On 4 December each year, soldiers, gunners, and explosive specialists around the world pause to mark Saint Barbara’s Day. For New Zealand’s military ammunition community, the day has a special resonance. Saint Barbara was the patron saint of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC). Although the Corps was disestablished in 1996, she remains the spiritual patron of those whose work brings them closest to explosive risk, especially the current generation of Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) Ammunition Technicians.
This commemoration is not about imposing religious belief or expecting devotion in a modern, pluralist Army. Instead, it is about recognising shared values. Saint Barbara’s story, whether read as faith, legend, or metaphor, offers a powerful way of talking about courage, duty of care, and professionalism in dangerous work.
From Heliopolis to the Ordnance Corps
According to tradition, Barbara lived in the late Roman Empire at Heliopolis in Phoenicia, now associated with Baalbek in modern Lebanon. Born into a wealthy pagan household, she questioned the gods she had been taught to worship when she looked out from the tower in which her father kept her secluded and reflected on the ordered beauty of the world around her. In time, she converted to Christianity in secret. When her father discovered this, he handed her over to the authorities and ultimately carried out her execution himself.
Her refusal to renounce her convictions, even under torture, and the lightning that, according to legend, later killed her father and the official who condemned her, led to Barbara being associated with sudden death, lightning, and fire. As warfare evolved and gunpowder weapons became central to battle, she was adopted as patroness of artillerymen, armourers, military engineers, miners, tunnellers, and anyone whose livelihood involved explosives and the possibility of instant, catastrophic harm. The Legend of Saint Barbara
When the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) adopted Saint Barbara as its patron, that tradition passed into the wider family of Commonwealth ordnance corps. The RNZAOC, with its own responsibility for ammunition supply, storage, and maintenance in New Zealand, in turn adopted her as patron saint.
Beyond 1996: Saint Barbara and the RNZALR
The disestablishment of the RNZAOC in 1996 and the formation of the RNZALR did not diminish Saint Barbara’s relevance to New Zealand soldiers. The work did not change; only the cap badge did. Ammunition Technicians, in particular, continue to live daily with the realities that made Barbara a symbolic figure in the first place: sudden danger, technical complexity, and the need for calm, disciplined action when things go wrong.
On paper, Saint Barbara is a figure from late antiquity. In practice, her patronage captures something very contemporary about the RNZALR Ammunition Technician trade:
Technical mastery under pressure – handling, inspecting, and disposing of explosive ordnance where a single lapse can have irreversible consequences.
Quiet, unshowy bravery – the kind that rarely makes headlines but underpins every live-fire activity, every range practice, and every deployment where ammunition is moved, stored, or rendered safe.
Duty of care to others – ensuring that everyone else can train and fight in relative safety because someone has accepted responsibility for the dangerous end of the supply chain.
In that sense, Saint Barbara’s Day is as much about the living as it is about any distant martyr. It is an opportunity for the wider Army to pause and acknowledge that the safe availability of ammunition, which is often taken for granted, depends on a small community of specialists and their support teams.
A Day Of Tradition, Not Testimony
In a modern New Zealand Army, not everyone is religious, and fewer still are likely to be familiar with the details of early Christian hagiography. That is not the point. Commemorations like Saint Barbara’s Day function as regimental and professional traditions, not as tests of personal belief.
Marking the day can mean different things to different people:
For some, it may be a genuine act of faith, honouring a saint whose story inspires them.
For others, it is a way of respecting the heritage of their trade and the generations of RNZAOC and now RNZALR personnel who have done this work before them.
For many, it is simply a moment to reflect on the risks inherent in explosive work, to remember colleagues injured or killed in training and operations, and to recommit to doing the job as safely and professionally as possible.
In that sense, the story’s religious origins are less important than the shared meaning it has acquired over time. Saint Barbara becomes a symbol of the values that matter in ammunition work: integrity, courage, vigilance, and loyalty to those you serve alongside.
Contemporary Relevance: Commitment In A Dangerous Trade
In the modern world, the management of ammunition and explosives is governed by detailed regulations, sophisticated science, and digital systems, ranging from hazard classifications and compatibility groups to electronic inventory control and safety management frameworks. Yet, at its core, it still depends on human judgment and ethical commitment.
Saint Barbara’s Day offers a valuable lens for talking about that commitment:
Commitment to safety – understanding procedures not as bureaucracy, but as the accumulated lessons, sometimes paid for in blood, of those who went before.
Commitment to team – recognising that no Ammunition Technician works alone, and that a strong safety culture depends on everyone feeling empowered to speak up, check, and challenge.
Commitment to service – remembering that, whether in training at home or on operations overseas, the work is ultimately about enabling others to succeed and come home alive.
When Ammunition Technicians and their colleagues mark Saint Barbara’s Day, they are not stepping out of the modern world into a medieval one. They are taking a moment within a busy, technologically advanced, secular military environment to acknowledge that some fundamentals have not changed: courage, conscience, and care for others still matter.
Keeping The Flame Alive
Although the RNZAOC passed into history in 1996, its traditions did not vanish. They were carried forward into the RNZALR and live on in the customs, stories, and professional identities of those who wear the uniform today. Saint Barbara is one of those enduring threads.
On 4 December, when a small group gathers in an Ammuniton depot, unit lines, a mess, or a deployed location to raise a glass or share a few words in her honour, they are standing in continuity with generations of ordnance soldiers, armourers, gunners, and explosive specialists across time and across the Commonwealth. They are also quietly affirming something vital about themselves.
In the end, Saint Barbara’s Day is less about religion and more about recognition: recognition of a demanding craft, of the people who practise it, and of the responsibility they carry on behalf of the wider Army. For the RNZALR Ammunition Technicians of today, as for the RNZAOC of yesterday, she remains a fitting patron for those who work, quite literally, at the explosive edge of military service.
On this 1 December, as we mark Saint Eligius’s Day and salute the enduring legacy of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME), we commemorate more than seven decades of service under that name, and more than 150 years of New Zealand’s ordnance, mechanical and logistical tradition. Saint Eligius, long regarded as the patron of metalworkers and armourers, provides a fitting focus for honouring the craftsmen and technicians whose skill has kept New Zealand’s soldiers equipped and mobile in peace and war..
From Defence Stores to RNZEME, a long heritage
The roots of RNZEME extend deep into the nineteenth century, when the fledgling New Zealand forces began assuming responsibility for their own military stores and maintenance. The New Zealand Defence Stores Department, successor to Imperial supply and maintenance arrangements, was established in the 1860s and, by 1869, had depots in Wellington at Mount Cook and in Auckland at Albert Barracks.
Within that organisation, a small but increasingly professional cadre of armourers and artificers emerged. Between the 1860s and 1900, New Zealand’s military armourers evolved from civilian gunsmiths and part-time repairers into disciplined specialists who maintained an expanding array of weapons, from carbines and pistols to magazine rifles and early machine-guns such as the Gardner and Maxim. Their work underpinned the readiness of the colonial forces and set the technical and professional standard that later generations of ordnance and electrical and mechanical engineers would inherit.
Among these early figures, Walter Laurie Christie stands out. Serving for forty-five years in the Defence Stores Department and as a soldier during the New Zealand Wars, Christie embodied the blend of military service, technical mastery and administrative reliability that became a hallmark of New Zealand’s ordnance and maintenance tradition.
From those armourers and artisans came the artificers of the Permanent Militia in the 1880s, from which grew a tradition of maintenance and repair that would carry New Zealand forces through decades of change. By the time of the First World War, this heritage had matured into the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC), gazetted on 1 February 1917, responsible for arming, equipping and maintaining New Zealand’s forces at home and abroad.
During the Great War, armourers of the NZAOC and the mechanics of the new Mechanical Transport Sections of the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) worked tirelessly behind the lines to keep weapons, vehicles and equipment in service, ensuring the steady flow of matériel to the front.
Between the wars and into the Second World War, the NZAOC and the NZASC remained the heart of New Zealand’s supply and transport capability. Yet the increasing complexity of weapons, instruments, communications equipment and mechanical transport demanded a broader, more specialised technical arm.
Mechanised mobilisation and the MT Branch
The Second World War brought that challenge into sharp focus. From September 1939 to March 1944, New Zealand’s military vehicle fleet exploded from just 62 vehicles to 22,190, a transformation that turned a largely foot-bound force into a fully motorised army in a few short years.
To manage this rapid mechanisation at home, the Mechanical Transport (MT) Branch was created within the Army system to complement the existing Ordnance Workshops. The MT Branch, working closely with the NZAOC, took responsibility for the provision, storage and issue of all classes of vehicles and spare parts, as well as the repair of those vehicles. From 1939 to 1963, MT Stores were developed and managed as a distinct but tightly integrated function, ensuring that everything from staff cars to heavy trucks and specialist vehicles could be procured, held, accounted for and kept on the road.
In parallel, New Zealand Ordnance Corps Light Aid Detachments (LADs) were established to provide first-line repair to units both overseas and in home defence roles. These small detachments, working alongside Ordnance Workshops and MT Branch organisations, formed the backbone of New Zealand’s repair and maintenance capability during the war.
The consolidated register of 2NZEF logistics units shows just how extensive this support system became, with New Zealand logistics formations sustaining the force in North Africa, the Middle East, Greece, Crete and Italy. Together, the MT Branch, MT Stores system, Ordnance Workshops and LADs created a sophisticated, layered maintenance and repair network that anticipated the later integration of these functions under NZEME and, ultimately, RNZEME.
Wartime evolution, the birth of NZEME and RNZEME
As the Second World War engulfed the globe and New Zealand raised the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF) for overseas service, the need for dedicated mechanical and electrical maintenance became pressing. In the Middle East in 1942, New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME) was formed within 2NZEF to align the organisation with British practice and to bring armourers, instrument repairers, vehicle mechanics and other specialists into a single technical corps.
At war’s end, in New Zealand, these arrangements were mirrored at home. On 1 September 1946, workshops and many mechanical transport functions were formally separated from the NZAOC and placed under NZEME, under the control of the Director of Mechanical Engineering, though some MT stores remained under ordnance control. In recognition of their wartime service and importance, the Royal prefix was granted in 1947, creating the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, RNZEME.
The motto adopted by RNZEME, Arte et Marte – “By Skill and Fighting”, or “By Craft and Combat”, captures perfectly the dual calling of its tradespeople as skilled craftsmen and soldiers in uniform.
RNZEME’s role, Light Aid Detachments, workshops and beyond
Throughout its existence, RNZEME provided vital support across a broad spectrum of New Zealand Army operations. Its personnel were attached to combat units as Light Aid Detachments, backed by field workshops and, at the national level, by base workshops at Trentham. Between them, they ensured that everything from small arms and radios to trucks, armoured vehicles and heavy plant could be maintained, repaired or rebuilt when needed.
Whether on operations overseas, on exercises, or in daily training, RNZEME craftsmen stood ready, ensuring that New Zealand’s soldiers remained equipped, mobile and operational.
The legacy continues, from RNZEME to RNZALR
In 1996, the New Zealand Army undertook a significant reorganisation of its logistics and support corps. The RNZEME, the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps and the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport, along with Quartermaster functions, were amalgamated into the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment, RNZALR.
Although RNZEME no longer exists as a separate corps, its traditions of mechanical skill, repair, readiness and technical leadership live on in every RNZALR Maintainer, in every workshop and unit, and through the repair chain that sustains the New Zealand Defence Force today.
Honour and remember
On this RNZEME Day, we recall with gratitude every craftsman-soldier, artisan-mechanic, armourer and artificer whose steady hands and often unsung labour have underpinned New Zealand’s military capability, from the Defence Stores armourers of the 1860s, through two world wars, to the modern era of integrated logistics.
We remember the nineteenth-century armourers who mastered each new generation of weapon, the long-serving servants of the Defence Stores Department, the armourers and artificers of the Permanent Militia, the NZAOC workshop staff, the mechanics of the NZASC, the MT Branch and MT Stores personnel who managed the vast wartime vehicle fleet, the NZOC Light Aid Detachments that kept front-line units moving, and the workshops and LADs of NZEME and RNZEME, which carried that tradition into the late twentieth century.
Their legacy is not only in the weapons maintained, the vehicles repaired, or the radios restored, but in the very capacity of New Zealand’s soldiers to fight, move and endure. On this day, we salute their craftsmanship, quiet dedication, and ongoing contribution to the security and strength of this nation.
Arte et Marte – by skill and by fighting, past, present and future.
New Zealand’s military logisticians are more likely to be harmed by the conditions they create than by enemy fire, and the records often don’t exist when illness appears decades later.
Introduction
We have spent years teaching soldiers to look up and out for threats. For logisticians, the danger is just as often down in the ground they’re ordered to seize and make work at speed. Bomb‑damaged ports, airheads, railheads, fuel farms, hard standing, and battered warehouses are where supply chains are wrestled back to life. They are also where dust, residues, and fluids leave a lasting fingerprint on human health.
The uncomfortable truth is latency. Low‑to‑moderate exposures, taken in with every sweep of a broom, every cut of a disc, every lift of a drum, every hour around fuels and degreasers, rarely trigger an incident report. They build quietly under heat and exertion. The bill often arrives 10–40 years later as chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular problems, or exposure‑associated cancers (including haematological malignancies). By then, units have disbanded, notebooks have been boxed or binned, and the link between a dusty floor in a shattered shed and a midlife diagnosis is far harder to prove.
Operational realities widen this gap. Operational tempo prioritises throughput over sampling; industrial hazards are treated as background noise; and protection is a general issue, not task-specific. In many theatres, the ethos was to get the job done. Keeping the lines moving eclipsed health and safety. The result? Too many logisticians carry “silent” injuries, not the wounds of a firefight, but the legacy of the estate underfoot.
Latency‑linked conditions to flag (illustrative, not exhaustive)
Sarcoidosis (months–years; sometimes later): an inflammatory granulomatous disease with recognised associations to inhaled particulates and combustion by-products (e.g., burn-pit smoke, fuel/solvent aerosols, mineral/metallic dusts, silica). In military logistics contexts, credible exposure pathways include routine work around burn pits, JP-8/Avtur/Avgas combustion products, and dust-rich industrial sites.
Solvents & fuels (5–25 yrs): Benzene and organic solvents are associated with haematological malignancies (e.g., AML, MDS, NHL); some degreasers are linked in studies to kidney/liver effects.
PCBs/dioxins (incl. Agent Orange/TCDD) (5–30+ yrs): non‑Hodgkin lymphoma, some soft‑tissue sarcomas, type 2 diabetes, chloracne.
Metals (varies): chromium VI → lung cancer; lead → neurological/haematological effects; cadmium → renal dysfunction and some cancers.
These are associations, not diagnoses. Individual risk depends on dose, duration, task and personal factors. The point is to signpost credible possibilities so exposure logging and follow‑up aren’t dismissed as “speculative”.
Illustrative exposure pathways reported by NZ logisticians
JP-8/Avtur/Avgas used to burn excrement (latrine waste disposal) → mixed hydrocarbon and particulate inhalation.
Proximity to burn pits for waste/rubbish disposal → complex combustion plume with fine particulates and mixed toxicants.
Asbestos exposure in damaged facilities — notably Somalia and Timor-Leste.
Pyrethrin-based insecticide ‘fogging’ for mosquitoes — operators in PPE while nearby logisticians worked without task-specific respiratory protection.
Silica and heavy dusts from industrial sites — e.g., Bougainville, living/working inside a large copper-mine building.
Somalia shows how routine logistics create hidden exposures
From late 1992 to July 1994, New Zealand rotated a dedicated Supply Platoon (43-strong, with an attached infantry section) through Mogadishu. The job was prosaic and relentless: a warehouse on the airport’s north ramp, a standing stores presence inside the port, and long days pushing relief tonnage through shattered infrastructure, at one point over 1,000 tonnes in a single month.
The ground itself told the story. Movements threaded past the ruins of an oil depot and fuel farms; across coral-sand and concrete dust; through mixed cargo residues (fertiliser, cement) laminated with marine oils and solvents; past derelict aircraft still weeping fluids, plus the familiar companions of collapse: metals, asbestos fragments, and sewage-affected water.
Protection was largely standard kit, helmets, frag vests, uniforms, rather than any specialist respiratory or dermal protection you’d expect in an industrial clean-up. The then-issue light fragmentation vest was widely regarded as unsuitable for the operating environment: confidence-boosting, yes; protective against chronic industrial exposures, no. Dress and load carriage reflected the heat and tempo more than hazard control (UN blue caps/baseball caps, PASGT helmets variably covered; relaxed working dress; webbing often set aside to work in vehicles and warehouses).
That is why ordinary tasks, sweeping bays, slinging pallets, cutting and rigging, refuelling, and marshalling MHE on contaminated hard-standing, can have extraordinary consequences years later when no one records what’s in the dust.
A recurring pattern across theatres
This is not an anomaly; it is a template visible across a century of New Zealand service:
World Wars — depots, docks, railheads (1914–19; 1939–45). Coal soot, cordite fumes, leaded petrol and chlorinated solvents in workshops; asbestos in roofing and lagging; cement and lime dust from rapid rebuilds. Throughput trumped surveys: trains to marshal, ships to turn, vehicles to repair. Hygiene focused on infection and water; industrial toxicology barely featured, so exposure notes were rare.
Korea — Kure and the Commonwealth base (1950–53). A sprawling pre-existing industrial estate re-tasked for logistics: oils, solvents and paints in abundance, metals and asbestos in shipyard fabric. NZ personnel moved through a machine built for output; documentation captured receipts and readiness, not the air and dust they worked in.
Malaya, Borneo and Singapore–Malaysia (1948–66; presence to 1989). Workshops and airstrips required fuels, degreasers, and hydraulic fluids as routine background; insecticides/defoliants were widely used; accommodations and facilities were still in the asbestos era. These were “normal” garrison tasks under tropical conditions, with latency risks unrecognised, and site hazards seldom logged.
Vietnam — Vũng Tàu and beyond (1964–72). Waste burning near lines of communication, pervasive dust, fuels/solvents, and herbicide-affected environments. Integration into Australian support chains normalised the setting; recognition came decades later at the cohort level, while many individual exposure trails remained thin.
Bougainville (1990s). Accommodation and work areas inside a large copper-mine building exposed personnel to silica-rich and metallic dust under hot, enclosed conditions.
Balkans — Bosnia/Kosovo rotations (mid-1990s–2000s). Logistics hubs established inside bomb-scarred industrial zones: transformer yards with PCBs, refineries, vehicle plants; warehouses with demolition dust and solvent films. Early-entry imperatives (“get the flow moving”) routinely outpaced site characterisation.
Timor-Leste (1999–2002). Burnt-out Indonesian-era facilities with asbestos roofing, ad-hoc waste pits, and heavy cement/brick dust from rapid repairs. Logbooks recorded cargo and convoy timings; personal exposure records were typically maintained only in the event of an incident.
Afghanistan (2003–2013). High-altitude fine dusts, continuous diesel exhaust, widespread solvent degreasing, and transits through hubs with burn-adjacent histories. The hazards were familiar yet diffuse, cumulative, not catastrophic, and thus rarely captured in neat exposure sheets.
Iraq — Taji and hub transits (from 2015). Flightline dusts, fuels/solvents, and the legacy of burn pits at specific coalition bases; constant MHE movements on contaminated hard standing. Unit logs were excellent for consignments and training cycles; environmental notes were sporadic and incident-driven.
The common pattern
Occupy damaged or industrialised ground → work at pace → accept “background” contamination as the price of tempo. Ordinary logistic tasks, such as sweeping, cutting, rigging, refuelling, and marshalling MHE, become exposure pathways, and latency hides the bill until long after the paperwork stops.
Why proof is missing — and why that shouldn’t be fatal
Exposures often fail to appear in files because command salience sits with security and throughput; coalitions churn and records fragment; hygiene doctrine long prioritised infection and water over industrial toxicology; and latency outlasts memory. Compounding this, many hazards that are now recognised and routinely mitigated, legacy asbestos, diesel-exhaust particulates and cumulative solvent exposure were, even less than thirty years ago, poorly understood or not considered in planning, PPE issues, or environmental reconnaissance. That is why Parliament enacted the Veterans’ Support Act 2014 (VSA): a benevolent, merits-based scheme that requires decision-makers to act reasonably, apply natural justice, and ensure equal treatment of equal claims.
Two schemes, same principles
The VSA operates
Scheme One (older cohorts/legacy service) and
Scheme Two (modern deployments from 1 April 1974 onwards, with a stronger rehabilitation focus).
Both schemes operate under the Act’s principle of benevolence. New Zealand adopts medical-scientific Statements of Principles (SoPs) from Australia’s Repatriation Medical Authority. Each SoP lists causal factors that, if present, link a condition to service. Two standards of proof apply: Reasonable Hypothesis (RH) for warlike/non-warlike (operational) service, a pro-veteran, lower threshold; and Balance of Probabilities (BoP) for peacetime/routine service, a higher threshold.
How decisions should run in practice.
If a relevant SoP exists, Veterans’ Affairs New Zealand (VANZ) tests the claim against it.
If the RH test is met for qualifying operational service, the claim must be accepted.
If no SoP applies or a SoP cannot neatly capture cumulative exposure, **section 15** applies: VANZ must accept the claim if it is consistent with a reasonable hypothesis based on the facts, unless there are reasonable grounds to believe it is not service‑related. This is the statutory safety‑net for thin or fragmented records.
Where veterans get tripped up when making a claim
Here is where the machinery breaks down: a process that treats missing records as the veteran’s problem and turns a benevolent scheme into an adversarial grind.
Thin records → heavy proof load on the veteran. Requests for exposure logs, sampling data, or site surveys that never existed end up weaponising the gaps the system created.
SoPs treated as gates, not guides. Complex, cumulative or novel exposures (multiple deployments, solvents, PCB yards) don’t map neatly to Statements of Principles, yet section 15 isn’t used early to accept a reasonable hypothesis.
Insurer-style posture. The process can feel adversarial, with repeated demands for “more” evidence, credibility challenges, and narrow readings of medical reports, especially when records are scarce.
Delay as denial. Multi-stage reconsideration/review/appeal stretches months into years; terminally ill veterans can die before resolution, or families inherit the burden mid-grief.
The state holds the data, while the veteran bears the risk. VANZ sits within NZDF, the institution with the records and institutional knowledge; yet, the evidential burden often rests with the ill claimant.
Language and culture mismatch. Claims framed like welfare applications rather than an earned entitlement under a State-fault scheme erode trust and deter engagement (contemporary veteran uptake is reported as extremely low).
If New Zealand truly values those who keep the lines moving, Veterans’ Affairs and the NZDF must do better: shift their efforts from surge-time forms to credible post-tour evidence so that tomorrow’s veteran has a fair shot.
When proof is already thin: build a triangle of proof
Site history: industrial uses, conflict damage, spill/burn areas, foam pads, mining legacies, and why it was dirty.
Medical trajectory: onset windows, peers with similar issues, GP/specialist notes and screening results.
Conclusion
Operationally, the principal danger to military logisticians is often not incoming fire but the estate underfoot, ground that must be made serviceable at pace and under pressure. Somalia serves as a national wake-up call: ordinary logistics in extraordinary environments, mainly undertaken in general-issue kit, with little of the exposure ever documented. Many hazards now recognised and routinely mitigated, such as legacy asbestos, diesel particulates, PCB yards, and cumulative solvent loads, were poorly understood or not considered less than thirty years ago, which only widens today’s evidential gaps.
Even so, that counsel comes too late for many operations up to the early 2000s, when industrial hazards were poorly understood and exposure logs were uncommon. Even if the chaos of early entry cannot be redesigned, commanders and agencies can still complete the process correctly by creating a usable record. A succinct post-tour bundle, filed with personnel records and the unit archive, should include:
a task/location timeline,
sketch maps and photographs of sites worked,
a note of known or likely prior industrial uses,
brief witness statements,
unit diaries and load/consignment lists,
and GP/screening notes (e.g., spirometry where relevant).
Decades later, this modest package can be the difference between a fair hearing and a polite denial. Where no bundle exists for historic tours, assemble the best available reconstruction from diaries, photos, unit logs, site histories, and medical notes.
On the claims side, practice should match principle. Decision-making ought to reflect the benevolent, merits-based intent of the law; use multiple pathways (SoPs and reasonable-hypothesis routes); and adopt a culture that investigates rather than contests. Independent oversight, separate from VANZ and NZDF, would help ensure that the absence of paperwork does not become the absence of justice.
In the shadowed groves and ordered plots of Wellington’s Karori Cemetery lie men who changed the course of New Zealand military history—not by storming trenches or leading charges, but by ensuring those who did were fed, clothed, armed, and supported. These are not the generals whose names ring in history books, but the logisticians, armourers, storekeepers, and quartermasters—the architects of military sustainment.
Services section at Karori Cemetery
From the mud-soaked marches of the New Zealand Wars to the vast supply chains of the First and Second World Wars, these men represent a unique and vital lineage in New Zealand’s defence story. They operated behind the scenes, yet their influence extended across continents, shaping how the nation fought, survived, and recovered from conflict.
Buried at Karori Cemetery, they now rest together, forming a silent but powerful testimony to the enduring importance of military logistics. This narrative traces how their combined efforts established the logistical backbone that sustained generations of New Zealand soldiers through peace and war.
Lawn section at Karori Cemetery
Edwin Henry Bradford (1829–1901)
Plot: Public/L/28
New Zealand’s first Government Armourer, Edwin Bradford was appointed in 1864 during the New Zealand Wars. Trained at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, he brought with him technical expertise in weapon maintenance. Serving as Armourer Sergeant during Tītokowaru’s campaign, he ensured arms were fit for purpose in some of New Zealand’s most difficult conflicts. Bradford kept the colony’s armoury functioning for nearly four decades, a quiet sentinel of colonial firepower. His work laid the foundation for the professional military armourer trade in New Zealand. He died in service in 1901, still committed to maintaining the colony’s arsenal, and his grave at Karori is the resting place of a founding figure in New Zealand’s defence support history.
Walter Laurie Christie (1833–1917)
Plot: Ch Eng 2/A/268
Christie joined the Colonial Defence Force in 1863 and served in campaigns including Wereoa and Pātea. He was later posted to the Chatham Islands during Te Kooti’s exile and oversaw prisoner infrastructure there. After transferring to the Defence Stores Department in 1868, as Assistant Armourer, Christie became a central figure in maintaining Volunteer and early Territorial Force weapons. Rising to Foreman of Stores, he worked tirelessly to support the defence force until his retirement in 1908. In 1909, he became the first New Zealander to be awarded the Imperial Service Medal. His grave symbolises the long-serving backbone of New Zealand’s logistics and technical support personnel.
John Henry Jerred (1860–1902)
Plot: Public/N/77
An engineer turned Defence Storekeeper, Jerred joined the Armed Constabulary in 1880 but lost a leg in an accidental shooting. Undeterred, he transitioned to the Defence Stores where he contributed significantly to mobilising New Zealand’s South African War contingents. He became Assistant Defence Storekeeper and was key in outfitting troops during one of the Defence Department’s most intense periods. His death in 1902 during this mobilisation effort was a loss felt deeply by his colleagues, and his grave now stands as a reminder of the pressures borne by support staff during times of national emergency.
James O’Sullivan (1855–1925)
Plot: ROM CATH/Q/12
Beginning his military career as a trooper in the Armed Constabulary, Major James O’Sullivan rose to become Director of Military Stores, spearheading the transformation of New Zealand’s military logistics between the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Joining the Defence Stores Department in 1885, he led it through modernisation, standardising stores, improving accountability, and introducing professional quartermaster training. During the South African War, he ensured the rapid equipping of New Zealand contingents and laid the groundwork for the Territorial Force’s sustainment. O’Sullivan was instrumental in enabling New Zealand’s rapid mobilisation of the NZEF in 1914, making it the first dominion to dispatch a fully equipped expeditionary force. Despite his tireless service, he became the focus of political blame during wartime scrutiny but was later vindicated. Retiring in 1918 after over three decades of service, O’Sullivan’s legacy lives on in the professional systems and structures he helped build.
Major James O’Sullivan, November 1911
Frederick Silver (1849–1925)
Plot: Ch Eng 2/F/335
A Royal Marine Artillery veteran of the Ashanti War, Frederick Silver brought valuable British military experience to New Zealand when he emigrated in the 1870s. Joining the Permanent Militia, he helped mount and manage the colony’s first coastal defence guns, trained personnel, and ensured readiness during rising imperial tensions. In 1902, he transferred to the Defence Stores Department, becoming Assistant Director of Military Stores and later Artillery Stores Accountant. Silver was responsible for managing, accounting for, and issuing artillery supplies to an expanding territorial force. His systematic approach to ordnance helped New Zealand adopt more standardised artillery logistics. He retired in 1913, having played a significant part in the professionalisation of Defence logistics and artillery supply systems.
William Thomas Beck, DSO (1865–1947)
Plot: Soldiers/P/3/11
Captain William Beck was a seasoned Defence Storekeeper who had served as the District Storekeeper in Auckland since 1903. When the First World War began, he was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services in 1914. He deployed with the NZEF and became the first New Zealander of Godley’s force ashore at Gallipoli. Known for his bravery under fire, Beck maintained the Anzac Cove beach supply point in near-constant danger from Turkish artillery. His leadership and calm demeanour earned him the Distinguished Service Order. After returning to New Zealand, he continued to serve in ordnance capacities until his retirement. Beck’s career exemplifies frontline logistics leadership, resilience, and adaptability under extreme conditions.
John Francis Hunter (1878–1967)
Plot: Ch Eng/C/253
John Hunter joined the Royal New Zealand Artillery in 1898, later transferring to the newly formed Artillery Ordnance Section in 1915. Tasked with managing ammunition manufacturing, testing, and safety, he worked to improve the reliability of New Zealand’s coastal defence munitions during and after the First World War. In 1917, he transferred to the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps and was appointed to run the Dominion’s largest ammunition depot at Mahanga Bay. There, he implemented new ammunition storage and safety procedures that became standard across the force. Retiring in 1931 as Warrant Officer Class Two, Hunter helped usher in a modern and technically competent ammunition logistics framework in New Zealand.
Alfred William Robin, KCMG, CB (1860–1935)
Plot: Public 2/L/282
Major General Alfred Robin was pivotal in New Zealand’s transition from colonial militia to a modern expeditionary force. Commander of the First Contingent to South Africa in 1899, he returned to serve as Chief of the General Staff and later Quartermaster-General during the First World War. In these roles, Robin was responsible for the entire domestic military effort: recruitment, training, equipping, and despatch of reinforcements to the NZEF abroad. A tireless administrator, he worked without leave for the entire war and was a linchpin in ensuring New Zealand’s soldiers received the support they needed. Robin’s influence reached beyond logistics—he was an institutional leader, shaping the New Zealand Military Forces for the interwar years. He retired in 1920 and contributed to youth and veterans’ organisations until his death.
Thomas Joseph King, CBE (1891–1971)
Plot: Soldiers/W/5/19
Brigadier Thomas King began his military service in the Pay Department during the First World War before transferring to the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. He served as Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services at Gallipoli and later became Director of Ordnance Services between 1924 and 1940. King was responsible for shaping the peacetime logistics systems that would later support wartime mobilisation. During the Second World War, he was deployed as Deputy Director of Ordnance Services for the 2nd NZEF. From 1942, he was the Deputy Director of Ordnance Services for the Ninth Army in the Middle East, managing critical supply operations across several Allied campaigns. In 1944, he led a UNRRA mission to deliver humanitarian aid to Greece. He retired as a brigadier in 1947, having served for over three decades, and was later appointed Colonel Commandant of the RNZAOC.
Henry Esau Avery, CMG, CBE, DSO (1885–1961)
Karori Crematorium and Chapels: Cremated
A Gallipoli and Western Front veteran, Brigadier Henry Avery was the NZ Division Assistant Adjutant & Quartermaster-General and remained in the UK post-war, attending the Staff College, Camberley. On return to New Zealand, he was Quartermaster-General until his retirement in 1924. Returned to high office during the Second World War, Avery served as Quartermaster-General and Third Military Member of the Army Board. In these roles, he oversaw the logistical sustainment of New Zealand’s forces at home and abroad. Avery’s command ensured that the rapid expansion of the wartime army was matched with efficient provisioning, infrastructure development, and strategic planning. He also led the post-war drawdown, managing the War Assets Realisation Board and helping repurpose military assets for civilian use. Decorated for gallantry and administration alike, Avery’s career bridged combat experience and senior strategic leadership, making him one of New Zealand’s foremost military logisticians.
Peter McIntyre painting of H E Avery, Public – Wellington museum NZ archives No known copyright restrictions.
Conclusion: A Legacy Forged in Quiet Service
Karori Cemetery holds within its grounds the quiet heartbeat of New Zealand’s military past—a lineage of logisticians whose names may not grace battlefield monuments, but whose deeds ensured those monuments could exist. These men moved the wheels behind the war effort, worked in the shadows to sustain campaigns, train forces, manage depots, and modernise the very systems by which New Zealand’s military functioned.
Their careers span the South African War through two World Wars and mirror the evolution of military logistics in New Zealand: from colonial improvisation to professionalised, global-scale sustainment. Whether maintaining arms in frontier outposts, coordinating supply landings under fire at Gallipoli, or masterminding wartime logistics from General Headquarters, they represent generations of commitment, technical skill, and leadership.
Their resting places at Karori form more than a collection of headstones—they constitute a collective chapter of military heritage written not in the language of glory but endurance, systems, foresight, and service. In remembering them, we honour the past and reaffirm that victory in war and security in peace depend as much on those who supply and sustain as on those who fight.
They were the architects of readiness. Their legacy remains the scaffold upon which today’s Defence logisticians still stand.
ANZAC Day is a sacred day of remembrance and gratitude in New Zealand. It is a day when we pause to honour the breadth of military service—those who stormed the beaches and scaled the ridgelines, and those who sustained them from behind the lines. Among these often-unsung heroes are the men and women of the Ordnance Corps. Ordnance soldiers have provided the New Zealand Army with the weapons, ammunition, equipment, and logistical support necessary to fight, survive, and succeed for over a century. Their role has always been vital, even if it has been carried out of the limelight.
But what exactly is an Ordnance soldier?
At their core, Ordnance soldiers are Logistics Specialists and Ammunition Technicians—responsible for ensuring that every frontline soldier has what they need, when they need it. They manage everything from the smallest screw in a field weapon to the vast stocks of food, clothing, and ammunition that sustain entire armies. Their work includes storage, distribution, accounting, repair, salvage, and technical inspection. In short: if it moves, fires, feeds, or protects, it likely passed through the hands of Ordnance personnel.
The roots of military ordnance stretch deep into history. The first recorded Ordnance Officer in the British military was appointed in 1299 to manage siege equipment, such as catapults and battering rams. Over time, these responsibilities evolved into a professional and structured system of military storekeeping and supply, one that reached New Zealand in the 1840s with the arrival of British Imperial forces.
By the 1860s, as the Imperial presence waned, the responsibility for military logistics was gradually handed over to New Zealand personnel. The Defence Stores Department was formally established in 1869 to oversee the nation’s military stores. This marked the beginning of New Zealand’s independent ordnance tradition. In 1917, during the First World War, the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was officially formed, taking over duties from the Defence Stores Department. The Corps provided critical support throughout the war and maintained the Army through the interwar years.
With the Second World War outbreak, the Ordnance Corps expanded dramatically. To support 2NZEF, the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) was raised for overseas service, while a separate NZOC served as the NZAOCs Territorial element. In 1942, the engineering and maintenance functions of the NZOC operating in the Middle East were separated to form the New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME). This change was mirrored in New Zealand in 1946, when workshops were transferred from the NZAOC to the newly created NZEME.
In recognition of its wartime service, King George VI granted the “Royal” prefix to the Corps on 12 July 1947, making it the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC). That same year, the territorial and regular elements were merged into a single corps that would serve with distinction for the next half-century.
Every ANZAC Day, we reflect on the legacy of the Ordnance soldier—from the dusty cliffs of Gallipoli and the battlefields of North Africa to the supply depots of World War II, the jungles of Southeast Asia, and the humanitarian missions of the late 20th century. Their story did not end with the close of the Cold War. In 1996, the RNZAOC was amalgamated with the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT) and the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) to form the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR)—a unified, modern logistics formation designed to meet the evolving demands of military operations in the 21st century.
The legacy of the Ordnance soldier lives on today in every RNZALR Logistic Specialist and Ammunition Technician. Their story is not just a historical record—it is the very foundation of the RNZALR. Their values of resilience, quiet courage, and professional excellence continue to shape the New Zealand Army’s ability to sustain and succeed at home and abroad.
Gallipoli and the First World War: The Storekeeper on Anzac Beach
The story of the New Zealand ordnance soldier begins amid the brutal landing at Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. Captain William Beck, a New Zealand Staff Corps officer, was appointed Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (DADOS) for the New Zealand and Australian Division. According to several accounts, Beck was the first New Zealander ashore at ANZAC Cove, leading the landing of Godley’s divisional headquarters under intense fire.
His task was immense. Amid the beachhead’s chaos, confusion, and carnage, Beck quickly set about establishing a makeshift ordnance dump right on the shoreline—improvising with salvaged crates, scattered supplies, and a growing stream of urgently needed materiel. As soldiers surged inland and casualties mounted, Beck and his small team organised the distribution of ammunition, rations, clothing, and basic field stores to units already under fire in the hills above. Without shelter, maps, or proper infrastructure, this operation became a lifeline to the forward troops.
Supplies on the beach at ANZAC Cove 1915. Athol Williams Collection, Alexander Turnbull Library
Beck worked under relentless fire, including from a remarkably accurate Turkish artillery piece that pounded the beachhead daily. Nicknamed “Beachy Bill” by the troops, the gun became infamous for zeroing in on the supply areas, and Beck’s improvised depot was one of its most frequent targets. The name, according to some accounts, was given in ironic tribute to Captain Beck himself, whose unwavering presence under fire seemed to draw the enemy’s attention as reliably as the tides. Despite the danger, Beck remained calm and courteous, continuing to perform his duties in conditions that would have driven many to cover. His efforts earned him the enduring moniker “the brave storekeeper on Anzac Beach.” He became a quiet legend among his peers. General Sir William Birdwood, commanding the ANZAC forces, was said to personally check on Beck during his rounds, out of admiration and concern. Beck’s courage and composure under fire became emblematic of the Ordnance Corps’ ethos: professionalism in adversity, and mission before self.
Though he was later evacuated due to illness caused by the stress of battle in August 1915, Captain Beck’s role at Gallipoli demonstrated how critical logistics were to the survival and sustainment of fighting troops—and that the Ordnance soldier was not a rear-echelon presence, but a frontline enabler in every sense.
Following the Gallipoli campaign, the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) was reorganised and redeployed to the Western Front in France and Belgium, as well as to the Sinai and Palestine campaigns in the Middle East. What began in 1914 as a two-man effort—Beck and Sergeant Norman Levien—expanded rapidly into a structured logistics organisation. In 1917, the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was formally established as a dedicated branch of service, recognising its work’s increasingly specialised and essential nature.
On the Western Front, Ordnance personnel established and managed supply dumps and armourers’ workshops across the scarred landscapes of the Somme, Messines, and Passchendaele. They worked in trenches, mud, and snow—often within range of enemy artillery—ensuring that troops had the bullets, boots, tools, and trench stores required to sustain a static war of attrition.
Their responsibilities went well beyond basic supply. Ordnance units also operated salvage sections to recover, repair, and repurpose battlefield equipment—a critical function in conserving resources and maintaining operational tempo. They ran mobile repair facilities and oversaw essential services like bath and laundry units, which not only preserved hygiene in the harsh conditions of trench warfare but also boosted morale and prevented disease. These services reflected the Ordnance Corps’ holistic approach to sustaining soldiers, not just with materiel, but with cleanliness, comfort, and care in brutal circumstances.
In the Middle East, NZAOC detachments supported mounted operations across the harsh deserts of Sinai and Palestine. Operating in support of the New Zealand Mounted Rifles Brigade, Ordnance soldiers adapted their methods to suit long, exposed supply lines and the mobile nature of desert warfare. They managed camel trains, improvised field depots, and operated forward repair points—often little more than canvas shelters in the sand—to keep men and animals in the fight. Salvage and maintenance tasks were equally essential here, where resupply could be days away and every item had to be made to last.
By the end of the First World War, the NZAOC had grown into a compact, disciplined, and highly respected corps. From the mud of Flanders to the sands of Beersheba, their work underpinned New Zealand’s military effort. Though rarely seen in official war photographs or commemorated in mainstream histories, their contributions were vital. They demonstrated that logistics was not a sideline to combat—it was its backbone. They also laid the foundation for a professional military logistics tradition in the RNZALR today.
The Second World War and Beyond: Backbone of the Battlefield
During the Second World War, the NZAOC matured into a seasoned and indispensable pillar of military capability. Whether supporting the fight abroad or maintaining the war effort at home, Ordnance personnel were the engine behind the Army’s ability to project and sustain force across multiple theatres of war.
North Africa and Italy: Desert Sands and Mountain Passes
In the North African campaigns of 1941–42, Ordnance units operated across Egypt and Libya’s vast, unforgiving deserts, supplying the 2nd New Zealand Division during pivotal battles such as Operation Crusader and El Alamein. Supply depots were often under canvas, exposed to enemy air raids and desert winds. Light Aid Detachments worked tirelessly in the blistering heat to keep tanks, trucks, and artillery in the fight, repairing on the move and recovering damaged equipment under fire.
A dedicated Ordnance Convoy Section was raised to support the increasing volume and complexity of operations. Its task was to move stores and equipment from rear areas to forward supply points, filling a critical gap when the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) could not meet demand. These convoys ensured a continuous flow of tools, spare parts, and personal equipment to the front, often through contested or poorly marked desert tracks.
The NZ Divisional Salvage Company also operated until late 1941, recovering and repurposing valuable battlefield materials—everything from damaged vehicles to discarded equipment. This function saved resources and contributed to operational sustainability by rapidly recycling assets back into the supply chain.
Ordnance support also extended to troop welfare. Mobile Bath and Laundry Sections accompanied the Division to provide frontline hygiene services, which were essential in preventing disease, exchanging clothing, maintaining morale, and improving the force’s overall combat effectiveness. Their presence in forward areas helped ensure that troops remained as healthy and combat-ready as conditions allowed.
Fred Kreegher, New Zealand Ordnance Field Park, sorting out stores in the rear of his Bin Truck. The Noel Kreegher collection
When the Division redeployed to Italy in late 1943, the harsh desert gave way to snow-covered mountains and treacherous river valleys. But the demands on Ordnance personnel did not ease. During gruelling campaigns at Monte Cassino and through the Po Valley, the NZOC once again delivered. Ordnance Field Parks and dumps were established within range of enemy guns, and equipment was recovered, repaired, and reissued under complex and often perilous conditions.
These layered capabilities—convoy operations, salvage and recovery, technical maintenance, and personal support—ensured the Division could manoeuvre and fight confidently, knowing its logistical tail was secure. The Ordnance Corps wasn’t simply supporting the fight—it was integral to sustaining it.
The Pacific Theatre: Islands of Sustained Effort
While New Zealand’s main expeditionary force focused on Europe and the Mediterranean, many New Zealand troops were also deployed to the Pacific. Here, the NZAOC supported the 3rd New Zealand Division across island bases in New Caledonia, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, and Fiji. These were remote and logistically challenging environments—characterised by tropical diseases, heavy rain, mud, and dense jungle.
Ordnance detachments established supply points, maintained stores, repaired equipment, and ensured operational readiness across scattered islands. These locations often lacked established infrastructure, requiring personnel to be resourceful and adaptable. Camp maintenance, local procurement, and even salvaging enemy materiel became part of the day-to-day tasks.
Although the 3rd Division never saw major set-piece battles like those in North Africa or Italy, it did undertake several opposed amphibious operations and complex island-clearing operations, most notably in the Solomon Islands campaigns at Vella Lavella, Treasury Islands, and Green Island. These landings were tactically complex and logistically demanding, requiring close coordination between combat troops and supporting elements. The Division’s presence helped safeguard New Zealand’s Pacific interests and contributed meaningfully to the broader Allied campaign in the South-West Pacific Area. The Ordnance Corps was instrumental in keeping this contribution viable—its soldiers operated under arduous conditions, far from public view but never from operational necessity.
The Home Front: Sustaining the War Machine
Back in New Zealand, the Ordnance Corps played an equally vital—if often overlooked—role in sustaining the nation’s war effort. Depots at Trentham, Hopuhopu, Burnham, Palmerston North and Waiouru became crucial hubs for receiving, inspecting, storing, and distributing supplies to deployed units. The scale of this effort was immense: weapons, uniforms, vehicle parts, ammunition, and medical supplies flowed in and out of these depots on a daily basis.
Ordnance staff oversaw procurement, stock accounting, and quality control, ensuring that New Zealand’s contribution to the global conflict was met efficiently and precisely. In addition to servicing the expeditionary forces, these depots supported the Home Guard, Territorial units, and mobilisation centres. When new battalions were raised or re-equipped, Ordnance issued the kit and ensured everything was fit for purpose. This included the units of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force deployed overseas, as well as the three Divisions and supporting arms raised for home defence. These domestic formations—charged with protecting New Zealand from possible invasion—required full logistical support, from uniforms and webbing to weapons, ammunition and transport. Ordnance Corps personnel were central to ensuring these forces were ready to respond, maintaining a continuous flow of supplies while adapting to changing wartime demands.
“Repairing despatch riders’ motor-cycles. Photo of mechanics and motorcyclists repairing motorcycles at a field workshop during military manoeuvres in Northland.” Auckland Weekly News, 23 December 1942, p.14
Auckland Libraries Heritage Collections AWNS-19421223-14-03
The wartime workforce also included women, with members of the New Zealand Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (NZWAAC) taking on duties in Ordnance depots, handling clerical tasks, managing stores, and supporting logistics operations nationwide. Their involvement further highlights the adaptability and inclusivity of the Ordnance mission in meeting the demands of total war.
Post-war Transition
Post-war deployments saw Ordnance personnel serve in Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Vietnam, and beyond—often integrated within British, Australian, or Commonwealth logistics formations. Though New Zealand’s contribution to these conflicts was modest in size, the professionalism and impact of its Ordnance soldiers were significant. In the Korean War (1950–53), New Zealand’s primary combat force—16th Field Regiment—was supported by a small but capable number of logistics specialists. Ordnance staff embedded within allied supply chains, managing stores, issuing ammunition, and repairing equipment under the demanding conditions of the Korean Peninsula’s harsh winters and mountainous terrain.
During the Malayan Emergency (1948–1960) and the subsequent Indonesian Confrontation (1962–1966), New Zealand troops operated in dense jungle environments that tested their combat and logistics capabilities. Ordnance soldiers were seconded as individuals to the New Zealand Battalion or British units, where they maintained supply lines through monsoon rains, oppressive humidity, and remote jungle bases. Their tasks ranged from maintaining small arms and issuing jungle kit to managing the complex movement of stores between staging areas and patrol bases—a vital function in an environment where regular resupply was challenging and sometimes depended on airdrops or riverine transport.
Although New Zealand did not deploy a complete Ordnance unit in Vietnam, RNZAOC personnel were seconded individually to Australian and United States forces. These included roles such as supply officers, ammunition controllers, and non-commissioned officers (NCOS) stationed at key logistics hubs like Nui Dat and Vung Tau. Working in a high-tempo combat zone, they handled everything from weapons and clothing to fuel, spare parts, and ammunition—often under the threat of enemy attack. The complexity of the Vietnam conflict demanded rapid response times, adaptability, and technical proficiency, all of which the Ordnance soldiers delivered in spades.
Beyond direct deployments, Ordnance personnel were also deeply involved in supporting the considerable effort required to sustain a deployable division maintained under New Zealand’s national service and conscription scheme during the Cold War. This mobilisation model meant that the RNZAOC was responsible for equipping, maintaining, and provisioning a standing force-in-being that could be rapidly expanded in times of crisis. Warehouses and mobilisation stores across the country were stocked with weapons, webbing, clothing, communications equipment, and general supplies—ready to be issued to citizen-soldiers if called upon. The planning, accounting, and logistical foresight required to maintain this latent capability were immense, and it stood as a testament to the professionalism of the Corps.
Across these theatres and responsibilities, Ordnance personnel served in austere and unpredictable environments. Whether embedded with an allied supply unit in the jungle or managing stockpiles for national mobilisation, they maintained the flow of materiel that kept New Zealand’s military effort credible and ready. Though they rarely received public recognition, their contribution was the vital connective tissue that made readiness a reality.
Peacekeeping and Modern Missions: From Mogadishu to the Pacific
In the late 20th century, as New Zealand’s defence priorities shifted toward peacekeeping and international humanitarian support, Ordnance soldiers once again rose to meet the challenge—this time under the flag of the United Nations. The 1992 deployment to Somalia marked a pivotal moment in New Zealand’s operational history and the modern evolution of the RNZAOC. In response to a deteriorating humanitarian crisis fuelled by civil war and famine, the UN launched a multinational intervention to secure aid routes and stabilise the region. New Zealand’s initial contribution to this effort—the New Zealand Supply Detachment—consisted primarily of 28 RNZAOC personnel, marking the first time in decades that an Ordnance-led contingent was deployed operationally in its own right.
Arriving in Mogadishu in December 1992 as part of the Unified Task Force (UNITAF), the detachment was tasked with establishing a functioning logistics capability in a highly hostile and volatile environment. Somalia’s capital had no functioning government, no stable infrastructure, and was riddled with armed factions. Despite the risks, the RNZAOC personnel immediately began establishing supply chains, securing local procurement channels, and distributing food, water, and stores to support the broader UN mission. They set up New Zealand’s main camp at the now well-known base called “Taniwha Hill,” which would symbolise Kiwi resilience amid chaos.
New Zealand soldiers leave their camp to conduct a patrol. NZDF Offical
Working out of hastily converted shipping containers and tents in the sweltering heat, the team operated under constant threat of gunfire, looting, and militia activity. Despite the mission’s peacekeeping label, it quickly became apparent that they were operating in a conflict zone. Convoys were escorted, personal weapons were always carried, and supply runs often meant travelling at high speed through hostile streets to avoid ambush. One RNZAOC NCO recalled travelling with a rifle propped between his knees, ready to return fire if necessary—a stark contrast to the logistics roles typically performed at home.
As the situation deteriorated, a second and larger contingent of 43 logistics personnel (including reinforcements from the RNZAOC and other corps) deployed in 1993 as the New Zealand Supply Platoon. This platoon was accompanied by an infantry protection element from 1 RNZIR, marking New Zealand’s first combat deployment of infantry since the Vietnam War. This reinforced the seriousness of the mission and highlighted the increasing danger and the blurred lines between combat and combat service support. Operating as an integrated platoon, the team performed with professionalism and efficiency, earning the respect of allied forces for their adaptability, calm under pressure, and ability to keep essential supplies flowing under fire.
The New Zealanders remained through some of the mission’s most violent episodes, including the events surrounding the infamous “Black Hawk Down” incident in October 1993. Positioned nearby, the RNZAOC soldiers bore witness to the heavy fighting yet carried on their duties with unwavering determination. When many international contingents began withdrawing, the New Zealand logistics team continued to operate until mid-1994, one of the last Western elements to depart the theatre.
The Somalia deployment reaffirmed the modern Ordnance soldier’s place at the heart of New Zealand’s deployable military capability. It demonstrated that RNZAOC personnel were not only logisticians, but also frontline enablers—capable of operating in fluid, high-risk environments and delivering under extreme pressure. “Taniwha Hill,” New Zealand’s base in Mogadishu, was regularly subjected to gunfire and mortar attacks, and Kiwis operated in volatile zones with little margin for error. Yet the RNZAOC platoon carried out their duties with quiet professionalism and resolve, ensuring UN and coalition forces remained supplied and mission capable.
This ongoing legacy of service continues under a new banner. In 1996, the RNZAOC was formally disestablished as part of an Army logistics reorganisation. Its personnel, functions, and traditions were integrated into the newly formed RNZALR, uniting the RNZAOC, RNZCT, RNZEME, and Quartermaster staff into a single, cohesive regimental structure. This transformation ensured that the enduring values and capabilities of the Ordnance Corps would carry forward into a modern, agile logistics force aligned with contemporary operational requirements.
Since then, RNZALR Logistic Specialists and Ammunition Technicians have continued to support peacekeeping and humanitarian operations in theatres such as Bosnia, the Sinai, East Timor, and Afghanistan. During the East Timor operation (1999–2002), logistics units played a crucial role in sustaining one of New Zealand’s largest overseas deployments since the Korean War. Their work—whether managing supply convoys, setting up field depots, or coordinating humanitarian assistance—underscored the critical importance of logistics as an enabler and a key factor in mission success.
Domestically, RNZALR Logistics personnel have remained indispensable. From supporting civil defence during the Canterbury earthquakes to managing logistics and providing personnel to support Managed Isolation and Quarantine (MIQ) facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic, and maintaining daily sustainment across Defence camps and bases, they remain central to New Zealand’s readiness and resilience. In every setting, whether at home or abroad, the legacy of the Ordnance soldier lives on through the actions and professionalism of the RNZALR.
Roll of Honour: Service Remembered, Sacrifice Recognised
The story of the Ordnance Corps is also one of loss. The New Zealand Ordnance Roll of Honour lists 63 names of those who died while serving in our logistics and stores organisations—from the Defence Stores Department of 1862 to the RNZAOC’s integration into the RNZALR in 1996. Among them:
Captain Sam Anderson (1899), Defence Storekeeper
Captain Arthur Duvall (1919), New Zealand Army Ordnance Department
Temporary Major William Knox (1941), Divisional Ordnance Field Park, North Africa
Private Russell John Casey (1994), 1 Logistic Regiment, RNZAOC
Each of these individuals—and the many others on the Roll—represents a life dedicated to service, often given in conditions far from home and with little fanfare.
Remembrance and Honour
Each ANZAC Day, we renew our vow: “We will remember them.” In remembering, we broaden our gaze to include those who served without seeking recognition—those who issued the boots, drove the convoys, repaired the radios, and ensured that the warriors had their arms.
The Ordnance Corps soldiers were not mere auxiliaries but the enablers of victory, the sustainers of peace, and the standard-bearers of discipline and duty. Their legacy is not just one of historical interest, but a living ethos that endures in the RNZALR.
As the Last Post echoes and the nation falls silent, let us remember the battles won and the thousands of acts behind the lines that made those victories possible. The story of the Ordnance soldier is one of dedication, innovation, and unheralded bravery.
At the going down of the sun, and in the morning— We will remember them. Lest we forget.
Effective military logistics are essential to operational success, particularly in challenging environments such as the tropical conditions faced by Allied forces in the Pacific during the Second World War. New Zealand’s experience during this period highlighted significant logistical and nutritional challenges, prompting innovative approaches to ensure its soldiers’ health and combat effectiveness. Among the most notable developments was the creation of the New Zealand Battle Ration—a specialised field ration explicitly designed to sustain troops operating in harsh tropical climates. This article explores the rapid development, innovative design features, practical testing, international recognition, and lasting legacy of the New Zealand Battle Ration. It underscores its wartime significance and the missed opportunities in the post-war period.
Soldiers eating a meal outdoors, Egypt. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch: Ref: DA-00816-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23083314
Development of the New Zealand Battle Ration
During the Second World War, New Zealand maintained generous and robust ration scales for troops stationed in camps. However, the army initially lacked a dedicated field ration tailored to tropical environments. Early deployments to remote Pacific garrisons, including Fanning Island and Fiji, revealed significant deficiencies in existing rations. This highlights an urgent requirement for a nutritionally balanced, durable field ration for prolonged use under tropical conditions.
The urgency to address this shortfall became critical following Japan’s entry into the war in December 1941. Colonel Salmon, Deputy Quartermaster-General, promptly sought assistance from New Zealand’s Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) to develop specialised emergency rations. The DSIR rapidly prioritised this task, leading to the swift development of the New Zealand Battle Ration starting in late 1941. By early 1943, after rigorous scientific research and testing, practical field trials demonstrated the effectiveness of this innovative ration in sustaining troops operating under challenging tropical conditions.[1]
Before this development, troops deployed in the field relied predominantly on standard camp-scale rations composed mainly of canned goods and easily portable items requiring minimal preparation. Recognising the inadequacy of these provisions for tropical operations, substantial scientific and developmental efforts were initiated to create a specialised and practical solution, culminating in the New Zealand Battle Ration.
Vitamin Content in Service Diets
To ensure that the New Zealand Battle Ration met stringent nutritional requirements, a dedicated team comprising Mr L.W. Tiller, Dr J.C. Andrews, and Dr B.W. Doak conducted extensive research into vitamin fortification. In October 1942, Tiller and Andrews travelled to Australia to study advancements in vitamin fortification techniques, particularly the extraction and application of vitamin C from lucerne (alfalfa). This international collaboration provided critical insights into effectively incorporating vitamins into field rations.
Meanwhile, Dr Doak carried out comprehensive analyses of the vitamin content in potential ration ingredients, explicitly targeting key nutrients such as ascorbic acid (Vitamin C), thiamine (Vitamin B1), and carotene (Vitamin A precursor). He meticulously evaluated these vitamins in various ratios before and after exposure to tropical storage conditions. His work extended to examining army rations’ mineral composition and moisture levels, crucial in determining their durability and nutritional viability in hot, humid climates. The outcome of this rigorous research directly informed the formulation of the New Zealand Battle Ration, ensuring it could maintain nutritional integrity under demanding tropical conditions.
Composition and Features of the New Zealand Battle Ration
The resultant ration was meticulously designed for emergency use during assaults rather than for continuous consumption. Each daily ration was divided into three meals—breakfast, lunch, and tea—offering a well-balanced combination of calories, minerals, and vitamins in a compact and appetising form. The key principle underpinning the ration was to provide sufficient nutrition and energy, maintain troop morale, and ensure practicality under challenging field conditions.
Key features of the New Zealand Battle Ration included:
Minimal weight and bulk, specifically designed to fit comfortably into standard-issue haversacks without causing excessive fatigue or restricting mobility.
Meals packaged individually, with each meal fully self-contained, eliminating the need for additional utensils beyond mess tins and spoons.
Comprehensive inclusion of necessary items such as fuel blocks, waterproof matches, cigarette tobacco, and water sterilisation tablets to ensure self-sufficiency.
Robust packaging impervious to water and gases, ensuring durability in tropical environments.
Clear instructions printed on toilet paper included in each meal, ensuring ease of preparation under challenging conditions.
Detailed Meal Breakdown:
Breakfast:
Meat and gravy (3 dehydrated blocks)
Curry powder (2 tablets for added flavour)
Milk and sugar block (1)
Salt tablets (2)
Tea tablets (2)
Sweet biscuits (1 packet)
Mixed fruit block (1)
Chewing gum fortified with Vitamins B1 and C (1 packet)
Cigarette tobacco and papers (1 packet)
Waterproof matches (1 packet)
Smokeless fuel blocks for cooking (3)
Water sterilising tablets (1 packet)
Toilet paper printed with cooking instructions (2 sheets)
Lunch:
Savoury biscuits (1 packet)
Sweet biscuits (1 packet)
Cheese block (1)
Fruit block (apricots, 1)
Barley sugar sweets (1 packet for energy boost)
Chewing gum (1 packet)
Tea tablets (3)
Milk and sugar block (1)
Cigarette tobacco and papers (1 packet)
Waterproof matches (1 packet)
Water sterilising tablets (1 packet)
Toilet paper printed with instructions (2 sheets)
Tea:
Meat and gravy (3 dehydrated blocks)
Vegetable block (1, providing essential dietary fibre and nutrients)
Sweet biscuits (1 packet)
Mixed fruit block (1)
Milk and sugar block (1)
Salt tablets (2)
Tea tablets (3)
Chewing gum (1 packet)
Cigarette tobacco and papers (1 packet)
Waterproof matches (1 packet)
Smokeless fuel blocks (3)
Water sterilising tablets (1 packet)
Toilet paper printed with cooking instructions (2 sheets)
Including cooking items, specifically meat-and-gravy blocks, vegetable blocks, curry powder, and smokeless fuel, was informed by detailed operational feedback stressing hot meals’ positive psychological and physical impact during strenuous operations. In contrast, American forces primarily relied on cold rations like the K-ration at this time, highlighting New Zealand’s unique approach and emphasis on troop welfare.
Packaging Innovations
Given the tropical environment’s challenges—humidity, torrential rains, heat, and rough handling—advanced packaging solutions were essential to preserving the integrity of the New Zealand Battle Ration. Metal containers, traditionally robust, were impractical due to their excessive weight, scarcity during wartime, and difficulty of transport in challenging conditions. Consequently, an innovative approach to packaging materials was crucial, requiring solutions that provided robust protection while maintaining minimal weight and bulk.
A significant breakthrough came with adopting Pliofilm, a flexible and moisture-vapour-proof material suited to wrapping individual food items. This advanced material prevented moisture ingress, significantly extending the shelf life and maintaining the nutritional quality of dehydrated ration components. Wellington-based stationery and publishing firm Coulls Somerville Wilkie Ltd. was commissioned to implement this cutting-edge packaging approach. The company employed a comprehensive, multi-layered packaging strategy:
First layer: Individual food items were carefully heat-sealed within Pliofilm wrappers, shielding them from moisture and humidity.
Second layer: Each meal was packed into wax-dipped cartons, providing an additional protective barrier against environmental factors such as water and vapour penetration.
Third layer: These individually wrapped meals were consolidated into a robust outer wax-dipped carton containing a full day’s ration (breakfast, lunch, and tea). This outer packaging ensured the ration packs remained intact and dry, even under the harshest tropical conditions.
Extensive and rigorous testing validated the effectiveness of this packaging system. Notably, ration packs successfully passed stringent immersion tests, including one severe test involving a 56-hour water submersion after being transported to and from New Caledonia. The exceptional durability and resilience of the packaging conclusively demonstrated its suitability and practicality for tropical military operations, significantly enhancing troop morale and operational effectiveness.
Field Trials and Reception
Initial trials of the New Zealand Battle Ration commenced in early 1943 under the oversight of Major Yerex, Director of Bush Warfare Training. Conducted in New Zealand’s dense bush terrain, these early trials involved experienced troops familiar with operational challenges, providing critical feedback on the ration’s nutritional adequacy, ease of preparation, and practicality under field conditions. The rapid initiation of these trials, within approximately a year after the ration’s development began, highlighted the efficiency and effectiveness of DSIR and military personnel collaboration.
Extensive trials were conducted in New Caledonia, where 200 Battle Ration packs were tested under realistic and demanding conditions, simulating prolonged jungle warfare. Troops participating in these exercises consistently reported high satisfaction with the ration. They highlighted the significant morale boost and physiological benefits of including hot meals. Soldiers appreciated the straightforward preparation process, noting that hot, nutritious meals substantially improved energy levels, reduced fatigue, and positively influenced performance during rigorous physical exertion.
New Zealand soldiers opening boxes of supplies. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch: Ref: 1/2-041657-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22388214
Detailed feedback from troops indicated that the ration’s composition, including dehydrated meats, gravy, vegetables, and flavour-enhancing items such as curry powder, significantly contributed to their operational effectiveness. Moreover, troops valued the thoughtful inclusion of supplementary items like fortified chewing gum, waterproof matches, smokeless fuel blocks, and water sterilisation tablets, recognising these as vital components that enhanced self-sufficiency and operational readiness.
Administrative evaluations were more mixed, with some senior officers expressing reservations about the practicality of rations requiring cooking. These critics favoured simpler, non-cookable rations such as the American K-ration, which was readily available through U.S. supply channels and did not require cooking, thus simplifying logistics. Despite these critiques, the consensus from troops who directly utilised the New Zealand Battle Rations in operational settings was predominantly positive, emphasising the ration’s practical advantages and clear operational benefits. This direct troop feedback ultimately reinforced the ration’s effectiveness and underscored its suitability for field deployment in challenging tropical environments.
Soldiers loading rations into small landing craft, Vella Lavella Island, Solomon Islands. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch. Ref: 1/2-044802-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22493249
International Recognition and Legacy
The innovative New Zealand Battle Ration attracted considerable international acclaim from Allied nations during and immediately after the Second World War. The U.S. Quartermaster Corps Subsistence Laboratory in Chicago conducted extensive comparative analyses of emergency rations from various countries. Their findings praised the New Zealand Battle Ration for its superior compact design, lightweight characteristics, nutritional variety, and effectiveness in tropical climates, positioning it as an exemplar among contemporary Allied rations.
British military authorities were equally impressed, showing substantial interest in adopting New Zealand’s advancements in ration technology. The British War Office requested detailed documentation and insights into the ration’s design, packaging, and nutritional composition, reflecting a clear recognition of its innovative attributes and potential for broader military applications.[2]
Despite the enthusiastic international response, the widespread operational deployment of the New Zealand Battle Ration was ultimately restricted by logistical constraints, predominantly due to the dominance of the American supply chain in the Pacific Theatre. The ready availability of the American K-ration and other U.S.-supplied rations made it challenging for the New Zealand Battle Ration to gain broader traction and regular use.
Regrettably, despite its early wartime innovation, the New Zealand Army did not capitalise upon these significant advancements in packaged nutrition in the immediate post-war years. Instead, they reverted to the pre-war practice of issuing soldiers portable rations equivalent to the in-camp ration scales, overlooking the potential benefits demonstrated during the war.
It was not until 1958 that the New Zealand Army revisited the idea of specialised ration packs, developing a new four-person, 24-hour ration pack specifically designed to streamline food supplies for armoured units. This pack was assembled using readily available commercial products and successfully trialled by the 1 and 4 Armoured Regiments during their 1959 annual camps.[3]
The operational experiences of the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZ SAS) and regular regiments during jungle operations in Malaya further emphasised the necessity for a lightweight, convenient, and nutritionally balanced 24-hour ration pack. Recognising this evolving operational requirement, the New Zealand Army undertook fresh efforts to develop such a pack, incorporating lessons learned from the field and responding to the practical needs of soldiers operating in challenging environments.[4] This renewed approach eventually laid the groundwork for modern ration packs, leaving a lasting legacy that underscores New Zealand’s contributions to innovation and adaptability in military logistics and field nutrition.
Conclusion
The New Zealand Battle Ration represented a remarkable wartime innovation, effectively addressing the’ critical logistical and nutritional challenges of tropical conditions. Its development showcased rapid scientific advancement, practical ingenuity in packaging, and a focus on troop welfare. Although its immediate post-war potential was not fully realised due to logistical constraints, its pioneering legacy eventually informed later ration developments within the New Zealand Army and internationally, cementing its status as a significant contribution to military logistics and field nutrition. Nevertheless, the decision by the New Zealand Army to revert to pre-war rationing practices in the immediate post-war years represented a missed opportunity to stay at the forefront of ration pack innovation. It was not until the late 1950s, influenced by operational experiences overseas, that the New Zealand Army resumed developing modern, specialised ration packs, highlighting the delayed recognition of the long-term value of their wartime innovations.
[2] “DSIR [Department of Scientific and Industrial Research] World War 2 Narratives. No. 10. Dehydrated Foods and Ration Packs. Copy No. 1,” Archives New Zealand Item No R1768268 (1948).
[3] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for period 1 April 1958 to 31 March 1959,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (22 June 1959 1959).
[4] “Supplies: General- Ration Packs: Development and Production,” Archives New Zealand Item No R17189341 (1958 -1967).
The evolution of New Zealand Army stores accounting from 1845 to 1963 reflects the broader transformation of the nation’s military logistics from its colonial origins to a modern, structured system. This study is not a deep dive into the intricate details and complexities of New Zealand military stores accounting but rather an introductory overview of a system that has incrementally evolved over 180 years.
Initially modelled on British military accounting principles, New Zealand’s unique defence requirements—shaped by its geographical isolation, force structure, and operational demands—necessitated continuous refinement. Accounting practices have continuously evolved since the first musket was issued to the militia in 1845. However, it wasn’t until The Public Stores Act of 1867 that structured inventory control and accountability measures were formally introduced. This legislation laid the foundation for military store accounting, marking a significant step towards the professionalisation of the Defence Stores Department. These measures ensured crucial oversight and efficiency in military logistics, particularly highlighted by the demands of the South African War and the two World Wars, underscoring the need for a robust and adaptable system capable of sustaining large-scale military operations.
By the mid-20th century, New Zealand had developed a sophisticated store accounting framework. The introduction of NZP1: Volume I—Stores Accounting in 1951 marked a milestone, formalising the policy regulating the army’s store management. The subsequent 1962 revision further streamlined procedures, ensuring the system remained relevant amid evolving logistical complexities.
New Zealand’s innovations in stores accounting did not go unnoticed. In 1963, the Australian Army sought guidance from New Zealand to modernise its system, acknowledging the effectiveness of the NZ Army’s approach. This recognition underscored New Zealand’s competence in military logistics, demonstrating that despite its smaller size, its expertise had broader strategic significance.
Structure of this Study
Part One will examine the period from 1845 to 1918, tracing the evolution of New Zealand’s military stores accounting system from its British colonial origins to a structured, modern framework comparable to those of New Zealand’s allies by 1914. The demands of the First World War tested the system’s efficiency and resilience, exposing strengths and weaknesses that would shape post-war reforms.
Part Two will cover the period from 1918 to 1945, during which the lessons learned from the First World War were applied to improve inventory control, procurement efficiency, and financial oversight. Economic constraints of the interwar years prompted refinements to stores accounting, leading to the introduction of cost accounting in 1921 and the formalisation of logistical procedures in 1927. The rapid mobilisation for the Second World War tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, accelerating the adoption of modernised inventory tracking and decentralised supply chain management. By 1945, these wartime adaptations had laid the foundation for a more sophisticated and accountable military logistics system.
Part Three will examine the period from 1946 to 1963, focusing on the transition from wartime supply chains to a peacetime military logistics infrastructure. The post-war period saw efforts to streamline surplus disposal, re-establish long-term procurement strategies, and integrate emerging technologies into stores accounting. By 1963, the system had matured into a mature manual store accounting framework, ensuring greater efficiency, accountability, and interoperability.
Military Stores Accounting and Its Distinctions from Commercial Stores Accounting
The primary goal of military stores accounting is to ensure that soldiers on the frontlines, tradesmen in workshops, and medical staff in field hospitals have the necessary tools and equipment to carry out their duties effectively. This involves managing administrative burdens through the command and supply chains and ensuring all required controls are in place for the long-term sustainment and capability maintenance.
Military stores accounting is a specialised system designed to manage and track the acquisition, storage, distribution, and disposal of military supplies. Unlike commercial stores accounting, which primarily focuses on cost control and financial profitability, military stores accounting prioritises accountability, operational readiness, and the efficient utilisation of resources to meet operational outputs.[1]
Differences Between Military and Commercial Stores Accounting
Feature
Military Stores Accounting
Commercial Stores Accounting
Objective
Ensuring operational readiness and accountability
Maximising profit and minimising costs
Nature of Inventory
Includes depreciable assets, expendable, consumable, repairable, and non-expendable items
Primarily consumable and depreciable assets
Accounting System
Uses strict regulatory frameworks and controlled issue systems
Focuses on balance sheets and profit margins
Lifespan of Items
Items can remain in service for decades with periodic refurbishment
Items are typically depreciated and replaced
Valuation
Based on operational utility rather than market price
Based on market valuation and depreciation
Security and Control
Strict control due to security concerns
Less stringent control mechanisms
Classification of Military Stores
Military stores are classified into several categories based on their usage, longevity, and maintenance requirements:
Expendable Stores – Items that are used once and cannot be reused (e.g., ammunition, medical supplies, fuel). These are issued as required and accounted for under strict consumption controls.
Consumable Stores – Items that are used over time and require replenishment (e.g., rations, lubricants, batteries). While they are used up gradually, they still require accountability and stock rotation.
Repairable Stores – High-value equipment that, when damaged or worn, can be repaired and reissued rather than disposed of (e.g., weapons, radios, vehicles). These items are often tracked using maintenance logs and servicing records to maximise their lifespan.
Non-Expendable Stores – Permanent assets that remain in service for extended periods (e.g., buildings, infrastructure, large-calibre weapons). These items require detailed asset management and condition assessments.
The Long-Term Use of Military Equipment
Unlike commercial organisations, where items are often replaced once they end their economic life, military assets— from clothing to high-value or technologically complex equipment—are maintained, refurbished, and upgraded to extend their service life. For example:
Small Arms: Some rifles and sidearms remain in service for decades through regular maintenance and upgrades.
Vehicles: Military transport vehicles, such as trucks and armoured vehicles, can be refurbished multiple times before decommissioning.
Aircraft and Naval Assets: Large defence assets, including ships and aircraft, are often modernised with new technology and systems rather than being replaced outright.
Uniforms and Gear: Certain clothing items and equipment are subject to phased replacement cycles, where only components are updated as needed.
The Importance of Accountability in Military Stores Accounting
Military regulations are always subservient to Government legislation and regulations, especially Treasury rules regarding the expenditure of public monies. Military stores accounting is not a single system, but a collection of specialised accounting frameworks developed to manage different commodities such as ammunition, rations, fuel, vehicles, and technical spares. As military technology has advanced, these systems have evolved parallel to meet modern armed forces’ complex logistical demands.
Accountability is central to military stores accounting, ensuring that every piece of issued equipment is tracked to guarantee:
Proper usage and maintenance,
Prevention of loss or theft,
Compliance with operational requirements,
Efficient resource allocation during deployments.
Military store personnel are responsible for maintaining detailed records, conducting audits, and ensuring strict adherence to regulations. These rigorous accounting and inventory control measures ensure that military resources remain available and serviceable when required. Beyond merely tracking financial transactions, military stores accounting is a critical function that underpins military operations’ effectiveness, security, and sustainability.
Early Developments in Stores Accounting
From 1845, Quartermaster staff managing militia stores and then Volunteer stores from 1858 followed British military procedures. The Defence Stores were formally established in 1862, predating Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton’s appointment as Inspector of Defence Stores in 1869. Although Gorton assumed leadership in 1869, the Defence Stores had already been functioning, supporting the colonial military effort.[2]
Lieutenant Colonel Edward Gorton
The 1867 Public Stores Act, implemented under Gorton’s administration, introduced structured accounting procedures.[3] The Defence Stores Department issued circulars and administrative guidelines to ensure proper accountability and management of military supplies. Gorton’s rigorous approach laid the foundation for the 1871 Public Stores Act, which regulated government-wide stores management and standardised accounting practices.[4]
1870-ammunition-stocktake
Despite Gorton’s achievements in strengthening accountability, his strict enforcement and meticulous oversight drew criticism, leading to the abolition of the Stores Inspection Department in 1877.[5] However, his Defence Stores procedures remained robust, and a culture od accountability was established within Defence Stores. Thirty years later, Colonel George Macaulay Kirkpatrick of General Kitchener’s staff validated them in 1910, finding them comparable to British military standards.
Stores records were maintained by a system of indents and vouchers, with balances maintained in ledger books. The Defence Stores were required to provide annual reports of stocks on an annual basis, ensuring accountability and transparency in military logistics. These practices laid the foundation for the modern systematic inventory control and efficient stores management.
Example of a Ledger book
Development of the Artillery Stores (1880s Onwards)
As New Zealand expanded its Garrison Artillery and introduced new guns, equipment, and ammunition, additional accounting and management procedures became necessary. This was beyond the scope of the existing Defence Stores Department, requiring the expertise of military professionals.
In conjunction with Defence Storekeeper Captain Sam Anderson, Sergeant Major Robert George Vinning Parker, formerly of the Royal Garrison Artillery, developed a system of Artillery Stores Accounting. Parker was in charge of artillery ledgers and stores at Auckland, Wellington, and Lyttelton, ensuring the proper tracking and maintenance of artillery supplies. He continued in this role until 1889 when he was reassigned to Dunedin.[6]
Replacing Parker as the Artillery Ledger Keeper was Regimental Sergeant Major and Instructor in Gunnery Frederick Silver. Silver’s expertise in artillery logistics positioned him as a key figure in the continued refinement of artillery accounting systems. Following the death of Captain Sam Anderson in December 1899, Silver applied for the role of Ledger Keeper in the Defence Stores. Given his extensive experience and close working relationship with Anderson, Silver believed he was the ideal candidate.[7] However, due to his seniority, James O’Sullivan, the Chief Clerk of the Defence Stores, was awarded the role of Defence Storekeeper.[8]
Despite this, Silver was appointed as a temporary clerk in the Defence Stores, transitioning from the Permanent Militia on 25 June 1900. While his new role introduced additional responsibilities, Silver managed Artillery Ledgers seamlessly within the Defence Stores framework.[9]
The relationship between the Defence Stores and the Artillery was cooperative, with both functions operating as a single organisation. The Defence Stores was crucial in supporting the artillery’s logistical needs, ensuring that munitions, equipment, and essential supplies were readily available. The interconnected nature of these two functions allowed for a streamlined approach to military logistics, where artillery-specific requirements were integrated within the broader supply framework managed by the Defence Stores.
This integration led to an efficient system that balanced military necessity with stringent logistical oversight.
Organisational Reforms and the Defence Council (1906)
With the passage of the Defence Act Amendment Act 1906 on 28 October 1906, the Defence Council was established, providing the New Zealand Military Forces with a structured headquarters for the first time. The Act introduced specific staff functions, including:
Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance): Responsible for artillery armament, fixed coastal defences, and ordnance supplies.
Director of Stores: Responsible for clothing, personal equipment, accoutrements, saddlery, harnesses, small arms, ammunition, machine guns, transport, vehicles, camp equipment, and all stores required for the Defence Forces.[10]
As part of this reform, James O’Sullivan was confirmed as Director of Stores for New Zealand and appointed Quartermaster and Honorary Captain in the New Zealand Militia. Silver was designated as Assistant Defence Storekeeper, continuing to oversee Artillery Ledgers, which—despite falling under the purview of the Director of Artillery Services (Ordnance)—remained under Defence Stores control.
Despite these improvements, officers and Quartermaster staff in volunteer units were still elected annually, leading to inconsistency in stores management. Many units functioned more like social clubs than military organisations, resulting in disorganised stores accounts. This led to frequent discrepancies between supplies provided by the Crown and actual inventory.
The continued reliance on part-time and volunteer Quartermasters highlighted the need for further professionalisation of the quartermaster within the New Zealand Military, a challenge that would persist as the New Zealand Military transitioned into the modern era.
The Defence Act 1909 and the Transition to a Citizen Army
The Defence Act 1909 marked a significant transformation in New Zealand’s military organisation, laying the groundwork for a citizen-based Territorial Army and ending the Volunteer System.[11] This fundamental shift required extensive adjustments within the Defence Stores Department to support the expanding force structure.
For O’Sullivan, Silver, and the Defence Stores Department, the challenge was to continue modernising stores and logistics to meet the demands of a rapidly growing army. As the Territorial Force expanded, so did the logistical requirements, necessitating a more structured and professional approach to store management.
On 1 June 1910, Silver’s position was redesignated as Assistant Director of Military Stores, and he was appointed a Quartermaster with the rank of Honorary Lieutenant in the New Zealand Militia. His expertise and leadership played a crucial role in ensuring the Defence Stores Department could support the evolving needs of the New Zealand Military.
Guidance on the duties related to the management of stores
In 1910, Lord Kitchener, renowned as “The Empire’s foremost soldier,” visited New Zealand and thoroughly reviewed its military forces.[12] His assessment led to significant reforms within the NZ Military, including establishing the New Zealand Staff Corps (NZSC) and the New Zealand Permanent Staff (NZPS) in 1911. These changes aimed to create a professional cadre of officers (NZSC) and enlisted personnel (NZPS) capable of providing expert guidance and efficient administration to the Territorial Force units.
Lord Kitchener’s visit critically evaluated the military’s capabilities, revealing deficiencies in equipment care, maintenance, and overall responsibility. The existing Regimental Quartermaster Sergeants (RQMS) lacked the necessary skills, underscoring the need for a professional RQMS cadre.
The Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand, which came into effect on 5 May 1911, established the command and administrative structure of the Forces.
The overall responsibility for military stores and equipment was placed under the Commandant of the Forces, with specific duties delegated to key officers and commanders at various levels.
Senior Officers Responsible for Stores and Equipment
Quartermaster General
Managed mobilisation stores, including policies on reserves of clothing, equipment, and general stores.
Determined scales of clothing, equipment, and stores needed for troops.
Oversaw mobilisation arrangements for food, forage, clothing, stores, and equipment.
Director of Supplies and Transport
Managed the supply of food, forage, fuel, and lighting.
Responsible for Army Service Corps technical equipment.
Director of Equipment and Stores
Oversaw clothing, equipment, and general stores.
Managed supplies of stationery, forms, and books.
Provided vehicles and technical equipment, except those for Artillery and Engineers.
Supervised the storage and distribution of small arms and ammunition.
Director of Ordnance and Artillery
Established reserve scales for arms, ammunition, and technical equipment for Artillery and Engineer units.
Managed the provision and inspection of guns, small arms, and ammunition.
Oversaw machine guns, Artillery and Engineer vehicles, and technical stores.
Director of Medical Services
Provided advice on and inspected all medical equipment to ensure it met operational standards.
Director of Veterinary Services
Provided expert advice on veterinary stores and equipment.
District and Unit Responsibilities
At a regional level, Commanders of Districts were responsible for maintaining the efficiency of forts and armaments, including all associated buildings, works, stores, and equipment. They also played a key role in ensuring financial prudence by overseeing officers responsible for spending and stores management.
At the unit level, the Commanding Officer had a broad set of responsibilities, including:
Maintaining discipline, efficiency, and proper administrative systems within the unit.
Ensuring accountability for public equipment, clothing, and stores.
Overseeing the maintenance and cleanliness of all issued arms.
Managing the proper receipt and distribution of rations and fuel.
Ensuring daily ration inspections were conducted in the presence of an officer.
Other Regimental Officers, such as Company Commanders, even those in temporary appointments, were also responsible for:
The equipment, ammunition, clothing, and stores assigned to their company.
Ensuring soldiers maintained personal cleanliness and proper care of their uniforms, arms, and accoutrements.
Supervising the quality and adequacy of rations provided to troops.
Finally, the 1911 Regulations clearly stated that any officer or individual responsible for public stores was strictly forbidden from lending any article under their charge unless expressly sanctioned by their Commanding Officer (CO). This regulation reinforced strict accountability and control over military stores, ensuring that all equipment, clothing, and supplies were used solely for authorised military purposes. [13]
To maintain proper accountability and management of military stores, Defence Stores personnel and unit Quartermasters followed detailed policies and procedures outlined in official publications, including:
Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand
Financial Instructions and Allowances Regulations for NZ Military Forces
Regulations for Clothing and Equipment of NZ Military Forces
NZ Dress Regulations
Prices Vocabulary of Stores
NZ Mobilisation Regulations
Additional guidance was also found in operational reference materials, such as:
Field Service Regulations
Training Manuals
Field Service Pocket Books
The responsibilities established in 1911 laid the foundation for the structured management of military stores, setting a precedent for all future stores accounting procedures. These early frameworks ensured accountability, efficiency, and operational readiness, embedding core logistical principles underpinning military supply chain management today. While titles and organisational structures have evolved, the fundamental tenets of logistical oversight, resource management, and financial accountability have remained steadfast. Successive iterations of Defence Orders, regulations, and policies have refined and expanded these responsibilities, ensuring their continued relevance and adaptability to the evolving operational and strategic needs of the New Zealand Defence Force in the modern era.
Standardising Stores Management and Training
In November 1911, thirty young men from military districts attended an intensive three-week training course at the Defence Stores Department in Wellington to address this. This comprehensive training, overseen by O’Sullivan, included:
Weapon storage, inspection, maintenance, and accounting
Storage, inspection, and maintenance of leather items (e.g., saddlery and harnesses)
Storage and upkeep of canvas and fabric equipment
Packing procedures for stores
Maintenance of records and documentation
The candidates successfully passed the examinations and were appointed as RQMS under General Order 112/10. Notably, this was the first military trade-related stores course conducted in New Zealand.
“Staff of the Quarter-master General—men who passed as Quarter-master instructors and are being drafted to the various districts, Colourised by Rairty Colour
To ensure consistency across districts, a conference of District Storekeepers was held in Wellington in August 1913. O’Sullivan noted their dedication to maintaining accountability for government property, highlighting their investment in their work.
Historically, annual military camps were managed ad hoc with inconsistent equipment scales. With the establishment of the Territorial Army, the Defence Stores Department introduced standardised camp equipment requirements in 1913.
To streamline supply chain management, temporary Ordnance Depots were established at brigade camps in 1913. Personnel received training under the Director of Equipment and Stores, and roles were assigned as follows:
Ordnance Officer: District Storekeeper Auckland (Lieutenant Beck)
Two clerks
Four issuers
Following the success of the 1913 camps, the system was expanded in 1914, with each regional storekeeper acting as an Ordnance Officer and staff numbers increasing to six clerks and twelve issuers.
Takapau Divisional Camp, 1914. Te Papa (1362454)
Strategic Assessment, Preparedness and Mobilisation
In early 1914, General Sir Ian Hamilton inspected New Zealand’s forces, assessing approximately 70% of personnel. He noted that the Territorial Force was “well-equipped and well-armed” but recommended looking to Australian models for future Ordnance development. O’Sullivan’s annual report for 1914 confirmed that the Defence Stores Department was in a strong position, with ample stocks of small arms, ammunition, clothing, and web equipment.
The 1914 mobilisation was the first test of the reorganised and reequipped New Zealand military forces since the South African War. The challenge was immense: raising, equipping, and dispatching an expeditionary force while maintaining the coastal defence garrisons and the Territorial Army for homeland security. O’Sullivan’s Defence Stores supported this effort, which, under his leadership, played a crucial role in successfully mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF).
The groundwork for the NZEF was laid in March 1914 when General Alexander Godley issued mobilisation regulations, adapted from British Army directives, to guide the formation of an expeditionary force. New Zealand’s commitment to supporting Britain in the event of war had been reinforced at the 1907 and 1911 Imperial Conferences, yet it was only in 1912 that Godley, confident in the growth of the Territorial Army, shifted focus to preparing for an overseas force.
As part of this preparation, Godley identified three likely tasks for the NZEF:
Seizure of German Pacific possessions.
Deployment to protect Egypt from a Turkish attack.
Fighting in Europe alongside British forces.
By mid-1914, New Zealand’s military reorganisation was three years into an estimated seven-year process.
Although at full operational strength, confidence in the military’s preparedness was high. Annual training camps had been completed, and unit stores had been restocked. A major stocktake was planned for August 1914—marking the first such effort in two years, as the 1913 stocktake had been postponed due to industrial strikes.
The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand on 28 June 1914 set off a chain of events leading to war. On 30 July, Defence Headquarters instructed District Headquarters to begin precautionary war preparations. By 1 August, partial mobilisation schemes were underway, and further instructions on the composition of the NZEF followed on 2 August.
Each military district contributed a fully equipped infantry battalion, a mounted rifle regiment, artillery, engineers, and medical subunits. These units were to be drawn from the permanent forces, Territorial Force, and reserves. District Storekeepers supported by unit Quartermasters were critical in equipping these units with stores drawn from existing regiments and regional mobilisation depots.
On 3 August, Quartermaster General (QMG) Colonel Alfred William Robin issued detailed instructions regarding individual equipment. Territorial soldiers were to report with their complete kit, while reservists would collect theirs from their regiments. Quartermaster staff were given guidance on recording the transfer of equipment in regimental ledgers.
With war declared, New Zealand’s government announced on 7 August that an Expeditionary Force of 7,000–8,000 men would be mobilised. The response was overwhelming, with thousands of volunteers rushing to enlist. Having had several days’ notice, District Headquarters swiftly implemented mobilisation plans.
Godley’s assumption that the NZEF’s first task would be the seizure of German Pacific territories was proven correct. By 11 August, the New Zealand force for German Samoa—comprising 1,413 personnel—was fully equipped by the Defence Stores and ready for deployment. Additional stores were assembled at Wellington’s wharf for embarkation. The force landed on 29 August, securing Samoa without resistance.
Meanwhile, mobilisation camps were established across New Zealand:
Auckland (Alexandra Park) – District Storekeeper Captain William Thomas Beck set up a mobilisation store, assisted by Sergeant Norman Joseph Levien.
Christchurch (Addington Park) – Captain Arthur Rumbold Carter White managed the Canterbury District mobilisation store.
Dunedin (Tahuna Park) – Captain Owen Paul McGuigan handled equipping recruits, many of whom had no prior military training.
Wellington (Awapuni Racecourse) – The Defence Stores in Wellington directly supported the mobilisation effort.
As the central hub for Defence Stores, Wellington managed the receipt and distribution of equipment nationwide. Public appeals were made for short-supply items like binoculars and compasses. On 14 August, approval was granted for each soldier to receive a second pair of boots—typically, the second pair had to be purchased at a reduced rate.
Mobilisation was not simply a matter of sending troops overseas; it also involved ensuring the ongoing reinforcement of the NZEF and maintaining the Territorial Army at home. Planning for NZEF reinforcements commenced alongside the main mobilisation effort to sustain the force in the field. It was determined that 20% reinforcements would be provided six weeks after the NZEF’s departure, with a further 5% arriving monthly thereafter.
Trentham Camp was selected as the primary training and equipping centre for reinforcement drafts, where the Camp Quartermaster Stores, under Lieutenant (Temporary Captain) Thomas McCristell, played a critical role in ensuring personnel were properly outfitted before deployment. The scale of this task was immense, with store personnel working late into the night to issue uniforms and equipment to the steady stream of reinforcements. While the focus remained on sustaining the NZEF, efforts were also required to maintain the Territorial Army at home, ensuring a trained force remained available for local defence and future deployments. Mobilisation was not a single event but a continuous process that demanded careful logistical planning and execution to sustain the war effort.
Beyond issuing equipment, the Camp Quartermaster Stores also served as a training ground for new Quartermasters destined for overseas service. Selected candidates underwent instruction in key logistical functions, including clothing and equipping troops, managing camp equipment, organising ammunition supplies, and overseeing water distribution and field kitchen setup. This training ensured that reinforcements were well-equipped and supported by skilled personnel capable of sustaining operations in the field.
By September 1914, the Defence Stores had successfully equipped the NZEF. On 24 September, General Godley thanked the Defence Stores staff for their efforts, acknowledging their crucial role in the mobilisation process. However, controversy soon followed.
On 26 October, after ten days at sea, Godley sent a note to Minister of Defence Colonel James Allen, alleging irregularities in Defence Stores operations and implying that O’Sullivan and his staff might be engaging in misappropriation. Despite recognising O’Sullivan’s significant contributions, Godley recommended auditing the Defence Stores’ accounting systems. This unfounded allegation ultimately led to O’Sullivan’s resignation, overshadowing the department’s achievements in successfully mobilising and equipping both the Samoa Expeditionary Force and the NZEF.
New Zealand’s largest military deployment to date placed immense logistical demands on the Defence Stores. The department leveraged pre-war procurement contracts while employing competitive tendering to secure uniforms, equipment, and supplies. This approach facilitated rapid expansion, with Buckle Street in Wellington emerging as a key logistical hub. However, the sheer volume of supplies soon exceeded capacity, necessitating the leasing of commercial storage facilities beyond the department’s central depots in Wellington, Christchurch, and Dunedin.
As military activity intensified, the establishment of the Palmerston North District Store in early 1915 significantly enhanced logistical capabilities, particularly for units stationed in the lower North Island. This expansion underscored the growing need for decentralised supply operations, improving the efficiency of equipment distribution.
The rapid wartime expansion placed immense strain on both personnel and logistics. Despite increasing responsibilities, the department received only minimal increases in permanent staff, forcing heavy reliance on temporary workers to meet operational demands.
As the war progressed, concerns over procurement methods and accounting procedures led to mounting external scrutiny. In 1915, a Commission of Inquiry was launched to examine the Defence Stores’ business practices, financial controls, and purchasing procedures. While the Commission found no evidence of misconduct, it recommended procedural improvements to enhance transparency and efficiency. In response, the government established the Ministry of Munitions, which took over procurement and supply chain management, streamlining logistical operations..
Supporting the NZEF (1915–1921)
The New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF) formed its own New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) in 1915, recognising the need for a more structured military logistics system. This corps provided dedicated logistical support for the NZEF and residual units until 1921. This development was critical as the demands of modern warfare required a more organised and professional approach to supply chain management, equipment maintenance, and ordnance distribution.
Initially, the NZEF relied heavily on British supply lines and logistical structures, with Quartermasters embedded within units managing day-to-day supply requirements. However, as operations expanded and the need for self-sufficiency grew, the establishment of the NZAOC provided a more formal system of procurement, storage, distribution, and maintenance of military stores. The Centre of mass for the NZAOC within the New Zealand Division was the Assistant Director of Ordnance Stores (DADOS) and his staff, who operated in concert with regimental quartermasters, who remained responsible for issuing and maintaining personal and unit equipment at the frontline.
Quartermasters played a pivotal role in ensuring that troops were properly equipped, fed, and clothed and worked closely with the NZAOC to ensure seamless logistical support across different theatres of war, from Gallipoli to the Western Front and the Middle East.
By 1918, the NZAOC had become a critical component of the NZEF’s supply chain, with depots in the UK and the DADOS operating dumps in key operational areas. As the war concluded, the Corps played a crucial role in the demobilisation process, managing the return of surplus equipment, disposal of unserviceable stores, and redistributing serviceable assets to remaining military units and government departments.
The NZAOC continued to support New Zealand’s post-war military commitments until 1921. The lessons learned during the Great War laid the foundation for future developments in ordnance and supply management, shaping the logistics framework of the post-war army.
The role of Quartermasters and the NZAOC in supporting the NZEF between 1915 and 1921 was instrumental in ensuring that New Zealand troops remained equipped and operationally effective throughout the war. Their contributions sustained the force in combat and established enduring logistical principles that continued influencing military store management in the following decades.
Home Service Stores Accounting
On the home front, military authorities pushed for the complete militarisation of stores accounting, aiming to align New Zealand’s system with British Army Ordnance practices. This led to a significant leadership change in 1916, with Major Thomas McCristell replacing James O’Sullivan as Director of Equipment and Stores. Under McCristell’s leadership, the department underwent a comprehensive reorganisation, transitioning into a formal military structure.
By 1 February 1917, the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department (NZAOD) and NZAOC were officially established, replacing the Defence Stores Department. This milestone ended 48 years of civilian-led military logistics, marking a shift towards a fully integrated, military-controlled Ordnance service.
Concurrent with the establishment of the Home Service NZAOC, formal Ordnance Procedures were published, and the Regulations for the Equipment of the New Zealand Military were updated. These replaced all previous instructions and formed the foundation for New Zealand’s modern military logistics system.
Conclusion: Towards a Modern Military Stores Accounting System
The period from 1845 to 1918 laid the foundational principles of New Zealand Army stores accounting, evolving from ad hoc militia supply practices to a structured, professional system aligned with British military standards. Early efforts, such as the 1867 Public Stores Act and the establishment of the Defence Stores Department, introduced much-needed oversight and accountability, ensuring military forces were adequately equipped for colonial conflicts and later global engagements.
The early 20th century saw increasing refinement in stores management, with greater formalisation under the Defence Act 1909, the creation of a structured supply organisation, and the introduction of rigorous accounting and inventory control measures. The mobilisation for World War I tested these systems on an unprecedented scale, demonstrating their strengths and the need for further development. The establishment of the NZEF NZAOC in 1915 and the home service New Zealand Army Ordnance Department and Corps in 1917 signified a pivotal transformation, shifting military logistics from civilian oversight to a dedicated military-run system. The experiences of World War I reinforced the importance of accurate, efficient, and adaptable stores accounting systems, setting the stage for continued evolution in the interwar and post-World War II periods. The next part of this study, New Zealand Army Stores Accounting: 1919–1945, will examine how the lessons learned from wartime operations influenced peacetime logistics, the modernisation of accounting frameworks, and the growing role of technology and centralised control in military supply chain management.
Notes
[1] Australian Defence Force, “Logistics Series – Supply,” Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 4.3 (2004): 1.1-1.16.
[4]“The Public Stores Act 1871,” ed. General Assembly of New Zealand (Wellington, 1871).;”Lieut-Colonel Edward Gorton,” New Zealand Gazette, Issue 1, 26 January 1872, 619.
[11] Peter Cooke and John Crawford, The Territorials (Wellington: Random House New Zealand Ltd, 2011), 153.
[12] Paul William Gladstone Ian McGibbon, The Oxford companion to New Zealand Military History (Auckland; Melbourne; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000, 2000), 369.
[13] “Regulations (Provisional) for the Military Forces of New Zealand “, New Zealand Gazette 5 May 1911.;
In 1955, the New Zealand Army found itself poised for significant transformation. The eruption of the Korean War and the escalating conflict in Malaysia compelled New Zealand to reassess its military strategy. Structured and equipped to provide an Expeditionary Force centred around a division supporting British forces in the Middle East, the evolving political situation in Asia placed the army on the cusp of a paradigm shift. This strategic shift redirected the focus of deployment from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, marking a crucial juncture in the army’s trajectory. [1] This article provides insights into the organisational and equipment state of the New Zealand Army of 1956 as it pivoted towards service in Asia.
Command and Control
Chief of the General Staff – Major-General C. E. Weir, CE., CBE., DSO.
Vice-Chief of the General Staff – Brigadier R. C. Queree, CBE., DS0.
Adjutant-General – Brigadier L. W. Thornton, OBE.
Quartermaster-General – Brigadier J. R. Page, CBE., DSO.
Strength
Regular Force
Authorised Strength – 4200
Actual Strength
Officers: 552
Other Ranks: 3276
Total: 3828
Territorial Force
NZ Army 3 Pl HB Regiment, 19th intake, Linton Military Camp, February 1956. Crown Studios Ltd :Negatives and prints. Ref: 1/1-033934-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22364964
Under the Compulsory Military Training Act of 1949, all males, whether European or Māori, became liable for military service upon reaching 18 years of age. Trainees had to undergo 14 weeks of intensive, full-time training, three years of part-time service, and six years in the Army Reserve. By 31 March 1956, 50,846 men had been trained under this scheme. The strength of the Territorial Force in 1956 was:
Officers:
1440
Other Ranks:
25846 – Effective Strength
10065 – Completed whole-time training available for part-time training from 1 April 1956
1760 – Held on strength but not available for training
Total 37671
School Cadet Corps
School Cadet Units were maintained at schools and were voluntarily for male students aged 14 to 18. In 1956, 807 officers and 38,032 cadets served in 140 secondary school cadet units.[2]
Organisation
Except for units of the NZ Cadet Corps, the following units comprised the New Zealand Army, which was organised into Army Troops, District Troops and the New Zealand Division:[3]
Army Troops
Army Headquarters
The Army Schools
Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps Depot RNZAC.
Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals Depot.
School of Military Engineering, RNZE
Royal New Zealand Army Medical Corps Depot.
Army Headquarters, Wireless Training Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Main Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC
Small Arms Ammunition Production Proof Office, RNZAOC
Inspecting Ordnance Officer Group, RNZAOC
Trentham Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Papakura Camp Hospital, RNZAMC
Waiouru Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Linton Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Burnham Camp Hospital, RNZAMC.
Army Headquarters, Dental Section, RNZDC
Whenuapai Dental Section, RNZDC.
Hobsonville Dental Section, RNZDC.
Ohakea Dental Section, RNZDC.
Woodbourne Dental Section, RNZDC.
Wigram Dental Section, RNZDC
Services Corrective Establishment.
District Troops
Headquarters, Northern Military District.
Headquarters, Area 1, Auckland
Headquarters, Area 2, Tauranga.
Headquarters, Area 3, Whangarei.
Headquarters, Area 4, Hamilton.
Narrow Neck Camp (.(Incl Fort Cautley).
9th Coast Regiment, RNZA
9th Coast Regiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Papakura Camp.
Northern District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
Papakura Dental Section, RNZDC
Northern District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC.
Waikato Camp.
Northern District Company, RNZASC.
Northern District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Northern District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
Northern District Ammunition Depot, RNZAOC
Northern District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC
Northern District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC
Northern District Workshop, RNZEME.
Headquarters, Central Military District.
Headquarters, Area 5, Wellington.
Headquarters, Area 6, Wanganui.
Headquarters, Area 7, Napier.
Headquarters, Area 8, New Plymouth.
Waiouru Camp.
Central District Workshop (Waiouru), RNZEME.
Waiouru Dental Section, RNZDC.
Linton Camp.
Central District Training Depot.
Central District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
Central District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Central District Company, RNZASC.
Central District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
Central District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC.
Central District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC.
Central District Mechanical Transport Workshop (Trentham) RNZEME.
Central District Armament and General Workshop (Trentham), RNZEME.
2nd General Hospital, RNZAMC
Trentham Dental Section, RNZDC.
Fort Dorset Base Camp
10th Coast Regiment, RNZA.
10th CoastRegiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Headquarters, Southern Military District,
Headquarters, Area 9, Nelson.
Headquarters, Area 10, Christchurch.
Headquarters, Area 11, Dunedin.
Headquarters, Area 12, Invercargill.
Burnham Camp
11th Coast Regiment, RNZA.
11th Coast Regiment Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs
Southern District Construction Squadron, RNZE.
Southern District Signal Troop, RNZ Sigs.
Southern District Company, RNZASC.
Otago University Medical Company, RNZAMC.(Dunedin)
Southern District Ordnance Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Ammunition Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Vehicle Depot, RNZAOC.
Southern District Mechanical Transport Workshop (Burnham), RNZEME.
Southern District Armament and General Workshop (Burnham), RNZEME.
Burnham Dental Section, RNZDC.
Southern District Army Education and Welfare Service, NZAEC
New Zealand Division
Headquarters, New Zealand Division.
Headquarters, New Zealand Division Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, RNZA, New Zealand Division.
1st Field Regiment, RNZA.
1st Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
2nd Field Regiment, RNZA.
2nd Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
3rd Field Regiment, RNZA.
3rd Field Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Medium Regiment, RNZA.
4th Medium Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
5th Light Regiment, RNZA.
5th Light Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
6th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RNZA.
6th Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
12th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment, RNZA.
12th Heavy Anti-Aircraft Regiment Workshop, RNZEME.
1st Locating Battery, RNZA.
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Brigade.
1st Battalion, The Northland Regiment, RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Auckland Regiment (Countess of Ranfurly’s Own) RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Hauraki Regiment, RNZ Inf.
Headquarters, 1st Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Brigade.
1st Battalion, The Wellington Regiment (City of Wellington’s Own)RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Wellington West Coast and Taranaki Regiment. RNZ Inf.
1st Battalion, The Hawkes Bay Regiment. RNZ Inf.
Headquarters, 2nd Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Brigade.
1st Battalion, The Nelson, Marlborough, and West Coast Regiment, RNZ Inf.1st Battalion, The Canterbury Regiment RNZ Inf.1st Battalion, The Otago and Southland Regiment, RNZ Inf.
Headquarters, 3rd Infantry Brigade Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME
Headquarters, 4th Armoured Brigade.
1st Armoured Regiment (Waikato), RNZAC.
1st Armoured Regiment (Waikato} Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Armoured Regiment (Wellington and East Coast), RNZAC.
4th Armoured Regiment (Wellington and East Coast) Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
1st Armoured Car Regiment (New Zealand Scottish), RNZAC.
1st Armoured Car Regiment ,(New Zealand Scottish) Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, RNZE, New Zealand Division
1st Field Engineer Regiment, RNZE.
1st Field Engineer Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Field Park Squadron, RNZE.
5th Independent Field Squadron, RNZE
1st Divisional Signal Regiment, RNZ Sigs.
1st Divisional Signal Regiment Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
Headquarters, Commander RNZASC, New Zealand Division.
1st Transport Company, RNZASC.
1st Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
4th Transport Company, RNZASC.
4th Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME.
6th Transport Company, RNZASC.
6th Transport Company, RNZASC Light Aid Detachment, RNZEME
Headquarters, 21st Supply Company, RNZASC.
1st Supply Platoon, RNZASC.
Headquarters, RNZAMC, New Zealand Division.
1st Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
2nd Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
3rd Field Ambulance, RNZAMC.
1st Field Dressing Station, RNZAMC.
1st Casualty Clearing Station, RNZAMC.
1st Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
2nd Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
3rd Field Hygiene Section, RNZAMC.
Headquarters, Commander RNZAOCs, New Zealand Division.
Headquarters, Commander RNZEME, New Zealand Division.
1st Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
2nd Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
3rd Infantry Workshop, RNZEME.
1st Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
2nd Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
3rd Mobile Dental Unit, RNZDC.
1st Divisional Provost Company, RNZ Pro.
Overseas Units
New Zealand Army Liaison Staff London
New Zealand Army Liaison Staff Melbourne
New Zealand Fiji Cadre.
Headquarters, New Zealand Kayforce.
A Transport Platoon (Korea), RNZASC.
The New Zealand Special Air Service Squadron. (Malaya)
Note: Apart from the New Zealand Women’s Army Corps (NZWRAC) depot, there were no standalone NZWRAC units, with all members distributed across units of the NZ Army
Equipment
After the First World War, the New Zealand Army underwent re-equipment, acquiring enough equipment to outfit an Infantry division, Artillery Brigade, and Mounted Rifle Brigade.[4] However, by 1934, much of this equipment had reached the end of its operational life. In line with mechanisation experiments, the first wave of modern uniforms and equipment began to be introduced into New Zealand’s service, including Anti-Aircraft Artillery, Bren Guns, and Universal Carriers from 1938.[5]
The advent of the Second World War saw the comprehensive re-equipment of the New Zealand army. By 1946, it was equipped on par with its peers in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada, with the available equipment viewed as sufficient for the immediate post war training purposes.[6]
Between 1946 and 1950, the demand for new or additional equipment was minimal. However, during this time, all remaining pre-war field artillery was replaced with more modern systems developed during the war. Substantial advancements occurred from 1950 onward, including the introduction of new Land Rover 4-wheel-drive vehicles, Centurion tanks, Armoured Cars, and anti-armour weapons, as well as the initial deployment of the Larkspur radio system. However, despite this purchase of a token amount of equipment, much of the army’s World War Two equipment although in service for less than twenty years was facing bulk obsolescence and included the following equipment.
In 1939, the New Zealand Army inventory of vehicles consisted of.
6 Motorcycles
2 Cars
54 Tracks and tractors
By 1944, this fleet had expanded to 20311 vehicles of all types from the United States, Canada and Great Britain.[7] Reductions of surplus vehicles due to the war’s end had reduced this holding to 10931 vehicles in 1945. Operational wear and tear and a shortfall in unit maintenance capability further reduced the fleet, necessitating placing most vehicles into regional Vehicle Depots managed by the RNZOAC. Under this system, units maintained a minimum of vehicles for routine activities; however, before an exercise, the unit’s additional vehicle requirement was drawn from the supporting Vehicle Depot.
In the interest of smart turnout, weather protection and economy, all mobile artillery equipment and trailers and all “B” and “C” vehicles were in peacetime painted to a glossy finish using Paint, PFU, Deep Bronze Green, High Gloss.
All “A” Vehicles and non-mobile artillery equipment, searchlights, etc, were painted to a matt finish using Paint, PFU, Deep Bronze Green, Matt Finish.[8]
Rationing
The RNZASC was responsible for overseeing all catering operations within the army. This included managing ration scales and supply organisation, including ration stores, cold stores, and butcher shops. Additionally, the RNZASC coordinated the activities of cooks and stewards stationed in camp and field kitchens. Bulk stocks of rations received from civilian suppliers were held in Supply Platoons and divided into ration breaks tailored to the needs of individual kitchens, depending on the strength of dependent units. Bulk field feeding was facilitated by RNZASC field kitchens, which provided essential sustenance in various operational settings. Unlike other contemporary military forces, the New Zealand Army did not utilise ration packs. Instead, units were supplied with canned or fresh food from the existing ration scale, allowing units to prepare meals while in the Field for shorter periods, ensuring flexibility and adaptability to different operational demands.
Specialised RNZASC Field Catering equipment included.
Following World War Two, with Ordnance Stores well stocked and NZ industry well positioned to support any surge in demand, the NZ army retained the familiar combination of woollen serge Battle Dress (BD) and Khaki Drill (KD) and Demin range of uniforms that had served it well during the war years. However, by 1955, the high tempo of training required to maintain a division supported by CMT, operations in Korea, and a likely commitment to ongoing operations in Southeast Asia highlighted deficiencies of the current ranger of uniforms. While the BD uniforms remained suitable for use in temperate and colder climates, the Army Clothing Committee identified a requirement to develop a summer training dress for use in NZ that would also be satisfactory for jungle operations, in response to the Army Dress Committee, Captain J.A Dixie of the Defence Scientific Corps of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) provided a comprehensive report on Tropical Clothing. Reviewing World War Two and post-war scientific research on the problem of tropical clothing by the United States and Commonwealth, Dixie’s report provided the principles that guided the selection of a suitable NZ Army range of tropical uniforms and equipment.[9]
In December 1955, the Army Board approved the transition of uniforms with BDs retained as winter dress in NZ and KDs to be phased out in favour of uniforms manufactured in Drill Green (DG) for summer and working dress.
Detailed below are the uniform scales of issues that were to be affected by the most significant uniform transition since 1940.
1955 Scales of Uniform issue.
Scale 1
Regular Soldiers, including Regular Force Cadets.
Scale 2
Regular Physical Training Instructors.
Scale 3
Regular Officers.
Scale 4
Regular Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
Scale 5
Regular soldiers of the NZANS.
Scale 6
Territorial Recruits.
Scale 7
Territorial soldiers.
Scale 8
Territorial Officers.
Scale 9
Territorial Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
Scale 10
Territorial Soldiers of the NZANS.
Scale 11
Territorial Officers of the NZANS.
Scale 12
Cadets of the Cadet Corps.
Scale 13
Cadet Corps Officers.
Scale 14
Special Clothing.
Scale 15
Camp Necessities: Supplementary scales.
Scale 16
Welfare Workers in Army Camps.
Scale 17
Canteen Council Employees.
Scale 18
Individual Provision: Women’s Services.
Scale 19
Clothing and Necessaries to be in Possession of Soldiers Committed to Detention Barracks.
Scale 20
Hospital Patients.
Headdress
Blue berets were designated for Physical Training Instructors. Additionally, officers (excluding RNZAC) were issued blue berets to be worn with Uniform Blue No 1.
The introduction of the Cap Battledress (Cap BD), commonly known as the Ski Cap, commenced in 1954 as a replacement for the Cap GS (Lemon squeezer). Members of the RNZAC were not required to wear the Cap BD, as they retained the Black Beret adopted in 1942 as their headdress.
The standard combat helmet was the Helmet, Steel, Mark II (Brodie), with special helmets for motorcycle riders and armoured crew members.
The 37 Pattern Battle Dress (BD) served as New Zealand soldiers’ standard winter uniform and walking-out attire during World War II and subsequent years. This uniform, featured the following key components:
Blouse: Fashioned from durable wool serge fabric, the blouse featured a buttoned front with concealed buttons. It boasted two breast pockets and two internal pockets, while the straight sleeves typically came with adjustable cuffs for added comfort and versatility.
Trousers: Crafted from the same resilient wool serge material as the blouse, the trousers boasted a practical button-fly design. They were equipped with two internal pockets, one rear pocket and a map pocket on the left leg. Adjustable side tabs on the waistband ensured a personalised fit for each wearer.
Web Anklets: Designed to keep the trouser bottoms securely in place, the web anklets prevented them from riding up or becoming loose during movement. This maintained a tidy and uniform appearance and offered protection against debris and insects entering the footwear.
BD Skirts were provided for female soldiers of the NZWRAC and NZANS
An upgraded pattern of Battle Dress was introduced in New Zealand known as the Pattern 52 BD, however from 1956, due to the considerable number of older patterns in circulation, the issue of the 52-Patt BDs was limited to regular soldiers and officers until stocks of the older pattern were wasted out.
Khaki Drill
During summer months, the woollen BD uniform proved impractical, leading to the issuance of Khaki drill attire. This summer uniform comprised:
Shirt, drill, Khaki
Shirt, Bush, OR, No 1 or No 2
Shirt, Officers, Khaki
Shorts, drill, Khaki
Trouser, drill, Khaki
Hosetops, Khaki, and Puttees, Short
Skirts, Khaki (NZWRAC and NZANS)
Working Dress
Recognising the unsuitability of both the BD and Khaki Drill uniforms for rigorous activities, a Denim working dress was provided. This ensemble included:
Jacket, Denim
Trousers, Denim
These garments were intended to withstand the demands of heavy-duty work while maintaining functionality and durability for soldiers in various tasks and environments, with overalls issued in addition to denims for tradesmen.
Camouflage
In 1952, 1500 sets of Khaki Drill Jackets and Trousers were dyed green and issued to the three military districts (250 sets per district) and NZ Division (750 sets) as camouflage clothing for training. The status of these by 1956 is unknown.
Footwear
Boots
Boots were ankle-high, lace-up ammo boots consisting of
Boots, ankle, Rank and File R&F, IP (or NZ). These boots had pebble-grained leather uppers with leather soles fitted with heel plates, toe plates and sole studs (hobnails).
Boots, ankle, officers, black. Officers’ boots had heel plates, but lacked the sole studs and toe plates because they could afford to replace the soles.
Other footwear
Shoes, canvas, rubber sole.
Shoes, officers, black, heavy.
Shoes, officers, black, light.
Shoes, NZWRAC, tan
Boots, Motorcyclists
Sandals, leather
Overshoes – issued to personnel employed in Magazines, Cookhouses at Ordnance Stores with concrete floors.
While New Zealand received substantial information regarding research and development efforts by the British Army aimed at enhancing web equipment, many of the new British designs were still in the development phase and not yet ready for deployment. [10] However, with over 60,000 sets of the 37-Pattern equipment in circulation in New Zealand, supplemented by older items like the 08 Pattern pack, it was ensured that this equipment would remain in service for the foreseeable future.
Conclusion
In conclusion 1956 marked a crucial juncture for the New Zealand Army, necessitating strategic adaptations in response to evolving global conflicts. The army transitioned from its traditional role supporting British forces in the Middle East to engaging in operations in Southeast Asia. This shift prompted organisational restructuring, equipment modernisation, and adjustments to clothing and logistical operations. By aligning itself with the United Kingdom and Australia, the New Zealand Army was positioned to meet the challenges of the battlefields of the 1960s.
Notes
[1] Damien Fenton, A False Sense of Security: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978, Occasional Paper / Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand: No. 1 (Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington, 1998), 49.
[2] “Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 April 1955 to 31 March 1956,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1956 Session I, H-19 (1956).
[3] “Composition of the New Zealand Army,” New Zealand Army Order 26-27/56, 9 May 1956.
[4] “H-19 Defence Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding the Forces,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1920): 11.
[5] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the Chief of the General Staff,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, (1939).
[6] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 June 1950 to 31 March 1951,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1951).
[7] “Appendices to Report on Qmg (Quartermaster-General’s) Branch,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541151 (1944).
[8] “Vehicles and Artillery Equipments, Painiting Of,” New Zealand Army Order 75/50, 9 May 1950.
[9] Army 213/1/92 DSIR Tropical Clothing Dated 3 October 1955. “Clothing – Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment, ”Clothing.
[10] 86/Dev/54 (SWV1) Instructions for Troop trials of Z2 Experimental Load Carrying Equipment, 1954;”Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189098 (1944 -1966).
The beret is a type of cloth cap with a rich military history that originated in the Basque district of France. Since its adoption by the Royal Tank Regiment in 1924, the beret has become a symbol of military service across the globe. New Zealand is no exception, having adopted its first berets in 1938. The New Zealand military has a long and varied history of using this iconic headdress. In this article, we will explore the history of berets in New Zealand’s military and their significance in various corps and regiments of the New Zealand army.
The Royal Tank Regiment adopted this headdress on 5 May 1924. The decision to choose the beret was made during a dinner in 1917 when officers of the Tank Corps discussed the end of the war and what kind of uniform the corps would wear in peacetime. One of the officers suggested that the corps adopt a headdress of our allies, following the tradition of the British Army adopting some form of headdress belonging to its enemies after most wars.
Initially, the choice was between the Breton beret worn by the Tirailleurs Alpins and the Basque beret worn by the Chars d’ Assault, but neither of these patterns met with favour from the Tank Corps officers. After further consideration, they decided upon the pattern popular among English girls’ schools. Many girls were sent a letter explaining the situation, and many berets of various colours were received in reply. Eventually, the black beret was authorised after a stern contest with the War Office.
Berets were first used as a headdress in New Zealand in 1938 when new uniforms for the Territorial forces were introduced, including a black beret for motorcyclists of the Light Machine Gun Platoons and dispatch riders.[1]
Motorcyclists discontinued the black beret in February 1942 when the NZ Tank Brigade was granted permission to use it as its official headdress.[2]
On 17 February 1942, 2 NZ Tank Battalion Routine Orders posted the following notice,
“H.M the King as Colonel in Chief, Royal Tank Regiment, has signified his informal approval to an alliance between this Bde and the Royal Tank Regiment”. The ONLY personnel now authorised to wear black berets and tank patch are Army Tank Bn personnel with the sole exception of AFV School instructors only.[3]
Within the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF), The Divisional Cavalry in Egypt was the first to adopt the black beret. Later on, black berets were issued to most of the 4th New Zealand Armoured Brigade personnel in November 1942. A year later, soldiers serving in the 22 Battalion in Italy were issued a khaki beret to replace their field service cap.
4th NZ NZ Armoured Brigade Black Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection.
22 Battalion Khaki Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
In the years following World War II, the New Zealand Army expanded the use of berets to various units. The Royal New Zealand Army Nursing Service (RNZANS) was authorised to wear a light grey beret in 1946, and the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corps (WAAC) was permitted to wear the khaki beret. However, the reintroduction of the traditional lemon squeezer as the official headdress of the New Zealand Army in February 1949 marked the end of the widespread use of berets by the NZ Army, with only the RNZAC, NZWRAC, and RNZANS authorised to use the beret as their headdress.
RNZAC Black Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
RNZNC Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
However, Dress Regulations updated in October 1952 permitted the wear of blue berets by Regular Physical Training Instructors and by officers when wearing Uniform, Blue, No 1.[4]
When Kayforce, the New Zealand military contribution to the Korean War, was mobilised, the khaki beret was reintroduced as the standard headdress for all of Kayforce. However, RNZAC personnel on secondment to British armoured units in Korea continued to wear the black beret. The khaki beret remained the headdress for Kayforce personnel until their withdrawal from Korea in 1955. Initial issues to Kayforce were from existing New Zealand Stocks, with an additional 10000 to provide adequate stocks for replacement and issue to Kayforce and NZWAC purchased from the United Kingdom in 1952.[5]
Kayforce Khaki Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
In 1954, the New Zealand Army Board decided to replace the existing khaki uniform of the New Zealand Women’s Royal Army Corps (NZWRAC) with a new uniform of tartan green with black accessories. The new NZWRAC uniform included a tartan green beret, which was authorised for wear on informal occasions. This change in uniform and the beret helped distinguish the NZWRAC from other units and symbolised their unique role within the army. The tartan green beret became an iconic part of the NZWRAC uniform and was worn with pride by its members.
In 1954, the Cap Battledress (Cap BD), known as the Ski Cap, was introduced as the official army headdress in New Zealand to replace the lemon squeezer hat.[6] However, this type of hat was not popular among the troops, particularly those in tropical climates. Despite the dissatisfaction, the Ski Cap remained the standard headdress until it was withdrawn from service in 1965.
In 1955, the New Zealand Special Air Service was formed, and they adopted the British airborne maroon beret as their official headgear. The adoption of the maroon beret by the NZSAS was a significant moment in the history of the New Zealand military. It reflected not only the elite status of the NZSAS but also the close relationship between New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In May 1955, an initial purchase was made to cover the issue of the maroon berets to selected personnel, as well as wastage and turnover, with the possibility of an increase in the size of the NZSAS. The purchase included 600 maroon berets, 500 anodised aluminium SAS badges, 60 embroidered SAS badges, and 60 sets of SAS collar badges. This move signalled a new era within the New Zealand military, and the maroon beret symbolised the high standards and specialised training of the NZSAS.[7] Despite the British SAS adopting a beige sand-coloured beret in 1956 and several opportunities to change, the NZSAS retained the maroon beret until 1986.
NZSAS Narron Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
In 1958, a review of beret stock in the New Zealand Army revealed that 3000 new and partially worn khaki berets were sitting idle in Ordnance stocks. The idea of utilising them as part of the No2 Other Ranks Service dress was considered. However, after some discussion by the Army Dress Committee, it was decided that the khaki beret did not match the No2 Other Ranks Service dress, and a Cap Service Dress was provided instead.[8]
Following the reactivation of 16 Field Regiment (16 Fd Regt) after its service in Kayforce, there was a desire to acknowledge the regiment’s service in Korea. In 1960, it was proposed by the headquarters of the regiment to adopt the stock of 3000 khaki berets to maintain the traditions of the original regiment and for their suitability in appearance.[9] However, the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Major General C.E. Weir, was focused on standardising and simplifying army dress and did not support the proposal. He wanted to eliminate multifarious kit and keep the headdress for the army as the Cap BD for walking out and a jungle hat for field service, with no other variations permitted. As a result, the application to wear khaki berets by 16 Fd Regt was declined, and they were asked to propose another way to commemorate their association with Korea.[10]
In Malaya, the 2nd New Zealand Regiment (2NZ Regt) surveyed the suitability of the Cap BD as a headdress for the tropics and found that berets would be more suitable. In October 1960, 2 NZ Regt requested 50 berets of different sizes and styles to test their suitability as a tropical headdress.[11] Concurrently, the Army Dress Committee agreed in principle that berets would replace the Cap BD as the army’s everyday headdress. In March 1961, it was suggested that a scarlet beret would be a suitable colour for the Infantry beret.[12]
The Army Dress Committee reopened the discussion on berets in its 16 June 1961 meeting and recommended that Khaki berets be issued to all corps without berets to replace Caps BD. However, at the 15 June 1961 Infantry Conference, it was pointed out that if berets were to be introduced, the Infantry colour should not be scarlet but a Dark Green.[13]
The Director of the Royal New Zealand Artillery (DRNZA) joined the conversation on 3 July 1961, stating that if the NZ Army adopted berets, the RNZA should adopt the distinctive style of headdress worn by other members of the Royal Regiment, such as the Royal Artillery (RS), Royal Canadian Artillery (RCA), and Royal Australian Artillery (RAA), and adopt a blue beret.[14]
Up to this stage, the colours of berets, if adopted, had not formally been discussed as it was assumed that existing stocks of khaki berets would be utilised alongside the existing berets worn by them.
The QMG was concerned about the shortage of khaki berets in stock, as only 6000 were available. As a result, there were not enough berets to equip the entire army or even to dye some to meet the needs of coloured berets for the Infantry and Artillery. In response to the Infantry’s desire for a dark green beret, the QMG expressed confusion and suggested that red was the traditional Infantry colour. The QMG also commented that they could not understand why the Infantry would want to adopt a dark green beret, making them appear like members of the Women’s Royal Army Corps (WRAC) or the Dental Corps.[16]
The Director of Infantry quickly replied that although red was the traditional Infantry colour, it was not traditional for Infantry to wear red berets. British Infantry, for example, wore an assortment of berets (of different colours) and bonnets, with the majority of British infantry regiments wearing berets of dark blue. Although Dark Green had been decided as the preferred Infantry colour, members of the Royal New Zealand Infantry did not wish to be confused with the NZWRAC or Dental Corps and the rifle green beret, as worn by the 3rd Green Jackets with whom the NZ Regt was in an alliance, was the preferred colour for the Infantry beret.[17]
On 17 August 1961, the Dress Committee reconvened and approved using coloured berets to represent Corps distinctions. The committee instructed the secretary to consult with the Corps’ Directors to determine their preferred colours based on the British Colour Council Dictionary of Standards. The type of headband, whether it was to be black or brown, was also to be specified.[18]
Reconvening on 14 November 1961, the Army Dress Committee examined the Corp’s preferences, but due to the DGMG dissenting on the proposed Rifle Green for the NZ Regt failed to reach an agreement. However, after further discussion with the Director Infantry on 16 November, the committee agreed to recommend the adopting of the following colours per the preferences of the various corps.[19]
Corps
Colour (BCC designation)
Headband
RNZA
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZE
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZ Sigs
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZASC
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZAOC
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZEME
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZDC
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RF CADETS
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZChD
Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)
Black
RNZAC
Black (Jet Black – BCC 220)
Black
NZ Regt
Green (Rifle Green – BCC 27)
Black
NZSAS
Maroon (Maroon – BCC 39)
Black
RNZAMC
Dull Cherry (Ruby – BCC 38)
Black
RNZ Pro
Blue (Royal Blue – BCC 197)
Black
NZAEC
Khaki (Khaki – BCC 72)
Brown
RNZNC
Grey (Grebe – BCC 82)
Black
NZWRAC
Green (Tartan Green – BCC 26)
Black
NZ Regt/ RNZIR Rifle Green Beret (2/1 Badge and backing). Lee Hawkes Collection
In September 1962, the Army Dress Committee met again and agreed that the recommendations made for coloured berets on 16 November 1961 should be cancelled and that the NZ Army should adopt a standard green beret for all corps except those whom Dress Regs already authorise to wear berets in other colours, i.e., Black (RNZAC), Maroon (NZSAS), Grey (RNZNC)and Green (NZWRAC). In support of this proposal, the justification was.
The requirement for Corps distinctions in the form of headdress has diminished considerably with the introduction of shoulder titles.
Green tones well with current and proposed Army uniforms and is ideal for training activities.
Introducing berets in all the colours previously agreed upon would create an unnecessary provisioning problem.[20][21]
The discussion on berets continued into 1963 with the decision made to retain the existing Black (RNZAC), Maroon (NZSAS), Grey (RNZNC)and Green (NZWRAC) but introduce blue berets for all other corps, including the Royal New Zealand Army Medic Corps (RNZAMC), NZ Provost and the New Zealand Army Education Corps (NZAEC) who initially requested Ruby, Royal Blue and Khaki berets.
By October 1964, sufficient stock was received, the policy surrounding the issue of Berets and the withdrawal of the Cap BD was finalised, and the Instruction for the distribution of Berets was released in February 1965.[22]
NZ Regt/ RNZIR Rifle Green Beret (2/1 Badge and backing). Lee Hawkes CollectionNZ Regt/ RNZIR Rifle Green Beret (2/1 Badge and backing). Lee Hawkes CollectionRNZASC Blue Beret. Lee Hawkes CollectionRNZA Blue Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
New Zealand Army Air Corps
In 1963, the New Zealand Army Air Corps (NZAAC) was established, and it became affiliated with the UK Army Air Corps on 6 March 1964. Major General J.H. Mogg, the Colonel Commandant of the Army Air Corps, granted permission for the NZAAC to don the Army Air Corps Light Blue beret and AAC badges.[23]
NZACC Light Blue Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Regular Force Cadets
In July 1972, a submission was made to the Army Dress Committee to introduce scarlet Berets (BCC 209 – Post Office red) as the authorised headdress for Regular Force Cadets instead of the blue berets worn since 1965. The proposal represented an extension of the present colour distinction of RF Cadets as evidenced in lanyards, chevrons, badges of rank and shoulder titles. [24]
Regular Force Cadet School Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Redesign of Beret
As a result of questions raised at the 29 November 1983 Army Dress Committee meeting on the design of berets, a study was initiated to be undertaken by the Deputy Director of Ordnance Services and by Army R&D to examine standard samples of berets produced by Hills Hats for the Australian and Singaporean Armies to see if one was of a better design with less cloth in the crown than currently on issue in the NZ Army.[25] This study resulted in the introduced a redesigned beret with less cloth in the crown and a cloth headband instead of the traditional leather headband.
Royal New Zealand Military Police
Following the 1981 rebranding of the Royal NZ Provost Corps to the Corps of Royal New Zealand Military Police (RNZMP), a request for a distinctive RNZMP beret in the corps colour of Royal Blue was submitted to the Army Dress Committee in November 1983.[26] This submission was approved, and by the end of 1984, all RF and most TF members of the RNZMP were wearing the new royal Blue beret.[27] As a result of a 1986 CGS directive for the RNZMP to replace their blue regimental belt because of its similarity with the NZSAS belt, the RNZMP director raised a submission to introduce a red belt and beret. Opinion on introducing a red belt and beret for the RNZMP was evenly divided, principally because of the clash with the RF Cadet school belt and beret.[28] This submission for the RNZMP to wear a red beret and belt was rejected by CGS, and the use of the royal blue beret remained extant.[29]
RNZMP Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Comparison between RNZMP Beret (left) and Standard Blue Beret (right). Lee Hawkes Collection
Royal New Zealand Chaplains Department
The Army Dress Committee received a proposal on 31 August 1984 regarding the possibility of Royal New Zealand Chaplains Department (RNZChD) personnel wearing a Royal Purple beret. At that time, Chaplains and fourteen other Corps wore the blue beret, and there was a desire to establish a distinctive beret that would readily identify the Chaplains and align with the colours associated with the Chaplaincy. The proposal suggested using Royal Purple (BCC219), the traditional colour of the Chaplains’ Department. It was proposed that the black leather rim of the beret would remain unchanged. This initiative aimed to complete the rebranding of the RNZChD, which had already commenced with the approval and production of the specifically designed NZ Cap Badge.[30]
However, on 27 November 1984, the recommendation to change the beret colour for the RNZChD was not approved. This decision was made due to the recent approval of a uniquely distinctive badge for the RNZChD, which was considered sufficient for identifying the Chaplains.[31]
Royal Regiment of New Zealand Artillery
On St Barbara’s Day, 4 December 1984, the Royal Regiment of New Zealand Artillery significantly changed by exchanging their blue berets for khaki ones. A departure from the tradition followed by gunners throughout the Commonwealth, who still wore blue berets. The decision to change the beret came from a feeling among gunners that, as the senior corps, they should have a distinctive headdress.
The Royal New Zealand Artillery believed that the khaki beret had already established a singular tradition since 1940 when 2NZEF wore it during World War II and by Kayforce in the Korean War. 16 Fd Reg, RNZA, was the principal army element of Kayforce, and the modern New Zealand gunners claimed the exclusive right to wear the khaki beret due to their association with this regiment.[32]
RNZA Khaki Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
New Zealand Special Air Service
Following at least two ‘show of hands’ votes by all available members of 1 NZSAS Group, with some resistance to change on historical principles by some unit members, a submission to change the colour of the beret to ‘sand’ was forwarded to the Army Dress Committee 24 May 1985 by the CO 1 NZSAS Group. Supported by the NZ SAS Colonel Commandant, Colonel Frank Rennie, the proposal was to remain consistent with the Australian SASR and UK 22 SAS and change the NZSAS beret colour from maroon to sand. While generally supported by the Army Dress Committee, there were reservations over the possible similarity in colour (should they change) with the new RNZA beret and over the fact that NZSAS, since its formation in the 1950s, had always had a maroon beret and it now considered a uniquely NZ item of dress. The chairman recommended the colour change to the CGS, noting the committee’s reservations.[33]
Concurring with the committee’s reservations, the CGS Major General John Mace did not initially support the change proposal. An original troop commander in 1955 and a squadron commander in 1960-62 and 1965-66. CGS counted that the proposed beret was too similar to the new RNZA beret and that while “the change might serve a purpose overseas, the Gp are permanently NZ based. There is historical and traditional significance in the red beret for NZSAS. The only development that would change my mind would be the finalisation of an airborne element for the NZ Army or a request signed by all serving members of the Gp.”
Taking the proposal back to the unit, the CO 1 NZSAS GP asked the unit members to vote in writing on whether or not they supported the change of beret colour. Cognisant that there were those within the unit who supported the change and those that favoured the traditional status quo. The CO asked the unit to consider the change based on the following considerations.
All para, quasi-para or airborne forces, including the Australian female parachute packers, appear to wear the maroon beret.
CGS had requested the preparation of a proposal to discuss the formation of an NZ airborne/para-trained force. This proposal would issue them a maroon beret once para qualified.
3 RAR had recently been issued the maroon beret.
The sand beret and RNZA beret are similar in colour but easily distinguishable. The badge would be the current embroidered badge which would distinguish the NS SAS from the SASR, which used a metal badge.[34]
In a vote undertaken by all badged serving members of the unit in which they indicated if they previously supported the change and if they now supported the change, the vote was unanimous in support of the change of beret colour. Eleven personnel who had previously not supported the change now supported the proposal.[35] On 24 January 1986, CGS authorised the NZSAS to wear the sand-coloured beret.[36]
NZSAS Sand Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals
At the Royal New Zealand Corps of Signals (RNZSigs) September 1986 Triennial Conference at Hopuhopu Camp, seventy RNZ Sigs Officers and Warrant Officers displayed enthusiasm for a change of beret colour and indicated that the new colour they preferred was Rifle Green. The reasoning for this choice of beret colour was based on the RNZSigs corps colours, representing the three media of communications of air, land and sea as represented on the Corps stable belt,
Dark Blue (the sea) – Royal Blue (BCC 197) (worn by RNZMP).
Green (the land) – Rifle Green (BCC 27)
Light Blue (the air) – Spectrum Blue (BCC 86)
A proposal requesting authority for RNZ Sigs pers to wear a Rifle Green beret was submitted to the Army Dress Committee on 29 September 1986.[37]
The recommendation was that the RNZSigs wear a rifle green beret because:
it would be a distinctive corps headdress
all other ‘teeth’ arms less RNZE have a distinctive beret
the colour is traditionally a ‘Signals’ colour
Although D Inf & SAS considered the colour too similar to that worn by RNZIR, most of the Dress Committee supported the change at the 3 November meeting of the Army Dress Committee.[38] Notification of the CGS approval of the RNZSigs beret was noted in the 12 May 1987 minutes of the Army Dress Committee.[39]
RNZSigs Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
New Zealand Intelligence Corps
The New Zealand Intelligence Corps (NZIC) was initially formed as part of the Territorial Force in January 1942 but was disbanded in 1947 as part of the post-war reorganisation. On 15 March 1987, it was re-established as a Regular Force Corps and named the New Zealand Army Intelligence Corps, which later reverted to its original title. Prior to the formation of the NZIC, individuals posted to intelligence positions unofficially wore the British Army Intelligence Corps Cypress Green Beret. When the NZIC was re-established in 1987, the beret was adopted as the official headdress of the NZIC.
New Zealand Intelligence Corps Cypress Green Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection.
One Army Beret
The New Zealand Army boldly moved on 16 August 1999 when CGS Major General Maurice Dodson issued a directive to adopt a “one army” beret. The directive aimed to create a sense of unity and pride among all soldiers and to simplify the number of coloured berets in the NZ Army. This resulted in the rifle green beret, previously reserved for the RNZSigs, becoming the standard beret for all officers and soldiers, except for the NZSAS, who retained their sand beret.
However, the transition to the “one army” beret was met with resistance, with many officers, soldiers, and veterans opposing the change. They were attached to their former beret colours and saw the change as unnecessary. This dissatisfaction was mirrored in 2001 when the United States Army moved to a “one army” beret for all soldiers, highlighting the powerful effect that symbols such as coloured berets can have on morale and unit pride. The NZ Army “one army” beret has endured despite the initial resistance. The New Zealand Cadet Coprs continued to wear the Blue Beret.
One Army Beret with QAMR Badge. Lee Hawkes Collection
Notes
“Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision.” Archives New Zealand No R17187783 (1952 -1965).
“Clothing: New Zealand Regular Forces: Scale of Issue.” Archives New Zealand No R17187790 (1950 – 1957).
“Conferences – Nedw Zealand Army Dress Committee.” Archives New Zealand No R17188110 (1962-67).
“Conferences – New Zealand Army Dress Committee.” Archives New Zealand No R9753141 (1970-73).
“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984.” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).
“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86.” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).
“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87.” Archives New Zealand No R17311897 (1986 – 1987).
“New Army Uniforms and Modern Military Vehicles for Dominion Forces.” New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23033, , 10 May 1938.
“New Zealand Army Instruction 164/1942.”(10 January 1942).
“St Barbaras Day.” The Press, 5 December 1984.
Thomas, Malcolm, and Cliff Lord. New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches, 1911-1991. Wellington, N.Z. : M. Thomas and C. Lord, 1995, 1995. Bibliographies, Non-fiction.
“Wearing of Black Beret & Tank Patch.” 2 NZ Tank Battalion R.O. 26/1943 (17 February 1942).
[1] “New Army Uniforms and Modern Military Vehicles for Dominion Forces,” New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23033, , 10 May 1938.
[2] “New Zealand Army Instruction 164/1942,”(1942).
[3] “Wearing of Black Beret & Tank Patch,” 2 NZ Tank Battalion R.O. 26/1943 (1942).
[4] Army 213/7/4/Q/Org Revised Appendix ‘M’ Clothing Scales Dated 3 October 1952. “Clothing: New Zealand Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives New Zealand No R17187790 (1950 – 1957).
[5] Application for Financial Authority, Khaki Berets 14 November 1952. “Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision,” Archives New Zealand No R17187783 (1952 -1965).
[6] Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches, 1911-1991 (Wellington, N.Z. : M. Thomas and C. Lord, 1995, 1995), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 128-29.
[7] Army 213/6/7/Q Application for Financial Authority, Berets for Special Air Squadron 31 May 1955.Ibid.
[8] Minutes of the 17 meeting of the Army Dress Committee, held at Army HQ on 9 October 1958.Ibid.
[9] Army 213/6/7/Arty Headdress – 16 Fd Regt 30 March 1960. Ibid.
[18] Minutes of the 29th meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 17 August 1961. Ibid.
[19] Minutes of the 32nd meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 16 November 1961. Ibid.
[20] Minutes of the 37th meeting of the Army Dress Committee at Army HQ on 12 Sept 1962. “Conferences – Nedw Zealand Army Dress Committee,” Archives New Zealand No R17188110 (1962-67).
[21] Minutes of the 37th meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 13 September 1962. “Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision.”
[23] NZACC Submission 9/84 to Army Dress Committee 7 August 1984. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984,” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).
[24] NC 8/2/2/ADC HQ Home Command Amendment to Army Clothing Scales Scarlet Berets: RF Cadets 21 July 1972. “Conferences – New Zealand Army Dress Committee,” Archives New Zealand No R9753141 (1970-73).
[25] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 29 November 1983. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86,” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).
[26] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 29 November 1983. Ibid.
[27] RNZMP Submission 3/87 to Army Dress Committee 30 September 1986. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87,” Archives New Zealand No R17311897 (1986 – 1987).
[28] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 3 November 1986. Ibid.
[29] RNZMP submission 3/87 to Army Dress Committee 30 September 1986.Ibid.
[30] RNZChD submission 11/84 to Army Dress Committee 31 August 1984. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984.”
[31] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 27 November 1984. Ibid.
[32] “St Barbaras Day,” The Press, 5 December 1984.
[33] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 24 May 1985. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86.”
[34] NZSAS 5252 Change of Colour for NZSAS Beret 27 September 1985. Ibid.
[35] Correspondence CO SAS to DInf &SAS 15 December 1985.Ibid.
[36] Army 220/5/103 DRESS-NZSAS PERS 24 January 1986. Ibid.
[37] Signals Directorate 1000/1 Submission to Army Dress Committee 29 September 1986. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87.”
[38] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 3 November 1986. Ibid.
[39] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 12 May 1987. Ibid.
The New Zealand (NZ) Army entered the 1950s with combat clothing based on the World War Two Battle Dress (BD) and Khaki Drill (KD) uniforms. Both these uniform types had limitations, such as the BDs being too heavy for wear in summer, tropical and jungle climates but too lightweight for the temperate NZ Climate. Combat operations in Southeast Asia from 1955 had further highlighted the inadequacy of NZ combat clothing, leading to NZ soldiers equipped with an eclectic range of United Kingdom (UK), Australian and NZ-manufactured variants throughout the 1950s and 60s. To achieve a measure of sustainability and self-sufficiency when purchasing uniforms, NZ undertook extensive research and development on tropical combat uniforms during the 1960s. However, by the early 1970s, the requirement for temperate climate uniform became a priority leading to the adoption of the UK 1968 Pattern Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM) combat uniform. As the NZ Army transitioned from its World War Two legacy combat clothing to the most modern combat uniforms available, the transition was never complete, with elements of the older combat clothing remaining in service to be mixed and matched with the latest items as they were introduced. This article provides an overview of the NZ Army’s combat clothing transition from 1955 to the 1980s and how the requirements and types of combat clothing evolved.
A soldier hands out uniforms and bags to the first batch of 18-year-old army trainees. Photograph taken 29 June 1950 by an Evening Post staff photographer.Ref: 114/164/31-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23010004
Following World War Two, with Ordnance Stores well stocked and NZ industry well positioned to support any surge in demand, the NZ army retained the familiar combination of woollen serge Battle Dress (BD) and KD and Demin range of uniforms that had served it well during the war years. However, by 1955 the high tempo of training required to maintain a division supported by Compulsory Military Training (CMT), operations in Korea, and a likely commitment to ongoing operations in Southeast Asia highlighted deficiencies of the current ranger of uniforms. While the BD uniforms remained suitable for use in temperate and colder climates, the Army Clothing Committee identified a requirement to develop a summer training dress for use in NZ that would also be satisfactory for jungle operations. In response to the Army Dress Committee, Captain J.A Dixie of the Defence Scientific Corps of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (DSIR) provided a comprehensive report on Tropical Clothing. Reviewing World War Two and post-war scientific research on the problem of tropical clothing by the United States and Commonwealth, Dixie’s report provided the principles that guided the selection of a suitable NZ Army range of tropical uniforms and equipment.[1]
Following the deployment of the NZ Special Air Service (NZSAS) Squadron to Malaya in November 1955, NZ felt obliged to prepare NZ’s forces for service in Southeast Asia. Based on the equipping of the NZSAS from British theatre stocks, the assumption was that initial stocks of tropical clothing for any future deployment would be available from British theatre stocks, with NZ-manufactured tropical uniforms providing long-term sustainment. Therefore, in December 1955, the Army Board approved the transition of uniforms with BDs retained as winter dress in NZ, and KDs phased out in favour of uniforms manufactured in Drill Green (DG) for summer and working dress. The 1955 orders of dress were.
The transition to the new range of DG clothing was in the following sequence:
Waste out stock of KD garments by CMT issues, with the first issue to CMT recruits by 1959, with the process completed by 1960.
For other uses, convert stocks of KD material (not yet made up into uniforms) and waste out.
Undertake all further uniform manufacture (except BD and Greatcoats) in DG.
Build up a working reserve sufficient to equip 10,000 soldiers.[2]
NZ’s DG uniform pattern was the 1950 Pattern British Jungle Green (JG) uniform. The 1950 pattern uniform consisted of shirt and trousers made from a green-coloured cotton drill material. Fitted with a cross waist belt fastened by adjustable buckles on each side designed to account for the wearer losing weight in hot climates, the trouser style was known as ‘Gurkha pants.’ The trousers included a twin pleated front, pockets on each hip, twin rear pockets and a map pocket on the left leg.[3]
Jungle greens and Jungle boots as worn by New Zealand Forces in Malaya from 1955. NZ National Library Ref: EP/1956/0031-F
Due to the financial outlay required to provide a measure of fiscal control over future uniform changes, on 9 April 1956, Cabinet decided that “No new items in uniform scales of officers and other ranks are to be introduced or material changes therein made without the prior approval of the Minister of Defence in concurrence with the Minister of Finance to the finance involved.”[4]
Granted approval on 2 August 1958 and deployed to Malaya in October 1957, the 1st Battalion, The NZ Regiment (1 NZ Regt), was NZ’s first regular Infantry battalion and NZ’s land commitment to the Commonwealth’s Far East Land Forces (FARELF). The initial scaling of 1 NZ Regt was from NZ stocks with equipment, including clothing (four sets of NZ DGs), weapons and eighty-nine vehicles and trailers. However, with the approval of the Ministers of Defence and Finance, £59000 (NZD 3,359,047.60 in 2022) was expended to procure additional theatre-specific items not held in the NZ inventory from British theatre stocks in Malaya.[5] Given the distance involved and the complications of holding sufficient clothing stocks to cover all size ranges, it was decided in September 1957 that NZ-specific uniform items would be maintained from NZ, with the UK supplying and maintaining items on the FARELF clothing scales, managed under a capitation system where NZ reimbursed the UK for the equipment provided.[6] This arrangement was extended to include Australian equipment provided to the NZ Forces and remained in place until 1974. The initial items maintained by NZ with 1 NZ Regt provided with stock to allow 100% replacement were:
Still, a novel item under development as part of the NZ Army inventory, the evaluation and development of the NZ DG uniforms was ongoing. One of the first large-scale user trials in NZ was on Jungle Course No1 at Burnham Camp from 8 September to 31 October 1958. Feedback from Course participants was positive, with observations that DG items were satisfactory for NZ’s temperate conditions.[7] Instructions for distributing DG Uniforms were issued in October 1958, with three sets of KD approved for exchange with three sets of DGs for Regular Force (RF) Officers and Other Ranks.[8]
As the introduction of the DG uniform continued, limitations with the current material and cut of the DG Uniforms were highlighted. Although suitable for training for most conditions found in NZ, it was not suitable for operations in the tropical conditions of Malaya. Under an existing Commonwealth agreement, Australia took the lead in researching a range of tropical clothing and equipment. As Australian research and development continued, NZ continued to rely on the UK and Australia to provide tropical clothing while remaining focused on developing a range of clothing suitable for NZ’s temperate climate and conditions.[9]
The NZ Army Chief of General Staff (CGS) Clothing Conference in February 1960 prompted significant work in developing revised uniform scales and dress orders. A policy statement was issued in November 1960 to remove misunderstandings regarding the proposals under consideration and the obligatory and optional dress orders, with the 1960 orders of dress within NZ being:
The 1960 policy statement on orders of dress was aspirational in that it had identified additions to the winter and summer clothing scales. Driven by the realisation that harsh weather and inadequate clothing led to considerable loss of training time, investigations had identified that lighter materials with water-repellent and quick-drying qualities were available, leading to a proposed new line of uniforms and equipment superior to the current BDs and greatcoats. The proposed uniform and equipment were based on winter and summer uniforms.
The winter training uniform for RF and Territorial Force (TF) all ranks was to consist of Battledress supplemented by added items for introduction from 1962, including
Woollen shirt
Pullover with drawstring neck
Parka
Waterproof over trousers.
Gaiters
The summer training uniform for all RF and TF all ranks was to consist of the following:
Replacement of existing stocks of Summer Drill trousers with a new trouser pattern based on the UK 1960 Pattern Jungle Green trousers. The 1960 pattern trousers were identical to the 1952 Patten but had the addition of belt loops.
Replace the DG Shirt with the woollen shirt used in the winter dress.[10]
Troops posted to FARELF were issued in NZ with the standard scales supplemented by items needed for operational training in NZ. Before embarkation, NZ issue items not needed in the FARELF theatre were withdrawn and placed into base kit storage until the soldiers returned from overseas. On arrival in the FARELF theatre, additional items, including lightweight tropical and combat clothing, were issued from UK Stocks.[11]
In addition to clothing items, boots and bivouac equipment designed to provide soldiers with maximum protection against the weather during field training were included in the initial trials from July 1961.[12] The July 1961 trial provided a proof of concept that led to 1962 approval by the Ministers of Defence and Finance of a new range of basic clothing and clothing scales for the army to meet existing requirements with new scales approved for inclusion in NZ Army Routine and Standing Orders (R&SO) Volume 1 on 13 July 1962.[13][14] The formalisation of this scale was concurrent with the Ministers of Defence and Finance jointly approving the expenditure of £38,657.14.0 (NZD 1,948,037.31 in 2022) to enable payment to be made to GHQ FARELF for items of clothing issued by the UK to the NZ battalions in Malaya since 1957. Approval of further updates of the NZ clothing scales, including the NZ FARELF scale, followed in September 1963.[15]
By July 1964, with a continuing commitment to the Commonwealth FARELF in Malaysia and a growing commitment to the conflict in South Vietnam, the NZ Army convened a special committee to:
Define the policy governing all items of clothing and personal equipment for male members of the NZ Army in peace and war, in NZ and overseas.
Calculate the immediate and long-term requirements to equip the army and provide for maintenance.
Prioritise and select essential and suitable items for use in Southeast Asia and under conditions found in NZ.
Acknowledge that clothing and equipment needed to be specifically developed for both NZ and Southeast Asia.
Review the NZ Army’s present holdings to determine what was suitable for either permanent or interim use in SE Asia.
Base future scales on those already used within NZ and by 1 RNZIR in Malaysia.
Recommend maintenance stock levels based on current usage rates experienced by 1 RNZIR in Malaysia.
The clothing and personal equipment policy statement was comprehensive and logical, with sound recommendations that identified items of clothing and equipment for use by the NZ Army at home and overseas, with recommendations for new scales, stock and maintenance levels. Approved in principle by Army Headquarters, the clothing and personal equipment policy statement was submitted to the Ministry of Defence for approval in November 1964.[16] Following further analysis by the Ministry of Defence, it was recommended on 15 June 1965 that The Minister of Defence and Minster of Finance approve the new scales of clothing and personnel equipment for the NZ Army based on the expenditure of £1,425,00 ($6,698,087.41 in 2022) over the financial years 1965/66, 1966/67 and 1967/68.[17]
Despite the considerable financial commitment required, following the joint approval of the Ministers of Defence and Finance, on 21 March 1966, Cabinet approved in principle expenditure to allow the provision of clothing and personal equipment for the NZ Army’s future requirements over the next three fiscal years:
£1,425,00 ($66,980,874.05 in 2022) over the budget year 1965/66,
£430,000 ($19,569,115.53 in 2022) for the budget year 1966/67.
£430,000 (18,385,342.62 in 2022) for the budget year 1967/68.[18]
Approved by Cabinet, the clothing and personal equipment programme was a three-year programme to issue to troops and build up stocks over the years 1967 -1969 and was to:
Provide an initial issue to the Field Force of ten thousand soldiers, plus a three-month reserve stock at war wastage rates for immediate maintenance in the overseas theatre.
Hold sufficient materials and components to allow manufacturers six months of supply at war rates.
Additional stock of training clothing to meet needs in NZ.
With the 1961 trials identifying items for training in NZ, experience gained in Malaysia and later South Vietnam saw additional items of tropical combat clothing added to the clothing scales.
The Pullover with a drawstring neck was trialled in 1961 and, although undergoing minor modifications, was ready for introduction into service by March 1964.[19] Based on the British 1960 Pattern tropical shirt and trousers, the NZ-manufactured variants were the base of NZ’s summer and tropical dress orders. Although suitable for summer use, a shirt more suited to NZ’s temperate climate was desired, and from the three types trialled in 1961 with two types selected for further trials:
Type A 100% wool.
Type B was a wool/nylon mixture.
Introduced into servicer for a year-long trial from April 1965. 3703 type A shirts were Issued to RF personnel, excluding those posted to FARELF. The scale was one Type A Shirt Training per Officer and Soldier in exchange for one Shirt DG.[20] Thirteen Hundred of the marginally more expensive Type B Training shirt introduced for concurrent troop trials in October 1965. A revised Trial instruction was issued in December 1965, detailing the requirements for the trial, for completion by 31 August 1966, with trial reports submitted to Army HQ by 30 September 1966.[21]
Type A Shirt Training, Green, Wool/Nylon (Type A)
Type A Shirt Training, Green, Wool/Nylon (Type B)
The trial reports on both training shirts revealed faults related to the materials used, with the Type B shirt identified as an acceptable item in its current form. With a sufficient stock of the Type B shirt in circulation, trials were extended until 31 October 1966, with the Type B shirt included in the clothing scale by 1967.
As NZ’s commitment to the conflict in South Vietnam increased from mid-1964, the lack of suitable materials or shirts for use in tropical conditions became an issue. To meet the immediate needs of NZ’s overseas forces, continued reliance on the UK, with additional items provided by Australia, was necessary.
An early contribution to developing an NZ tropical combat shirt was in November 1964 when ten shirts made from a new acrylic fabric (trade name “Cashmillon”) were issued to the First Battalion of the Royal NZ Infantry Regiment (1RNZIR) in Malaysia for initial troop trials.[22] The trial NZ shirt was intended to be rot-resistant, more robust, quicker-drying, and less chilling to the body when wet, while providing warmth in cooler weather. The 1RNZIR trials were favourable, with the trial shirts preferred to the current British combat shirts and strongly recommended as a future combat shirt.[23]
New Zealand gunners in Saigon, Vietnam, being presented a garland of flowers by a woman from the Vietnamese Army, during an official welcome ceremony for the artillery unit. circa 5 August 1965. Ref: EP-Defence-NZ Army, Vietnam-01. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22829325
By August 1965, adverse media coverage on the quality of Australian Combat Clothing of the type issued to NZ’s Vietnam Force (V Force) prompted NZ Army Headquarters to approach the United States for samples and specifications of combat clothing used by United States Forces in South Vietnam, with feedback also obtained by HQ NZ V Force from United States Forces in South Vietnam on their satisfaction with their tropical combat uniforms.[24] Feedback from the United States Military Assistance Command Vietnam (MACV) and two United States advisors with the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN) identified that United States Army personnel in Vietnam were issued two sets of Tropical Combat fatigues. The United States uniform was light, comfortable and quick-drying, resistant to rot under tropical conditions, with a combat life of about twelve days. Although having an apparent short operational life, this was comparable with the Commonwealth experience with uniforms in jungle operations in Southeast Asia.[25]
The view of the NZ Army was that although the United States tropical uniform material was the best of those in use by allied armies and was supported by a continual improvement programme, prudence directed that, based on the preliminary trials of the NZ acrylic cloth by 1RNZIR, extended trials were required to be conducted.[26] With the NZ acrylic cloth being potentially superior to other cloths in use and likely to be suitable for NZ training conditions, the Army Development Section proposed that a further 300 yards of the cloth be purchased to enable further trials to be conducted.
However, feedback from the 9th Commonwealth Defence Conference and the flammability risks associated with the acrylic material led to the cessation of meaningful development of this cloth. The UK and Australia both had large stocks of drill cloth, which, although not ideal, were still suitable for use as research continued to find a replacement material. Concurrent with NZ acrylic trials, Australia was in the preliminary stages of experimenting with a cotton/nylon mixture. However, the UK and Canada were concerned with the NZ trial as the cloth had little flame resistance. Based on this feedback, NZ reviewed its requirements and requested that the DSIR and industry undertake further development of the acrylic cloth to improve its fire resistance qualities. NZ’s requirements for tropical uniform material were satisfied by purchasing bulk stocks of the same material used by the UK for tropical clothing.[27]
1 Composite Ordnance Company Officers Ex Logploy Two Linton 6-9 March 1967 Left to Right: 2LT Telfer, 2Lt Watson, 2Lt Wootton, Lt McDonald, Capt Duggan, Maj Golightly, 2Lt Jones, Lt Reid, 2Lt Bowker. All wear 1960 Pattern DG Trousers with various KD, DG and Wollen Shirts. Robert.McKie Collection
By December 1967, the NZ clothing scales and the range of clothing supplied had become complicated. Each NZ soldier was issued clothing and equipment based on the NZ Training scale. Although the NZ Training scale was based on maintaining an integrated RF and TF Field Force, a 1967 study of the training clothing scales found disparities between the combat, training and walking out uniform scales of the RF and TF. To correct and align the RF and TF scales, a two-phase programme started in 1967 to correct the scales. Phase one, initiated in 1967, began the disposal of all wartime-style garments (items from World War One and Two were still in service) and rearranging the scale issue to the National Service Training Unit (NTSU). Beginning in December 1968, NTSU and TF recruits were to be issued the same combat clothing as the RF.[28]
On selection for deployment overseas, additional items were issued as part of the emplacement scale depending on the theatre. Items not required overseas were held in the soldier’s Base kit.
NZ Troops to HQ FARELF and 1 RNZIR. NZ Troops posted to HQ FARELF and 1 RNZIR issued from the NZ FARELF Scale with items drawn from stocks supplied by the UK and NZ. The solder retained items such as the UK tropical Shirts (Flannel or Cellular) and Trousers OG on return to NZ.
Victor and Whiskey Company troops, drawn from 1RNZIR and deployed to South Vietnam. Items of the FARELF scale not required in South Vietnam were placed into base kits. Additional Australian combat clothing was issued from Australian FARELF stocks, with maintenance provided by the Australian Logistic Support Group (ALSG) in South Vietnam.
HQ V Force, 161 Battery, Med Team and other troops deployed directly from NZ. In addition to NZ items, Australian combat clothing was issued, with maintenance provided by the Australian Logistic Support Group (ALSG) in South Vietnam.
The Australian combat clothing issued to NZ troops in Vietnam consisted of two types of uniforms: Shirts and Trousers Tropical Combat (JGs) and Coat and Trousers Mans Field Combat Tropical.
The Australian JGs were modelled after the British 1950 pattern tropical uniforms and made from lightweight green fabric. The shirt was long-sleeved with two chest pockets, and the trousers had the crossover “Gurkha” style closure with buckles on the sides and fitted with a single map pocket to the left thigh.
The Australian Coat and Trousers Mans Field Combat Tropical was inspired by the United States jungle fatigues and developed over 1965/66 with the Mark 1 version introduced into Australian service by January 1967. The coat (shirt) had pockets on the upper sleeves for shell dressings and slanted breast pockets. This new uniform was soon nicknamed “pixie greens.”
Australian Coat and Trousers, Man’s, Field Combat, Tropical “Pixi Greens”
In the interests of standardisation and leveraging from the operational experience gained by the Australians in Vietnam, the NZ Army considered adopting the Australian range of combat clothing for use in tropical combat conditions and as a replacement for DG items in NZ. Combat clothing trials were initiated in January 1967, with forty sets of the Australian prototype “Pixi Greens” issued to Waiouru Camp and the 1st Battalion Depot in Burnham.[29]
As a result of the NZ “Pixi Green” trial in September 1967, the Australian design, with modifications, was accepted for use in NZ as a training dress and as a combat dress in the tropics. The modifications required included using UK-sourced DG Cloth and a slight redesign of the trousers. The final acceptability trial report completed on 31 October 1967 established the acceptability of the UK Cloth and decided on a preference between the two slightly different trouser styles; one type had elastic cuffs and cargo pockets on the front of the legs; the other type had draw-cord cuffs and cargo pockets towards the sides of the legs.[30]
User trials established that the UK-type DG material was a satisfactory material for both shirts and trousers in tropical combat conditions and suitable as a replacement for the current heavier NZ DG for summer wear in NZ. A good design for the NZ version of the “pixie greens” shirt and trousers had been achieved, with the trousers having draw-cord cuffs and cargo pockets towards the sides of the legs.[31] Following sizing trials conducted in Vietnam and NZ in 1967, it was established that the Australian size range was compatible with NZ’s needs and was adopted with nine sizes of Shirts and trousers provided.[32]
NZ Purchase Description No 106 was issued on 4 January 1968, providing the minimum requirements for manufacturing Shirt, Man’s, Drill, Green, Field Combat, Tropical 1967 Pattern, the NZ version of the Australian Coat Mans Field Combat Tropical “pixie green”.[33]
Shirt, Man’s, Drill, Green, Field Combat, Tropical 1967 Pattern
The NZ purchase description, which provided the minimum requirements for manufacturing Trousers, Men’s, Drill Green Field Combat, Tropical (1967 Patt), the NZ version of the Australian Trousers, Men’s Field Combat Tropical (Pixie), was issued on 5 February 1968.[34]
Trousers, Mens, Drill Green Field Combat, Tropical – 1967 Pattern
Although the trouser design was agreed to and was ready for introduction into service, the initial design was a compromise. In some examples, Velcro replaced all buttons and buckles in the waist area. The trials of the Velcro fastenings were not exhaustive, with further trials to evaluate the practicability of using Velcro fastenings under all conditions of tropical combat required facilitated by the dispatch of six pairs of combat tropical trousers with Velcro fastenings to the Infantry elements of NZ’s V Force in March 1968 to allow further trials.[35] With negative feedback from V Force, further development of Velcro fastenings was not continued.
Australia’s development of its tropical combat uniform was ongoing. In August 1968, user dissatisfaction with the Mark 1 version led to the development of the Mark 2 version. Including some minor design improvements, the size range of the Mark 2 versions was increased from each type having nine sizes to twelve shirt sizes and eighteen trouser sizes.[36] Development of the Australian tropical combat uniform continued until its withdrawal from service in the late1980s. Taking note of the Australian developments of the Mark 2 pattern, NZ modified its specifications and introduced the Coat, Mans, Drill Green Field Combat – 1969 Pattern with twelve different sizes into service in October 1969.[37] It remains unknown if 1969 Pattern trousers were concurrently introduced.
Comparison of FARELF Combat Clothing 1965 Left to Right: Shirts Tropical Combat, Shirt OG (UK).Indonesian Camouflage, Shirt KF, HQ FARELF Joint Services Public Relations PR/A/372/4 NZ Archived R17187760 Clothing Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment 1955-67
As the NZ clothing and personal equipment programme authorised in 1965 was nearing completion, the NZ FARELF Clothing scale was updated in late 1969, replacing most UK and Australian-sourced items with NZ-manufactured items. However, given the scale of the NZ scale changes, it was not envisaged that NZ would not be able to support the new scale until early 1970.[38] With the British intention to withdraw east of Suez by 1971 likely to become a reality, a revaluation of Australian and NZ reliance on British logistical support was undertaken. By October 1969, Australian planning for any future Australia and NZ (ANZ) Force clothing and personal equipment was underway, with Australia aiming to assume responsibility for the whole Australian component by mid-1971.[39] NZ now had a significant clothing and personal items catalogue, although initially unfavourable to NZ maintaining its stocks in the FARELF due to inadequate NZ resources. As NZ allocated adequate resources, Australia soon warmed up to NZ’s plans. Australia eventually had no difficulty supplying NZ troops in the ANZ Force with Australian pattern clothing and personal items if NZ items were not available. To ensure the Supply of NZ items, 5 Advanced Ordnance Depot (5AOD), Singapore, under the NZ items under specially allocated catalogue numbers alongside the equivalent Australian items.[40]
The UK’s east-of-Suez departure was delayed until 1974 when, along with Australia, both nations withdrew their Singapore garrisons, leaving NZ as the only foreign force in Singapore. By the time of the UK and Australian departure in 1974, the NZ supply system had evolved into a sustainable and autonomous system, with most clothing and personal items supplied direct from NZ. However, the NZ Advance Ordnance Depot (NZOAD) in Singapore had inherited British and Australian stock lines that took time to waste out, ensuring that the NZ Force in Southeast Asia (NZFORSEA) remained equipped with a mixture of British, Australian and NZ equipment.
Further review and refinement of the NZ Army clothing scales took place in 1971 with the announcement made to
Introduce a Dacron uniform as a summer walking out and, where appropriate, working dress to replace DGs.
Replace BDs with a temperate/winter combat working/training uniform.
The Secretary of Defence agreed to the proposal to upgrade DGs and BDs to a new Combat Dress. Authority to cease any further procurement of BD Jackets followed, with existing stocks progressively disposed of. To compensate for the loss of the BD Jacket, an additional Training Jersey was authorised to be issued as a BD jacket replacement. However, pending further justification, the replacement of DGs with Dacron’s as a summer walking out/working dress did not progress. As the winding down of NZ’s commitment to the Vietnam War precluded the widespread introduction of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniform, in 1971, a pilot scheme was conducted by units at Papakura camp to evaluate the adequacy of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat Uniform as combat working/training uniform for use in NZ Garrison and training conditions.[41]
The Combat Clothing pilot scheme utilised 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniforms but met with mixed results. Compared to the existing DGs, the 1967/69 Pattern Combat Uniform was unpopular, with variations in colour, texture and strength found. Although a minor redesign of the trousers and remedial work to correct the variation of colours followed, it became accepted that the attempt to follow Australia’s lead in developing a tropical combat uniform had failed. With large stocks of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniforms in the NZ Army supply system, the pilot scheme was abandoned, and future development and procurement of the 1967/69 Pattern Combat uniform ceased.
As no suitable alternative clothing item existed, the NZ DG Shirt and Trouser had, by default, been satisfactory as an “in lieu” item for warm weather and tropical training.[42] Although inappropriate and not intended for such use, the DG Shirt and Trousers would continue as NZ’s JGs for warm weather and tropical conditions until the late 1980s. However, the requirement for a modern temperate combat uniform still existed. To identify a temperate combat uniform, the Director of Infantry and SAS (D Inf) initiated formal trials of a combat uniform designed explicitly for temperate use in August 1974. Keen to evaluate a proven uniform pattern, the D Inf requested thirty sets of UK 1968 Pattern DMP temperate climate camouflage uniforms. Up to this period, the use of camouflage uniforms by the NZ Army was rare, with camouflage uniforms used by the 3rd Division of the 2nd NZEF in the Pacific during 1943/44 and the NZSAS and the NZ Army Training Advisory Teams, who had utilised American ERDL and South Vietnamese tiger stripe pattern fatigues during the Vietnam war.
UK Pattern DMP
Twenty-Eight sets of UK 68 Pattern DPM uniforms consisting of smocks, liners, trousers, caps and hods were received in February 1975 and, following the development of evaluation criteria, were released by trial by the NZ School of Infantry and 2/1 RNZIR in March 1975.[43] The DPM uniforms issued to the School of Infantry were distributed to the School of Infantry, the TF Depot and the RF Cadet School. The sets issued to 2/1 RNZIR were issued to Alpha Company (A Coy)
As the D Inf was the sponsor for combat clothing and personal equipment, visits and feedback from units had made the incumbent D Inf aware of deficiencies in certain types and sizes of clothing. Aware that the NZ Army did not have a firm policy regarding combat clothing, D Inf sponsored a review to inform policy and guide future sponsors and provisioners of combat clothing and equipment in 1975. The review found that:
Supplies of Shirts DG were adequate, with stocks of trousers DG low, with deliveries of stocks on order slow.
With the withdrawal of the BD Blouse, the training Jersey remained a popular item of clothing.
Stocks of the Hat Utility were good, and the item remained popular.
Developing and introducing a new parka and over trousers remained an ongoing project.
An unpopular item of uniform, stocks of the 1967 and 1969 Pattern Combat Trousers were not at authorised levels, with procurement frozen until a firm policy on the future of combat clothing was determined.
Stocks of the wool/nylon training shirt were low. However, as an expensive item only scaled for RF issues, procurement was on hold until a firm policy on the future of combat clothing was determined.
BD trousers to remain as the Winter Working Dress for RF and TF and the winter walking out dress for the TF.[44]
The initial trials of the DPM uniforms concluded in August 1975 with positive results recommending the adoption of all items of the DPM uniform except for the DPM Cap. Typical feedback echoed in the evaluation reports was that the DPM uniforms were “well-designed, very comfortable uniforms far Superior to anything else in service”.[45]
In summarizing the trial reports and the suitability of the UK Temperate DPM uniform, the D Inf supported the uniform’s introduction, noting that the comparative trials were limited to the current range of unsatisfactory NZ combat clothing. Comparative trials were not possible against similar uniforms from ABCA (American, British, Canadian, Australian) Armies as the UK temperate climate DPM uniform was the only type available.
Australia had only accepted a DMP pattern for open eucalyptus terrain, with further studies pending for other terrains. The Australian policy was to provide ‘add-on ‘ garments for work in temperate climates.
Canada did not have a DPM Temperate climate uniform and had an ‘add on” policy for cold and article conditions.
The United States offered temperate combat uniforms to NZ at a competitive rate. However, these were of the Olive Green variety. The United States Forces did have tropical DPM uniforms, and if NZ considered introducing tropical DPM Uniforms in the future, these should also be included in the evaluation process.
The D Inf highlighted that no modifications to the UK DPM uniforms were required and recommended that they be introduced as is (less the DPM Cap) and that modifications should only be considered after extensive user experience.[46]
In recognition of the requirement’s urgency and dissatisfaction with current dress and clothing standards adversely affecting morale, approval to introduce the UK DPM uniforms into NZ service was granted in December 1975.[47] The procurement of the new range of temperate clothing consisting of Jackets, Hoods and Trousers made from a DMP material and quilted liners was to be implemented in three phases over five years commencing in 1977/78.
Phase 1 – 1977/78. The first phase would purchase 1000 Jackets and Hoods, 1800 Trousers and 840 Liners to provide sufficient stock for a reduced strength battalion plus two years of maintenance stocks. Phase One was also to purchase 123,974 meters of DMP material to allow the manufacture of DPM uniforms in subsequent phases.
Phase 2 – 1978/79 to 79/80. The NZ manufacture of DPM uniforms to allow.
The issue of one set to the RF component of the Filed Force and Army Schools (Strength 2800).
TF Depot Pool (800).
Annual Camp Pool (4000).
Phase 3 – 1979/80 to 80/81. The NZ manufacturer of the UK Pattern temperate DPM uniforms to allow.
The establishment of war reserve stocks (1800).
The issue of a second set to all RF personnel involved in field training (3500).
Increase the size of the Field Force training pool (1000).[48]
On introducing the temperate DPM uniform, phasing out through normal wastage of the following clothing items was planned.
Over trousers.
The current service parka and commercial lined parkas. On developing a rainproof DPM parka, the replacement of unlined parkas would follow.
BD Trousers on a diminishing basis estimated as beyond 1981[49]
The introduction of the first tranche of temperate DPM uniforms began in August 1977 with the initial purchase of made-up uniforms issued to 2/1 RNZIR and Army Schools, with additional sets manufactured In NZ using imported material. However, a change in clothing policy and delays in receiving DPM material from the UK delayed the planned distribution and establishment of loan pools.[50] By 1980, confusion over scales and entitlements and the resulting distribution stagnation was highly emotional, with formations command seeking resolution.[51]
As the temperate DPMs were progressively introduced to NZ-based units, NZ Forces in Singapore were still required to utilise the legacy JG uniforms. As both the Malaysian and Singapore Forces were introducing camouflage uniforms, the Commander of NZFORSEA considered that there would be immense psychological value in considering the issue of a tropical DPM uniform to NZFORSEA.[52] Since 1972 British Forces in Hong Kong and Brunei utilised the No.9: Tropical Combat Dress, which had replaced the 1950 pattern OG and JG tropical uniforms. In 1980 NZFORSEA submitted a proposal to purchase the UK lightweight DMP material by utilising the UK specification tailored locally to meet the tropical DPM uniform requirements of NZFORSEA.[53]
After considering the NZFORSEA proposal, the NZ Army decided not to approve the NZFORSEA proposal. NZ Forces were to continue using the current JG tropical uniforms range. In justifying the decision, the following reasons were provided.
ABCA studies demonstrated that faded JG drill provided the most effective negative response to IR sources.
The primary reason for introducing DMP clothing into NZ service was warmth, with the psychological value ensuring its acceptance.
The operational effectiveness of DPM uniforms remained questionable.[54]
The upgrading of NZ Army combat clothing from 1955 to 1980 was just one of several clothing and equipment projects intended to keep the army equipped with a high standard of modern equipment compatible with its peers. The practice of adopting off-the-shelf clothing and equipment from allied nations continued, with, where possible, NZ industry manufacturing the foreign patterns, thus providing a measure of self-sufficiency. From 1967 considerable effort was made to develop the Australian Pixie Greens into an NZ tropical combat uniform. The resulting items were unsatisfactory, and the project was considered a failure. JGs introduced in 1958 and upgraded in 1961, remained in service as tropical combat clothing until 1984, when lightweight DPM trousers and shirts began to be introduced. Not wishing to repeat the prolonged and unsuccessful tropical combat clothing experience, the UK DPM temperate combat uniform was introduced with no redesign of the UK uniform with further NZ manufacture based on the UK specifications. A significant improvement on the previous uniforms provided for training in NZ, the introduction was piecemeal, with selected RF field force units fitted out first, followed by issues to the remainder of the RF and TF as stocks were made available, resulting in BD trousers and other legacy combat clothing items remaining in use well into the mid-1980s. While this article provides an overview of NZ Army combat clothing from 1950 to 1980, it provides a starting point for further research.
Notes
[1] Army 213/1/92 DSIR Tropical Clothing Dated 3 October 1955. “Clothing – Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment,” Archives NZ No R17187760 (1955 – 1967); “Clothing – Policy and General – Annual Clothing Review,” Archives NZ No R17311752 (1967-1975).
[2] Army 213/5/320 Provision of Jungle Green Uniforms dated 2 December 1955. “Clothing – Policy and General – Jungle Green Uniforms,” Archives NZ No R17311754 (1955 – 1988).
[3] Army 213/5/1/ORD 7 Trouser Green Drill 1952 5 January 1962.”Clothing – Khaki Dress – Green Drill, Manufacture,” Archives NZ No R17187768 (1962-1967).
[4] CM (56)16 dated 10 April 1956. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting,” Archives NZ No R17187816 (1968 – 1970).
[5] “H-19 Military Forces of NZ Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for Period 1 April 1957 to 31 March 1958,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives (1958).
[6] Army 213/7/40/Q(Org) Clothing replacement – NZ Army Force FARELF. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting,” Archives NZ No R17187813 (1957 – 1962).
[7] Report on equipment used: Jungle Training Course No1. “Cookers – Jungle Warfare Equipment: General,” Archives NZ No R17189107 (1945-1968).
[8] Cmd 8/2/Q Introduction of New Orders of Dress – RF (Males) Trousers and Shirts, Drill Green Dated 5 November 1958. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives NZ No R17187791 (1957-1964).
[9] Army 213/7/4/DQ Dress-NZ Army 16 October 1959. Ibid.
[10] Army 213/10/7/A4 Dress: Male Officers and Soldiers 25 November 1960.”Clothing – Dress: NZ Army Forces, Far East Land Forces,” Archives NZ No R17187820 (1957-1963).
[11] Army 209/3/218/Q(Org) NZ FARELF Clothing Scales 7 March 1960. “Cookers – Jungle Warfare Equipment: General.”
[12] Army 246/6/194/SD Trial Instructions Clothing and equipment designed for use in training 11 July 1961.”Clothing – Clothing and Equipment Trials in Training,” Archives NZ No R9753143 (1961 – 1966).
[13] Army 213/7/40/QMG Maintenance of NZ Army Forces in SEA in Clothing and Personal Equipment November 1968. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting.”
[14] Army 213/7/4/DQ Basic Clothing Range: RF Males Dated 11 September 1962. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue.”
[15] Army 213/7/40/Q(A) Clothing issues – Male Personnel posted for duty in FARELF dated 8 March 1963.Ibid.
[16] Army 213/7/4/Adm NZ Army Clothing and Personal Equipment Policy Statement dated 10 November 1964. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives NZ No R17187792 (1964-1967).
[17] Ministry of Defence 41/3/3 Army Clothing and Equipment Programme Army Submission 213/7/4 of 4.4.65 Dated 16 June 1965. Ibid.
[18] Army 213/7/4 Army Clothing and Personal Equipment Programme Dated 27 May 1966. Ibid.
[19] Army 213/7/4/Q9C) Pullovers Dated 15 August 1963. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue.”
[20] Army 213/5/42/Q(A) Introduction of Shirts Training (CCN 8405-NZ-101-0588/0596) 22 April 1965.”Clothing – Clothing and Equipment Trials in Training.”
[21] Army 213/5/42/Q(D) Trial Instructions – Training Shirts 13 December 1965. Ibid.
[22] Army 213/1/92/Q(D) Shirts, Tropical Combat 20 November 1964. “Clothing – Tropical Clothing and Personal Equipment.”
[24] Army 213/1/92 Tropical Combat Clothing 5 August 1965. Ibid.
[25] HQ NZ V Force 213/1/92 Tropical Combat Clothing 17 August 1965. Ibid.
[26] Deputy Secretary of Defence (Army) 213/1/92/OS1 Purchase of cloth for trial combat clothing 15 September 1965. Ibid.
[27] Army 213/1/92/Q(D) Shirting Tropical Combat 10 December 1965. Ibid.
[28] Army 213/7/4 Study: Clothing Scales outer Garments Dated 2 August 1967. “Clothing – NZ Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives NZ No R17187793 (1967-1976).
[29] Army 246/78/5/Q(D) Trial Instructions Tropical Combat Dress (Aust) 11 January 1967. “Clothing – Clothing and Equipment Trials in Training,” Archives NZ No R9853144 (1966 – 1969).
[30] Army 213/1/106/Q(D) Tropical Combat Clothing Trial 11 September 1967. Ibid.
[31] Army 213/1/106/OS9 Trouser Combat Tropical Trial 4 January 1968.Ibid.
[32] Army 213/1/106/ORD6 Trousers Combat Tropical 18 September 1968.”Clothing – Introduction of Combat Clothing Project,” Archives NZ No R17187753 (1968-1976).
[33] NZ Army Purchase Description No 105 dated 4 January 1968. “Clothing – Men’s Drill Green Field Combat Tropical 1967 Pattern 1970-71,” Archives NZ No R24510756 (1970-71).
[34] NZ Army Purchase Description No 106 dated 5 February 1968. “Clothing – Trousers Men’s Drill Green Field Combat – Tropical 1967 Pattern,” Archives NZ No R24510754 (1968 -1968).
[35] Army 213/1/106/Q899 Trousers: Combat Tropical 28 March 1968
[36] Army 213/1/106/ord6 Trouser Combat Tropical 18 September 1968. “Clothing – Introduction of Combat Clothing Project.”
[37] NZ Army Purchase Description No 105A dated 23 October 1969. “Clothing – Men’s Drill Green Field Combat Tropical 1967 Pattern 1970-71.”
[38] Army 213/7/40/Q Ops Brief for QMG Clothing and Personal Equipment for NZ Army Forces in the Far East Dated 24 September 1969. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting.”
[39] Commonwealth of Australia 209/B/10 Malaysia and Singapore Planning Clothing and Personal Equipment dated 14 October 1969.
[40] Army 213/7/40/Q Ops Brief for QMG Clothing and Personal Equipment for NZ Army Forces in the Far East Dated 24 September 1969. “Clothing – NZ Army Force Farelf: Policy, Scales, Accounting.”
[41] DOS 106/9 10 Combat Clothing and Army Dress Rationalization, dated 10 September 1973. “Army 220/5/103/Aac Army Dress Committee Meeting 1 March 1971,” Archives NZ No R9753141 (1971).
[42] DEP 213/1/37 Adoption of Disruptive Pattern Uniform Dated 22 September 1975. “Clothing – Introduction of Combat Clothing Project.”
[43] Army 213/1/37/EP Sponsor Evaluation Disruptive Pattern Uniform for use in Temperate climates Date 4 March 1975. Ibid.
[44] Army 213/1/104/Inf Minutes of a meeting on a sponsor review of Combat Clothing sand equipment Dated 7 May 1975.”Clothing – Policy and General – Annual Clothing Review.”
[46] D Inf 213/1/37/EP Temperate Disruptive Pattern Uniform Dated 29 September 1975. Ibid.
[47] Army 213/1/37/EP Combat Clothing Dated 9 December 1975. Ibid.
[48] Army Staff Target 08 74/75 Temperate Zone Combat/Training Clothing Dated 16 July 1976. “Clothing – Policy and General – Intro of Combat Clothing Project,” Archives NZ No R17311750 (1977-81).
[49] ACDS (Spt) Minute SP 131/1977 Temperate Climate Combat/Training Clothing for NZ Army Dated 28 April 1977. Ibid.
