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

Leave a comment

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 Despite incremental updates, the Army’s uniform inventory had become a patchwork of outdated items, including 1940s-era garments, Jungle Greens introduced in 1958 (with minor updates in the 1960s), and the Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM) uniforms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

The Need for Modernisation

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

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  • Aging Designs: Many garments were outdated and no longer met modern standards for durability, comfort, or appearance.

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

The “Dress for the 90s” Proposals

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

Combat Clothing

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

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

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

    Barrack Dress

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

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

    Ceremonial and Mess Dress

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

    Barrack Dress – Ceremonial

    Physical Training (PT) Dress

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

    Issuing Procedures and Accounting System

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

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

    Cost Implications

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

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

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

    Supplementary Notes and Recommendations

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

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

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

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

    Implementation and Outcomes

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

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

    Conclusion

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

    Notes

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

    Materials Handling Equipment (MHE) in the New Zealand Army, 1988

    Leave a comment

    Materials Handling Equipment (MHE) is often an overlooked yet critical component of military logistics, providing the backbone for efficient movement and management of supplies and equipment across the supply chain. Despite its essential role, MHE frequently suffers from neglect regarding investment, modernisation, and strategic planning.

    In 1988, recognising the operational necessity of MHE, the New Zealand Army highlighted its importance in enhancing logistics efficiency and operational adaptability. This recognition was formalised in the Army Equipment Policy Statement (AEPS) No. 63, updated in 1989, which provided a framework for the development and employment of MHE within the Army.

    This article examines the New Zealand Army’s approach during this period, exploring the capabilities, policies, and operational roles assigned to MHE. By reflecting on these measures, this article underscores the often-underappreciated significance of MHE and the need for sustained attention to ensure this vital capability continues to meet modern operational demands.

    The Scope of AEPS No. 63

    AEPS No. 63, updated in September 1989, established clear guidelines for MHE—equipment primarily designed for materials handling. It excluded items with secondary materials-handling roles, such as engineer plant, air delivery, or recovery equipment, while advocating for consideration of these items during acquisition to maximise their utility.[1]

    Definitions and Standardisation

    AEPS No. 63 introduced precise definitions to guide the Army’s logistical operations:

    • Materials Handling: Movement of materials across warehouses, production processes, and shipping areas.
    • Container Handling: Management of ISO containers, modular shelters, and specialised military modules.
    • Standard Pallet: The NATO pallet had specific dimensions (1000mm x 1200mm x 175mm).
    • Special Purpose Pallets: Customised for specific loads or transport types, such as 436L air transport pallets.
    • Standard Unit Load (SUL): Defined dimensions for palletised, non-palletised, or containerised loads.

    The categorisation of MHE into Depot MHE (designed for paved surfaces) and Field MHE (capable of operating on uneven or soft ground) ensured a tailored approach to logistics.

    ISO Containers and Modular Shelters

    The Army’s MHE policy detailed specific container and shelter requirements:

    ISO Containers

    • 20-Foot (6.10m) 1C Cargo Container: Maximum gross weight of 24,000kg; tare weight of 2,230kg.
    • 10-Foot (3.05m) 1D Cargo Container: Maximum gross weight of 10,160kg; tare weight of 1,260kg.

    Modular Shelters

    • 20-Foot (6.10m) 1C Shelter: Gross weight of 3,000kg.
    • 13-Foot 2in (4.012m) 1DX Shelter: Specialist shelters with tare weight of 15,800kg and gross weight of 4,000kg. Over 80 in service, across eight varients
      • Quartermaster
      • Machine/Welding
      • General Engineering
      • Automotive Repair
      • Small Army Repair
      • 230VAC Repair
      • Binner Storage
      • Automative Repair
    • 10-Foot (3.05m) 1D Shelter: Prototype variant used for peacetime storage.
    • 1EX Shelters (Steel and Aluminium): Dimensions and weights varied, tailored for roles such as Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) and radio signal units.
    New Zealand Army 13′ Shelter Non-Expandable

    Operational Necessity of MHE

    MHE’s primary role was to handle bulk equipment and supplies efficiently, minimising manual labour and maximising logistical throughput. Key operational requirements included:

    1. Depot and Field MHE to manage the Army’s range of ISO containers and modular shelters.
    2. Compatibility with the logistic supply chain for handling bulk supplies from home bases to forward operational areas.
    3. Use of ISO Containers for bulk movement, primarily within logistics hubs, while palletised loads extended to unit echelons.

    MHE usage spanned all points of the supply chain, including:

    • Point of Entry (POE): Comprehensive MHE and container handling equipment (CHE) to manage diverse loads.
    • Forward Maintenance Group (FMG): Similar to POE but with less CHE capabilities and more reliance on modular distribution systems (MDS)
    • Brigade Maintenance Area (BMA): Limited range of MHE and MDS for further bulk-breaking.
    • Unit-Level Support: Field MHE to handle specialised and palletised combat supplies.

    Desired Characteristics of MHE

    To meet the operational requirements, MHE was expected to possess the following attributes:

    1. Field MHE:
      • Mobility on and off-road.
      • Medium all-wheel drive capability.
      • Operability across a range of climatic conditions.
      • Compatibility with tactical transport systems and NZ Army fuel standards.
    2. Depot MHE:
      • Operability on paved surfaces.
      • Compliance with civil standards.
      • Versatility in aisle widths and container de-stuffing.
      • Use of multiple fuel types, including electricity.

    MHE in Service (1988)

    The New Zealand Army maintained an extensive inventory of MHE, categorised as Depot MHE, Field MHE, and Modular Distribution Systems (MDS). Key equipment included:

    Depot MHE

    • Forklifts from brands like Lansing Bagnall, Toyota, and Komatsu, with capacities ranging from 1000kg to 10,000kg.
    • Electric forklifts for ammunition areas.

    Field MHE

    • Rough terrain forklifts, including;
    • 22 x Leesander RT25.
    • 3 x Hough models.
    • 2 x Eager Beavers utilised by 5 Movements Squadron, RNZCT.[2]
    Leesander RT25

    Modular Distribution Systems

    • MDS ranging from 2-tonne to 10-tonne capacities, complemented by 10-tonne lifting beams.
    Modular Distribution Systems (Container Lifting Device) https://mdsc-systems.ee/en/references/lifting-devices/

    Strategic Interoperability and International Standards

    The Army’s MHE policy emphasised standardisation with equipment used by allies, ensuring seamless interoperability. Key guidelines and standards included:

    • STANAGs: Specifications for field and depot MHE.
    • ISO Standards: Governing modular shelters and containers.
    • Overseas Studies: Leveraging insights from ABCA, Australia, Canada, and the UK.

    Distribution Policy

    The distribution of MHE was tailored to align with operational requirements, with RNZAOC units holding the majority of the equipment, followed by RNZCT units, and smaller quantities allocated to other Army units. This arrangement prioritised strategic deployment to maximise logistics efficiency and maintain operational readiness.

    Conclusion

    In 1988, MHE was a vital asset for the New Zealand Army, forming the backbone of efficient logistics operations in both peace and conflict. The AEPS No. 63 established a comprehensive framework for the acquisition, deployment, and standardisation of MHE, paving the way for the phased retirement of RT25s and Eager Beavers in favour of more capable Skytrak 10000NZ RFTL and Matbro RFTL from 1995. By facilitating bulk handling of supplies and equipment, MHE significantly reduced manpower demands while enhancing operational efficiency, underscoring its indispensable role in New Zealand’s military logistics.

    Notes

    [1] “Equipment and Supplies – Overall Policy – Material Handling Equipment,” Archives New Zealand Item No R7934643  (1988).

    [2] “Equipment And Supplies – Overall Policy – Medium Lift Rough Terrain Forklift  (4000- 5000 kg),” Archives New Zealand Item No R6822831  (1983-1995).

    The NZDF’s Evolution of Inventory Management from DSSR to SAP, 1984-1998

    Leave a comment

    SAP, an acronym for Systems, Applications, and Products in Data Processing, is a global leader in enterprise resource planning (ERP) software. Founded in 1972 in Germany, SAP SE has developed comprehensive ERP solutions that integrate various organisational functions into a unified system, including finance, logistics, human resources, and supply chain management. This integration enables real-time data access and streamlines workflows, enhancing operational efficiency and decision-making processes.[1]

    For the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF), implementing SAP through the Defence Supply Redevelopment Project (DSRP) and Project Fusion marked a shift toward a modern, data-driven approach with the potential to strengthen the NZDFs’ ability to meet the evolving demands of military logistics.

    Between 1984 and 1994, the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC) led the NZ Army effort as part of the significant NZDF initiative to reform supply and inventory management via the DSRP and Project Fusion. Building on earlier projects like the Defence Supply Systems Retail (DSSR) and Defence Supply System Development (DSSD) initiatives, the DSRP set a new standard and laid the foundation for ongoing modernisation, leading to SAP’s adoption as the Defence Inventory Management platform in 1998.

    Defence Supply Redevelopment Project (DSRP) – 1984

    The DSRP sought to transition from manual processes to computerised supply and inventory management. Initially, the focus was on upgrading NCR accounting machines to mainframe-connected terminals, digitising records with minimal functional enhancements. Although limitations persisted, this shift offered benefits like eliminating manual ledger cards, real-time record updates, and enhanced data availability. Notably, the coexistence of three Item Management Records across various levels (the Defence Codification Agency, retail, and depot) led to duplication, inefficiency, and repeated updates of NSNs (National Stock Numbers).

    The DSRP’s objectives were ambitious:

    1. Automating supply functions cost-effectively.
    2. Improving the management of high-value repairable items.
    3. Reducing inventory value while maintaining service levels.
    4. Centralising item management.
    5. Enabling multi-level data access.
    6. Supporting national asset management.
    7. Providing analytical and performance measurement tools.
    8. Relating inventory levels to demand rates.
    9. Enhancing warehousing efficiency.
    10. Standardising core functions with adaptable subsystems across services.
    11. Providing forecasting and cost assessment capabilities.

    Using the SPECTRUM project management system, the DSRP team conducted research and simulations based on NZ Defence Inventory statistics, testing supply and inventory management theories. Recognising the value of learning from allied practices, the team also conducted international reviews with UK, US, and Australian defence forces to avoid redundant explorations and ensure an informed approach.[2]

    Defence Inventory Structure and Challenges – 1985

    In 1985, the Defence Inventory comprised approximately 600,000 stock lines valued at NZ$155 million ($560,306,361 in 2024), making it one of the country’s largest inventories. Notably, 90% of depot-level items cost less than NZ$100 ($361.49 in 2024) and 69% less than NZ$10 ($36.15 in 2024), enabling prioritised management of high-cost items. The inventory’s Demand Rate analysis highlighted varying item turnover rates, with the majority (71%) categorised as “Too Slow.” Fast-moving, high-cost items required close stock control to prevent stockouts, optimising budget utilisation and customer service.[3]

    The mainframe batch-processing system of the time, linked to data capture machines at supply units, relied on manual data transfer via paper tape. The lag between transaction and data integration often rendered central records outdated, limiting operational efficiency.

    Implementation of DSSR

    Initially rolled out in 1984, the NZDF implemented DSSR as an intermediate solution. DSSR replaced manual ledger cards with electronic records and simplified stock management at retail units. RNZAF Base Auckland led this transition, with 1 Supply Company, RNZAOC in Ngāruawāhia, the first Army unit to transition.[4] By 1985, DSSR allowed units to conduct transactions, generate automated reports, and maintain up-to-date stock files, reducing dependency on higher Headquarters for stock information. The meticulous planning and testing of DSSR implementation instilled confidence in its effectiveness.

    Sergeant Gerry Rolfe and DSSR Terminal, FMG Annual Camp 1988. RNZAOC Collection

    Defence Supply System Development (DSSD)

    DSSD, the second phase of supply reform, addressed the limitations of NCR accounting machines. Initially established as an expansion of DSSR, DSSD aimed to develop a stable, online supply and replenishment system. Although interim in scope, DSSD laid the foundation for broader supply management enhancements. Developed through a structured project lifecycle, the system addressed fundamental data integrity and management issues within existing supply structures.

    DSSD introduced a three-tiered record structure to streamline data handling:

    1. Item Identification Record (IIR): Standardised item information across Defence.
    2. Item Management Record (IMR): Service-specific data, ensuring consistency.
    3. Item Account Record (IAR): Unit-level records linked to IIR and IMR, improving data accuracy and reducing redundancy.

    System Enhancements: Provisioning, Receipts, and Stocktaking

    DSSD incorporated key supply functions, enabling more accurate provisioning, automated stock level monitoring, and faster transaction processing. Notable improvements included:

    • Automated provisioning using a refined Provision Management Code (PMC) for faster processing and workload reduction.
    • Receipt processing through warehouse-located Visual Display Units (VDUs), enabling immediate stock updates and more efficient stocktaking.
    • Bin Management: Enhanced warehousing efficiency by managing stock by location and expiry, supporting FIFO (first-in, first-out) principles.[5]

    Consumer Unit Accounting – 1993

    In 1993, the NZ Army implemented Consumer Unit Accounting within its Quartermaster Stores, preparing for an eventual transition to Project Fusion. By trialling this system at 2nd Field Hospital, the NZ Army established a streamlined Q Store management model within DSSD, with full implementation planned for mid-1993.[6]

    Transition to SAP

    By 1996, with the dust barely settled on the DSSD and Consumer Unit Accounting implementations, the NZDF inventory and supply system continued to evolve significantly. The SAP finance module went live that year, followed by SAP Inventory Management in 1998 and SAP Plant Maintenance in 1999.

    SAP’s implementation was intended to be transformative by providing an integrated platform encompassing inventory, finance, and maintenance management. It promised enhanced transparency, accountability, and streamlined workflows across the NZDF. SAP’s ERP structure enabled a comprehensive view of the NZDF’s resources, potentially allowing for more efficient stock control, cost management, and operational readiness. However, SAP’s rollout in the NZDF was not seamless. The broader organisational restructuring—such as the merging of Army logistics corps and trades, commercialisation pressures, service-specific variances and the East Timor Deployment—created friction in the system’s adoption and efficacy. Initial teething issues with SAP exposed gaps between its ambitious capabilities and the practical realities of NZDF’s operational needs, including cultural resistance, institutional disobedience and adjustment issues across the NZDF.

    SAP marked a significant leap in data integration and accessibility but has also introduced complexities that did not exist in the manual and earlier computerised systems. While these older systems were labour-intensive, they were simple and provided a level of clarity that more complex ERP systems can obscure. For example, SAP’s reliance on data accuracy and interlinked functions can be both a strength and a weakness; if data entry processes or interservice coordination falter, SAP can lead to cascading errors or inefficient resource allocation. This contrasts with the older systems, where more direct oversight allowed immediate corrective actions, albeit with higher personnel involvement.

    The NZDF’s historical reliance on incremental upgrades also indicates a pattern of preferring stability over rapid technological shifts, which may have contributed to SAP’s challenges in achieving full operational potential. Further, legacy systems’ straightforward data architecture may have been more adaptable to ad-hoc military requirements. At the same time, SAP’s complex structure requires rigorous adherence to standard operating procedures, which can be challenging in dynamic military environments.

    In summary, the NZDF’s journey from DSSR to SAP encapsulates the challenges of modernising logistics within a traditional military framework. While SAP has undeniably centralised and automated NZDF’s inventory management, unlocking its full potential requires addressing its limitations, particularly regarding adaptability, deployability in operational environments, data integrity, and interservice coordination. A balanced approach incorporating lessons from legacy systems while leveraging SAP’s advanced capabilities could provide the NZDF with a practical, adaptable logistics system tailored to its unique operational demands.

    Notes

    [1] “What is SAP ERP?,” 2024, accessed 11 November, 2024, https://www.sap.com/products/erp/what-is-sap-erp.html.

    [2] Lou Gardiner, “Defence Supply Redevelopment Project,” RNZAOC Pataka Magazine  (8 March 1984): 14.

    [3] Lou Gardiner, “The Current Defence Inventory,” RNZAOC Pataka Magazine  (8 March 1984): 15-18.

    [4] Frank Ryan, “DSSR  Implementation Update,” RNZAOC Pataka Magazine  (8 March 1984): 19.

    [5] Grahame Loveday, “Defence Supply System Development,” RNZAOC Pataka Magazine 1/87  (April 1987): 49-53.

    [6] Kevin Riesterer, “Consumer Unit Accounting,” RNZAOC Pataka Magazine 1993  (July 1993): 9.

    New Zealand Army Stores Accounting (1939-1944): Overcoming Wartime Supply Challenges

    Leave a comment

    Between 1939 and 1944, the New Zealand Army’s home-front logistics functions undertook a monumental task. They faced significant obstacles in maintaining accurate record-keeping and inventory control, dealing with challenges such as limited storage capacity, a shortage of experienced personnel, and high turnover rates.  At the peak of this period, nearly 200,000 regular, Territorial, and Home Guard troops were mobilised and dispersed in numerous units across New Zealand and the Pacific, all in need of weapons, ammunition, clothing, and equipment. The scale of their operation was immense, and their efforts were crucial to the war effort. Supplying and maintaining this force, especially as they were dispersed and many required specialised and technical resources, was a testament to the dedication and resourcefulness of the personnel tasked with stores accounting.

    With allied forces unable to stem the Japanese offensive in Asia and the Pacific and invasion likely, the situation’s urgency demanded swift and efficient mobilisation. However, the constant reshuffling of personnel and frequent transfers of equipment and ammunition between units added further complexity. Organisational changes and equipment shortfalls were frequent, compounding the difficulty of building up and sustaining military readiness at home while supporting New Zealand’s deployed forces overseas. Despite these hurdles, the New Zealand Army’s logistics efforts achieved significant milestones. Their resilience and adaptability in the face of immense national and global pressure are a source of admiration.

    The Accounting System

    Like the armies of Canada and Australia, the New Zealand Army was organised and equipped in line with British doctrine, with the New Zealand Army General Staff determining the Army’s organisation with local modifications to fit New Zealand’s unique requirements. These organisational structures were formalised through three main types of documents:

    The Order of Battle (ORBAT): This outlined the number and composition of formations, detailing the units they commanded following the General Staff’s policy decisions.

    The War Establishment (WE): This document specified each unit’s authorised staffing and structure, which were, in most cases, identical to the British Army war establishments.

    The Unit Equipment Table (Form NZ 483): These defined each unit’s authorised stores and equipment. Examples of Equipment Tables approved from July 1939 were:[1] [2]

    • Form NZ 483-2: – HQ of a Mounted Rifle Brigade
    • Form NZ 483-3: – HQ of Infantry Brigade
    • Form NZ 483-5: – HQ of Infantry Brigade and Attached Troops
    • Form NZ 483-6: – HQ of a Medium Regiment, NZ
    • Form NZ 483-21: – A Mounted Rifle Regiment (Horse)
    • Form NZ 483-22: – A Mounted Rifle Squadron (Motorised)
    • Form NZ 483-23: – An Independent Mounted Rifle Squadron
    • Form NZ 483-24: – A Motor Regiment
    • Form NZ 483-32: – A Medium Battery
    • Form NZ 483-52: – A Field Company, RNZE
    • Form NZ 483-61: (a) – HQ of a District Signals Company
    • Form NZ 483-61: (b) – No 1 Sect, A District Signals Company
    • Form NZ 483-61: (c) – No 2 (M.R Brigaded Section) A District Sigs Coy
    • Form NZ 483-61: (d) – No 3 (Fd Arty Bde Sect) A District Sigs Coy
    • Form NZ 483-61: (e) – No 4 (Med Arty Bde Sect) A District Sig Coy
    • Form NZ 483-61: (f) – No 5 (Inf Bde Sect) A District Sig Coy
    • Form NZ 483-71: – An Infantry (Mixed) Battalion
    • Form NZ 483-72: – An Infantry (Mixed) Battalion (Fortress)
    • Form NZ 483-73: – No 2a (LMG) Platoon, for a Fortress Bn
    • Form NZ 483-76: – A Detached Rifle Company, National Military Reserve
    • Form NZ 483-81: – A Composite Company, ASC
    • Form NZ 483-82: – A Reserve MT Company, ASC
    • Form NZ 483-83: – A Composite Company, AHQ Reserve Group
    • Form NZ 483-91: – A Field Ambulance (Mechanised)
    • Form NZ 483-101: – A Light Aid Detachment, NZAOC

    Changes to the unit organisation often stemmed from General Staff policy decisions regarding equipment scales—such as weapons, vehicles, and wirelesses—resulting in corresponding amendments to the War Establishments and Unit Equipment Table Form NZ 483 tables.

    Each unit maintained both ‘peace’ and ‘war’ establishments. While the peace establishment included reduced personnel and resources for peacetime training, the war establishment detailed the full complement of men and equipment needed for active service. From 1939, regular and territorial units in New Zealand began mobilising to war strength with reservists, integrating the Territorial Force and recruits through the New Zealand Temporary Staff (NZTS), marking the shift to a wartime footing.

    With an established table of what stores they should hold, A unit or sub-unit knew exactly what equipment they were responsible for, including spades, shovels, axes, etc. They would also have items of controlled stores usually identified with a serial number – the controlled stores would include compasses, binoculars, wristwatches, etc., which, when issued, would be signed for. When losing a controlled item, a Board of Inquiry was conducted to establish the circumstances of loss and determine who (usually the soldier) should pay for it.

    The Company Quartermaster Sergeant (CQMS), whose rank could be Sergeant, Staff Sergeant of Warrant Officer Class Two, or, of course, the Company Commander, was responsible for the accountability of the unit or sub-unit stores. Standards of accountability for unit stores varied, with some units conducting regular kit checks and publishing lists of soldiers with deficiencies and the amount they owed in unit routine orders.

    Manual Systems and Administrative Burden

    The Army stores accounting system applied to all units of the New Zealand Army. It was based on a unit ledger, supported by inventories, vouchers, schedules, and scales of issue, which recorded all store items and transactions in the unit. All entries in ledgers were to be supported by a voucher, and all vouchers were cleared by posting to the ledger or annotated with a reference to another voucher or to the point of issue. Stores could only be struck off charge by one of the following:

    • An Issue Voucher, signed by the recipient of the stores
    • A Certificate Issue Voucher, where the recipient was not required to sign for the stores
    • A Board of Survey or Certificate of Condemnation
    • By an application to write of Army Stores

    Units such as NZAOC depots, MT Branch depots, mobilisation units and Camp Quartermaster Stores were classed as accounting units. They managed their stocks with a ledger card system using the NZ161 Ledger card.[3]

    Field Force units maintained their NZ Equipment Table as the main ledger, recording all items issued to the unit and their distribution.

    Photograph of World War II servicewomen unloading pillows. Ref: PAColl-8846. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22327559

     While effective, the system was inflexible compared to today’s digital Inventory Management systems. Under the pressures of wartime, maintaining rigorous documentation proved challenging, and adherence to procedural norms was sometimes relaxed to expedite supply to forces in the Pacific and Home Defence.

    Mobilisation and Training Impact

    In 1941, brigade and district manoeuvres escalated the army’s activity tempo, and early in 1942, the entire Territorial Force was mobilised, and tactical responsibilities with the Home Guard were formalised. Many units operated in active service conditions, with newly trained Quartermasters and staff often lacking prior military store management experience. The potential threat of invasion by Japanese forces added a sense of urgency and pressure, making training and equipping all available troops the top priority, even if it meant sacrificing strict clerical accuracy.[4]

    Members of the New Zealand Home Guard receiving equipment. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch:Photographs relating to World War 1939-1945. Ref: DA-00477. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22871820

    Before total mobilisation, many of the Regular and Territorial Force personnel and civilian staff skilled in stores accounting had deployed overseas with the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF) in the Middle East or with the Brigade Group in Fiji. This left domestic units staffed by officers and NCOs with limited military stores experience, often stationed in field locations without adequate storage facilities. Despite these challenges, the dedication and commitment of these officers and NCOs were unwavering, even as ongoing personnel rotation severely hindered inventory management.

    Progress in Accounting Practices

    By late 1943, the strategic situation had stabilised, and the threat of invasion was removed, with the demobilisation of the Home Guard and Territorial Force underway by early 1944. As part of this process, comprehensive audits of unit accounts were conducted. Despite some losses due to unrecorded stores, the overall value of missing inventory remained relatively low compared to the total volume managed. The following table presents the total amount written off from April 1939 to March 1944, which was £259,200 (equivalent to $28,119,860 in 2024).

    Note that “Deficiencies” – representing faulty accounting – contributed £84,710 ($9,165,191.67 in 2024). Including estimates for undetailed years, this figure suggests that deficiencies represented less than 40% of the total write-offs.[5]

    Reflecting on Wartime Logistics and Accountability

    During the peak demand period of 1942 and early 1943, stores accounting took a secondary role to the urgent need to supply the mobilised units efficiently. The New Zealand Army was not only receiving large shipments of war material from the United Kingdom and North America but also managing the distribution of substantial volumes of the same equipment for both Pacific deployments and Home Defence, prioritising speed over strict procedural adherence. While this approach led to some irregularities, major scandals were avoided, and only minor cases of misappropriation occurred. This flexibility demonstrates the staff’s pragmatic approach to balancing efficiency and accountability under extreme conditions, ensuring operational needs were met without compromising integrity.

    Lessons for Contemporary Military Stores Accounting

    This analysis provides a perspective for modern logistics professionals, especially when using contemporary data management systems. Despite the sophisticated features of these platforms—like precise tracking and real-time reporting—the effectiveness of these tools is often linked to the skills and judgment of the personnel who operate them. The lessons from the New Zealand Army’s wartime experiences demonstrate that the strategic use and flexibility in stores accounting can be crucial in emergencies. However, suppose the benefits of the modern systems are not being fully realised. The root cause likely lies in the organisation’s skill sets for managing and leveraging these resources.

    Rigidly following procedures can sometimes hinder progress, just as it did in the past when wartime conditions demanded quick and adaptable responses. For today’s logistics leaders, the real challenge is recognising when to exploit the flexibility offered by modern data systems and when to relax procedural controls. Balancing this requires training and experience, especially in crises where the pressure to deliver supplies efficiently can tempt managers to bypass standard processes. While this may be necessary temporarily, the quick restoration of standard procedures is essential to maintaining accountability and data quality.

    The key is adaptability, but only to the extent that it does not lead to long-term compromises in record-keeping and operational integrity. If modern data management tools are underperforming, investing in staff training and developing the necessary expertise could ensure these advanced systems are used to their full potential.

    Notes

    [1] “New Zealand Equipment Tables -Provisional,” New Zealand Army Order 164  (1 July 1939).

    [2] “New Zealand Equipment Tables -Provisional,” New Zealand Army Order 216  (1 October 1941).

    [3] “FORMS AND BOOKS: Forms adopted,” New Zealand Army Order 266  (1 October 1939).

    [4] “QMG (Quartermaster-Generals) Branch – September 1939 to March 1944,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541150  (1944).

    [5] “Appendices to Report on QMG (Quartermaster-General’s) Branch,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541151  (30 June 1944).

    Bringing the 3rd New Zealand Division Home: The Unheralded Triumph of New Zealand’s Greatest Military Reverse Logistics Operation

    Leave a comment

    Introduction

    Since 1940, New Zealand played a pivotal role in the Pacific theatre, initially maintaining a brigade group in Fiji from 1940 to 1942. After a brief reorganisation and training back home, this brigade group was reformed in 1943 as the 3rd New Zealand Division, the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the Pacific (NZEF IP). Well-equipped with thousands of vehicles, tanks, and an extensive supply of ammunition and ordnance stores, the division conducted several successful amphibious combat operations. However, by 1944, sustaining this division became untenable. This led to one of the most remarkable reverse logistics operations in New Zealand’s military history: the withdrawal and redeployment of the 3rd New Zealand Division back to New Zealand. This colossal effort faced unprecedented challenges, including the lack of modern material handling equipment (MHE) and the absence of information technology (IT) systems.

    New Zealand World War II soldiers loading stores into infantry landing craft, Vella Lavella, Solomon Islands. Ref: 1/2-044734-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22411372

    The Deployment and Its Challenges

    After reorganising in New Zealand, the 3rd New Zealand Division was deployed to the Solomon Islands, with its primary base in New Caledonia. By 1944, it became evident that New Zealand could no longer support this division due to the demands of both the Pacific and European theatres.[1] The decision was made to withdraw, with personnel either demobilised or redeployed to reinforce the 2nd New Zealand Division fighting in Italy. This withdrawal initiated a significant reverse logistics operation—one of the most remarkable in New Zealand’s military history.

    Military reverse logistics involves returning equipment, supplies, and personnel from forward operational areas to home bases or depots. It encompasses transportation and the recovery, inspection, refurbishment, and redistribution of materials. This inherently complex task demands meticulous coordination to ensure that every piece of equipment and supply is accounted for.[2]

    Despite its importance, many modern militaries do not sufficiently train for or practise reverse logistics, often leading to significant delays in regenerating forces after deployment. The lack of emphasis on these tasks can slow down the redeployment and recovery of operational capabilities, as critical items may be lost, damaged, or delayed in transit.

    Moreover, reverse logistics involves disposing of or recycling obsolete or damaged equipment, adding another layer of complexity. The pressure to quickly remove materials from operational theatres often conflicts with the need for thorough inspection and assessment. Without proper planning and execution, militaries may be unable to effectively reconstitute their forces for future missions, resulting in decreased readiness and prolonged downtime.

    Between August 1944 and July 1945, New Zealand undertook the monumental task of returning all equipment from the Pacific to its depots. This operation involved over 50,000 items held by the NZEFIP Ordnance depots, 3,274 vehicles, 25 tanks, and tonnes of ammunition and New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) supplies. Despite the vast scale of this effort, the return of the 3rd New Zealand Division has largely faded from memory. Nevertheless, it stands as a remarkable logistical achievement, showcasing the adaptability and efficiency of New Zealand’s military personnel under demanding conditions. Incorporating reverse logistics into military training and planning is vital for improving operational efficiency, reducing delays, and maintaining readiness—a challenge many modern forces still struggle to address fully.

    Infrastructure and Manual Labour as the Backbone

    The success of this operation heavily relied on the infrastructure at Mangere Crossing Camp in Auckland. Initially built for United States forces and known as Camp Euart, the camp was named in honour of Captain Elwood J. Euart of the United States Army Field Artillery. Captain Euart heroically lost his life while saving others during the sinking of the U.S. Army Transport President Coolidge due to striking a Japanese mine off the Island of Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu. Upon learning that soldiers were trapped in the ship’s infirmary, he re-entered the sinking vessel to assist them. Tying himself to the lower end of a rope, he held it steady enough for the trapped men to climb to safety despite the ship’s heavy listing. Tragically, when Euart attempted to climb the rope himself, the vessel suddenly careened and sank, preventing his escape. His selfless courage and devotion to duty cost him his life.[3]

    Camp Euart began hosting US forces in September 1942 and, at its peak, accommodated 5,000 troops—nearly equal to the entire population of Otahuhu at the time.[4] The camp remained under U.S. control until 1944, when it was vacated and handed over to the New Zealand forces. In August 1944, it became the Mangere Stores Sub Depot of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) Main Ordnance Depot (MOD), designated to receive supplies and equipment returned from the Pacific by the 3rd New Zealand Division, which established its advanced base headquarters at what became known as Mangere Crossing Camp.

    Strategically located near key rail and road networks, the 80-acre site became a central hub for processing vast quantities of war material. Although optimised for storage and handling, the logistics teams relied on manual labour, as no modern MHE was available then.

    The camp featured five warehouses designed for large-scale equipment storage:

    • Two warehouses, each measuring 300 by 120 feet (91 by 36 metres)
    • One warehouse measuring 300 by 60 feet (91 by 18 metres)
    • One warehouse measuring 360 by 120 feet (109 by 36 metres)
    • One warehouse measuring 200 by 240 feet (60 by 73 metres)

    These warehouses provided 190,200 square feet (17,670 square metres) of storage space. Adding three ancillary buildings increased the total space to 207,600 square feet (19,287 square metres). Each warehouse had concrete floors, wooden framing, and fibrolite walls and roofs, ensuring durability and protection from the elements.[5]

    An aerial view of the World War II US military camp, known as Camp Euart, and the supply depot at Mangere Crossing, 1944. Manukau Research Library, PAP: IV, Footprints 02152. Papatoetoe Historical Society.
    New housing beside industrial area in Otahuhu, Auckland 1949. Whites Aviation Ltd: Photographs. Ref: WA-19438-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22322624

    A key logistical advantage of the camp was its railway siding, which extended directly into the warehouse block. This allowed trains to deliver supplies straight into the camp, reducing handling time and labour demands. Integrating transport and storage was vital for managing the massive flow of materials—including 10,000 tonnes of mixed stores and 3,000 vehicles—that arrived over three months starting in August 1944.[6]

    3 NZ Division Tricks and Tanks parked at Main Ordnance Depot, Mangere Sub Bulk Depot on their Return from the Pacific in 1944. Alexander Turnbull Library
    3 NZ Division Tricks and Tanks parked at Main Ordnance Depot, Mangere Sub Bulk Depot on their Return from the Pacific in 1944. Alexander Turnbull Library
    3 NZ Division Tricks and Tanks parked at Main Ordnance Depot, Mangere Sub Bulk Depot on their Return from the Pacific in 1944. Alexander Turnbull Library
    3 NZ Division Tricks and Tanks parked at Main Ordnance Depot, Mangere Sub Bulk Depot on their Return from the Pacific in 1944. Alexander Turnbull Library
    3 NZ Division Tricks and Tanks parked at Main Ordnance Depot, Mangere Sub Bulk Depot on their Return from the Pacific in 1944. Alexander Turnbull Library

    Without modern IT systems for inventory tracking or automated equipment for loading and unloading, work parties manually handled over 250,000 packages, each averaging 100 pounds (45 kilograms).[7]

    The Ordeal of the Quartermasters

    One of the most remarkable aspects of this operation was the work of the quartermasters. Many of these men were not professional logisticians but wartime soldiers who had learned logistics and planning over the previous four years. The quartermasters from the 3rd Division, overseeing 90 accounting units, ensured every piece of equipment was meticulously accounted for and documented before leaving New Caledonia.

    Once the shipments arrived in New Zealand, their responsibilities intensified. They had to navigate shipping schedules, locate and verify their units’ equipment, and secure space for inspection—a massive logistical challenge requiring precision under pressure.

    Their task did not end with verification. Each item had to be cleaned, repaired if necessary, and repacked, all while passing rigorous inspections by the MOD staff and Defence Auditors. These inspectors refused to accept any equipment in less-than-perfect condition, leading to a detailed audit process. Quartermasters had to account for every lost or damaged item, often relying on incomplete records, while facing auditors who were relentless in spotting discrepancies. Clearance was only granted when the records were flawless, adding immense pressure to a demanding job.

    The success of this operation is even more impressive, considering these men were not trained logisticians. Their ability to plan, organise, and execute such a complex task highlights their adaptability and determination.

    A Triumph Despite the Odds

    By July 1945, the reverse logistics operation had been successfully completed. Equipment had either been returned to New Zealand’s MOD at Trentham or the Northern District Ordnance Depot at Hopuhopu, with many vehicles transferred to Sylvia Park, a former US stores depot repurposed for New Zealand military use. Equipment deemed damaged beyond repair or surplus was either sold through the War Assets Realisation Board or disposed of by public auction.

    Despite the absence of modern tools and systems, this operation was a remarkable achievement in New Zealand military logistics, unmatched today. While the infrastructure at Mangere Crossing Camp played a crucial role, the determination and resilience of New Zealand’s military personnel ensured the successful completion of this massive logistical effort.

    Conclusion

    The withdrawal of the 3rd New Zealand Division from the Pacific was not merely a redeployment after successful combat operations but a logistical achievement of remarkable scale. Conducted under extreme conditions, without the advantages of modern MHE or IT systems, the operation relied heavily on the strategic utilisation of available infrastructure, such as Mangere Crossing Camp, and the dedication of New Zealand’s military personnel. The meticulous coordination required to recover, sort, inspect, and redistribute thousands of items, vehicles, and stores showcased the exceptional adaptability of New Zealand’s logistics teams. This operation—the most significant reverse logistics effort in the nation’s military history—remains a powerful testament to the skill, resourcefulness, and perseverance of those who brought the 3rd New Zealand Division home under incredibly demanding circumstances. Though often overlooked, it is a crucial chapter in New Zealand’s military logistics legacy.

    Notes

    [1] Matthew Wright, Pacific War: New Zealand and Japan 1941-45 (Auckland, N.Z.: Reed, 2003, 2003), Bibliographies, Non-fiction.

    [2] Kristin F. Lynch, John G. Drew, Robert S. Tripp, and C. Robert Roll., Sustaining Army Forces in Operation Iraqi Freedom: Major Findings on the Experience of Army Logistics in the Field (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006).

    [3] “An Undeniable Act Of Self Sacrifice,” South Pacific World War II Museum, Espiritu Santo Vanuatu, 2024, 2024, https://southpacificwwiimuseum.com/euart/.

    [4] Matthews and Matthews Architechs Ltd., “Otahuhu Historic Heritage Survey – Overview Report,”  (2014): 32, chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz/arts-culture-heritage/heritage/heritagesurveys/otahuhu-heritage-survey-01.pdf.

    [5] F Grattan, Official War History of the Public Works Department (PWD, 1948), 687.

    [6] E.V Sale, Base Wallahs: Story of the units of the Nase Organisation, NZEF IP (A.H. and A.W. Reed for the Third Division Histories Committee, 1947), Non-fiction, 254-56.

    [7] P.P Henley, Ordnance: The unofficial history of the New Zeland Ordnance Corps in the Pacific from 1940 until the third division was disbanded in 1944 (A.H. and A.W. Reed for the Third Division Histories Committee, 1947), Non-fiction, 225.

    Debunking the Myth of New Zealand’s Military Unpreparedness During the Interwar Period

    Leave a comment

    During the interwar period, a popular myth emerged that New Zealand allowed its military to downsize so that by 1939, the country was woefully unprepared for war, with many contemporary studies highlighting that New Zealanders went to war no better equipped than their fathers in the First World War. While there is some truth to this narrative, a closer examination of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) and the broader activities of the New Zealand Army from 1931 to 1939 tells a more nuanced story. Despite material and personnel deficiencies, a keen awareness of global events prompted continuous military doctrines and preparations updates. These efforts ensured that, in the event of war, New Zealand could quickly mobilise not only the basic framework of an expeditionary force but also the necessary resources to support it in the long term.

    Evidence of Preparedness

    In 1931, the NZAOC had shrunk from a strength of 120 in 1930 to 21 officers and soldiers supported by a cadre of civilian staff in the Ordnance Depots and Workshops at Threntham, Hopohopu and Burnham. From 1934, Major Thomas Joseph King, the Director of Ordnance Services (DOS), ensured that critical positions were filled by competent and experienced personnel. Some were drawn from the existing NZAOC civil staff ranks (many were former NZAOC soldiers transferred to the civil staff in 1931), and others were recruited explicitly into the NZAOC, such as Allan Huia Andrews.

    Jonathan Fennell, in his book Fighting the People’s War: The British and Commonwealth Armies and the Second World War, identifies that throughout the interwar years, the British Military establishment analysed the lessons of the previous war and interpreted contemporary developments. Updating doctrine throughout the 1930s, the British Military progressively transformed into a mechanised force armed with some of the era’s most advanced weapons and equipment. The Field Service Regulations (FSR), the tactical bible of British Commonwealth armies, was updated with at least four editions, proving that the British Army was willing to learn from past mistakes. Compared to the two German and French equivalent doctrine editions produced during the same period. Following the British lead, New Zealand kept as much abreast of these developments as practically possible.

    Limited by the financial constraints of the time, training exercises and war games were conducted to keep military personnel sharp and ready from 1936. These exercises often simulated various scenarios, including mobilisation and deployment, ensuring that the army could respond effectively in times of crisis. Additionally, experiments with motor vehicles and motorcycles and testing modifications by the NZAOC workshops of WW1 artillery pieces fitted with pneumatic wheels and new carriages were undertaken.

    Ford Marmon Herrington Artillery Tractor, Limber and 4.5-inch Howitzer
    60 Pounder Guns showing both the original carriage and the New Zealand-built carriage

    Detailed mobilisation plans were undertaken behind the scenes, with Lieutenant A.H. Andrews playing a pivotal role in updating and developing mobilisation scales. These plans included stockpiling essential supplies at Trentham, Burnham, and Hopuhopu and identifying critical infrastructure vital in supporting an expeditionary force, which saw new construction of logistic infrastructure at all camps. In terms of resources, the following equipment was on order from the United Kingdom in 1938:

    • Bren Guns complete with equipment and components – 248 (in addition to 100 ordered in 1936)
    • QF 2Pdr with equipment and accessories – 16
    • Wireless sets No. 9 and No. 11

    Given that all the equipment was only accepted into British service from 1935, it is clear that by ordering these items, New Zealand was keen on modernising with the latest equipment and was equipped on a par with contemporary forces in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia.

    Soldier with Bren gun at Waiouru Army Training Camp, taken circa 1936-1938 by Errol Cliff Morton. . Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22316064

    In addition, as the New Zealand Permanent Air Force (NZPAF) was preparing to transition independently from the army and become the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) in 1937, Major King of the NZ Army developed a new system for managing stores specifically for the RNZAF in 1936.

    The New Zealand military leadership kept pace with global events and potential threats, which influenced the earlier planning and helped prevent the country from being caught entirely off guard when war eventually broke out. This global awareness likely also influenced the Four Colonels’ Revolt. Several senior officers, alarmed by the decline of the Territorial Force, protested directly to the press against the reforms of New Zealand Chief of Staff Major General Sir John Evelyn Duigan. As a result, they were placed on the retired list as punishment.

    The Importance of a Balanced Approach

    The interwar period underscored the importance of maintaining a long-term vision for military preparedness. While immediate readiness may have been compromised by budget cuts, strategic planning and resource mobilisation efforts ensured New Zealand could enhance its military capabilities.

    Adapting and updating doctrines and strategies in response to global events proved crucial. This flexibility enabled New Zealand to sustain a level of preparedness that, though not immediately apparent, proved effective over time.

    Effective collaboration and coordination among military branches and civilian authorities were essential for maintaining readiness. This ensured comprehensive coverage of all military operations, from logistics to combat readiness.

    Lessons for the Modern Logistician

    One of the key takeaways for modern logisticians is the importance of strategic foresight. The ability to anticipate future needs and plan accordingly can significantly impact readiness and response times in crises.

    Effective resource management is crucial. During the interwar period, New Zealand stockpiled its limited available supplies and ordered advanced equipment for the next war to ensure readiness. Modern logisticians must ensure that resources are managed efficiently and critical supplies are readily available.

    The experiments with motor vehicles and artillery modifications highlight the need for adaptability and innovation. Modern logisticians should continually seek ways to improve processes and equipment to maintain a competitive edge.

    The importance of collaboration between military branches and civilian authorities cannot be overstated. Effective communication and coordination ensure that all aspects of logistics, from supply chains to support services, are streamlined and efficient.

    Training exercises and war games prepared the New Zealand military despite financial constraints. Modern logisticians should emphasise continuous training and development to ensure personnel are always ready to respond effectively.

    Interconnected Efforts of the NZAOC, Quartermaster General, and NZASC

    The interwar efforts significantly contributed to the rapid expansion of the New Zealand logistics systems from 1939. It’s important to note that the work of the NZAOC wasn’t carried out in isolation but was part of a coordinated effort involving the Quartermaster General and the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC). The Quartermaster General’s office was pivotal in overseeing the overall logistical strategy and ensuring all branches worked together. The NZASC, responsible for supply and transport, worked closely with the NZAOC to ensure that rations, fuels, forage and transport services were efficiently managed and distributed. This integrated approach ensured that logistical operations were cohesive and effective, maximising the New Zealand Army’s readiness.

    Conclusion

    While it is acknowledged that New Zealand’s military faced significant downsizing during the interwar period, the assertion of complete unpreparedness by 1939 oversimplifies the historical context. The strategic appointments within the NZAOC, under Major King’s direction, and continuous updates to military doctrine exemplify proactive measures taken to maintain readiness amidst global uncertainties. Despite material and personnel shortages, training exercises from 1936 onwards and innovative adaptations in weaponry underscored New Zealand’s commitment to enhancing military capabilities.

    This nuanced and proactive approach ensured New Zealand could swiftly mobilise and sustain an expeditionary force when needed, challenging the myth of its military unpreparedness during the interwar years. However, further study is necessary to fully grasp the intricacies of New Zealand’s military preparedness during this period. Detailed archival research, comparative analyses with other Commonwealth nations, and deeper exploration of socio-political influences on military policy would provide a more comprehensive understanding. Such research would illuminate the successes and limitations of New Zealand’s strategic decisions, offering valuable insights into military preparedness in times of global uncertainty.

    For modern logisticians, the lessons from this period underscore the importance of strategic foresight, resource management, adaptability, collaboration, and continuous training—key components in ensuring a state of readiness in an ever-changing global landscape. The collaborative efforts of the NZAOC, the Quartermaster General, and the NZASC exemplify how integrated logistical planning and execution are critical to maintaining military effectiveness.

    The 1931 Reductions of the New Zealand Military: A Historical Analysis

    Leave a comment

    Largely forgotten today, the early 1930s marked a tumultuous period for the New Zealand military which was profoundly impacted by the Great Depression. In 1931, facing unprecedented economic pressures, the military was compelled to enact severe cutbacks and reductions. The lessons drawn from these pivotal events offer invaluable insights into fortifying the resilience and adaptability of today’s military forces amidst contemporary strategic and economic uncertainties.

    Establishment and Early Developments

    Established in 1917, the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) quickly became integral to the country’s Permanent Military Forces. However, the onset of the global economic depression triggered substantial changes in New Zealand’s military funding and organisational structure. As the worldwide economic downturn took hold, austerity measures and restructuring became unavoidable, necessitating a comprehensive overhaul of the NZAOC to align with the new economic realities.

    Badges of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps, 1917 -1937. Robert McKie Collection

    Established in 1917, the intervening years had seen the NZAOC decline in personnel from its peak strength of 493 in 1919 to an average of 118 officers and other ranks between 1920 and 1930. Despite this reduction, significant infrastructural advancements replaced the colonial-era facilities with modern buildings across various locations. Key NZAOC establishments included:

    • Northern Military District:
      • Ordnance Depot and Workshop at Waikato Camp in Hopuhopu, constructed in 1928.
      • Ordnance Workshop at Devonport’s artillery yard (now the RNZN Museum).
      • Small Arms Ammunition Testing Staff stationed at the Colonial Ammunition Company factory in Mount Eden, Auckland.
    • Central Military District:
      • The Main Ordnance Depot and Workshop at Trentham was established as a permanent camp in 1915.
      • The Ammunition Section at Fort Balance.
    • Southern Military District:
      • The Ordnance Depot and Workshop at Burnham Camp was established in 1921 with the ongoing construction of new infrastructure.

    These developments underscored the NZAOC’s strategic presence in the Northern, Central, and Southern Military Districts.

    1938 Military Camp, Hopuhopu, Waikato. Whites Aviation Ltd: Photographs. Ref: WA-55972-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23181165

    Economic Downturn and Military Reorganisation

    The economic downturn of the early 1930s necessitated severe cuts to government expenditure, compelling the New Zealand military to undergo substantial reorganisation. In 1930, the military’s strength stood at 555 regulars and 16,990 Territorials. By 1931, this was reduced to 349 regulars and 3,655 Territorials. These reductions were implemented under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1930 (No. 2), which facilitated compulsory retirements and transfers to civilian roles for many NZAOC personnel.

    The Act authorised the retirement on superannuation of any member of the Permanent Force or the Permanent Staff under the Defence Act, 1909, or of the clerical staff of the Defence Department whose age or length of service was such that if five years had been added they would have been enabled as of right or with the consent of the Minister of Defence to have given notice to retire voluntarily. Compulsory retirement under this Act was facilitated in two tranches:

    • Tranche 1: Personnel Retired without Superannuation:
      • Servicemen eligible for retirement under the provision of the Act who were not contributing to the superannuation scheme were notified on 13 December 1930 of their impending release. They were granted six weeks of special leave, effective 31 December 1930, with their final release scheduled for 11 February 1931 after completing their notice period.
    • Tranche 2: Personnel Retired with Superannuation:
      • Servicemen eligible for retirement under the provision of the Act who were contributing to the superannuation scheme received notification on 13 December 1930. Their salary continued until 31 March 1931, with superannuation benefits commencing in April. Accrued leave entitlements were taken concurrently during this notice period, resulting in much leave accrued forfeited.

    These tranches included Ordnance soldiers who had joined the NZAOC since its formation in 1917. Some had transferred directly from the Defence Stores, while others had served in the pre-war Permanent Forces or had active service with the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF). Their compulsory retirement represented a significant loss of knowledge and experience for the New Zealand military. Under the provisions of section 39 of the Finance Act, 1930 (No. 2), 44 members of the NZAOC were placed on compulsory retirement, including the following personnel who have so far been identified.

    Northern Military District

    • 948. Lieutenant Michael Joseph Lyons, MSM

    • 968 Sergeant Thomas Alexander Hunter, MSM

    • 62 Private Frank Jewiss

    • 166 Sergeant William John Rabbidge

    • 268 Staff Quartermaster Sergeant James Alexander Kenning

    • Captain Frank Edwin Ford

    Central Military District

    • 19 Sergeant Alfred Charles Butler    

    • 39 Corporal Simon Alexander Fraser

    • 64 Gunner Maurice Francis Johnstone          

    • 111 Corporal John Sawyer   

    •  920 Corporal Gordon James Francis Arenas 

    • 941 Sergeant William Hans McIlraith         

    •  956 Staff Sergeant Saddler George Alexander Carter, MSM

    • 960 Sergeant Frank William Ching

    • 965 Corporal Philip Alexander MacKay MSM

    • 976 Private William Valentine Wood MSM

    • 978 Corporal Earnest John Williams MSM

    • 1018 Sargeant Major James Oliver Pringle Southgate           

    • 1024 Armament-Artificer Eric Wallace Jepson       

    •  Lieutenant L.A Clement

    • Captain Alfred William Baldwin

    • Captain William Moody Bell

    • 55 Staff Quartermaster Sergeant John Francis Hunter MSM

    • 143 Armament Sergeant Major (WO1) Joseph Warren

    • 995 Staff Sergeant Wilfred Robert White

    Southern Military District

    • 2 Armament Staff Quartermaster Sergeant John Alexander Adamson MSM

    • 1006 Lance Corporal Norman William Wilkie

    • Corporal Cecil John Knight

    • Captain Arthur Rumbold Carter White

    • 966 Lance Corporal William Terrington Popple, MSM

    Transition to Civilian Roles

    To achieve further cost savings, 74 NZAOC soldiers received notifications in December 1930 that their positions would be retained but transferred to civilian roles with civilian pay rates. This transition took effect in February 1931, causing significant disruption for those affected, including the loss of accumulated leave and adjustment to civilian life..

    Some of these soldiers were transferred to other departments within the defence establishment, while the majority remained in their current roles within the NZAOC Ordnance Depots and workshops. They transitioned overnight from wearing uniforms to civilian clothes, with significantly reduced rates of pay and civil service conditions of service. The following personnel have so far been identified as being transferred to the Civil Staff.

    Northern Military District

    • 967 Corporal Robert John Gamble

    • 974 Corporal Henry William Le Comte

    • 983 Sergeant Clifford Verne Little

    • 996 Lance Corporal Athol Gilroy McCurdy

    • 202 Lance Corporal Arthur Graham Munday

    Central Military District

    • 972 Private John Dennis Anderson   

    • 35 Lance Corporal Harry Harper Ekins        

    • 1061 Lance Corporal Earnest Fenton

    • 4 Sergeant Kenneth Olaf John Andersen     

    •  699 Corporal Oliver Avis, MM

    • 889 Staff Sergeant George Bagnell   

    • 1004 Lance Corporal James Johnston Bolt  

    • 961 Lance Corporal Edgar Charles Boult     

    • 1000 Private George Cumming Bremner      

    • 1027 Artificer William Cowan Brizzle         

    • 1003 Lance Corporal Ernest Carr      

    • 1012 Lance Corporal Charles Fred Ecob      

    • 864 Corporal William Charles Francis          

    • 1025 Tent-Repairer-Artificer Herbert Roy Griffin   

    • 714 Lance Corporal Kenneth Hoare  

    • 1016 Private Ernest William Hughes            

    • 989 Corporal Percy Reuben Hunter  

    • 213 Lance Corporal William Saul Keegan   

    • 1019 Private Edward Gavin Lake     

    • 342 Corporal Allen Charles Leighton

    • 998 Lance Corporal Allen Dudley Leighton 

    • 1011 Lance Corporal Geoffrey Charles Leighton     

    • 363 Staff Sergeant David Llewellyn Lewis, MSM

    • 1007 Lance Corporal Thomas James Mclaughlin     

    • 1020 Private John Douglas Melville 

    • 894 SQMS (WO2) James Moroney  Sergeant David Nicol]

    • 1023 Lance Corporal John Nixon      

    • 467 Corporal George Wantford Pamment    

    • 1013 Private Francis Reid     

    • 1022 Private Henry McKenzie Reid 

    • 1014 Wheeler-Artificer Robert Stacey Vincent Rowe              

    • 665 Private William Alexander Sammons    

    • 927 Private Leonard William Sanders           

    • 963 Corporal Albert Edward Shadbolt          

    • 138 Lance Corporal David Henry Strickland

    • 1017 Private Lionel Herbert Stroud  

    Southern Military District

    • 970 Sergeant Edward Vincent Coleman

    • 1028 Private Percival Nowell Erridge

    • 959 Sergeant Charles Edward Gleeson

    • 1276 Private Lewis Haslett

    • 885 Corporal Charles James Johnston Storie

    • 728 Private William Sampson Valentine

    Impact on Military Preparedness and Social Consequences

    The compulsory retirements and transfers to civilian roles led to a reduction in the NZAOC’s military strength, impacting its preparedness during subsequent years. However, beginning in 1934, improved government finances allowed for an increase in the army’s training tempo, despite global events hinting at looming conflict. The following personnel who have so far been identified as been retained:

    Northern Military District

    • 984 Staff Sergeant Thomas Joseph Holliday

    • 1260 Armament Staff Quartermaster Sergeant Samuel Thomson MSM

    • 915 Armament Staff Sergeant Eric John Hunter

    • 141 Armourer Corporal Reginald Samuel Henry Lyons

    Central Military District

    • 14 Armament Sergeant Major Bertram  Buckley           

    • 992 Armament Corporal Hilliard Charles Cooper

    • 1029 Artificer James  Dabney          

    •  964 Warrant Officer Class 1 John William Dalton

    • 1032 Armourer Staff Sergeant Frederick Henry Dew

    • 979 Armourer Staff Sergeant John William Evers

    • 1026 Armament Sergeant Leo Stanley Jefcoate

    • Major Thomas Joseph King

    • 945 WO2 Armament SQMS Henry Albert Wiliam Pierard

    • 1021 Armament Staff Sergeant Arthur Sydney Richardson

    • 1010 Lance Corporal George Frederick Robert Ware

    Southern Military District

    • 7 Corporal Percey Charles Austin

    • 25 Armourer Staff Sargeant Francis Augustus Clapshaw

    • Lieutenant Henry Erridge Erridge

    The reduction in the Territorial Force in 1931 resulted in decreased activity in subsequent years. However, beginning in 1934, improved government finances allowed for an increase in the army’s training tempo. Concurrently, global events in China, Ethiopia, and Germany hinted at looming conflict, prompting a gradual shift towards preparing for future mobilisation. Under the leadership of Major Thomas Joseph King, who served as Director of Ordnance Services (DOS) since 1924, the NZAOC worked diligently within its means to enhance readiness, including designing a new system of stores accounting for the emerging Royal New Zealand Air Force.

    The new NZAOC Badge was approved in 1937. Robert McKie Collection

    King focused on recruiting new personnel and leveraging his civilian staff, who were former NZAOC soldiers, to reenlist experienced individuals into key leadership roles at Trentham, Hopuhopu, and Burnham. When war was declared in September 1939, King successfully mobilised his small military and civilian team to form the rump of the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) within the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF).

    During the 1938-45 war, nearly all NZAOC soldiers who had been transferred to civilian roles in 1931 found themselves back in uniform, restarting their military careers as Ordnance Officers, Warrant Officers, and Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (SNCOs) alongside their peers who had been retained. Many from this group continued to provide leadership within the RNZAOC and Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) up to the 1960s, with several even holding the prestigious position of DOS in the post-war army.

    Lieutenant Colonel Francis Reid handed over the position of DOS to his brother, Lieutenant Colonel Henry McKenzie Reid, on 31 March 1957. Both brothers joined the NZAOC as soldiers in the late 1920s, only to be transferred to the civilian staff in 1931. Commissioned during WW2, both served with distinction throughout the war.

    Negative Effects and Lessons Learned

    The 1931 reductions in the New Zealand military, driven by the economic pressures of the Great Depression, had profound and lasting negative effects, both socially and in terms of military preparedness. Socially, the abrupt compulsory retirements and transitions to civilian roles caused significant upheaval for the affected soldiers and their families. The loss of accumulated leave and the sudden shift from military to civilian life resulted in considerable stress and financial strain.

    In terms of military preparedness, the reductions led to a substantial loss of experienced personnel and institutional knowledge. The drastic decrease in the Territorial Force and overall military strength severely hampered the country’s ability to maintain an effective and ready military force. The reduced activity and training during the early 1930s left the military less prepared for the impending global conflicts of the late 1930s and early 1940s than in 1914. This lack of preparedness could have had dire consequences had international tensions escalated more quickly.

    However, subsequent efforts to rebuild, modernise, and mobilise the military demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of the New Zealand military. Starting in 1934 under the leadership of Major Thomas Joseph King, the NZAOC enhanced its readiness by recruiting new personnel and reenlisting former soldiers from the civilian staff. The return of nearly all NZAOC soldiers to uniformed service during the 1939-1945 war showcased their dedication and the critical role of experienced personnel in maintaining military effectiveness.

    The 1931 reductions’ experiences highlight the importance of balancing economic constraints and the need for a capable and prepared military force. These lessons remain relevant today as modern military forces navigate similar challenges amidst strategic and economic uncertainties. Ensuring that reductions do not compromise long-term readiness and resilience is crucial for the effective functioning of any military organisation.

    Notes

    [1] (1930). “H-19 Defence Forces of New Zealand, Annual report of the General Officer Commanding the Forces.” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives.

    [2] (1931). “H-19 Defence Forces of New Zealand, Annual report of the General Officer Commanding the Forces June 1930 to May 1931.” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1 January 1941.

    [3] (1914). King, Thomas Joseph. Personal File, Archives New Zealand. Wellington.

    Transition and Transformation: RNZAOC in 1972

    3 Comments

    In the historical tapestry of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), 1972 is a pivotal year, marking twenty-two years since New Zealand’s initial involvement in combat operations in South Korea. The nation continued actively participating in conflicts such as the Malayan Emergency, the Indonesian Confrontation, and the South Vietnam War. Throughout this period, New Zealand maintained a robust part-time territorial army sustained by Compulsory Military Training, all aimed at creating a versatile, all-arms Combat Brigade Group.

    However, 1972 marked a turning point. It witnessed the conclusion of Compulsory Military Training, resulting in a reduction in the Territorial Force and its transformation into a volunteer force. Concurrently, with the conclusion of New Zealand’s commitment to the Vietnam War, the country entered a phase marked by individual engagements in United Nations Peacekeeping operations, a eighty-day mission to Rhodesia, the establishment of a permanent peace monitoring force in the Sinai, and participation in exercises both in New Zealand and overseas. This era ushered in a period of peace for the New Zealand Army, with nearly two decades passing before the RNZAOC would deploy a unit into a combat environment once again.

    As 1972 concluded and the New Zealand Army and the RNZAOC entered this new era, they did so with a cadre of well-trained and experienced warrant and non-commissioned officers. This article will delve into the RNZAOC Regular Officer Cadre of 1972, as documented in the New Zealand Army Graduation List Regular Officer of 31 Oct 1972.

    The RNZAOC of 1972 consisted of around 350 Regular and Territorial Officers and Other Ranks, including Storeman Clerks, Ammunition Technicians, Auto Parts, Footwear Repairers, Motor Trimmers, Tailors, and Clerks across numerous units, including.

    • Main Ordnance Depot, Trentham
    • RNZAOC School, Trentham
    • 1 Central Ordnance Depot, Hopuhopu
    • 2 Central Ordnance Depot, Linton
    • 3 Central Ordnance Depot, Burnham
    • 1 Composite Ordnance Depot, Mangaroa
    • 5 Advanced Ordnance Depot, Singapore
    • Workshops Stores Section in RNZEME Workshops’
    • As Staff in various Headquarters

    At this stage, female soldiers belonged to the New Zealand Woman’s Royal Army Corps (NZWRAC), with many posted to RNZAOC units as integral members of those units.

    The Graduation List Regular Officer is divided into three Parts.

    • Part 1 – Regular Officers
    • Part 2 – Regular Quartermaster Officers
    • Part 3 – Supernumerary List

    Part 1 – RNZAOC Regular Officers

    Lieutenant Colonels

    • Clifford Leaman Sanderson, psc
    • Geoffrey John Hayes Atkinson, MBE, M Inst PS

    Majors

    • John Barrie Glasson, (T/Lt-Col 1 Jan 71)
    • Malcolm John Ross, psc (T/Lt-Col 20 Oct 72)

    Captains

    • Arthur John Campbell, ANZIM, psc (T/Maj 1 Aug 68)
    • Piers Martin Reid, (T/Maj 1 Feb 69)
    • Michael Dawney Hunt, ANZIM (T/Maj 1 Feb 69)
    • Terence David McBeth, (T/Maj 1 Nov 69)
    • Ian Geoffrey Ross
    • Ronald Leslie Cross, psc (T/Maj 21 Jun 70)
    • Gary Malcolm Corkin
    • John Andrew Henderson
    • John Robert Hicks
    • David John Rees
    • Michael Joseph Cooper
    • Terence John Verrall

    Lieutenants

    • Maxwell Frederick Newnham, (T/Capt 7 Mar 70)
    • Patrick Te Tahuri Puohotaua
    • Michael Alexender Cowan
    • John Francis Hyde, (T/Capt 1 Apr 71)
    • Kevin John Dreyer, (T/Capt 22 Jun 72)
    • Paul Edwin Dangerfield
    • Keith David Hansen
    • Mark David Stuart, BA (mil)
    • Peter Martin O’Brien
    • Grant William Blackburn

    Second Lieutenants

    • Noel Anthony Hitchings
    • Allan Charles Lash

    Part 2 – RNZAOC Quartermaster List

    Captains and Quartermasters

    • William Maxwell Campbell, (T/Maj & QM 1 Aug 68)
    • Patrick George Burns, (T/Maj & QM 25 Apr 69)
    • David Ralph Hughes, T/Maj & QM 3 Jun 70)
    • Keith Alexander Watson
    • Ian Roy Larsen
    • Alan Paul Bezar

    Lieutenants and Quartermasters

    • Donald Winter Stewart, (T/Capt & QM 22 Feb 71)
    • Hector Searle McLachlan, (T/Capt & QM 1 May 71)
    • Godfrey Edward Lee, (T/Capt & am 5 Apr 71)
    • Stewart McDonald Fussell, (T/Capt & QM 5 Apr 71)
    • John Edward Hancox, (T/Capt & QM 1 Jul 70)
    • Edward Vennell Sweet, (T/Capt & QM 11 Aug 71)
    • Alfred Stephenson Day, (T/Capt & QM 3 Sep 71)
    • James William Twist

    Part 3 – RNZAOC Supernumerary List

    Majors

    • Ronald George Henderson Golightly

    Captains

    • Carleton Robert Duggan, (T/Maj & QM 14 Sep 68)
    • George Edward Butler, (QM) (T/Maj & QM 4 Aug 69)

    Statistics on the RNZAOC 1972 Officers List

    • Duntroon Graduates- 1
    • Portsea Graduates -10
    • RF Cadets – 2
    • Served in other Corps before joining RNZAOC – 7

    Operational Service

    • WW2 – 4
    • J Force – 2
    • K Force – 2
    • Malaya – 6
    • Vietnam – 15

    Service and Age

    • 1972 Average age – 36 years
    • Average age on leaving RNZAOC – 44 years.
    • Over 20 years of RNZAOC Service – 27
    • Cumulative amount of RNZAOC Service – 880 Years
    • Shortest Service in RNZAOC – 2 Years
    • Longest Service in RNZAOC – 36 Years
    • Average length of NZ Army Service – 62 Years
    • Average length of RNZAOC Service – 59 Years

    Appointments

    • Chief of General Staff-   1
    • Director of Ordnance Services – 7
    • Chief Instructor RNZAO School –  8
    • Chief Ammunition Technical Officer – 3
    • Colonel-Commandant – 2

    In 1972, the RNZAOC entered a transformative period, marked by changes in training, force structure, and the cessation of its involvement in the Vietnam War. The graduation list reflects a diverse group of officers, well-versed in various aspects of military service. As the RNZAOC transitioned into a new era characterised by peacekeeping missions and operational diversification, the officers of 1972 carried with them a wealth of experience and training, setting the stage for the Corps’ future endeavours. The statistical overview provides insights into the officers’ backgrounds, service history, and appointments, highlighting the depth of expertise within the RNZAOC during this pivotal time.

    Regular Force Cadets and the RNZAOC

    2 Comments

    As the Regular Force Cadet Schools prepare to celebrate their 75th anniversary during the weekend of 10 – 12 November 2023, it’s time to acknowledge the 240 Regular Force Cadets (RF Cadets) who, upon graduating, served in the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC).

    Between 1948 and 1991, over 5,000 young New Zealanders undertook an extraordinary journey. Year after year, an average of 120 individuals entered the renowned Regular Force Cadet School, affectionately known as the “Club.” But here is the catch – less than 3% of those who aspired to join this elite institution met the stringent criteria. This institution welcomed recruits as young as 15, offering them a path into the military and a gateway to continued education, trade training, and apprenticeships.

    These cadets, after reaching the age of 18, went on to play a pivotal role in the New Zealand Army, serving with distinction in various conflict zones worldwide, including Korea, Borneo, Malaya, Vietnam, Somalia, Bosnia, Timor-Leste and Afghanistan. Most notably, they served as Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (NCOs), the backbone of the New Zealand Army. Some even rose to earn commissions as officers, while others assumed essential roles across the New Zealand Army, including 239 who graduated into the RNZAOC.

    Roll of RF Cadets who served in the the RNZAOC

    This roll showcases the 240 RF Cadets who graduated and went on to join the RNZAOC. Additionally, it is essential to note that this list also includes RF Cadets who initially graduated into different corps but later transitioned to the RNZAOC, where they continued their military careers.

    1954       Young Class

    • Brian Lewis Crafts

    1955       Shuttleworth Class

    • Alan R Ferguson
    • Ronald Leslie Cross

    1957       Puttick Class

    • Bryan Noel Lichtwark
    • Derek John Keen

    1958       Weir Class

    • Manuao Kauahia Harry Hemana
    • John Sydney Holley

    1959       Kippenburger Class

    • Brian Micheal Colbourne

    1960       Russell Class

    • Lance Justice Brown

    1961       Stewart Class

    • Te Ra Nui Paenga

    1963       Bennett Class

    • Michael Thomas Dance
    • Joseph Seymour Bolton
    • Kevin Matthew Boggs
    • Ross Alan Bird
    • D M Bird

    1964       Parkinson Class

    • William L Arlidge
    • Robin Newland Turner

    1965       Barrowclough Class        

    • Paul Edwin Dangerfield
    • James Harvey
    • William Johnson
    • Kevin Anthony Joyce
    • Kevin James Moore
    • Paul Frederick Nielsen

    1966       Andrew Class

    • Keith John Boxall
    • John Francis Cannell
    • Phillip Baudinet Moore
    • Warren Gerrard Varney
    • R J Webster

    1967       Crump Class

    • Peter Francis Davies
    • Robert J Isles
    • Allan Edward Martin
    • M J Mclean
    • Wayne B Myers
    • Francis Joseph Ryan
    • Stewart R Seymour
    • John Allen Shaw

    1968       Ardagh Class

    • Ronald Noel Bisset
    • Paul Henry Heath
    • Stuart Douglas Hopkins
    • Glenn Alan Mccullough
    • Douglas Mclean
    • Michael Joseph Norgren
    • Michael Joseph O’Brien
    • Terrance Geoffrey Sharpe

    1969       Weir Class

    • Evan Ross Davidson
    • Tamafaiga Jensen
    • Edwin Donald Lee
    • Peter William Mason
    • S P Neels
    • Anthony John Walker

    1970       Ngarimu Class

    • Joseph Miki Hori Clarke
    • M A Corbett
    • Anthony Brent Jobson
    • Gregory Laurence Leslie
    • James Thomas O’Brien
    • Frederick Edwin Phillips
    • Talaga Poka
    • Derek Francis Prescott
    • B J Taylor
    • Tony Webb
    • Grant Russell Wilson

    1971       Upham Class

    • William Ross Cooper
    • Daniel John Bleasdale
    • Barry Philip Boyes
    • Graeme Maurice Langley
    • John Cornelius Lee
    • Barry Lepper
    • Wayne Ronald Little
    • Noel Charles Guthrie Mason
    • Gregory James Meyers
    • Ramon John Morrison
    • Steven Craig Newland
    • David Martin O’Shea
    • Larry Kenneth Porter
    • Colin George Scott

    1972       Dittmer Class

    • Nigel Stewart Anderson
    • Andrew Paul Bowring
    • Stephen James Driver
    • David John Hill
    • James Harry Mcculloch
    • William Alexander Scobie
    • Peter Allan Searle
    • Murray John Smith
    • Paul James Kelly Tocker
    • Paul Sydney Witehira

    1973       Hanson Class

    • William Gary Anderson
    • Stephen Geoffrey Crichton
    • Mark Toke Heemi
    • Graeme Douglas Joseph Keown
    • David Wayne Knebel
    • Neville Austin Lush
    • Keith John Perry

    1974       Burrows Class

    • Robert James Easton
    • Eamon Francis Fitzpatrick
    • R Havill
    • Phillip Esmond Holland
    • Stuart Frazer      Mcintosh
    • Mark Melville Robinson

    1975       Thornton Class

    • Wayne Trevor Bray
    • Peter John Finn
    • Selwyn Austin Gooch
    • Ian Trevor Jackson
    • Paul Raymond Jensen
    • Barry Charles Kearney
    • Warwick Alexander Thomas

    1976       Morrison Class

    • Craig Murray Ballard
    • Michael Paul Ballinger
    • Timothy Edward Gibbons
    • Martin Phillip Lawrence
    • Anthony Gordon Orchard
    • Kevin Samuel Prosser
    • Kevin John Riesterer
    • Roger Eric Rolston
    • Anthony Paul Simpson
    • Russell William Taylor
    • Robert Gordon Trundle
    • Terrance Frederick Walsh

    1977       Page Class

    • Colin James Thomas
    • William Wayne Pollard
    • Lawrence David Murch
    • Barrie Robert James Law
    • Richard George Fisher

    1978       Hudson Class

    • Terence William Shattock
    • Keith James Pittams
    • Erick David Jack
    • William Holland Crosbie
    • Stephen William Corkran
    • Lance Richard Cleeve
    • Wayne Peter Boustridge
    • Richard Harry Ball

    1979       McKinnon Class

    • Peter Francis Welsh
    • Murray Raymond Lee
    • Antoni Charles Leatherby
    • Tony John Harding
    • Adrian Laurence Coombe
    • David Raymon Pride Collins
    • Russell Murray Clark
    • Michael John Butler
    • Hemi Biddle
    • Graham Thomas Behrent

    1980       Elliot Class

    • Mark Milner Wilson
    • Michael Alan Turner
    • Paul George Topia
    • David John Te Tairi
    • Kevin Mark Swanson
    • Stwven Gregory Morgan
    • Brian Keith Gillies
    • Charlton Blair Gawler
    • Adrian Michael Gallichan
    • Tony Patrick Flynn
    • Ross Charles Fearon
    • Mathew Gordon Lacey Crossan
    • David Charles Cossey
    • Gary Keith Carver
    • Gary John Blade

    1981       Morris Class

    • Michael Stewart Wishart
    • Andrew Arthur Welsh
    • Stephen Charles Rose
    • Mark Anthony Pihema
    • Tony Ernest Norris
    • Nigle Richard Nacdonald
    • Steven William Mcrae
    • Neil James Kearns
    • Philip Leslie Innes
    • Shayne Michael Gray

    1982       Firth Class

    • Steven Deane Tait
    • Scott William Moses
    • David Ringi Henry
    • Andrew Grant Curtis
    • Jose Ashley Cooper
    • John William Coleman
    • Michael David John Clements
    • Richard Bruce Burnett
    • Lyndsay Roe Bray

    1983       Rennie Class

    • David George Alexander
    • Stephen Terry Brougham
    • Timothy Charles Clarke
    • John Christopher Flanagan
    • Bruce Raymond Ford
    • Michael John Kareko
    • Andrew David Stephens
    • Craig Seymour Trillo
    • Geoffery Kenneth Walker

    1984       Webb Class

    • Anthony Russell Barnett
    • John Patarana Brown
    • Shayne Turei Browne
    • Paul Robert Corke
    • Tony John Garthwaite
    • Grant Maui Hohua
    • Michael Phillip Moran
    • Jefferson Craig Sharp
    • Paul Ian Woodward

    1985       Pearce Class

    • Dean William Brown
    • Nicholas Paul Mannix
    • David Michael Mcintosh               
    • William Michael Twiss
    • Evert Hendrik Van Barneveld
    • Gerald Gordon Leslie Wineera

    1986       Thorpe Class

    • Selwyn Lloyd Bennett
    • Bevan Gerling
    • Andrew James Keith
    • Brett David Orme
    • David Murray Verney
    • Andrew Gordon True

    1987- Taylor Class

    • Mark William Birdsall
    • Matthew Philip Coddington
    • Paul Ian Dolden
    • Matthew James Dyson
    • David James Howorth

    1988       Hasset Class

    • Paul William Alexander
    • Michael Ivan Francis Archer
    • David John Hill
    • Thomas Edwin Hoeft     
    • Mike Colin Hollway
    • Andrew William Johnson
    • Stewart Evan Jones
    • Keith Richard Lewis
    • Leslie Joseph Peachy
    • John Richard Peel
    • Darcy Hereward Smith
    • Mark Robert Wilson
    • Jason Ernest Woods

    1989       Taylor Class

    • Craig Robert Bennett
    • Daniel James Bocock
    • Bryce Paul Knight
    • Arron Vaughan Matthews
    • Robert Ryan Mckenzie
    • Jason Robin Peterken
    • Kevin Arthur George Purnell
    • Wayne Edward Simeon
    • Aaron Neil Smith
    • Sean Campbell Stewart
    • Shane Kylie Wills

    1990       Burrows Class

    •             Shane Brian Baird

    1991       Monks Class

    • Vernon Jason Andrews
    • Phillip Anthony Tioke
    • Jason Victor Wise

    1991       Williams Class

    • Kylie Maree Craig
    • Mark Andrew Hanson

    In 1991, a significant turning point marked the closure of the Regular Force Cadet School. The end of the Cold War and evolving interpretations of international conventions concerning the use of child soldiers played a pivotal role in this decision. While the “Club” is no more, its impact and the individuals it nurtured continue to leave an indelible mark on the New Zealand Army and society.

    New Zealand Mobile Bath Unit, 1941-45

    1 Comment

    Amid the tumultuous landscape of World War Two, a Mobile Bath Unit emerged as a contributor to the triumph of the 2nd New Zealand Division in the Middle East and Italy. Picture this: battle-weary troops, having endured weeks of relentless pursuit through deserts and muddy fields in pursuit of the enemy, suddenly find themselves in a surreal moment. Covered in grime and exhaustion, they are met by an extraordinary sight – a unit ready to offer them a hot shower and a complete change of clothing. This transformation is nothing short of miraculous, revitalising soldiers’ spirits amid the hardships of war. The impact on morale is so profound that one can surmise that, at times, the enemy may have deliberately targeted Bath units for elimination, recognising their pivotal role. This article provides historical context on the NZEF Mobile Bath unit, which operated from 1941 to 1945, spanning Egypt, Syria, and Italy. It sheds light on the unit’s vital role in the overall success of the 2nd New Zealand Division during this pivotal period of World War Two.

    Following the British model, the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) incorporated a Bath unit into its organisational structure and war establishment. This unfamiliar capability posed challenges to the NZEF leadership, as they lacked experience in this field. There was considerable uncertainty about whether this responsibility fell under Ordnance or the Medical Corps, leading to delays in forming this units. On 15 November 1940, confirmation was received from NZEF liaison staff in London that Bath services did indeed fall under Ordnance responsibility.

    Discussions persisted throughout 1941 regarding establishing a Bath unit, with the primary issue being whether this unit should be formed, equipped, and trained in New Zealand before deployment to the Middle East or formed from within the existing structure of the NZEF. Despite these ongoing deliberations, the NZEF Order of Battle was updated on 17 April 1941 to include a Divisional Mobile Bath Unit as part of the NZEF.

    Authorisation for the formation of these units under the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) was granted on 31 August 1941, with the Mobile Bath unit scheduled for formation on 6 September 1941.

    In September 1941, a unit twenty-one strong, consisting of one officer and twenty other ranks, was formed through a call for volunteers. Most of the personnel initially came from infantry units. The initial officer Commanding (OC) was 2nd Lieutenant Astly. On 16 September 1941, the unit was assembled at the Engineer and Ordnance Training Depot (E&OTD).

    Following the unit’s formation, most personnel spent five days at the Helwan prisoner of war camp, familiarising themselves with a British-run Bath unit. Upon their return to their depot, they discovered that their equipment had not arrived, and it was uncertain whether such equipment was even in Egypt.

    Courses on compass work and similar activities began but became tedious. It was at this point that the unit undertook a crucial task. In the day’s scorching heat, they manually laid approximately 2560 cubic feet of concrete and constructed the entire set of buildings that would house the 6th Division Workshops. This gruelling work lasted for about three months, during which pieces of the unit’s equipment were gradually acquired piecemeal from various Base Ordnance Depots (BODs).

    In early 2 December, Lieutenant P. Hawkins assumed command. On 10 January 1942, the unit left Maadi camp for the Canal Zone, where they served alongside the NZ Division on the Great Bitter Lake. They also provided showers to Indian and British troops at Kabrit, Fayid, and other locations in the zone. Despite facing minor challenges, such as a four-day sandstorm, they accomplished valuable work. Two incidents stood out during this time: a raid on a nearby airfield by enemy planes and a fire that destroyed the Shaftes picture theatre.

    Vehicle Tactical Sign, NZ Division Mobile Bath Unit (1941)

    The NZ Division moved to Syria in February, and the bath unit followed on 13 March. Without their own transport, the Bath unit relied on other units, often unloading and camping in various locations on-route. They reached Baalbeck on 20 March and began working alongside the 27th Battalion machine gunners, performing several months of essential tasks, including laying concrete floors by a creek fed by historic springs.

    Syria provided an interesting change from the Egyptian sands, with the unit’s OC arranging many fascinating day trips to cities like Beirut, Damascus, Aleppo, Tripoli, and even Turkey. When the Division was hastily recalled to Egypt, the unit returned on 20 June, calling at the small town of Zahlie for a few days, where they joined up with the mobile laundry. Leaving on 29 June for Kfar Vitkin in Palestine. And then making stops along the way before arriving back in Maadi Camp. In July, they reorganised and left for the western desert, beginning operations at Burg el Arab in August.

    After nearly a month in Burg el Arab, their water supply was requisitioned for urgent needs, leading to their return to Maadi Camp. The unit was temporarily disbanded, with the disinfector returned to BOD to allow full credit to be extended to the New Zealand Government, effectively covering its entire cost. The bath equipment was retained as an asset of New Zealand and stored at the E&OTD, anticipating potential future deployment in other theatres of operation.

    On 22 August 1942, eleven Other Ranks from the Bath Unit were transferred back to their respective depots. The formal disbandment of both the NZ Divisional Mobile Bath Unit occurred on 30 September 1942, with the OC and remaining Other Ranks of the bath unit transferred to other branches of the NZOC on the understanding that if the bath capabilities were to be regenerated, these men would be released to train and have the unit fully operational within a matter of days.

    In September 1943, the Bath unit was reformed at Maadi as 1 NZ Mobile Bath Unit, with 2nd Lieutenant D. Ewing in charge. The personnel remained the same in number, including two members from the previous unit who provided valuable information. However, the shower did not function as expected.

    In October 1943, the NZ Division and the newly formed 1 NZ Mobile Bath Unit conducted a covert move from Egypt to the southern regions of Italy. In late October, the flight personnel left Alexandria, with the unit Drivers and equipment departing Port Said for Italy. After some travel, they arrived near the Sangro River and commenced operations. Despite challenges, the unit improved its functioning, and on New Year’s Eve, they faced a heavy snowstorm that transformed their surroundings. Despite the adversity, they carried on with their work.

    As the Division moved to the Fifth Army front, the unit went to Atessa and proceeded northwest, proving invaluable to the Mobile Laundry unit by towing heavy trailers. In November 1943, the NZ Division ADOS expressed the intention to streamline administration by placing the Mobile Bath Unit under the command of the Officer Commanding the Mobile Laundry Unit. This move aimed to achieve greater efficiency in the management of both units.

    On 16 February 1944, the NZ Mobile Bath Unit was disbanded, and concurrently, the NZ Mobile Laundry Unit was rebranded as the NZ Mobile Laundry and Bath Unit (NZ Mob Laundry & Bath Unit).

    This restructuring aligned the New Zealand organisation with the British Army War Establishment II/293/1 of December 1943, categorised as a Type B: Mobile Field Laundry and Bath Unit. The mobile bath component of the MLBU consisted of four independent shower sections, one attached to each brigade and one remaining with the laundry.

    Water for showers was drawn from a stream or other suitable supply by an electric pump, heated in a locally designed boiler fired with oil and water, and passed into a shower room, a tent with duckboards laid out inside, where six showers were available. A larger tent forming a dressing room opened into the shower tent. The water supply was continuous, and men could use as much as they pleased, within reasonable limits, with the duration of showers determined by the number waiting to go through. The showers used two hundred gallons of water an hour, and each section could manage 500- 600 men daily.

    Vehicle Tactical Sign 2 NZ Mobile Laundry and Bath Unit (1944)

    The figures below show the number of men who received showers. In cases where the numbers are low or incomplete, this can be attributed to the lack of recorded data during the Division’s advance or during periods when sufficient shower facilities were available within the Divisional area, rendering the full-time operation of mobile units unnecessary. An example of this was when the Division was billeted around Trieste.


    Throughout the Italian campaign, the NZ Mob Laundry & Bath Unit supported the NZ Division, often deploying detachments to provide frontline units with essential services. The unit continued its service until it was disbanded as part of the NZEF on 8 December 1945.