The Science and Art of Scaling

Leave a comment

Too often in military writing, it looks as if logistics “just happens”: an army is raised, equipment appears, stocks refill, and movement unfolds as if by instinct. In truth, nothing “just happens”. Across history—from spear-carriers and baggage trains to War Establishments and to today’s financially risk-averse, resource-restricted ecosystem—the science and art of logistics have quietly driven everything. This study uses history as a working tool: we read past practice to extract durable principles so tomorrow’s logisticians can scale deliberately, not by habit. Scaling is the mechanism that turns intent into counted people, platforms, rations, ammunition, repair parts, and lift so units arrive equipped, stay maintained, and fight at tempo. Without scaling, logistics is only an aspiration.

This guide sets out that mechanism in plain English. Across the force, the same logic applies: decide who gets what, make equipment complete and auditable, package predictably for movement, size, repair, depth to reliability and lead time, and maintain theatre resilience. Peace and war establishments are simply the entitlement “switch”; in-scaling and out-scaling dial the system up and down; and sound master data keeps automation honest. We ground the method in British and Commonwealth doctrine and New Zealand practice, using short case studies to show what works, what doesn’t, and why—so logisticians can make the deliberate, evidence-based choices that turn plans into assured sustainment.

In- and Out-Scaling

Scaling is how the system is dialled up or down. In-scaling builds people, equipment, stocks and permissions to meet a new or larger task. Out-scaling winds the same back down, tidying books and kit so the force is ready for what follows. The levers are the same; they move in opposite directions.

When to scale up

  • New equipment or a role change.
  • Mounting for deployment/exercises.
  • Seasonal/theatre shifts or higher tempo.

When to scale down

  • End of operation/rotation.
  • Capability withdrawn or mothballed.
  • Restructure or budget-driven footprint reduction.

What actually changes

  • People & entitlements: switch Peace Entitlement →War Entitlement, or role, issue the correct allowance lists.
  • Equipment completeness: make kit complete; rectify shortages; test.
  • Consumables & ammunition: set straightforward block issues and first-line loads that match the plan.
  • Spares & repair: size unit/depot spares to likely failures and lead times; preserve kit for storage/return.
  • Movement & footprint: translate scales into real loads (pallets/containers/ULDs) and book lift.
  • Data, compliance & money: update masters, licences and registers; close work orders; reconcile ledgers.

Planned and evidence-based (not guesses)

Scaling is a scientific, planned discipline with explicit service levels. Holdings are set from demand, reliability and lead-time data. Rules of thumb—for example, “carry 10% spares”—are avoided in favour of sizing to the target service level.

Common Pitfalls (and the Scaling Fixes)

Scaling is part science, part art. Some of the traps are timeless:

  • Issuing too much– Forgetting to adjust entitlements to actual strength leads to waste.
  • Repair underestimates– Peacetime spares won’t cope with wartime tempo; you need to scale for climate, usage, and lead times.
  • Lift blindness– A plan that looks neat on paper may be impossible to move unless scales are mapped to pallets, containers, or aircraft loads.
  • Footprint risk– Piling too much stock too far forward makes units vulnerable. Balance depth with dispersion.

Deep Historical Context: From Hoplite to Legionary to Tümen

From antiquity to the steppe, Rome and—centuries later—the Mongol Empire show how standardised building blocks, fixed measures and modular kits turned formations into predictable logistics: the Romans through contubernia, rations and marching camps; the Mongols through decimal organisation, remounts and the yam relay.

Greek city-states (c. 6th–4th centuries BCE): The Phalanx as a Scale

  • Standard fighting load. The hoplite panoply (shield, spear, helmet, body armour) functioned as a personal equipment scale; city‑states enforced patterns so men fought as interchangeable blocks.
  • Rations and measures. Planning by standard measures (e.g., set grain issues per man per day) made food and water predictable, and hence movable.
  • Formation → sustainment. Dense heavy infantry implied slower roads and higher baggage/forage demand—an early proof that formation design fixes the sustainment scale (wagons, pack animals, camp followers).

Rome (c. 2nd century BCE – 3rd century CE): Scaling by Modular Blocks and Doctrine

  • Contubernium as the “unit set.” Eight soldiers shared a mule, tent, tools and cooking gear—a micro‑scale that multiplied cleanly to centuries, cohorts and legions.
  • “Marius’ mules.” Standardising the soldier’s carry (a first-line load) reduced trains forward, while heavier impedimenta marched to the rear—an ancestor of today’s 1st line vs 2nd line.
  • Daily ration and marching camp. Fixed grain allowances, routine camp layouts, ditch/stake quantities, and normalised road days enable staff to convert order of battle into tonnage, tools, time, and space—the essence of scaling.
  • State supply. The Annona, roads and depots added a strategic tier of standardised contracts, weights and distances—scaling endurance to seasons, not days.
The Roman Cohort Illustration by Peter Dennis. Credit: Warlord Games Ltd.

    The Mongol Empire under Chinggis (Genghis) Khan (13th century): Decimal Organisation and Portable Sustainment

    • Decimal structure = instant multipliers. Arban (10), zuun (100), mingghan (1,000), tümen (10,000) created a universal grammar of scale: equip and feed an arban, and you can multiply to a tümen without changing the recipe.
    • Remounts as a ration of mobility. A scale of remount horses per warrior standardised range and resilience; spare mounts were the mobility equivalent of extra fuel cans.
    • Self-contained field kits. Common personal kits (bows in standard bundles, lariats, spare strings, tools, felt gear) and household tents/carts made each decimal block logistically modular.
    • The yam relay. A state courier/relay network with post‑stations and passes pre‑scaled communications and light logistics into predictable legs.
    • Task‑tailored attachments. Siege/engineering blocks bolted onto the cavalry core when required—early attachments on a standard base.

    Genghis Khan’s empire and campaigns. Wikimedia

    Throughline: A formation is a logistics equation. Standard measures enable standard issues. Modularity makes mass possible.

    The Nineteenth‑Century Step Change — Britain’s Army Equipment System (1861–66)

    In the reform decades after Crimea, the War Office published the seven‑part Army Equipment series (Artillery; Cavalry; Infantry; Royal Engineers; Military Train; Commissariat; Hospital).[1] Each volume tied official organisation to authorised equipment lists, weights, measures (often prices), transport tables, and packing/marking rules. Once you knew the unit—infantry battalion, artillery battery, engineer company, or Military Train echelon—you could multiply the lists and convert entitlements into lift and sustainment. Support arms were treated as modular blocks (e.g., Commissariat trades; Hospital sets) scaled to force size and role.

    What changed: This turned scaling into a published operating system for logistics—standard nomenclature matched ledgers; weights and measures turned entitlement into tonnage; common patterns let staff scale issues, movement and maintenance simply by multiplying unit counts.

    Example of a table from Army Equipment. Part V. Infantry 1865

    Peace vs War Establishment — The Scaling “Switch”

    Establishments are the authorised blueprints for people, vehicles, weapons, tools and key stores—held in two states:

    • Peace Establishment (PE): Cadre‑heavy and economical (training scales, minimal transport; many posts unfilled; war‑only items held centrally).
    • War Establishment (WE): Fully manned and fully equipped (complete Equipment and first/second‑line holdings; authorised transport and attachments—signals, medical, supply/transport, maintenance—baked in).

    Mobilisation tops up PE to WE: fill personnel (Regulars/Reservists/Territorials), issues unit entitlement, builds lift and repair depth, loads first-line holdings, form attachments, and declares readiness. Because WEs link directly to scales, a unit can be multiplied and supported predictably. In service terms, the scaled package is then delivered through various types of support—integral, close, general, and mounting—each tailored to those entitlements and holdings.

    • Types of support.
      • Integral — organic, first-line support within the unit. (1st Line)
      • Close — formation troops forward, delivering time-sensitive commodities and quick repair/recovery. (2nd Line)
      • General — force-level support to the whole formation (bulk stocks, distribution, heavy repair). (3rd line; sometimes spans to 4th depending on the army)
      • Mounting — generating/equipping/marshalling the force before deployment. (a pre-deployment phase, not a “line”)

    (Illustrative maxim) Alter one allowance, alter the lift: add a blanket per man, and you add wagons to the transport scale. Scaling is a system—inputs ripple into horses, drivers and wagons.

    Late Victorian to 1914 — Scaling Rehearsed in Peace (NZ)

    New Zealand did not drift into World War I. In the years following the war in South Africa and especially under the Territorial Force (from 1910), planners adapted British military establishments to practical peacetime scales and rehearsed them. Camp equipment was centralised and issued according to published scales for the 1913 brigade camps. Districts drew against these scales, and returns/refurbishment were managed according to plan. To ensure the issue/return machine functioned efficiently, temporary Ordnance Depots were established for the 1913 camps (and again for the 1914 divisional camps), staffed with clerks and issuers under regional storekeepers—so requisition, issue, receipt, and repair all followed a single process.[2]

    Example of New Zealand Camp Equipment Scale 1913

    In parallel, the Defence Stores professionalised: permanent District Storekeepers were appointed, and an intensive store management course produced Quartermaster Sergeants for every infantry and mounted regiment, tightening the link between unit ledgers and district depots. By early 1914, the force had been inspected and judged to be well-armed and well-equipped, and mobilisation regulations—adapted from British directives—were issued in March 1914, aligning establishments, ledgers, and stocks.[3] The result was a pre‑war system that treated scaling as a living routine, not an emergency improvisation.

    World Wars & Interwar — Scaling at Industrial Tempo (UK & NZ), 1914–45

    First World War (1914–18).

    The British Army’s War Establishments and matching scales of equipment underwrote rapid expansion from Regulars to Territorials to Kitchener’s New Armies.[4] New formations could be raised and fitted out by template—weapons, tools, transport, ammunition, clothing, medical stores and repair parts, all mapped from the WE. For a smaller force such as New Zealand, alignment with British establishments and scales enabled swift mobilisation and five years of sustained operations.

    Saddlers Toolkit – Handbook of Military Artificers 1915

    Interwar (1919–39)

    Rather than a pause, this period saw refinement and governance of scaling. G1098 (AFG1098) matured as the unit‑level ledger linking establishment to holdings; mobilisation store tables and Clothing/Equipment Regulations were revised; Dominion practice tightened accounting controls and depot procedures. From 1935, although New Zealand lacked a standing field army, planners tracked British developments closely—each new War Establishment, scale and entitlement as it was published—and adapted them to local conditions (manpower, industry, shipping distances and climate). Thus, when mobilisation began in 1939–40, New Zealand could raise, equip, and structure its forces on modern British templates, rather than through improvisation.

    Second World War (1939–45)

    Scaling went fully industrial. Theatre-specific clothing scales, bulk demand procedures for ordnance, formal first/second‑line holdings, and push vs pull replenishment methods were used to keep tempo while protecting scarce lift and stocks. Units continued to work to WE/scale templates, with depots, railheads and parks sized to the calculated flows.[5]

    Ammunition Loads – Ordnance Manual (War) 1939

    Case Study — Greece 1941: mis-scaled ordnance support

    Context. In March 1941, the New Zealand Division deployed three Independent New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) Brigade Workshops and eleven LADs to Greece, with the attached British Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) 1 Ordnance Field Park (1 OFP) providing forward spares and stores.[6]  Pre-deployment consultation was thin; scaling assumptions followed British fleet patterns rather than New Zealand holdings.

    What went wrong (the scaling error).

    • Wrong spares mix. 1 OFP was scaled for Internationals and Crossleys; the NZ Division fielded neither in any number (only two Crossleys), so much of the forward lift didn’t match the fleet it had to support.
    • Assumptive, not analytical. Holdings mirrored generic expectations instead of the Division’s actual G1098s, failure rates, and service-level targets.
    • Coalition data gap. Equipment data and entitlement tables weren’t reconciled across national lines before movement.

    Consequences in theatre.

    • Readiness lost at the point of need. Lift and time were consumed carrying low-utility spares forward.
    • Workarounds required. Support hinged on the subset that did match (e.g., Ford, 25-pdr, 2-pdr, spring steel, sheet/rod metals, compressed air, general items) plus local supplementation—enough to keep NZ Workshops going, but with friction and delay.
    • Campaign outcome. The Greek campaign collapsed into evacuation (and then Crete), compounding the cost of the initial scaling miss.

    Fix and regeneration (the recovery).

    • Rebuild in Egypt. NZOC consolidated with RAOC/Maadi resources and formed the NZ Divisional OFP on 28 July 1941, explicitly scaled to NZ kits.
    • Deliberate scale-up. Through August–September the OFP built to scale, trained on ordnance accounting, and aligned data to reality.
    • Right-sized footprint. By late 1941 the OFP held 4 officers, 81 ORs and 27 three-ton lorries configured for OFP stores—turning scaling from assumption into a planned capability.

    Practical fixes (what should have been done).

    1. Make scaling scientific. Use master data, reliability/failure rates, demand and lead-time to size spares and blocks; set explicit service-level targets.
    2. Don’t rely on rules of thumb. Ditch “10% spares” heuristics—scale to the actual fleet and mission.
    3. Close coalition gaps early. Reconcile equipment and entitlement tables across partners before you book the lift.
    4. Translate scales to footprint. Convert to pallets/containers/ULDs with correct packaging and documents; protect the lift.
    5. Capture and apply lessons. After action, cleanse data, adjust, and rebuild to standard—exactly what the NZ Div OFP did after Greece/Crete.

    Takeaway. Scaling only works when it’s fleet-true, data-driven and coalition-aligned. Get that right pre-deployment, and your forward park becomes a force multiplier rather than a passenger.

    Post-War Evolution — From a Single List to an Integrated Entitlement System (NZ Focus)

    Example of AFG1098 Accessories and Spares for Bren .303 M.G

    Post-1945 fleets—communications, electrics, vehicles, and specialist plant—stretched the old, flat G1098 list. By the late 1950s–60s, practice matured into three coordinated instruments:[7]

    1. Entitlement (Equipment) Tables— the core “who gets what” by unit role and establishment.
    2. Complete Equipment Schedules (CES) — the “what is complete” list for each equipment set (every component, tool, accessory), doubling as the accounting document for that set.
    3. Block Scales — pooled non-CES items and everyday consumables (stationery, training stores, domestic items) expressed as ready-to-issue blocks.

    New Zealand’s tailored, Commonwealth-compatible model (1960s)

    The New Zealand Entitlement Table (NZET) became the hub, explicitly incorporating New Zealand CES (NZCES) items (and their components), New Zealand Block Scales (NZBS) for non‑CES stores, and first‑line maintenance packs such as FAMTO (First Aid Mechanical Transport Outfit) and FATSO (First Aid Technical Stores Outfit) so operators could keep equipment serviceable between deeper repairs.[8]

    By the early 1970s a further pillar emerged: New Zealand Repair Parts Scales (NZRPS). From the late 1960s, these began to replace earlier “spare parts lists,” folding FAMTO and FATSO in as first‑line modules of a wider repair‑chain planning scale—so unit Prescribed Load Lists (PLL) (days‑of‑cover + pipeline), formation Authorised Stockage Lists (ASLs) (service level over replenishment time) and theatre reserves were all sized from the same tempo/lead‑time/reliability factors. In short, repair provisioning became a single, scalable chain from operator kits through to depot depth.

    Case Study — Malaysia & Vietnam (1965–1972): combined scaling to autonomy

    Context. New Zealand kept a battalion in Malaysia/Singapore with 28 (Commonwealth) Brigade while rotating a rifle company into Vietnam under 1 ATF—three systems at once (British, Australian, NZ) with different entitlements, CES, paperwork and spares. The task was to turn them into one workable load for training in Malaysia and fighting in Phước Tuy.

    What worked (the scaling approach).

    • One combined scale, three sources. Cross-walked UK/AUS entitlements to NZ holdings; set approved equivalents for non-matching items.
    • Climate-first. Tropical scales for clothing/boots/personal kit; higher replacement factors and wider size ranges.
    • CES by platform. Normalised vehicle/tool sets so workshops and lift could be planned regardless of source nation.
    • Local industrial equivalents. Qualified NZ-made clothing, boots, webbing and small stores to UK/AUS specs to cut lead-times and dependency.
    • Liaison & data discipline. NZ LOs embedded in 1 ATF/FARELF to keep demand, returns and credits clean; part codes aligned early.
    • People matched to plan. Increased NZ movements, supply and maintenance manning in Malaysia and in-theatre.

    Results.

    • Seamless support in Vietnam. Routine sustainment via Australian pipelines; NZ-specific items flowed via Malaysia/Singapore with minimal friction.
    • Fewer workarounds, faster repair. Equivalence lists and aligned CES cut “near-miss” parts and sped turnarounds.

    Why it mattered later.

    • As UK/AUS withdrew from Malaysia in the early 1970s, NZ’s habits—combined scales, clean data, boosted manning and a growing local supply base—left the battalion near-logistically independent.
    • NZ-made equivalents added depth and resilience, enabling New Zealand-led sustainment.

    What to copy.

    1. Build a cross-walk early and lock approved equivalents in SOPs.
    2. Scale for climate and task (clothing, rations, POL, repair parts).
    3. Embed liaison/data stewards with partners.
    4. Man to the plan—grow workshops, supply and movements to match scale.
    5. Qualify local industry to shorten lead-times and strengthen sovereignty.

    Takeaway. Combine partner scales with NZ holdings, qualify local equivalents, and resource the logisticians—then a company can fight in Vietnam while a battalion trains in Malaysia, and the force is ready to stand on its own as partners draw down..

    From Printed Tables to Digital Systems (1960s–today)

    Until the 1980s, scaling was a manual staff drill: planners worked from printed tables, equipment series, mobilisation stores tables and unit instructions, doing the maths by hand—later with basic calculators—and re-checking totals across ledgers and load tables. With computer-based logistics, the arithmetic and cross-checks moved into software: entitlement look-ups, strength-based calculations, days-of-cover policies, lift planning from pack/weight data, and target-setting from demand history. The gains were speed, consistency, auditability and the ability to model scenarios.

    Many forces—including New Zealand—progressed from electric accounting machines and mainframes to enterprise ERPs by the late twentieth century, with deployable tools to support entitlement planning. Automation expanded what staff could calculate quickly; it did not replace the need for clear, maintained scales.

    Crucially, automation only works with sound data and governance. Organisations change, equipment is updated, and missions evolve; unless master data—organisational structures/establishments, item masters/part numbers, CES versions, block-scale definitions, repair parts scales and links to maintenance task lists—is kept current under change control, systems will produce inconsistent outputs. The principle is simple: keep entitlements, scales and planning factors aligned across supply, maintenance and movement. Contemporary doctrine reinforces this, emphasising information systems for visibility and decision-making, underpinned by disciplined data stewardship.

    Case Study — Somalia 1993: when scaling wasn’t applied (and what changed)

    Context. New Zealand contingents in Somalia (1992–94) deployed into extreme heat and vehicle-centred tasks, yet much of the kit reflected a temperate, barracks-oriented baseline—signs that entitlements and CES were not re-scaled for climate, role, or threat. To add insult to injury, the advance party deployed into an active conflict zone without weapons. Part of the reason it went wrong was that, at the time, the Army was not configured for rapid expeditionary operations.

    What should have been scaled—but wasn’t. Hot-weather clothing and headgear; body armour matched to the threat; vehicle-friendly load carriage; and weapon accessories (e.g., pistol holsters) to match in-service weapons.

    Consequences. Under-utilised scale (issued items set aside for improvised workarounds), inconsistent appearance/ID in theatre, and slower adaptation when the threat rose.

    After-action learning—Bosnia as the correction. The Army was embarrassed by the Somalia experience and did learn. Subsequent Bosnia deployments were better resourced and equipped: theatre-specific clothing and boots were prioritised; body armour and load-carriage were selected for the task and climate; weapon ancillaries were matched before deployment; and theatre SOPs were clarified. In short, the levers of scaling were applied up-front instead of improvised in theatre.

    Takeaway. Treat scaling as deliberate tradecraft before wheels-up: set climate-appropriate clothing scales, match armour and load-carriage to tasks, close ancillary gaps, and codify it all in SOPs. Do that, and the force arrives ready; skip it, and soldiers will improvise uneven fixes in contact.

    Why Scaling Matters

    Doctrinally, scaling underpins the core logistics principles—Responsiveness, Simplicity, Economy, Flexibility, Balance, Foresight, Sustainability, Survivability and Integration—by turning intent into standard, reusable units of effort.[9]

    Budget reality. Scales translate limited resources into repeatable outputs. They allow commanders to make explicit trade-offs between cost, risk, and tempo, and they expose the carrying costs of options (people, stock, space, lift) before money is spent. In fiscally constrained settings, scales are the difference between a force that looks large and a force that lasts. (Then and Now)

    • Control. Replaces ad‑hoc estimates with standard, repeatable calculations.
    • Agility. Dial effort up for surge or down for economy without needing to rewrite plans.
    • Interoperability. Standard blocks and tables let allies plug in seamlessly.
    • Assurance. Creates an audit trail for readiness claims and expenditure.
    • Risk management. Ties stock depth and footprint to threat, distance and tempo.

    Instruments of Scaling — Quick Guide

    When logisticians talk about “scales,” they’re really talking about ways of turning entitlements on paper into real-world stocks, vehicles, or pallets. A few of the main ones are:

    • Tables of Entitlement – These are the official “allowance lists” for units. They can be adjusted depending on the number of people present, the role the unit is playing, or even the climate. They shape both the unit’s footprint and its initial kit issue.
    • CES (Complete Equipment Schedules) – Every vehicle or platform comes with a kit list. Multiply that by the number of platforms, add any mission-specific kits, and you get both the accounting baseline and a sense of what workshops and lift have to carry.
    • Block Scales – Think of these as pre-packed bundles: ammunition, rations, POL (petrol, oil, lubricants), water, consumables, even stationery. They’re designed in mission-length chunks that map directly onto pallets, containers, or sorties.
    • Ration Scales — Per-person, per-day entitlements (e.g., fresh, composite, MRE/24-hour packs). Sized by headcount and duration, with first-line holdings at unit level and theatre stocks behind them.
    • Fuel Scales (POL) — Daily fuel requirements derived from platform consumption and tempo (include generators/heaters). Planned as bulk and/or packaged supply with defined reserves.
    • Clothing & Personal Equipment Scales — Initial issue and replacement factors (boots, uniforms, cold-weather gear). Driven by climate and wear-rates; size ranges require buffer stock. Set climate-specific scales; use approved equivalents across NZ/Allied patterns
    • Repair Parts Scales – Units carry a few days’ worth of spares on hand, while second-line supply aims to hold enough to cover expected breakdowns over the lead time.
    • First-Line Ammunition – This is the starter load troops carry into action, balanced against how quickly resupply can arrive.
    • WMR/DOS (War Maintenance Reserve/Days of Supply) – Larger-theatre stockpiles held to cushion delays or enemy interdiction.

    All of this contributes to the classic push versus pull distinction. Push works best when demand is predictable (e.g., food, water, combat supplies), while pull suits variable or diagnostic needs (e.g., spare parts, casualty evacuation). Each commodity sits somewhere on that spectrum, and stock policies need to reflect that.

    Scaling in Practice — A Common Framework

    The beauty of scaling is that it works at every level. The same levers—entitlements, CES, block scales, repair parts, first-line ammunition, and WMR/DOS—apply whether you’re supporting a corps or a rifle section. The only difference is the number of multiples and echelons involved.

    In effect, the same logic sizes a divisional-level park to last a day and a platoon’s first-line to last an opening skirmish. A section’s water is just the smallest expression of the same logic. What matters is anchoring decisions to the wider continuum—tactical, operational, and strategic—so that what a company carries dovetails with what the theatre holds in depth.

    Case Study – 3 NZ Div reverse logistics (out-scaling best practice)

    Context & scale. When 3 New Zealand Division was withdrawn from the Pacific in 1944, New Zealand executed a full reverse lift and regeneration: over 50,000 line items, 3,274 vehicles (plus 25 tanks) and tonnes of ammunition and supplies were received, cleaned, repaired, repacked and re-issued or disposed of—without forklifts or computers. Mangere Crossing Camp (ex-US “Camp Euart”) became the hub, with 200,000 sq ft of warehousing and a rail siding that ran straight into the storage blocks, allowing trains to off-load directly under cover. Work parties manually handled 250,000 packages averaging 45 kg, and about 10,000 tonnes of mixed stores arrived in the first three months from August 1944; the whole evolution concluded by July 1945.[10]

    Method—how it worked.

    1. Pre-exit accounting. Quartermasters across 90 accounting units completed inventories and packing lists in New Caledonia before lift.
    2. Reception & triage. On arrival at Mangere, loads were checked against documents, segregated by condition, and queued for cleaning/repair.
    3. Restore for re-use. Items were cleaned, repaired and repacked to unit standard, then presented for inspection.
    4. Audit & acceptance. Main Ordnance Depot staff and Defence auditors enforced exacting standards; discrepancies were explained and cleared before acceptance.
    5. Disposition. Serviceable materiel moved to Trentham (Main Ordnance Depot) or Hopuhopu (Northern District); many vehicles to Sylvia Park for onward issue; surplus or damaged items were transferred to the War Assets Realisation Board for sale or disposal.

    Constraints & workarounds. With no MHE or IT, the system relied on infrastructure (rail-to-warehouse flow), disciplined paperwork, and hard, organised labour. Quartermasters—often not career logisticians—proved adaptable under high audit pressure, demonstrating that well-designed processes can substitute for technology when needed.

    Why this is out-scaling done right.

    • Treated dismantling as deliberately as build-up—planned reverse from theatre to home base.
    • Aligned supply, maintenance and movement tasks (clean/repair/repack embedded in the flow).
    • Used fixed infrastructure to compensate for missing tools (rail siding, large covered floors).
    • Kept data discipline central: inventories, packing lists and audits drove every hand-off.
    • Produced a regeneration effect—restored force elements, cleared accounts and returned value to the system—on a national scale.

    Takeaway. Reverse logistics is not an afterthought. Plan the out-scaling from day one, resource the reception base, couple repair with receipt, and enforce documentation—then even a technology-light force can bring a division home cleanly and quickly.

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

    Conclusion

    From the hoplite’s panoply and Rome’s contubernium to the Mongol tümen; from the Victorian Army Equipment series to modern War Establishments and today’s Entitlement–CES–Block toolkit (including NZ’s FAMTO/FATSO), the lesson is constant: scaling is the lifeblood of logistics. It turns intent into counted people, platforms, ammunition, spares, and lift—precisely, repeatably, and at the tempo operations demand.

    In practice, scaling provides a standard framework: entitlement tables specify who receives what; CES ensures equipment is complete and auditable; block scales package predictable consumables for movement; repair-parts scales establish first- and second-line resilience; and WMR/DOS provides theatre depth. The art is in balancing the push for predictability with the pull for diagnostic, variable demands.

    This is not optional tradecraft. Every headquarters and every trade must treat scaling—and the data that underpins it—as core business. Keep establishments current, masters clean, and paper scales translated into real pallets, bookings and stocks so that automation amplifies judgment rather than propagating error. Do this and the force can surge, re-role and wind down cleanly; neglect it and you invite a modern reprise of the Crimean lesson—impressive on paper, unsustainable in contact. Scaling is how intent becomes assured movement and sustainment.

    Notes

    [1] The Secretary of State for War, “Part 2 – Artillery,” Manual of Army Equipment  (1861), https://rnzaoc.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/army-equipment-part-2-artillery-1861.pdf; The Secretary of State for War, “Part 1 – Cavalry,” Manual of Army Equipment  (1863); The Secretary of State for War, “Part 5 – Infantry,” Manual of Army Equipment (1865); The Secretary of State for War, “Part 6 –  Commissariate Department,” Manual of Army Equipment  (1865), https://rnzaoc.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/army-equipment-part-6-commissariat-department-1865-1.pdf; The Secretary of State for War, “Part 4 – Military Train,” Manual of Army Equipment  (1865); The Secretary of State for War, “Part 7 – Hospital,” Manual of Army Equipment  (1865); The Secretary of State for War, “Part 3 – Royal Engineers,” Manual of Army Equipment  (1866).

    [2] “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the period 28 June 1912 to 20 June 1913,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives  (1 January 1913), https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1913-I.2.5.2.34.

    [3] “Regulations – Mobilisation of New Zealand Military Forces,” Archives New Zealand Item No R22432979  (27 April 1914).

    [4] Ordnance Manual (War), War Office, (London: His Majesties Printing Office, 1914). https://rnzaoc.files.wordpress.com/2018/08/ordnance-war-manual-1914.pdf.

    [5] Ordnance Manual (War), ed. The War Office (London: His Majestys Stationery Office, 1939).

    [6] Brigadier A.H Fernyhough C.B.E. M.C, History of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps 1920-1945 (London: Royal Army Ordnance Corps, 1965), 141.

    [7] “Publications – Military: Army Form G1098: War Equipment Tables,” Archives New Zealand Item No R17189361  (1951-1963).

    [8] “Publications – Military: Army Form G1098: War Equipment Tables,” Archives New Zealand Item No R17189362  (1963-1968).

    [9] Defence Logistics NZDDP-4.0 (Second Edition), New Zealand Defence Doctrine Publication: NZDDP, (New Zealand Defence Force, 2020), Non-fiction, Government documents. https://fyi.org.nz/request/18385/response/73807/attach/5/NZDDP%204.0.pdf.

    [10] Francis Arthur Jarrett, “2NZEF – 2 NZ Divisional Ordnance Field Park – Report – F Jarret,” Archives New Zealand Item No R20109405  (1944); “QMG (Quartermaster-Generals) Branch – September 1939 to March 1944,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541150  (1944); “HQ Army Tank Brigade Ordnance Units, June 1942 to January 1943,” Archives New Zealand Item No R20112168  (1943).

    By Words We Are Known: The Mottos of New Zealand’s Army Logistic Corps

    Leave a comment

    “Actions speak louder than words; let your words teach and your actions speak.” – Anthony of Padua

    Across the military world, mottos occupy a special place in a unit’s identity. Far more than decorative phrases, they encapsulate ethos, tradition, pride, and mission. New Zealand’s Army logistic corps have long embraced this tradition, each adopting a motto that speaks to their distinct contributions to sustaining and enabling military operations. Together, these mottos form a vital cultural bridge to the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) of today.

    This article explores the historic mottos of New Zealand’s logistic corps — the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC), Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT), Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), and Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) — and how their spirit continues in the RNZALR’s regimental motto.

    The RNZASC and RNZCT: “Nil Sine Labore” — Nothing Without Labour

    The Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC), formed in 1910 and later reorganised into the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT) in 1979, adopted the Latin motto “Nil Sine Labore”, meaning “Nothing Without Labour.”

    • Meaning and Significance:
      “Nil Sine Labore” captured the essential reality of logistics: success in battle is impossible without the unceasing work of those who provide transport, fuel, rations, and supplies.
    • Wider Context:
      Like the mottos of other Commonwealth service corps (e.g., British Army Service Corps), it stresses the indispensable nature of effort behind the scenes. While combat might capture glory, labour — the unseen supply chain — sustains the force.
    • Legacy:
      The RNZCT’s adoption of the same motto ensured continuity, even as functions evolved from general service to highly mobile modern transport operations.

    The RNZAOC: “Sua Tela Tonanti” — To the Warrior Their Arms

    The Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC) proudly carried the Latin motto “Sua Tela Tonanti”, traditionally translated as “To the Warrior His Arms”, though now often rendered as “To the Warrior Their Arms” for inclusiveness.

    • Meaning and Significance:
      This motto embodies the RNZAOC’s role in arming the Army, providing everything from ammunition and weapons to clothing and technical stores. It positions the Corps not as passive administrators, but as an essential enabler of combat power.
    • Wider Context:
      Inherited from the historic British Board of Ordnance, the motto ties the RNZAOC directly to a centuries-old tradition of sustaining armies through mastery over materiel — arms to the Thunderer (Jove), or in modern terms, arms to the Warrior.
    • Legacy:
      The RNZAOC’s operational support philosophy — rapid, flexible, forward-moving supply and repair — deeply influenced New Zealand’s logistic identity into the RNZALR era.

    The RNZEME: “Arte et Marte” — By Skill and Fighting

    The Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) chose the Latin motto “Arte et Marte”, meaning “By Skill and Fighting” or “By Craft and Combat.”

    • Meaning and Significance:
      “Arte et Marte” speaks to the technical excellence demanded of soldiers who kept vehicles, weapons, and equipment operational in all conditions, often under fire. It acknowledges that engineering support is not a civilian function, but a battlefield art practised in war.
    • Wider Context:
      Similar mottos appear across the engineer and technical corps throughout the Commonwealth, blending pride in professionalism with recognition of the combat environment they work within.
    • Legacy:
      RNZEME’s ethos of skilled technical intervention in the face of adversity feeds directly into the RNZALR’s emphasis on innovation, adaptability, and operational effectiveness today.

    The RNZALR: “Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata” — By Our Actions We Are Known

    When the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) was formed in 1996 through the amalgamation of the RNZCT, RNZAOC, RNZEME, and the All-Arms Quartermaster functions, it needed a new motto — one that would respect its heritage while uniting its many trades and traditions.

    The selected motto, in Te Reo Māori, is “Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata”, which translates as “By Our Actions We Are Known.”

    • Meaning and Significance:
      This motto synthesises the underlying spirit of the earlier corps mottos. Labour, provision of arms, technical skill, and combat support all manifest through actions — actions that sustain the force and ultimately define success.
    • Wider Context:
      By choosing a motto in Te Reo Māori, the RNZALR affirmed its place within a distinctly New Zealand military culture. This reflected the nation’s commitment to multiculturalism and honoured Māori and Western traditions.
    • Continuity and Evolution:
      While the words changed, the spirit endures.
      • “Nil Sine Labore” – Nothing is possible without action.
      • “Sua Tela Tonanti” – The arms are provided through action.
      • “Arte et Marte” – Action is both skilled and courageous.
      • “Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata” – Actions define reputation.

    Thus, the RNZALR motto is not a break with the past but the culmination of it — a living link between generations of logisticians who have sustained New Zealand’s Army from the earliest days to the present.

    Conclusion: Living the Legacy

    Military mottos are far more than slogans; they are declarations of identity, values, and purpose. In the case of New Zealand’s Army logistics corps, each motto reflects a vital facet of the broader logistics enterprise — from hard work and skilled maintenance to the critical task of arming and equipping the warfighter.

    Through “Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata”, the RNZALR carries forward these proud traditions, reminding every Logistic Specialist, Movements Operator, Caterer, Maintainer, and Combat Driver that it is through their actions — perhaps unseen by many, but vital to all — that the Army stands strong.

    ANZAC Day Reflections: Honouring the Ordnance Soldier – Their Legacy Lives On in the RNZALR

    Leave a comment

    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.

    Sua Tele Tonanti

    New Zealand Army Stores Accounting: 1845-1963: Part 1 -1845 -1918

    Leave a comment

    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

    FeatureMilitary Stores AccountingCommercial Stores Accounting
    ObjectiveEnsuring operational readiness and accountabilityMaximising profit and minimising costs
    Nature of InventoryIncludes depreciable assets, expendable, consumable, repairable, and non-expendable itemsPrimarily consumable and depreciable assets
    Accounting SystemUses strict regulatory frameworks and controlled issue systemsFocuses on balance sheets and profit margins
    Lifespan of ItemsItems can remain in service for decades with periodic refurbishmentItems are typically depreciated and replaced
    ValuationBased on operational utility rather than market priceBased on market valuation and depreciation
    Security and ControlStrict control due to security concernsLess stringent control mechanisms

    Classification of Military Stores

    Military stores are classified into several categories based on their usage, longevity, and maintenance requirements:

    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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:

    1. Seizure of German Pacific possessions.
    2. Deployment to protect Egypt from a Turkish attack.
    3. 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.

    [2] “Colonial Defence Force Act 1862,” ed. General Assembly of New Zealand (1, Wellington, 1862). http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/cdfa186226v1862n32291/.

    [3] General Assembly of New  Zealand, “The Public Stores Act 1867,”  (1867), http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_bill/psb1867831178.pdf.

    [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.

    [5] “Reductions,” Thames Advertiser, Volume XI, Issue 2938, 30 May 1878, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/THA18780530.2.10.; “The Government Brander,” Saturday Advertiser, Volume 3, Issue 130 (Wellington), 5 January 1878, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/SATADV18780105.2.13.

    [6] Archives New Zealand, “Robert George Vining Parker,” Personal File, Record no R23513898 (Wellington) 1885-1925, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE18683088.

    [7] Archives New Zealand, “Frederick Silver,” Personal File, Record no R23513983 (Wellington) 1976-1900, https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE19149654.

    [8] “Defence Storekeeper Appointed,” New Zealand Gazette No 98 p. 2154., 29 November 1900, 4.

    [9] Archives New Zealand, “Frederick Silver.”

    [10] “Defence Act Amendment Act 1906 (6 EDW VII 1906 No 41),” 1906, accessed 30 December 2021, http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/daaa19066ev1906n41250/.

    [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.;

    The RNZAOC Icon: A Symbol of Heritage and Functionality

    Leave a comment

    The RNZAOC Icon, a proud symbol of the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), encapsulates the Corps’s heritage and functionality in a single design. Designed by Major T.D. McBeth (DOS 83-86) in 1971 at the direction of the sitting DOS Lieutenant Colonel GJH Atkinson (DOS 68-72), the cover design cleverly combined various aspects of the RNZAOC and was initially utilised as the cover design for the RNZAOC Newsletter the ‘Pataka’ and on unit plaques.

    Description of the design

    The design cleverly and meaningfully combines various elements that define the RNZAOC. Its foundation is the NATO map symbol for an ordnance unit, a stylised shield placed over two crossed swords, symbolising the core mission of the Corps: providing logistical and ordnance support to the New Zealand Army.

    Design Colour

    The icon incorporates the traditional ordnance colours of red, blue, and red, reflecting a heritage that dates back to the Board of Ordnance (1400s to 1855) and its historical connections with the Royal Artillery and Royal Engineers. In the New Zealand context, these red and blue colours were prominently used on the Corps’ flag, tactical patches and signs, stable belts, and other insignia.

    Symbolic Quadrants: A Visual Narrative

    At the centre of the shield lies the RNZAOC badge, a symbol representing the history and legacy of the RNZAOC. This badge is related to the Colonial Storekeeper and subsequent organisations responsible for managing the New Zealand Army’s stores since 1840. It also signifies the alliance of the RNZAOC with the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) and its broader family membership of the Commonwealth Ordnance Corps family.

    The RNZAOC badge is surrounded by four distinct quadrants, each representing a unique aspect of the Corps.

    Top quadrant

    The top quadrant of the icon features a Traditional Māori Pātaka storehouse, an elevated structure historically used by Māori, the indigenous people of New Zealand, to store food, tools, weapons, and other valuables. These intricately designed buildings were central to Māori culture, serving practical and symbolic purposes.

    The Maori Pataka is a small elevated outdoor house used for storing food or provisions. Most were not carved. Carved Pataka were only used to store precious treasures such as greenstone, jewellery, weapons, and cloaks. The more elaborate the carvings, the more important the person whose possessions were stored within. Photo Credit: https://www.virtualoceania.net/newzealand/photos/towns/queenstown/nz2481.shtml

    In the context of the RNZAOC Icon, the Pātaka symbolises the Corps’ heritage and emphasises the essential role of sustainment storage and resource management. The Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) managed this function from 1910 until 1979, when responsibility for supply tasks such as rations and fuel was transferred to the RNZAOC.

    Right quadrant

    The right quadrant depicts a contemporary warehouse, symbolising the RNZAOC’s evolution into a modern organisation. This element reflects the Corps’ adoption of advanced infrastructure and practices to manage military supplies efficiently, demonstrating its commitment to meeting the demands of contemporary logistics.

    The RNZAOC Award-winning warehouse at TGrentham was constructed for $1.6 million in 1988. In addition to the high-rise pallet racking for bulk stores, a vertical storage carousel capable of holding 12,000 detail items was installed later.

    Bottom quadrant

    The bottom quadrant features an RL Bedford truck, which was upgraded to the Unimog in 1984. This familiar workhorse of the New Zealand Army symbolises the Corps’ field operations. It highlights the vital role of the RNZAOC in efficiently ensuring that resources reach the front lines.

    Left quadrant

    The Left quadrant features the ‘Flaming A’ of the Ammunition Trade, representing the critical role of the Corps in handling, storing and supplying munitions, a responsibility that demands precision, expertise and dedication.

    New Zealand Ammo Tech ‘Flamming A” Insignia with fern fonds adopted in 1988 to provide a unique New Zeland flavour to the insignia.

    Central bar

    The blue central bar of the icon is styled like a spanner, symbolising the RNZAOCs links as the parent Corps of the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) and modern technical functions, including RNZAOC Workshops Stores Sections located within RNZEME Workshops, Tailors Shops, and Textile Repair Sections.

    Variations of the Icon

    Over the years, the RNZAOC Icon evolved. In 1984, the image of the RL Bedford truck was updated to feature the Mercedes-Benz Unimog, which replaced the RL Bedford after its retirement in 1989, following 31 years of service.

    The Icon was also adopted as the base design for unit plaques, with some units placing the RNZAOC Crest above the Icon and substituting it in the centre of the icon with a symbol relevant to their specific unit.

    A Long-term Legacy

    The RNZAOC icon is a visual homage to the Corps’ diverse contributions and rich legacy. Blending traditional, modern, and operational elements highlights the RNZAOC’s steadfast dedication to supporting New Zealand’s defence capabilities. This emblem connects the past, present, and future, symbolising identity and pride for those who have served in the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. As the icon of the ‘To the Warriors Their Arms’ website, it pays tribute to the RNZAOC and all the antecedent corps that now form part of the RNZALR, ensuring their memory and significance remain relevant.

    The Evolution of Helmets in the New Zealand Army

    2 Comments

    “The helmet stands as both a shield and a symbol, embodying the soldier’s readiness to face danger and the military’s commitment to their protection.”

    — General Sir John Hackett, British Army

    The helmet is a powerful symbol of a soldier’s resilience, providing protection and identity. For the New Zealand Army, the adoption and evolution of helmets reflect a narrative of adaptability, innovation, and the commitment to safeguarding soldiers in varied operational environments. From the steel helmets of World War I to today’s advanced combat systems, this journey mirrors the shifting demands of warfare and continuous technological progress.

    In the First World War, the grim realities of trench combat highlighted the urgent need for improved personal protection, leading to the widespread adoption of steel helmets. Initially equipped with traditional headgear, New Zealand troops transitioned to the British Mark I helmet upon deployment to the Western Front. Efforts to manufacture helmets locally demonstrated the country’s resourcefulness but faced challenges due to material shortages and reliance on British production capabilities.

    As warfare evolved, so did helmet technology. During World War II, the Mark I helmet remained in use, bolstered by locally produced variants to address the demands of home defence and civil protection. In the post-war years, New Zealand retained its stockpile of helmets for conscription-based forces. Still, global advancements in military equipment eventually necessitated a shift to modern designs, such as adopting the American M1 helmet in the 1960s.

    The late 20th century saw revolutionary advances in helmet materials, with composite designs redefining protection standards. From the introduction of the PASGT (Personnel Armour System for Ground Troops) helmet in the 1990s to the Rabintex ACH and the state-of-the-art Viper P4 helmet adopted in 2021, the New Zealand Army has continually prioritised the integration of enhanced protection, comfort, and functionality.

    This account represents the first comprehensive exploration of the New Zealand Army’s helmet history, tracing their evolution from rudimentary steel shells to sophisticated modular systems. It examines the practical challenges, local ingenuity, and global influences that shaped their development, offering a foundational perspective on the broader evolution of the Army’s equipment and operational readiness. As an introduction to this subject, it sets the stage for future research, inviting deeper study into the innovative and adaptive journey of New Zealand’s military equipment.

    WW1

    During the First World War, spurred mainly by the demands of trench warfare, the concept of soldier personal protection underwent a revival, notably with the introduction of helmets. By 1915, it became evident that a significant number of casualties were suffering head wounds due to falling debris, shell splinters, and bullets while in the trenches. Recognising this danger, the French were the first to develop a metal head-guard, the Adrian helmet, named after the general who championed its adoption. Legend has it that the inspiration for this design came from observing troops using their metal mess tins as makeshift head protection,[1]  Distribution of the Adrian helmet to French troops commenced in June 1915.[2]

    Both the British and Germans began experimenting with similar steel helmets. The British version based on a design patented by John Leopold Brodie resembled an old kettle hat utilised by Pikemen, with a domed skull and a slightly sloping brim. Internal felt pads initially absorbed shock, later replaced by more sophisticated liners for better fit and impact absorption. Following a trial of 500 in August 1915, the helmet was accepted into the British Army Service as the Steel Helmet, War Office Pattern, Type A (shell made from magnetic mild Steel). The Type A was soon replaced by the Type B (Shell made from Hadfield (manganese) steel).  The British began their distribution of the Brodie Helmet in September 1915, starting with an allocation of 50 per battalion.[3]  In Spring 1916 (March-June), the British improved the Brodie Helmet by adding a mild steel rim to the shell and redesigning the liner; this modification was codified as the Helmet Steel, Mark 1. However, all marks of the British hele are often called the Brodie Helmet. The German helmet of World War 1, the Stahlhelm helmet, offered more comprehensive defence, particularly to the back of the head and neck, compared to its French and British counterparts and was approved for general issue in January 1916.

    Steel Helmet, MK I Brodie pattern: British Army Image: IWM (UNI 9572)

    These developments did not go unnoticed in New Zealand, with newspaper reports extolling the benefits of the French helmets, detailing how by September 1915, Three Hundred Thousand had been issued to French troops at a rate of 25000 a day.[4] Such reports caught the eye of the Engineer-in -charge of the Waihi Grand Junction mine, with experience in producing miners’ helmets, he reached out through his father-in-law, A Rogerson Esq, representing the warehousing firm of Macky, Logan, Caldwell, to the Minister for Munitions, proposing that “helmets could easily be manufactured in Waihi, and no doubt elsewhere in New Zealand.” and that if the Minster should consider “it advisable to equip our contingents with them, there will be no difficulty in the supply.”[5]

    Arthur Myers, the Minister for Munitions, acknowledged receipt of Rogerson’s proposal on  29 September, replying that “I might mention that the Question of the possibility of manufacturing in this country all classes of munitions is At present receiving my very careful consideration, and you may rest assured that every effort is being made to enable a definite decision to be arrived at in this connection as soon as possible”.[6] At this early stage of the war, the New Zealand industry was stepping up to support the war effort, providing all manner of war material from clothing to mobile Filed Kitchens, so it is highly probable that that was just one of many proposals that simply fell through the bureaucratic gaps. However, Mr. Hogg, an employee of the Petone Railway Workshops and an advocate for manufacturing steel helmets in New Zealand, made better progress, expressing confidence that he could produce a low-cost helmet for New Zealand troops overseas, provided the materials were available. His proposal received a positive response and was granted permission to create samples for military evaluation.[7] During February and March 1916, the trial helmets underwent testing at Trentham camp, with the New Zealand Herald providing the following summary:

    The Tenth Artillery engaged in practice with live shrapnel at Trentham on Thursday afternoon. the number of shots fired being eight. Some steel helmets made at the Petone railway workshops were tested. Two guns were used, and they were placed on the parade ground with their muzzles pointing towards the eastern hills. Officers and men of the 11th, 12th and 13th artillery reinforcements were at the observation point, a hillcrest about 600 yds to the left of the target upon which the guns were trained. Stuffed canvas dummies wearing steel helmets were every one of them riddled with shrapnel bullets. Strangely enough only one of the steel helmets was struck. A bullet or other projectile had struck the side of the helmet a glancing blow and pierced it in such a way that about three quarters of an inch of ragged steel was driven inwards. It would have resulted m the death of the wearer. – The helmet was perfectly smooth, without ridges or any projection at all, such as appear in photographs of similar French helmets. Experts in the camp consider a slight ridging would have deflected the missile sufficiently to avoid inflicting a fatal wound. The results of this test and the test* made at Trentham recently with similar helmets show that a harder steel or a different shape will have to be devised before they can be served out for use by the troops.[8]  ,

    More evidence is needed to indicate whether trials of New Zealand-manufactured helmets have continued beyond these initial efforts. The scarcity of suitable materials likely made it impractical, and the increasing production of helmets in the United Kingdom had reached a point where the requirements of the NZEF could be adequately met. Therefore, New Zealand’s industrial efforts could be better prioritised in other areas.

    The introduction of steel helmets came too late to impact the Gallipoli campaign, where their use could have significantly reduced casualties. Upon the New Zealand Division’s arrival on the Western Front from Egypt, they were issued new equipment developed by the British Army for trench warfare, including the Mark 1 Helmet. Initially, helmets were generally worn only at the front or during training. The distinctive Lemon Squeezer hat with coloured puggarees remained the official headdress worn in the trenches.[9]

    New Zealand soldiers at the front near Le Quesnoy. Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association :New Zealand official negatives, World War 1914-1918. Ref: 1/2-013798-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22728328

    Accessories provided with the Mark 1 helmet included canvas and hessian covers, and in 1917, the Cruise visored helmet. Named after their inventor, Captain Richard R Cruise of the Royal Army Medical Corps, concerned by the number of soldiers being blinded by shrapnel and shell splinters, developed a chain mail veil or curtain for attachment to the Mark 1 helmet. On 18 April 1917, the New Zealand Division DADOS staff received 1200 Cruise visored helmets. These were not considered much improvement, and most units did not uplift their quota.[10]

    steel helmet, Mark I, fitted with 2nd pattern, Cruise visor (UNI 272) First World War period British Army steel helmet (with chain-mail visor) as worn by infantry and tank crews. Though the tank caused considerable surprise to German forces on its first appearance on the battlefield it was not long before effective anti-tank tactics were devised. Slow-moving tanks were no match for concentrated artillery fire, and even the impact of non-penetrating small arms fire c… Copyright: © IWM. Original Source: http://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30090924

    The armistice of 11 November 1918 brought a sudden end to the fighting on the Western Front. As the NZEF was demobilised, all its equipment, including helmets, was disposed of by handing back to British Ordnance depots and disposing of the items unable to be returned by sale or destruction. However, late in 1918, a request was placed to James Allen, the New Zealand Minister of Defence, whether the NZEF men could retain their helmets and respirators as souvenirs. This request was approved, allowing the retention of steel helmets for those who wished, which was a good decision in hindsight. It enabled many examples of WW1 helmets used by New Zealanders to remain available for museums and collectors today.[11]

    Although the NZEF disposed of its wartime equipment, much of it tired and worn, the New Zealand Ordnance Staff in London was busy indenting, receipting, and dispatching back to New Zealand a large amount of new and modern equipment, including web equipment and helmets, to form and sustain an Expeditionary Force of at least one Infantry Division, a mounted Rifle Brigade, an Artillery Regiment, and a Line of Communications troops.[12] This equipment would serve two roles: first, to provide stocks to equip the peacetime Territorial Force, and second, in the event of another war, to equip the next expeditionary force.

    Interwar Period

    During the interwar period, New Zealand faced financial constraints, leading to a slowdown in military activities. Most of the new equipment received from the United Kingdom after World War I was stored as mobilisation stock. Small quantities were used by the Territorial Force and for equipping small detachments sent to the South Pacific at various times in the 1920s and 30s.

    In 1936, the British Army began upgrading the Mark I helmet to the Helmet, Steel, Mark I* variant, which included an improved liner and an elasticated, sprung webbing chin strap. By 1938, the Mark I* was being replaced by the Mark II, featuring the same liner and chinstrap but with a new non-magnetic rim shell to accommodate magnetic compass use.

    There is little evidence to suggest that New Zealand made efforts to update its stock of Mark I helmets to the Mark I* or Mark II models. Consequently, when war erupted in 1939, New Zealand remained initially equipped with the Mark I Steel Helmet.

    WW2

    Before Japan entered the war on December 7, 1941, the Army’s activities in New Zealand were principally directed at providing reinforcements for the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF) and maintaining the efficiency of Home Defence Forces at as high a level as possible in readiness for any deterioration in the international situation.

    2NZEF

    2NZEF in the Middle East was equipped and maintained entirely from British Army sources, except for uniforms and boots, which were periodically supplied from New Zealand.[13]

    2NZEF arrived in Egypt with the same uniforms and web equipment as the NZEF of 1918. As stocks became available, the NZ Base Ordnance Depot (NZ BOD) began to issue the new 1937 pattern ‘Battledress’, ‘37 pattern webbing’, and Helmets to all New Zealand Troops. A bulk of 2NZDF’s requirements were met when 7000 helmets were received from the RAOC Depot at Kasr-el-Nil on 21 August 1940, with the immediate distribution of 5000 to 2NZEF units.[14]  As each additional draft arrived in the Middle East, they were issued with theatre-specific clothing and equipment, including helmets.

    Steel Helmet, MKII: British Army Image: IWM (UNI 12833)

    Home Defence

    With Japan’s entry into World War II, the Pacific became an active theatre of conflict, requiring the New Zealand Army to prepare for immediate enemy action. Anticipating hostilities with Japan, New Zealand had already bolstered its Pacific presence. Since 1939, a platoon-sized contingent was stationed on Fanning Island, and by 1940, a Brigade Group was garrisoned in Fiji. Orders for new equipment had been placed well in advance. As hostilities escalated, New Zealand’s claims for supplies were prioritised, resulting in a significant increase in the required equipment volume and delivery schedules.

    Army training in New Zealand. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch :Photographs relating to World War 1914-1918, World War 1939-1945, occupation of Japan, Korean War, and Malayan Emergency. Ref: PA1-q-291-95-272. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22732486

    A critical shortage of steel helmets arose when the United Kingdom could not fulfil New Zealand’s order for 30,000 helmets. This prompted a domestic solution. General Motors New Zealand and the New Zealand Railway Workshops began producing Mark II helmets locally, using materials and equipment sourced from Australia. Pressing machinery was acquired from John Heine & Son Ltd in Sydney, while Lysaght’s Australia supplied sheet steel.

    The helmet bodies, made from manganese steel and weighing approximately 1,120 grams, were produced in a single size. To ensure a proper fit, liners in seven sizes were sourced from the Australian branch of Dunlop, which also supplied chinstraps. Notably, the chinstrap lugs were uniquely manufactured in New Zealand, marked with “NPZ” (New Zealand Pressing), the year of manufacture, and the acceptance stamp of the New Zealand Physical Laboratories (NZPL).

    Assembly took place at the General Motors plant in Petone. The helmets were identified by the Commonwealth Steel “CS” logo on the brim and the distinctive “NPZ” chinstrap lugs. Due to limited production, New Zealand-made helmets from 1941 are rare.

    Two unidentified women working on military helmets during World War 2. Burt, Gordon Onslow Hilbury, 1893-1968 :Negatives. Ref: 1/2-037274-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23231257

    Simultaneously, New Zealand mobilised its entire Territorial Force, reassessing its defence strategy to bolster Coast Defence, secure critical infrastructure, reinforce Pacific garrisons, and expand its military units. This included raising new formations and providing reinforcements for overseas service while allocating administrative and instructional staff to sustain operations.

    By January 1942, New Zealand’s helmet stock stood at 69,500, with three requisitions for additional helmets underway:

    • Requisition 32/41: 6,500 helmets from the United Kingdom, expected for shipment within a month of 30 January 1942.
    • Requisition 39/41: 40,000 helmets from Australia, with delivery starting three months from 16 December 1941. Helmet bodies and liners were to be assembled in New Zealand.
    • Requisition 150/41: 65,700 helmets from the United Kingdom, of which 33,000 were already in transit by 30 January 1942, with the remainder expected for shipment within a month.

    Despite these measures, broader defence requirements—including those of the Navy, Air Force, Home Guard, and Emergency Precautions Scheme (EPS)—required 181,500 helmets, reflecting the scale of New Zealand’s wartime mobilisation efforts.[15]

    Equipping the Emergency Precautions Scheme

    As Japan advanced across Asia and the Pacific, the possibility of air raids on New Zealand cities became a pressing concern. The EPS needed an estimated 100,000 helmets. With military stocks insufficient, the New Zealand Ministry of Supply authorised helmet production for the EPS in February 1942.

    Inspired by British Air Raid Precautions (ARP) helmets, New Zealand industries rose to meet the demand. Auckland engineer H.J. Butcher sourced steel plate locally to produce several thousand helmets. Collaborating with a luggage manufacturer for linings, production began swiftly. Wellington followed suit, with three local firms producing approximately 2,000 weekly helmets. Factories repurposed from making radios, slippers, and washing machines contributed to the effort. Some unfinished helmet shells were sent to Christchurch for painting, fitting, and final assembly. This collaborative effort showcased the ingenuity and resourcefulness of New Zealand’s industries.[16]

    EPS helmets resembled military helmets but were made from lighter steel and featured simpler linings, reflecting their civil defence role.

    Distribution and Post-War Transition

    By March 1944, with pre-Mark I helmets utilised and 54,000 Mark II helmets manufactured in New Zealand, along with orders from Australia and the United Kingdom, 265,295 steel helmets had been distributed to New Zealand’s Home Defence Forces as follows:

    • September 1939 to November 1940 – 17,300
    • 1941- 8,127 
    • 1942 – 150,158
    • 1943 – 87,123
    • By 31 March 1944 – 2,587

    As the tactical situation shifted in 1944, most units raised for home defence began demobilising, returning equipment introduced during the rapid wartime expansion. This left New Zealand’s ordnance depots well-stocked to support the army in the immediate post-war years.

    Post-war

    The post-war New Zealand Army was initially structured around conscription to form a division intended for deployment in the Middle East. To this end, World War II-era equipment was deemed adequate, and training throughout the 1950s and early 1960s relied heavily on these wartime reserves.

    However, the outbreak of the Korean War and the Malayan Emergency prompted New Zealand to shift its strategic focus from the Middle East to operations in Southeast Asia. This reorientation highlighted the need to reassess equipment suitability for the region’s unique climate and terrain. In 1958, the New Zealand Army initiated a series of programmes to research and develop clothing and equipment better suited to Southeast Asia’s challenging conditions. Among the identified priorities was the need for a modernised helmet.

    The M1 Helmet

    On 7 April 1959, New Zealand Army Headquarters submitted a request to the New Zealand Joint Services Mission (NZJSM) in Washington, DC, for a sample of the latest US steel helmet. NZJSM responded on 4 May 1959, confirming that a single helmet had been dispatched. They also provided cost and availability details for larger quantities, ranging from 1 to 10,000 units:

    Federal Stock NumberNomenclatureUnit Cost
    8415-255-5879Helmet$2.50
    8415-240-2512Liner$2.50
    5415-153-6670Neck Band$0.06
    8415-153-6671Head Band$0.35

    The helmets would be available approximately 90 days after purchase arrangements were completed.[17]

    Impressed by the simplicity, utility and improved protection offered by the M1 helmet—a versatile, one-size-fits-all design—the New Zealand Army ordered 100 M2 helmets in late 1959 for troop trials. At the time, the standard-issue helmets utilised by the New Zealand Army were the Steel Helmet No. 1 Mk 1 and the Steel Helmet No. 2 Mk 1, by this stage just referred to as the Mark 1 Helmet, a design that had largely remained unchanged for 45 years.

    When the 100 trial helmets arrived in July 1960, 75 were allocated to 1 NZ Regiment at Burnham, and the remaining 25 were sent to the School of Infantry for acceptance trials. These trials were scheduled to conclude by 18 November 1960.

    The evaluation focused on several key criteria, including comfort, stability, concealment, hindrance, and impact on hearing. In all respects, the trial helmets were found to be superior to the current Mark 1 Helmet.[18]

    Supporting the acceptance trials was a comprehensive infantry equipment requirements review that identified the M1 helmet, complete with liner, as the preferred replacement for the Mark 1 Helmet. This report outlined the need for 3,048 helmets to equip the Regular Infantry, SAS, the School of Infantry, and All Arms Training Establishments.[19]

    In June 1961, the Chief of General Staff submitted a report to the Army Board recommending the replacement of the current Steel Helmet with the American M1 Helmet. The report provided an overview of the helmet’s background and development in Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

    As New Zealand traditionally sourced its equipment from the United Kingdom, it was noted that although the British were developing an improved combat helmet to replace their current Mark 4 Helmet (then in use in Southeast Asia), it would be several years before this new design would be ready for production. The report emphasised that New Zealand could not afford to wait that long to replace its helmets, making the adoption of the American M1 Helmet the most practical and timely solution.[20]

    Following the recommendations of the Army Board, the Minister of Defence submitted a proposal to Cabinet for approval to purchase 6000 helmets at a total cost of £26600 (2024 $1,446,665.68).  Subsequently approved by the Cabinet, the 1962 Annual Report of the New Zealand Army announced that the M1 helmet had been officially ordered.[21]

    In 1961, the Army held approximately 90,000 Mark 1 Helmets, prioritising issuing M1 Helmets to regular Force Field Force Units. As additional M1 helmets were procured and supplied, distribution to the rest of the Army followed. To maintain a balance of helmets available to the army, 40,000 Mark 1 Helmets were to be for reserve purposes, with the remaining Mark 1 Helmets disposed of.[22]

    The M1 helmet consisted of several components, including a steel shell, liner, neck, and headband, which were NZ Complete Equipment Schedule (CES) items. The M1 Helmet CES was CES492, 8415-NZ-101-0601, Helmet, Steel US Pattern authorised for use on 13 May 1963.[23] The M1 Helmet was considered a loan item to be managed by units with helmets either issued to individuals for the duration of their time in the unit or held as a pool item only issued for specific activities.  Allocation of helmets to units was based on the New Zealand Entitlement Table (NZET), which determines how many helmets a unit could hold based on role and strength. The NZET was further supported by New Zealand Block Scales (NZBS), which managed the specific management of helmets. The term “Block Scale” refers to the New Zealand Army’s standardised lists detailing the quantity and type of equipment and supplies allocated to units, from ammunition allocation to items required for barracks or messes. This system ensured uniformity and efficiency in resource distribution across the Army. The items and quantities included in a NZBS were tailored to a unit’s function and size. Helmets were contained within various NZBS, for example.

    • NZBS 01/34 Helmets, Steel, Field Force.
    • NZBS 30/18 Scale of Issue – Clothing and Necessaries – All Ranks posted for duty in South Vietnam.
    • NZBS 01/19 Personnel Equipment I United Nations Military Observers.

    By 31 May 1967, in addition to the original 100 trial helmets, the following had been purchased.

    • Helmet Shell with Chin Strap                  14980
    • Liners                                                    17480
    • Headbands                                            19312
    • Neckbands                                            18102
    • Helmet Chinstrap                                   300[24]

    With the continued introduction of M1 Helmets, the total amount of Mark 1 Helmet held in reserve was to be reduced to 24,500, all to be held at the Main Ordnance Depot at Trentham. However, it was soon realised that there was no requirement to retain that much stock of Mark 1 helmets existed, and 20,000 were authorised for disposal.[25]  

    Total requestions for M1 Helmets between 1959 and 1969 were:

    • Requisition No 146/59        –         100
    • Requisition No 10/62          –         9780
    • Requisition No 109/64        –         1200
    • Requisition No 258/67        –         150
    • Requisition No 276/66        –         4000
    • Requisition No 270/66        –         150[26]

    By 1972, the Mark 1 had ceased to be a current item of equipment in the New Zealand Army, and units were authorised to dispose of any remaining Mark 1 components through the Board of Survey process.[27]

    M1 Helmet Covers

    Camouflage covers explicitly designed for use with the M1 helmet were not part of the initial New Zealand M1 helmet purchase. The topic covered was not raised until 1967, when 31,792 Mark 1 Helmet covers were declared surplus.[28] Since the introduction of the M1 helmet, a simple modification made it possible to use the Mark 1 Hessian Camouflage cover with the M1 Helmet. As this was a simple and cost-effective solution, the Mark 1 Covers declared surplus were be retained and, once dyed a suitable green colour, made available through NZBS 01/34 to units with an entitlement for the M1 helmet.[29]

    Undyed Hessian Cover
    Dyed Hessian Cover

    Although New Zealand troops serving in South Vietnam sometimes utilised M1 helmets with American camouflage helmet covers, this was primarily because the helmets were drawn from American or Australian stocks in the theatre. It wasn’t until 1976 that New Zealand officially purchased and adopted camouflage covers designed for the M1 helmet.

    The first covers specifically designed for the M1 helmet were 5000; Mitchell pattern camouflage covers purchased in 1976.[30]  The Mitchell pattern cover was a distinctive, reversible design primarily used by the United States during the mid-20th century, notably in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It featured two camouflage patterns on opposite sides, intended to suit different seasonal or environmental conditions, a Green Leaf ‘Summer’ Side and a Brown Cloud ‘Winter’ Side.

    Example of Mitchell M1 Helmet Cover

    Although units were entitled to demand the newly issued covers, existing Mark 1 helmet cover stocks were expected to be utilised first and only replaced once completely worn out. However, this was a policy that was loosely applied.

    In the early 1980s, New Zealand supplemented the Mitchell pattern helmet covers with ERDL (Engineer Research and Development Laboratory) pattern covers, formally accepted into US service in 1971.

    Example of ERDL M1 Helmet Cover

    With New Zealand adopting the British Disruptive Pattern Material (DPM)pattern as its standard camouflage pattern for uniforms in 1975, it would take until the mid-1980s when a full suite of DPM uniforms began to be introduced.[31]  However, with multiple uniforms in NZDPM being progressively rolled out, it would not be until the early 1990s that a NZDPM cover for the M1 Helmet would be introduced. However, with large socks of Mitchell and ERDL covers remaining and the use of helmets limited to range activities and some exercises, uniformity of helmet covers was a low priority. Right up to the withdrawal of the M1 Helemt helmets, all three types of covers remained in use.

    Transition to a new Helmet

    In 1984 an Army stock take of Personal Support Items (PSI), which included helmets, revealed that the stock of helmets across army consisted of

    • 1 Base Supply Battalion – 1 with orders for 916 to be satisfied once new stock received.
    • 1 Task Force Region – 916.
    • 3 Task Force Region – 2396.
    • There is no balance against the Army Training Group (ATG) and Force Maintenance Group (FMG).[32] These formations likely held the stock, just not included in returns.

    With no significant purchases of PSI, including helmets, since the early 1970s, finance was made available to purchase additional items to replenish stock with vendors in South Korea able to satisfy demands at reasonable rates.

    Concurrent with this purchase, the Infantry Directorate was conducting Project Foxhound to investigate many issues related to personnel equipment. At a meeting of the Army Clothing Committee in June 1984, the project chairman advised that several overseas helmets, including a newly modified UK helmet, were awaiting trial. It was agreed that no urgency was necessary as the present stocks of helmets were sufficient. It was agreed, however, that trials should continue to confirm NZ’s preferred specifications.[33]

    By 1988, the United States and the United Kingdom had adopted new combat helmets made from advanced materials. These helmets provided improved ballistic protection and were lighter and more comfortable for soldiers.  With Australia also investigating the introduction of modern helmets, the New Zealand Army initiated a Project to replace Combat helmets on 25 Feb 1988.[34] It is believed that during helmet trials conducted in the 1980s, Pacific Helmets of Whanganui submitted designs for a composite combat helmet for evaluation. However, further research is required to confirm this.

    New Zealand introduced the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) combat helmet, which had been in use by the United States military since the early 1980s, in 1990. The PASGT did not initially replace the M1 helmet in New Zealand service. The M1 helmet was retained as a whole-of-service issue and continued to be used as a training helmet, ensuring its availability for non-combat purposes until finally withdrawn from service in 2010.

    Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) combat helmet

    Airborne Helmets

    New Zealand’s initial airborne-capable component was the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS), which maintained parachuting as a core capability. The NZSAS conducted their first parachute training during their deployment to Malaya in 1956. Upon their return to New Zealand, ongoing parachute training was provided by the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF).

    New Zealand Army SAS parachute troops, Singapore. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch :Photographs relating to World War 1914-1918, World War 1939-1945, occupation of Japan, Korean War, and Malayan Emergency. Ref: M-0290-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22665659

    As a new capability for the New Zealand Army, the NZSAS was initially equipped with the British Helmet, Steel, Airborne Troops Mk II. Developed during World War II, this helmet was available in 19 sizes, of which New Zealand held eight:

    • 8415-99-120-2905 – 6 3/8
    • 8415-99-120-2908 – 6 3/4
    • 8415-99-120-2909 – 6 7/8
    • 8415-99-120-2910 – 7
    • 8415-99-120-2911 – 7 3/8
    • 8415-99-120-2912 – 7 1/4
    • 8415-99-120-2913 – 7 3/8
    • 8415-99-120-2914 – 7 1/2

    The initial issue to the NZSAS in 1962 consisted of 75 Mk II Airborne helmets, but 50 of these were in sizes smaller than 7, rendering them unusable for most of the unit. These undersized helmets were later exchanged for larger sizes, and by 1966, the unit was fully equipped with its entitlement of 105 helmets.

    Helmet, Steel, Airborne Troops Mk II

    Over time, a Lightweight safety helmet was adopted for parachute training, while the Mk II helmet remained in use with the NZSAS until the late 1970s when limited availability of spare parts rendered it unsupportable.

    Due to the modular design of the M1 helmet, components were procured to adapt it for parachuting. However, these were managed within a separate NZBS which lacked controls to differentiate between M1 helmets configured for ground troops and those configured for airborne operations. Fortunately, the Army’s attempts to mainstream airborne operations were limited to a few exercises in the mid-1980s, as this lack of oversight could have caused safety and logistical complications.

    Charlie Compant 2/1 RNZIR, Para drop Tekapo, New Zealand, 1985

    Other Variations with the NZ M1 Helmets

    Aside from variations in M1 helmet covers and differences between ground and airborne components, the primary distinction in New Zealand’s M1 helmets lay in the helmet liners. The type of liner depended on when the helmets were purchased—initially from the United States and later from South Korea. Once received, there was no formal system in place to manage these variations as separate supply items. Despite the differences in liners, all M1 helmet liners were treated as identical within the New Zealand Army’s inventory. Examples of the different liners were:

    • M1 Helmet Liner – Infantry P55- Made from laminated cotton duck, the liner featured:
      • suspension webbing that could be adjusted to hold the liner at the right height on the wearer’s head
      • neck strap and adjustable neck band that was designed to prevent the helmet from pitching forward
      • leather-lined headband that could be adjusted to the wearer’s head size
      • leather chin strap.[35]
    • M1 Helmet Liner – Infantry P64 – Made from laminated cotton duck from 1964 and 1969, it was also produced in laminated high-strength nylon fabric between 1964 and 1974, offering improved ballistic protection but was heavier than the cotton duck version. The liner featured:
      • A new suspension with three webbing straps that could each be adjusted to hold the liner at the right height on the head.
      • A new neck band assembly consisting of a rectangular webbed body with three straps attached to small buckles inside the liner.
      • The P64 Infantry liner did not have a leather chin strap. [36]
    • South Korean liner – Made from Reinforced Plastics. The liner featured
      • A suspension similar to the P64 liner.

    Overview of New Zealand Army Helmet Development from 2000

    The story of helmets in the New Zealand Army since 2000 is one of evolving technology, logistical hiccups, sub-optimal management, and creative adaptability by soldiers. While this overview touches on key milestones, it’s far from the whole picture—there’s still more to uncover.

    M1 to PASGT: Growing Pains

    Switching from the M1 helmet to the PASGT wasn’t exactly smooth sailing, with both helmets often seen on the same missions, partly due to a disjointed rollout that left distribution and entitlement a bit messy and that, unlike the M1, the PSAGT was not one size fits all helmet but one that needed to be sized to provide the best fit and protection for the user.

    Example of PASGT Helments with NZ DPM Cover and No Cover. https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=10153343918776926&set=a.10153343918646926

    Early on, the PASGT helmet didn’t even come with proper covers, so soldiers improvised, repurposing M1 covers to make do. It wasn’t until the late ’90s that the Army finally issued covers in NZDPM, solving the problem of providing some uniformity and a more professional look.

    Example of PASGT with M1 ERDL Cover

    2008 PASGT Upgrade: Comfort and Protection Boost

    In 2008, the PASGT got a much-needed upgrade with the Skydex Harness. This new suspension system, complete with padding, made the helmet more comfortable and offered better protection. It was a solid improvement that helped the helmet keep up with modern demands.

    PASGT fittd with Skydex Harness

    2012: Rabintex 303AU ACH

    In 2012, the Rabintex 303AU Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH) that had begun to be introduced in 2008 replaced the PASGT for operational use. The ACH brought better ballistic protection and a more modern design, while the PASGT Skydex helmets were relegated to training duties.

    Rabintex 303AU Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH)

    2021: Viper P4

    By 2021, the NZ Army had moved on again, introducing the full cut Viper P4 helmet to replace the Rabintex ACH.[37] The Viper P4 helmet is a lightweight, advanced combat helmet offering superior ballistic and fragmentation protection. It features a Modular Suspension System for enhanced comfort and stability and supports a range of mission-specific accessories like mounts, rails, and visors, making it versatile and adaptable for modern military operations.

    full cut Viper P4 helmet

    In conclusion, the evolution of helmets within the New Zealand Army is more than a mere account of changing headgear—it’s an example of adaptability, resourcefulness, and commitment to soldier protection. This journey reflects broader trends in military innovation, operational necessity, and global advancements, from the introduction of the steel helmet during World War I to the cutting-edge Viper P4 combat helmet of today. The transition from local ingenuity in wartime manufacturing to the adoption of globally benchmarked equipment underlines the enduring focus on operational readiness and soldier safety.

    This study represents an initial exploration of a multifaceted subject. While it provides a foundational understanding of the developmental milestones, practical challenges, and historical contexts surrounding New Zealand Army helmets, significant gaps remain. Further research is essential to enrich this narrative, particularly in areas like the experiences of soldiers using this equipment, the logistical processes underpinning helmet procurement and distribution, and the operational impacts of these technological shifts.

    Future studies can offer a more comprehensive view of helmet evolution and the broader story of how New Zealand has continually adapted its military practices to meet changing demands. This work opens the door for more focused investigations, ensuring the legacy of those who have served is preserved and better understood.

    Notes

    [1] F. Wilkinson, Arms and Armour (Hamlyn, 1978). https://books.google.co.nz/books?id=OYvKGwAACAAJ.

    [2] “Steel Helmets For French Infantry,” Press, Volume LI, Issue 15308, 18 June 1915, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/CHP19150618.2.65.6.

    [3] “Steel Helmets for the Trenches,” Dominion, Volume 8, Issue 2531, 4 August 1915, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19150804.2.68.

    [4] “300,000 Steel Helmets “, New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16032, 25 September 1915, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19150925.2.85.33.

    [5]  A Rogerson, Macky, Logan, Caldwell Ltd correspondence to Minister of Munitions 27 September 1915.”Uniforms, etc. – Helmets (Steel) For Use of NZEF [New Zealand Expeditionary Force],” Archives New Zealand Item No R22430036  (1915).

    [6] Correspondence A Myers, Minister of Munitions to A Rogerson, Macky, Logan, Caldwell Ltd 29 September 1915  “Uniforms, etc. – Helmets (Steel) For Use of NZEF [New Zealand Expeditionary Force].”

    [7] “News of the Day,” New Zealand Times, Volume XL, Issue 9189, 8 November 1915, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZTIM19151108.2.22.

    [8] “Tests with Shrapnel,” New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16163, 8 November 1916, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19160226.2.66.

    [9] Wayne Stack and Mike Chappell, The New Zealand expeditionary force in World War I, Men-at-arms: 473, (Oxford : Osprey, 2011, 2011), 38.

    [10] “Headquarters New Zealand and Australian Division – New Zealand Division – Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (DADOS) – War Diary, 1 April – 30 April 1917,” Archives New Zealand Item No R23487653  (1917).

    [11] “Miscellaneous – Gas masks and steel helmets – Free issue of to troops as Souvenier,” Archives New Zealand Item No R224 32977  (1918).

    [12] Mark McGuire, “Equipping the Post-Bellum Army,” Forts and Works (Wellington) 2016.

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

    [14] “War Diary, HQ 2 NZ Division ADOS [Assistant Director of Ordnance] and DADOS [Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance] Unit War Diary – August 1940,” Archives New Zealand Item No R26106752  (August 1940).

    [15] Helmets Steel – Statement Showing Supply Position as At 30 Jan 1942 “Steel helmets – Manufacture of,” Archives New Zealand Item No R6280648  (1942).

    [16] Nancy M Taylor, Home Front Volume I, The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–1945, (Historical Publications Branch, 1986), 564.

    [17] “Stores: Machinery and Tools – Mills Web Equipment and Entrenching Tools: General,” Archives New Zealand Item No R17189053  (1912-1969).

    [18]  22.042 1 NZ Regt User Trial Report: US Steel Helmets Dated 2 Dec 1960. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General,” Archives New Zealand No R17189104  (1942-1972).

    [19] “New Infantry Equipment for New Zealand Army,” Archives New Zealand Item No R17189007  (1959 – 1970).

    [20] Army 24662A Battle Helmets Dated 23 June 1961. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [21] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand Annual Report of the General Officer Commanding, for period 1 April 1961 to 31 March 1962,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives  (31 March 1962).

    [22] Army 246/62/1/Q9E) WEPC Serial 95 Brigade Group Equipment US Battle Helmets Dated 15 November 1961. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [23] NZAO 17/62. “Publications – Military: Army Form G1098: War Equipment Tables,” Archives New Zealand Item No R17189361  (1951-1963).

    [24] 246/62/1 Maint Helmets Steel US Patt Dated 20 Nov 1967. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [25] Army 246/62/1/Q(E) Helmets Steel Dated 20 January 1967. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [26] Minute DOS to G2 Trg Date 3 Nov 1969. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [27] 65/59/39 Field Force Command Routine Orders Dated 13 October 1972. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [28] 246/62/D Surplus Stores Declaration, 8415-NZ-102-0167 Covers Helmet Camouflage UK Patt Qty 31792.  Dated 24 April 1967. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [29] Army 246/62/1/BD Covers Camouflage: Helmets Steel US Pattern Dated Nov 1967. “Cookers – Helmets: Steel and Liners: Purchase and General.”

    [30] Army 246/61/1/EP Helmets Steel Cover US Pattern NSN 8415-00-261-6833 Dated 6 Sept 1976. “Arms, Ammunition, Equipment, Stores – Steel Helmets,” Archives New Zealand Item No R2952220  (1960-1979).

    [31] Army 213/1/37/EP Combat Clothing Dated 9 December 1975″Clothing – Policy and General – Intro of Combat Clothing Project,” Archives New Zealand No R17311750  (1977-81).

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

    [33] “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984,” Archives New Zealand No R17311893  (1984).

    [34] “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-87.”

    [35] M.A. Reynosa, Post-World War II M-1 Helmets: An Illustrated Study (Schiffer Publishing, Limited, 1999), 34.

    [36] Reynosa, Post-World War II M-1 Helmets: An Illustrated Study, 42 and 49.

    [37] “Soldier Personel Protection Project,” New Zealand Army News Issue 551, April 2024, https://issuu.com/nzdefenceforce/docs/armynews_issue551.  The Viper P4 helmet is a lightweight, advanced combat helmet offering superior ballistic and fragmentation protection. It features a Modular Suspension System for enhanced comfort and stability and supports a range of mission-specific accessories like mounts, rails, and visors, making it versatile and adaptable for modern military operations.

    NEW ZEALAND ARMY – 1956

    Leave a comment

    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.
    Army Personnel wearing Medals, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North
    Attribution + NonCommercial
    https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/246a3281-6b19-423a-9fed-00cf6de767a1
    • Trentham Camp.
      • Central District Ammunition Depot, ‘RNZAOC
      • Central District Ammunition Repair Depot, RNZAOC.
      • 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.
      • 1st Divisional Ordnance Field Park, RNZAOC.
    Anti Tank Platoon, Special Company, 16th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North
    Attribution + NonCommercial
    https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/03b0653f-c589-46e5-934e-22b8f6c41763
    • 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]

    MMG Platoon, Special Company, 15th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/a97629cc-4f4b-4ad9-9260-811bcf3ef3ec

    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.

    Weapons and Communications Equipment

    TypeModelQty (If known)
    RiflesLee Enfield No4 Mk1 and Mk1*40000
    RiflesLee Enfield No 1 Mk324000
    RiflesRifles No 8 Mk3 .22-in 
    RiflesX8E1 FN FAL 7.62mm Rifles for troop trials22
    PistolsRevolver Smith & Weston No2 .38-inch 
    PistolsPistol, Signal No1 Mk3 
    Submachine GunSten 9mm Mk 2 & Mk 3 
    Machine GunBren. 303-inch 
    Machine GunVickers .303-inch 
    Machine GunBrowning .30-inch 
    Machine GunBESA MK1,2 and 3 
    MortarOrdnance SBML two-inch mortar430
    MortarOrdnance ML 3-inch mortar 
    MortarOrdnance ML 4.2-inch Mortar36
    Anti-ArmourM20 Mk2 3.5-inch Rocket Launcher57
    Anti-Armour120mm BAT L2 Recoilless Rifle18
    Anti-ArmourOrdnance QF 6-pounder 
    Anti-ArmourAnti-Tank Grenade No 94 (ENERGA) 
    Field ArtilleryOrdnance QF 25-pounder Mk2 
    Field ArtilleryBL 5.5-inch (140mm) calibre,  Mk 312
    Anti-Aircraft ArtilleryBofors 40 mm L/60 gun396 (most in storage)
    Anti-Aircraft ArtilleryQF 3.7-inch Mk3193 (most in storage)
    Coast ArtilleryBL 9.2inch Mk XV6
    Coast ArtilleryBL 6-inch Mk XXIV3
    Coast ArtilleryBL 6-inch Mk XXI6
    Coast ArtilleryBL 6-inch Mk VII2
    Coast ArtilleryQF 6-Pounder, 10 cwt Twin4
    RadarRadar, Anti-Aircraft No 3, Mark 79
    Range FinderRange Finder No 12 Mk VII 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 19 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 22 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 31 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 33 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 38 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 48 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 52 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 53 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 62 
    RadiosWireless Set No. 88 
    RadiosWireless Set No ZC 1 Mk II (NZ) 
    MOR Platoon, Special Company, 13th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/bbb5c07a-6cae-443c-affe-6141015ee1a1
    Signals Platoon, Special Company, 14th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/4a24b2bf-4bfd-4784-8daf-4efb919b14e6

    Vehicles

    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.

    ModelQty (If known)
    Centurion Mk 33
    Valentine Mk 3 and V 
    Daimler Mk II ‘Dingo’ scout car84
    Daimler Mk 2 Armoured Car11
    NZ Pattern Wheeled Carrier Mk 2 
    Universal LP2A Carrier& 
    Motorcycle BSA M20 
    Motorcycle Indian Model 741B 
    Land-Rover Series 1 80″384
    Willys Jeep 
    AEC Matador 4×4 artillery tractor 
    Bedford MWC 200Gallon Water Cart 
    Bedford MWC Ambulance 
    Bedford QL GS 
    Bedford QLB Light Anti-Aircraft Tractor 
    Chevrolet C60 Wireless Truck 
    Chevrolet C60L 4 x 4 Wrecker 
    Chevrolet C8AX  Compressor 
    Chevrolet C8AX Ambulance 
    Chevrolet C8AX GS 
    Chevrolet C8AX Water Truck 
    Chevrolet C8AX Wireless 
    Chevrolet Field Artillery Tractor 
    Diamond T 968 4-ton 6×6 
    Diamond T 969A Recovery 
    Diamond T 980 12-ton 6×4 
    Federal 6×4+4 20-ton Transporter 
    Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt Fire Appliance 
    Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt GS 
    Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt Tipper 
    Ford F30 4×4 30-cwt Wireless 
    Ford F61-L LWB Recovery Vehicle/Holmes 
    GMC 6×4 CCW Binned Stores 
    GMC 6×4 CCW GS 
    GMC 6×4 CCW Shower 
    GMC 6×4 CCW-353 GS 
    GMC 6×4 CCW-353 Tipper 
    Guy FPAX 
    Leyland Retriever, 6×4  Searchlight 
    Leyland Retriever, 6×4 Breakdown Gantry 
    Leyland Retriever, 6×4, Machinery, Type A 
    Leyland Retriever, 6×4, Machinery, Type Z 
    Scammell Pioneer R100 Artillery Tractor 
    Scammell Pioneer SV2S Heavy Recovery Vehicle 
    Ward La France M1A1 Recovery Vehicle 
    Trailer 15KVA Lister Generator 
    Trailer Dental 
    Trailer FBE (Folding Boat Equipment) 
    Trailer Recovery 6 Ton 6 Wheel No1 Mk11 
    Trailer Water Purification 
    B. Platoon, Royal New Zealand Army Service Corp, 14th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/ffc2f263-a7d8-4991-9235-df0ed9ea9ee4

    Painting of Equipment and Vehicles

    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.

    • Cookers Portable No 1
    • Cookers Portable No 2
    • Cookers Portable No 3
    • Wiles’ Junior’ Mobile Cooker trailer
    • Wiles’ Senior’ Mobile Cooker trailer
    • Portable Field Cookhouse
    • Portable Mess Kit Wash up Kit.
    • Portable Meat Safe
    School of Cookery, 15th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/70f9084d-362c-48ea-aeb4-0a048790d5be

    Clothing and Personal Equipment

    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 1Regular Soldiers, including Regular Force Cadets.
    Scale 2Regular Physical Training Instructors.
    Scale 3Regular Officers.
    Scale 4Regular Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
    Scale 5Regular soldiers of the NZANS.
    Scale 6Territorial Recruits.
    Scale 7Territorial soldiers.
    Scale 8Territorial Officers.
    Scale 9Territorial Officers and Soldiers of the NZWRAC.
    Scale 10Territorial Soldiers of the NZANS.
    Scale 11Territorial Officers of the NZANS.
    Scale 12Cadets of the Cadet Corps.
    Scale 13Cadet Corps Officers.
    Scale 14Special Clothing.
    Scale 15Camp Necessities: Supplementary scales.
    Scale 16Welfare Workers in Army Camps.
    Scale 17Canteen Council Employees.
    Scale 18Individual Provision: Women’s Services.
    Scale 19Clothing and Necessaries to be in Possession of Soldiers Committed to Detention Barracks.
    Scale 20Hospital 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.

    On Parade Nov 1954, 14th Intake, Central District Training Depot, Linton – Elmar Studios, 459 Main Street, Palmerston North Attribution + NonCommercial https://manawatuheritage.pncc.govt.nz/item/69e57e1d-e1c1-4bb8-ab5f-0366a915b787

    Battle Dress

    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.

    Wet and cold weather clothing

    • Issued to Soldiers
      • Coats, waterproof, Other Ranks
      • Gloves Woolen
      • Greatcoat, dismounted, 1940-patt.
      • Jersey, pullover, Type A
      • Jersey, pullover, Type B
    • Issued to Officers
      • Caps Comforter
      • Cardigan
      • Coats, trench or waterproof
      • Gloves, leather, brown, lined.
      • Gloves, leather, brown, unlined
      • Greatcoats
      • Jersey, pullover, Type A
      • Scarves , Khaki
    • Special Clothing issue
      • Boots, rubber knee
      • Capes, waterproof
      • Coats, oilskin
      • Hats, oilskin
      • Jackets, oilskin
      • Jerkin, Sleeveless Leather

    Badges

    • Arm and appointment badges
      • Brass or Worsted SD
      • Cap & Collar
        • Other Ranks – brass
        • Officers – gilt
      • Rank
        • Worsted SD (Other Ranks)
        • Brass on Bands, wrist, KD, WO
        • Shoulder, worsted of gilt (Stars or Crowns)

      Web Equipment

      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).

      Transition and Transformation: RNZAOC in 1972

      3 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

      The Graduation List Regular Officer is divided into three Parts.

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

      Part 1 – RNZAOC Regular Officers

      Lieutenant Colonels

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

      Majors

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

      Captains

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

      Lieutenants

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

      Second Lieutenants

      • Noel Anthony Hitchings
      • Allan Charles Lash

      Part 2 – RNZAOC Quartermaster List

      Captains and Quartermasters

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

      Lieutenants and Quartermasters

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

      Part 3 – RNZAOC Supernumerary List

      Majors

      • Ronald George Henderson Golightly

      Captains

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

      Statistics on the RNZAOC 1972 Officers List

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

      Operational Service

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

      Service and Age

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

      Appointments

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

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

      New Zealand Army Berets 1938-1999

      Leave a comment

      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.

      • RNZAC – Black
      • NZSAS – Maroon
      • RNZNC – Grey
      • NZWRAC- Dark Green
      • Regular Physical Training Instructors – Blue
      • Royal New Zealand Dental Corps – Dark Green[15]

      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]

      CorpsColour (BCC designation)Headband
      RNZABlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZEBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZ SigsBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZASCBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZAOCBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZEMEBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZDCBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RF CADETSBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZChDBlue (Purple Navy – BCC192)Black
      RNZACBlack (Jet Black – BCC 220)Black
      NZ RegtGreen (Rifle Green – BCC 27)Black
      NZSASMaroon (Maroon – BCC 39)Black
      RNZAMCDull Cherry (Ruby – BCC 38)Black
      RNZ ProBlue (Royal Blue – BCC 197)Black
      NZAECKhaki (Khaki – BCC 72)Brown
      RNZNCGrey (Grebe – BCC 82)Black
      NZWRACGreen (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 Collection
      NZ Regt/ RNZIR Rifle Green Beret (2/1 Badge and backing). Lee Hawkes Collection
      RNZASC Blue Beret. Lee Hawkes Collection
      RNZA 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.

      [10] 213/6/7/Arty Headdress – 16 Fd Regt 26 April 1960. Ibid.

      [11] Q209 Copy from 213/7/40 HQ NZ Army Force GHQ FARELF Tropical Type Headdress 11 October 1960.Ibid.

      [12] 219/7/A4 Headdress: Berets 17 March 1960. Ibid.

      [13] Minutes of the 28th meeting of the Army Dress Committee at Army HQ on 16 June 1961. Ibid.

      [14] Army 213/6/7 Dress Committee Meeting – 16 June 1961 Berets. Ibid.

      [15] Army 213/6/7/A4 Berets 4 July 1961.Ibid.

      [16] 213/6/7/DQ Berets 6 July 1961ibid.

      [17] D Inf Reply to 213/6/7/DQ Berets. 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.”

      [22]  Army 213/6/7/Q(A) Army HQ 9 Feb 1965. Ibid.

      [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.

      New Zealand Army Combat Boots – 1945 -1980

      1 Comment


      Up to the Second World War, New Zealand Army boots generally had leather-soled ankle boots whose design had only undergone minor changes since 1912. Military boot development was catapulted during the Second World War with new designs and materials providing boots suitable for all terrains and climates found on Battlefields worldwide. As the post-war New Zealand Army was reorganised and reequipped to provide a division to fight in the Middle East, the decolonisation conflicts that swept Southeast Asia drew New Zealand into an unfamiliar type of warfare. New Zealand was not experienced or equipped to fight in harsh tropical environments but adapted quickly and became experienced practitioners of Jungle warfare. Initially equipped with British and Australian stocks of tropical equipment, it soon became apparent that New Zealand troops needed modern equipment. By 1959, the New Zealand Army undertook various research and development initiatives to improve its equipment in conjunction with scientific institutions and industry. This article provides an overview of the New Zealand Army’s post-war boot development, transitioning from a boot originating in the 19th century to a modern mid-20th century Combat boot.

      Flush with wartime stocks of boots, the post-war New Zealand Army had no immediate need to upgrade its boots. However, by the mid-1950s, the limitations of the current range of leather-soled boots were becoming evident, especially in the jungles of Malaya, and the search for alternatives began for an improved boot design. To achieve this, the Quarter masters branch of the army called on the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Research Association for assistance in developing a boot with increased waterproof properties that could withstand prolonged wear without undue fatigue.[1]

      Jungle greens and Jungle boots as worn by New Zealand Forces in Malaya from 1955. NZ National Library Ref: EP/1956/0031-F

      In conjunction with footwear manufacturers and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the New Zealand Leather and Shoe Association developed four types of boots, which were trialled by the 2nd Battalion, New Zealand Regiment, in 1958. The latest type of ankle boot with a Directly Moulded Sole (DMS) from the United Kingdom was also tested alongside the four New Zealand samples.[2] From this initial user trial, feedback shaped an interim specification for two types with identical uppers but different soles, one of rubber and the other of leather. Thirty pairs of each type were made, and a further series of trials began with the 1st Battalion at Burnham Camp in early May 1960. Thirty trial subjects were chosen to wear each boot type for three days to see how easily they could be broken in. After that, they tested the boots for wear and comfort until February 1961.[3]

      1956 Ankle Boots. Lee Hawkes Collection
      Sole of 1956 Ankle boots. Lee Hawkes Collection

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

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

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

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

      New Zealand 37-pattern Gaiter. Lee Hawkes collection

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

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

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

      • The sole and foot portion to be exactly the same as the Ankle Boot RS.
      • The height from ground level to the top of the boot was to be 101/2 inches.
      • There were to be six eyelets on the lower portion of each side of the closure and six boot hooks on the higher portion of each side (similar to the green jungle boot issued in Malaya).
      • The boot tongue was to be of a thinner variety and should not be longer than the height of the boot.
      • There were to be no straps or buckles.
      • The measurement around the top of the boot was to be no greater than 121/2 inches from edge to edge.[7]

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

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

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

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

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

      • Lighter and more robust than the NZ item.
      • Had a directly moulded sole.
      • It was made of better-quality leather.
      • Had a vastly superior appearance.
      • It had a very good and snug fit when broken in.
      Private Wayne Lindsay, Whiskey One Company, inspects an RSA Christmas parcel from New Zealand circa 1968. Note that Private Lindsay is wearing the American Pattern Jungle boots, and there are Australian DMS Combat boots and New Zealand Combat boots under his bed. Image courtesy Noel Bell via https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/photo/private-wayne-lindsay-rsa-christmas-parcel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Boot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie Collection
      Boot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie Collection
      Boot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie Collection
      Boot Mans General Purpose (Boot Mans GP). Robert McKie Collection

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

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

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

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

      New Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie Collection
      New Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie Collection
      New Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie Collection
      New Zealand-made Australian pattern Boot GP. Robert McKie Collection

      Notes

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

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

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

      [4] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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