There’s a temptation, when reading something like Rise of the Machines – Drone Warfare in the Russia-Ukraine War by Illya Sekirin, to focus on the technology. The drones, the sensors, the strike capability. And to be fair, Sekirin makes a compelling case that drones have become central to modern warfare.
But if you read it as a military logistician, and especially through a New Zealand historical lens, something else stands out.
This isn’t really a book about drones, it’s a book about what happens when logistics becomes visible on a battlefield where nothing stays hidden
What comes through clearly in Sekirin’s account is just how exposed everything is. Movement is seen. Patterns are picked up. Supply routes are identified and targeted. Even something as basic as moving a casualty becomes a risk calculation. The idea of a “rear area” doesn’t really hold anymore.
For anyone who has spent time thinking about sustainment, that should land heavily. Because once logistics is constantly observed, it stops being a support function sitting behind the fight. It becomes part of the fight itself, that’s the real shift, and yet, none of this is entirely new
If you step back from the technology for a moment, the pattern is familiar.
New Zealand has been here before, not with drones, but with disruption.
In the New Zealand Wars, logistics had to adapt to terrain and isolation
In the First World War, it had to scale rapidly and integrate into something much larger
In the Second World War, it had to keep up with mechanisation and long-distance sustainment
In later operations, it learned to operate across environments, but largely with secure supply chains
Each time, the system that existed at the start wasn’t quite fit for purpose, it adapted, not perfectly, not neatly, but effectively enough.
The difference this time
Where Rise of the Machines feels different is in what it quietly exposes about the present.
For the last few decades, New Zealand, like many others, has operated in a relatively stable environment. Defence spending tightened, logistics was streamlined, and commercial practices crept in. Efficiency became the measure of success.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with that. It made sense at the time, but it did lead us somewhere to a system that is:
lean
centralised
dependent on external supply chains
and designed to run smoothly when nothing is seriously interfering with it
Reading Sekirin’s account, you can’t help but feel how exposed that kind of system would be in the environment he describes, because that environment is the opposite of lean and smooth.
The uncomfortable realisation
The most useful takeaway from this book isn’t that drones are important. It’s that they’ve accelerated something that was already happening.
They’ve made disruption constant, and that has made logistics targetable at scale, which has removed the buffer that logistics has traditionally relied on: time, space, and relative safety.
This leads to a slightly uncomfortable thought that a system that is highly efficient in peace can be surprisingly fragile in war.
So where does that leave New Zealand?
If you look at this through a historical lens, the answer isn’t to panic or to try and invent something entirely new, it is to recognise the pattern.
New Zealand has always adapted its logistics to the conditions it faced. The real question is whether it’s still set up to do that quickly enough, because adaptation requires a few things:
some depth in people and capability
some room to manoeuvre, and
systems that don’t lock you into a single way of operating
Those are precisely the things that tend to get trimmed in the name of efficiency.
Overlay that with the post-Cold War peace dividend, reduced defence investment, and the steady commercialisation of logistics functions, and the picture sharpens. The system has not just evolved, it has been deliberately streamlined to the minimum required for peacetime outputs. Efficient, yes. But also thinner and more exposed than it once was.
Looking forward, without overcomplicating it
You don’t need a grand theory to take something useful from Rise of the Machines as a few simple shifts stand out:
Accept that logistics will be contested, not protected
Be comfortable with less tidy, less centralised systems
Build in redundancy, even if it looks inefficient on paper
Think seriously about how dependent we are on external supply chains, and
perhaps most importantly, make sure the system can adapt under pressure, not just operate in ideal conditions
None of that is revolutionary. In many ways, it’s a return to fundamentals, albeit applied in a far more demanding environment.
Final thought
If you read this book purely as a story about drones, you’ll come away thinking the future is about technology, however, if you read it as a logistician, especially one interested in history, you come away with a different impression.
The tools have changed. The pressures have intensified. The pace has increased, but the underlying lesson is the same one that runs through New Zealand’s military past: “The system that works in one era rarely survives unchanged into the next”.
New Zealand has adapted before, often under pressure and at cost, and the lesson from Rise of the Machines is that the next adaptation is already underway.
Recommendation
If you take one thing away from Rise of the Machines – Drone Warfare in the Russia-Ukraine War, it should be this: it’s not just a book about a current conflict, it’s a window into how warfare is evolving in real time.
This is not a theory or retrospective analysis. It is grounded in experience and shaped by a battlefield that is changing faster than most institutions can comfortably absorb.
I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in the development of warfare. Not because it provides neat answers, but because it highlights just how quickly the character of war can shift, and how important it is that the systems behind it, particularly logistics, can shift with it.
As explored in From Flintlock to Modular Assault Rifle, the development of New Zealand’s military capability has never been a simple story of adoption. It is a story of adaptation, of modification, and at times of quiet innovation driven not by doctrine, but by necessity. Geography, terrain, and the demands of irregular warfare forced colonial authorities to think differently about equipment, often well ahead of formal Imperial acceptance.
This article is reproduced with the kind permission of Paul Farmer, whose extensive research into early New Zealand military firearms has significantly advanced the understanding of colonial small arms and locally adapted weapon systems. His work, grounded in detailed examination of surviving examples and primary sources, provides an authoritative foundation for interpreting the unique characteristics of New Zealand contract Snider arms.
Paul Farmer’s examination of the New Zealand contract Sniders sits squarely within that tradition. The Snider system itself was an Imperial solution to a global problem, the rapid conversion of muzzle-loading rifles to breech-loading capability. Yet, as this article demonstrates, New Zealand did not simply accept the standard pattern. Instead, it selected, modified, commissioned, and in some cases effectively designed variants tailored to its own operational environment.
What emerges is not just a catalogue of weapons, but a case study in colonial procurement and adaptation. The preference for shorter, more manoeuvrable arms, the willingness to convert existing stocks, and the commissioning of non-ordnance pattern weapons all reflect a force operating under constraints, but thinking with a degree of independence that is often overlooked.
In that sense, these rifles are more than artefacts. They represent an early expression of a recurring theme in New Zealand’s military history, the tension between standardisation and suitability, between what is issued and what is actually needed in the field.
Seen through that lens, Farmer’s work does more than document four unique weapon types. It reinforces a broader point, that New Zealand’s military effectiveness has often depended less on what it was given, and more on how it chose to adapt it.
New Zealand Contract Sniders
by Paul Farmer – April 2026
Introduction
The Snider breech-loading system was introduced into British Army service by converting existing .577 calibre muzzle-loading rifles and carbines to the new breech-loading design, each brought into conformity with an approved Sealed Pattern. Once the supply of suitable arms for conversion was exhausted, a further Sealed Pattern was established, and newly manufactured Sniders were produced to that standard.
New Zealand, however, commissioned four distinct Snider variants. As these were non-Ordnance, trade-made arms, they were not assigned formal pattern designations. Although widely used in New Zealand service, they were referred to only in generic terms: Snider medium rifle, Snider short rifle, and Snider carbine. In the following ‘New Zealand contract Sniders’, to simplify identification, I have added a descriptive designation that reflects their origin and development.
New Zealand Contract Sniders
The first Sniders to enter New Zealand Government service were reported by the Hon. W. Gisborne, Commissioner of the Armed Constabulary, on 29 November 1869[1]. Gisborne noted:
“The Imperial Government have sent from England on loan, and for use of the Colony, 1832 converted Sniders, and have also handed over from Imperial stores in Auckland 168 more making a total of 2000, all excepting 100 being of the long Enfield pattern and therefore unfitted for bush warfare; the 100 being sword-rifle pattern may be considered suitable and are now being issued to the Armed Constabulary.”
These converted Sniders would have had the MK II** breech as the MK III breech system was not approved until January 1869.[2] Gisborne further reported:
“There are also 500 medium rifles converted to Snider shortly expected by the Melita. These, however, being longer than the sword-rifle referred to above, are not suitable, but they will be temporarily issued to the Armed Constabulary.”
The Melita arrived in Wellington on 15 December 1869, bringing with it 500 Hay medium rifles converted to the Snider system.[3]
Over the following two decades, multiple shipments of Sniders of various types arrived from England, including long and short rifles, as well as artillery, cavalry, and yeomanry carbines. Supplies were drawn both from the commercial trade and from ex-ordnance pattern arms sold out of Imperial service. These were the arms of the Armed Constabulary and the New Zealand Militia.
By 1885, approximately 11000 Snider rifles were in service,[4] increasing to around 14000 by 1891.[5] Sniders served New Zealand effectively from 1869 through to the 1890s, after which their gradual replacement began with the introduction of Martini-Henry rifles and carbines.
Amongst all the Sniders ordered, New Zealand commissioned four unique Sniders to be produced. These will not be found in references on British ordnance Sniders because they are not ordnance pattern arms. The following sections will describe these four Snider arms and explain why each represents a uniquely New Zealand Snider variation.
Top: New Zealand Contract 1869 Hay-Snider Medium Rifle Second: New Zealand Contract 1874 Snider Short Rifle, Bar on Band Third: New Zealand Contract 1874 Snider Short Rifle, Bar on Barrel Lower: New Zealand Contract 1872 Tisdall Snider Carbine. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
1. New Zealand Contract 1869 Hay-Snider Medium Rifle
Development: The Hay medium rifle originated with the 1858 design developed by General Hay of the School of Musketry at Hythe, England. Hay sought to produce a rifle offering greater accuracy than the then-current service 2-band short rifle, which featured a 33-inch barrel with 3 groove rifling and a 1 in 78-inch twist. Comparative trials demonstrated that altering the rifling twist from 1 in 78″ to 1 in 48″ significantly increased muzzle velocity and, correspondingly, improved accuracy. Further gains were achieved by extending the barrel length to 36″, which produced a muzzle velocity comparable to that of the accurate 3 band long rifle, fitted with a 39″ barrel and 3 groove rifling with 1 in 78″ twist.
Despite these advantages, the Hay medium rifle was never accepted as an ordnance pattern arm. The British Army retained the established 3-band long rifle and adopted the new Pattern 1858 short rifle, bar on band, also rifled with a 3 groove, 1 in 78″ twist.
Consequently, no medium rifle entered Imperial service.
New Zealand, however, embraced the Hay medium rifle. The Colonial Government initially placed two contracts for this arm, each for 5,000 rifles.[6]
The first contract, supplied by Hollis & Sheath, arrived in New Zealand in February 1861.[7] These rifles were fitted with undated lock plates and rear sights graduated to 1,150 yards. Upon entry into colonial service, they were stamped “NZ” and issued with consecutive numbers from 1 to 5,000 on the butt tang.
The second contract was supplied by Calisher & Terry.[8] Rifles from this contract were also stamped “NZ” on the butt tang, but incorporated a letter prefix preceding the issue number. Each letter series ran consecutively from 1 to 1,000, after which a new prefix was introduced, and numbering recommenced at 1. I have sighted Calisher & Terry made Hay rifles bearing the letter prefixes G, I, J, and K. Presumably, the complete prefix sequence was G, H, I, J, and K, representing 1,000 arms per prefix and a total production of 5,000 rifles. These rifles were fitted with rear sights graduated to 1,200 yards, and the lock plates were stamped TOWER over 1865. (It is reported that some rifles have lock plates with Tower over 1874)
From the perspective of the New Zealand Colonial forces, the Hay medium rifle represented the principal muzzle-loading percussion arm of the Second New Zealand Wars.
The Conversion of Hay Medium Rifles to Snider
New Zealand initiated the conversion of the Hay medium rifle to the Snider system. It is recorded that as on 14 January 1869, “500 new Medium Rifles are packed ready for shipment”.[9] These rifles were supplied by the Auckland Colonial Storekeeper, Captain Mitchell, and packed in 25 cases. They departed Auckland aboard the Countess of Kintore on 11 March 1869, bound for London.[10] Conversion was undertaken by the trade using the Mk III Snider breech, producing what are properly described as the 1869 Hay-Snider Medium Rifle. These converted rifles returned to New Zealand aboard the Melita, arriving in Wellington on 15 December 1869.[11]
Available evidence suggests that the “new Hay Medium Rifles” shipped for conversion comprised the final batch of 500 unissued Calisher & Terry made medium rifles from the K series with 1865 dated locks. Support for this interpretation rests on the fact that all converted examples observed fall within the upper half of the 1–1,000 numbering range and bear both the NZ mark and the K prefix.
The conversion process involved removing 2½” from the barrel at the percussion knuckle end. The shortened barrel was then threaded to accept the receiver body, or shoe, carrying the Snider Mk III breech block. Once fitted, the overall length of the rifle remained at 36″, but the effective barrel length was reduced to 33.5″. Reduced muzzle performance necessitated the replacement of the original 1,200-yard graduated rear sight with one graduated to 1,050 yards. The ramrod was reduced in diameter and weight, effectively becoming a cleaning rod. The redundant ramrod retention spoon was removed, and an internal cleaning-rod retaining nut was fitted forward of the trigger plate. The K prefix and issue number of the butt tang were duplicated on the shoe. New commercial inspection marks and proof stamps were applied. All original markings not affected by the conversion process were retained. The butt tang may or may not have an “s” stamp, indicating a short stock. When measured, the stock was much the same length, regardless of the “S” stamp.
Conversions were carried out by both the London Small Arms Company (L.S.A. Co.) and the Birmingham Small Arms Company (B.S.A. Co.). B.S.A. Co. undertook the majority of the Hay conversions. Their Mk III breech and shoe assemblies appear newly manufactured, presenting a cleaner overall appearance. The K prefix issue number of the butt tang was duplicated on the shoe. The Snider patent mark was in a lozenge-shaped stamp. Proof and inspection marks are of Birmingham origin, and the hammer face is flat.
The L.S.A. Co. conversions, of which I have sighted two examples, are characterised by extensive numbering, with new proofs and inspection marks of London origin. In these examples, the shoe—originally an Mk II**—was modified by stamping “III” to denote Mk III, while retaining the original ** marking, and fitting a Mk III breech block. The K prefix and issue number on the butt tang were duplicated on the shoe.The Snider patent mark is stamped in-line, rather than lozenge-shaped. L.S.A. logo and proof marks were applied to the breech. The hammer face remained cupped. The abundance of numbering and cross-marking leaves little doubt that all components were matched to a single rifle during conversion.
An additional “AC” stamp was applied to the butt tang in New Zealand when the rifles were issued to, and deployed with, the Armed Constabulary in 1870.
Summary: The 1858 Hay medium rifle had extensive use in New Zealand, but was never used in Imperial service. With the advent of the Snider system, New Zealand contracted to have 500 of its own “N Z” marked, K prefix percussion Hay medium rifles converted to the Snider in England, to become the New Zealand contract 1869 Hay-Snider medium rifle.
There was no ordnance Snider medium rifle in Imperial service.
The New Zealand Hay-Snider medium rifle is a uniquely New Zealand arm.
Today, it is still largely unknown outside of New Zealand. In an updated 2025 reference, it is still referred to as “the unidentified Snider Medium rifle”. [12][13]
Description of the New Zealand Contract 1869 Hay-Snider Medium Rifle
Overall Length:
51 7/8“
Barrel Length:
33 1/2”
Calibre:
25 bore .577
Rifling:
3 groove 1 in 48″
Lock Plate:
TOWER over 1865, stamped ‘Terrys’ inside
Breech 1:
III** Snider patent mark & in line name, LSA Logo, K & issue number
Breen 2:
Mk III, Snider patent mark & name logo, B.S.A. Co. K & issue number
Sight:
Bed 100 to 400 yards, leaf 500 to 1050 yards
Furniture:
Bronze
Barrell Retention:
3 bands & breech tang screw
Stock:
Stock to within 3 ¼” of the muzzle
Butt Tang:
S K NZ AC issue number
Stock Cartouche:
Birmingham 1865
Bayonet:
Pattern 1853 socket, trade-made, no ordnance marks
Both sides of the New Zealand Contract Hay-Snider Medium Rifle. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Piled arms of New Zealand, 1869 Hay-Snider Medium rifle. In service with the Taranaki Armed Constabulary at rest (Image from private source).
2. New Zealand Contract 1872 Tisdall Snider Carbine
The Hay medium rifle represented the most prominent and widely issued muzzle-loading percussion rifle employed by the colonial forces. Bush fighting, however, favoured shorter and more manoeuvrable arms, and in that role the percussion breech-loading Calisher & Terry carbine proved the preferred weapon, with approximately 1,700 issued.[14]
In 1871, Colonel Whitmore, Commandant of the Armed Constabulary, initiated a Snider replacement of the existing Calisher & Terry carbine.[15] The resulting weapon was a compact saddle-ring carbine fitted with an 18½” barrel, rifled with 5 groove 1 in 48″ twist, and with a Snider Mk III breech. The carbine was full stocked to within 1⅛” of the muzzle, and the hammer has a cupped face. The butt tang was stamped with “N^Z” and the issue number. Evidence suggests that this represents the first use of this now familiar broad arrow N^Z marking on a New Zealand-issued arm. A total of 600 carbines were manufactured by W. H. Tisdall of Birmingham for issue to the Armed Constabulary. During subsequent service, many examples had the saddle bar cut off, leaving residual distinctive flat, steel, teardrop-shaped side nail plates.
Summary: No percussion predecessor existed for this carbine, nor was there a comparable arm in Imperial service. The New Zealand 1872 contract Tisdall Snider Carbine represents a uniquely New Zealand development, produced specifically to meet local operational requirements.
Description of the New Zealand Contract 1872 Tisdall Snider Carbine
Overall Length:
37″
Barrel Length:
18 ½”
Calibre:
25 bore .577
Rifling:
5 groove 1 in 48″
Lock Plate:
Crown over 1872
Engraved:
W. H. TISDALL 47 Whittall ST. BIRMINGHAM
Breech:
Mk III, Snider patent mark & logo
Sight:
Ramp 100 to 300 yards. Leaf: 400 to 600 yards
Furniture:
Brass
Barrell Retention:
2 bands & breech tang screw
Stock:
Stock to within 1 1/8″ of the muzzle
Butt Tang:
N^Z issue number
Both sides of the New Zealand Contract 1872 Tisdall Snider Carbine. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
New Zealand 1872 Tisdall Snider carbine, in service with Taranaki Armed Constabulary (Image source: Puki Ariki).
3. New Zealand Contract 1874 Snider Short Rifle, Bar on Band
Among New Zealand Snider arms, the 1874 Snider Short Rifle, bar on band, remains one of the most enigmatic. Photographic evidence documents its issue and deployment with the Armed Constabulary in Taranaki, at Mount Cook in Wellington, and at Parihaka.
By August 1871, New Zealand held approximately 2,500 Sniders either on issue or in store.[16] In the same year, a new colonial order was placed through the War Office for 2,000 Snider short rifles with saw-backed bayonets.[17] The arrival of part of this order was reported and discussed in the 1875 Armed Constabulary Force Annual Report.[18] For example, Lieutenant-Colonel William C. Lyon, Acting Commissioner of the Armed Constabulary, reported: “Seven hundred short Snider rifles with saw-backed bayonets have arrived, and are now being issued to the Force.”
Captain W. G. Stack, Instructor of Musketry, commented further: “The new rifles have one very noticeable defect as a military weapon, which is that, as they are stocked up to within one and a half inches of the muzzle, it is impossible to ‘pile arms’ with them. The short saw-backed sword bayonet, with which the new rifle is fitted, is much more suited to the requirements of the force than the old bayonet served out with the medium rifle…”
The 700 Snider short rifles referred to were bar on band rifles with brass furniture and locks dated 1874. The stock extended to approximately 1⅜” from the muzzle, a configuration that prevented the traditional military practice of ‘piling arms’, in which rifles are leaned together muzzle-up to form a stable pyramid when troops are at rest or at camp. The ‘short saw-backed sword bayonet’ issued with these rifles was the New Zealand contract 1874 18″ sawback bar on band bayonet.
The most obvious percussion precedent, the ordnance Pattern 1858 bar on band short rifle, was only experimentally converted to the Snider system and was neither accepted as a pattern nor entered service.[19] British ordnance Snider conversions were instead limited to the Pattern 1860 and 1861 bar on barrel short rifles with steel furnature, converted to Snider with Mk II** breech.[20] New Zealand had in its possession 100 such rifles as part of the 2,000 Sniders loaned from England in 1869. Once stocks suitable for conversion were exhausted, a new sealed-pattern Snider short rifle with Mk III breech, bar on barrel with steel furniture was adopted into Imperial service.
Contemporary criticism of the first portion of the New Zealand colonial order—namely, the 700 bar on band Snider short rifles—focused on their practical limitations. These concerns were addressed in the second portion of the order, which comprised 1,300 Snider short rifles in the standard bar on barrel configuration, fitted with brass furniture and issued with a matching New Zealand 18-inch saw-back bar-on-barrel bayonet. All subsequent shipments, totalling more than 6,000 Snider short rifles, followed the Imperial standard bar on barrel configuration with steel furniture. If bayonets were supplied, they were the yataghan sword bayonets.
Terminology:
Bar on band refers to rifles stocked to within approximately 1⅜ inches of the muzzle, leaving very little barrel exposed (as illustrated in Image a). In this configuration, the bayonet bar (lug) is mounted on the forward barrel band.
Bar on barrel describes rifles in which the stock terminates approximately 5⅜ inches from the muzzle, leaving a greater length of barrel exposed (as illustrated in Image b). In this case, the bayonet bar is mounted directly on the barrel.
Bayonets are not interchangeable between these two configurations. All ordnance Snider short-rifle conversions followed the bar-on-barrel arrangement. The terms bar on band and bar on barrel are descriptive model designations.
NZ 1874 Snider Short rifle – bar on band. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
NZ 1874 Snider Short rifle – bar on barrel. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
The New Zealand 1874 Snider short rifle, bar on band, was a trade-made arm manufactured by the Birmingham Small Arms & Metals Company Ltd. It is fitted with a Mk III breech bearing Snider’s patent mark and logo. The lock plate is marked B.S.A. & M. Co. over the date 1874, without a crown. Proof and inspection marks are of Birmingham origin, and the hammer has a flat face.
Furniture is of brass and includes a short‑tang trigger guard, distinguishing the rifle from other contemporary Snider short rifles, which typically feature steel furniture and a long trigger guard. The rear sight has a fixed bed graduated from 100 to 400 yards, with a leaf graduated from 500 to 1,000 yards. The butt tang is stamped with NZ, a broad arrow, and an individual issue number, while the stock bears a cartouche of Bond & James, Birmingham.
Description of the New Zealand Contracy 1874 Snider Short Rifle, Bar on Band
Overall Length:
48 5/8“
Barrel Length:
30 5/8“
Calibre:
25 bore .577
Rifling:
5 groove 1 in 48″
Lock Plate:
B.S.A. & M. Co. over 1874 (no crown or VR)
Breech:
Mk III, Snider patent mark & logo
Sight:
Ramp 100 to 400 yards. Leaf: 500 to 1000 yards
Furniture:
Brass (Note: trigger guard, brass with no long tang)
Barrell Retention:
2 bands & breech tang screw
Stock:
Stock to within 1 3/8” of the muzzle
Butt Tang:
N^Z issue number
Stock Cartouche:
Bond & James Birmingham
Bayonet:
New Zealand 1874 18″ bar on band, sawback, trade-made MRD – 21 mm, blade 18” length 24 no NZ mark
Left Ricasso:
Crown over A.S – Solingen inspector’s mark. Knight’s helm: Kirschbaum maker mark (See Section 5, image 2)
Right Ricasso:
Blank (no markings)
Both sides of the New Zealand Contract 1874 Snider Short Rifle, Bar on Band. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Summary: No Snider short rifle, bar on band rifles existed in Imperial service. The New Zealand contract 1874 Snider short rifle, bar on band, was issued to the Armed Constabulary, representing another uniquely New Zealand arm. Today, evidence of these rifles survives almost entirely in the photographic record, often shown alongside bar on barrel rifles. Taken together, the New Zealand contract 1874 Snider short rifle, bar on band, and its matching bayonet must rank among the scarcest of all New Zealand-issued arms.
New Zealand 1874 Snider short rifle, bar on band with New Zealand 18″ sawback bar on band bayonet. Captain Morrison and Major Foster Goring (far right), in service with the Taranaki Armed Constabulary (Image source: Puki Ariki).
4. New Zealand Contract 1874 Short Snider Rifle, Bar on Barrel
I have only observed a single example of the New Zealand contract 1874 Snider short rifle in the bar on barrel configuration. In my opinion, this example is representative of the 1,300 rifles in this contract, for which the New Zealand 1874 18″ sawback bar on barrel bayonet was produced.
The rifle is fitted with a Mk III breech bearing Snider’s patent mark and logo. The lock plate is marked TOWER over 1874 with a crown, but without a “VR”. Proof and inspection marks are of Birmingham origin, and the hammer is cupped. The furniture is of brass with a short-tang trigger guard. The rear sight comprises a fixed bed graduated from 100 to 400 yards, with a leaf graduated from 500 to 1,000 yards. The butt tang is stamped with “A”, a broad arrow, “NZ”, and the issue number, while the stock bears the cartouche of Bond & James, Birmingham. This Snider short rifle should not be confused with the ordnance produced Mk III Snider Naval rifle of 1870-71, of which only 17 were made. [21]
Description of the New Zealand Contract 1874 Dnider Short Rifle, Bar on Barrel
Overall Length:
48 5/8“
Barrel Length:
30 5/8”
Calibre:
25 bore .577
Rifling:
5 groove 1 in 48″
Lock Plate:
Tower over 1874 Crown no V R
Breech:
Mk III, Snider patent mark & logo
Sight:
Ramp 100 to 400 yards. Leaf: 500 to 1000 yards
Furniture:
Brass (Note: trigger guard, brass with no long tang)
Barrell Retention:
2 bands & breech tang screw
Stock:
Stock to within 5 3/8″ of the muzzle
Butt Tang:
A ^ N Z issue number
Stock Cartouche:
Bond & James Birmingham
Bayonet:
New Zealand 1874 18″ bar on band, sawback. MRD – 21 mm, blade 18” length 24 ½” no NZ mark
Left Ricasso:
Inverted broad arrows over WD, (sold out of service mark, unusual for a non-war department bayonet.[22] Crown over B, 21, Birmingham inspectors mark (see section 5, image 3).
Right Ricasso:
Knight’s helm, Kirschbaum maker mark (5 image 4).
Both sides of the New Zealand Contract 1874 Snider Short Rifle, Bar on Barrel. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Summary: The 1874 Snider short rifle, bar on barrel, fitted with brass furniture and paired with the 18″ sawback bar on barrel bayonet, represents another uniquely New Zealand contract combination issued to the Armed Constabulary.
New Zealand Contract 1869 Hay-Snider medium rifle. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
New Zealand Contract 1872 Contract Tisdall Snider carbine. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
New Zealand Contract 1874 Snider short rifle, bar on band. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
New Zealand Contract 1874 Snider short rifle, bar on barrel. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
1874 Snider short rifle bar on band, and bar on barrel rifles, along with 1872 Tisdall carbines on issue with the Armed Constabulary in Taranaki (Image source: Puki Ariki).
5. New Zealand Contract 1874 18” Sawback Bayonets
Development: The original precedent bayonet, an 18”sawback bar on band bayonet, was made for the Irish Constabulary carbine at Enfield in 1867.[23] A similar 18” sawback bar on band bayonet, also made at Enfield, and was used in the 1869 trials of the Martini- Henry long chamber rifle. Both these bayonets had smaller MRD than the New Zealand 18”sawback bayonets.
New Zealand 18” Sawback Bayonets: When New Zealand’s order for Snider short rifles and 18” sawback bayonets was actioned in 1873, the bayonets were not in production in England. Both contracts for these two 18” sawback bayonet variants were filled by Kirschbaum of Solingen.[24] Documentation clearly shows that the 18″ sawback bar on band bayonet was produced for the 700 New Zealand 1874 dated Snider short rifle, bar on the band. These rifles were issued and in service in 1875. The remainder of the order, 1300 for the New Zealand 1874 dated Snider short rifle, bar on the barrel with an 18″ sawback bar on barrel bayonet, was on a different contract; it is not specifically recorded when they entered service.
Summary: The 18” sawback bayonets made for the New Zealand 1874 dated Snider short bar on band rifle and 1874 Snider short bar on barrel rifle are,
1. New Zealand contract 1874 18″ sawback bar on band bayonet.
2. New Zealand contract 1874 18″ sawback bar on barrel bayonet.
The two 1874 New Zealand Snider Bayonet Variants
Upper – NZ contract 1874 18″ sawback bar on band, with an elevated 21mm muzzle ring. Total length of bayonet & scabbard, 24”
Lower – NZ contract 1874 18″sawback bar on barrel, 21mm muzzle ring in line with the grip. Total length of bayonet & scabbard, 24 ½”
Note: The bar on band scabbard is ½” shorter than bar on barrel scabbard. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Relative elevation of the muzzle ring above the tang: bar on barrel (left), bar on band (right). Both bayonets have a 21mm MRD. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Bar on band. Left side: Crown over A.S. (Solingen inspector’s mark); knight’s helm, maker’s mark of Kirschbaum. Right side: blank (not illustrated).Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Bar on barrel. Left side: inverted broad arrows over WD (sold-out-of-service; unusual, non-War Department bayonet); Crown over 21; Birmingham inspection mark.Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Bar on barrel. Right side: Knight’s helm, the maker’s mark of Kirschbaum. Images of arms & bayonets – Paul Farmer
Conclusion
The New Zealand Colonial Government commissioned four distinct Snider arms specifically for local service.
These comprised the following, and the number produced.
500 1869 Hay–Snider Medium rifles
600 1872 Tisdall Snider carbines
700 1874 Snider short rifles, bar on band
1,300 1874 Snider short rifles, bar on barrel
In total, 3,100 New Zealand contract Sniders were produced.
In addition, 2000 18″ sawback bayonets were manufactured for the New Zealand Snider short rifles, consisting of
700 18″ bar on band bayonets
1,300 18″ bar on barrel bayonets
These New Zealand contract Sniders and their associated bayonets are not British ordnance patterns. As a result, their absence or limited treatment in standard references on British ordnance Sniders and bayonets is unsurprising. The purpose of this article has been to document and clarify these uniquely New Zealand arms, allowing them to be more clearly identified and better appreciated within the broader history of the Snider arms system.
References
[1] Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1870 Session I, A-09
[2] Ian Skennerton. .577 Snider-Enfield Rifles & Carbines. 2003 Published Ian D Skennerton page 101
[3] Papers Past NZ, Evening Post, Volume V, issue 261, 16 Dec 1869, page 2
[4] Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1885 Session I, H-04a
[5] Ian D Skennerton & Robert Richardson. British & Commonwealth Bayonets. 1986 Published Ian D Skennerton page 362
[6] Ian D Skennerton & Robert Richardson. British & Commonwealth Bayonets. 1986 Published Ian D Skennerton page 362
[7] Robert McKie. Hay Pattern Rifles. ‘Lessons from History: New Zealand Procurement and Logistics 1857-1861’ -rnzaoc.com/tag/hay-pattern-rifles/Hayden
[8] John Osborne, Hay Pattern Enfield Rifle, The Gazette NZAHAA June 2010 Vol. 30 No 2
[9] Reference 1869/473. 1869 Army Department Inwards Correspondence Register nzpictures.co.nz
[10] Papers Past NZ, New Zealand Herald, Volume. VI issue 1655 12 March 1869, page 2
[11] Papers Past NZ. Evening Post, Volume V, Issue 261, 16 December Page 2
[12] Ian D Skennerton & Robert Richardson. British & Commonwealth Bayonets. 1986 Published Ian D Skennerton page 360
[13] Ian Skennerton & Brian Labudda. British Commonwealth Bayonets and Fighting Knives Published in 2025 by Labudda Research / Arms & Militaria Press page 389
[14] Brian C Knapp, The Calisher & Terry in British and Colonial Military Service 1856 – 1900, 2021
[15] John Osborne, NZ P1872 25 bore Snider Carbine, The Gazette NZAHAA Dec. 2007 Vol. 27 No 4
[16] R McKie, NZ Defence Stores July 1870 – June 1871https://rnzaoc.com/2023/08/13/nz-defence-stores-july-1870-june-1871/
[17] Armed Constabulary Force (Annual Report of Commissioner). Appendix to the Journals House of Representatives, 1875 Session I, H-10
[18] Ian Skennerton. .577 Snider-Enfield Rifles & Carbines. 2003 Published Ian D Skennerton page 187
On 4 December each year, soldiers, gunners, and explosive specialists around the world pause to mark Saint Barbara’s Day. For New Zealand’s military ammunition community, the day has a special resonance. Saint Barbara was the patron saint of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC). Although the Corps was disestablished in 1996, she remains the spiritual patron of those whose work brings them closest to explosive risk, especially the current generation of Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) Ammunition Technicians.
This commemoration is not about imposing religious belief or expecting devotion in a modern, pluralist Army. Instead, it is about recognising shared values. Saint Barbara’s story, whether read as faith, legend, or metaphor, offers a powerful way of talking about courage, duty of care, and professionalism in dangerous work.
From Heliopolis to the Ordnance Corps
According to tradition, Barbara lived in the late Roman Empire at Heliopolis in Phoenicia, now associated with Baalbek in modern Lebanon. Born into a wealthy pagan household, she questioned the gods she had been taught to worship when she looked out from the tower in which her father kept her secluded and reflected on the ordered beauty of the world around her. In time, she converted to Christianity in secret. When her father discovered this, he handed her over to the authorities and ultimately carried out her execution himself.
Her refusal to renounce her convictions, even under torture, and the lightning that, according to legend, later killed her father and the official who condemned her, led to Barbara being associated with sudden death, lightning, and fire. As warfare evolved and gunpowder weapons became central to battle, she was adopted as patroness of artillerymen, armourers, military engineers, miners, tunnellers, and anyone whose livelihood involved explosives and the possibility of instant, catastrophic harm. The Legend of Saint Barbara
When the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) adopted Saint Barbara as its patron, that tradition passed into the wider family of Commonwealth ordnance corps. The RNZAOC, with its own responsibility for ammunition supply, storage, and maintenance in New Zealand, in turn adopted her as patron saint.
Beyond 1996: Saint Barbara and the RNZALR
The disestablishment of the RNZAOC in 1996 and the formation of the RNZALR did not diminish Saint Barbara’s relevance to New Zealand soldiers. The work did not change; only the cap badge did. Ammunition Technicians, in particular, continue to live daily with the realities that made Barbara a symbolic figure in the first place: sudden danger, technical complexity, and the need for calm, disciplined action when things go wrong.
On paper, Saint Barbara is a figure from late antiquity. In practice, her patronage captures something very contemporary about the RNZALR Ammunition Technician trade:
Technical mastery under pressure – handling, inspecting, and disposing of explosive ordnance where a single lapse can have irreversible consequences.
Quiet, unshowy bravery – the kind that rarely makes headlines but underpins every live-fire activity, every range practice, and every deployment where ammunition is moved, stored, or rendered safe.
Duty of care to others – ensuring that everyone else can train and fight in relative safety because someone has accepted responsibility for the dangerous end of the supply chain.
In that sense, Saint Barbara’s Day is as much about the living as it is about any distant martyr. It is an opportunity for the wider Army to pause and acknowledge that the safe availability of ammunition, which is often taken for granted, depends on a small community of specialists and their support teams.
A Day Of Tradition, Not Testimony
In a modern New Zealand Army, not everyone is religious, and fewer still are likely to be familiar with the details of early Christian hagiography. That is not the point. Commemorations like Saint Barbara’s Day function as regimental and professional traditions, not as tests of personal belief.
Marking the day can mean different things to different people:
For some, it may be a genuine act of faith, honouring a saint whose story inspires them.
For others, it is a way of respecting the heritage of their trade and the generations of RNZAOC and now RNZALR personnel who have done this work before them.
For many, it is simply a moment to reflect on the risks inherent in explosive work, to remember colleagues injured or killed in training and operations, and to recommit to doing the job as safely and professionally as possible.
In that sense, the story’s religious origins are less important than the shared meaning it has acquired over time. Saint Barbara becomes a symbol of the values that matter in ammunition work: integrity, courage, vigilance, and loyalty to those you serve alongside.
Contemporary Relevance: Commitment In A Dangerous Trade
In the modern world, the management of ammunition and explosives is governed by detailed regulations, sophisticated science, and digital systems, ranging from hazard classifications and compatibility groups to electronic inventory control and safety management frameworks. Yet, at its core, it still depends on human judgment and ethical commitment.
Saint Barbara’s Day offers a valuable lens for talking about that commitment:
Commitment to safety – understanding procedures not as bureaucracy, but as the accumulated lessons, sometimes paid for in blood, of those who went before.
Commitment to team – recognising that no Ammunition Technician works alone, and that a strong safety culture depends on everyone feeling empowered to speak up, check, and challenge.
Commitment to service – remembering that, whether in training at home or on operations overseas, the work is ultimately about enabling others to succeed and come home alive.
When Ammunition Technicians and their colleagues mark Saint Barbara’s Day, they are not stepping out of the modern world into a medieval one. They are taking a moment within a busy, technologically advanced, secular military environment to acknowledge that some fundamentals have not changed: courage, conscience, and care for others still matter.
Keeping The Flame Alive
Although the RNZAOC passed into history in 1996, its traditions did not vanish. They were carried forward into the RNZALR and live on in the customs, stories, and professional identities of those who wear the uniform today. Saint Barbara is one of those enduring threads.
On 4 December, when a small group gathers in an Ammuniton depot, unit lines, a mess, or a deployed location to raise a glass or share a few words in her honour, they are standing in continuity with generations of ordnance soldiers, armourers, gunners, and explosive specialists across time and across the Commonwealth. They are also quietly affirming something vital about themselves.
In the end, Saint Barbara’s Day is less about religion and more about recognition: recognition of a demanding craft, of the people who practise it, and of the responsibility they carry on behalf of the wider Army. For the RNZALR Ammunition Technicians of today, as for the RNZAOC of yesterday, she remains a fitting patron for those who work, quite literally, at the explosive edge of military service.
Walter Laurie Christie (1833-1917) was an early contributor to New Zealand military logistics history. He is remembered for his forty-five years of exemplary service in the Defence Stores Department and his distinguished contributions as a soldier during the New Zealand Wars.
Born in Paisley, Scotland, around 1833, Walter Christie came of age during rapid industrial change and widespread emigration throughout the British Empire. At 18, seeking opportunity and adventure beyond the confines of his homeland, he left Scotland. He made his way to Australia—a bold decision emblematic of the enterprising spirit that would define his life.
Christie initially settled in Queensland, where he worked with his uncle. Like many young men of his generation, he was drawn to the prospect of fortune during the Australian gold rushes. He ventured to the Bendigo goldfields in Victoria, joining the throngs of hopeful prospectors searching for riches in the red dust of central Australia. Although there is no record of significant success, his time on the goldfields would have exposed him to the harsh realities and transient communities of frontier life, sharpening his resilience and resourcefulness.
By 1863, Christie had moved again—this time across the Tasman Sea to New Zealand. He arrived in Dunedin during the height of the Otago gold rush, when the South Island’s economy was booming and the city had become the country’s most populous urban centre. Yet Christie’s stay in the south would be brief. With tensions escalating in the North Island amid the New Zealand Wars, he felt called to a different form of service and joined the Colonial Mounted Defence Force later that same year.[1]
Christie’s military career would soon take him to the volatile frontlines of the Waikato and Taranaki campaigns. His early enlistment into the Colonial Mounted Defence Force was followed by his transfer to the Wanganui Yeomanry Cavalry, one of the many locally raised militia and volunteer units tasked with defending settler communities and supporting British regulars. Serving through the most turbulent years of the 1860s, Christie distinguished himself in numerous engagements, earning a reputation for discipline and bravery under fire.
Among the most notable exploits was his participation in the 1865 attack on Wereoa Pā. This daring mission, orchestrated by Governor Sir George Grey, was carried out by a small composite force of Wanganui Yeomanry Cavalry, Forest Rangers, and allied Māori warriors. The pā had previously been considered too formidable to assault—General Sir Duncan Cameron had assessed it as an impossible objective. Yet under Grey’s leadership and with the audacity of men like Christie, the attack succeeded in surprising the defenders and achieving its aim. It was a striking example of irregular warfare in the New Zealand bush, blending local knowledge, colonial zeal, and intercultural alliances in an era where traditional lines of conflict were often blurred.
William Beattie & Company. Row of soldiers in Opotiki in front of the church, later known as Saint Stephen the Martyr – Photograph taken by William Beattie and Company. Cowan, James, 1870-1943 : Collection of photographs. Ref: PAColl-3033-1-24. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23134076
Christie’s bravery was evident at the Battle of Pua Pā near Ōpōtiki, where he risked his life to rescue an injured officer under heavy fire. He also served as a despatch rider along the perilous routes between Pātea, Whanganui, and Turakina—work demanding exceptional courage and endurance.
In 1867, Christie was posted to the remote Chatham Islands—an isolated and windswept archipelago nearly 800 kilometres east of mainland New Zealand. His task was to oversee the construction of secure, rat-proof huts intended to house prisoners exiled to the islands following the recent conflicts in the East Coast region. Among these prisoners was Te Kooti Arikirangi Te Tūruki, a former government scout turned detainee, whose exile would mark the beginning of one of the most remarkable and controversial episodes in New Zealand’s colonial history.
Christie’s role, though logistical, placed him at the centre of a simmering political and spiritual crucible. As he supervised building works and maintained the security infrastructure of the prison camp, he became a close observer of the unusual transformation taking place among the inmates. Isolated from their tribal lands and traditional leadership, Te Kooti and his followers began to evolve into something more than a group of political prisoners. Under Te Kooti’s charismatic influence, they became a religious and ideological movement.
Christie took note of Te Kooti’s intellectual intensity and growing spiritual authority. He later recalled how the exile used his time to reinterpret the Old Testament, drawing parallels between the plight of the Israelites and that of his people. Te Kooti formulated a unique syncretic faith through these teachings, later known as the Ringatū religion. His sermons, often held in secret or under the watchful eyes of the guards, inspired hope among his followers and stirred unease among the colonial authorities.
One incident during this period stood out as a portent of the turmoil. Te Kooti, claiming divine revelation, predicted that he and his people would soon be freed. Emboldened by this vision, he staged a bold and theatrical confrontation with the prison guards, defying their authority and proclaiming that their captivity was nearing its end. Tensions ran high, and the potential for violence loomed.
Christie’s calm demeanour and interpersonal skills came fore at this critical juncture. Having developed mutual respect with Te Kooti during their time on the island, Christie intervened and de-escalated the situation. His ability to engage Te Kooti in conversation, rather than confrontation, helped avoid a serious breach of discipline or a punitive crackdown. This outcome might have further inflamed resentment and hastened the violence that would soon follow. The incident, though resolved peacefully, proved to be an omen. Six months later, on 4 July 1868, Te Kooti and over 160 of his followers commandeered the schooner Rifleman, overpowering the crew and forcing them to sail back to the East Coast. The escape sparked a new phase of the New Zealand Wars, as Te Kooti launched a guerrilla campaign against colonial forces and those iwis who had opposed him.[2]
Christie’s time on the Chatham Islands thus placed him at the crossroads of history, not merely as a builder of huts but as a witness to the birth of a prophetic movement and a participant in an event that would ripple through New Zealand’s political and cultural landscape for decades. His first-hand observations of Te Kooti’s religious awakening and his role in preventing immediate violence foreshadowed the complex, often tragic entanglements between Māori resistance and colonial governance in the years to come.
Following his military service, Christie began a long and impactful career with the Defence Stores Department at Wellington’s Buckle Street, commencing on 1 July 1868 as an Arms Cleaner. In 1880, he was promoted to Assistant Armourer, working alongside Defence Armourer Mr Edwin Henry Bradford. In this role, Christie supported maintaining and repairing the Dominion’s expanding and increasingly sophisticated arsenal. His work encompassed a wide range of weaponry, from the single-shot Snider rifles and carbines of the 1860s to the bolt-action rifles and Maxim guns in the late 1890s.
Christie’s role was not solely based in Wellington; it frequently took him into the provinces to support Volunteer Units and Rifle Clubs with their range activities. His duties in addidition to his armourers responsibilties often included setting up rifle ranges, constructing butts, and preparing targets. A notable example of this support occurred in 1879 when Christie assisted Volunteers in the Nelson region:
Nelson Volunteers Camp, 1879 – “They then marched to the railway station, arriving in camp at half-past 10. The site selected for the camp and ranges is situated on the Nelson and Boxhill railway line, twelve miles from Nelson and about a three-minute walk from Brightwater Station. I do not consider that a more advantageous position could have been selected, nor for the general convenience of competitors from the North and South Islands could a more suitable spot have been chosen than Nelson. I am informed by the oldest settlers that during February, when the meetings will take place, rain is very rare, with little wind and warm weather. The camp and the butts were laid out by Armourer Christie, with his usual skill and diligence, and, as far as his work went, gave general satisfaction.”[3]
This example highlights Christie’s practical involvement in the field and his reputation for precision and reliability in supporting the nation’s Volunteer Forces.
As firearm technology advanced in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the upkeep of military weapons became increasingly complex. The introduction of bolt-action rifles and Maxim machine guns prompted a gradual shift towards employing military armourers within the New Zealand Military Forces. The complexity of these new weapons soon led New Zealand authorities to seek assistance from the British Army Ordnance Corps. Armourer Sergeants from the AOC began arriving from the United Kingdom in 1901 to bolster local expertise.
Following the 1902 death of Edwin Bradford, the Defence armourer since the 1860s, a new Chief Armourer—William Edward Luckman—was appointed from Britain in 1903. With this new generation of armourers assuming responsibility, Christie’s technical skills were no longer central to the department’s evolving needs. However, rather than lose his wealth of experience, Christie was appointed Foreman of Stores in 1901. This senior position reflected his deep knowledge and ability to manage the expanding logistical demands of the force.
In this role, Christie remained a key figure in ensuring the effective maintenance and accountability of the Dominion’s arsenal during significant military and technological change. Known for his meticulous approach and firm commitment to accountability, he once remarked that he ran the stores “as if they were making a profit.” This philosophy underpinned his reputation for efficiency, order, and professional pride—qualities that became increasingly vital as the Defence Stores Department adapted to modernising New Zealand’s military capabilities.
In addition to his duties with the Defence Stores, Christie was also a dedicated member of Wellington’s “D” Battery. He remained actively involved in the volunteer forces for over thirty years, embodying the ethos of the citizen-soldier.[4]
Christie’s service was formally recognised on several occasions. He received the New Zealand War Medal, the New Zealand Long Service Medal (16 years’ service), and the Colonial Auxiliary Forces Long Service Medal (20 years’ service). 1909 he became the first New Zealander awarded the Imperial Service Medal.[5] The medal was presented personally by Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward in the Cabinet Room—an honour celebrating his “faithful and meritorious service” to the Dominion. In his remarks, Sir Joseph praised Christie’s career as a model for all military service members.[6]
Walter Christie retired in August 1908 at 67, concluding a distinguished career that spanned both military and public service. For nearly half a century, he had contributed tirelessly to developing New Zealand’s Defence Stores Department, helping lay the foundations of the nation’s logistical and military infrastructure. In retirement, he remained a respected figure in the Wellington community and a devoted family man.[7]
However, the final year of his life was marked by profound personal tragedy. On 2 June 1917, his youngest son, Lieutenant Herbert Alfred Christie, was killed in action during the Battle of Messines—one of the most significant and costly engagements fought by the New Zealand Division on the Western Front. The news would have devastated Walter and his family. To lose a child is one of the deepest sorrows a parent can endure, and for a man who had spent his life in service to New Zealand’s military institutions, the war’s cost would have struck with poignancy. Christie passed away just over four months later, on 22 October 1917, at approximately 75 years of age. While his death was likely due to natural causes, it is not unreasonable to consider that the overwhelming grief from the loss of his son may have contributed to his decline.[8]
His life, marked by discipline, loyalty, and foresight, reflected the values he had instilled through his work in the Defence Stores. His son’s service and sacrifice further entwined the Christie family story with the broader narrative of New Zealand’s military history—a legacy of duty and loss that continues to resonate.
Walter Christie’s memory endures as a pioneer of military logistics in New Zealand and a father whose personal loss mirrors the sacrifices made by countless families during the First World War. His story reminds us that behind the structures and systems of war are human lives—committed, courageous, and deeply affected by the cost of service.
ANZAC Day is a sacred day of remembrance and gratitude in New Zealand. It is a day when we pause to honour the breadth of military service—those who stormed the beaches and scaled the ridgelines, and those who sustained them from behind the lines. Among these often-unsung heroes are the men and women of the Ordnance Corps. Ordnance soldiers have provided the New Zealand Army with the weapons, ammunition, equipment, and logistical support necessary to fight, survive, and succeed for over a century. Their role has always been vital, even if it has been carried out of the limelight.
But what exactly is an Ordnance soldier?
At their core, Ordnance soldiers are Logistics Specialists and Ammunition Technicians—responsible for ensuring that every frontline soldier has what they need, when they need it. They manage everything from the smallest screw in a field weapon to the vast stocks of food, clothing, and ammunition that sustain entire armies. Their work includes storage, distribution, accounting, repair, salvage, and technical inspection. In short: if it moves, fires, feeds, or protects, it likely passed through the hands of Ordnance personnel.
The roots of military ordnance stretch deep into history. The first recorded Ordnance Officer in the British military was appointed in 1299 to manage siege equipment, such as catapults and battering rams. Over time, these responsibilities evolved into a professional and structured system of military storekeeping and supply, one that reached New Zealand in the 1840s with the arrival of British Imperial forces.
By the 1860s, as the Imperial presence waned, the responsibility for military logistics was gradually handed over to New Zealand personnel. The Defence Stores Department was formally established in 1869 to oversee the nation’s military stores. This marked the beginning of New Zealand’s independent ordnance tradition. In 1917, during the First World War, the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was officially formed, taking over duties from the Defence Stores Department. The Corps provided critical support throughout the war and maintained the Army through the interwar years.
With the Second World War outbreak, the Ordnance Corps expanded dramatically. To support 2NZEF, the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) was raised for overseas service, while a separate NZOC served as the NZAOCs Territorial element. In 1942, the engineering and maintenance functions of the NZOC operating in the Middle East were separated to form the New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME). This change was mirrored in New Zealand in 1946, when workshops were transferred from the NZAOC to the newly created NZEME.
In recognition of its wartime service, King George VI granted the “Royal” prefix to the Corps on 12 July 1947, making it the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC). That same year, the territorial and regular elements were merged into a single corps that would serve with distinction for the next half-century.
Every ANZAC Day, we reflect on the legacy of the Ordnance soldier—from the dusty cliffs of Gallipoli and the battlefields of North Africa to the supply depots of World War II, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the humanitarian missions of the late 20th century. Their story did not end with the close of the Cold War. In 1996, the RNZAOC was amalgamated with the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT) and the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) to form the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR)—a unified, modern logistics formation designed to meet the evolving demands of military operations in the 21st century.
The legacy of the Ordnance soldier lives on today in every RNZALR Logistic Specialist and Ammunition Technician. Their story is not just a historical record—it is the very foundation of the RNZALR. Their values of resilience, quiet courage, and professional excellence continue to shape the New Zealand Army’s ability to sustain and succeed at home and abroad.
Gallipoli and the First World War: The Storekeeper on Anzac Beach
The story of the New Zealand ordnance soldier begins amid the brutal landing at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. Captain William Beck, a New Zealand Staff Corps officer, was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (DADOS) for the New Zealand and Australian Division. According to several accounts, Beck was the first New Zealander ashore at ANZAC Cove, leading the landing of Godley’s divisional headquarters under intense fire.
His task was immense. Amid the beachhead’s chaos, confusion, and carnage, Beck quickly set about establishing a makeshift ordnance dump right on the shoreline—improvising with salvaged crates, scattered supplies, and a growing stream of urgently needed materiel. As soldiers surged inland and casualties mounted, Beck and his small team organised the distribution of ammunition, rations, clothing, and basic field stores to units already under fire in the hills above. Without shelter, maps, or proper infrastructure, this operation became a lifeline to the forward troops.
Supplies on the beach at ANZAC Cove 1915. Athol Williams Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library
Beck worked under relentless fire, including from a remarkably accurate Turkish artillery piece that pounded the beachhead daily. Nicknamed “Beachy Bill” by the troops, the gun became infamous for zeroing in on the supply areas, and Beck’s improvised depot was one of its most frequent targets. The name, according to some accounts, was given in ironic tribute to Captain Beck himself, whose unwavering presence under fire seemed to draw the enemy’s attention as reliably as the tides. Despite the danger, Beck remained calm and courteous, continuing to perform his duties in conditions that would have driven many to cover. His efforts earned him the enduring moniker “the brave storekeeper on Anzac Beach.” He became a quiet legend among his peers. General Sir William Birdwood, commanding the ANZAC forces, was said to personally check on Beck during his rounds, out of admiration and concern. Beck’s courage and composure under fire became emblematic of the Ordnance Corps’ ethos: professionalism in adversity, and mission before self.
Though he was later evacuated due to illness caused by the stress of battle in August 1915, Captain Beck’s role at Gallipoli demonstrated how critical logistics were to the survival and sustainment of fighting troops—and that the Ordnance soldier was not a rear-echelon presence, but a frontline enabler in every sense.
Following the Gallipoli campaign, the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) was reorganised and redeployed to the Western Front in France and Belgium, as well as to the Sinai and Palestine campaigns in the Middle East. What began in 1914 as a two-man effort—Beck and Sergeant Norman Levien—expanded rapidly into a structured logistics organisation. In 1917, the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was formally established as a dedicated branch of service, recognising its work’s increasingly specialised and essential nature.
On the Western Front, Ordnance personnel established and managed supply dumps and armourers’ workshops across the scarred landscapes of the Somme, Messines, and Passchendaele. They worked in trenches, mud, and snow—often within range of enemy artillery—ensuring that troops had the bullets, boots, tools, and trench stores required to sustain a static war of attrition.
Their responsibilities went well beyond basic supply. Ordnance units also operated salvage sections to recover, repair, and repurpose battlefield equipment—a critical function in conserving resources and maintaining operational tempo. They ran mobile repair facilities and oversaw essential services like bath and laundry units, which not only preserved hygiene in the harsh conditions of trench warfare but also boosted morale and prevented disease. These services reflected the Ordnance Corps’ holistic approach to sustaining soldiers, not just with materiel, but with cleanliness, comfort, and care in brutal circumstances.
In the Middle East, NZAOC detachments supported mounted operations across the harsh deserts of Sinai and Palestine. Operating in support of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Ordnance soldiers adapted their methods to suit long, exposed supply lines and the mobile nature of desert warfare. They managed camel trains, improvised field depots, and operated forward repair points—often little more than canvas shelters in the sand—to keep men and animals in the fight. Salvage and maintenance tasks were equally essential here, where resupply could be days away and every item had to be made to last.
By the end of the First World War, the NZAOC had grown into a compact, disciplined, and highly respected corps. From the mud of Flanders to the sands of Beersheba, their work underpinned New Zealand’s military effort. Though rarely seen in official war photographs or commemorated in mainstream histories, their contributions were vital. They demonstrated that logistics was not a sideline to combat—it was its backbone. They also laid the foundation for a professional military logistics tradition in the RNZALR today.
The Second World War and Beyond: Backbone of the Battlefield
During the Second World War, the NZAOC matured into a seasoned and indispensable pillar of military capability. Whether supporting the fight abroad or maintaining the war effort at home, Ordnance personnel were the engine behind the Army’s ability to project and sustain force across multiple theatres of war.
North Africa and Italy: Desert Sands and Mountain Passes
In the North African campaigns of 1941–42, Ordnance units operated across Egypt and Libya’s vast, unforgiving deserts, supplying the 2nd New Zealand Division during pivotal battles such as Operation Crusader and El Alamein. Supply depots were often under canvas, exposed to enemy air raids and desert winds. Light Aid Detachments worked tirelessly in the blistering heat to keep tanks, trucks, and artillery in the fight, repairing on the move and recovering damaged equipment under fire.
A dedicated Ordnance Convoy Section was raised to support the increasing volume and complexity of operations. Its task was to move stores and equipment from rear areas to forward supply points, filling a critical gap when the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) could not meet demand. These convoys ensured a continuous flow of tools, spare parts, and personal equipment to the front, often through contested or poorly marked desert tracks.
The NZ Divisional Salvage Company also operated until late 1941, recovering and repurposing valuable battlefield materials—everything from damaged vehicles to discarded equipment. This function saved resources and contributed to operational sustainability by rapidly recycling assets back into the supply chain.
Ordnance support also extended to troop welfare. Mobile Bath and Laundry Sections accompanied the Division to provide frontline hygiene services, which were essential in preventing disease, exchanging clothing, maintaining morale, and improving the force’s overall combat effectiveness. Their presence in forward areas helped ensure that troops remained as healthy and combat-ready as conditions allowed.
Fred Kreegher, New Zealand Ordnance Field Park, sorting out stores in the rear of his Bin Truck. The Noel Kreegher collection
When the Division redeployed to Italy in late 1943, the harsh desert gave way to snow-covered mountains and treacherous river valleys. But the demands on Ordnance personnel did not ease. During gruelling campaigns at Monte Cassino and through the Po Valley, the NZOC once again delivered. Ordnance Field Parks and dumps were established within range of enemy guns, and equipment was recovered, repaired, and reissued under complex and often perilous conditions.
These layered capabilities—convoy operations, salvage and recovery, technical maintenance, and personal support—ensured the Division could manoeuvre and fight confidently, knowing its logistical tail was secure. The Ordnance Corps wasn’t simply supporting the fight—it was integral to sustaining it.
The Pacific Theatre: Islands of Sustained Effort
While New Zealand’s main expeditionary force focused on Europe and the Mediterranean, many New Zealand troops were also deployed to the Pacific. Here, the NZAOC supported the 3rd New Zealand Division across island bases in New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Fiji. These were remote and logistically challenging environments—characterised by tropical diseases, heavy rain, mud, and dense jungle.
Ordnance detachments established supply points, maintained stores, repaired equipment, and ensured operational readiness across scattered islands. These locations often lacked established infrastructure, requiring personnel to be resourceful and adaptable. Camp maintenance, local procurement, and even salvaging enemy materiel became part of the day-to-day tasks.
Although the 3rd Division never saw major set-piece battles like those in North Africa or Italy, it did undertake several opposed amphibious operations and complex island-clearing operations, most notably in the Solomon Islands campaigns at Vella Lavella, Treasury Islands, and Green Island. These landings were tactically complex and logistically demanding, requiring close coordination between combat troops and supporting elements. The Division’s presence helped safeguard New Zealand’s Pacific interests and contributed meaningfully to the broader Allied campaign in the South-West Pacific Area. The Ordnance Corps was instrumental in keeping this contribution viable—its soldiers operated under arduous conditions, far from public view but never from operational necessity.
The Home Front: Sustaining the War Machine
Back in New Zealand, the Ordnance Corps played an equally vital—if often overlooked—role in sustaining the nation’s war effort. Depots at Trentham, Hopuhopu, Burnham, Palmerston North and Waiouru became crucial hubs for receiving, inspecting, storing, and distributing supplies to deployed units. The scale of this effort was immense: weapons, uniforms, vehicle parts, ammunition, and medical supplies flowed in and out of these depots on a daily basis.
Ordnance staff oversaw procurement, stock accounting, and quality control, ensuring that New Zealand’s contribution to the global conflict was met efficiently and precisely. In addition to servicing the expeditionary forces, these depots supported the Home Guard, Territorial units, and mobilisation centres. When new battalions were raised or re-equipped, Ordnance issued the kit and ensured everything was fit for purpose. This included the units of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force deployed overseas, as well as the three Divisions and supporting arms raised for home defence. These domestic formations—charged with protecting New Zealand from possible invasion—required full logistical support, from uniforms and webbing to weapons, ammunition and transport. Ordnance Corps personnel were central to ensuring these forces were ready to respond, maintaining a continuous flow of supplies while adapting to changing wartime demands.
“Repairing despatch riders’ motor-cycles. Photo of mechanics and motorcyclists repairing motorcycles at a field workshop during military manoeuvres in Northland.” Auckland Weekly News, 23 December 1942, p.14
Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections AWNS-19421223-14-03
The wartime workforce also included women, with members of the New Zealand Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (NZWAAC) taking on duties in Ordnance depots, handling clerical tasks, managing stores, and supporting logistics operations nationwide. Their involvement further highlights the adaptability and inclusivity of the Ordnance mission in meeting the demands of total war.
Post-war Transition
Post-war deployments saw Ordnance personnel serve in Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, and beyond—often integrated within British, Australian, or Commonwealth logistics formations. Though New Zealand’s contribution to these conflicts was modest in size, the professionalism and impact of its Ordnance soldiers were significant. In the Korean War (1950–53), New Zealand’s primary combat force—16th Field Regiment—was supported by a small but capable number of logistics specialists. Ordnance staff embedded within allied supply chains, managing stores, issuing ammunition, and repairing equipment under the demanding conditions of the Korean Peninsula’s harsh winters and mountainous terrain.
During the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960) and the subsequent Indonesian Confrontation (1962–1966), New Zealand troops operated in dense jungle environments that tested their combat and logistics capabilities. Ordnance soldiers were seconded as individuals to the New Zealand Battalion or British units, where they maintained supply lines through monsoon rains, oppressive humidity, and remote jungle bases. Their tasks ranged from maintaining small arms and issuing jungle kit to managing the complex movement of stores between staging areas and patrol bases—a vital function in an environment where regular resupply was challenging and sometimes depended on airdrops or riverine transport.
Although New Zealand did not deploy a complete Ordnance unit in Vietnam, RNZAOC personnel were seconded individually to Australian and United States forces. These included roles such as supply officers, ammunition controllers, and non-commissioned officers (NCOS) stationed at key logistics hubs like Nui Dat and Vung Tau. Working in a high-tempo combat zone, they handled everything from weapons and clothing to fuel, spare parts, and ammunition—often under the threat of enemy attack. The complexity of the Vietnam conflict demanded rapid response times, adaptability, and technical proficiency, all of which the Ordnance soldiers delivered in spades.
Beyond direct deployments, Ordnance personnel were also deeply involved in supporting the considerable effort required to sustain a deployable division maintained under New Zealand’s national service and conscription scheme during the Cold War. This mobilisation model meant that the RNZAOC was responsible for equipping, maintaining, and provisioning a standing force-in-being that could be rapidly expanded in times of crisis. Warehouses and mobilisation stores across the country were stocked with weapons, webbing, clothing, communications equipment, and general supplies—ready to be issued to citizen-soldiers if called upon. The planning, accounting, and logistical foresight required to maintain this latent capability were immense, and it stood as a testament to the professionalism of the Corps.
Across these theatres and responsibilities, Ordnance personnel served in austere and unpredictable environments. Whether embedded with an allied supply unit in the jungle or managing stockpiles for national mobilisation, they maintained the flow of materiel that kept New Zealand’s military effort credible and ready. Though they rarely received public recognition, their contribution was the vital connective tissue that made readiness a reality.
Peacekeeping and Modern Missions: From Mogadishu to the Pacific
In the late 20th century, as New Zealand’s defence priorities shifted toward peacekeeping and international humanitarian support, Ordnance soldiers once again rose to meet the challenge—this time under the flag of the United Nations. The 1992 deployment to Somalia marked a pivotal moment in New Zealand’s operational history and the modern evolution of the RNZAOC. In response to a deteriorating humanitarian crisis fuelled by civil war and famine, the UN launched a multinational intervention to secure aid routes and stabilise the region. New Zealand’s initial contribution to this effort—the New Zealand Supply Detachment—consisted primarily of 28 RNZAOC personnel, marking the first time in decades that an Ordnance-led contingent was deployed operationally in its own right.
Arriving in Mogadishu in December 1992 as part of the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), the detachment was tasked with establishing a functioning logistics capability in a highly hostile and volatile environment. Somalia’s capital had no functioning government, no stable infrastructure, and was riddled with armed factions. Despite the risks, the RNZAOC personnel immediately began establishing supply chains, securing local procurement channels, and distributing food, water, and stores to support the broader UN mission. They set up New Zealand’s main camp at the now well-known base called “Taniwha Hill,” which would symbolise Kiwi resilience amid chaos.
New Zealand soldiers leave their camp to conduct a patrol. NZDF Offical
Working out of hastily converted shipping containers and tents in the sweltering heat, the team operated under constant threat of gunfire, looting, and militia activity. Despite the mission’s peacekeeping label, it quickly became apparent that they were operating in a conflict zone. Convoys were escorted, personal weapons were always carried, and supply runs often meant travelling at high speed through hostile streets to avoid ambush. One RNZAOC NCO recalled travelling with a rifle propped between his knees, ready to return fire if necessary—a stark contrast to the logistics roles typically performed at home.
As the situation deteriorated, a second and larger contingent of 43 logistics personnel (including reinforcements from the RNZAOC and other corps) deployed in 1993 as the New Zealand Supply Platoon. This platoon was accompanied by an infantry protection element from 1 RNZIR, marking New Zealand’s first combat deployment of infantry since the Vietnam War. This reinforced the seriousness of the mission and highlighted the increasing danger and the blurred lines between combat and combat service support. Operating as an integrated platoon, the team performed with professionalism and efficiency, earning the respect of allied forces for their adaptability, calm under pressure, and ability to keep essential supplies flowing under fire.
The New Zealanders remained through some of the mission’s most violent episodes, including the events surrounding the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident in October 1993. Positioned nearby, the RNZAOC soldiers bore witness to the heavy fighting yet carried on their duties with unwavering determination. When many international contingents began withdrawing, the New Zealand logistics team continued to operate until mid-1994, one of the last Western elements to depart the theatre.
The Somalia deployment reaffirmed the modern Ordnance soldier’s place at the heart of New Zealand’s deployable military capability. It demonstrated that RNZAOC personnel were not only logisticians, but also frontline enablers—capable of operating in fluid, high-risk environments and delivering under extreme pressure. “Taniwha Hill,” New Zealand’s base in Mogadishu, was regularly subjected to gunfire and mortar attacks, and Kiwis operated in volatile zones with little margin for error. Yet the RNZAOC platoon carried out their duties with quiet professionalism and resolve, ensuring UN and coalition forces remained supplied and mission capable.
This ongoing legacy of service continues under a new banner. In 1996, the RNZAOC was formally disestablished as part of an Army logistics reorganisation. Its personnel, functions, and traditions were integrated into the newly formed RNZALR, uniting the RNZAOC, RNZCT, RNZEME, and Quartermaster staff into a single, cohesive regimental structure. This transformation ensured that the enduring values and capabilities of the Ordnance Corps would carry forward into a modern, agile logistics force aligned with contemporary operational requirements.
Since then, RNZALR Logistic Specialists and Ammunition Technicians have continued to support peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in theatres such as Bosnia, the Sinai, East Timor, and Afghanistan. During the East Timor operation (1999–2002), logistics units played a crucial role in sustaining one of New Zealand’s largest overseas deployments since the Korean War. Their work—whether managing supply convoys, setting up field depots, or coordinating humanitarian assistance—underscored the critical importance of logistics as an enabler and a key factor in mission success.
Domestically, RNZALR Logistics personnel have remained indispensable. From supporting civil defence during the Canterbury earthquakes to managing logistics and providing personnel to support Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and maintaining daily sustainment across Defence camps and bases, they remain central to New Zealand’s readiness and resilience. In every setting, whether at home or abroad, the legacy of the Ordnance soldier lives on through the actions and professionalism of the RNZALR.
Roll of Honour: Service Remembered, Sacrifice Recognised
The story of the Ordnance Corps is also one of loss. The New Zealand Ordnance Roll of Honour lists 63 names of those who died while serving in our logistics and stores organisations—from the Defence Stores Department of 1862 to the RNZAOC’s integration into the RNZALR in 1996. Among them:
Captain Sam Anderson (1899), Defence Storekeeper
Captain Arthur Duvall (1919), New Zealand Army Ordnance Department
Temporary Major William Knox (1941), Divisional Ordnance Field Park, North Africa
Private Russell John Casey (1994), 1 Logistic Regiment, RNZAOC
Each of these individuals—and the many others on the Roll—represents a life dedicated to service, often given in conditions far from home and with little fanfare.
Remembrance and Honour
Each ANZAC Day, we renew our vow: “We will remember them.” In remembering, we broaden our gaze to include those who served without seeking recognition—those who issued the boots, drove the convoys, repaired the radios, and ensured that the warriors had their arms.
The Ordnance Corps soldiers were not mere auxiliaries but the enablers of victory, the sustainers of peace, and the standard-bearers of discipline and duty. Their legacy is not just one of historical interest, but a living ethos that endures in the RNZALR.
As the Last Post echoes and the nation falls silent, let us remember the battles won and the thousands of acts behind the lines that made those victories possible. The story of the Ordnance soldier is one of dedication, innovation, and unheralded bravery.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning— We will remember them. Lest we forget.
The evolution of New Zealand Army stores accounting from 1845 to 1963 reflects the broader transformation of the nation’s military logistics from its colonial origins to a modern, structured system. This study is not a deep dive into the intricate details and complexities of New Zealand military stores accounting but rather an introductory overview of a system that has incrementally evolved over 180 years.
Initially modelled on British military accounting principles, New Zealand’s unique defence requirements—shaped by its geographical isolation, force structure, and operational demands—necessitated continuous refinement. Accounting practices have continuously evolved since the first musket was issued to the militia in 1845. However, it wasn’t until The Public Stores Act of 1867 that structured inventory control and accountability measures were formally introduced. This legislation laid the foundation for military store accounting, marking a significant step towards the professionalisation of the Defence Stores Department. These measures ensured crucial oversight and efficiency in military logistics, particularly highlighted by the demands of the South African War and the two World Wars, underscoring the need for a robust and adaptable system capable of sustaining large-scale military operations.
By the mid-20th century, New Zealand had developed a sophisticated store accounting framework. The introduction of NZP1: Volume I—Stores Accounting in 1951 marked a milestone, formalising the policy regulating the army’s store management. The subsequent 1962 revision further streamlined procedures, ensuring the system remained relevant amid evolving logistical complexities.
New Zealand’s innovations in stores accounting did not go unnoticed. In 1963, the Australian Army sought guidance from New Zealand to modernise its system, acknowledging the effectiveness of the NZ Army’s approach. This recognition underscored New Zealand’s competence in military logistics, demonstrating that despite its smaller size, its expertise had broader strategic significance.
Structure of this Study
Part One will examine the period from 1845 to 1918, tracing the evolution of New Zealand’s military stores accounting system from its British colonial origins to a structured, modern framework comparable to those of New Zealand’s allies by 1914. The demands of the First World War tested the system’s efficiency and resilience, exposing strengths and weaknesses that would shape post-war reforms.
Part Two will cover the period from 1918 to 1945, during which the lessons learned from the First World War were applied to improve inventory control, procurement efficiency, and financial oversight. Economic constraints of the interwar years prompted refinements to stores accounting, leading to the introduction of cost accounting in 1921 and the formalisation of logistical procedures in 1927. The rapid mobilisation for the Second World War tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, accelerating the adoption of modernised inventory tracking and decentralised supply chain management. By 1945, these wartime adaptations had laid the foundation for a more sophisticated and accountable military logistics system.
Part Three will examine the period from 1946 to 1963, focusing on the transition from wartime supply chains to a peacetime military logistics infrastructure. The post-war period saw efforts to streamline surplus disposal, re-establish long-term procurement strategies, and integrate emerging technologies into stores accounting. By 1963, the system had matured into a mature manual store accounting framework, ensuring greater efficiency, accountability, and interoperability.
Military Stores Accounting and Its Distinctions from Commercial Stores Accounting
The primary goal of military stores accounting is to ensure that soldiers on the frontlines, tradesmen in workshops, and medical staff in field hospitals have the necessary tools and equipment to carry out their duties effectively. This involves managing administrative burdens through the command and supply chains and ensuring all required controls are in place for the long-term sustainment and capability maintenance.
Military stores accounting is a specialised system designed to manage and track the acquisition, storage, distribution, and disposal of military supplies. Unlike commercial stores accounting, which primarily focuses on cost control and financial profitability, military stores accounting prioritises accountability, operational readiness, and the efficient utilisation of resources to meet operational outputs.[1]
Differences Between Military and Commercial Stores Accounting
Feature
Military Stores Accounting
Commercial Stores Accounting
Objective
Ensuring operational readiness and accountability
Maximising profit and minimising costs
Nature of Inventory
Includes depreciable assets, expendable, consumable, repairable, and non-expendable items
Primarily consumable and depreciable assets
Accounting System
Uses strict regulatory frameworks and controlled issue systems
Focuses on balance sheets and profit margins
Lifespan of Items
Items can remain in service for decades with periodic refurbishment
Items are typically depreciated and replaced
Valuation
Based on operational utility rather than market price
Based on market valuation and depreciation
Security and Control
Strict control due to security concerns
Less stringent control mechanisms
Classification of Military Stores
Military stores are classified into several categories based on their usage, longevity, and maintenance requirements:
Expendable Stores – Items that are used once and cannot be reused (e.g., ammunition, medical supplies, fuel). These are issued as required and accounted for under strict consumption controls.
Consumable Stores – Items that are used over time and require replenishment (e.g., rations, lubricants, batteries). While they are used up gradually, they still require accountability and stock rotation.
Repairable Stores – High-value equipment that, when damaged or worn, can be repaired and reissued rather than disposed of (e.g., weapons, radios, vehicles). These items are often tracked using maintenance logs and servicing records to maximise their lifespan.
Non-Expendable Stores – Permanent assets that remain in service for extended periods (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, large-calibre weapons). These items require detailed asset management and condition assessments.
The Long-Term Use of Military Equipment
Unlike commercial organisations, where items are often replaced once they end their economic life, military assets— from clothing to high-value or technologically complex equipment—are maintained, refurbished, and upgraded to extend their service life. For example:
Small Arms: Some rifles and sidearms remain in service for decades through regular maintenance and upgrades.
Vehicles: Military transport vehicles, such as trucks and armoured vehicles, can be refurbished multiple times before decommissioning.
Aircraft and Naval Assets: Large defence assets, including ships and aircraft, are often modernised with new technology and systems rather than being replaced outright.
Uniforms and Gear: Certain clothing items and equipment are subject to phased replacement cycles, where only components are updated as needed.
The Importance of Accountability in Military Stores Accounting
Military regulations are always subservient to Government legislation and regulations, especially Treasury rules regarding the expenditure of public monies. Military stores accounting is not a single system, but a collection of specialised accounting frameworks developed to manage different commodities such as ammunition, rations, fuel, vehicles, and technical spares. As military technology has advanced, these systems have evolved parallel to meet modern armed forces’ complex logistical demands.
Accountability is central to military stores accounting, ensuring that every piece of issued equipment is tracked to guarantee:
Proper usage and maintenance,
Prevention of loss or theft,
Compliance with operational requirements,
Efficient resource allocation during deployments.
Military store personnel are responsible for maintaining detailed records, conducting audits, and ensuring strict adherence to regulations. These rigorous accounting and inventory control measures ensure that military resources remain available and serviceable when required. Beyond merely tracking financial transactions, military stores accounting is a critical function that underpins military operations’ effectiveness, security, and sustainability.
Early Developments in Stores Accounting
From 1845, Quartermaster staff managing militia stores and then Volunteer stores from 1858 followed British military procedures. The Defence Stores were formally established in 1862, predating Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton’s appointment as Inspector of Defence Stores in 1869. Although Gorton assumed leadership in 1869, the Defence Stores had already been functioning, supporting the colonial military effort.[2]
Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton
The 1867 Public Stores Act, implemented under Gorton’s administration, introduced structured accounting procedures.[3] The Defence Stores Department issued circulars and administrative guidelines to ensure proper accountability and management of military supplies. Gorton’s rigorous approach laid the foundation for the 1871 Public Stores Act, which regulated government-wide stores management and standardised accounting practices.[4]
1870-ammunition-stocktake
Despite Gorton’s achievements in strengthening accountability, his strict enforcement and meticulous oversight drew criticism, leading to the abolition of the Stores Inspection Department in 1877.[5] However, his Defence Stores procedures remained robust, and a culture od accountability was established within Defence Stores. Thirty years later, Colonel George Macaulay Kirkpatrick of General Kitchener’s staff validated them in 1910, finding them comparable to British military standards.
Stores records were maintained by a system of indents and vouchers, with balances maintained in ledger books. The Defence Stores were required to provide annual reports of stocks on an annual basis, ensuring accountability and transparency in military logistics. These practices laid the foundation for the modern systematic inventory control and efficient stores management.
Example of a Ledger book
Development of the Artillery Stores (1880s Onwards)
As New Zealand expanded its Garrison Artillery and introduced new guns, equipment, and ammunition, additional accounting and management procedures became necessary. This was beyond the scope of the existing Defence Stores Department, requiring the expertise of military professionals.
In conjunction with Defence Storekeeper Captain Sam Anderson, Sergeant Major Robert George Vinning Parker, formerly of the Royal Garrison Artillery, developed a system of Artillery Stores Accounting. Parker was in charge of artillery ledgers and stores at Auckland, Wellington, and Lyttelton, ensuring the proper tracking and maintenance of artillery supplies. He continued in this role until 1889 when he was reassigned to Dunedin.[6]
Replacing Parker as the Artillery Ledger Keeper was Regimental Sergeant Major and Instructor in Gunnery Frederick Silver. Silver’s expertise in artillery logistics positioned him as a key figure in the continued refinement of artillery accounting systems. Following the death of Captain Sam Anderson in December 1899, Silver applied for the role of Ledger Keeper in the Defence Stores. Given his extensive experience and close working relationship with Anderson, Silver believed he was the ideal candidate.[7] However, due to his seniority, James O’Sullivan, the Chief Clerk of the Defence Stores, was awarded the role of Defence Storekeeper.[8]
Despite this, Silver was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Defence Stores, transitioning from the Permanent Militia on 25 June 1900. While his new role introduced additional responsibilities, Silver managed Artillery Ledgers seamlessly within the Defence Stores framework.[9]
The relationship between the Defence Stores and the Artillery was cooperative, with both functions operating as a single organisation. The Defence Stores was crucial in supporting the artillery’s logistical needs, ensuring that munitions, equipment, and essential supplies were readily available. The interconnected nature of these two functions allowed for a streamlined approach to military logistics, where artillery-specific requirements were integrated within the broader supply framework managed by the Defence Stores.
This integration led to an efficient system that balanced military necessity with stringent logistical oversight.
Organisational Reforms and the Defence Council (1906)
With the passage of the Defence Act Amendment Act 1906 on 28 October 1906, the Defence Council was established, providing the New Zealand Military Forces with a structured headquarters for the first time. The Act introduced specific staff functions, including:
Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance): Responsible for artillery armament, fixed coastal defences, and ordnance supplies.
Director of Stores: Responsible for clothing, personal equipment, accoutrements, saddlery, harnesses, small arms, ammunition, machine guns, transport, vehicles, camp equipment, and all stores required for the Defence Forces.[10]
As part of this reform, James O’Sullivan was confirmed as Director of Stores for New Zealand and appointed Quartermaster and Honorary Captain in the New Zealand Militia. Silver was designated as Assistant Defence Storekeeper, continuing to oversee Artillery Ledgers, which—despite falling under the purview of the Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance)—remained under Defence Stores control.
Despite these improvements, officers and Quartermaster staff in volunteer units were still elected annually, leading to inconsistency in stores management. Many units functioned more like social clubs than military organisations, resulting in disorganised stores accounts. This led to frequent discrepancies between supplies provided by the Crown and actual inventory.
The continued reliance on part-time and volunteer Quartermasters highlighted the need for further professionalisation of the quartermaster within the New Zealand Military, a challenge that would persist as the New Zealand Military transitioned into the modern era.
The Defence Act 1909 and the Transition to a Citizen Army
The Defence Act 1909 marked a significant transformation in New Zealand’s military organisation, laying the groundwork for a citizen-based Territorial Army and ending the Volunteer System.[11] This fundamental shift required extensive adjustments within the Defence Stores Department to support the expanding force structure.
For O’Sullivan, Silver, and the Defence Stores Department, the challenge was to continue modernising stores and logistics to meet the demands of a rapidly growing army. As the Territorial Force expanded, so did the logistical requirements, necessitating a more structured and professional approach to store management.
On 1 June 1910, Silver’s position was redesignated as Assistant Director of Military Stores, and he was appointed a Quartermaster with the rank of Honorary Lieutenant in the New Zealand Militia. His expertise and leadership played a crucial role in ensuring the Defence Stores Department could support the evolving needs of the New Zealand Military.
Guidance on the duties related to the management of stores
In 1910, Lord Kitchener, renowned as “The Empire’s foremost soldier,” visited New Zealand and thoroughly reviewed its military forces.[12] His assessment led to significant reforms within the NZ Military, including establishing the New Zealand Staff Corps (NZSC) and the New Zealand Permanent Staff (NZPS) in 1911. These changes aimed to create a professional cadre of officers (NZSC) and enlisted personnel (NZPS) capable of providing expert guidance and efficient administration to the Territorial Force units.
Lord Kitchener’s visit critically evaluated the military’s capabilities, revealing deficiencies in equipment care, maintenance, and overall responsibility. The existing Regimental Quartermaster Sergeants (RQMS) lacked the necessary skills, underscoring the need for a professional RQMS cadre.
The Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand, which came into effect on 5 May 1911, established the command and administrative structure of the Forces.
The overall responsibility for military stores and equipment was placed under the Commandant of the Forces, with specific duties delegated to key officers and commanders at various levels.
Senior Officers Responsible for Stores and Equipment
Quartermaster General
Managed mobilisation stores, including policies on reserves of clothing, equipment, and general stores.
Determined scales of clothing, equipment, and stores needed for troops.
Oversaw mobilisation arrangements for food, forage, clothing, stores, and equipment.
Director of Supplies and Transport
Managed the supply of food, forage, fuel, and lighting.
Responsible for Army Service Corps technical equipment.
Director of Equipment and Stores
Oversaw clothing, equipment, and general stores.
Managed supplies of stationery, forms, and books.
Provided vehicles and technical equipment, except those for Artillery and Engineers.
Supervised the storage and distribution of small arms and ammunition.
Director of Ordnance and Artillery
Established reserve scales for arms, ammunition, and technical equipment for Artillery and Engineer units.
Managed the provision and inspection of guns, small arms, and ammunition.
Oversaw machine guns, Artillery and Engineer vehicles, and technical stores.
Director of Medical Services
Provided advice on and inspected all medical equipment to ensure it met operational standards.
Director of Veterinary Services
Provided expert advice on veterinary stores and equipment.
District and Unit Responsibilities
At a regional level, Commanders of Districts were responsible for maintaining the efficiency of forts and armaments, including all associated buildings, works, stores, and equipment. They also played a key role in ensuring financial prudence by overseeing officers responsible for spending and stores management.
At the unit level, the Commanding Officer had a broad set of responsibilities, including:
Maintaining discipline, efficiency, and proper administrative systems within the unit.
Ensuring accountability for public equipment, clothing, and stores.
Overseeing the maintenance and cleanliness of all issued arms.
Managing the proper receipt and distribution of rations and fuel.
Ensuring daily ration inspections were conducted in the presence of an officer.
Other Regimental Officers, such as Company Commanders, even those in temporary appointments, were also responsible for:
The equipment, ammunition, clothing, and stores assigned to their company.
Ensuring soldiers maintained personal cleanliness and proper care of their uniforms, arms, and accoutrements.
Supervising the quality and adequacy of rations provided to troops.
Finally, the 1911 Regulations clearly stated that any officer or individual responsible for public stores was strictly forbidden from lending any article under their charge unless expressly sanctioned by their Commanding Officer (CO). This regulation reinforced strict accountability and control over military stores, ensuring that all equipment, clothing, and supplies were used solely for authorised military purposes. [13]
To maintain proper accountability and management of military stores, Defence Stores personnel and unit Quartermasters followed detailed policies and procedures outlined in official publications, including:
Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand
Financial Instructions and Allowances Regulations for NZ Military Forces
Regulations for Clothing and Equipment of NZ Military Forces
NZ Dress Regulations
Prices Vocabulary of Stores
NZ Mobilisation Regulations
Additional guidance was also found in operational reference materials, such as:
Field Service Regulations
Training Manuals
Field Service Pocket Books
The responsibilities established in 1911 laid the foundation for the structured management of military stores, setting a precedent for all future stores accounting procedures. These early frameworks ensured accountability, efficiency, and operational readiness, embedding core logistical principles underpinning military supply chain management today. While titles and organisational structures have evolved, the fundamental tenets of logistical oversight, resource management, and financial accountability have remained steadfast. Successive iterations of Defence Orders, regulations, and policies have refined and expanded these responsibilities, ensuring their continued relevance and adaptability to the evolving operational and strategic needs of the New Zealand Defence Force in the modern era.
Standardising Stores Management and Training
In November 1911, thirty young men from military districts attended an intensive three-week training course at the Defence Stores Department in Wellington to address this. This comprehensive training, overseen by O’Sullivan, included:
Weapon storage, inspection, maintenance, and accounting
Storage, inspection, and maintenance of leather items (e.g., saddlery and harnesses)
Storage and upkeep of canvas and fabric equipment
Packing procedures for stores
Maintenance of records and documentation
The candidates successfully passed the examinations and were appointed as RQMS under General Order 112/10. Notably, this was the first military trade-related stores course conducted in New Zealand.
“Staff of the Quarter-master General—men who passed as Quarter-master instructors and are being drafted to the various districts, Colourised by Rairty Colour
To ensure consistency across districts, a conference of District Storekeepers was held in Wellington in August 1913. O’Sullivan noted their dedication to maintaining accountability for government property, highlighting their investment in their work.
Historically, annual military camps were managed ad hoc with inconsistent equipment scales. With the establishment of the Territorial Army, the Defence Stores Department introduced standardised camp equipment requirements in 1913.
To streamline supply chain management, temporary Ordnance Depots were established at brigade camps in 1913. Personnel received training under the Director of Equipment and Stores, and roles were assigned as follows:
Ordnance Officer: District Storekeeper Auckland (Lieutenant Beck)
Two clerks
Four issuers
Following the success of the 1913 camps, the system was expanded in 1914, with each regional storekeeper acting as an Ordnance Officer and staff numbers increasing to six clerks and twelve issuers.
Takapau Divisional Camp, 1914. Te Papa (1362454)
Strategic Assessment, Preparedness and Mobilisation
In early 1914, General Sir Ian Hamilton inspected New Zealand’s forces, assessing approximately 70% of personnel. He noted that the Territorial Force was “well-equipped and well-armed” but recommended looking to Australian models for future Ordnance development. O’Sullivan’s annual report for 1914 confirmed that the Defence Stores Department was in a strong position, with ample stocks of small arms, ammunition, clothing, and web equipment.
The 1914 mobilisation was the first test of the reorganised and reequipped New Zealand military forces since the South African War. The challenge was immense: raising, equipping, and dispatching an expeditionary force while maintaining the coastal defence garrisons and the Territorial Army for homeland security. O’Sullivan’s Defence Stores supported this effort, which, under his leadership, played a crucial role in successfully mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF).
The groundwork for the NZEF was laid in March 1914 when General Alexander Godley issued mobilisation regulations, adapted from British Army directives, to guide the formation of an expeditionary force. New Zealand’s commitment to supporting Britain in the event of war had been reinforced at the 1907 and 1911 Imperial Conferences, yet it was only in 1912 that Godley, confident in the growth of the Territorial Army, shifted focus to preparing for an overseas force.
As part of this preparation, Godley identified three likely tasks for the NZEF:
Seizure of German Pacific possessions.
Deployment to protect Egypt from a Turkish attack.
Fighting in Europe alongside British forces.
By mid-1914, New Zealand’s military reorganisation was three years into an estimated seven-year process.
Although at full operational strength, confidence in the military’s preparedness was high. Annual training camps had been completed, and unit stores had been restocked. A major stocktake was planned for August 1914—marking the first such effort in two years, as the 1913 stocktake had been postponed due to industrial strikes.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 set off a chain of events leading to war. On 30 July, Defence Headquarters instructed District Headquarters to begin precautionary war preparations. By 1 August, partial mobilisation schemes were underway, and further instructions on the composition of the NZEF followed on 2 August.
Each military district contributed a fully equipped infantry battalion, a mounted rifle regiment, artillery, engineers, and medical subunits. These units were to be drawn from the permanent forces, Territorial Force, and reserves. District Storekeepers supported by unit Quartermasters were critical in equipping these units with stores drawn from existing regiments and regional mobilisation depots.
On 3 August, Quartermaster General (QMG) Colonel Alfred William Robin issued detailed instructions regarding individual equipment. Territorial soldiers were to report with their complete kit, while reservists would collect theirs from their regiments. Quartermaster staff were given guidance on recording the transfer of equipment in regimental ledgers.
With war declared, New Zealand’s government announced on 7 August that an Expeditionary Force of 7,000–8,000 men would be mobilised. The response was overwhelming, with thousands of volunteers rushing to enlist. Having had several days’ notice, District Headquarters swiftly implemented mobilisation plans.
Godley’s assumption that the NZEF’s first task would be the seizure of German Pacific territories was proven correct. By 11 August, the New Zealand force for German Samoa—comprising 1,413 personnel—was fully equipped by the Defence Stores and ready for deployment. Additional stores were assembled at Wellington’s wharf for embarkation. The force landed on 29 August, securing Samoa without resistance.
Meanwhile, mobilisation camps were established across New Zealand:
Auckland (Alexandra Park) – District Storekeeper Captain William Thomas Beck set up a mobilisation store, assisted by Sergeant Norman Joseph Levien.
Christchurch (Addington Park) – Captain Arthur Rumbold Carter White managed the Canterbury District mobilisation store.
Dunedin (Tahuna Park) – Captain Owen Paul McGuigan handled equipping recruits, many of whom had no prior military training.
Wellington (Awapuni Racecourse) – The Defence Stores in Wellington directly supported the mobilisation effort.
As the central hub for Defence Stores, Wellington managed the receipt and distribution of equipment nationwide. Public appeals were made for short-supply items like binoculars and compasses. On 14 August, approval was granted for each soldier to receive a second pair of boots—typically, the second pair had to be purchased at a reduced rate.
Mobilisation was not simply a matter of sending troops overseas; it also involved ensuring the ongoing reinforcement of the NZEF and maintaining the Territorial Army at home. Planning for NZEF reinforcements commenced alongside the main mobilisation effort to sustain the force in the field. It was determined that 20% reinforcements would be provided six weeks after the NZEF’s departure, with a further 5% arriving monthly thereafter.
Trentham Camp was selected as the primary training and equipping centre for reinforcement drafts, where the Camp Quartermaster Stores, under Lieutenant (Temporary Captain) Thomas McCristell, played a critical role in ensuring personnel were properly outfitted before deployment. The scale of this task was immense, with store personnel working late into the night to issue uniforms and equipment to the steady stream of reinforcements. While the focus remained on sustaining the NZEF, efforts were also required to maintain the Territorial Army at home, ensuring a trained force remained available for local defence and future deployments. Mobilisation was not a single event but a continuous process that demanded careful logistical planning and execution to sustain the war effort.
Beyond issuing equipment, the Camp Quartermaster Stores also served as a training ground for new Quartermasters destined for overseas service. Selected candidates underwent instruction in key logistical functions, including clothing and equipping troops, managing camp equipment, organising ammunition supplies, and overseeing water distribution and field kitchen setup. This training ensured that reinforcements were well-equipped and supported by skilled personnel capable of sustaining operations in the field.
By September 1914, the Defence Stores had successfully equipped the NZEF. On 24 September, General Godley thanked the Defence Stores staff for their efforts, acknowledging their crucial role in the mobilisation process. However, controversy soon followed.
On 26 October, after ten days at sea, Godley sent a note to Minister of Defence Colonel James Allen, alleging irregularities in Defence Stores operations and implying that O’Sullivan and his staff might be engaging in misappropriation. Despite recognising O’Sullivan’s significant contributions, Godley recommended auditing the Defence Stores’ accounting systems. This unfounded allegation ultimately led to O’Sullivan’s resignation, overshadowing the department’s achievements in successfully mobilising and equipping both the Samoa Expeditionary Force and the NZEF.
New Zealand’s largest military deployment to date placed immense logistical demands on the Defence Stores. The department leveraged pre-war procurement contracts while employing competitive tendering to secure uniforms, equipment, and supplies. This approach facilitated rapid expansion, with Buckle Street in Wellington emerging as a key logistical hub. However, the sheer volume of supplies soon exceeded capacity, necessitating the leasing of commercial storage facilities beyond the department’s central depots in Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin.
As military activity intensified, the establishment of the Palmerston North District Store in early 1915 significantly enhanced logistical capabilities, particularly for units stationed in the lower North Island. This expansion underscored the growing need for decentralised supply operations, improving the efficiency of equipment distribution.
The rapid wartime expansion placed immense strain on both personnel and logistics. Despite increasing responsibilities, the department received only minimal increases in permanent staff, forcing heavy reliance on temporary workers to meet operational demands.
As the war progressed, concerns over procurement methods and accounting procedures led to mounting external scrutiny. In 1915, a Commission of Inquiry was launched to examine the Defence Stores’ business practices, financial controls, and purchasing procedures. While the Commission found no evidence of misconduct, it recommended procedural improvements to enhance transparency and efficiency. In response, the government established the Ministry of Munitions, which took over procurement and supply chain management, streamlining logistical operations..
Supporting the NZEF (1915–1921)
The New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) formed its own New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) in 1915, recognising the need for a more structured military logistics system. This corps provided dedicated logistical support for the NZEF and residual units until 1921. This development was critical as the demands of modern warfare required a more organised and professional approach to supply chain management, equipment maintenance, and ordnance distribution.
Initially, the NZEF relied heavily on British supply lines and logistical structures, with Quartermasters embedded within units managing day-to-day supply requirements. However, as operations expanded and the need for self-sufficiency grew, the establishment of the NZAOC provided a more formal system of procurement, storage, distribution, and maintenance of military stores. The Centre of mass for the NZAOC within the New Zealand Division was the Assistant Director of Ordnance Stores (DADOS) and his staff, who operated in concert with regimental quartermasters, who remained responsible for issuing and maintaining personal and unit equipment at the frontline.
Quartermasters played a pivotal role in ensuring that troops were properly equipped, fed, and clothed and worked closely with the NZAOC to ensure seamless logistical support across different theatres of war, from Gallipoli to the Western Front and the Middle East.
By 1918, the NZAOC had become a critical component of the NZEF’s supply chain, with depots in the UK and the DADOS operating dumps in key operational areas. As the war concluded, the Corps played a crucial role in the demobilisation process, managing the return of surplus equipment, disposal of unserviceable stores, and redistributing serviceable assets to remaining military units and government departments.
The NZAOC continued to support New Zealand’s post-war military commitments until 1921. The lessons learned during the Great War laid the foundation for future developments in ordnance and supply management, shaping the logistics framework of the post-war army.
The role of Quartermasters and the NZAOC in supporting the NZEF between 1915 and 1921 was instrumental in ensuring that New Zealand troops remained equipped and operationally effective throughout the war. Their contributions sustained the force in combat and established enduring logistical principles that continued influencing military store management in the following decades.
Home Service Stores Accounting
On the home front, military authorities pushed for the complete militarisation of stores accounting, aiming to align New Zealand’s system with British Army Ordnance practices. This led to a significant leadership change in 1916, with Major Thomas McCristell replacing James O’Sullivan as Director of Equipment and Stores. Under McCristell’s leadership, the department underwent a comprehensive reorganisation, transitioning into a formal military structure.
By 1 February 1917, the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department (NZAOD) and NZAOC were officially established, replacing the Defence Stores Department. This milestone ended 48 years of civilian-led military logistics, marking a shift towards a fully integrated, military-controlled Ordnance service.
Concurrent with the establishment of the Home Service NZAOC, formal Ordnance Procedures were published, and the Regulations for the Equipment of the New Zealand Military were updated. These replaced all previous instructions and formed the foundation for New Zealand’s modern military logistics system.
Conclusion: Towards a Modern Military Stores Accounting System
The period from 1845 to 1918 laid the foundational principles of New Zealand Army stores accounting, evolving from ad hoc militia supply practices to a structured, professional system aligned with British military standards. Early efforts, such as the 1867 Public Stores Act and the establishment of the Defence Stores Department, introduced much-needed oversight and accountability, ensuring military forces were adequately equipped for colonial conflicts and later global engagements.
The early 20th century saw increasing refinement in stores management, with greater formalisation under the Defence Act 1909, the creation of a structured supply organisation, and the introduction of rigorous accounting and inventory control measures. The mobilisation for World War I tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, demonstrating their strengths and the need for further development. The establishment of the NZEF NZAOC in 1915 and the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department and Corps in 1917 signified a pivotal transformation, shifting military logistics from civilian oversight to a dedicated military-run system. The experiences of World War I reinforced the importance of accurate, efficient, and adaptable stores accounting systems, setting the stage for continued evolution in the interwar and post-World War II periods. The next part of this study, New Zealand Army Stores Accounting: 1919–1945, will examine how the lessons learned from wartime operations influenced peacetime logistics, the modernisation of accounting frameworks, and the growing role of technology and centralised control in military supply chain management.
Notes
[1] Australian Defence Force, “Logistics Series – Supply,” Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 4.3 (2004): 1.1-1.16.
[4]“The Public Stores Act 1871,” ed. General Assembly of New Zealand (Wellington, 1871).;”Lieut-Colonel Edward Gorton,” New Zealand Gazette, Issue 1, 26 January 1872, 619.
[11] Peter Cooke and John Crawford, The Territorials (Wellington: Random House New Zealand Ltd, 2011), 153.
[12] Paul William Gladstone Ian McGibbon, The Oxford companion to New Zealand Military History (Auckland; Melbourne; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2000), 369.
[13] “Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand “, New Zealand Gazette 5 May 1911.;
“If you were an army cook on leave and met some of the troops accompanied by their girlfriends, wives or mothers, which would you rather hear them say: “There’s the chap who turns out the great meals I’ve told you about”; or, “That’s the bloke who murders good food?”
Question placed to trainee cooks by Sergeant-Cook Instructor Bourke (Paddy to all the camp) at Waikato Camp, 1942
Over the last two hundred years, the adage attributed to Napoleon, “An army marches on its stomach,” underscored the paramount importance of sustenance in military operations. In the annals of the New Zealand army, this principle has been diligently upheld, with meticulous attention paid to ensuring soldiers are well-fed, notwithstanding the challenges posed by varying locations and conditions. Establishing the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) units during the tumultuous periods of the First and Second World Wars is a testament to this commitment. NZASC units were principally charged with baking bread, butchering meat, and procuring and distributing fresh and packaged provisions to frontline units, playing a pivotal role in sustaining the morale and effectiveness of New Zealand forces during these conflicts. Even in more recent conflicts, such as those in Southeast Asia during the 1950s and 60s, New Zealand troops operated on ration scales notably more generous than their British counterparts, a testament to the nation’s dedication to the well-being of its service members. However, despite the recognition of logistical efforts in military history, a notable gap remains in the literature concerning the contributions of New Zealand Army cooks. While Julia Millen’s comprehensive work, Salute to Service: A History of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport, acknowledges the significance of Cooks from when they became part of the RNZASC in 1948, scant attention has been paid to the preceding 103 years, from 1865 to 1948.
This article draws upon primary sources and aims to redress this oversight by delving into the hitherto unexplored realm of New Zealand Army catering. By shedding light on the endeavours of these unsung culinary heroes, it seeks to enrich our understanding of the multifaceted efforts required to sustain a fighting force, thereby honouring their indispensable contributions to New Zealand’s military heritage.
Since the first New Zealand Militias were created in 1845, there was always a need to feed the militias when called out for service. Given the nature of Militia service and the fact that they would not serve far from their home location, their messing requirements would have been minimal. Some individuals would likely have been selected from within the ranks to collect any rations provided and prepare meals.
With the advent of the volunteer era in 1858, the New Zealand military became a mixed force of Infantry, Cavalry and artillery who, on occasion, would assemble for annual camps where units within a district would assemble and conduct combined training. While rations were paid through District Headquarters and Defence Stores, messing arrangements would be rudimentary, with men selected from within the ranks preparing the meals from the rations sourced from local vendors. This situation was mirrored in the Permanent Militia, which had staffed coastal defence forts and the military depot at Mount Cook in Wellington since the 1880s.
During New Zealand’s involvement in the war in South Africa, the issue of messing arose as large numbers of mobilising men were stationed in camps. Messing arrangements involved a combination of civilian contractors and regimental cooks. However, an inquiry into soldiers’ comfort, housing, and victualling at the Newtown Park Camp and Volunteer Billets revealed widespread dissatisfaction. Numerous complaints were lodged regarding the quality and quantity of rations provided, the low standard, and, at times, the lack of meals prepared by contractors and regimental cooks.[1] In South Africa, rations, following the British scale, were supplied by the British Army Service Corps (ASC), supplemented by fresh mutton acquired from the enemy and cooked by members of the contingent.[2]
After the conclusion of the South Africa War, interest in the military surged, prompting a reorganisation of the volunteer movement into a more robust and structured system of regiments and battalions. Despite discussions in 1904 regarding establishing a New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC), no decision was indicated in the Commandant of the Forces’ annual report on its formation.[3]
Further reorganisation in 1908 saw the ASC matter addressed by the Adjutant General, with discussions continuing into 1909. The Defence Act of 1909 disbanded volunteer forces and established the Territorial Force, supported by conscription. Major General Alexander Godley’s appointment as Commandant of the New Zealand Military Forces in December 1910 provided momentum for reform. In his first year, Godley revitalised the military’s organisational structure, made crucial command and staff appointments, and laid plans to develop the NZASC, which, though officially designated in May 1910, remained only a force on paper.[4]
Despite the Defence Stores Department’s existence since 1869, an ASC nucleus was lacking for forming new units. The proposed NZASC envisioned eight Transport and Supply Columns, divided into Mounted and Mixed Brigade units allocated to each of New Zealand’s four Military Districts and was to be organised by British ASC officer Henry Owen Knox, who arrived in New Zealand in June 1911 and later supported by four ASC officers and Warrant Offices from early 1913. While the NZASC would handle the procurement and distribution of rations, receipt and cooking remained a Regimental responsibility.
Under Godley’s command, the Territorial Army underwent rapid organisation, culminating in the inaugural brigade camps held in 1913. During these camps, the newly established NZASC established its initial depots, receiving supplies previously ordered by the Quartermaster General based on expected strength states and ration scales.
Forty-seven candidates across the Territorial Army were selected in October 1912 to undergo a comprehensive month-long training at Trentham. This pioneering catering course encompassed kitchen work and cooking techniques for field conditions, including practical exercises such as constructing and operating field ovens, fry pans, 8 and 20-gallon boilers and camp kettles.
Of the initial candidates, thirty-eight successfully qualified to supervise cooking for a regiment, with an additional seven attaining certification as company cooks. Unfortunately, two candidates were unable to qualify due to illness. For the 1913 camp, the establishment allowed for a Sergeant Cook per regiment, each granted an additional allowance of 1 Shilling 6 Pence a day (equivalent to 2024 NZD $16.16), while qualified company cooks received 1 Shilling a day (equivalent to 2024 NZD $10.10). Those who served as cooks during the camps were excused from further military training for the rest of the year.[5]
At Trentham, an additional course of instruction was conducted in October 1913, attended by sixty-two territorial soldiers. Thirty-two qualified as competent to supervise cooking for a regiment, making them eligible for appointment as sergeant cooks if vacancies existed within their units. Twenty-seven soldiers qualified as assistant or company cooks; unfortunately, three did not meet the qualifications.
By the end of 1913, this initiative provided the New Zealand Military with a potential pool of 104 trained cooks. However, it was recognised that further efforts were necessary to ensure a sufficient number of cooks would be available to meet the messing needs of the Territorial Force in the event of mobilisation.[6]
A System Under Strain, Lessons Unlearned in the Interwar Years
By the late 1930s, nearly two decades after the end of the First World War, there remained a persistent unease about the Army’s ability to feed its soldiers effectively. While institutional reforms had begun, contemporary commentary suggests that many of the fundamental issues experienced during the war had not yet been fully resolved.
A 1937 article in the Auckland Star, written by W. Revell Reynolds, provides a stark and unvarnished account of army catering during the First World War. Drawing on personal experience across training camps, Egypt, and Gallipoli, Reynolds described a system characterised not by scarcity, but by failure in execution.
Food, he noted, was often adequate at the point of issue, but was rendered unpalatable or even inedible through poor preparation. Cooks were frequently untrained and, in many cases, selected from those seeking to avoid frontline duties rather than for any culinary competence. Officers, for their part, were described as largely ignorant of catering and nutrition, with institutional focus placed elsewhere.
More concerning were allegations of systemic weaknesses in control and accountability. Reynolds pointed to instances of misappropriated allowances, questionable quality of supplied goods, and the hoarding or misallocation of rations. Whether exaggerated or not, such perceptions highlight a broader lack of confidence in the integrity of the supply and catering system at the time.
Perhaps most significantly, Reynolds drew a direct connection between poor nutrition and operational effectiveness. The absence of basic dietary components such as fresh vegetables, fats, and stimulants was linked to widespread illness, particularly dysentery and other gastrointestinal conditions, which were endemic in theatres such as Gallipoli. In this sense, catering was not merely a matter of comfort, but of survival.
Reynolds’ account suggests that the issue was not supply alone, but the absence of a professional system capable of turning rations into effective sustainment.
His concluding concern was forward-looking. Writing in 1937, Reynolds questioned how the Army intended to feed its soldiers in any future conflict, suggesting that without meaningful reform, the same deficiencies would re-emerge under the pressures of mobilisation.
The outbreak of the Second World War would force that reform. Under the pressures of mobilisation, the Army moved decisively toward a more professional, standardised, and controlled system of catering and supply, laying the foundations for the modern military catering capability.
The declaration of war and subsequent mobilisation halted any plans for further peacetime training of cooks, as all efforts shifted towards providing trained personnel for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. The NZASC expanded its role at home and as part of the NZEF, taking on responsibility for bakeries and butcheries. However, despite ensuring the provision of necessary food items to units, cooking remained the responsibility of each unit. Cooks were trained at the Army School of Instruction at Trentham, with further training conducted at NZEF camps in the United Kingdom.In New Zealand, military and civilian cooks fulfilled the necessary messing functions at various mobilisation and Territorial Camps, while unit cooks supported units in the field.
Cooks with first frozen mutton received in the desert during WWI. Hood, D : Photographs relating to World War I and II. Ref: 1/2-067444-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23212994
Wellington Regiment cooker, and men, within 1000 yards of the front line, Colincamps, France. Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association :New Zealand official negatives, World War 1914-1918. Ref: 1/2-013209-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22604005
During the interbellum period, the Army School of Instruction in Trentham ceased operations in 1921, with few records of formal training for Army cooks until 1938.
In 1937, the Special Reserve Scheme was introduced to provide personnel for the coast defence batteries and three infantry battalions of Fortress troops. Under this scheme, single soldiers underwent three months of continuous training, followed by a three-year commitment to attend training for 10 days annually, with an obligation to report for service within New Zealand in the event of a national emergency. During their three months of training, they were also allowed to attend technical college, free of charge, on a course of their choice. Facilitating the necessary training, the Army School of Instruction (ASI) was re-established at Trentham, supported by District Schools of Instruction (DSI) at Narrow Neck, Trentham, and Burnham.[7]
The first account of cooks participating in this training scheme saw a batch of seventy-two, nine of whom were cooks, enter Trentham in August 1938 for their initial military training, beginning their vocational training in January 1939 with three of the cooks going to Narrow Neck in Auckland and the other six to Fort Dorset.[8] Reviewing the work of the officers and men under his command, the Officer Command the Central Military District, Colonel E Puttick, commented in April 1939 that “there had never been any complaint about the food, and it was clear that the special reservists who had taken cookery training as their vocational course in the Army Training School at Trentham had received excellent instruction”.[9]
While Colonel Puttick may have been satisfied with the catering arrangements in his district, there was dissatisfaction with the quality of rations and cooks in the northern and Southern Districts. In May 1939, reports of sub-standard rations, the performance of civilian cooks at territorial Camps resulting in their packing up and walking out mid camp and the refusals of Territorial soldiers to work on mess fatigue parties led the District Commander, Colonel P.H Bell to call an all-day conference with his Quartermaster and Quartermaster Sergeants to consider the Army’s food problems, including the quality of rations and most importantly how to resolve the fundamental problem that the Army had no cooks of its own, engaging civilians for the period of camps. [10] In the Northern District, a deputation of civilian cooks led by Mr W. R Connolly, a cook with 37 years’ experience of cooking in military camps, went directly to the officer of the Star Newspaper with their grievances following a ten-day camp with A Squadron of the 4th Mounted Regiment. Joining the squadron on 3 May at Cambridge, they deployed to Rotorua, Tauranga, and Paeroa, finishing up at Narrow Neck on 12 May. The cook’s issue was that they were civilians contracted to work in a fixed camp and not on the march, and they were at much reduced rates than they had received before the depression.[11]
Despite these challenges, the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939 prompted a renewed focus on army catering. On the declaration of war, it was decided that New Zealand would contribute an Expeditionary Force. Initially, a “Special Force” was planned, with one battalion in each of the three military districts. The Special Force was later expanded into the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2 NZEF).
Three weeks before the Special Force encamped at Trentham, Acting Prime Minister Mr Peter Fraser and Minister of Defence Mr Frederick Jones visited the site to inspect preparations for the new mobilisation camp. During their visit, the Commandant of the ASI, Major J I Brook, hosted them for lunch. Impressed by the meal, they specifically requested the Regular Force Mess diet sheet and received positive feedback from regular soldiers on the meal quality. The Ministers inquired about the possibility of providing similar meals to the men of the Special Force. In response, Major Brook suggested that providing the same meals to the Special Force could be achieved if cooks were available and ample rations were provided. Following this discussion, permission was granted to establish an Army School of Cookery under the ASI.[12]
By December 1939, under the tutelage of a fully qualified army cookery instructor, the first batch of thirty-two men had completed their training at the Army School of Cookery, with a second batch completing their training on 8 December. Initial training was on the standard equipment found in any camp, typically three ovens able to bake for 120 men. Once qualified in the basics of camp cooking, training on the Portable Cooker No. 1 and other field cookery followed.[13]
As the 2NZEF established itself in Egypt, the significance of quality cooking was duly recognised. Although the Cooks selected for the First Echelon underwent training courses at the Trentham School of Cookery, they were not qualified cooks under Middle East conditions. They required instruction on breaking down bulk rations and handling food in the field, so arrangements were made to train New Zealand cooks at the Army School of Cookery in Cairo. Additionally, the services of a non-commissioned officer (NCO) from the 7th British Armoured Division was enlisted as an instructor to the 2 NZEF under the supervision of the Divisional Supply Column officer. With the second Echelon diverted to England, General Freyberg consulted the manager of the Lyons chain of restaurants, who was an adviser to the War Office on army catering, with arrangements made with the War Office in London for the secondment of four NCOs to the 2 NZEF to form the nucleus of the 2 NZEF cookery school. These NCOs accompanied the Second Echelon troops from England to Egypt.[14]
A typical New Zealand field cookhouse in the desert during World War II. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch :Photographs relating to World War 1914-1918, World War 1939-1945, occupation of Japan, Korean War, and Malayan Emergency. Ref: DA-00798-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23050225
With this reorganisation and expansion, the NZEF cookery school conducted thorough training and testing for cooks. Starting from February 1941, all cooks were required to be qualified either at the NZEF school or the Middle East school before being eligible for extra-duty pay.[15]
As the war progressed, the Army School of Cookery at Trentham continued to run regular courses. However, the demand for cooks necessitated the DSIs to conduct cookery instruction to train men as they were called up for the NZEF and Home Defence. In addition to male soldiers training as cooks, from 1939, the first females from Auckland Womans Service Corps were employed as cooks in Papakura Camp to supplement the civilian and military cooks. Although on the Army payroll, the initial female cooks were not considered serving soldiers. By June 1941, fifteen female cooks were working across all the Military districts. However, it was not until July 1942 that approval was given for the New Zealand Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) in New Zealand, formally establishing these female cooks as part of the military establishment.[16]
Cook from the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps putting meat in an oven to roast, for men at a World War II military camp in New Zealand. New Zealand Free Lance : Photographic prints and negatives. Ref: PAColl-8602-40. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22895614
By October 1942, three hundred men of the Territorial Force had received training at Ngawahiwaha Camp. The established ratio for cooks to troops was one cook for every 50 men, two for 100, three for 150, and an additional cook for every 100 additional men. Throughout the Army, the standard of cooking, in terms of variety and quality, had seen significant improvement. It was widely acknowledged that a properly trained army cook could secure employment in a civilian hotel or restaurant upon demobilisation.[17]
Sergeant “Paddy” Bourke, veteran army cook, turns the roast. He was in Egypt with the Expeditionary Force of a generation ago; (Evening Post, 13 April 1940). Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/17717327
In May 1944, the use of WACs as cooks had become a normalised and essential function of the war effort, with an article in the Dominion newspaper detailing the work of the 65 WAACs on the messing staff of Trentham Camp and providing details of the training of the latest batch of eighteen female cooks who had just completed a three-week cooking course the Trentham ASI.[18]It’s essential to recognise that New Zealand was not operating in isolation but rather observing developments across the armies of the British Empire as they transitioned from the regimental cook system to a more centralised and professional model. In the United Kingdom, the Cook trade was under the control of the Army Catering Corps (ACC) upon its creation in March 1941, forming as a subsidiary element of the Royal Army Service Corps Supply Branch. Australia followed suit in 1943, establishing the Australian Army Catering Corps. Canada took a similar approach, forming the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (RCASC) Catering Wing at No. 1 Reinforcement Unit in Britain in August 1942 to train cooks for the Army.
A cook with the 22 New Zealand Battalion, stokes up his fire in the forward areas near Rimini, Italy, 21 September 1944 during World War II. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch
The Canadian Army’s experience was that many cooks had previously been members of their unit. However, experience revealed that they were not necessarily skilled soldiers and often functioned as poor cooks tasked with feeding their comrades. Consequently, starting in 1942, all cooks were transferred to the RCASC, which then assigned them to the various units they were to serve. This change resulted in a rapid improvement in cooking standards.[19] Although New Zealand had adopted other British logistical organisational changes, such as the formation of the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, with enthusiasm, it was more reserved about any changes to its cooks, combining cooks into a single corps was not a wartime priority.
In 1944, New Zealand commenced the demobilisation process, which included disbanding the Home Guard and the standing down of elements of the Territorial Force. By the war’s conclusion in 1945, most of the forces stationed at home underwent rapid demobilisation. The 2NZEF was disbanded by 1946, aligning with the downsizing trend seen in many Western militaries. However, despite this size reduction, the Government and the Army hesitated to revert the military to its pre-war dimensions and structure. Instead, they opted to reorganise it into what became known as the Interim Army.
New Zeland Army Order 60/1947 of 1 August 1947 detailed the trade classification and promotion requirements of the Regular Force. This order retained cooks as two specific All Arms trades;
Cooks, Hospital. A Group A trade applicable to All Arms, including the New Zealand Army Nursing Service (NZANS)
Cooks (other than hospital cook). A Group B trade applicable to All Arms, including the NZWAAC
The Commandant of the ASI set the syllabus for the Cooks, hospital, and Cooks (other than hospital cooks). During his period, there was no steward’s trade.[20]
In 1947, three officers and four NCOs were brought out from Britain to raise the standards of catering in the New Zealand Army. This task included providing training and instruction in cooking and catering and guidance on ration scales and meal planning. With the New Zealand Army perceived as too small for a stand-alone Catering Corps, considering that the NZASC was responsible for the Supply function, Butchers and Bakers, it made sense to emulate the Canadian model and bring all cooks under the umbrella of the RNZASC.
To facilitate this transition, the Army Board approved the formation of a Catering Group as a section of the RNZASC. It issued New Zealand Army Instruction (NZAI) 2049 on 15 February 1948 detailing the Supplies and Transport Catering Group (STCG) formation. Initially, the STCG comprised of;
A Staff Officer (Catering) in the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at Army Headquarters.
District Catering advisers (NC0s) on the staff of the Districts Assistant Director Supply and Transport (ADST)
Instructors on the staff of the Army School of Instruction to operate a Catering Wing.
Cooks and kitchenhands on unit peace establishments.
The function of the STCG was to
To train and provide unit cooks and kitchen hands.
Instruction in and supervision of the management of the Army ration scale.
Improvement of standard of food preparation and cooking.
Advice on the installation and instruction in the operation of cooking appliances and kitchen equipment.
Despite NZAI 2049 bringing all army catering services under the jurisdiction of the RNZASC, the Cooks trade remained dispersed among various units. However, this issue was addressed with the implementation of NZAI 2147 in September 1948.[22]
No 2147. SUPPLIES AND TRANSPORT CATERING GROUP, RNZASC NZAI 1319 and 2049 are hereby cancelled.
Approval has been given for the formation of a catering Group in RNZASC. This group will be known as the Supplies and Transport Catering Group (abbreviated title STCG).
The functions of the STCG are – a. To train and provide unit, &c, cooks and messing staffs. b. Instruction in and supervision of the management of the Army Ration Scale. c. The preparation, cooking and serving of all rations. d. Advise on the installation and instruction in the operation of cooking appliances and kitchen equipment. e. Advise on the layout of mess buildings.
Initially the STCG will comprise- a. A Staff Officer (Catering) on the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at Army HQ. b. District catering advisers (NCOs) on the staff of ADs ST District. c. Instructors on the staff of ASI to operate a “Catering Wing”. d. Messing Staff of all units
In order to implement para 3 above, the following action will be taken:- a. From the date of publication of this instruction soldiers classified as “kitchen hands” or “Mess Orderly” will be classified as “probationer cook” or “mess steward” respectively. The terms “kitchen hands” or “mess orderly” will no longer be used. NOTES: – (i) For star classification purposes “probationer cooks” will form the “learner: class of the group “B” trade of cook and will be treated as Group “D” tradesmen (ii) Whenever the term “messing staffs” is used in this instruction, it will included “cooks,” “probationary cooks,” and “mess stewards” b. All cooks, probationer cooks, and mess stewards, other than of the NZWAC, will be posted to RNZASC. c. All messing staffs. including NZWAC messing staffs, in districts will be carried on the establishments of district ASC Coys under the sub heading of STCG. d. OsC Districts will allot messing staffs to units on the recommendations of DA DsST. e. Messing staffs, including NZWAC messing staffs, of Army HQ units will be carried on the establishments of the respective units under the sub heading STCG.
STCG messing staff strengths will be assessed according to unit messing strengths as follows:- a. Unit messing strengths will be taken as establishment strength less 20 per cent (to allow for personnel Living out). b. Cooks. – Cooks will be allocated to units on the following scale: i. One cook per unit all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 650. ii. One extra cook p er 90 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength in excess of 650. iii. One extra cook for each cookhouse in excess of one. iv. In addition, one chief cook (WO or NCO) for each unit. The rank of this WO or NCO shall be dependent on the strength of the messing staff serving in the unit concerned, in accordance with the scale laid down in para 6 below. c. Probationer Cooks:- i. Two probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength of 65 or under. ii. Four probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength in excess of 65 d. Mess Stewards: i. One mess steward for each 25 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength. ii. In addition, one mess steward for each 6 officers (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 42 officers. iii. When the number of officers exceeds 42, one extra mess steward for each 9 officers ( or portion thereof) on unit strength in excess of 42). iv. Mess stewards in any mess to include at least one NCO, except when total number of mess stewards is less than 3.
In calculating ranks of messing staff, the following guide will be used: In every 69 messing staff OR’s carried on establishment under STCG there may be 21 NCOs from Corporal upwards on the following scale: One Warrant Officer. Two Staff Sergeants. Six Sergeants. Twelve Corporals.
The chief cook in any unit will rank as the senior member of the messing staff, irrespective of the rank of the senior mess steward. He will be responsible for: a. The proper functioning of the messing staff. b. Close co-operation with the unit messing officer. c. Training of probationer cooks.
Amended establishments will be issued shortly.
New Zealand Army Instruction 2147, 15 September 1948
With this new directive, New Zealand Army cooks (NZWAC cooks and stewards, which remained a separate corps but were under technical control of the RNZASC for catering purposes, until 1977 when they joined the RNZASC) were finally consolidated into a single corps, allowing for a standardised training syllabus. Additionally, to enhance the catering function and provide a comprehensive messing service, the Stewards trade was formalised as part of the RNZASC. By the end of 1948, the groundwork had been laid for the RNZASC Catering trade to support the evolving New Zealand army.
In conclusion, the evolution of Army catering in New Zealand from 1845 to 1948 reflects a journey marked by adaptability, innovation, and a commitment to sustaining the morale and effectiveness of New Zealand’s military forces. During this period, New Zealand’s military catering underwent a significant transformation from rudimentary messing arrangements in the early militia days. However, the importance of well-fed troops was consistently recognised, as evidenced by the efforts to improve messing arrangements, the establishment of training programs for cooks, and the integration of civilian and military personnel into the catering function. Despite challenges such as dissatisfaction with rations and the shortage of trained cooks, the New Zealand Army continually sought to enhance its catering capabilities, particularly in response to the demands of wartime mobilisation. The establishment of the Army School of Cookery, the integration of female cooks into the military establishment, and the adoption of international best practices, such as those observed in the British and Canadian armies, demonstrate New Zealand’s commitment to modernising its catering services and ensuring the provision of quality meals for its troops. By consolidating army catering services under the RNZASC umbrella and formalising the Cooks and Stewards trades, the New Zealand Army laid the groundwork for a more structured and professional catering function as the country transitioned into the post-war era. By 1948, the stage was set for the RNZASC Catering trade to play a pivotal role in supporting the evolving needs of the New Zealand army, reflecting a legacy of culinary excellence and dedication to service.
Notes
[1] “Newtown Park Camp (Inquiry into Conduct of),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1901 Session I, H-19a (1901).
[2] “New Zealand Contingent (No 1): Extracts from Reports by Major Robin, Commanding New Zealand Contingent, to Officer Commanding Forces,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1900 Session I, H-06a (1900).
[3] J Babington, “Defence Forces of New Zealand (Report on the) by Major General J.M Babington, Commandant of the Forces.,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1904 Session I, H-19 (1904).
[4] Based on the British logistics system the NZASC was to be responsible for the Transport and the supply of forage, rations and fuel. The supply and maintenance of all small-arms, ammunition, accoutrements, clothing, and field equipment Stores was to remain a responsibility of the Defence Stores Department which in 1917 became the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. Robert McKie, “Unappreciated Duty: The Forgotten Contribution of New Zealand’s Defence Stores Department in Mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in 1914: A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand” (Massey University, 2022).
[5] “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the Period 28 June 1912 to 20 June 1913,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1913).
[6] “Military Forces of New Zealand (Report by the Inspector General of Ther Overseas Forces on the),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1914 Session I, H-19a (1914).
[7] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the Chief of the General Staff,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, (1938).
[8] “Vocational Training,” Wairarapa Times-Age, , 17 January 1939.
[9] “Military Camps,” Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 80, , 5 April 1939.
[11] “Walked out Army Cooks,” Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 114, , 17 May 1939.
[12] “Soldier Cooks,” King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4856,, 1 November 1939.
[13] “Diet for Troops,” King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4856,, 1 December 1939.
[14] William Graham McClymont, To Greece, vol. 4 (War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, 1959), 23.
[15] Thomas Duncan MacGregor Stout, New Zealand Medical Services in Middle East and Italy, vol. 12 (War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, 1956), 47.
[16] Iris Latham, The Waac Story (Wellington, New Zealand1986), 1-4.
[17] “Moral Builders NZ Army Cooks,” Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 13760,, 1 October 1942.
[18] “Waac’s New Role,” Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 207, , 30 May 1944.
[19] Arnold Warren, Wait for the Waggon: The Story of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (McClelland, 1961).
[20] “Special New Zealand Army Order 60/1947 – the Star Classification and Promotion of Other Ranks of Ther Regular Force,”(1947).
[21] “New Zealand Army Instruction 2049 – Supplies and Transport Catering Group, Rnzasc,”(1948).
[22] “New Zealand Army Instruction 2147 – Supplies and Transport Catering Group, Rnzasc,”(1948).
The object is to make these forces (New Zealand Militia and Volunteer Forces) as effective as possible against irregular infantry, whose mode of warfare is skirmishing on broken ground, generally covered in fern and scrub”.
Memoradium Frederick Whittaker to Colonial Secertary, 27 April 1860
The military logistics history of New Zealand in the 19th century unfolds as a saga of strategic vision, administrative challenges, and coordination amidst escalating tensions and clashes between settlers and Māori in the mid-1800s. This era was characterised by legislative endeavours, notably marked by the passage of the Militia Act of 1858 by the New Zealand Parliament. At the heart of implementing this legislation were the logistical requisitions directed towards Hebbert and Co, a London-based military outfitter with extensive contracts across various British territories. These requisitions underscored the planning and resource allocation needed to equip New Zealand’s burgeoning militia and volunteer forces.
The initial requisition, initiated in June 1859, marked the first step towards enhancing the colony’s defensive capabilities. It encompassed a comprehensive array of arms, ammunition, and accoutrements, reflecting the latest standards utilised by the British Army and deemed essential for military readiness. Subsequent requisitions, driven by evolving strategic needs and logistical deficiencies, further highlighted the intricacies of managing the supply chain within a colonial context.
Recognising the broader implications for contemporary military logisticians is imperative for grasping the significance of these requisitions. Beyond their historical narrative, procurement, transportation, and inventory management complexities offer timeless insights into the enduring challenges logistics professionals face in ensuring operational readiness. As we delve deeper into the complexities of these requisitions and their outcomes, it becomes evident that the legacy of strategic foresight and logistical prowess perseveres. The lessons extracted from this historical chapter stand as a testament to the enduring relevance of effective logistical planning and execution in military operations, both past and present.
Preparing for conflict
The escalating tensions between settlers and Māori and the lessons of the conflicts of 1845/6 led to the acceptance that a robust force capable of deployment throughout New Zealand was necessary. In response, in May 1858, the New Zealand Parliament enacted the Militia Act of 1858. This legislation maintained the Militia’s role in defending fixed locations, obliging all eligible men to serve within their designated areas. However, it also introduced provisions for establishing volunteer units, granting them the flexibility to operate anywhere in the colony and exempting their members from militia duty. [1]
The Act restructured the country into militia districts supported by a small permanent training staff. It established a central command hub in Auckland, administered by Captain (later Lieutenant Colonel) Henry Colin Balneavis as the Deputy Adjutant General of Militia and Volunteers.[2]
Colonel Balneavis, circa 1900, by William Francis Gordon, Hartley Webster. Purchased 1916. Te Papa (O.011955/02)
Since the inception of the first New Zealand Militia units in 1845, the government had assumed responsibility for supplying arms and equipment to the Militia. The supply of Arms and equipment was initially sourced through commercial purchases and government sources such as the Colonial Store in Australia, the Ordnance Department and British Regiments, including 500 flint muskets acquired and distributed in 1845. However, as Militia units were disbanded, arms on distribution to the Militia were recalled and returned to the local magistrate, police or Ordnance Stores for safekeeping.[3] In August 1850, Major General George Dean Pitt, the Commander of the forces 1848-51, initiated a military enhancement program, which included upgrades to Wellington’s Mount Cook Barracks, Auckland’s Albert Barracks, and Fort Britomart. As part of this initiative, he also requested 500 percussion muskets from England to replace 500 flint muskets then stored by the Ordnance Store on behalf of the New Zealand Government. In May 1852, the 500 flint muskets were returned to England, while the new percussion weapons remained in the Ordnance Store.[4] However, many more Flint muskets inevitably remained in storage in the provinces.
While the Ordnance Store and British Regiments were naturally considered the primary source of military supplies for the colony, their capacity to provide stores during peacetime was constrained by an order issued by Lord Panmure, the Secretary of State for War, on 17th April 1856.[5] This directive stipulated that supplies could only be allocated to the colonial government following approval from the Secretary of State for War. However, in cases of emergency declared by the Governor, stores could be released under the condition that the colonial government reimbursed the British Government for the expenses incurred, including a 15% fee for packaging, transportation, warehousing, etc.
Panmure’s directive came into question in March 1857 when Colonel Robert Wynyard of the 58th Regiment imported 1,600 percussion rifles and 669,000 rounds of ball ammunition. Since these goods arrived before Balneavis assumed the role of Militia adjutant, the distribution of these arms remains somewhat ambiguous. Nevertheless, records indicate that 200 weapons were assigned to the Taranaki Militia, while the allocation of 1,000 rifles to Auckland was less transparent. This issue was eventually resolved, affirming the New Zealand Government’s responsibility for providing and supplying militia stores to its military and volunteer forces.
From May 1858, Balneavis began taking on charge government arms held in the 58th Regiment Armoury and the Ordnance Store, yielding varying results. During the handover of arms from the 58th armoury in May 1858, Balneavis only received 200 percussion muskets, 66 flint muskets, and 12 cases containing cutlasses, boarding spikes, old belts and other assorted accoutrements. However, the arms taken on charge from the Ordnance Store proved more fruitful. Balneavis acquired the 500 percussion muskets received in 1852 and four cases containing 120 percussion carbines with bayonets, scabbards, and additional equipment. The carbines, unused and in pristine condition, were of the same type utilised by the Auckland Police. However, there was no record of how they had been incorporated into Government service. It was speculated that they might have been included in a batch brought to New Zealand by Governor Grey in 1846 for settlers or friendly Māori. However, they were placed into the Ordnance Stores and remained unissued.
Fuelled by the potential of escalating conflict in Taranaki, the Militia experienced a resurgence, along with the formation of volunteer units, prompting the Legislative Council to place a requisition in June 1859 for arms and accoutrements on London merchants Messrs Hebbert and Co to meet its commitment to supply all militia and volunteer forces.
Messrs Hebbert and Co, a London-based military outfitter/contractor established in 1815, held contracts with Her Majesty’s Home, Indian, and Colonial Governments. Initially focused on army clothing, accoutrements, and cap-making, they also brokered contracts with external manufacturers for equipment they did not produce. In addition to their contracts with colonial governments like New Zealand, Messrs Hebbert and Co supplied items to the Confederate Navy during the United States Civil War.
First Requisition
Sent by the fastest mail to Britain in June 1859, the first requisition consisted of the following items:
500 (increased to 1000) Rifles of the most improved type used by Her Majesty’s troops, with Sword Bayonets, Belts and Pouches
100000 (increased to 200000) Rounds of Ball Cartridges
200000 (increased to 400000) Percussion Caps, and
25000 (increased to 50000) Blank rounds.
Hebbert and Co confirmed receipt of the requisition on 18 October 1859. Although, at this early stage, they could not confirm the manufacturing details, the suggestion was made that to mitigate any possible rejections taking place in Auckland and the inability to provide replacements prior to delivery, inspections under the direction of General Charles Hay, the Commander and Inspector General of Musketry be arranged and on the recommendation of the Deputy Adjutant General of Militia and Volunteers, the New Zealand Government approved this course of action.
Second Requisition
In January 1860, the issue of inadequate arms supply in the colony was brought to the attention of the Colonial Secretary. Given the burgeoning formation of Volunteer and Militia units, it became evident that the current order for rifles would not suffice. Moreover, while Cavalry Arms had been procured for 200 men, there was a pressing need for more to equip the additional Volunteer Cavalry Corps in the process of being established.
Believing that Percussion Muskets might be available in the Military or Government Stores in Australia, arranging for arms to be temporarily lent to New Zealand and returned once the rifles arrived was considered an option. Additionally, a small quantity of rifles and revolvers from Sydney and Melbourne were purchased at a reasonable cost. Ultimately, on 27th April 1860, a decision was made to supplement the initial requisition with a second rerquistions for additional arms, accoutrements and ammunition.:
1000 Rifles and accoutrements to arm Militia and volunteers.
300 arms and accoutrements for Cavalry Volunteers, the desired arms been.
200 Revolving Carbines
100 Revolving Pistols with movable shoulder stocks
500000 Rounds of Ball Cartridges
805000 Percussion Caps
50000 Blank rounds
Additionally, separate from the primary requisition, an order for six Prize revolvers was placed on 28 April 1860.[6] These requisitions were acknowledged by Hebbert and Co on 19 May 1860, noting that communications with General Hay confirming that the Rifles were to be the same pattern as the ones to be supplied for the first order, the type of Carbines was yet to be decided.
Third Requisition
On 3 July 1860, a third request for an additional order of 1000 rifles and accoutrements was placed with Hebbert and Co, bringing the total purchase to 3000. Hebbert and Co acknowledged receipt of this third requisition on 26 September 1860, confirming that the order for rifles would be expedited without delay.
However, Hebbert and Co informed that, upon the advice of General Hay, work on manufacturing revolving carbines had ceased. It was determined that no existing model of revolving carbine was suitable for military purposes, and those produced for civilian use had been discontinued. Consequently, it was decided to replace revolving carbines with a superiorly manufactured breech-loading carbine.
The carbines eventually selected by General Hay were of the type then in use by the Indian Cavalry, resembling the pattern of artillery carbines issued by the British Government. These carbines offered several advantages, including compatibility with the bore, cartridges, and caps used for the rifles. Their sights were initially set for 300 yards but could easily be adjusted for 500 to 600 yards.
Cavalry Carbine. Terry Shattock Collection
The rifles produced by Hollis & Sheath of Birmingham for New Zealand were the latest .577-inch calibre rifles developed under General Hay’s direction. This updated design incorporated changes to the stock and barrel length and weight, rifling, and other specifications, resulting in a firearm that boasted improved accuracy and a more extended range compared to the earlier Enfield pattern. However, these modifications to the rifle design and the necessary adjustments to manufacturing machinery caused production delays. Consequently, instead of delivering the rifles in a single consignment for each requisition, the delivery schedule was divided into seven consignments. The first of these consignments was dispatched from England on 25 August 1860, with the final shipment reaching New Zealand on 19 October 1861.
Hay Pattern Rifle. Terry Shattock Collection
Logistics Preparation to receive arms
As the Deputy Adjutant General of Militia and Volunteers, Balneavis, with a small staff based in the Militia armoury at Albert Barracks, undertook multiple administrative and organisational tasks to establish the various units and satisfy the many requests for equipment submitted by unit commanders.
As the tempo of work in receiving and distributing equipment increased during 1860, assisting Balneavis as militia and volunteer storekeeper was his Sergeant Major and Clerk John Mitchell.[7] Initially employed in 1856, Mitchell was formally employed as a sergeant in May 1858. In recognition of the additional work required in organising and equipping the Militia and Volunteers, Mitchell was awarded an annual salary increase of £80 in 1861.[8] Additional assistance was provided to Balneavis and Mitchell by Mr T Gibbins, who had been employed as an arms cleaner and labourer since January 1859.[9] In October 1861, James Bloomfield joined Balneavis staff as a clerk, remaining part of the Defence Stores until December 1888. [10] To manage periods of increased activity, Balneavis regularly sought permission to hire additional arms cleaners to help with the upkeep of the Arms and Accoutrements in the Militia Armoury. For instance, on 5 December 1861, he submitted a request to employ three arms cleaners at a rate of five shillings per day (equivalent to approximately NZD $9.21 in 2024) for the month. This request was granted on 10th December.[11]
In anticipation of receiving Arms and Accoutrements, on 25th February 1861, Balneavis sought authorisation for the Colonial Secretary to inspect and mark arms arriving from England with a number and to carry out necessary alterations to accoutrements. Regarding the marking of arms, Balneavis obtained a quotation from Auckland gunsmith David Evitt, who proposed a cost of six shillings each (equivalent to approximately NZD $9.21 in 2024) to number up to 4000 arms, including Bayonets, Muzzle Stoppers, and ramrods. The Colonial Secretary sanctioned this proposal on 9th April 1861.[12]
Tawera Shipment
The initial batch of rifles comprised 410 units, with 200 being inspected on 10 August and 210 on 25 August by an armourer sergeant provided by General Hay. Each rifle underwent disassembly, with the locks examined and sights tested. Subsequently, 40 rifles underwent testing by General Hay himself. Throughout this process, 18 rifles were rejected, prompting a reduction of the consignment to 390 to avoid having a partial box of 2 rifles. The first consignment consisted of:
390 Rifles, General Hay Pattern, Calibre .577 in
390 Bayonets
390 Bayonet Scabbards
1000 Muzzle Stoppers
Extras for 1000 Rifles
100 Lock Vice Nipple Keys
100 Jags (Ball Drawer)
1000 Nipples
100 Snap Caps
500 Snap Cap leather
100 Muzzle Stoppers
Rifle Accoutrements
360 Black Leather Pouches – 50 Rounds
360 Black Leather Pouch Belts
360 Black Leather waist Belts with Brass Snake hook Furniture
180 Black Leather Frogs
360 Black Leather Ball Bags with Oil Bottles
360 Black Leather Cap Pockets
360 Black Leather Gun Slings with Brass Buckles
Ammunition
200000 Rounds Ball Cartridges
50000 Rounds Blank Cartridges
400000 Percussion Caps
Extracr from the Tawera Invoice
The consignment was packed into 51 cases for transport on the Brigantine Tawera, departing Gravesend on 5 September 1860. The Tawera arrived in Auckland on 22 December 1860.[13]
Included in this consignment was the order for the six Adams Pattern 54 Bore revolvers, with Bullet moulds, extra nipples, and cleaning rods specially engraved with names and inscriptions.[14]
A presentation Beaumont-Adams. Puke Ariki Accession number A57.362
A presentation Beaumont-Adams. Puke Ariki Accession number A57.362
On receipt in New Zealand, the consignment was inspected by Balneavis, who noted that the consignment had been received in good order except for some Bayonets, which required fitting, and some rifles required cleaning, which was done.
Sevilla Shipment
On 21 September, General Hay’s team inspected the second batch of 320 rifles, with 10 Rifles rejected. The consignment that was packed into 38 cases consisted of
310 Rifled General Hay Pattern with Snap Caps
310 Bayonets
310 Bayonet Scabbards
Rifle Accoutrements
180 Black Waxed leather frogs to complete 360 sets sent on the Tawera
In addition to the Arms, accoutrements and ammunition associated with the existing requisitions, the Sevilla had also loaded an additional consignment of 76 cases of Breech-loading Carbines and ammunition ordered on behalf of the Government by Gilfillan and Company consisting of:
45 Calisher & Terry Breech Loading Carbines
34000 rounds of Breech-loading ammunition
68000 Percussion Caps
These constituted part of a requisition placed on merchants Gilfillan and Company by the New Zealand Government on 4 April 1860 for One Hundred Revolving Carbines. [16] However, Gilfillan and Co failed to procure any Revolving Carbines and instead provided 100 Terry Breech Loading Carbines, which were delivered in three instalments.
First Instalment – 20 Calisher & Terry Breech Loading Carbines from Sydney on the Kate, received on 8 May 1860
Second Instalment – 45 Calisher & Terry Breech Loading Carbines from the United Kingdom on the Sevilla, received on 22 April 1861
Third Instalment – 35 Calisher & Terry Breech Loading Carbines from the United Kingdom on the Bosworth, received on 22 April 1861
Example of a Calisher & Terry .30 bore breech loading percussion carbine. Puke Ariki Accession number A76.911
Loaded onto the barque Sevilla, this consignment of Hay Rifles and accoutrements departed London and, as part of the build-up of Imperial troops in New Zealand, called into Queenstown (now Cork, Ireland) on 20 October to embark two officers and 110 men of the 14th Regiment, along with 20 saloon passengers. After a lengthy voyage of 128 days, the Sevilla anchored in Auckland Harbour on 25 February 1861.
After the unloading of the Sevilla, on 22 April, Lieutenant Colonel Balneavis chaired two inspection boards, with Captain Campbell, the Adjutant of the Auckland Militia, and Lieutenant Wayne of the Auckland Cavalry Guard serving as members. Their task was to thoroughly examine and report on the arms, accoutrements, and ammunition received from England on the Sevilla. [17]
The board’s inspection of the 310 rifles and accoutrements confirmed that the consignment was accurate and of satisfactory quality, noting that an earlier Board Consisting of Captain Campbell, Adjutant 1st Battalion Auckland Regiment and Captain Joyce Adjutant Auckland Volunteers had condemned five rifles on 14 March due to damage caused by rust.[18]
Inspecting the carbines, accoutrements, and ammunition, the board noted that, in comparison to a consignment of 20 Calisher & Terry Breech-loading carbines received from Sydney on the Kate on 8 May 1860, the carbines received from England, while serviceable, were of somewhat inferior quality, this indicates the consignment of carbines from England were Terry’s Breech-loading carbines. Nevertheless, they met the requirements for inspection. The ammunition was deemed suitable; however, it was observed that the inserts in the pouches designed for fitting cartridges were too small to accommodate the carbine ammunition adequately. Though still functional, they would require modification for optimal use.[19]
Bosworth Shipment
In October, General Hay’s team inspected the remaining rifles needed to fulfil the initial requisition of 1000 rifles. On 6 October, 300 rifles were inspected, but 12 were rejected. Another ten rifles underwent inspection on 15 October and passed. Together with the two rifles held over from the first consignment, this completed the consignment of 300 rifles.
The final consignment included the remaining equipment from the first requisition and the total amount of ammunition from the second requisition. These items were packed into 36 cases, comprising:
In addition to the Arms, accoutrements and ammunition associated with the existing requisitions, the Bosworth had also loaded an additional consignment of 193 cases of Terry Breech-loading Carbines and ammunition ordered on behalf of the Government by Gilfillan and Company consisting of
35 Terry Breech Loading Carbines contained in 5 cases
An unknown quantity of Breech Loading Carbine ammunition in 188 cases[21]
These consignments were transported on the vessel Bosworth, sailing from Gravesend and arriving in Auckland on 6 March 1861, making the passage from England in 108 days.
After the unloading process on the Bosworth, Lieutenant Colonel Balneavis chaired two inspection boards, with Captain Campbell, the Adjutant of the Auckland Militia, and Lieutenant Wayne of the Auckland Cavalry Guard serving as members. Their task was to thoroughly examine and report on the arms, accoutrements, and ammunition received from England on the Bosworth.
The board’s inspection of the 300 rifles, ammunition, and accessories confirmed that the consignment was accurate and satisfactory. However, it was noted that one keg of rifle ammunition, containing 700 rounds and caps, was missing, presumably lost during transit. The ship’s agent reimbursed the government for the missing keg with a cheque of £3.9.6. (2024 NZD $1067.55) [22]
Upon inspecting the carbines, accoutrements, and ammunition, the board noted that in comparison to a consignment of 20 Terry’s Breech-loading carbines received from Sydney on the Kate on 8 May 1860, the carbines received from England, while serviceable, were of somewhat inferior quality. Nevertheless, they met the requirements for inspection. The ammunition was deemed suitable; however, it was observed that the inserts in the pouches designed for fitting cartridges were too small to accommodate the carbine ammunition adequately. Though still functional, they would require modification for optimal use.[23]
African Shipment
As the Bosworth was midway through its voyage, preparations were underway to dispatch the first batch of rifles from the second requisition. On 21 December 1860, General Hay reported that 720 rifles had undergone testing and met the required standards; thus, they were accepted. The consignment, packed into 105 cases, was scheduled for shipment on the vessel African. It included additional stores and accoutrements for 1000 rifles and 300 carbines.:
720 Rifles General Hay Pattern
720 Bayonets
1000 Bayonet Scabbards
1000 Muzzle Stoppers
Extras for 1000 Rifles
100 Lock Vice Nipple Keys
100 Jags
1000 Nipples
100 Snap Caps
500 Snap Cap leather
100 Muzzle Stoppers
Rifle Accoutrements
1000 Black waxed Leather Pouches – 50 rounds
1000 Black waxed Leather Pouch Belts
1000 Black waxed Leather waist Belts
1000 Black waxed frogs
1000 Black waxed Ball bags and Oil Bottles
1000 Black waxed Leather Cap Pockets
1000 Black waxed Leather Gun Slings
300 Cavalry Swords, Steel Moulded with Steel Scabbard
Cavalry Accoutrements
300 Patent Leather pouches – 20 Rounds
300 Buff Leather Pouch Belt
300 Buff Leather Carbine Swivel Heads and carriages
Scheduled to depart from Gravesend on 2 January 1861, the African encountered delays due to being icebound in St. Katherine’s Dock. Consequently, its departure was postponed until 8 February, arriving in Auckland on 7 June 1861. Alongside the transportation of New Zealand Arms and Accoutrements, the African also accommodated two officers from the 57th Regiment of Foot and a contingent of logistics personnel destined for New Zealand as part of the Imperial reinforcements. This contingent included Deputy Assistant Commissary General Innes, five Commissariat officers and their families, two members of the Armourers Corps, five Royal Artillery Conductors, two Stores Clerks, and one Purveyor’s Clerk.
Waterlily Shipment
Departing London on 11 February 1861 and arriving in Auckland on 18 June, the Schooner Waterlily carried the following items ordered on the second requisition.
100 Best Plain Adams Revolvers with all the latest improvements, 54 Guage
Beaumont-Adams with stock. Puke Ariki Accession number A73.333
A flat rectangular wooden case for an Adams patent revolver. The case is lined with green felt and contains the revolver, a wooden skeleton stock, a cleaning rod, two bags of bullets and a wooden percussion cap phial. Puke Ariki Accession number A73.334
Broadwater Shipment
On 4 January 1861, General Hay reported that 303 Rifles had been tested, with 21 rifles rejected, prompting a reduction of the consignment to 280 rifles to avoid having a partial box of 2 rifles. This batch of 280 completed the rifle order for the second requisition. Added to this was an additional batch of 290 rifles of the third requisition, which had also been tested and passed, making a total consignment of 570 rifles for dispatch on the Broadwater. The total consignment consisted of:
After departing Gravesend on 3 April and a voyage of 114 days, the Broadwater arrived in Auckland on 29 July.
Northumberland Shipment
Following the final acceptance tests by General Hay of the final batches of Rifles and Carbines, the consignment was prepared and included spare parts for the entire 3000 rifles and 300 Carbines supplied. Packed into 98 cases, the consignment consisted of:
710 Rifles General Hay Pattern
710 Bayonets
Extras for 1000 Rifles
100 Lock Vice Nipple Keys
100 Jags
1000 Nipples
100 Snap Caps
500 Snap Cap leather
Extras for 3000 Rifles
15 Rough Stock15 Stocks complete15 Sights60 Finished Hammers60 Hammers in the rough90 Tumbler Pins60 Main Springs60 Sears30 Forged Main Springs60 Sear Springs30 Tumblers15 Bridles60 Left Lock Pins60 Lock Swivels30 Left Bands60 Left Nail30 Rammers30 Bayonets60 Bayonet Rings9 Guards in the rough15 Trigger Plates30 Trigger Plates30 Butt Swivels30 Band Swivels30 Hammer Springs45 Sets Wood Screws
150 Light slides
300 Cavalry Carbines Rifled sighted to 300 yards, to pattern selected by General Hay
Extras for 300 Carbines
30 Cramp Keys300 Nipples30 Jags30 Snap caps30 Muzzle stoppers150 Snap Cap Leather2 Finished Stocks2 Sights5 Hammers10 Hammers in the rough10 Tumbler Pins5 Sets Wood Screes8 Main Springs4 Main Springs in the rough8 Sear Springs8 Sears3 Tumblers2 Bridles8 Sets lock Pins10 Lock Swivels3 Bands5 Rammers5 Rammer Springs1 Guard and 2 Trigger Plates4 Triggers3 Slide Bars10 Rings for Bars
This shipment, delivering the final items of the three requisitions initiated in June 1859, departed London on 10 May 1861 on the vessel Northumberland, arriving in Auckland on 13 September 1861.
As with other shipments, on 19 October, Balneavis assembled a board consisting of Captain Campbell, the Adjutant of the 1st Battalion Auckland Militia and Captain Wilson, the Adjutant of the 2nd Battalion Auckland Militia, to examine and report on the stores landed from the Northumberland. Their report concluded that the consignment was of sound and serviceable quality and that the rifles and Carbines received bore the same as rifles received in previous shipments.[28]
Cost
As detailed in Table One, the aggregate expenditure for all arms and accoutrements procured from Hebbert and Co amounted to £22,272.16.1 (equivalent to 2024 NZD $6,797,770.77). While existing appropriations covered the expenses for the prize pistols, the remaining costs for arms and accoutrements were charged against the 1860 War Loan.
Table One: Arms, Accoutrements and Ammunition procured from Hebbert and Co
Given New Zealand’s constrained revenue, the government found the Taranaki conflict financially challenging. Consequently, in September 1860, a War Loan of £150,000 (2024 NZD $46,765,267.07) was raised to address expenses associated with the conflict, encompassing costs incurred from 1857 up to September 1860.[29]
Table Two: Expenditure on Arms, Accoutrements and Ammunition against the 1860 War Loan
Distribution
Since assuming the role of Deputy Adjutant General, Balneavis faced a significant challenge due to his lack of comprehensive information on the total inventory of arms belonging to the New Zealand government and their distribution. However, by September 1860, returns from the districts detailed in Table 3 revealed that 3,417 arms of various types were distributed across all districts.[31]
Table 3 – Distribution of Arms belonging to the Government of New Zealand, 1 September 1860
With this information in hand, Balneavis could confirm the following:
Militia units were adequately equipped.
Volunteer Cavalry in the Auckland Province were armed with revolvers, breech-loading rifles, and swords.
Volunteer Rifle Corps in Auckland and Taranaki were also equipped.
Apart from the Auckland and Taranaki units listed above, no other Volunteer Corps across New Zealand were armed.
Approximately 550 rounds of ball ammunition were available for every rifle in use, with Taranaki and Wellington holding stock of 2000 rounds each.
There was a much larger supply of percussion ammunition for every musket in use.
This information empowered Balneavis to prioritise the redistribution of arms between military and volunteer units, thus expediting the dispatch of new arms upon their arrival from England. With the arrival of the Tawera, Sevilla, and Bosworth, Balneavis issued instructions on 6 and 8 March 1861 to redistribute arms.
200 1856 Pattern (Sword) Short Rifle in use by the Auckland Rifle Volunteers be issued to the different sergeants of all volunteer corps and those remaining to Bands
100 Enfield Pattern 53 Rifles in use by the Auckland Rifle Volunteers be issued to the 1st Battalion Auckland Militia
300 Hay Pattern Rifles to be issued to the Auckland Rifle Volunteers
200 Hay Pattern Rifles be issued to the two companies of Onehunga Volunteers
100 Hay Pattern Rifles be issued to the Southern Rifle Volunteers
Hay Pattern Rifles be issued to the Auckland Coast Guard Volunteers (No Qty Provided)
As many of the Enfield Pattern 53 Rifles and Enfield Pattern 1839/Pattern 1842 Muskets in possession of the Onehunga Volunteers that Lieutenant Colonel Kenny can spare be returned to the Store in Auckland
All further shipments of Hay Pattern Rifles be prioritised for the issue to Southern Volunteer units
In the 19th century, New Zealand’s military logistics history was characterised by strategic foresight, administrative hurdles, and coordination efforts amidst rising tensions and conflicts between settlers and Māori. A significant turning point came with the implementation of the Militia Act of 1858, which led to extensive requisitions for arms, ammunition, and equipment from Hebbert and Co., a military outfitter based in London. Lord Panmura’s directive in 1855, placing constraints on the provision of British military stores to colonial forces, prompted New Zealand to develop a requisition program that relied less on British sources. This initiative, initiated in 1859 and expanded in 1860, aimed to outfit New Zealand’s growing militia and volunteer forces while adhering to the latest standards of the British Army as closely as possible.
The initial requisition in June 1859 marked the beginning of efforts to enhance the colony’s defensive capabilities, with subsequent requisitions driven by evolving strategic needs and logistical deficiencies. The introduction of modern Hays rifles and Calisher and Terry carbines showcased the planning and resource allocation required within a colonial context. Despite delays in production and transportation, the procurement process persisted, facilitated by the dedication of individuals like Lieutenant Colonel Balneavis and his team, who conducted the logistics preparation and organisational tasks, including inspection, marking, alteration and distribution of arms and equipment. The distribution of arms among militia and volunteer units was prioritised based on strategic considerations and the availability of existing inventory. Additionally, financial constraints necessitated raising a War Loan to address expenses associated with the Taranaki conflict and arms procurement.
The lessons from this historical chapter resonate with military logisticians’ enduring challenges, emphasising the significance of strategic foresight, administrative efficiency, and resource management in ensuring operational readiness. As New Zealand navigated the complexities of colonial defence, its military logistics history is a testament to the enduring relevance of effective logistical planning and execution in military operations.
[2] Under-Secretary William Gisborne, Commission for Captain Balneavis as Deputy Adjutant General, Archives New Zealand Item Id r24487365 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1859).
[3] It remains unclear whether the 500 Flint muskets mentioned were intended for all the militias (Auckland, Wellington, Nelson, and Taranaki) or solely for the Auckland Militia.
[4] Major of Brigade, Arms and Ammunition Issued for New Plymouth Militia Are to Be Paid For, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24118692 (New Zealand Archives, 1858).
[5] Notice to Foreign Stations from War Department, 19 April 1856 ibid.
[6] It is probable that these prize pistols were for awarded for service associated with the Battle of Waireka on 28 March 1860. Hayden Hughes, “The Adams Percussion Revolver in New Zealand Wars.”
[7] Captain Balneavis, Requesting to Be Allowed Another Assistant to Keep Arms in Order, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24099683 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1858).
[8] “Report of the Audit Committee of 1861,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives 1861 Session I, B-01a (1861).
[9] “Nominal Return of All Officers in the Employ of the Governmant: Their Duties, Salaries, Location and Dates of Appointment,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1866 Session I, D-03 (1866): 12.
[10] “Reductions in Civil Service,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1888 Session I, H-30, 11 May 1888.
[11] Deputy Adjutant General to Colonial Secretary, Authority to employ Arms Cleaners 5 December 1861. F.D Fell, “To Forward Return of Arms Issued and in Store,” Archives New Zealand Item No R24075932 (1861).
[12] Deputy Adjutant-General, “Authority to Mark Arms Received from England,” ibid.
[14] Probable recipients were Beaumont Adams Patent: No 36204R “Presented by the N.Z. Government to John Phillips for gallantry at Taranaki AD 1860” – (Puke Ariki Collection)
Beaumont Adams Patent: No 26174 “Presented by the N.Z. Government to James Ball for gallant conduct in the field at Taranaki, AD 1860” – (Puke Ariki Collection)
Beaumont Adams Patent: No 34367R “Presented by the N.Z. Government to member Frank Mace of the Taranaki Rifle Volunteers for gallantry in the field on 28 March 1860 at Waireka, New Plymouth, Taranaki.” – (Puke Ariki Collection)
Beaumont Adams Patent: No 33550R “Presented by the N.Z. Government to member Charles Messenger of the Taranaki Rifle Volunteers for gallantry in the field on 28 March 1860 at Waireka, New Plymouth, and Taranaki.” – (Puke Ariki Collection)
Beaumont Adams Patent: No 36203R “Presented by the N.Z. Government to Robert Old for gallant conduct in the field at Taranaki, AD 1860” (Auckland War Museum)
Beaumont Adams Patent: No ?????: “Presented by the N.Z. Government to member Edward Messenger of the Taranaki Rifle Volunteers for gallantry in the field on 28 March 1860 at Waireka, New Plymouth, Taranaki.” (Location unknown) Terry Shattock, 26 February 2024. “Taranaki,” Wellington Independent, Volume XVII, Issue 1740, 15 July 1862.
[15] Hebbert and Co Invoice Sevilla 20 September 1860, Acknowledging Instructions to Pay Hebbert and Company.
[16] Gilfillan and Co, Have Ordered Carbines Etc from Sydney, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24487421 (New Zealand Archives, 1860).
[17] Deputy Adjutant General, Proceedings of a Board ‘Sevilla’, 310 Rifles, 180 Frogs, 340 Sets Accoutrements, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24488115 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1861).
[18]Proceedings of a Board ‘Sevilla’, 5 Condemmed, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24488054 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1861).
[19]Proceedings of a Board ‘Sevilla’, 45 Breech-Loading Carbines, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24488117 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1861).
[20] Hebbert and Co Invoice Bosworth 10 October 1860. Acknowledging Instructions to Pay Hebbert and Company.
[21] Letter Gilfillan to Colonial Secretary 4 March 1861. John Alexander Gilfillan, Received Arms for the Govt by the “Bosworth”, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24131367 (New Zealand Archives, 1861).
[22] Deputy Adjutant General, Proceedings of a Board ‘Bosworth’, 300 Rifles,, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24488116 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1861).
[23]Proceedings of a Board “Bosworth’, 35 Breech Loading Carbines, Ammunition, Accoutrements, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24488114 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1861).
[24] Hebbert and Co Invoice African 31 December 1860. Acknowledging Instructions to Pay Hebbert and Company.
[25] Hebbert and Co Invoice Waterlily 13 January 1861. Ibid.
[26] Hebbert and Co Invoice Broadwater 19 March 1861. Ibid.
[27] Hebbert and Co Invoice Northumberland 22 April 1861. Ibid.
[28] Proceedings of a Board ‘Northumberland’ 710 Rifles, 300 Carbines ibid.
[29] “Return of the Amount Expended out of the War Loan of 150000 from 1 October 1860 to 12 June 1861,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1861 Session I, B-05 (1861).
[30] “Return of the Amount Expended out of the War Loan of 150000 from 13th June 1861 to 31st March 1862,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1862 Session I, B-04 (1862).
[31]Schedule of Accounts and Papers Laid Upon the Table – Arms and Ammunition, a Return Showing the Distribution of Arms Belonging to the Government of New Zealand, Archives New Zealand Item Id r17684521 (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 1860).
[32] Deputy Adjutant General, Distribution of Rifles and Carbines, Archives New Zealand Item Id R24488026 (New Zealand Archives, 1861).
Captain Sam Cosgrave Anderson, a figure often overshadowed but undeniably significant in New Zealand’s military logistics history, came into this world in 1841, born to Frank Anderson and Margaret Cosgrove in Belfast, Ireland. Although details of Anderson’s formative years and education remain elusive, a pivotal juncture emerged in 1863 when he embarked on a journey that led him to the Colony of New Zealand. This marked the genesis of a path that would shape an illustrious career, leaving an indelible mark on New Zealand’s military logistics landscape.
Upon his arrival in New Zealand, Captain Anderson’s commitment to service saw him mustered into the ranks of No 7 Company, Waikato Militia, where he served for nineteen months across the Waikato and Thames districts. Following his stint in the militia, Anderson transitioned to the Commissariat Department in Auckland as a clerk. This seemingly modest role laid the bedrock for his subsequent contributions to New Zealand’s military logistical operations.[1]
Unfazed by the challenges of his era, Captain Anderson ventured to the West Coast Goldfields on an unsuccessful quest to find his fortune. By 1868, his journey led him to Wanganui, and on 25 October that year, he assumed the role of Clerk to the Militia Quartermaster at Patea. The journey of Captain Anderson continued to unfold as he accepted the position of Clerk in Wellington under the Defence Inspector of Stores, Lieutenant Colonel. Edward Gorton, on 27 April 1869.[2]
Captain Anderson’s ambition and dedication propelled him to seek a transfer from the Inspector of Stores office to become the Defence Storekeeper in July 1869. His subsequent elevation to the role of Armed Constabulary Storekeeper on 1 December 1869 marked a pivotal point in his career trajectory. This position, equivalent in grade and compensation to the Defence Storekeepers in Auckland, Whanganui, and Wellington, was stationed at the Mount Cook Barracks on Buckle Street, serving as the epicentre of New Zealand’s Armed Constabulary and Defence Forces.
A prominent figure under the jurisdiction of the Under Secretary of Defence, Captain Anderson assumed command of the Defence Stores on 18 May 1878 to 9 January 1877. [3] This phase of Anderson’s career was one of transition for the military as it evolved from a force focused on domestic defence to one oriented towards external security, which brought new challenges and responsibilities to Anderson’s purview.[4] Notably, over the next thirty years, he spearheaded the systematic reception and distribution of weaponry, overseeing the progression from Snider rifles and carbines to the introduction of the Martini-Henry Rifle in the 1890s.[5]
Captain Anderson’s indomitable spirit and commitment were exemplified in his involvement in the closing chapters of the New Zealand Wars. The Parihaka campaign of 1881 saw him participate in a government-led expedition to restore order and conclude a period of civil disobedience. While morally dubious, this campaign ended the dispute but left enduring emotional and social scars. Captain Anderson’s logistical prowess earned acclaim, particularly in providing provisions, transportation and accommodation for the Volunteers and Constabulary.[6]
Officers of the NZ Armed Constabulary at Parihaka. Back, left to right: Captains W E Gudgeon, H Morrison, Gordon, Taylor, Powell, Fortescue, S Newall and Major A Tuke. Front, left to right: Captains Baker and Anderson, Lieutenant-Colonel John Mackintosh Roberts, Captains Gilbert Mair, Henry William Northcroft, W B Messenger and Major F Y Goring. Cowan, James, 1870-1943 :Collection of photographs. Ref: 1/1-017952-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23057608
Officers of the NZ Armed Constabulary at Parihaka. Back, left to right: Captains W E Gudgeon, H Morrison, Gordon, Taylor, Powell, Fortescue, S Newall and Major A Tuke. Front, left to right: Captains Baker and Anderson, Lieutenant-Colonel John Mackintosh Roberts, Captains Gilbert Mair, Henry William Northcroft, W B Messenger and Major F Y Goring.
Captain Anderson was recommended for a commission for his exemplary efforts during the Parihaka campaign, culminating in his gazetting as a New Zealand Constabulary Quartermaster with the Rank of Captain in the New Zealand Militia in January 1882.[7] Simultaneously, he undertook the mantle of Quartermaster for the Permanent Militia, cementing his multifaceted contributions to the nation’s defence.[8]
Captain Anderson’s narrative transcends his military endeavours alone. A significant chapter unfolded with the birth of his son, Frank Lionel, on 9 February 1871 in Wellington. Frank Lionel’s arrival preceded his parents’ official marriage. It was the product of a relationship with Sarah Ann Fryson/Tyson née Gyde, which adds depth to Captain Anderson’s life story.
1872 Captain Anderson married Mary Ann White, a union that brought companionship and shared aspirations. However, life’s challenges were not far behind, and the passing of his wife on 12 September 1889 in Wellington marked a poignant moment of loss and reflection.
The evolution of the military demanded adaptive measures in logistics and management. In conjunction with Sergeant Majors Robert George Vinning Parker and Frederick Silver of the Permanent Artillery, Captain Anderson contributed to establishing a system of Artillery Stores Accounting that endured into the early 20th century, showcasing his willingness to embrace innovation and optimise resource utilisation.[9]
Despite the evolving landscape of military organisation, Captain Anderson’s role as Defence Storekeeper retained its essential structure. Delegating responsibilities to his chief Clerk, Thomas Henry Sewell, Anderson ensured the smooth operation of the Wellington Defence Stores while he focused on supporting the force on a national level.[10] Amidst economic downturns, changing armament, and a shifting military landscape, his steadfast leadership navigated challenges, fostering stability and readiness.
In 1893 the Commandant of the New Zealand Forces, Colonel Francis John Fox, commended Anderson stating that,
Captain Anderson is Storekeeper. This officer has a great deal of responsibility, keeps his stores in good order, and is thoroughly competent and to be relied on.[11]
Fox’s commendation in 1893 underscored Captain Anderson’s pivotal role as Storekeeper, a position demanding both reliability and competence. This acknowledgement resonated throughout his years of dedicated service, only interrupted by a three-month leave of absence prompted by medical advice in April 1899.
The eve of the 20th century heralded a significant test of Captain Anderson’s capabilities. With the outbreak of the South Africa war, the New Zealand Government committed a contingent to the Imperial forces. Urgent mobilisation necessitated rapid procurement and distribution of equipment and uniforms. Captain Anderson and his team worked tirelessly to meet the needs of the assembling contingent, showcasing their commitment to the nation’s defence.
Tragically, Captain Anderson’s life was cut short on 7 December 1899, succumbing to a brief illness believed to be attributed to the stress and extended work hours that characterised his dedication.[12] Captain Anderson found his final resting place alongside his wife at St. John’s Anglican Churchyard Cemetery in Johnsonville, Wellington.
His legacy is a testament to his service, leadership, and unwavering commitment to the nation’s defence, which until now has gone unrecognised. However, from now on, his story should influence and inspire future generations of New Zealand military logisticians, reflecting the epitome of selfless dedication to duty and the betterment of his country.
While not a comprehensive compilation, Gorton, in his role as Inspector of Stores, carried out inspections during the specified period at the following locations:
July 1870, Auckland
August 1870, Wanganui and Napier
December 1870, Wanganui and Auckland
April 1871, Christchurch
May 1871, Dunedin
June 1871, Auckland, Tauranga, Thames
Mount Albert Powder Magazine
In February of 1871, newspapers carried reports about a rumour circulating regarding the arrest of an individual suspected of attempting to ignite the powder magazine at Albert Barracks. These allegations’ accuracy remained uncertain, spurring a call to implement strict measures to safeguard the magazine from potential incidents. Interestingly, changes had occurred after the British Garrison’s departure; formerly, not even a lit pipe or cigar would have been permitted past the vigilant sentry at the gates. However, the entry regulations had since been relaxed, even allowing for firing rockets within the Barrack-square on multiple occasions. This alteration raised concerns about the decline in vigilance.[4]
Adding to the discomfort was the realisation that the amount of powder stored within the Albert Barrack magazine exceeded the quantity recorded in official documents. The concern stemmed from the potential for an explosion capable of causing catastrophic damage to Auckland, resulting in the loss of numerous lives across a wide area. Given the magazine’s central location within a densely populated city, urgent appeals were directed towards the authorities, urging them to exercise the utmost caution and explore the possibility of relocating the magazine to a safer site.. Satisfyin the demand of the local population, an announcement was made in March that the Powder Magazine was to be transferred from Albert Barrack to Mount Eden.[5] In May of 1871, the process of soliciting bids for the construction of a powder magazine at Mount Eden was initiated.[6]
Rifle Sights
After a thorough inspection of a batch of rifles by the armourers revealed unauthorised modifications to the sights, Gorton issued a directive in November 1870. This directive brought attention to the fact that specific rifles had been subject to unauthorised alterations to their back sights. Gorton’s instruction explicitly stated that any rifles found to have been altered should be immediately returned to the stores. Additionally, he warned that volunteers using the modified rifles during Government prize competitions would be disqualified.
Iron Sand Experiments
Armorurer and Artificer Edward Metcalf Smith had amassed several years of experience in the iron industry before commencing a gunsmith apprenticeship at the Royal Small Arms factories in London and Enfield, followed by a tenure at the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich. Arriving in New Zealand in 1861 as the Garrison Armorer, he progressed to the role of armourer for the Taranaki Militia and Taranaki Rifle Volunteers in 1864. While in Taranaki, he developed a keen interest in establishing a viable iron industry using Taranaki iron sands.[7]
By 1871, Smith had relocated to Wellington, assuming the position of Defence Armourer. Leveraging the resources of the Armourers shop, he persisted in refining his iron sand smelting process through experimentation and innovation.[8]
Notes
[1] District Sub Storekeepers roles encompassed dual responsibilities. These holders often held other functions, such as Militia Drill Instructors or Sub Storekeepers for the Public Works Department. In certain instances, Armed Constabulary Sub-Storekeepers also undertook the role of District Sub Storekeepers.
[2] Inspector of Stores Edward Gorton, Reporting on system of Store Accounts and with returns of Arms Ordnance Ammunition ans various Stores, Archives New Zealand Item ID R24174887, (Wellington: New Zealand Archives, 17 August, 1870).
[3] Edward Gorton, Reporting on system of Store Accounts and with returns of Arms Ordnance Ammunition ans various Stores.
