The RNZAOC Icon, a proud symbol of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), encapsulates the Corps’s heritage and functionality in a single design. Designed by Major T.D. McBeth (DOS 83-86) in 1971 at the direction of the sitting DOS Lieutenant Colonel GJH Atkinson (DOS 68-72), the cover design cleverly combined various aspects of the RNZAOC and was initially utilised as the cover design for the RNZAOC Newsletter the ‘Pataka’ and on unit plaques.
Description of the design
The design cleverly and meaningfully combines various elements that define the RNZAOC. Its foundation is the NATO map symbol for an ordnance unit, a stylised shield placed over two crossed swords, symbolising the core mission of the Corps: providing logistical and ordnance support to the New Zealand Army.
Design Colour
The icon incorporates the traditional ordnance colours of red, blue, and red, reflecting a heritage that dates back to the Board of Ordnance (1400s to 1855) and its historical connections with the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers. In the New Zealand context, these red and blue colours were prominently used on the Corps’ flag, tactical patches and signs, stable belts, and other insignia.
Symbolic Quadrants: A Visual Narrative
At the centre of the shield lies the RNZAOC badge, a symbol representing the history and legacy of the RNZAOC. This badge is related to the Colonial Storekeeper and subsequent organisations responsible for managing the New Zealand Army’s stores since 1840. It also signifies the alliance of the RNZAOC with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) and its broader family membership of the Commonwealth Ordnance Corps family.
The RNZAOC badge is surrounded by four distinct quadrants, each representing a unique aspect of the Corps.
Top quadrant
The top quadrant of the icon features a Traditional Māori Pātaka storehouse, an elevated structure historically used by Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, to store food, tools, weapons, and other valuables. These intricately designed buildings were central to Māori culture, serving practical and symbolic purposes.
The Maori Pataka is a small elevated outdoor house used for storing food or provisions. Most were not carved. Carved Pataka were only used to store precious treasures such as greenstone, jewellery, weapons, and cloaks. The more elaborate the carvings, the more important the person whose possessions were stored within. Photo Credit: https://www.virtualoceania.net/newzealand/photos/towns/queenstown/nz2481.shtml
In the context of the RNZAOC Icon, the Pātaka symbolises the Corps’ heritage and emphasises the essential role of sustainment storage and resource management. The Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) managed this function from 1910 until 1979, when responsibility for supply tasks such as rations and fuel was transferred to the RNZAOC.
Right quadrant
The right quadrant depicts a contemporary warehouse, symbolising the RNZAOC’s evolution into a modern organisation. This element reflects the Corps’ adoption of advanced infrastructure and practices to manage military supplies efficiently, demonstrating its commitment to meeting the demands of contemporary logistics.
The RNZAOC Award-winning warehouse at TGrentham was constructed for $1.6 million in 1988. In addition to the high-rise pallet racking for bulk stores, a vertical storage carousel capable of holding 12,000 detail items was installed later.
Bottom quadrant
The bottom quadrant features an RL Bedford truck, which was upgraded to the Unimog in 1984. This familiar workhorse of the New Zealand Army symbolises the Corps’ field operations. It highlights the vital role of the RNZAOC in efficiently ensuring that resources reach the front lines.
Left quadrant
The Left quadrant features the‘Flaming A’ of the Ammunition Trade, representing the critical role of the Corps in handling, storing and supplying munitions, a responsibility that demands precision, expertise and dedication.
New Zealand Ammo Tech ‘Flamming A” Insignia with fern fonds adopted in 1988 to provide a unique New Zeland flavour to the insignia.
Central bar
The blue central bar of the icon is styled like a spanner, symbolising the RNZAOCs links as the parent Corps of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) and modern technical functions, including RNZAOC Workshops Stores Sections located within RNZEME Workshops, Tailors Shops, and Textile Repair Sections.
Variations of the Icon
Over the years, the RNZAOC Icon evolved. In 1984, the image of the RL Bedford truck was updated to feature the Mercedes-Benz Unimog, which replaced the RL Bedford after its retirement in 1989, following 31 years of service.
The Icon was also adopted as the base design for unit plaques, with some units placing the RNZAOC Crest above the Icon and substituting it in the centre of the icon with a symbol relevant to their specific unit.
A Long-term Legacy
The RNZAOC icon is a visual homage to the Corps’ diverse contributions and rich legacy. Blending traditional, modern, and operational elements highlights the RNZAOC’s steadfast dedication to supporting New Zealand’s defence capabilities. This emblem connects the past, present, and future, symbolising identity and pride for those who have served in the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. As the icon of the ‘To the Warriors Their Arms’ website, it pays tribute to the RNZAOC and all the antecedent corps that now form part of the RNZALR, ensuring their memory and significance remain relevant.
The Archaeopteryx celebrated as one of the earliest known birds and a symbol of evolution, has long been associated with fuel units in military organisations. Officially adopted by the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC) and the Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC), its use in New Zealand remains informal, linked primarily to 47 Petroleum Platoon and its successor units. However, this emblem is often misunderstood as the mythical phoenix due to its appearance and symbolic attributes.
The Archaeopteryx first appeared in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) fuel units and featured prominently on unit signs, plaques, and insignia. The Archaeopteryx symbol was retained when the RAOC transitioned into the RLC in 1993. However, it was never officially adopted as a trade identifier or an authorised uniform patch. Unofficial patches, often worn on overalls, are occasionally encountered.
The Archaeopteryx emblem is depicted in a fossil-like style, with outstretched wings and detailed feathered limbs, symbolising adaptability and evolution.
RAAOC Use
The Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC) formally embraced the Archaeopteryx, going beyond its traditional use on signs and plaques. The RAAOC authorised it as a trade badge for the Operator Petroleum (Op Pet) trade.
RAAOC officers may wear the Archaeopteryx badge upon completing the British or United States Army Petroleum Officers Course. Other ranks qualify after completing the required Op Pet courses, as RAAOC policy outlines.[1] This badge mirrors the RAOC/RLC Archaeopteryx design, adding a wattle wreath to reflect Australian heritage.
In contrast to its formal adoption by the RAOC/RLC and RAAOC, the New Zealand Army has never officially recognised the Archaeopteryx. Instead, it has served as an unofficial emblem for 47 Petroleum Platoon and its successor units since the 1980s.
Unofficial patch worn by 47 Petroleum Platoon, RNZAOC, on the left arm of overalls. The patch was 100mm in diameter and was embroidered red on a dark blue background. Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army distinguishing patches, 1911-1991, Wellington, N.Z.1995
New Zealand Army fuel functions, now a sub-specialty within the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) Logistic Specialist Trade, have evolved over decades. Initially part of the RNZASC Supply Branch, the role transitioned to the RNZAOC Supplier Trade in 1979 and eventually into the RNZALR in 1996. Officers who attended the Officer Long Petroleum Courses in the United Kingdom during the 1970s and beyond played a key role in introducing the Archaeopteryx to the New Zealand Army, embedding it as an informal yet enduring symbol.[2]
Despite the absence of formal recognition, the Archaeopteryx remains familiar with unofficial unit patches, signs, and souvenir items associated with New Zealand fuel units.
Why the Archaeopteryx?
The adoption of the Archaeopteryx by military fuel units reflects its symbolic alignment with their role and mission:
A Symbol of Evolution and Adaptability: The Archaeopteryx embodies evolution as a transitional species between dinosaurs and modern birds. Similarly, military fuel units have adapted to support increasingly mechanised military forces and evolving fuel technologies.
Connection to Mobility: The Archaeopteryx, one of the earliest known flyers, symbolises mobility—a cornerstone of military logistics. Fuel units play a parallel role, enabling the movement of military machinery across challenging environments.
Historical Adoption During Mechanisation: The mechanisation of warfare in the 20th century, with vehicles, tanks, and aircraft becoming critical assets, created a need for specialised fuel units. The Archaeopteryx became a fitting emblem of their vital function during this transformative period.
Symbolism and Representation: Its depiction with outstretched wings and feathered limbs conveys dynamism and versatility, mirroring the qualities of petroleum units. The fossil connection to oil-rich layers underscores its relevance to the petroleum industry and military fuel operations.
The Archaeopteryx is frequently mistaken for the phoenix due to its depiction of fiery colours or outstretched wings. While the phoenix represents mythical rebirth, the Archaeopteryx symbolises real-world evolution and adaptability—essential to sustaining military forces.
The Modern Legacy
Today, the Archaeopteryx serves as a symbol for RLC and RAAOC fuel units. Whether officially recognised or informally adopted, it represents adaptability, evolution, and mobility—the core tenets of military fuel units. However, the persistent misidentification as a phoenix highlights the need to educate and clarify the emblem’s unique history and significance.
By embracing the Archaeopteryx for what it truly represents—a link between past and present, evolution and functionality—RNZALR Petroleum Operators can honour its legacy while exemplifying the qualities that make them indispensable to military logistics.
Unofficial interpretation of a modern New Zeland Army Archaeopteryx badge utilising fern fonds introduced to provide a unique New Zeland Flavour to trade badges in 1988
In 1955, the New Zealand Army found itself poised for significant transformation. The eruption of the Korean War and the escalating conflict in Malaysia compelled New Zealand to reassess its military strategy. Structured and equipped to provide an Expeditionary Force centred around a division supporting British forces in the Middle East, the evolving political situation in Asia placed the army on the cusp of a paradigm shift. This strategic shift redirected the focus of deployment from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, marking a crucial juncture in the army’s trajectory. [1] This article provides insights into the organisational and equipment state of the New Zealand Army of 1956 as it pivoted towards service in Asia.
Command and Control
Chief of the General Staff – Major-General C. E. Weir, CE., CBE., DSO.
Vice-Chief of the General Staff – Brigadier R. C. Queree, CBE., DS0.
Adjutant-General – Brigadier L. W. Thornton, OBE.
Quartermaster-General – Brigadier J. R. Page, CBE., DSO.
Strength
Regular Force
Authorised Strength – 4200
Actual Strength
Officers: 552
Other Ranks: 3276
Total: 3828
Territorial Force
NZ Army 3 Pl HB Regiment, 19th intake, Linton Military Camp, February 1956. Crown Studios Ltd :Negatives and prints. Ref: 1/1-033934-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22364964
Under the Compulsory Military Training Act of 1949, all males, whether European or Māori, became liable for military service upon reaching 18 years of age. Trainees had to undergo 14 weeks of intensive, full-time training, three years of part-time service, and six years in the Army Reserve. By 31 March 1956, 50,846 men had been trained under this scheme. The strength of the Territorial Force in 1956 was:
Officers:
1440
Other Ranks:
25846 – Effective Strength
10065 – Completed whole-time training available for part-time training from 1 April 1956
1760 – Held on strength but not available for training
Total 37671
School Cadet Corps
School Cadet Units were maintained at schools and were voluntarily for male students aged 14 to 18. In 1956, 807 officers and 38,032 cadets served in 140 secondary school cadet units.[2]
Organisation
Except for units of the NZ Cadet Corps, the following units comprised the New Zealand Army, which was organised into Army Troops, District Troops and the New Zealand Division:[3]
Army Troops
Army Headquarters
The Army Schools
Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps Depot RNZAC.
Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals Depot.
School of Military Engineering, RNZE
Royal New Zealand Army Medical Corps Depot.
Army Headquarters, Wireless Training Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Main Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC
Small Arms Ammunition Production Proof Office, RNZAOC
Inspecting Ordnance Officer Group, RNZAOC
Trentham Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Papakura Camp Hospital, RNZAMC
Waiouru Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Linton Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Burnham Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Army Headquarters, Dental Section, RNZDC
Whenuapai Dental Section, RNZDC.
Hobsonville Dental Section, RNZDC.
Ohakea Dental Section, RNZDC.
Woodbourne Dental Section, RNZDC.
Wigram Dental Section, RNZDC
Services Corrective Establishment.
District Troops
Headquarters, Northern Military District.
Headquarters, Area 1, Auckland
Headquarters, Area 2, Tauranga.
Headquarters, Area 3, Whangarei.
Headquarters, Area 4, Hamilton.
Narrow Neck Camp (.(Incl Fort Cautley).
9th Coast Regiment, RNZA
9th Coast Regiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Papakura Camp.
Northern District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
Papakura Dental Section, RNZDC
Northern District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC.
Waikato Camp.
Northern District Company, RNZASC.
Northern District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Northern District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
Northern District Ammunition Depot, RNZAOC
Northern District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC
Northern District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC
Northern District Workshop, RNZEME.
Headquarters, Central Military District.
Headquarters, Area 5, Wellington.
Headquarters, Area 6, Wanganui.
Headquarters, Area 7, Napier.
Headquarters, Area 8, New Plymouth.
Waiouru Camp.
Central District Workshop (Waiouru), RNZEME.
Waiouru Dental Section, RNZDC.
Linton Camp.
Central District Training Depot.
Central District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
Central District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Central District Company, RNZASC.
Central District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
Central District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC.
Central District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC.
Central District Mechanical Transport Workshop (Trentham) RNZEME.
Central District Armament and General Workshop (Trentham), RNZEME.
2nd General Hospital, RNZAMC
Trentham Dental Section, RNZDC.
Fort Dorset Base Camp
10th Coast Regiment, RNZA.
10th CoastRegiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Headquarters, Southern Military District,
Headquarters, Area 9, Nelson.
Headquarters, Area 10, Christchurch.
Headquarters, Area 11, Dunedin.
Headquarters, Area 12, Invercargill.
Burnham Camp
11th Coast Regiment, RNZA.
11th Coast Regiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs
Southern District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
Southern District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Southern District Company, RNZASC.
Otago University Medical Company, RNZAMC.(Dunedin)
Southern District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Ammunition Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Mechanical Transport Workshop (Burnham), RNZEME.
Southern District Armament and General Workshop (Burnham), RNZEME.
Burnham Dental Section, RNZDC.
Southern District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC
New Zealand Division
Headquarters, New Zealand Division.
Headquarters, New Zealand Division Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, RNZA, New Zealand Division.
1st Field Regiment, RNZA.
1st Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
2nd Field Regiment, RNZA.
2nd Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
3rd Field Regiment, RNZA.
3rd Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Medium Regiment, RNZA.
4th Medium Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
5th Light Regiment, RNZA.
5th Light Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
6th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RNZA.
6th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
12th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RNZA.
12th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment Workshop, RNZEME.
1st Locating Battery, RNZA.
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Brigade.
1st Battalion, The Northland Regiment, RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Auckland Regiment (Countess of Ranfurly’s Own) RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Hauraki Regiment, RNZ Inf.
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Brigade.
1st Battalion, The Wellington Regiment (City of Wellington’s Own)RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Wellington West Coast and Taranaki Regiment. RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Hawkes Bay Regiment. RNZ Inf.
Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Brigade.
1st Battalion, The Nelson, Marlborough, and West Coast Regiment, RNZ Inf.1st Battalion, The Canterbury Regiment RNZ Inf.1st Battalion, The Otago and Southland Regiment, RNZ Inf.
Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME
Headquarters, 4th Armoured Brigade.
1st Armoured Regiment (Waikato), RNZAC.
1st Armoured Regiment (Waikato} Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Armoured Regiment (Wellington and East Coast), RNZAC.
4th Armoured Regiment (Wellington and East Coast) Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
1st Armoured Car Regiment (New Zealand Scottish), RNZAC.
1st Armoured Car Regiment ,(New Zealand Scottish) Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, RNZE, New Zealand Division
1st Field Engineer Regiment, RNZE.
1st Field Engineer Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Field Park Squadron, RNZE.
5th Independent Field Squadron, RNZE
1st Divisional Signal Regiment, RNZ Sigs.
1st Divisional Signal Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, Commander RNZASC, New Zealand Division.
1st Transport Company, RNZASC.
1st Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Transport Company, RNZASC.
4th Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
6th Transport Company, RNZASC.
6th Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME
Headquarters, 21st Supply Company, RNZASC.
1st Supply Platoon, RNZASC.
Headquarters, RNZAMC, New Zealand Division.
1st Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
2nd Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
3rd Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
1st Field Dressing Station, RNZAMC.
1st Casualty Clearing Station, RNZAMC.
1st Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
2nd Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
3rd Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
Headquarters, Commander RNZAOCs, New Zealand Division.
Headquarters, Commander RNZEME, New Zealand Division.
1st Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
2nd Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
3rd Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
1st Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
2nd Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
3rd Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
1st Divisional Provost Company, RNZ Pro.
Overseas Units
New Zealand Army Liaison Staff London
New Zealand Army Liaison Staff Melbourne
New Zealand Fiji Cadre.
Headquarters, New Zealand Kayforce.
A Transport Platoon (Korea), RNZASC.
The New Zealand Special Air Service Squadron. (Malaya)
Note: Apart from the New Zealand Women’s Army Corps (NZWRAC) depot, there were no standalone NZWRAC units, with all members distributed across units of the NZ Army
Equipment
After the First World War, the New Zealand Army underwent re-equipment, acquiring enough equipment to outfit an Infantry division, Artillery Brigade, and Mounted Rifle Brigade.[4] However, by 1934, much of this equipment had reached the end of its operational life. In line with mechanisation experiments, the first wave of modern uniforms and equipment began to be introduced into New Zealand’s service, including Anti-Aircraft Artillery, Bren Guns, and Universal Carriers from 1938.[5]
The advent of the Second World War saw the comprehensive re-equipment of the New Zealand army. By 1946, it was equipped on par with its peers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, with the available equipment viewed as sufficient for the immediate post war training purposes.[6]
Between 1946 and 1950, the demand for new or additional equipment was minimal. However, during this time, all remaining pre-war field artillery was replaced with more modern systems developed during the war. Substantial advancements occurred from 1950 onward, including the introduction of new Land Rover 4-wheel-drive vehicles, Centurion tanks, Armoured Cars, and anti-armour weapons, as well as the initial deployment of the Larkspur radio system. However, despite this purchase of a token amount of equipment, much of the army’s World War Two equipment although in service for less than twenty years was facing bulk obsolescence and included the following equipment.
In 1939, the New Zealand Army inventory of vehicles consisted of.
6 Motorcycles
2 Cars
54 Tracks and tractors
By 1944, this fleet had expanded to 20311 vehicles of all types from the United States, Canada and Great Britain.[7] Reductions of surplus vehicles due to the war’s end had reduced this holding to 10931 vehicles in 1945. Operational wear and tear and a shortfall in unit maintenance capability further reduced the fleet, necessitating placing most vehicles into regional Vehicle Depots managed by the RNZOAC. Under this system, units maintained a minimum of vehicles for routine activities; however, before an exercise, the unit’s additional vehicle requirement was drawn from the supporting Vehicle Depot.
In the interest of smart turnout, weather protection and economy, all mobile artillery equipment and trailers and all “B” and “C” vehicles were in peacetime painted to a glossy finish using Paint, PFU, Deep Bronze Green, High Gloss.
All “A” Vehicles and non-mobile artillery equipment, searchlights, etc, were painted to a matt finish using Paint, PFU, Deep Bronze Green, Matt Finish.[8]
Rationing
The RNZASC was responsible for overseeing all catering operations within the army. This included managing ration scales and supply organisation, including ration stores, cold stores, and butcher shops. Additionally, the RNZASC coordinated the activities of cooks and stewards stationed in camp and field kitchens. Bulk stocks of rations received from civilian suppliers were held in Supply Platoons and divided into ration breaks tailored to the needs of individual kitchens, depending on the strength of dependent units. Bulk field feeding was facilitated by RNZASC field kitchens, which provided essential sustenance in various operational settings. Unlike other contemporary military forces, the New Zealand Army did not utilise ration packs. Instead, units were supplied with canned or fresh food from the existing ration scale, allowing units to prepare meals while in the Field for shorter periods, ensuring flexibility and adaptability to different operational demands.
Specialised RNZASC Field Catering equipment included.
Following World War Two, with Ordnance Stores well stocked and NZ industry well positioned to support any surge in demand, the NZ army retained the familiar combination of woollen serge Battle Dress (BD) and Khaki Drill (KD) and Demin range of uniforms that had served it well during the war years. However, by 1955, the high tempo of training required to maintain a division supported by CMT, operations in Korea, and a likely commitment to ongoing operations in Southeast Asia highlighted deficiencies of the current ranger of uniforms. While the BD uniforms remained suitable for use in temperate and colder climates, the Army Clothing Committee identified a requirement to develop a summer training dress for use in NZ that would also be satisfactory for jungle operations, in response to the Army Dress Committee, Captain J.A Dixie of the Defence Scientific Corps of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) provided a comprehensive report on Tropical Clothing. Reviewing World War Two and post-war scientific research on the problem of tropical clothing by the United States and Commonwealth, Dixie’s report provided the principles that guided the selection of a suitable NZ Army range of tropical uniforms and equipment.[9]
In December 1955, the Army Board approved the transition of uniforms with BDs retained as winter dress in NZ and KDs to be phased out in favour of uniforms manufactured in Drill Green (DG) for summer and working dress.
Detailed below are the uniform scales of issues that were to be affected by the most significant uniform transition since 1940.
1955 Scales of Uniform issue.
Scale 1
Regular Soldiers, including Regular Force Cadets.
Scale 2
Regular Physical Training Instructors.
Scale 3
Regular Officers.
Scale 4
Regular Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
Scale 5
Regular soldiers of the NZANS.
Scale 6
Territorial Recruits.
Scale 7
Territorial soldiers.
Scale 8
Territorial Officers.
Scale 9
Territorial Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
Scale 10
Territorial Soldiers of the NZANS.
Scale 11
Territorial Officers of the NZANS.
Scale 12
Cadets of the Cadet Corps.
Scale 13
Cadet Corps Officers.
Scale 14
Special Clothing.
Scale 15
Camp Necessities: Supplementary scales.
Scale 16
Welfare Workers in Army Camps.
Scale 17
Canteen Council Employees.
Scale 18
Individual Provision: Women’s Services.
Scale 19
Clothing and Necessaries to be in Possession of Soldiers Committed to Detention Barracks.
Scale 20
Hospital Patients.
Headdress
Blue berets were designated for Physical Training Instructors. Additionally, officers (excluding RNZAC) were issued blue berets to be worn with Uniform Blue No 1.
The introduction of the Cap Battledress (Cap BD), commonly known as the Ski Cap, commenced in 1954 as a replacement for the Cap GS (Lemon squeezer). Members of the RNZAC were not required to wear the Cap BD, as they retained the Black Beret adopted in 1942 as their headdress.
The standard combat helmet was the Helmet, Steel, Mark II (Brodie), with special helmets for motorcycle riders and armoured crew members.
The 37 Pattern Battle Dress (BD) served as New Zealand soldiers’ standard winter uniform and walking-out attire during World War II and subsequent years. This uniform, featured the following key components:
Blouse: Fashioned from durable wool serge fabric, the blouse featured a buttoned front with concealed buttons. It boasted two breast pockets and two internal pockets, while the straight sleeves typically came with adjustable cuffs for added comfort and versatility.
Trousers: Crafted from the same resilient wool serge material as the blouse, the trousers boasted a practical button-fly design. They were equipped with two internal pockets, one rear pocket and a map pocket on the left leg. Adjustable side tabs on the waistband ensured a personalised fit for each wearer.
Web Anklets: Designed to keep the trouser bottoms securely in place, the web anklets prevented them from riding up or becoming loose during movement. This maintained a tidy and uniform appearance and offered protection against debris and insects entering the footwear.
BD Skirts were provided for female soldiers of the NZWRAC and NZANS
An upgraded pattern of Battle Dress was introduced in New Zealand known as the Pattern 52 BD, however from 1956, due to the considerable number of older patterns in circulation, the issue of the 52-Patt BDs was limited to regular soldiers and officers until stocks of the older pattern were wasted out.
Khaki Drill
During summer months, the woollen BD uniform proved impractical, leading to the issuance of Khaki drill attire. This summer uniform comprised:
Shirt, drill, Khaki
Shirt, Bush, OR, No 1 or No 2
Shirt, Officers, Khaki
Shorts, drill, Khaki
Trouser, drill, Khaki
Hosetops, Khaki, and Puttees, Short
Skirts, Khaki (NZWRAC and NZANS)
Working Dress
Recognising the unsuitability of both the BD and Khaki Drill uniforms for rigorous activities, a Denim working dress was provided. This ensemble included:
Jacket, Denim
Trousers, Denim
These garments were intended to withstand the demands of heavy-duty work while maintaining functionality and durability for soldiers in various tasks and environments, with overalls issued in addition to denims for tradesmen.
Camouflage
In 1952, 1500 sets of Khaki Drill Jackets and Trousers were dyed green and issued to the three military districts (250 sets per district) and NZ Division (750 sets) as camouflage clothing for training. The status of these by 1956 is unknown.
Footwear
Boots
Boots were ankle-high, lace-up ammo boots consisting of
Boots, ankle, Rank and File R&F, IP (or NZ). These boots had pebble-grained leather uppers with leather soles fitted with heel plates, toe plates and sole studs (hobnails).
Boots, ankle, officers, black. Officers’ boots had heel plates, but lacked the sole studs and toe plates because they could afford to replace the soles.
Other footwear
Shoes, canvas, rubber sole.
Shoes, officers, black, heavy.
Shoes, officers, black, light.
Shoes, NZWRAC, tan
Boots, Motorcyclists
Sandals, leather
Overshoes – issued to personnel employed in Magazines, Cookhouses at Ordnance Stores with concrete floors.
While New Zealand received substantial information regarding research and development efforts by the British Army aimed at enhancing web equipment, many of the new British designs were still in the development phase and not yet ready for deployment. [10] However, with over 60,000 sets of the 37-Pattern equipment in circulation in New Zealand, supplemented by older items like the 08 Pattern pack, it was ensured that this equipment would remain in service for the foreseeable future.
Conclusion
In conclusion 1956 marked a crucial juncture for the New Zealand Army, necessitating strategic adaptations in response to evolving global conflicts. The army transitioned from its traditional role supporting British forces in the Middle East to engaging in operations in Southeast Asia. This shift prompted organisational restructuring, equipment modernisation, and adjustments to clothing and logistical operations. By aligning itself with the United Kingdom and Australia, the New Zealand Army was positioned to meet the challenges of the battlefields of the 1960s.
Notes
[1] Damien Fenton, A False Sense of Security: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978, Occasional Paper / Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand: No. 1 (Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington, 1998), 49.
[2] “Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 April 1955 to 31 March 1956,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1956 Session I, H-19 (1956).
[3] “Composition of the New Zealand Army,” New Zealand Army Order 26-27/56, 9 May 1956.
[4] “H-19 Defence Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding the Forces,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1920): 11.
[5] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the Chief of the General Staff,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, (1939).
[6] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 June 1950 to 31 March 1951,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1951).
[7] “Appendices to Report on Qmg (Quartermaster-General’s) Branch,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541151 (1944).
[8] “Vehicles and Artillery Equipments, Painiting Of,” New Zealand Army Order 75/50, 9 May 1950.
[9] Army 213/1/92 DSIR Tropical Clothing Dated 3 October 1955. “Clothing – Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment, ”Clothing.
[10] 86/Dev/54 (SWV1) Instructions for Troop trials of Z2 Experimental Load Carrying Equipment, 1954;”Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189098 (1944 -1966).
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.
The New Zealand (NZ) Army entered the 1950s with combat clothing based on the World War Two Battle Dress (BD) and Khaki Drill (KD) uniforms. Both these uniform types had limitations, such as the BDs being too heavy for wear in summer, tropical and jungle climates but too lightweight for the temperate NZ Climate. Combat operations in Southeast Asia from 1955 had further highlighted the inadequacy of NZ combat clothing, leading to NZ soldiers equipped with an eclectic range of United Kingdom (UK), Australian and NZ-manufactured variants throughout the 1950s and 60s. To achieve a measure of sustainability and self-sufficiency when purchasing uniforms, NZ undertook extensive research and development on tropical combat uniforms during the 1960s. However, by the early 1970s, the requirement for temperate climate uniform became a priority leading to the adoption of the UK 1968 Pattern Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM) combat uniform. As the NZ Army transitioned from its World War Two legacy combat clothing to the most modern combat uniforms available, the transition was never complete, with elements of the older combat clothing remaining in service to be mixed and matched with the latest items as they were introduced. This article provides an overview of the NZ Army’s combat clothing transition from 1955 to the 1980s and how the requirements and types of combat clothing evolved.
A soldier hands out uniforms and bags to the first batch of 18-year-old army trainees. Photograph taken 29 June 1950 by an Evening Post staff photographer.Ref: 114/164/31-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23010004
Following World War Two, with Ordnance Stores well stocked and NZ industry well positioned to support any surge in demand, the NZ army retained the familiar combination of woollen serge Battle Dress (BD) and KD and Demin range of uniforms that had served it well during the war years. However, by 1955 the high tempo of training required to maintain a division supported by Compulsory Military Training (CMT), operations in Korea, and a likely commitment to ongoing operations in Southeast Asia highlighted deficiencies of the current ranger of uniforms. While the BD uniforms remained suitable for use in temperate and colder climates, the Army Clothing Committee identified a requirement to develop a summer training dress for use in NZ that would also be satisfactory for jungle operations. In response to the Army Dress Committee, Captain J.A Dixie of the Defence Scientific Corps of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) provided a comprehensive report on Tropical Clothing. Reviewing World War Two and post-war scientific research on the problem of tropical clothing by the United States and Commonwealth, Dixie’s report provided the principles that guided the selection of a suitable NZ Army range of tropical uniforms and equipment.[1]
Following the deployment of the NZ Special Air Service (NZSAS) Squadron to Malaya in November 1955, NZ felt obliged to prepare NZ’s forces for service in Southeast Asia. Based on the equipping of the NZSAS from British theatre stocks, the assumption was that initial stocks of tropical clothing for any future deployment would be available from British theatre stocks, with NZ-manufactured tropical uniforms providing long-term sustainment. Therefore, in December 1955, the Army Board approved the transition of uniforms with BDs retained as winter dress in NZ, and KDs phased out in favour of uniforms manufactured in Drill Green (DG) for summer and working dress. The 1955 orders of dress were.
The transition to the new range of DG clothing was in the following sequence:
Waste out stock of KD garments by CMT issues, with the first issue to CMT recruits by 1959, with the process completed by 1960.
For other uses, convert stocks of KD material (not yet made up into uniforms) and waste out.
Undertake all further uniform manufacture (except BD and Greatcoats) in DG.
Build up a working reserve sufficient to equip 10,000 soldiers.[2]
NZ’s DG uniform pattern was the 1950 Pattern British Jungle Green (JG) uniform. The 1950 pattern uniform consisted of shirt and trousers made from a green-coloured cotton drill material. Fitted with a cross waist belt fastened by adjustable buckles on each side designed to account for the wearer losing weight in hot climates, the trouser style was known as ‘Gurkha pants.’ The trousers included a twin pleated front, pockets on each hip, twin rear pockets and a map pocket on the left leg.[3]
Jungle greens and Jungle boots as worn by New Zealand Forces in Malaya from 1955. NZ National Library Ref: EP/1956/0031-F
Due to the financial outlay required to provide a measure of fiscal control over future uniform changes, on 9 April 1956, Cabinet decided that “No new items in uniform scales of officers and other ranks are to be introduced or material changes therein made without the prior approval of the Minister of Defence in concurrence with the Minister of Finance to the finance involved.”[4]
Granted approval on 2 August 1958 and deployed to Malaya in October 1957, the 1st Battalion, The NZ Regiment (1 NZ Regt), was NZ’s first regular Infantry battalion and NZ’s land commitment to the Commonwealth’s Far East Land Forces (FARELF). The initial scaling of 1 NZ Regt was from NZ stocks with equipment, including clothing (four sets of NZ DGs), weapons and eighty-nine vehicles and trailers. However, with the approval of the Ministers of Defence and Finance, £59000 (NZD 3,359,047.60 in 2022) was expended to procure additional theatre-specific items not held in the NZ inventory from British theatre stocks in Malaya.[5] Given the distance involved and the complications of holding sufficient clothing stocks to cover all size ranges, it was decided in September 1957 that NZ-specific uniform items would be maintained from NZ, with the UK supplying and maintaining items on the FARELF clothing scales, managed under a capitation system where NZ reimbursed the UK for the equipment provided.[6] This arrangement was extended to include Australian equipment provided to the NZ Forces and remained in place until 1974. The initial items maintained by NZ with 1 NZ Regt provided with stock to allow 100% replacement were:
Still, a novel item under development as part of the NZ Army inventory, the evaluation and development of the NZ DG uniforms was ongoing. One of the first large-scale user trials in NZ was on Jungle Course No1 at Burnham Camp from 8 September to 31 October 1958. Feedback from Course participants was positive, with observations that DG items were satisfactory for NZ’s temperate conditions.[7] Instructions for distributing DG Uniforms were issued in October 1958, with three sets of KD approved for exchange with three sets of DGs for Regular Force (RF) Officers and Other Ranks.[8]
As the introduction of the DG uniform continued, limitations with the current material and cut of the DG Uniforms were highlighted. Although suitable for training for most conditions found in NZ, it was not suitable for operations in the tropical conditions of Malaya. Under an existing Commonwealth agreement, Australia took the lead in researching a range of tropical clothing and equipment. As Australian research and development continued, NZ continued to rely on the UK and Australia to provide tropical clothing while remaining focused on developing a range of clothing suitable for NZ’s temperate climate and conditions.[9]
The NZ Army Chief of General Staff (CGS) Clothing Conference in February 1960 prompted significant work in developing revised uniform scales and dress orders. A policy statement was issued in November 1960 to remove misunderstandings regarding the proposals under consideration and the obligatory and optional dress orders, with the 1960 orders of dress within NZ being:
The 1960 policy statement on orders of dress was aspirational in that it had identified additions to the winter and summer clothing scales. Driven by the realisation that harsh weather and inadequate clothing led to considerable loss of training time, investigations had identified that lighter materials with water-repellent and quick-drying qualities were available, leading to a proposed new line of uniforms and equipment superior to the current BDs and greatcoats. The proposed uniform and equipment were based on winter and summer uniforms.
The winter training uniform for RF and Territorial Force (TF) all ranks was to consist of Battledress supplemented by added items for introduction from 1962, including
Woollen shirt
Pullover with drawstring neck
Parka
Waterproof over trousers.
Gaiters
The summer training uniform for all RF and TF all ranks was to consist of the following:
Replacement of existing stocks of Summer Drill trousers with a new trouser pattern based on the UK 1960 Pattern Jungle Green trousers. The 1960 pattern trousers were identical to the 1952 Patten but had the addition of belt loops.
Replace the DG Shirt with the woollen shirt used in the winter dress.[10]
Troops posted to FARELF were issued in NZ with the standard scales supplemented by items needed for operational training in NZ. Before embarkation, NZ issue items not needed in the FARELF theatre were withdrawn and placed into base kit storage until the soldiers returned from overseas. On arrival in the FARELF theatre, additional items, including lightweight tropical and combat clothing, were issued from UK Stocks.[11]
In addition to clothing items, boots and bivouac equipment designed to provide soldiers with maximum protection against the weather during field training were included in the initial trials from July 1961.[12] The July 1961 trial provided a proof of concept that led to 1962 approval by the Ministers of Defence and Finance of a new range of basic clothing and clothing scales for the army to meet existing requirements with new scales approved for inclusion in NZ Army Routine and Standing Orders (R&SO) Volume 1 on 13 July 1962.[13][14] The formalisation of this scale was concurrent with the Ministers of Defence and Finance jointly approving the expenditure of £38,657.14.0 (NZD 1,948,037.31 in 2022) to enable payment to be made to GHQ FARELF for items of clothing issued by the UK to the NZ battalions in Malaya since 1957. Approval of further updates of the NZ clothing scales, including the NZ FARELF scale, followed in September 1963.[15]
By July 1964, with a continuing commitment to the Commonwealth FARELF in Malaysia and a growing commitment to the conflict in South Vietnam, the NZ Army convened a special committee to:
Define the policy governing all items of clothing and personal equipment for male members of the NZ Army in peace and war, in NZ and overseas.
Calculate the immediate and long-term requirements to equip the army and provide for maintenance.
Prioritise and select essential and suitable items for use in Southeast Asia and under conditions found in NZ.
Acknowledge that clothing and equipment needed to be specifically developed for both NZ and Southeast Asia.
Review the NZ Army’s present holdings to determine what was suitable for either permanent or interim use in SE Asia.
Base future scales on those already used within NZ and by 1 RNZIR in Malaysia.
Recommend maintenance stock levels based on current usage rates experienced by 1 RNZIR in Malaysia.
The clothing and personal equipment policy statement was comprehensive and logical, with sound recommendations that identified items of clothing and equipment for use by the NZ Army at home and overseas, with recommendations for new scales, stock and maintenance levels. Approved in principle by Army Headquarters, the clothing and personal equipment policy statement was submitted to the Ministry of Defence for approval in November 1964.[16] Following further analysis by the Ministry of Defence, it was recommended on 15 June 1965 that The Minister of Defence and Minster of Finance approve the new scales of clothing and personnel equipment for the NZ Army based on the expenditure of £1,425,00 ($6,698,087.41 in 2022) over the financial years 1965/66, 1966/67 and 1967/68.[17]
Despite the considerable financial commitment required, following the joint approval of the Ministers of Defence and Finance, on 21 March 1966, Cabinet approved in principle expenditure to allow the provision of clothing and personal equipment for the NZ Army’s future requirements over the next three fiscal years:
£1,425,00 ($66,980,874.05 in 2022) over the budget year 1965/66,
£430,000 ($19,569,115.53 in 2022) for the budget year 1966/67.
£430,000 (18,385,342.62 in 2022) for the budget year 1967/68.[18]
Approved by Cabinet, the clothing and personal equipment programme was a three-year programme to issue to troops and build up stocks over the years 1967 -1969 and was to:
Provide an initial issue to the Field Force of ten thousand soldiers, plus a three-month reserve stock at war wastage rates for immediate maintenance in the overseas theatre.
Hold sufficient materials and components to allow manufacturers six months of supply at war rates.
Additional stock of training clothing to meet needs in NZ.
With the 1961 trials identifying items for training in NZ, experience gained in Malaysia and later South Vietnam saw additional items of tropical combat clothing added to the clothing scales.
The Pullover with a drawstring neck was trialled in 1961 and, although undergoing minor modifications, was ready for introduction into service by March 1964.[19] Based on the British 1960 Pattern tropical shirt and trousers, the NZ-manufactured variants were the base of NZ’s summer and tropical dress orders. Although suitable for summer use, a shirt more suited to NZ’s temperate climate was desired, and from the three types trialled in 1961 with two types selected for further trials:
Type A 100% wool.
Type B was a wool/nylon mixture.
Introduced into servicer for a year-long trial from April 1965. 3703 type A shirts were Issued to RF personnel, excluding those posted to FARELF. The scale was one Type A Shirt Training per Officer and Soldier in exchange for one Shirt DG.[20] Thirteen Hundred of the marginally more expensive Type B Training shirt introduced for concurrent troop trials in October 1965. A revised Trial instruction was issued in December 1965, detailing the requirements for the trial, for completion by 31 August 1966, with trial reports submitted to Army HQ by 30 September 1966.[21]
Type A Shirt Training, Green, Wool/Nylon (Type A)
Type A Shirt Training, Green, Wool/Nylon (Type B)
The trial reports on both training shirts revealed faults related to the materials used, with the Type B shirt identified as an acceptable item in its current form. With a sufficient stock of the Type B shirt in circulation, trials were extended until 31 October 1966, with the Type B shirt included in the clothing scale by 1967.
As NZ’s commitment to the conflict in South Vietnam increased from mid-1964, the lack of suitable materials or shirts for use in tropical conditions became an issue. To meet the immediate needs of NZ’s overseas forces, continued reliance on the UK, with additional items provided by Australia, was necessary.
An early contribution to developing an NZ tropical combat shirt was in November 1964 when ten shirts made from a new acrylic fabric (trade name “Cashmillon”) were issued to the First Battalion of the Royal NZ Infantry Regiment (1RNZIR) in Malaysia for initial troop trials.[22] The trial NZ shirt was intended to be rot-resistant, more robust, quicker-drying, and less chilling to the body when wet, while providing warmth in cooler weather. The 1RNZIR trials were favourable, with the trial shirts preferred to the current British combat shirts and strongly recommended as a future combat shirt.[23]
New Zealand gunners in Saigon, Vietnam, being presented a garland of flowers by a woman from the Vietnamese Army, during an official welcome ceremony for the artillery unit. circa 5 August 1965. Ref: EP-Defence-NZ Army, Vietnam-01. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22829325
By August 1965, adverse media coverage on the quality of Australian Combat Clothing of the type issued to NZ’s Vietnam Force (V Force) prompted NZ Army Headquarters to approach the United States for samples and specifications of combat clothing used by United States Forces in South Vietnam, with feedback also obtained by HQ NZ V Force from United States Forces in South Vietnam on their satisfaction with their tropical combat uniforms.[24] Feedback from the United States Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) and two United States advisors with the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) identified that United States Army personnel in Vietnam were issued two sets of Tropical Combat fatigues. The United States uniform was light, comfortable and quick-drying, resistant to rot under tropical conditions, with a combat life of about twelve days. Although having an apparent short operational life, this was comparable with the Commonwealth experience with uniforms in jungle operations in Southeast Asia.[25]
The view of the NZ Army was that although the United States tropical uniform material was the best of those in use by allied armies and was supported by a continual improvement programme, prudence directed that, based on the preliminary trials of the NZ acrylic cloth by 1RNZIR, extended trials were required to be conducted.[26] With the NZ acrylic cloth being potentially superior to other cloths in use and likely to be suitable for NZ training conditions, the Army Development Section proposed that a further 300 yards of the cloth be purchased to enable further trials to be conducted.
However, feedback from the 9th Commonwealth Defence Conference and the flammability risks associated with the acrylic material led to the cessation of meaningful development of this cloth. The UK and Australia both had large stocks of drill cloth, which, although not ideal, were still suitable for use as research continued to find a replacement material. Concurrent with NZ acrylic trials, Australia was in the preliminary stages of experimenting with a cotton/nylon mixture. However, the UK and Canada were concerned with the NZ trial as the cloth had little flame resistance. Based on this feedback, NZ reviewed its requirements and requested that the DSIR and industry undertake further development of the acrylic cloth to improve its fire resistance qualities. NZ’s requirements for tropical uniform material were satisfied by purchasing bulk stocks of the same material used by the UK for tropical clothing.[27]
1 Composite Ordnance Company Officers Ex Logploy Two Linton 6-9 March 1967 Left to Right: 2LT Telfer, 2Lt Watson, 2Lt Wootton, Lt McDonald, Capt Duggan, Maj Golightly, 2Lt Jones, Lt Reid, 2Lt Bowker. All wear 1960 Pattern DG Trousers with various KD, DG and Wollen Shirts. Robert.McKie Collection
By December 1967, the NZ clothing scales and the range of clothing supplied had become complicated. Each NZ soldier was issued clothing and equipment based on the NZ Training scale. Although the NZ Training scale was based on maintaining an integrated RF and TF Field Force, a 1967 study of the training clothing scales found disparities between the combat, training and walking out uniform scales of the RF and TF. To correct and align the RF and TF scales, a two-phase programme started in 1967 to correct the scales. Phase one, initiated in 1967, began the disposal of all wartime-style garments (items from World War One and Two were still in service) and rearranging the scale issue to the National Service Training Unit (NTSU). Beginning in December 1968, NTSU and TF recruits were to be issued the same combat clothing as the RF.[28]
On selection for deployment overseas, additional items were issued as part of the emplacement scale depending on the theatre. Items not required overseas were held in the soldier’s Base kit.
NZ Troops to HQ FARELF and 1 RNZIR. NZ Troops posted to HQ FARELF and 1 RNZIR issued from the NZ FARELF Scale with items drawn from stocks supplied by the UK and NZ. The solder retained items such as the UK tropical Shirts (Flannel or Cellular) and Trousers OG on return to NZ.
Victor and Whiskey Company troops, drawn from 1RNZIR and deployed to South Vietnam. Items of the FARELF scale not required in South Vietnam were placed into base kits. Additional Australian combat clothing was issued from Australian FARELF stocks, with maintenance provided by the Australian Logistic Support Group (ALSG) in South Vietnam.
HQ V Force, 161 Battery, Med Team and other troops deployed directly from NZ. In addition to NZ items, Australian combat clothing was issued, with maintenance provided by the Australian Logistic Support Group (ALSG) in South Vietnam.
The Australian combat clothing issued to NZ troops in Vietnam consisted of two types of uniforms: Shirts and Trousers Tropical Combat (JGs) and Coat and Trousers Mans Field Combat Tropical.
The Australian JGs were modelled after the British 1950 pattern tropical uniforms and made from lightweight green fabric. The shirt was long-sleeved with two chest pockets, and the trousers had the crossover “Gurkha” style closure with buckles on the sides and fitted with a single map pocket to the left thigh.
The Australian Coat and Trousers Mans Field Combat Tropical was inspired by the United States jungle fatigues and developed over 1965/66 with the Mark 1 version introduced into Australian service by January 1967. The coat (shirt) had pockets on the upper sleeves for shell dressings and slanted breast pockets. This new uniform was soon nicknamed “pixie greens.”
Australian Coat and Trousers, Man’s, Field Combat, Tropical “Pixi Greens”
In the interests of standardisation and leveraging from the operational experience gained by the Australians in Vietnam, the NZ Army considered adopting the Australian range of combat clothing for use in tropical combat conditions and as a replacement for DG items in NZ. Combat clothing trials were initiated in January 1967, with forty sets of the Australian prototype “Pixi Greens” issued to Waiouru Camp and the 1st Battalion Depot in Burnham.[29]
As a result of the NZ “Pixi Green” trial in September 1967, the Australian design, with modifications, was accepted for use in NZ as a training dress and as a combat dress in the tropics. The modifications required included using UK-sourced DG Cloth and a slight redesign of the trousers. The final acceptability trial report completed on 31 October 1967 established the acceptability of the UK Cloth and decided on a preference between the two slightly different trouser styles; one type had elastic cuffs and cargo pockets on the front of the legs; the other type had draw-cord cuffs and cargo pockets towards the sides of the legs.[30]
User trials established that the UK-type DG material was a satisfactory material for both shirts and trousers in tropical combat conditions and suitable as a replacement for the current heavier NZ DG for summer wear in NZ. A good design for the NZ version of the “pixie greens” shirt and trousers had been achieved, with the trousers having draw-cord cuffs and cargo pockets towards the sides of the legs.[31] Following sizing trials conducted in Vietnam and NZ in 1967, it was established that the Australian size range was compatible with NZ’s needs and was adopted with nine sizes of Shirts and trousers provided.[32]
NZ Purchase Description No 106 was issued on 4 January 1968, providing the minimum requirements for manufacturing Shirt, Man’s, Drill, Green, Field Combat, Tropical 1967 Pattern, the NZ version of the Australian Coat Mans Field Combat Tropical “pixie green”.[33]
Shirt, Man’s, Drill, Green, Field Combat, Tropical 1967 Pattern
The NZ purchase description, which provided the minimum requirements for manufacturing Trousers, Men’s, Drill Green Field Combat, Tropical (1967 Patt), the NZ version of the Australian Trousers, Men’s Field Combat Tropical (Pixie), was issued on 5 February 1968.[34]
Trousers, Mens, Drill Green Field Combat, Tropical – 1967 Pattern
Although the trouser design was agreed to and was ready for introduction into service, the initial design was a compromise. In some examples, Velcro replaced all buttons and buckles in the waist area. The trials of the Velcro fastenings were not exhaustive, with further trials to evaluate the practicability of using Velcro fastenings under all conditions of tropical combat required facilitated by the dispatch of six pairs of combat tropical trousers with Velcro fastenings to the Infantry elements of NZ’s V Force in March 1968 to allow further trials.[35] With negative feedback from V Force, further development of Velcro fastenings was not continued.
Australia’s development of its tropical combat uniform was ongoing. In August 1968, user dissatisfaction with the Mark 1 version led to the development of the Mark 2 version. Including some minor design improvements, the size range of the Mark 2 versions was increased from each type having nine sizes to twelve shirt sizes and eighteen trouser sizes.[36] Development of the Australian tropical combat uniform continued until its withdrawal from service in the late1980s. Taking note of the Australian developments of the Mark 2 pattern, NZ modified its specifications and introduced the Coat, Mans, Drill Green Field Combat – 1969 Pattern with twelve different sizes into service in October 1969.[37] It remains unknown if 1969 Pattern trousers were concurrently introduced.
Comparison of FARELF Combat Clothing 1965 Left to Right: Shirts Tropical Combat, Shirt OG (UK).Indonesian Camouflage, Shirt KF, HQ FARELF Joint Services Public Relations PR/A/372/4 NZ Archived R17187760 Clothing Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment 1955-67
As the NZ clothing and personal equipment programme authorised in 1965 was nearing completion, the NZ FARELF Clothing scale was updated in late 1969, replacing most UK and Australian-sourced items with NZ-manufactured items. However, given the scale of the NZ scale changes, it was not envisaged that NZ would not be able to support the new scale until early 1970.[38] With the British intention to withdraw east of Suez by 1971 likely to become a reality, a revaluation of Australian and NZ reliance on British logistical support was undertaken. By October 1969, Australian planning for any future Australia and NZ (ANZ) Force clothing and personal equipment was underway, with Australia aiming to assume responsibility for the whole Australian component by mid-1971.[39] NZ now had a significant clothing and personal items catalogue, although initially unfavourable to NZ maintaining its stocks in the FARELF due to inadequate NZ resources. As NZ allocated adequate resources, Australia soon warmed up to NZ’s plans. Australia eventually had no difficulty supplying NZ troops in the ANZ Force with Australian pattern clothing and personal items if NZ items were not available. To ensure the Supply of NZ items, 5 Advanced Ordnance Depot (5AOD), Singapore, under the NZ items under specially allocated catalogue numbers alongside the equivalent Australian items.[40]
The UK’s east-of-Suez departure was delayed until 1974 when, along with Australia, both nations withdrew their Singapore garrisons, leaving NZ as the only foreign force in Singapore. By the time of the UK and Australian departure in 1974, the NZ supply system had evolved into a sustainable and autonomous system, with most clothing and personal items supplied direct from NZ. However, the NZ Advance Ordnance Depot (NZOAD) in Singapore had inherited British and Australian stock lines that took time to waste out, ensuring that the NZ Force in Southeast Asia (NZFORSEA) remained equipped with a mixture of British, Australian and NZ equipment.
Further review and refinement of the NZ Army clothing scales took place in 1971 with the announcement made to
Introduce a Dacron uniform as a summer walking out and, where appropriate, working dress to replace DGs.
Replace BDs with a temperate/winter combat working/training uniform.
The Secretary of Defence agreed to the proposal to upgrade DGs and BDs to a new Combat Dress. Authority to cease any further procurement of BD Jackets followed, with existing stocks progressively disposed of. To compensate for the loss of the BD Jacket, an additional Training Jersey was authorised to be issued as a BD jacket replacement. However, pending further justification, the replacement of DGs with Dacron’s as a summer walking out/working dress did not progress. As the winding down of NZ’s commitment to the Vietnam War precluded the widespread introduction of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniform, in 1971, a pilot scheme was conducted by units at Papakura camp to evaluate the adequacy of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat Uniform as combat working/training uniform for use in NZ Garrison and training conditions.[41]
The Combat Clothing pilot scheme utilised 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniforms but met with mixed results. Compared to the existing DGs, the 1967/69 Pattern Combat Uniform was unpopular, with variations in colour, texture and strength found. Although a minor redesign of the trousers and remedial work to correct the variation of colours followed, it became accepted that the attempt to follow Australia’s lead in developing a tropical combat uniform had failed. With large stocks of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniforms in the NZ Army supply system, the pilot scheme was abandoned, and future development and procurement of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniform ceased.
As no suitable alternative clothing item existed, the NZ DG Shirt and Trouser had, by default, been satisfactory as an “in lieu” item for warm weather and tropical training.[42] Although inappropriate and not intended for such use, the DG Shirt and Trousers would continue as NZ’s JGs for warm weather and tropical conditions until the late 1980s. However, the requirement for a modern temperate combat uniform still existed. To identify a temperate combat uniform, the Director of Infantry and SAS (D Inf) initiated formal trials of a combat uniform designed explicitly for temperate use in August 1974. Keen to evaluate a proven uniform pattern, the D Inf requested thirty sets of UK 1968 Pattern DMP temperate climate camouflage uniforms. Up to this period, the use of camouflage uniforms by the NZ Army was rare, with camouflage uniforms used by the 3rd Division of the 2nd NZEF in the Pacific during 1943/44 and the NZSAS and the NZ Army Training Advisory Teams, who had utilised American ERDL and South Vietnamese tiger stripe pattern fatigues during the Vietnam war.
UK Pattern DMP
Twenty-Eight sets of UK 68 Pattern DPM uniforms consisting of smocks, liners, trousers, caps and hods were received in February 1975 and, following the development of evaluation criteria, were released by trial by the NZ School of Infantry and 2/1 RNZIR in March 1975.[43] The DPM uniforms issued to the School of Infantry were distributed to the School of Infantry, the TF Depot and the RF Cadet School. The sets issued to 2/1 RNZIR were issued to Alpha Company (A Coy)
As the D Inf was the sponsor for combat clothing and personal equipment, visits and feedback from units had made the incumbent D Inf aware of deficiencies in certain types and sizes of clothing. Aware that the NZ Army did not have a firm policy regarding combat clothing, D Inf sponsored a review to inform policy and guide future sponsors and provisioners of combat clothing and equipment in 1975. The review found that:
Supplies of Shirts DG were adequate, with stocks of trousers DG low, with deliveries of stocks on order slow.
With the withdrawal of the BD Blouse, the training Jersey remained a popular item of clothing.
Stocks of the Hat Utility were good, and the item remained popular.
Developing and introducing a new parka and over trousers remained an ongoing project.
An unpopular item of uniform, stocks of the 1967 and 1969 Pattern Combat Trousers were not at authorised levels, with procurement frozen until a firm policy on the future of combat clothing was determined.
Stocks of the wool/nylon training shirt were low. However, as an expensive item only scaled for RF issues, procurement was on hold until a firm policy on the future of combat clothing was determined.
BD trousers to remain as the Winter Working Dress for RF and TF and the winter walking out dress for the TF.[44]
The initial trials of the DPM uniforms concluded in August 1975 with positive results recommending the adoption of all items of the DPM uniform except for the DPM Cap. Typical feedback echoed in the evaluation reports was that the DPM uniforms were “well-designed, very comfortable uniforms far Superior to anything else in service”.[45]
In summarizing the trial reports and the suitability of the UK Temperate DPM uniform, the D Inf supported the uniform’s introduction, noting that the comparative trials were limited to the current range of unsatisfactory NZ combat clothing. Comparative trials were not possible against similar uniforms from ABCA (American, British, Canadian, Australian) Armies as the UK temperate climate DPM uniform was the only type available.
Australia had only accepted a DMP pattern for open eucalyptus terrain, with further studies pending for other terrains. The Australian policy was to provide ‘add-on ‘ garments for work in temperate climates.
Canada did not have a DPM Temperate climate uniform and had an ‘add on” policy for cold and article conditions.
The United States offered temperate combat uniforms to NZ at a competitive rate. However, these were of the Olive Green variety. The United States Forces did have tropical DPM uniforms, and if NZ considered introducing tropical DPM Uniforms in the future, these should also be included in the evaluation process.
The D Inf highlighted that no modifications to the UK DPM uniforms were required and recommended that they be introduced as is (less the DPM Cap) and that modifications should only be considered after extensive user experience.[46]
In recognition of the requirement’s urgency and dissatisfaction with current dress and clothing standards adversely affecting morale, approval to introduce the UK DPM uniforms into NZ service was granted in December 1975.[47] The procurement of the new range of temperate clothing consisting of Jackets, Hoods and Trousers made from a DMP material and quilted liners was to be implemented in three phases over five years commencing in 1977/78.
Phase 1 – 1977/78. The first phase would purchase 1000 Jackets and Hoods, 1800 Trousers and 840 Liners to provide sufficient stock for a reduced strength battalion plus two years of maintenance stocks. Phase One was also to purchase 123,974 meters of DMP material to allow the manufacture of DPM uniforms in subsequent phases.
Phase 2 – 1978/79 to 79/80. The NZ manufacture of DPM uniforms to allow.
The issue of one set to the RF component of the Filed Force and Army Schools (Strength 2800).
TF Depot Pool (800).
Annual Camp Pool (4000).
Phase 3 – 1979/80 to 80/81. The NZ manufacturer of the UK Pattern temperate DPM uniforms to allow.
The establishment of war reserve stocks (1800).
The issue of a second set to all RF personnel involved in field training (3500).
Increase the size of the Field Force training pool (1000).[48]
On introducing the temperate DPM uniform, phasing out through normal wastage of the following clothing items was planned.
Over trousers.
The current service parka and commercial lined parkas. On developing a rainproof DPM parka, the replacement of unlined parkas would follow.
BD Trousers on a diminishing basis estimated as beyond 1981[49]
The introduction of the first tranche of temperate DPM uniforms began in August 1977 with the initial purchase of made-up uniforms issued to 2/1 RNZIR and Army Schools, with additional sets manufactured In NZ using imported material. However, a change in clothing policy and delays in receiving DPM material from the UK delayed the planned distribution and establishment of loan pools.[50] By 1980, confusion over scales and entitlements and the resulting distribution stagnation was highly emotional, with formations command seeking resolution.[51]
As the temperate DPMs were progressively introduced to NZ-based units, NZ Forces in Singapore were still required to utilise the legacy JG uniforms. As both the Malaysian and Singapore Forces were introducing camouflage uniforms, the Commander of NZFORSEA considered that there would be immense psychological value in considering the issue of a tropical DPM uniform to NZFORSEA.[52] Since 1972 British Forces in Hong Kong and Brunei utilised the No.9: Tropical Combat Dress, which had replaced the 1950 pattern OG and JG tropical uniforms. In 1980 NZFORSEA submitted a proposal to purchase the UK lightweight DMP material by utilising the UK specification tailored locally to meet the tropical DPM uniform requirements of NZFORSEA.[53]
After considering the NZFORSEA proposal, the NZ Army decided not to approve the NZFORSEA proposal. NZ Forces were to continue using the current JG tropical uniforms range. In justifying the decision, the following reasons were provided.
ABCA studies demonstrated that faded JG drill provided the most effective negative response to IR sources.
The primary reason for introducing DMP clothing into NZ service was warmth, with the psychological value ensuring its acceptance.
The operational effectiveness of DPM uniforms remained questionable.[54]
The upgrading of NZ Army combat clothing from 1955 to 1980 was just one of several clothing and equipment projects intended to keep the army equipped with a high standard of modern equipment compatible with its peers. The practice of adopting off-the-shelf clothing and equipment from allied nations continued, with, where possible, NZ industry manufacturing the foreign patterns, thus providing a measure of self-sufficiency. From 1967 considerable effort was made to develop the Australian Pixie Greens into an NZ tropical combat uniform. The resulting items were unsatisfactory, and the project was considered a failure. JGs introduced in 1958 and upgraded in 1961, remained in service as tropical combat clothing until 1984, when lightweight DPM trousers and shirts began to be introduced. Not wishing to repeat the prolonged and unsuccessful tropical combat clothing experience, the UK DPM temperate combat uniform was introduced with no redesign of the UK uniform with further NZ manufacture based on the UK specifications. A significant improvement on the previous uniforms provided for training in NZ, the introduction was piecemeal, with selected RF field force units fitted out first, followed by issues to the remainder of the RF and TF as stocks were made available, resulting in BD trousers and other legacy combat clothing items remaining in use well into the mid-1980s. While this article provides an overview of NZ Army combat clothing from 1950 to 1980, it provides a starting point for further research.
Notes
[1] Army 213/1/92 DSIR Tropical Clothing Dated 3 October 1955. “Clothing – Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment,” Archives NZ No R17187760 (1955 – 1967); “Clothing – Policy and General – Annual Clothing Review,” Archives NZ No R17311752 (1967-1975).
[2] Army 213/5/320 Provision of Jungle Green Uniforms dated 2 December 1955. “Clothing – Policy and General – Jungle Green Uniforms,” Archives NZ No R17311754 (1955 – 1988).
[3] Army 213/5/1/ORD 7 Trouser Green Drill 1952 5 January 1962.”Clothing – Khaki Dress – Green Drill, Manufacture,” Archives NZ No R17187768 (1962-1967).
[4] CM (56)16 dated 10 April 1956. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting,” Archives NZ No R17187816 (1968 – 1970).
[5] “H-19 Military Forces of NZ Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 April 1957 to 31 March 1958,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1958).
[6] Army 213/7/40/Q(Org) Clothing replacement – NZ Army Force FARELF. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting,” Archives NZ No R17187813 (1957 – 1962).
[7] Report on equipment used: Jungle Training Course No1. “Cookers – Jungle Warfare Equipment: General,” Archives NZ No R17189107 (1945-1968).
[8] Cmd 8/2/Q Introduction of New Orders of Dress – RF (Males) Trousers and Shirts, Drill Green Dated 5 November 1958. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives NZ No R17187791 (1957-1964).
[9] Army 213/7/4/DQ Dress-NZ Army 16 October 1959. Ibid.
[10] Army 213/10/7/A4 Dress: Male Officers and Soldiers 25 November 1960.”Clothing – Dress: NZ Army Forces, Far East Land Forces,” Archives NZ No R17187820 (1957-1963).
[11] Army 209/3/218/Q(Org) NZ FARELF Clothing Scales 7 March 1960. “Cookers – Jungle Warfare Equipment: General.”
[12] Army 246/6/194/SD Trial Instructions Clothing and equipment designed for use in training 11 July 1961.”Clothing – Clothing and Equipment Trials in Training,” Archives NZ No R9753143 (1961 – 1966).
[13] Army 213/7/40/QMG Maintenance of NZ Army Forces in SEA in Clothing and Personal Equipment November 1968. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting.”
[14] Army 213/7/4/DQ Basic Clothing Range: RF Males Dated 11 September 1962. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue.”
[15] Army 213/7/40/Q(A) Clothing issues – Male Personnel posted for duty in FARELF dated 8 March 1963.Ibid.
[16] Army 213/7/4/Adm NZ Army Clothing and Personal Equipment Policy Statement dated 10 November 1964. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives NZ No R17187792 (1964-1967).
[17] Ministry of Defence 41/3/3 Army Clothing and Equipment Programme Army Submission 213/7/4 of 4.4.65 Dated 16 June 1965. Ibid.
[18] Army 213/7/4 Army Clothing and Personal Equipment Programme Dated 27 May 1966. Ibid.
[19] Army 213/7/4/Q9C) Pullovers Dated 15 August 1963. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue.”
[20] Army 213/5/42/Q(A) Introduction of Shirts Training (CCN 8405-NZ-101-0588/0596) 22 April 1965.”Clothing – Clothing and Equipment Trials in Training.”
[21] Army 213/5/42/Q(D) Trial Instructions – Training Shirts 13 December 1965. Ibid.
[22] Army 213/1/92/Q(D) Shirts, Tropical Combat 20 November 1964. “Clothing – Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment.”
[24] Army 213/1/92 Tropical Combat Clothing 5 August 1965. Ibid.
[25] HQ NZ V Force 213/1/92 Tropical Combat Clothing 17 August 1965. Ibid.
[26] Deputy Secretary of Defence (Army) 213/1/92/OS1 Purchase of cloth for trial combat clothing 15 September 1965. Ibid.
[27] Army 213/1/92/Q(D) Shirting Tropical Combat 10 December 1965. Ibid.
[28] Army 213/7/4 Study: Clothing Scales outer Garments Dated 2 August 1967. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives NZ No R17187793 (1967-1976).
[29] Army 246/78/5/Q(D) Trial Instructions Tropical Combat Dress (Aust) 11 January 1967. “Clothing – Clothing and Equipment Trials in Training,” Archives NZ No R9853144 (1966 – 1969).
[30] Army 213/1/106/Q(D) Tropical Combat Clothing Trial 11 September 1967. Ibid.
[31] Army 213/1/106/OS9 Trouser Combat Tropical Trial 4 January 1968.Ibid.
[32] Army 213/1/106/ORD6 Trousers Combat Tropical 18 September 1968.”Clothing – Introduction of Combat Clothing Project,” Archives NZ No R17187753 (1968-1976).
[33] NZ Army Purchase Description No 105 dated 4 January 1968. “Clothing – Men’s Drill Green Field Combat Tropical 1967 Pattern 1970-71,” Archives NZ No R24510756 (1970-71).
[34] NZ Army Purchase Description No 106 dated 5 February 1968. “Clothing – Trousers Men’s Drill Green Field Combat – Tropical 1967 Pattern,” Archives NZ No R24510754 (1968 -1968).
[35] Army 213/1/106/Q899 Trousers: Combat Tropical 28 March 1968
[36] Army 213/1/106/ord6 Trouser Combat Tropical 18 September 1968. “Clothing – Introduction of Combat Clothing Project.”
[37] NZ Army Purchase Description No 105A dated 23 October 1969. “Clothing – Men’s Drill Green Field Combat Tropical 1967 Pattern 1970-71.”
[38] Army 213/7/40/Q Ops Brief for QMG Clothing and Personal Equipment for NZ Army Forces in the Far East Dated 24 September 1969. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting.”
[39] Commonwealth of Australia 209/B/10 Malaysia and Singapore Planning Clothing and Personal Equipment dated 14 October 1969.
[40] Army 213/7/40/Q Ops Brief for QMG Clothing and Personal Equipment for NZ Army Forces in the Far East Dated 24 September 1969. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting.”
[41] DOS 106/9 10 Combat Clothing and Army Dress Rationalization, dated 10 September 1973. “Army 220/5/103/Aac Army Dress Committee Meeting 1 March 1971,” Archives NZ No R9753141 (1971).
[42] DEP 213/1/37 Adoption of Disruptive Pattern Uniform Dated 22 September 1975. “Clothing – Introduction of Combat Clothing Project.”
[43] Army 213/1/37/EP Sponsor Evaluation Disruptive Pattern Uniform for use in Temperate climates Date 4 March 1975. Ibid.
[44] Army 213/1/104/Inf Minutes of a meeting on a sponsor review of Combat Clothing sand equipment Dated 7 May 1975.”Clothing – Policy and General – Annual Clothing Review.”
[46] D Inf 213/1/37/EP Temperate Disruptive Pattern Uniform Dated 29 September 1975. Ibid.
[47] Army 213/1/37/EP Combat Clothing Dated 9 December 1975. Ibid.
[48] Army Staff Target 08 74/75 Temperate Zone Combat/Training Clothing Dated 16 July 1976. “Clothing – Policy and General – Intro of Combat Clothing Project,” Archives NZ No R17311750 (1977-81).
[49] ACDS (Spt) Minute SP 131/1977 Temperate Climate Combat/Training Clothing for NZ Army Dated 28 April 1977. Ibid.
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.
Up to the Second World War, New Zealand Army boots generally had leather-soled ankle boots whose design had only undergone minor changes since 1912. Military boot development was catapulted during the Second World War with new designs and materials providing boots suitable for all terrains and climates found on Battlefields worldwide. As the post-war New Zealand Army was reorganised and reequipped to provide a division to fight in the Middle East, the decolonisation conflicts that swept Southeast Asia drew New Zealand into an unfamiliar type of warfare. New Zealand was not experienced or equipped to fight in harsh tropical environments but adapted quickly and became experienced practitioners of Jungle warfare. Initially equipped with British and Australian stocks of tropical equipment, it soon became apparent that New Zealand troops needed modern equipment. By 1959, the New Zealand Army undertook various research and development initiatives to improve its equipment in conjunction with scientific institutions and industry. This article provides an overview of the New Zealand Army’s post-war boot development, transitioning from a boot originating in the 19th century to a modern mid-20th century Combat boot.
Flush with wartime stocks of boots, the post-war New Zealand Army had no immediate need to upgrade its boots. However, by the mid-1950s, the limitations of the current range of leather-soled boots were becoming evident, especially in the jungles of Malaya, and the search for alternatives began for an improved boot design. To achieve this, the Quarter masters branch of the army called on the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Research Association for assistance in developing a boot with increased waterproof properties that could withstand prolonged wear without undue fatigue.[1]
Jungle greens and Jungle boots as worn by New Zealand Forces in Malaya from 1955. NZ National Library Ref: EP/1956/0031-F
In conjunction with footwear manufacturers and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Association developed four types of boots, which were trialled by the 2nd Battalion, New Zealand Regiment, in 1958. The latest type of ankle boot with a Directly Moulded Sole (DMS) from the United Kingdom was also tested alongside the four New Zealand samples.[2] From this initial user trial, feedback shaped an interim specification for two types with identical uppers but different soles, one of rubber and the other of leather. Thirty pairs of each type were made, and a further series of trials began with the 1st Battalion at Burnham Camp in early May 1960. Thirty trial subjects were chosen to wear each boot type for three days to see how easily they could be broken in. After that, they tested the boots for wear and comfort until February 1961.[3]
1956 Ankle Boots. Lee Hawkes Collection
Sole of 1956 Ankle boots. Lee Hawkes Collection
The result of the trial was the adoption of the Ankle Boot Rubber Sole (Ankle Boot RS). An ankle boot similar in design to the current boot, the Ankle Boot RS was several ounces lighter than those currently in use, also included was rotproof terylene stitching and nylon laces. The nylon laces were so popular with the troops that all the boots returned after user trials came back without laces. The new design had a “Commando” style rubber sole. The Commando style rubber sole was developed in the 1930s by English rubber maker Itshide, who switched from producing toys and brushes to producing this new kind of rubber sole for use on army boots during WWII. The benefit of the Commando sole was the grip provided by the shape of the jagged cleats on the sole, which proved ideal for providing stability on the roughest terrain. The New Zealand version of the Commando sole had slightly shallower cleats with an angled edge to prevent mud or small stones from wedging between them and was marketed as the “Kiwi Army Boot”. Production of the New Zealand Ankle Boot RS began in August 1961; however, with large quantities of the previous type of boot still in the supply system, it would take until 1964 to waste out the old stock.[4]
As with the previous boot design, the Ankle Boot RS required wearing a gaiter to prevent mud and derbies from entering the boot. The type of gaiter then in use was the 37-pattern web gaiter. Concurrent with the boot trial, thirty pairs of Australian Army gaiters were also tested. The long dark green Australian gaiter was introduced into Australian service in 1945 and had a light metal stiffener up one side to prevent wrinkling and a strap passing under the boot’s instep. Finding favour with the troops, these were also planned to be adopted for the New Zealand Army. However, problems in adopting the Australian gaiter would drive the development of the next iteration of New Zealand’s Army Boot.[5]
Although the Australian gaiter could have probably been purchased off the shelf directly from Australian manufacturers, such items should have been manufactured in New Zealand. However, it was found that due to the exorbitant costs encountered in producing the Australian pattern gaiter in New Zealand, this project was abandoned, and the gaiter requirement was re-evaluated. Although no specific General Staff requirement was stated, it was decided to develop a calf-length boot to replace the Ankle Boot RS and 37-pattern gaiters with a calf-length combat boot.
New Zealand 37-pattern Gaiter. Lee Hawkes collection
Based on the new Ankle Boot Rubber Sole (Ankle Boot RS), two high boots, type A and B, were manufactured by experienced New Zealand footwear manufacturers Sargood, Son and Ewen.[6] The type A and B boots included hooks instead of eyelets and a strap and buckle arrangement similar to the American M-1943 Combat Boot.
As a result of the initial user trials in New Zealand and Malaysia using the Type A and B boot, the design of the boot was refined into the Type C boot. In May 1964, ten examples of the Type C Boot were manufactured, incorporating improvements suggested by the user trials:
The sole and foot portion to be exactly the same as the Ankle Boot RS.
The height from ground level to the top of the boot was to be 101/2 inches.
There were to be six eyelets on the lower portion of each side of the closure and six boot hooks on the higher portion of each side (similar to the green jungle boot issued in Malaya).
The boot tongue was to be of a thinner variety and should not be longer than the height of the boot.
There were to be no straps or buckles.
The measurement around the top of the boot was to be no greater than 121/2 inches from edge to edge.[7]
Successful feedback on the Type C boot saw a small number purchased and introduced into service in June 1966 to enable further trials to be carried out to determine if the new pattern boots were suitable for combat in tropical conditions. Further trials by New Zealand Forces in South Vietnam and selected units in New Zealand commenced in November 1967
With the New Zealand contingent in South Vietnam serving alongside the Australians, the length of the New Zealand contingent’s supply chain and its low requirements made it necessary to modify the clothing replenishment system and link into the Australian lines of supply, resulting in New Zealand troops in Vietnam receiving Australian tropical clothing and boots.[8] This was a modification of the system used in Malaysia since 1955, when New Zealand troops in Malaysia drew their tropical clothing requirements, including jungle boots, from British sources.
Concurrent with New Zealand’s combat boot development was an Australian programme to develop a modern combat boot. Initially utilising jungle boots left over from the Second World War, the Australians soon developed and trialled a new DMS boot design with leather uppers and a moulded sole. After some initial user trials, an initial order of 10,000 pairs of the new Australian DMS Combat boot was placed in July 1956 for delivery to Australian troops in Vietnam by December 1965.[9]
By 1968, New Zealand troops in South Vietnam were officially utilising the trial New Zealand combat boot and the Australian DMS Combat boot. Unofficially many New Zealand troops also wore the America Jungle boot. A survey conducted at the start of the November 1967 trial showed that 108 New Zealand soldiers preferred the Australian boot and only 42 the New Zealand boot. A further survey conducted in March 1968 revealed that 121 New Zealand soldiers preferred the Australian boot. The most significant reasons given for the preference were that the Australian boot was:
Lighter and more robust than the NZ item.
Had a directly moulded sole.
It was made of better-quality leather.
Had a vastly superior appearance.
It had a very good and snug fit when broken in.
Private Wayne Lindsay, Whiskey One Company, inspects an RSA Christmas parcel from New Zealand circa 1968. Note that Private Lindsay is wearing the American Pattern Jungle boots, and there are Australian DMS Combat boots and New Zealand Combat boots under his bed. Image courtesy Noel Bell via https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/photo/private-wayne-lindsay-rsa-christmas-parcel
Feedback also included the increasingly evident requirement for a Jungle boot similar to the United States pattern to be provided to New Zealand Forces in tropical environments.[10]
After the November 1967 operational and training trials of the New Zealand combat boot, it was found that the recommendations of the various trial teams were not in agreement, and a Footwear Study Group was appointed to review the trial information.[11] In July 1969, the Footwear Study Group concluded that the New Zealand Combat boot, with certain modifications, was superior to the ankle Boot RS in meeting New Zealand training conditions. However, it was agreed that the New Zealand Combat Boot did not meet the tropical operational requirements, and further research was required to find a boot to meet New Zealand’s tropical requirements. US, Canadian, and UK policies supported this, concluding that one boot could not satisfy both a temperate and tropical requirement. It was noted that the Australians restricted their DMS combat boot to South Vietnam, with troops in other theatres outside Australia continuing to wear ordinary boots and gaiters; however, the US tropical combat boot was procured for issue in South Vietnam to the Australian SAS only. Overall, the New Zealand findings were that the main advantage of the New Zealand Combat Boot was that it could replace two items (Ankle boot RS and gaiter); it provided superior ankle and instep support and improved appearance, and it should be accepted as a replacement for the Ankle Boot RS. A tropical patrol boot was also recommended to be developed to meet the specific environmental conditions found in Southeast Asia.[12]
There was little doubt that the Australian DMS combat boot was more popular with New Zealand troops. It was accepted that the DMS production technique proved a superior product, but at the time, New Zealand’s footwear industry did not yet have the required technology to manufacture DMS boots, but there was no doubt that the New Zealand Combat boot would incorporate a DMS sole at a future date as New Zealand industry caught up. However, adopting the New Zealand Combat boot would be based on fiscal reasoning. Based on the 1969 production run of 2893 pairs for New Zealand Vietnam Force maintenance, the cost of a pair of New Zealand combat boots was $10.50 (2022 NZ $200.20), compared to $19.23 (2022 NZ $366.64) for the Australian DMS boots. With the Ankle Boot RS priced at $8.18 (2022 NZ $156.61) and Garters at $1 (2022 NZ $19.15), it was considered that a superior boot was replacing two items (Ankle boot RS and gaiter) with only a slight increase of the cost. [13]
On 3 December 1969, the New Zealand Combat Boot was renamed as the Boot GS (High) and formally introduced into service to progressively replace the Ankle boot RS and gaiter as existing stocks of those items wasted out and all period contracts for their manufacture terminated.[14]
With a stock of 19,120 Ankle Boots RS and 21,612 Web Anklets held in Ordnance Depots and Clothing Stores, the priority of issue for the introduction of the Boot GS (High)was to:
NZ Forces in Southeast Asia
Regular Force Recruits
Regular Force maintenance in New Zealand
The Territorial Force
The Boot GS (High) nomenclature had been changed to Boot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP) by February 1971. With 12,126 pairs of Ankle Boot RS remaining in stock, it was anticipated that with issues to National Service intakes and the Territorial Force, stocks would be exhausted by the end of 1971.[15]
Boot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie CollectionBoot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie CollectionBoot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie CollectionBoot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie Collection
During the New Zealand Combat Boot trial, it was identified that cooks of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) required a boot with a flat sole for safety on wet surfaces. Fortunately, the Government Footwear Inspector had developed Cooks Galley Boots at Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) instigation in the mid-1960s. First adopted by the RNZN and then the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF), consideration to issuing RNZASC Cooks Galley boots were first made in 1968.[16] With a non-skid pattern rubber sole and a continuous leather front to stop spilt boiling fat and other liquids from entering the boot, RNZASC user trials were conducted from 1970 with initial issues to all RNZASC cooks from 1972.[17]
By February 1974, New Zealand’s Forces in South Vietnam had been withdrawn, and the tripartite Australia, New Zealand and United Kingdom (ANZUK) Force based in Singapore had been dissolved. The 1st Battalion Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (1RNZIR) and its supporting units remained in Singapore as the New Zealand army components of the New Zealand Force Southeast Asia (NZFORSEA). Logistic arrangements in place since 1955, which allowed New Zealand to rely on the British for tropical clothing and equipment, had progressively been wound down from the late 1960s as New Zealand developed and grew its line of tropical clothing. Although the development of a tropical patrol boot had been recommended to be developed to meet the specific conditions found in Southeast Asia, the transition of New Zealand Army units in Singapore to a peacetime garrison and peacetime funding restrictions saw the requirement for a New Zealand jungle boot placed on the back burner. The Boot Man GP was found to be sufficient for most training in the tropics. Although many individuals purchased surplus American, British or Malaysian jungle boots and some small-scale unit trials did occur, the development of a New Zealand jungle boot ceased.
In 1980 the New Zealand footwear manufacturer John Bull won the contract for the supply of combat boots to the New Zealand Military. Already a manufacturer with a high reputation and experienced in producing military footwear, John Bull’s manufacturing processes were enhanced through a significant equipment and modernisation program. The John Bull-manufactured Boot Man GP was a DMS boot that retained the same style of leather uppers as the previous boot. New Zealand also supplemented stocks of the John Bull Boot GP with the Australian pattern DMS Combat Boot manufactured in New Zealand by King Leo. Both patterns of Boot GP were progressively introduced into service from 1980, with stocks of the previous Boot GP wasted out by 1985.
The New Zealand Army finished the Second World War with pretty much the same boot that had been issued to soldiers in 1912. However, the lessons of the Second World War and developments in boot technology had not gone unnoticed. With the assistance of the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Association, footwear manufacturers and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, a New Zealand Combat boot was developed. Due to the limitations of the technology available to New Zealand’s footwear industry, New Zealand’s efforts would always be five to ten years behind those of Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. However, a viable and cost-effective boot that met most of the training and operational requirements of the New Zealand army throughout the 1970s and 80s resulted from New Zealand’s limited resources. Although this article only provides an overview of New Zealand’s combat boot development, it provides a starting point for further research into this overlooked aspect of New Zealand’s military history.
New Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie CollectionNew Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie CollectionNew Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie CollectionNew Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie Collection
Notes
[1] “General News – Army Boots,” Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28883, 1 May 1959.
[2] Although the United Kingdom accepted and introduced it into service in 1961, the UK DMS boot was rejected by New Zealand because, at this stage, it could not be made in New Zealand. “Many Changes in Gear for Modern N.Z. Soldier,” Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28958, 28 July 1959.
[3] “New Army Boots Now in Production,” Press, Volume C, Issue 29594, 17 August 1961.
[5] Army 213/19/69 Footwear for the NZ Army Dated 7 August 1969. “Boots and Shoes – Development of Combat Boots,” Archives New Zealand No R17187902 (1963-1969).
[6] 213/19/55/Q(D) Purchase of High Boots for user trials 26 May 1964. Ibid.
Established at Trentham in 1958 and formalised by charter on 5 September 1960, the RNZAOC school’s initial function was to”Conduct courses as directed by Army HQ, to recommend personnel for re-employment within the Corps, to assess and test personnel for star classification (later called Band courses) and to recommend improvements in methods and procedures affecting the Corps.” [1]
Over the years, the school developed into one of the most important units of the Corps, with responsibility for
RNZAOC Supply Training,
RNZAOC Ammunition Training,
Tri-Service IED/EOD Training,
Hosting of major Corps Conferences,
The development and maintenance of the Corps technical publications,
The development and conduct of training in all aspects of Corps activities,
The maintenance of the Corp’s history and heritage.
It is known that two armlets were worn by RNZAOC School Instructors during the school’s existence.
With Instructors of the Royal New Zealand Artillery and Royal New Zealand Engineers approved to wear distinguishing armlets, the Army Dress Committee recommended to the New Zealand Chief of General Staff (CGS), Major General Robin Guy Williams, that permission be granted to allow all instructors of the Army Schools to wear distinguishing armlets. This permission was granted on 9 July 1984, subject to the armlet being a standard size and composition.
On 2 October 1985, the Director of Ordnance Services (DOS), Lieutenant Colonel Terence David McBeth submitted a proposal to the Army Dress Committee that dress regulations be amended to permit the wearing of armlets by RNZAOC School Instructors.
The justification by DOS was that with an instructional staff of fourteen, who as well as working within the environs of the school, were also required to conduct instruction:
At other military units
At civilian institutions
To the personnel of other services
required a distinction such as an armlet to readily distinguish RNZAOC School Instructional staff from not instructional staff.
If approved, the RNZAOC Instructors Armlet was to be
A 100mm red band (later adjusted to a 90mm band) with a 32mm blue stripe sewn centrally around the band, with
An RNZAOC Badge sewn centrally over the blue strip and worn facing outwards.
The manufacturing costs were minimal as the material and tailoring could be provided by RNZAOC Tailors, and the badge provided by the RNZAOC Directorate.[2]
At the meeting of the Army Dress Committee on 6 November 1985, as authority for Army School instructors to wear armlets had already been granted by the CGS in 1984, the committee endorsed the RNZAOC submission and it allowed DOS to arrange production of the armlet.[3]
RNZAOC School Instructors armlet (First Pattern). Malcolm Thomas Collection
Introduced into use by RNZAOC school Instructors, the armlet was worn until 1994, when the RNZAOC School became the Supply and Ammunition wings of the Army Logistic Centre.
With the reorganisation of the RNZAOC School into the Army Logistic Centre in 1994, a new armlet was introduced. Worn by instructors of the Supply and Ammunition wings of the Army Logistic Center, this armlet was the exact dimensions as the original armlet but with the Crest of the Earl of Liverpool in place of the Ordnance Shield. This armet remained in use until RNZAOC was disestablished and the Trade Training School was established as part of the RNZALR.
RNZAOC School Instructors armlet (Second Pattern). Malcolm Thomas Collection
Notes
[1] “Charter for the RNZAOC School,” in Organisation – Policy and General – RNZAOC (Archives New Zealand No R173115371960).
[2] RNZAOC Directorate 18400/12/ord/1 Instructor armlet – RNZAOC School, dated 2 October 1985. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86,” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).
[3] Army General Staff, Army 220/5/103 Minutes of a meeting of the Army Dress Committee 6 November 1985.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.