Development of NZ Army Combat Clothing, 1955 – 1980

Leave a comment Feb 11, 2023 Robert McKie

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]

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. T 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 with 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 9^th Commonwealth Defence Conference and the flammability risks of the acrylic material ceased meaningful development of this cloth. The UK and Australia both had large stocks of drill cloth, which, while not ideal, were still suitable for use as research to find a replacement material continued. 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 Army jungle green tropical combat jacket.

Australian Army Jungle green cotton tropical combat trousers

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]

The NZ purchase description providing the minimum requirements for manufacturing Trousers, Mens, Drill Green Field Combat, Tropical, (1967 Patt), the NZ version of the Australian Trousers Mans Field Combat Tropical (Pixie), was issued on 5 February 1968.[34]

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 3^rd 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.

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.”

[23] 1 RNZIR Trial report 28 March 1965. Ibid.

[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.”

[45] 2/1 RNZIR B5/12/2 Evaluation Report Disruptive Pattern (DPR) Uniforms Dated 15 September 1975. “Clothing – Introduction of Combat Clothing Project.”

[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.

[50] DEP 157 DPM Clothing Dated 28 May 1981.Ibid.

[51] NZLF 18415/Ord 1 Issue of DPM Smocks/Hoods/Liners Dated 15 July 1981.Ibid.

[52] Army 213/1/39/GS Tropical Weight Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM) Uniform Dated 8 October 1918. Ibid.

[53] NZFORSEA NZF 208.09 DPM Clothing Dated 23 September 1980. Ibid.

[54] NZDEF Army 213/1/39 For Comd from DCGS Dated 28 July 1980. Ibid.

The RNZCT Lanyard

Leave a comment Jan 6, 2023 Robert McKie

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.

*G4 – Lanyard. Royal Army Service Corps. Blue and yellow Listed 1954 as Cat No CC 1463.*:https://www.britishbadgeforum.com/forums/album.php?albumid=2027&pictureid=92733

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.

[14] {, 1971 #1907}

[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.

[17] RNZCT Log Staff 18400/1 RNZCT Lanyards dated 10 March 1986. Ibid.

[18] RNZAOC Directorate Army 1845/Ord 1 RNZCT Lanyards Dated 8 May 1986. Ibid.

[19] DOC 18453/ord 1 RNZCT Lanyards Dated 14 May 1985. Ibid.

New Zealand Army Combat Boots – 1945 -1980

1 Comment Dec 29, 2022 Robert McKie

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 19^th century to a modern mid-20^th 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]

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]

Sole of 1956 Ankle boots. Lee Hawkes Collection

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

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

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

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

New Zealand 37-pattern Gaiter. Lee Hawkes collection

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

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

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

The sole and foot portion to be exactly the same as the Ankle Boot RS.
The height from ground level to the top of the boot was to be 10^1/2 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 12^1/2 inches from edge to edge.[7]

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

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

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

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

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

Lighter and more robust than the NZ item.
Had a directly moulded sole.
It was made of better-quality leather.
Had a vastly superior appearance.
It had a very good and snug fit when broken in.

Private Wayne Lindsay, Whiskey One Company, inspects an RSA Christmas parcel from New Zealand circa 1968. Note that Private Lindsay is wearing the American Pattern Jungle boots, and there are Australian DMS Combat boots and New Zealand Combat boots under his bed. Image courtesy Noel Bell via https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/photo/private-wayne-lindsay-rsa-christmas-parcel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP

Notes

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

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

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

[4] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RNZAOC School Instructor armlet

Leave a comment Dec 22, 2022 Robert McKie

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.

New Zealand Military Load Carrying Equipment, 1945 – 1975

1 Comment Dec 21, 2022 Robert McKie

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 the evolution of New Zealand’s military load-carrying equipment from 1945 to 1975.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M1956 Web Equipment

As the time factor involved in modifying the 58-pattern equipment was unacceptable, and New Zealand was receiving an increasing amount of American equipment, the decision was made to trial the American M1956 pattern web equipment. 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
1^st 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

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

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

Example of M-1956 equipment. Image Simon Moore https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2113354722131270&set=pcb.2113363968797012

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]

As the M1956 was still being introduced, no further action was taken towards large-scale procurement of the M1967 equipment. However, many elements of the M1967 equipment were included in the design of the M1972 All-Purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment (ALICE), which was introduced into New Zealand Army service in the 1980s.

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

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

Large Ammunition Pouches

The Australian experience had shown that although the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR) Magazines fitted inside the M1956 ammunition pouch, it was a tight fit, especially when the webbing was wet. The initial solution was to modify 37-pattern pouches and fit them to the M1956 equipment. By 1967 the Australians had developed an indigenous ammunition pouch for the M1956 equipment., The Australian Ammunition Pouch Large (8465-66-026-1864) was manufactured out of cotton duck material and measured 8^1/4Inches high by 4 inches wide and 3 inches deep.

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, these items are often misidentified as Australian pouches by collectors.

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, a polythene, four-ply woven fabric of similar appearance and texture to the 37-pattern equipment was approved for use by the Army Dress committee in October 1973 as a replacement for the whitened 37-pattern equipment. With the sling and bayonet frog designed for the SLR, these would be purchased with either 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]

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, with the American ALICE pack introduced as an interim replacement in 1984.[33]

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 South East 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 different types of web equipment either adopted or trialled between 1945 and 1974, it is no surprise that components got intermingled. This led to Kiwi soldiers’ preferences and experiences leading them to create webbing sets that they found practicable rather than options prescribed in SOPs or instruction books leading to the outside impression of the New Zealand army been one equipped with an eclectic range of Australian, British and American equipment.

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kelsey swivel-stock rifle

Leave a comment Dec 10, 2022 Robert McKie

Due to its isolated location at the culmination of international trade routes, New Zealand has become a well-known centre of resourcefulness and innovation, inventing leading-edge and world-changing products. Some notable examples are; Disposable syringes and tranquilliser guns, the referee whistle, the eggbeater, the electric fence, jet boats, flexible plastic ear tags for livestock, bungy jumping, flat whites and pavlova. While these products have all had a peaceful intent and provided a valuable contribution to the world, New Zealand’s war experience in the twentieth century has also contributed to military innovation. Discussed here is the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle, a New Zealand invention from the 1950s that allowed a Sten Sub Machin Gun to be fired from behind cover and around corners.

Vintage Airsoft Update April 2019
Airsoft Sten MkIII: https://vintageairsoft.wordpress.com/2019/07/21/sten-mk5-folding-stock-experimental-model/

During the latter stages of the Second World War and based on the lessons learnt on their Eastern Front, the German military identified a requirement for aiming and firing weapons around corners and from within Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs). The Germans developed the Krummlauf barrel attachment for the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44) and Maschinengewehr 42 (MG 42) to meet this requirement.

The Krummlauf was produced in two variants:

The “I” variant for infantry use,
The “P” variant for use in AFVs to provide cover over blind spots to defend against assaulting infantry

The “I” and “P” barrels for the StG 44 and MG 42 were produced with bends of 30°, 45°, 60° and 90°. However, only the “I” 30° Barrell for the StG 44 was produced in quantity.

Krummlauf “I” version. (2022, October 28). In *Wikipedia*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf

Krummlauf “P” variant. (2022, October 28). In *Wikipedia*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf

With a very short lifespan—approximately 300 rounds for the 30° variant and 160 rounds for the 45° variant—the Krummlauf barrel was under great stress. Additionally, due to the barrel bend, bullets shattered as they exited the barrel, producing an unintended shotgun effect. Developed too late in the war for testing and refinement by the Germans, postwar testing by the United States Army resulted in some modifications; however, the Krummlauf remained unreliable despite these modifications. The Soviets also experimented with a curved barrel, producing an Experimental PPSh with a curved barrel, but with the curved barrel seen as a novelty, interest in the concept was soon lost.

Despite the concept of a bent barrel to allow the firing around corners, proving impracticable, Lieutenant Colonel John Owen Kelsey had seen the need for such a capability during New Zealand’s streetfighting in Italy and set about finding a solution.

Colonel Kelsey was born in New Plymouth in November 1904. Before World War II, he served as an Engineering Officer for two years with the Royal Navy. This engineering background led to his first New Zealand Army Ordnance posting in 1939 as a 2^nd Lieutenant with the 13th LAD New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC). Shortly after he arrived in Egypt in 1940, he was promoted to Lieutenant and posted as the Assistant Senior Ordnance Mechanical Engineer (SOME). He became the SOME and was promoted to Temporary Captain a few months later, and in November of the same year, he became the Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Equipment) (DADOS E) HQ 2NZ Division. He was also promoted to Temporary Major while holding this position and, in April and May 1941, took part in the campaigns in Greece and Crete. On return from Crete, he was transferred to the British Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) Deputy Director Ordnance Services(DDOS) office for a few months and then returned to 2NZEF as the Chief Ordnance Mechanical Engineer (COME) in August 1941. His duties were extended a year later when he became the Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (ADOS) and COME 2NZEF.

After forming a separate Corps of New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME) in December 1942, Colonel Kelsey relinquished the appointment of COME and became the ADOS 2NZEF/ADOS 2NZ Division and was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel.

Temporary promotion to Colonel followed from February to March 1944 when Colonel Kelsey was appointed as the DDOS of a Corps for operations in Italy.

He returned home on well-earned leave in April 1944 after four and a half years away but returned to the Middle East in September 1944. He resumed the ADOS 2NZEF and 2NZ Division appointments and maintained these responsibilities until the end of the war, completing six years with the division and taking part in every campaign. For distinguished service, Colonel Kelsey was Mentioned in Despatches.

On his discharge, Colonel Kelsey went into business as an accountant at Whakatane but was not very successful and relocated to Auckland, where he obtained a post in the Public Relations Office in Auckland but was subsequently asked to leave. Setting up a public relations office in Devonport, where he slept on a couch in the office because he could not afford to board, Colonel Kelsey set to work developing his Sten Gun adapted to fire around corners.

In June 1953, The Press announced that a Sten gun adapted to shoot round corners had been developed by Colonel Kelsey, known as the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle and that the army had tested it at Waiouru Military Camp. Following the success of these tests, the device was sent to the War Office in London for further examination.

Colonel Kelsey had adapted the Sten gun to have a swivel butt and a unique sight. Unlike the wartime Krummlauf, it was not a weapon with a bent barrel but a standard Sten Gun. The weapon could be used in the usual way, with shooting a round left or right corners enabled by simply resetting the butt to 90°to the parrel and sighted using a unique sight. The sight was based on the principle of the periscope, using prisms with exact details placed on the secret list.

With no reply from the War Office by the end of 1953 and confident with his design and that it could be adapted for other firearms, Colonel Kelsey took out world patent rights and intended to fly to England or America to try to sell the invention to armaments firms. However, despite being optimistic about his future, Colonel Kelsey struggled with the toll of adjusting to peacetime life, business failures, financial difficulties, a failed marriage and some unhappy love affairs and was discovered by the police on the floor of his office in Clarence Street, Devonport, at 5.30 pm. on 8 February 1954. Under his body was a .22 calibre rifle which he appeared to have been holding.

A letter on the table addressed to whom it may concern said he was experimenting “to try to find the reason for dissipation of recoil in a rifle or submachine-gun. This is immensely important to me, now that the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle has proved successful”, he added “that there was considerable risk in the experiments” with a footnote added that the tests were to be made at training grounds near Whenuapai.

After reading some of Colonel Kelsey’s letters in chambers, the Coroner found that there was ample evidence that Colonel Kelsey had many personal difficulties. If he had intended to test the rifle at the time of his death, he would not have needed to write the letters, in one of which Kelsey stated he was “going to die,” The Coroner said he was forced to conclude that the cause of death was suicide by a self-inflicted bullet wound in the head.

With Colonel Kelsey’s passing, the development of the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle progressed no further.

In the 2012 history of the Sten Gun, by Leroy Thompson, a variant of the Sten Gun matching Colonel Kelsey’s device is precisely described, indicating that the weapon was tested and, although never progressing past the prototype stage, a record of existence along with some photos kept.

L. Thompson, M. Stacey, and A. Gilliland, *The Sten Gun* (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012).

No other New Zealand Ordnance Officer has held such a variety of appointments on active service. Colonel Kelsey was an OME, SOME, DADOS(Equipment), COME, ADOS, DDOS, and acting CREME. Despite his wartime service and the award of the MBE and Mention in Dispatches, there was no place for Colonel Kelsey in the regular post-war army. Despite his optimistic belief in the success of the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle, Colonel Kelsey struggled to adjust to the post-war world. Without understanding the effects of wartime stress that exist today now, he fell through the gaps and took his own life. Additionally, given the stigma surrounding suicide that has existed for many years, his wartime service and potential achievement as an inventor have never fully been recognised.

Puggarees of New Zealand’s Logistic Corps

Leave a comment Jun 25, 2022 Robert McKie

From 1912 to 1958, the sight of New Zealand Soldiers in felt slouch hats was commonplace. In addition to providing a practical form of headdress, the use of a coloured headband known as a Puggaree allowed easy identification of the Regiment or Corps of the wearer.

Origins

The Puggaree origins lay in the Hindu word, ‘Pagri,’ which is used to describe a wide range of traditional headwear worn by men and women throughout the Indian Sub-Continent, one of the most recognisable being the Dustaar or Sikh turban.

Soldiers, by their nature, are creatures of innovation and British troops serving India soon found that by wrapping a thin scarf of muslin around their headdress, not only could additional protection from sword blows be provided, but the thin cloth scarf could also be unravelled to provide insulation from the heat of the sun. Like many Indian words, “Pagri” became anglicised into Puggaree.

By the 1870s, the practical use of the Puggaree had become secondary, and the Puggaree evolved into a decorative item on British Army headdress, which, when used with a combination of colours, could be used to distinguish regiments and corps. First used by New Zealanders in the South African war, the use of Puggaree on slouch hats was formalised in the New Zealand Army 1912 Dress Regulations. These regulations detailed the colours of the distinctive Puggaree used to indicate different service branches. Although not stated in the 1912 regulations, the design of New Zealand puggarees was based on three pleats of Khaki/Branch colour/Khaki. The exception was the Artillery puggaree. The puggaree colours detailed in the 1912 regulations were

Mounted Rifles – Khaki/Green/Khaki)
Artillery –Blue/Red/Blue
Infantry – Khaki/Red/Khaki
Engineers – Khaki/Blue/Khaki
Army Service Corps – Khaki/White/Khaki
Medical corps –Khaki/Dull-Cheery /Khaki
Veterinary Corps – Khaki/Maroon/Khaki[1]

When first New Zealand troops went overseas in 1914, the NZ Slouch hat was a headdress that had been first used in the South Africa War and had a crease running down the crown from front to rear. From 1914 the Wellington Battalion wore their hats with the crown peaked, and after a short period where cork helmets were also worn, General Godley issued a directive that all troops, other than the Mounted Rifles, would wear the slouch hat with the crown peaked, in what became known as the “Lemon Squeezer”.[2]

Worn with both the Mounted Rifles Slouch hat and the Lemon Squeezer, the Puggaree became a distinctive mark of the New Zealand soldier, identifying them as distinct from soldiers from other parts of the Empire, although Australian and Canada would both use coloured Puggaree on their respective headdress, it was not to the same extent as New Zealand.[3] From 1917 the New Zealand puggaree also proved helpful in distinguishing New Zealand troops from the Americans, who wore headwear similar to the New Zealand Lemon Squeezer hat.[4]

Following the First World War, Dress regulations published in 1923 detailed an increased range of puggarees available to identify the other corps added to the army establishment during the war.

Permanent Staff – Scarlet
Mounted Rifles – Khaki/Green/Khaki)
Artillery –Blue/Red/Blue
Engineers – Khaki/Blue/Khaki
Signal Corps – Khaki/Light blue/Khaki
Infantry – Khaki/Red/Khaki
Army Service Corps – Khaki/White/Khaki
Medical Corps –Khaki/Dull-Cheery /Khaki
Veterinary Corps – Khaki/Maroon/Khaki
Ordnance Corps – Red/Blue/Red
Pay Corps – Khaki/Yellow/Khaki
Cadets – Khaki
Chaplains – Black/khaki/Black[5]

A common feature of military dress embellishments was that often there was a high-quality version made for officers and a lesser quality version for the Rank and file, with puggarees also adhering to this practice. Requestions for puggarees from 1943 indicate that the following corps and regiments utilised officer puggarees.

Artillery
Engineers
Infantry
Army Service Corps
Medical Corps

Example of Infantry Officers Puggaree (Top) and Infantry Rank and File Puggaree (Bottom)

The felt slouch hat and Puggaree would remain a fixture of the New Zealand Army until 1958, when the Lemon Squeezer was withdrawn from services and replaced with a new and unpopular Battle Dress cap. The lemon squeezer style felt hat returned serviced in 1977 as a ceremonial item with a plain red puggaree. The Mounted Rifles style slouch hat returned to service with Queen Alexandra’s Mounted Rifles (QAMR) in 1993 with the traditional Mounted Rifles khaki/green/khaki puggaree.

The Mounted Rifles hat with the Mounted Rifles khaki/green/khaki puggaree was adopted as headwear across the New Zealand Army from 1998 to 2012. However, corps puggarees were not reintroduced, becoming the standard army puggaree, with some units utilising coloured patches affixed to the Puggaree as unit identifiers.

In the forty-six years from 1912 to 1958 that puggarees were utilised as a uniform item, each corps adopted different coloured combinations. However, this article focuses on the use and history of Puggarees by New Zealand’s Logistic Corps,

• The Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps

• The Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps,

• The Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers and

• The Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment.

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps

The origins of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) puggarees are established in the Regulations of 1912. The RNZASC wore the Khaki/White/Khaki puggarees through the First World War and into the interbellum period.

On 1 June 1924, the NZASC was split into the New Zealand Permanent Army Service Corps, consisting of the Regular ASC NCOs and soldiers, and the NZASC consisting of the Territorial Officers, NCOs and Soldiers.[6] The only uniform difference between the NZPASC and NZASC were their respective brass shoulder titles, with both branches retaining the Khaki/White/Khaki Puggaree

During the Second World War, the NZASC Khaki/White/Khaki remained in use throughout the war

In late 1942, 2NZEF placed a requisition on New Zealand to manufacture 50,000 Officer and Rank and File hat bands (puggarees) for all the different units of the NZEF. As the 3rd Division was in the process of standing up in New Zealand, the Ministry of Supply increased the requestion to 60,100, including

10,000 NZASC Rank and File puggarees, and
1000 NZASC Officer puggarees. [7]

**NZASC Puggaree Size Ranges ordered 1943**

In early 1944 the decision was made by 2NZEF to replace the lemon squeezer hat with more practical forms of dress, and the requirement for puggarees was adjusted. Considering puggarees already manufactured and the requirement for puggarees by forces in New Zealand and the Pacific, 14590 puggarees from the original order of 61,100 were cancelled.[8] 760 Rank and files NZASC puggarees had already been manufactured, so based on revised calculations, the NZASC order was reduced to 6000 Rank and file and 300 Officer puggarees. [9]

The NZPASC and NZASC were reconstituted on 12 January 1947 and a combined regular and Territorial NZASC, retaining the use of the Khaki/White/Khaki puggaree.[10]

The NZASC was granted royal status on 12 July 1947, becoming the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps.[11]

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps

The New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was formed as a unit of the NZEF in early 1915 and established as a unit of the New Zealand Permanent Forces in 1917. It is assumed that as a new unit, a distinctive puggaree was adopted for the NZAOC, but the limited photographs of NZAOC personnel are black and white, making identification of colours difficult.

A Newspaper article from December 1918 does provide evidence that an Ordnance puggaree of red/blue/red existed. The article published in the Press on 5 December 1918 stated, “There are only two units in the New Zealand Division with red in the puggaree. They are the Artillery and Ordnance, and in both units, the colours are red and blue”. This sentence identifies that the Ordnance Puggaree was red and blue.[12]

Ordnance Puggaree, RNZAOC 1947-53 Badge. Robert McKie collection

The NZAOC red/blue/red Puggaree was formalised as the Puggaree of the NZAOC in 1923 when the New Zealand Army updated its Dress Regulations for the first time since 1912.[13]

By October 1939, the expansion of the NZAOC and formation of the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) for service with the 2^nd NZEF created a requirement for NZAOC puggarees that could not be satisfied from stocks held by the Main Ordnance Depot. An urgent order was raised for 288 NZAOC puggarees

As part of the 2NZEF requestion of 1942, orders to manufacture 2200 NZAOC puggarees were raised.

**NZAOC Puggaree Size Ranges ordered 1943**

By 1944, 270 NZAOC puggarees had been manufactured and delivered, and despite the order quantities for other corps being reduced, some adjustment was made to the size range required, and the remaining 1930 NZAOC puggarees were manufactured.

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

The youngest of the three New Zealand logistic corps, the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME), progressively evolved into a corps from 1942 in three stages.

The New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME) formed as a unit of the 2^nd NZEF in November 1942.[14]
The formation of the NZEME as a new unit of New Zealand’s Permanent Forces on 1 September 1946, amalgamating and co-ordinating ordnance workshops, mechanical transport workshops, and armourers’ workshops, which in the past have been under separate command.[15]
The granting of “Royal” status on 12 July 1947.[16]

As the RNZEME established itself as a Corps, it utilised three types of Puggaree.

Red/Blue/Red Puggaree

As a corps predominantly drawn from the NZAOC, on its establishment in 1946, the NZEME adopted the existing NZAOC Red/Blue/Red Puggaree and NZOC badge. This was a temporary measure until NZEME Puggaree and badges were manufactured.[17]

Red/Green/Red Puggaree

By 1948 a distinctive Red/Green/Red puggaree with its origins in the NZEME of 2NZEF had replaced the NZAOC Puggaree.

NZEME pattern Puggaree. Robert.McKie Collection

As part of the 2NZEF requestion of 1942, orders were raised for 3000 puggarees for the NZEME.[18]

As the NZEME puggaree was a new pattern, its design was described

Shades of red material as per Kaiapoi pattern range 7443x (as used in Artillery and Infantry bands).
Shades of green material as per Kaiapoi pattern range 18153B 9 (as used in NZMR bands).

The NZEME puggarees were not included in the reduction and cancellation of the 1943 order, and it can be assumed that the complete order of 3000 was manufactured and placed into storage at the Main Ordnance Depot. [19] A 1945 report places the cost of a dozen NZEME puggarees at £1.3.0 (2022 NZD $107.07).[20]

Blue/Yellow/ Red Puggaree

By 1948 the RNZEME decided to update their Puggaree with one that reflected their corps colours of blue, yellow and red, with an order for 4000 placed on the Kaiapoi Woollen Manufacturing Company. With competing manufacturing demands, the Kaiapoi Woollen Manufacturing Company could not satisfy this order but could provide the required materials. In June 1949, the War Asset Realisation Board District Officer in Auckland selected a Mrs V.I Banton of 117 Lynwood Road, New Lynn, to manufacture the RNZEME puggarees. At the cost of 1/6 each (2022 NZD $6.65). [21]

RNZEME Puggaree. Robert McKie collection

With the initial order for 4000 paced in June 1949, it was not until January 1950 that Mrs Banton provided suitable samples that met the required specifications to allow her to begin production, with the first batch of 704 provided in April 1950.

With the new RNZEME puggaree becoming available, the question of how to dispose of the 1800 red/green/red pattern NZEME puggarees in the Ordnance clothing stores was raised.

It would not be a case of a new pattern in, old pattern out, but one where the old pattern was to be progressively wasted out as stocks of the new pattern became available. The priority was to be RNZEME Territorials Force units first, then distributed to RNZEME Regular Forces units.[22] Photographic evidence suggests that the transition from the NZEME puggaree to the RNZEME Puggaree had been completed by 1951.

Farewell to the Puggaree

A 1947 survey of New Zealand Soldiers found that the Lemon Squeezer was the most popular form of headdress utilised by the New Zealand Army.[23] However, it was not the most suitable type of headdress, and for many of the same reasons 2NZEF discontinued its use during the war, the army began to look for a replacement.

In 1954 the Cap Battledress (Cap BD), commonly referred to as the Ski Cap, was introduced into service. The Cap BD progressively replaced the Lemon squeezer so that by 1960 except for its use by the New Zealand Artillery Band, the Lemon squeezer ceased to be an official uniform item of the New Zealand Army.[24]

NZ Army Cap Battledress (Cap BD), introduced in 1954, was withdrawn from service in 1964. Robert Mckie Collection

With several thousand unused puggarees sitting in Ordnance Depots as now dead stock, unlikely to ever be issued, Army HQ issued instructions that except for 150 RNZA Puggarees of a balanced size range, all other stocks were to be destroyed.[25] By August 1961, all stocks of puggarees had been destroyed.[26]

The Lemon Squeezer was reintroduced as a ceremonial headdress in 1977, utilising the red Puggaree utilised by the Staff Corps, Permanent Staff and 1953 Coronation Contingent.

Puggaree of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment

The Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) was established in 1996 by amalgamating the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport, RNZAOC and RNZEME while also absorbing all the All Arms Quartermaster Storekeepers from every corps of the New Zealand Army. A diverse regiment of officers and soldiers from across the army, a means to shape the regiment’s heritage and acknowledge the importance of its and predecessors’ role, was required. An opportunity to coalesce the RNZALR was provided in 1998.

In 1998, the RNZALR was presented with a banner providing a regimental focal point. Several unique dress items, including a puggaree, were introduced to provide the RNZALR Banner escort party with distinctive RNZALR dress embellishments. Missing the opportunity to adopt a new puggaree that reflected the role that the RNZALR’s predecessors had performed with courage and resilience in the past, the leadership of the RNZALR took the cautious and lazy option of adopting a Puggaree with no connection to the legacy corps. The Puggaree adopted was a blue puggaree, last been utilised by the NZ Provosts in the First World War.

Also, in 1998 the New Zealand Army reintroduced the Mounted Rifles Felt hat as an item of headdress across the army. Already in service with QAMR since 1993, the Mounted Rifles hat retained the Mounted Rifles Khaki/Green/Khaki puggaree. The reintroduction of the Mounted Rifles hat could also be considered a missed opportunity by the leadership of the RNZALR for not advocating the adoption of a unique RNZALR puggaree to be worn by RNZALR units. A compromise was provided through the adoption of a unit flashed affixed to the left side of the Puggaree. While retained by QAMR, the Mounted Rifles hat was withdrawn from general army use in 2012.

In conclusion, the demise of the coloured Puggaree in 1958 removed a valuable means of identifying soldiers and their units. It was an embellishment that by 1970 was missed, and to fill the gap, some corps lobbied for the introduction of corps lanyards while others introduced regimental stable belts. The opportunity was open to reintroducing regimental Puggarees between 1998 and 2022. However, this was missed. Today Puggarres are a reminder of a time of more colourful uniform embellishments and a curiosity for collectors of militaria.

Notes

[1] New Zealand Military Forces Dress Regulations, ed. New Zealand Military Forces (Wellington, 1912). https://rnzaoc.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/1923-nz-army-dress-regs.pdf; “Formation of New Unit and Corps, Constitution of Generals’ List and Colonels’ List, Amalgamation, Redesignation, and· Disbanding of Corps, New Zealand Military Forces,” New Zealand Gazette No 2, 11 January 1947, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nz_gazette/1947/2.pdf.

[2] D. A. Corbett, The regimental badges of New Zealand: an illustrated history of the badges and insignia worn by the New Zealand Army (Auckland, NZ: Ray Richards, 1980 Revised enl. edition, 1980), Non-fiction, 47-48.

[3] “Local And General,” Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2610,, 4 November 1915, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19151104.2.38.

[4] “Visit to Paris,” North Otago Times, Volume CV, Issue 14001, 11 December 1917, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NOT19171211.2.58.

[5] New Zealand Military Forces Dress Regulations, ed. New Zealand Military Forces (Wellington, 1923). https://rnzaoc.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/1923-nz-army-dress-regs.pdf.

[6] “Formation of New Zealand Permanent Army Service Corps.,” New Zealand Gazette No 46, July 3 1924, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nz_gazette/1924/46.pdf.

[7] Main Ordnance Depot O.S.56/40/1/2499 Dated 28 June 1943. “Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision,” Archives New Zealand No R17187892 (1939).

[8] Chief Ordnance Officer 56/40/1/439 Dated 14 April 1944 “Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision.”

[9] Chief Ordnance Officer 56/40/1/439 Dated 14 April 1944 “Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision.”

[10] “Formation of New Unit and Corps, Constitution of Generals’ List and Colonels’ List, Amalgamation, Redesignation, and· Disbanding of Corps, New Zealand Military Forces.”

[11] “Designation of Corps of New Zealand Military Forces altered and Title ” Royal ” added,” New Zealand Gazette No 39, 17 July 1947, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nz_gazette/1947/39.pdf.

[12] “Soldiers and Dress – Ordnance Pugaree,” Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16387 (Christchurch), 5 December 1918, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19181205.2.6.1.

[13] New Zealand Military Forces Dress Regulations.

[14] Peter Cooke, Warrior Craftsmen, RNZEME 1942-1996 (Wellington: Defense of New Zealand Study Group, 2017).

[15];”Formation of Unit of the New Zealand Permanent Force,” New Zealand Gazette No 60, 29 August 1946, 1199, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nz_gazette/1946/60.pdf.

[16] “Designation of Corps of New Zealand Military Forces altered and Title ” Royal ” added.”

[17] “New Unit of Permanent Forces,” Press, Volume LXXXII, Issue 24979 (Christchurch), 13 September 1946, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19460913.2.16.

[18] Main Ordnance Depot O.S.56/40/1/2499 Dated 28 June 1943. “Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision.”

[19] Chief Ordnance Officer 56/40/1/439 Dated 14 April 1944 “Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision.”

[20] Ministry of Supply 10/59/367 dated 13 September 1945 “Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision.”

[21] War Asset Realisation Board SCB.Q900 Dated 14 June 1949.”Clothing: Puggarees and Hat Bands RNZEME,” Archives New Zealand No R22496567 (1950).

[22] MOD 14/1/19 dated 22 Apr 1950.”Clothing: Puggarees and Hat Bands RNZEME.”

[23] “Lemon squeezer Most Popular NZ Army Hat,” Northern Advocate,, 22 December 1947, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NA19471222.2.17.

[24] 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.

[25] Army 213/15/1/OS3, dated 1 April 1961.”Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision.”

[26] SMD 5/20/1/ORD 13 July 1961, “Clothing: Felt Hats, Bands: Provision.”

RNZAOC Lanyard

1 Comment Jun 4, 2022 Robert McKie

New Zealand’s military usage of lanyards has been practical, with lanyards used for securing pistols, compasses and whistles to a person. Aside from the practical use of lanyards, there are also examples where lanyards have been adopted as a coloured uniform accoutrement by some New Zealand Regiments and Corps, some examples being:

The Regular Force Cadets’ red lanyard
The New Zealand Provost and Military Police white lanyard
The Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport blue and gold lanyard

Almost included in this short list of New Zealand Army regimental lanyards was the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), which applied for permission to adopt a regimental lanyard in the 1960s.

The word lanyard originates from the French word ‘lanière’, which means ‘strap’, with accounts from the late 15^th 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.

In 1941 the British Army introduced coloured ‘Arms of Service’ (AoS) strips to be worn on both arms of the Battle Dress uniform with the primary colour facing forward. The Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC), AoS strip was initially a Dark Blue AoS strip which was hard to see, and in early 1943 it was changed to a Red/Blue/Red strip, which remained in use for the rest of the war. The RAOC adopted the AoS colours for the RAOC lanyard, which was approved for wear by all ranks on 2 June 1950.[1] In 1960 the RAOC Lanyard was formalised for use with the 1960 Pattern No2 Dress, and within a short time, the RNZAOC applied for a similar dress distinction.

On 24 July 1962, the Colonel Commandant of the RNZAOC, Lieutenant Colonel Francis Reid, submitted a proposal to the New Zealand Army Dress Committee to adopt a unique dress embellishment for specific Regular Force RNZAOC personnel. The submission reads:

1.         R&SO Vol II paras 3359 refers

2.         I wish to refer the following proposal submitted by 4 Inf Bde Gp OFP, for consideration for the adoption of a special embellishment to the dress for specific Regular Force RNZAOC personnel.

3.       The proposal is that personnel posted to field force units, ie, 4 Inf Bde Gp OFP and 4 Inf Wksps Stores Sec be permitted to wear a lanyard on the left shoulder, with all orders of dress other than numbers 1, 4 and 5.

4.          The proposed lanyard has three cords, twisted, two scarlet and one blue, with a loop at each end. A suggested sample is enclosed.

5.         The reasons for this proposal are as follows:-

4 Inf Bde Gp OFP and 4 Inf Wksps Stores Sec are new RNZAOC RF units, in fact, it is the first time these types of units have been formed within the Regular Force in the NZ Army. The personnel have been drawn from the older District Ordnance Depots and many of them continue to think in District terms. It is considered that an embellishment such as the lanyard, would create a high unit feeling and help to raise and maintain high morale in these RNZAOC units within the field force.

It is anticipated that the employment of personnel in these units will occasionally be by assisting RNZAOC static depots. Under these circumstances the embellishment would maintain a unit feeling when the personnel are mixed with other RNZAOC units.

During Bde Gp concentrations, when summer dress is worn and thus corps shoulder titles are not worn, the lanyard would further foster unit spirit within the formation.

6.          The purchase of these lanyards, if approved, would be undertaken entirely from Unit resources, with Public Funds not being involved in any way.

7.         I strongly recommend this proposal and forward it for your favourable consideration.[1]

[1] RNZAOC Colonel Commandant, “Request to adopt special embellishment to dress,” Archives New Zealand No R17187826 (24 July 1962).

Replying to the RNZAOC Colonel Commandant on 10 October 1962, the Army Dress committed agreed to the desirability of having a unique dress embellishment to identify Regular Force Field Force Personnel. However, as a universal shoulder patch for all Field Force personnel was under consideration by the Army Clothing Development Section, approval was not granted for an RNZAOC-specific lanyard. However, the proviso was set that if shoulder patches were rejected as a dress embellishment, further consideration of lanyards was possible, and the Dress Committee welcomed the re-submission of the proposal for an RNZAOC lanyard. The Sample provided to Lt Col Reid was returned.[3]

It would take a few more years, but on 10 September 1964, approval was given for the wearing of Formation Patches by all ranks, other than 1 RNZIR and 1 Bn Depot, who continued to wear the red diamond. The approved patches were circular 1^1/2 inch in diameter and dived by operational grouping,

Combat Brigade Group – Black
Logistic Support Group, 3 NZEF and Base Units – Red
Combat Reserve Brigade Troops – Green
All others – Blue

The blue Formation patch for other units was discontinued on 3 December 1968. Approval for the wearing of the remaining patches was withdrawn on 6 August 1971.[4]

Regardless of this initial setback, the idea of an RNZAOC lanyard remained popular within the RNZAOC. In November 1969, the DADOS(D), on behalf of the RNZAOC, pitched to the Army Dress Committee the desire of the RNZAOC to have a lanyard as a distinctive dress distinction. By 1969 the corps had been reorganised and instead of a lanyard being an item of dress for those Regular Force personnel posted to Field Force units, it was intended to issue lanyards to all RNZAOC personnel. By 1969 Stable belts were starting to become a popular addition to the range of army dress accoutrements. However, wearing Stable belts was limited by the dress orders available, leading the RNZAOC to favour a lanyard as a dress distinction with broader utility. As in 1962, a sample was again provided.

The chairman of the Dress Committee was not in favour of lanyards as he wished to avoid a proliferation of dress embellishments. However, based on the argument put forward by the DADOS(A), he reserved his decision until a future meeting of the Army Dress Committee and invited the DOS to attend to support this item on the agenda.[5]

The next meeting of the Army Dress Committee with the discussion on an RNZAOC Lanyard was on 1 March 1971. In this meeting, the DOS again proposed an RNZAOC lanyard, mentioning that most other Corps of the NZ Army had adopted some form of distinctive dress, for example, Stable belts. However, the RNZAOC remained in favour of an RNZAOC lanyard.

The proposed lanyard was not to be purchased at public expense and was to be worn on the left shoulder of no 2,3,6 (except 6D) and 7 orders of dress. The majority approved the proposal of members of the Army Dress Committee. However, the chairman again reserved his decision until a clear policy directive on Corps Dress Distinctions was issued from Army HQ, as again, he felt that an introduction of an RNZAOC lanyard “might open the door form other corps submissions”.[6]

The proposal for an RNZAOC lanyard was not approved. In 1972 the RNZAOC reconsidered its position on Stable belts and, following a submission to the Army Dress Committee, was granted permission to adopt an RNZAOC specific Stable belt in April 1972.[7]

The sample lanyards were returned to the DOS and eventually found their way into the RNZAOC School memorabilia collection as a reminder of what could have been. Following the disestablishment of the RNZAOC in 1996, the RNZAOC School memorabilia collection was handed over to the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) for safekeeping and future preservation. Unfortunately, as a nondescript item whose story had been forgotten and a lack of a robust management policy led these lanyards and many other RNZAOC items to find their way to the open market.

Notes

[1] Len Whittaker, “Lanyards,” The Military Historical Society (November 1985).

[2] RNZAOC Colonel Commandant, “Request to adopt special embellishment to dress,” Archives New Zealand No R17187826 (24 July 1962).

[3] “Army 220/5/103/AAC Army Dress Committee Meeting 1 March 1971,” Archives New Zealand No R9753141 (July 1971).

[4] “Clothing – Dress Embellishments: General 1960-1976,” Archives New Zealand No R17187826 (1960).

[5] “Army 220/5/103/AAC Army Dress Committee Meeting 1 March 1971.”

[6] “Army 220/5/103/AAC Army Dress Committee Meeting 1 March 1971.”

[7] “Army 220/5/103/AAC Army Dress Committee Meeting 1 March 1971.”

Defence Preparations – New Zealand Defence Stores 1911

Leave a comment May 1, 2022 Robert McKie

The passing of the Defence Act 1909 heralded a transformation of the Defence Forces of New Zealand, establishing a military system that influenced the organisation, training and recruitment of the New Zealand Army into the early 1970s. Coming into effect on 28 February 1910, The Act abolished the existing Volunteer system, in its place creating a citizen-based Territorial Army from the units, regiments and Corps of the Volunteer Army.[1] The Territorial Army’s personnel needs would be maintained by a system of Compulsory Military Training (CMT), requiring the registration of all boys and men between the ages of fourteen and twenty-one years of age.[2] The challenge for Captain James O’Sullivan and the staff of the Defence Stores, an organisation already markedly transformed since 1900, was to meet the material need needs of the growing citizen army that New Zealand was creating.

At Buckle Street, Wellington, during the 1913 waterfront strike. Smith, Sydney Charles, 1888-1972: Photographs of New Zealand. Ref: 1/2-048786-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22820606

The following article published in the New Zealand Times on 8 December 1911 provides an eyewitness account of the activities of the Defence Stores in support of the growing citizen army.[3]

While politicians are prating about the cost of the defence scheme, and its more direct enemies are peregrinating from street corner to street corner with soap boxes, the scheme itself is being steadily proceeded with. Some people probably fail to realise what it means to inaugurate an entirely new system of military defence. The necessary legislation came first, then the mapping out of the requirements in men and money, then the excitement of enrolling, and now there is proceeding the part, of which the public see little and hear little, but which perhaps is the most troublesome of all, and materially the most important, viz., the arming and the equipment of themen.
This task is being carried out at the Defence Stores in Buckle Street, Wellington. It requires a visit there to realise the thought, the work, the experience, that are necessary to carry out a big work of this description. When you enter the Buckle Street stores and see the busy toilers and the preparations for the distribution of arms and clothing over the Dominion, you realise that a big work is in progress.
For instance, the uniforms for the territorials have for the past week or two been arriving. So far the outfits for about nine thousand men in a more or less state of completion, have come, to hand. These all have to be sorted out and shelved. They are in graded in sizes, an ingenious system of measurement, the product of the brain of Captain O’Sullivan, Director of Defence Stores, has been applied, whereby almost any sized youth be fitted. Measuring has been proceeding in the various centres. A form is filled up by the regimental quartermaster for each recruit, and these forms are now arriving at the depot. Next weak commences the task of sending out the uniforms. Each man also gets an overcoat, a felt hat, and a forage cap. Every branch of the service will wear putties instead of leggings. The uniforms in hand at present fill multitudes of shelves—indeed, the place wears the appearance of a busy warehouse. Every article of clothing is the product of New Zealand mills. There is a absolute uniformity of colour, so that the whole New Zealand defence force, from the North Cape to the Bluff, will on mobilisation, present no spectacle of detached units, but one uniform whole. Distinguishing colour badges and trouser stripes will mark the branches of the service, green denoting the mounted, men, and red the infantry. The senior cadets will have neat blouses and long trousers. So far the uniforms in stock comprise only a small portion of what yet remains to be handled. A new brick building is in the later stages of completion for their safer storage. The felt hats are the product of the National Hat Mills, Wellington, and are really a very excellent article. Many large packing cases are stacked in the yards waiting to be dispatched with these goods to the territorial centres.
But this is only one branch of the industry. In other sheds are stacked camp paraphernalia, tents, marching outfits of the latest pattern, containing, in addition to bayonet, water-bottle, overcoat, etc., a handy trenching tool, bandoliers, field outfits, including telephones and heliographs; much leather goods; service boots, which the department is selling, at option, to the men at a low fee, and many other requisites. Outside in the yard is a new pontoon bridge, lately come to hand, a rather bulky apparatus that has not yet been used. Elsewhere are stored transit water tanks, a sample transport waggon (from which others will be manufactured in the Dominion). Necessary appliances for the eighteen-pounder guns have also been coming to hand, though the guns themselves have not yet arrived.
In other sheds are many large black cases. These contain the service rifles. It is not permitted that the public should know what stock of these is kept. It is a state secret that not even an Opposition order for a “return” could cause to be divulged. Recently, however, ten thousand were added to the stock. Just at present workmen are spending busy hours cleaning up and inspecting the rifles that have been received from the old volunteer corps. Every Government arm in the Dominion has been called in, and as a result every, man will have issued to him a nice clean rifle. It will be a new start over the whole Dominion. It would grieve the heart of the military enthusiast to see the condition in which some of the rifles have been sent In. There is undoubtedly great need for the new quartermasters in the various regiments, to see that this sort of thing does not recur. Some of the Wellington corps have been rather bad offenders. The comparatively slow process of cleaning these arms has been the cause of the delay in their reissue. Every rifle has 104 parts, and these parts are stocked in large quantities.
Of the Dominion’s ammunition store, also, the outsider can know nothing. This much, however, is for public information, that every Saturday morning the Director of the Defence Stores produces his ammunition balance book, to the Commandant, who then known from glancing over the pages exactly how every packet has been distributed and how each part of the Dominion is served.
The Buckle Street stores do not yet present the aspect of a Woolwich Arsenal, but things are very busy there; the will of the people is being given effect to at as rapid a rate as opportunity will permit; evidences are offered of the effective defence scheme now in active operation; and pleasing, indeed, is the outstanding fact that local industries are benefiting to an enormous degree from a new departure in defence that after all, is an admitted necessity.
Arms and Uniforms,” New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7978, 8 December 1911

Defence Stores, Bunny Street, Wellington. Goggle Maps/Public Domain

Former Defence Stores Compound, Buckle Street, Wellington The building on the right of the photo is the original 1911 Defence Stores building. The building on the left is the 1916 extension.

Former Defence Stores Compound, Buckle Street, Wellington.

Former Defence Stores Compound, Buckle Street, Wellington The building on the right of photo is the original 1911 Defence Stores building. The building on the left is the 1916 extension.

Notes

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

[2] I. C. McGibbon and Paul William Goldstone, The Oxford Companion to New Zealand Military History (Auckland; Melbourne; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2000), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 109-10.

[3] “Arms and Uniforms,” New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7978, 8 December 1911.

Plan of the Defence Stores Mount Eden

Leave a comment Jan 16, 2022 Robert McKie

This undated plan of the Mount Eden Goal Reserve provides a view of the layout of the long-forgotten Auckland Defence Stores Mount Eden location. Located between the Goal and Auckland Grammar School, this plane was drawn up sometime between 1907 and 1917

The Defence Stores footprint at Mount Eden started in 1871 when two magazines were constructed to house Defence ammunition, then stored at Albert Barracks in the centre of Auckland.

In 1903 the Defence Stores Office in O’Rourke Street (now Auckland University) was relocated to Mount Eden. Initially, the existing magazines at Mount Eden were thought to be sufficient. However, it was soon found that additional buildings were required, and a Stores building and Armourer’s shop were constructed during 1903/04. Eventually, a house was also built for Captain W.T Beck, the District Storekeeper.

In 1917 the Defence Stores were reorganised into the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC), with the Mount Eden Defence Stores becoming the Northern Districts Ordnance Depot.

By 1920, with little space available for expansion to allow the storage of the large number of mobilisation stores required by the Norther District, construction of an alternative site for the Mount Eden Ordnance Depot began at Hopuhopu in the Waikato.

While the Hopuhopu site was still under construction, Stores from the Mount Eden site began to be transferred to Hopuhopu in 1927. The new depot officially opened in 1929, with the Mount Eden Depot closing.

The Store constructed in 1903 was dismantled and re-erected at the Narrow neck Camp on Auckland’s North Shore. The fate of the original magazines is unknown, but they were likely taken over for a time by the nearby Colonial Ammunition Company (CAC).

The closure of the Mount Eden Depot did not totally sever to the connection between Mount Eden and the Ordnance Corps, with Ordnance Ammunition staff remaining attached to the CAC until 1967, testing the supply of Small Arms Ammunition provided by that factory.

"To the Warrior His Arms"

History of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps and its predecessors

Equipment

Development of NZ Army Combat Clothing, 1955 – 1980

Notes

The RNZCT Lanyard

Notes

New Zealand Army Combat Boots – 1945 -1980

Notes

RNZAOC School Instructor armlet

Notes

New Zealand Military Load Carrying Equipment, 1945 – 1975

M1956 Web Equipment

M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE)

Large Ammunition Pouches

White Web

Combat Pack

Conclusion

Notes

Kelsey swivel-stock rifle

Puggarees of New Zealand’s Logistic Corps

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

Red/Green/Red Puggaree

Blue/Yellow/ Red Puggaree

Farewell to the Puggaree

Puggaree of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment

Notes

RNZAOC Lanyard

Notes

Defence Preparations – New Zealand Defence Stores 1911

Notes

Plan of the Defence Stores Mount Eden

Equipment

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

M1956 Web Equipment

M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE)

Large Ammunition Pouches

White Web

Combat Pack

Conclusion

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps

Puggarees of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

Red/Green/Red Puggaree

Blue/Yellow/ Red Puggaree

Farewell to the Puggaree

Puggaree of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this: