines dropping out.[25]
The investigation by the Directorate of Equipment Policy and the R&D Section found that the faults were not a design problem but a quality assurance issue in that the pouches had not been manufactured following the specification.[26] Comparing the Australian-manufactured pouches against the specification, the R&D Section identified the following visually detected defects.
Canvas used to manufacture strap-holding assembly instead of webbing.
Clip end strap is wrongly sized.
Release tab is of incorrect thickness.
Polypropylene stiffener not inserted in release tab.
The male fastener is not secured to the PVC stiffener.
The reinforcement piece behind the male fastener is not included (between the PVC stiffener and lining).
Additional smaller reinforcement piece inserted between the outer cover and the male fastener.
Broad arrow marked on the outer cover and not specified.
Of these defects, only serials 3 to 7 were directly considered to contribute to the deficiencies and the initial concerns raised by 2/1RNZIR and would require rectification, and a modification instruction was produced.[27] Modification of the pouches would take until September 1977 to be completed.[28]
Due to the Broad Arrow Mark included on the first batch of 20000 New Zealand Large Ammunition Pouches, collectors often misidentify these items as Australian pouches.
White Web
By 1973, 37-pattern belts, rifle slings and bayonet frogs remained in use as ceremonial items. Whitened using proprietary shoe cleaner and paint, these items were badly worn with the whitener flaking easily and were easily marked by weather, fingerprints and the rubbing of other equipment. The M1956 pattern web belt was not considered suitable as a replacement as it was operational equipment requiring the breaking up of complete web sets to provide items for ceremonial events. Following the British lead, the Army Dress Committee approved a polythene, four-ply woven fabric of similar appearance and texture to the 37-pattern equipment in October 1973 as a replacement for the whitened 37-pattern equipment. The sling and bayonet frog designed for the SLR would be purchased with chromed or brass fittings. The material for the belts was provided on rolls which could be cut to the required size. Buckles and keepers were 37-pattern buckles and keepers drawn from existing stocks that had been chromed and polished.[29]
Combat Pack
By 1974, one of the few pre-1945 items of load-carrying equipment remaining in New Zealand service was the 08-pattern pack. Long identified as an unsuitable item, several trials had been conducted since the mid-1960s to find a replacement combat pack. Although a few alternative items had been investigated as a replacement, the 08-pattern pack remained the principal combat pack of the New Zealand Army.
In 1969/70, the requirement for 15000 combat packs to replace the 08-pattern pack was identified. Following evaluation by the equipment sponsor, the Australian Army Combat Pack was selected as a basis for developing a New Zealand combat pack. The Australian pack was chosen from a wide range of military and civilian packs, with the design modified to meet the particular training requirements of New Zealand. The modifications to the Australian pack were limited to comply with the following:
The pack must be compatible with Australian Army equipment.
The pack must be compatible with M1956 equipment currently in New Zealand service.
Against the advice of the R&D section, the Australian pack was modified by the New Zealand Army without a proper study being conducted.[30] The decision to bypass the R&D process resulted in a prototype process that extended from 1972 to 1974.[31] By June 1974, trials on the prototypes resulted in the setting of a standard design for a production run of one hundred packs for further trials.[32]
New Zealand modified Combat pack
The New Zealand version of the Australian combat pack was eventually accepted into service in 1975/76. Never a satisfactory pack, the R&D section began investigations to find a replacement in the early 1980s. Hoping to leverage the experience of New Zealand Mountaineers to produce a modern pack, Army R&D embarked on the Onward Pack project. Manufactured by Hallmark Industries of Hamilton, the Onward pack was an innovative modular design that allowed the main pack to be broken down into a patrol pack and a light belt order,
The Basic layout of the Onwards pack was a main compartment divided into a main compartment and a sleeping bag compartment divided by a zip-away divider. The upper compartment was divided into the main storage area and internal space for an AN/PPC-77 set. External access to the main compartment was via a large snow collar with outlets for the radio antenna and handset built into the lid. External access to the lower sleeping bag section was provided by a zip which allowed the bottom half of the compartment to drop down. Internal sleeping mat storage was included as part of the harness and backpack. Three external removal pouches were provided, one on each side attached by domes and a larger pouch mounted on the centre front of the pack by buckles body. Behind the Large centre pouch, securing straps were provided to secure an Entrenching Tool. These three external pouches were fitted with belt loops, which allowed them to be removed and fitted to either the pack’s waist belt or standard pistol belt as a light belt order.
A small patrol pack designed to hold an ANPRC-77 Set was also provided as part of the Onward pack., The patrol pack could be mounted to the top of the Onward Pack or by utilising the pack’s shoulder straps, worn as a standalone pack. The Patrol pack was also fitted with a fluorescent recognition panel in a zip-up compartment.
Despite the host of features and the additional space provided compared to the Australian pack, the Onward Pack was fraught with issues. The proprietary plastic clips were prone to failure, and the body-hugging ‘alpine’ design caused causing severe prickly heat on users in the tropics of Southeast Asia. These and other issues with the Onward Pack contributed to an extended development period as attempts were made to rectify them. As these and other minor faults were addressed to meet the immediate needs of users while the Onward Pack was perfected, the medium American ALICE pack was introduced as an interim replacement in 1984.[33] Eventually, attempts to rectify the Onward Pack were abandoned and the ALICE pack was formally adopted as the New Zealand Army pack.
Conclusion
Entering the Second World War with web equipment of the same pattern used since 1912, New Zealand’s Force soon began to be re-equipped with the most modern British web equipment, the 37-pattern from early 1940. Near the end of the war, New Zealand was kept abreast of the development of web equipment, and when New Zealand troops arrived in Malaya in the early 1950s, they were issued with the most modern type available for jungle warfare, the 44-pattern. As the New Zealand Army reorientated from providing a division to serve in the Middle East to providing a Brigade Group to serve in Southeast Asia, it could not wait for the British to develop their new 58-pattern for tropical conditions and examine other types. Following Australia’s lead, the American M1959 equipment was adopted in 1964, with components of this type serving thought to the early 2000s. With five types of web equipment either adopted or trialled between 1945 and 1974, it is no surprise that components got intermingled. This led to Kiwi soldiers’ preferences and experiences leading them to create webbing sets that they found practicable rather than options prescribed in SOPs or instruction books leading to the outside impression of the New Zealand army been one equipped with an eclectic range of Australian, British and American equipment.
Notes
[1] 86/Development/47 (SWV1) Report on the Development of Personnel Fighting and Load Carrying Equipment 1942-48 February 1949. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189098 (1944 -1966).
[2] 86/Dev/54 (SVW1) Instruction for troop trials of Z2 Experimental Load Carrying Equipment ibid.
[3] New Zealand Joint Services Mission Washington DC JSM 1/3/13 ARM US Army Load Carrying Equipment (Web) dated 23 September 1959ibid.
[4] Attachment to JTC – Canungra dated 21 October 1960 “Stores – New Infantry Equipment for New Zealand Army,” Archives New Zealand No R17189007 (1959-1970).
[5] Army 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment dated 20 December 1960 “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”
[6] Army 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment dated 20 December 1960ibid.
[7] Memorandum Minister of Defence to Cabinet dated June 1961ibid.
[8] 246/60/12/adm Army Secretary to Minister of Defence 2 October 1961ibid.
[9] Damien Fenton, A False Sense of Security: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978, Occasional Paper / Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand: No. 1 (Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington, 1998), 111-20.
[10] Army 246/60/12/Q(E) Brigade Group Equipment Replacement Web Equipment dated 8 May 1962 “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.” -pattern equipment
[11] BM 2 to FE16002SD General HQ FELF to The War Office (Brig Q Eqpt) 1958 Pattern Web Equipment dated 4 October 1962: ibid.
[12] 57/62 NZ Army Liaison Staff, London to Army HQ dated 17 October 1962 ibid.
[13] Army 246/60/12Q(E) Sample US Pattern Web Equipment dated 12 December 1962 ibid.
[14] 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment for the Field Force dated 18 October 1963 ibid.
[15] Army Reqn 208/63/Q(E) dated 9 June 1964 -Distribution of M1956 Web Equipment “Cookers – Web Equipment: Pattern ’37,” Archives New Zealand No R17189095 (1940-1971).
[17] Army HQ Army246/60/12/PS3 of 19 Nov 1965 ibid.
[18] Defence (Army) 246/60/2 of 26 April 1967 ibid.
[19] 1 Ranger Squadron NZSAS, Trial Report US Lightweight Equipment dated 21 March 1968″Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189099 (1966 -1969).
[20] Army 246/60/12/Q(E) EMPS 145/65 Frist Revise dated 5 October 1967 ibid.
[21] “Cookers – Web Equipment: Slings, Bandoliers, Ammunition Pouches: Development,” Archives New Zealand No R17189101 (1968-1970).
[22] Def HQ/R&D Section 82/1974 dated 28 Jun 1974.”Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches,” Archives New Zealand No R17231111 (1972-1977).
[23] 246/60/2 of 122055ZNOV70 NZDWN to 1BOD Trentham “Cookers – Web Equipment: Pattern ’37.”
[24] Army 246/60/70 dated 9 December 1971. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches.”
[25] FF 65/38/18/SD Modification of Ammunition Pouch item 10 May 1974. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”
[26] Army 246/60/17/EP. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches.”
[27] R&D Section Minute no 160/1975 dated 21 November 1975. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”
[28] Army 246/60/17/SP 22 Pouches Ammunition 22 September 1977. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”
[29] “Army Dress Committee Decision – White Web,” Archives New Zealand No R17188112 (1973).
[30] R&D Section 67/1974 Packs Combat date 13 June 1974. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Waterproof Pack,” Archives New Zealand No R17231110 (1972-1974).
[31] Army 246/60/12/EP Sponsor Enquiry Field Pack Olive Green 2 July 1972. Ibid.
[32] Army 246/60/12/ EP Minutes of the final meeting on the acceptance of the Combat Pack held at Army General Staff on 8 June 1973. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984,” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).
[33] Inf 26.3 Minutes of a meeting to consider Project Foxhound developments held at Army General Staff 8 June 1984. Ibid.
A long-forgotten member of the British Commonwealth Ordnance Corps fraternity is the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Army Service Corps.
The army of the Short-lived Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953-1963), unlike other commonwealth armies, was not large enough to maintain separate Army Service Corps, Ordnance Corps and Electrical and Mechanical Engineers. However, in a move repeated in Canada in 1968, the United Kingdom (less REME) in 1993 and New Zealand in 1996, the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Army combined their Logistical function into a single branch known as the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Army Services Corps.
Providing logistical support to the Federal Army, the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Army Services Corps was divided into three branches.
The Ordnance & Supply Branch – Tasked with the provisioning of all army arms, supplies, and equipment. 150 soldiers strong.
The Workshop Branch – Artificers and mechanics responsible for the good maintenance of vehicles, firearms, and other equipment deployed by the Federal Army. The branch was 270 men strong.
The Supply & Transport Branch – Comprised of one Askari Platoon, two coloured Afro-Asian Platoons, and one Eurasian platoon, the Supply & Transport Branch was tasked in delivering the supplies set aside by the Ordnance & Supply Branch to troops in the field. The total size was 180 men.
The badge of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Army Services Corps drew on the traditions and hereditary of the British army, combining elements of the badges of the Royal Army Service Corps (Star), Royal Army Ordnance Corps (the Ordnance Crest) and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (Horses forcené).
Badge of the Rhodesia and Nyasaland Army Services Corps. Robert McKie collection
The Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland officially ended on 31 December 1963. Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland became independent under the names Zambia and Malawi, with Southern Rhodesia declaring unilateral independence from the United Kingdom as the state of Rhodesia in 1965.
The New Zealand Ordnance Corps, in its 80-year history, established and maintained Ordnance Depots in many unique locations. The Base Ordnance Depot in Trentham became acknowledged as the home of the Corps; the New Zealand Advanced Ordnance Depot in Singapore was the most exotic, and all Corps members have fond memories of the depots in Hopuhopu, Waiouru, Linton and Burnham. This article will examine one of the least known of New Zealand’s Ordnance Depots, the First World War Farringdon Road Depot.
The NZEF of the 1914-1919 war was organised and equipped in such a way so that when mobilised it could comfortably fit into the British Imperial Army alongside British, Australian, Canadian and other troops from throughout the British Empire. In the early days of the war Ordnance support was provided by British AOC[1] Divisional/Corps depots, and although satisfactory the need for the NZEF to have an internal Ordnance organisation to cater for New Zealand specific items was recognised. Subsequently, regulations formally announcing the establishment of the NZAOC[2], as a unit of NZEF[3] were published in February 1916[4]. Moving with the NZEF to Europe the NZAOC consisted of three distinct elements;
NZAOC Administrative staff based at the NZEF headquarters at Bloomsbury Square, London consisting of
the NZEF Assistant ADOS[5], who was also the Officer Commanding NZEF Ordnance Corps.
Chief Ordnance Officer for the NZEF in the United Kingdom.
A staff of clerks, storekeepers and
The New Zealand Division DADOS[6] and Staff, including personnel attached to Brigades.
NZAOC Staff of the ANZAC Mounted Brigade in Palestine.
As the NZEF NZAOC staff in the United Kingdom became established, taking under its wing support responsibility for the numerous New Zealand Camps, Hospitals and convalescent facilities dispersed throughout the United Kingdom. To centralise and manage Ordnance support it became necessary to establish a New Zealand Ordnance Depot to support all New Zealand units based in the United Kingdom.
What was required was a depot in a central location, near the NZEF Headquarters and with road and railway access to the New Zealand Camps and establishments and the ability to quickly link into the AOC logistic infrastructure and RAOC depots such as;
On the 25th of October 1916, the Officer Commanding, London District Authorised the NZEF, under the Defence of the Realm Act to take over the premises of Mr H Fisher and Mr J Fisher at 30 and 32 Farringdon Road[7] as an Ordnance Store. Located 1.5km from the NZEF Headquarters, the NZ Ordnance Depot was well situated on one of the leading north/south roads through London, with easy access to other arterial routes. Adjacent to the Metropolitan Railway, the Ordnance depot had easy access to Farringdon Passenger station and the Metropolitan Railway Goods Station[8]. The intent was to occupy the building from the 7th of November 1916. Still, due to issues securing the key and having the utilities such as water and electricity connected, the final occupation did not occur until the 27th of November. Records indicate the Depot started operations on the 1st of December 1916.
NOTE: Originally numbered as part of Farringdon Road, Nos 30 and 32 were renamed as 30 Farringdon Lane in 1979.
Overall command of the Depot rested with the Chief Ordnance Officer for the NZEF in the United Kingdom, Captain (later Major) Norman Levien. The Officer in charge of the Depot for most of its existence was Warrant Officer Class One (Conductor), Arthur Gilmore [9]. Posted to the Depot in November 1916, and apart from a six-month secondment to the Ordnance Depot at Sling Camp and three months of sick leave due to Influenza, Gilmore remained at the Depot until its closure in late1919[10]. Conductor Gilmore was promoted to Second Lieutenant on the 1st of February 1919.
The bulk of the stocks held by the Depot consisted of clothing and necessaries of all descriptions. Clothing was a mixture of;
New items purchased from the RACD [11] at Pimlico,
New items purchased for civilian manufacturers, often at a cheaper rate than from the RACD; in the year up to December 1917, total savings of £31532.7.10(approximately 2018 NZD$3,763,454.27) were made by establishing contracts for clothing with civilian suppliers rather than purchasing from the RACD.
Cleaned and repaired items from Salvage stocks,
As members of the New Zealand Division started leave rotations to the United Kingdom from the front lines in Belgium and France, the condition of their clothing was found to be unsatisfactory. Under the instructions of the NZ General Officer Commanding, further accommodation for the Depot was secured for the reception of troops from the front on leave. This facility allowed troops as they arrived from the front, to rid themselves of their dirty, often vermin-infested uniforms, have a hot bath and receive a fresh issue of underwear and uniforms. As troops arrived on leave with their spare kit, ammunition, arms and equipment, A secure kit store was available for the holding of these items. As this reception store was developed, the New Zealand Soldiers Club and the New Zealand War Contingent Association set up facilities to provide hot drinks and the option to receive instruction on the use of prophylactic outfits[12].
The following items are an example of the types and quantities of the stores received by the Farringdon Road Depot over the Period 1 December 1916 to 1 August 1919;
With the Armistice in November 1918, the activities of the Depot started to wind down. Undergoing a full audit in July 1919, outstanding orders cancelled, stocks either returned to New Zealand, returned to RAOC Depots for credits, sold or destroyed with the Depot closed by November 1919 ending an early chapter of the New Zealand Ordnance story.
[7] Now Farrington Lane “Insurance Plan of London Vol. Vi: Sheet 128,” ed. British Library (Chas E Goad Limited, 1886).
[8] “Farringdon Road,” in Survey of London: Volume 46, South and East Clerkenwell, Ed. Philip Temple (London: London County Council, 2008), 358-384. British History Online, Accessed April 25, 2018, Http://Www.British-History.Ac.Uk/Survey-London/Vol46/Pp358-384..”
[9] “Personnel Records “Arthur Gilmore”,” (Wellington: Archives New Zealand, Archive Reference AABK 18805 W5568 0135616).
[10] Arthur Gilmore, “Audit Farringdon Road Ordnance Stores for Period Ended 17 July 1919,” (Wellington: Archives New Zealand Record Group WA1 Record No 2/13, 1919).
[11] The Royal Army Clothing Depot, Pimlico, was the main supplier of Uniforms for the British Army from 1855 until 1932.
[12] Captain Norman Levien, “Report of Ordnance Officer on Administration of Ordnance Department for 1917,” (Wellington: Archives New Zealand Record Group WA1 Record No 2/13, 1918).
