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

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.;


Linton Camp: The Evolution of a Military Logistics Hub

For 80 years, Linton Camp has served as a key logistics hub for the New Zealand Army. Initially established to support ordnance storage and supply, much of its infrastructure has remained unchanged for decades — a legacy of underinvestment that the NZDF is only now beginning to address. This article traces the historical development of Linton’s warehousing functions, its recurring infrastructure challenges, and the modernisation finally underway. It is intended as a starting point for discussion on NZDF logistics modernisation, not a strategic or comparative analysis of broader defence policy.

Early Developments: Palmerston North’s Ordnance Store (1914–1921)

In 1914, Major James O’Sullivan, Director of Equipment and Stores, recommended establishing a district store in Palmerston North to improve distribution efficiency and reduce transport costs. This led to the creation of the Palmerston North Ordnance Store in early 1915, managed by District Storekeeper Frank Edwin Ford.

NZ Army Ordnance Stores, 327 Main Street, Palmerston North circa 1930. Palmerston North Libraries and Community Services
NZ Army Ordnance Stores, 327 Main Street, Palmerston North circa 1930. Palmerston North Libraries and Community Services

With the formation of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) on 1 July 1917, the Palmerston North Ordnance Store was incorporated as the “Palmerston North Detachment – NZAOC.” By December 1921, however, the detachment was disbanded as part of post-war reorganisation.

World War II and Post-War Expansion (1941–1957)

The outbreak of World War II forced a major expansion of military logistics infrastructure. In early 1942, the Central Districts Ordnance Depot (CDOD) was established at the Palmerston North Showgrounds, later renamed No. 2 Ordnance Sub Depot on 1 August 1942. By 1943/44, the Main Ordnance Depot in Trentham had established a Bulk Sub-Depot at Linton Camp to support Central District operations.

Palmerston North Showgrounds, Cuba Street, 1939. Palmerston North Libraries and Community Services

A fire at No. 2 Ordnance Sub Depot on 31 December 1944 destroyed stock valued at £225,700 (approximately $38.5 million in 2024 terms, adjusted for inflation using the RBNZ inflation calculator). The depot remained operational until 14 December 1945, when its functions transferred to Trentham’s Main Ordnance Depot and Linton’s Bulk Sub-Depot.

Recognising the need for sustained logistical support, No. 2 Ordnance Depot was re-established at Linton Camp on 1 October 1946, absorbing the Bulk Sub-Depot from Trentham. Under Captain W.S. Keegan’s command, the depot also maintained ammunition sub-depots at Belmont, Makomako, and Waiouru, a vehicle sub-depot at Trentham, and a stores sub-depot at Waiouru. In 1948, it reverted to its 1942 designation of CDOD.

Through the late 1940s and 1950s, storage facilities at Linton — many still using wartime buildings — were expanded, including warehouses CB26 and CB27 on Dittmer Road (1949–1950). Infrastructure problems persisted: a second fire, in an ordnance store on 15 February 1953, destroyed stores and records valued at £11,695 (roughly $1.4 million in 2024 terms).

Buildings CB26 and CB27 on Dittmer Road

Infrastructure Challenges and Growth (1957–1990s)

In 1957, the Central Districts Vehicle Depot (CDVD) relocated from Trentham to Linton, requiring the transfer of prefabricated buildings from Fort Dorset (CB14–CB17). Storage limitations remained a persistent issue.

A 1958 site investigation recommended constructing a 125,000 sq. ft. (11,613 sq. m) ordnance depot as part of a broader Logistic Precinct integrating RNZASC and RNZEME elements. The project never materialised. The “temporary” prefabricated buildings that were meant to bridge the gap are, remarkably, still in use today — nearly 70 years later.

Central Districts Ordnance Depot, Linton Camp 1958
Central Districts Vehicle Depot and Central Districts Ordnance Depot, C1959

Expansion continued in smaller increments: CDOD completed a new headquarters building (CB18) in 1961 and a dedicated clothing store (CB4) in 1963. In 1968, the depot was rebranded as 2 Central Ordnance Depot (2COD), with plans to expand the clothing store by 45,000 sq. ft. (4,181 sq. m) — later reduced by budget constraints to 25,000 sq. ft. (2,323 sq. m) — and completed by 2 Construction Squadron, RNZE, in 1972. The building is now used by 5 Movements Company, RNZALR.

2COD/2 Supply warehouse

On 16 October 1978, the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) transferred supply responsibilities to the RNZAOC, forming 2 Supply Company, which absorbed 24 Supply Platoon (Rations) and took over the RNZASC Ration Store. By 1990/91 the original railhead ration store was decommissioned and replaced with a purpose-built facility.

The table below tracks the unit’s repeated redesignations across this period — useful as a reference, since the naming changes more often than the underlying function does:

YearUnit Name
1942Central Districts Ordnance Depot (CDOD)
1942 (Aug)No. 2 Ordnance Sub Depot
1946No. 2 Ordnance Depot
1948Reverted to CDOD
19682 Central Ordnance Depot (2COD)
19782 Supply Company
19855 Composite Supply Company
199021 Supply Company
199221 Field Supply Company (absorbed RRF OSG from 3 Supply Company, Burnham)

In 1992, the Ready Reaction Force Ordnance Support Group (RRF OSG) transferred from 3 Supply Company in Burnham into 21 Field Supply Company, supported by additional low-cost shelters (CB34a, CB34b, CB35).

Modernisation Efforts and the Linton Regional Supply Facility (2024–Present)

Some of Linton’s warehouses are now over 80 years old, and — as the 1958 episode shows — the pattern of deferred investment is not new. The NZDF has finally committed to a major upgrade: the Linton Regional Supply Facility. Ground was broken in late 2024, with work commencing in February 2025. The project will consolidate multiple logistics functions into a single modern building.

According to Deputy Chief of Army, Brigadier Hamish Gibbons:

“The Linton Regional Supply Facility will provide a modern and fit-for-purpose capability for our logistics personnel. It will allow us to effectively and efficiently manage and control the limited resources we have, ensuring they are available to enable training and operations.”

Conclusion

Linton Camp’s role in New Zealand’s military logistics has evolved considerably since its origins as an ordnance sub-depot, through the fires of 1944 and 1953, the abandoned 1958 rebuild, and decades of incremental patchwork rather than wholesale renewal. The Linton Regional Supply Facility represents the first serious break from that pattern. Whether it holds, and whether the next round of “temporary” buildings again outlasts its intended lifespan, will depend on sustained investment rather than a single project.


The RNZAOC Icon: A Symbol of Heritage and Functionality

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 New Zealand Army Ordnance Badge: A Mark of Disgrace or a Legacy of Service?

The Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC) insignia underwent significant transformation between 1912 and 1996, reflecting both its British heritage and New Zealand’s distinct military identity. Inspired by the insignia of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC), the RNZAOC badge shared common design elements with its counterparts in Australia, Canada and India while incorporating unique national features that set it apart.

A persistent myth surrounding the adoption of the RAOC insignia is the so-called “Mark of Shame”, a misconception that has overshadowed the true significance of the badge. This article will explore the evolution of the RNZAOC insignia and dispel the “Mark of Shame” myth, highlighting how the badge symbolised professionalism, heritage, and the vital role of the Ordnance Corps within the New Zealand Military Forces.

Evolution of the New Zealand Ordnance Badge

Pre-War (pre-1914)
Ordnance duties were managed by the Defence Stores Department and Royal New Zealand Artillery until the formation of the New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC) in 1912 to formalise armourer roles.

First World War (1914–1919)
The New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) was established in 1915 to support the NZEF. Early on, modified British AOC badges were used until New Zealand-specific designs were introduced.

NZEF NZAOC Insignia 1916-1919

Post-War (1917–1937)
Separate badges were created for the New Zealand Army Ordnance Department (NZAOD) and NZAOC, incorporating the letters “NZ” into the traditional RAOC design.

Modernisation (1937–1947)
A 1937 design competition produced a new badge, blending RAOC elements with New Zealand-specific inscriptions. These badges were made in brass, bronze, and gilt finishes.

Post-1947 to 1996
In 1948, the annulus inscription changed to the Order of the Garter motto, aligning the badge with the British RAOC insignia. The riband continued to feature “Sua Tela Tonanti,” reinforcing the Corps’ heritage. Following Queen Elizabeth II’s ascension in 1952, the crown transitioned from the Tudor to St Edward’s design in 1955.

Despite its adaptations, the badge consistently reflected the legacy of ordnance service and its alignment with Commonwealth traditions.

Origins of the “Mark of Shame” myth

The Crimean War (1853–1856) exposed the deep inefficiencies in Britain’s military logistics system, highlighting outdated practices and a lack of preparedness for the demands of modern warfare. Two key organisations, the Board of Ordnance and the Commissariat, bore much of the responsibility for the logistical failures.

British artillery battery at Sebastopol by William Simpson, 1855. A colonel commented that a contemporary illustration depicted them ‘dressed as we ought to be, not as we are … we’ve neither the huts, fur hats, boots or anything in the picture’.- This image is available from the United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID ppmsca.05697.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Commons :Licensing., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=26750110

The Board of Ordnance

The Board of Ordnance supplied arms, ammunition, and engineering materials for the war effort. Despite its critical role, the organisation struggled to meet the logistical demands of a large-scale conflict. Inefficient bureaucratic structures, outdated procurement practices, and poor coordination led to frequent delays in delivering essential supplies. While the Board’s shortcomings were significant, they were primarily operational and less visible to the public compared to the more immediate failures of the Commissariat.

Board of Ordnance device, the Tower of London.Image source: en.wikipedia.org

The Commissariat

The Commissariat, responsible for providing troops with food, transport, and general supplies, faced far harsher criticism. Its inability to move resources effectively from ports to the front lines resulted in devastating consequences for the soldiers. Supplies rotted in warehouses while troops endured starvation, disease, and exposure. The lack of transport infrastructure, poor organisation, and insufficient planning paralysed operations compounded the suffering of the already overburdened military.

Watercolour, ‘Commissariat Difficulties: scene during the Crimean War, 1854-1856’, by William Simpson, Crimea, 1854. https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O600580/commissariat-difficulties-scene-during-the-watercolour-simpson-william-ri/

Public outrage in Britain intensified as reports of soldiers’ hardships reached home, fuelled by media coverage and the accounts of figures like Florence Nightingale. The troops’ suffering became a national scandal, tarnishing the Commissariat’s reputation and prompting demands for reform.

Myth: The “Mark of Shame”

The Ordnance Board badge shield design, featuring three cannons and three oversized cannonballs, has long been the subject of a persistent myth. This rumour claims that the badge symbolises a logistical blunder by the Board of Ordnance during the Crimean War. Allegedly, the Board failed to supply the correct ammunition to the Artillery.[1] As a result, the cannonballs in the Ordnance Arms were deliberately depicted out of proportion to the guns. According to the myth, this exaggerated design was adopted as a permanent “mark of disgrace,” inherited by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) as a lasting reminder of that failure—a supposed “mark of shame.”[2]

Debunking the Myth: The Ordnance Badge and the Crimean War

The persistent myth linking the Ordnance badge to a logistical blunder during the Crimean War lacks any historical basis. In reality, the badge’s design predates the war by centuries, and its elements have no connection to the events or failures of that conflict.

  • Historical Origins: The three cannons and cannonballs featured on the shield were associated with the Board of Ordnance as early as the 15th century. The shield motif was formally adopted as part of the Board’s Coat of Arms in 1823, decades before the Crimean War.
The Board of Ordnance’s service to the Nation and the esteem in which they were held by successive Governments was recognised by the grant of Armorial Bearing in 1806; the grant was confirmed in
1823.
  • Design Practicality: The oversized cannonballs were deliberately designed to ensure visibility on small badges and insignia. If drawn to scale, the cannonballs would be too small to be discernible, making them impractical for use in such contexts.[3]

While the Crimean War exposed significant logistical shortcomings in Britain’s military system, including failures by the Board of Ordnance and the Commissariat, no evidence links these issues to the Ordnance badge. Its central elements reflect centuries of heraldic tradition rather than a supposed “mark of shame.” Far from symbolising failure, the badge is a proud emblem of the Corps’ enduring heritage and operational contributions.

Broader Impact

The logistical failures of the Crimean War had far-reaching consequences for Britain’s military system. The shortcomings of the Board of Ordnance and the Commissariat underscored the need for modernisation and led to sweeping reforms after the war. The Board of Ordnance was disbanded in 1855, and its responsibilities were transferred to the newly established War Office, while the Commissariat underwent significant restructuring to improve its efficiency. These reforms marked the beginning of a transition toward more centralised and streamlined military logistics.[4]

A Legacy of Service

On 17 July 1896, Queen Victoria granted royal approval for the Ordnance Arms to be used by the Army Ordnance Department and Army Ordnance Corps as their official Regimental Badges. The Corps considered this recognition a great honour.[5]

The badge’s adoption by Commonwealth nations—including Canada, Australia, India, and New Zealand—further underscores its historical and operational significance. Myths such as the so-called “Mark of Shame” misrepresent the badge’s true meaning and detract from its rich legacy.

Conclusion

The New Zealand Ordnance Badge reflects centuries of heraldic tradition and military significance, celebrating the Corps’ enduring commitment to supporting its nation’s defence. Unlike the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC), which, on its formation in 1993, incorporated elements from each of its antecedent corps’ badges—including the Ordnance shield—into its new emblem, the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) took a markedly different approach, on its formation in 1996, the RNZALR distanced itself from the legacies of its antecedent corps and adopted a badge of entirely new design—a clean slate symbolising a fresh start.

While the RLC chose to honour the combined heritage of its predecessor corps, the RNZALR’s decision to forge a unique identity reflected a desire to mark a new era for logistics within the New Zealand Defence Force. Nevertheless, the New Zealand Ordnance Badge is a proud emblem of excellence and adaptation, aligned with New Zealand’s military history. Far from symbolising failure, it underscores the Corps’ significant contributions to the defence of its nation and highlights its capacity for evolution and resilience.


Notes

[1] “Is the ‘mark of shame’ rumour about the RLC and the RAOC true?,” Army History, 2023, accessed 28 January, 2025, https://www.forcesnews.com/heritage/army-history/mark-shame-rumour-true-about-rlc-and-raoc.

[2] “The Crimean Mark of Disgrace,” Ordnance Insignia of the British Army, History & Arms of the Board of Ordnance (Ordnance Board), 2004, https://www.wargm.org/WASC/Files/wasc_2322_00.pdf.

[3] Comerford, “The Crimean Mark of Disgrace.”

[4] Brigadier A.H Fernyhough C.B.E. M.C., A short history of the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (London: RAOC, 1965).

[5] Comerford, “The Crimean Mark of Disgrace.”


The Evolution of Helmets in the New Zealand Army

“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.


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

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

Establishment and Early Developments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Downturn and Military Reorganisation

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

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

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

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

Northern Military District

  • 948. Lieutenant Michael Joseph Lyons, MSM

  • 968 Sergeant Thomas Alexander Hunter, MSM

  • 62 Private Frank Jewiss

  • 166 Sergeant William John Rabbidge

  • 268 Staff Quartermaster Sergeant James Alexander Kenning

  • Captain Frank Edwin Ford

Central Military District

  • 19 Sergeant Alfred Charles Butler    

  • 39 Corporal Simon Alexander Fraser

  • 64 Gunner Maurice Francis Johnstone          

  • 111 Corporal John Sawyer   

  •  920 Corporal Gordon James Francis Arenas 

  • 941 Sergeant William Hans McIlraith         

  •  956 Staff Sergeant Saddler George Alexander Carter, MSM

  • 960 Sergeant Frank William Ching

  • 965 Corporal Philip Alexander MacKay MSM

  • 976 Private William Valentine Wood MSM

  • 978 Corporal Earnest John Williams MSM

  • 1018 Sargeant Major James Oliver Pringle Southgate           

  • 1024 Armament-Artificer Eric Wallace Jepson       

  •  Lieutenant L.A Clement

  • Captain Alfred William Baldwin

  • Captain William Moody Bell

  • 55 Staff Quartermaster Sergeant John Francis Hunter MSM

  • 143 Armament Sergeant Major (WO1) Joseph Warren

  • 995 Staff Sergeant Wilfred Robert White

Southern Military District

  • 2 Armament Staff Quartermaster Sergeant John Alexander Adamson MSM

  • 1006 Lance Corporal Norman William Wilkie

  • Corporal Cecil John Knight

  • Captain Arthur Rumbold Carter White

  • 966 Lance Corporal William Terrington Popple, MSM

Transition to Civilian Roles

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

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

Northern Military District

  • 967 Corporal Robert John Gamble

  • 974 Corporal Henry William Le Comte

  • 983 Sergeant Clifford Verne Little

  • 996 Lance Corporal Athol Gilroy McCurdy

  • 202 Lance Corporal Arthur Graham Munday

Central Military District

  • 972 Private John Dennis Anderson   

  • 35 Lance Corporal Harry Harper Ekins        

  • 1061 Lance Corporal Earnest Fenton

  • 4 Sergeant Kenneth Olaf John Andersen     

  •  699 Corporal Oliver Avis, MM

  • 889 Staff Sergeant George Bagnell   

  • 1004 Lance Corporal James Johnston Bolt  

  • 961 Lance Corporal Edgar Charles Boult     

  • 1000 Private George Cumming Bremner      

  • 1027 Artificer William Cowan Brizzle         

  • 1003 Lance Corporal Ernest Carr      

  • 1012 Lance Corporal Charles Fred Ecob      

  • 864 Corporal William Charles Francis          

  • 1025 Tent-Repairer-Artificer Herbert Roy Griffin   

  • 714 Lance Corporal Kenneth Hoare  

  • 1016 Private Ernest William Hughes            

  • 989 Corporal Percy Reuben Hunter  

  • 213 Lance Corporal William Saul Keegan   

  • 1019 Private Edward Gavin Lake     

  • 342 Corporal Allen Charles Leighton

  • 998 Lance Corporal Allen Dudley Leighton 

  • 1011 Lance Corporal Geoffrey Charles Leighton     

  • 363 Staff Sergeant David Llewellyn Lewis, MSM

  • 1007 Lance Corporal Thomas James Mclaughlin     

  • 1020 Private John Douglas Melville 

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

  • 1023 Lance Corporal John Nixon      

  • 467 Corporal George Wantford Pamment    

  • 1013 Private Francis Reid     

  • 1022 Private Henry McKenzie Reid 

  • 1014 Wheeler-Artificer Robert Stacey Vincent Rowe              

  • 665 Private William Alexander Sammons    

  • 927 Private Leonard William Sanders           

  • 963 Corporal Albert Edward Shadbolt          

  • 138 Lance Corporal David Henry Strickland

  • 1017 Private Lionel Herbert Stroud  

Southern Military District

  • 970 Sergeant Edward Vincent Coleman

  • 1028 Private Percival Nowell Erridge

  • 959 Sergeant Charles Edward Gleeson

  • 1276 Private Lewis Haslett

  • 885 Corporal Charles James Johnston Storie

  • 728 Private William Sampson Valentine

Impact on Military Preparedness and Social Consequences

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

Northern Military District

  • 984 Staff Sergeant Thomas Joseph Holliday

  • 1260 Armament Staff Quartermaster Sergeant Samuel Thomson MSM

  • 915 Armament Staff Sergeant Eric John Hunter

  • 141 Armourer Corporal Reginald Samuel Henry Lyons

Central Military District

  • 14 Armament Sergeant Major Bertram  Buckley           

  • 992 Armament Corporal Hilliard Charles Cooper

  • 1029 Artificer James  Dabney          

  •  964 Warrant Officer Class 1 John William Dalton

  • 1032 Armourer Staff Sergeant Frederick Henry Dew

  • 979 Armourer Staff Sergeant John William Evers

  • 1026 Armament Sergeant Leo Stanley Jefcoate

  • Major Thomas Joseph King

  • 945 WO2 Armament SQMS Henry Albert Wiliam Pierard

  • 1021 Armament Staff Sergeant Arthur Sydney Richardson

  • 1010 Lance Corporal George Frederick Robert Ware

Southern Military District

  • 7 Corporal Percey Charles Austin

  • 25 Armourer Staff Sargeant Francis Augustus Clapshaw

  • Lieutenant Henry Erridge Erridge

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

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

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

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

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

Negative Effects and Lessons Learned

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

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

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

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


Notes

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

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

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


From Volunteer to Territorial: The Evolution of Field Cooking in New Zealand’s Military 1908-1915

The history of field cooking in New Zealand’s military from the 19th to the early 20th centuries showcases a journey marked by resilience, ingenuity, and progress. Initially, the New Zealand military relied on the sometimes-questionable ability of regimental cooks, who managed to provide sustenance for the troops despite adverse conditions and makeshift equipment. However, the need for more efficient cooking solutions became apparent as the military evolved into a Territorial Force.

The introduction of mobile field kitchens, inspired by innovations such as Karl Rudolf Fissler’s “Goulash Cannon,” represented a significant advancement. Nonetheless, the ingenuity of a New Zealand Territorial Officer truly revolutionised New Zealand Military field cooking with the creation of the “Salamander” cooker. Renowned for its remarkable efficiency and versatility, this cooker enabled the preparation of large quantities of food with minimal fuel consumption.

Initially compared to other models from England, like the Lune Valley and Sykes cookers, the Salamander’s superior efficiency, fuel economy, and suitability for New Zealand’s unique conditions quickly set it apart. The New Zealand Defence Department’s subsequent procurement of additional units underscored the Salamander cooker’s pivotal role in New Zealand’s military catering capabilities.

Although the outbreak of World War I shifted priorities, the innovations and lessons from this period laid a crucial foundation for New Zealand’s future military logistics and catering practices. This commitment to enhancing soldiers’ conditions through improved field cooking solutions highlights New Zealand’s dedication to adaptability and innovation in military operations.

Volunteer to Territorial

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, participants in New Zealand’s volunteer encampments relied heavily on the unwavering dedication of regimental cooks for their sustenance. Undeterred by the elements, these cooks operated makeshift camp kitchens, often little more than shallow trenches dug into the ground over which they balanced pots and pans. Despite the challenges of these temporary structures, which required significant setup and operation time, the cooks persevered. Meals, though taking up to four hours to prepare, were a testament to their resourcefulness and commitment.

Efforts to create mobile, horse-drawn kitchens had been ongoing, with one of the earliest and most successful examples being designed in the late 1800s by a young German named Karl Rudolf Fissler. Fascinated by steam engines, Fissler developed the Feldkochherd or Feldküche by 1892, a mobile field kitchen with a unique boiler system. This innovation, quickly nicknamed the “Goulash Cannon” or ‘Gulaschkanone’ due to the furnace tube’s resemblance to a cannon barrel, allowed for the preparation of complete menus. Inspired by Fissler’s invention, France and England soon created their own versions of the Goulash Cannon.

As New Zealand’s military transitioned from a volunteer force to a Territorial Force, the lessons from the war in South Africa remained fresh. The importance of not only ammunition supply but also the supply of hot rations was crucial, as it could be the deciding factor in morale and battle effectiveness.[1] This ensured that the quest for more efficient methods of sustaining troops remained a priority. Initially looking to England for solutions, New Zealand ultimately developed a local alternative. This homegrown innovation propelled the nation to the forefront of field cooking technology, demonstrating its commitment to improving its military personnel’s conditions and its ability to adapt and innovate.

The early Territorial years

The Defence Act of 1909 disbanded the existing volunteer forces and established the Territorial Force, supported by conscription. A pivotal moment in this reform came with the appointment of Major General Alexander Godley as Commandant of the New Zealand Military Forces in December 1910. Under his leadership, the military’s organisational structure was revitalised, and key command and staff appointments were made. As the army reorganised, it became clear that a modern catering system was necessary to support the large numbers of men entering camps and training together. To manage the procurement and distribution of rations, the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) was officially designated as a unit of the Territorial Force on 12 May 1910. However, the responsibility for cooking rations remained with the regimental cooks.

Regimental cooks in the latter part of the 19th century and early 20th century were masters of improvised field cooking. They were skilled at building a remarkable range of makeshift field stoves and ovens, using wood, oil or coal for fuel. They prepared meals in Aldershot ovens and trenches, or makeshift walls constructed from bricks mortared with mud, using frying pans, 8 and 20-gallon boilers, and camp kettles.

The Camp Kettle, or “Dixie”, A Long-Serving Field-Cooking Implement

The camp kettle, more commonly known in British Army usage as the “dixie”, was one of the most enduring pieces of military field-cooking equipment. Long before the appearance of mobile cookers and travelling kitchens, it provided a simple and robust means of boiling food, heating water, carrying cooked rations, and serving meals in camp or in the field. Its continued appearance in New Zealand Defence reports and camp-equipment returns reflected its practical value. It was not a sophisticated item, but it was one of the basic implements on which regimental cooking depended.

The standard British pattern was an oval, lidded vessel of about three gallons capacity, fitted with a bail handle so that it could be carried or suspended over a fire. Earlier examples were generally made of tinned iron or tinned sheet metal, while later examples were made from aluminium. The lid increased its usefulness, as it could be used as a frying pan, platter, or serving tray. In this form the camp kettle was not merely a cooking pot, but a multi-purpose field implement suited to the realities of camp and campaign life.

Example of a Camp Kettle held by the NZ Army Museum. © 2026 National Army Museum Te Mata Toa

In practice, camp kettles sat at the centre of the older system of improvised field cookery. They could be used in trenches, over open fires, alongside Aldershot ovens, or with makeshift field kitchens formed from earth, brick, or scrap material. They were particularly suited to boiled meals such as stews, curries, soups, vegetables, tea water, and other hot rations that could be prepared in bulk and served into soldiers’ mess tins. Their portability also allowed cooked food to be moved forward from the cookhouse or field kitchen to troops who could not easily return to the kitchen area.

Example of a Camp Kettle lid held by the NZ Army Museum. © 2026 National Army Museum Te Mata Toa

The importance of the camp kettle lay in its adaptability. It could cook, carry, reheat, and serve. This made it a bridge between the improvised camp kitchens of the Volunteer period and the more formalised cooking systems of the Territorial era. Even after the adoption of Salamander, Lune Valley, Sykes, and Imperial Pattern travelling cookers, camp kettles remained necessary. The new cookers improved efficiency, fuel economy, and mobility, but they did not remove the need for simple vessels in which food and hot water could be handled at unit level.

For New Zealand’s military, the camp kettle therefore represents continuity within a period of change. The move towards purpose-built field cookers from 1912 onwards marked a major advance in military catering, but it rested on an older foundation of basic camp equipment, practical cookery skill, and adaptable implements. The camp kettle was one of those quiet constants, a practical item that had served from the nineteenth century and remained in use well into the mid-twentieth century.

In October 1912, forty-seven candidates from the Territorial Army were selected for an intensive month-long training course at Trentham to improve the standard of cooking across the New Zealand Forces. This pioneering course covered kitchen work and cooking techniques suitable for field conditions, including practical exercises. Although these methods were effective, they were also time-consuming, required considerable effort from the cooks, and were static and unsuitable for an army on the march.

Single Filed Oven (Aldershot Oven) School of Cookery Camp, Trentham 1912. Joseph Zachariah, DONZ Collection
Long trenches with camp kettles and hot plate. School of Cookery Camp, Trentham 1912. Joseph Zachariah, DONZ Collection

In March 1911, a mobile cooking solution was proposed to New Zealand when Wellington engineering firm Richardson Blair and McCabe Limited, the sole New Zealand agents for the Lune Valley Engineering Company of Lancaster, England, sent a copy of the 1910 Lune Valley Portable Field Cooker catalogue to James O’Sullivan, the New Zealand Director of Military Stores. O’Sullivan then forwarded it to the Quartermaster General (QMG) for consideration. A year later, in March 1912, Richardson Blair and McCabe Limited followed up with the 1911 Lune Valley Engineering catalogue. The QMG acknowledged receipt on 12 March 1912, noting that the catalogue’s contents had been reviewed and would be considered should the Defence Department require any of the items listed.[2]  Although the New Zealand military seemed uninterested in cooking technologies, officers posted to England noted the latest innovations, which they used to develop a broad user requirement for the New Zealand Military Forces.

While attending Staff College at Camberley in 1912, Major George Spafford Richardson of the New Zealand Staff Corps (NZSC) submitted a report regarding field cooking ovens to the New Zealand Government. Richardson noted the advanced cooking arrangements at various Territorial Camps, attributing the improvement mainly to the quality of ovens. One such oven, observed with the Berks Yeomanry, particularly caught his attention — the ‘Tortoise oven,’ capable of cooking for 600 men. Its lightweight and portability, even during marches, impressed Richardson, who advocated for similar ovens in New Zealand.

Tortoise Field Cooking Ovens for Camp purposes, No 3. Archives New Zealand R11096710 Cooking equipment – Cooking ovens as used by Imperial troops re – Obtaining for use in New Zealand

On 15 August 1912, Major Richardson’s report reached the New Zealand Defence Department, prompting Major General Godley to recommend to Cabinet the acquisition of 16 ‘Tortoise Ovens’ for the Territorial Force’s Annual Training Camps. This proposal was swiftly approved on 7 September 1912, with £480 allocated for the purchase.

To expedite the acquisition process, a cable instructing the procurement of the ovens was dispatched from the Prime Minister’s office to the High Commissioner in London on 9 September. Major Richardson was tasked with determining the specific requirements, reaching out to Major Lewis Rose of the Berkshire Yeomanry for details on the ovens mentioned in his report.  By 14 October 1916, Major Rose confirmed his regiment’s use of Portway’s Portable ovens, No 3, and expressed satisfaction with their performance. He provided Richardson with the manufacturer’s contact information and a catalogue.

Informed by Major Rose’s feedback, Richardson told the High Commissioner that the ‘Tortoise Ovens’ were suitable for stationary camps and marches. He cautioned against considering a wheeled cooker currently undergoing British army trials, citing its limited utility and advising awaiting improvements. Subsequently, on 18 October, Tortoise Stove Works of Halstead Essex submitted a quotation for 16 Tortoise Field Cooking Ovens, No 3, with five shelves, at a total cost of £441.13.9. They offered to conduct final inspections within six weeks of acceptance, facilitating onward delivery to New Zealand.

Despite his preferences, Richardson conceded that he would like Colonel Alfred William Robin to inspect the ovens before making any purchase decision. Colonel Robin was New Zealand’s most experienced officer at the time. He had served as a volunteer since 1878, and in September 1899, he was commissioned into the New Zealand permanent forces. Notably, he commanded the first New Zealand contingent to South Africa. In December 1906, Robin was appointed to the newly established Council of Defence as Chief of the General Staff, becoming the first colonial to hold the country’s highest military position. Upon Godley’s appointment as the commandant of the New Zealand Forces, Robin assumed the role of adjutant and QMG.

In February 1912, Robin became the New Zealand representative on the Imperial General Staff at the War Office in London. During this time, he actively participated in discussions regarding training dominion forces. Additionally, he studied ordnance, administrative services, and the movement of troops by land and sea.[3]  Moreover, Robin prepared a mobilisation scheme for dominion territorial forces as part of his duties. His extensive experience and expertise made him an asset in military matters, including evaluating equipment such as ovens.

Concurrent with Richardson’s reports, Robin thoroughly evaluated cookers and travelling kitchens and their suitability for use by the New Zealand Forces. In a report sent to Headquarters New Zealand Forces on 15 November 1912, Robin identified five classes of cookers and travelling kitchens for evaluation purposes during his investigation of field cookers.

  • Class 1 – Cookers or Kitchens carried on “General Service” or Forage wagon, cooking while on the march.
  • Class 2 – Cookers, Stove or ovens for cooking while in camp, but not adapted to cook on the march.
  • Class 3 – Travelling Kitchens on special vehicles, either limbered or on a single wagon, cooking while on the march.
  • Class 4 – Cookers or Kitchens above named using oil or paraffin as a fuel.
  • Class 5 – Cookers or Kitchens above named using wood, coal, coke or any consumable material as fuel.

Based on these classes, Robin summarised his report and his findings as follows.

  1. If to burn Oil Fuel, should not be sent to New Zealand.
  2. If not suitable for cooking on the march, but only for fixed camps. What space and weight are they for Transport purposes?
  3. There are several reputable firms in New Zealand that make all classes of fixed stoves and ranges. These could be made in New Zealand, suitable to local conditions at less cost and saving freight from England.
  4. Are cooking utensils included in the cost?
  5. How many men will No 3, as per tender, cook for?
  6. These stoves are excellent for Officers and Non-Commissioned Officers Mess at Yeomanry and Territorial Camps, where even the rank and file are catered for as if in a hotel. Here, for roast purposes, they may cook for 250, but in New Zealand, where men consume more than double the quantity of meat, their capacity would only be half at most of the above.
  7. Such stoves or cookers are not a government issue. Regiments buy for themselves.
  8. Robins’s main contention was that New Zealand could best produce cookers for fixed camps.

Robin recommended against the ‘Tortoise Ovens,’ stating that while they were suitable for specific cooking tasks, they fell short of meeting New Zealand’s requirements. Instead, he proposed considering either the War Office pattern Traveling kitchen, which was still under development, or a similar piece of equipment developed by Captain Arthur Sykes, Quartermaster of the Princess Victoria (Royal Irish Fusiliers). In Robin’s opinion, both options offered excellent features that better suited New Zealand’s needs.[4]

As Robin’s reports underwent analysis by the Defence Staff in Wellington, attention turned to the impending Brigade camps. A December 1912 inventory of camp equipment revealed a shortage of cooking implements across all districts. Consequently, the QMG instructed the Director of Equipment and Store to seek quotations for 43 Aldershot Cooking Ovens with dishes.[5] The distribution plan allocated 12 ovens to each of the Auckland, Canterbury, and Otago Districts, with seven designated for the Wellington district. One Aldershot oven (comprising two parts with two ends) and one baking dish were dispatched from Wellington to each district as samples to facilitate the process. Additionally, quotation forms were provided to enable each district to obtain quotations from local manufacturers. However, due to some local innovation initiated by Lieutenant James Ferdinand Groom Roberts, the Quartermaster of the 5th Wellington Regiment, the requirement and request for tenders were premature and were cancelled in February 1913.[6]

The Salamander Cooker

An engineer draftsman by trade, Roberts possessed extensive military experience, including eight years of service in the 2nd Royal Warwick Volunteer Regiment in the United Kingdom, followed by service in the 1st Battalion Wellington Rifles since 1909. In February 1912, he assumed the role of Quartermaster of the 5th Wellington Regiment. Amidst his varied responsibilities as Battalion Quartermaster and later as Brigade and Coast Defence Supply Officer, Roberts dedicated considerable thought to improving the regimental kitchen. His aim was to create a solution that could efficiently boil the billy while on the march, ensuring that meals could be promptly served when the regiment halted.

To meet these objectives, Roberts sought to develop a solution that was lightweight, sturdy, fuel-efficient, powerful in cooking capabilities, simple to construct, and, above all, mobile. After careful consideration and planning, and concurrent with Richardsons and Robins’s examination of field catering solutions in England, Roberts unveiled his prototype to the Defence Force on 8 November 1912.

With tables set with black-handled knives and forks, enamel plates and mugs, jars of jam, stacks of butter, and loaves of bread, the aroma emanating from Roberts’ Camp Stove tantalised the hungry men, heightening their anticipation for the forthcoming meal. Typically, a meal in a camp setting could take up to four hours to prepare, including the time needed to construct the oven. However, the self-contained cooker that Roberts demonstrated proved remarkably efficient. In just one and a half hours, it produced a meal for an audience of 300. This efficiency was further underscored by the stove’s ability to achieve such results using only one hundred-weight of coal (equivalent to 50kg) while still preparing an impressive array of food consisting of;

  • Three carcases of mutton
  • 120lbs of fore-quarter beef (approximately 55kg)
  • 45lb of silversides (about 20kg)
  • Potatoes
  • Onions

Additionally, it kept 75 gallons (approximately 340 litres) of water boiling. Remarkably, the stove still had the capacity to accommodate another carcase of mutton for roasting easily and steamed two more pots of vegetables.[7]

The demonstration at the Buckle Street Drill Hall was well received, prompting further testing of the cooker in its mobile configuration. This test took place from 29 November to 1 December 1912, during which H Company (Victoria College) of the 5th Regiment embarked on a three-day trek through the hills east of Wellington under field conditions. When the company reached South Makara, dinner consisted of a clear soup, roast beef and mutton, boiled vegetables, boiled plum duff, and jam roll. Other meals throughout the weekend were similarly elaborate and easily digestible, demonstrating the usefulness of Roberts’ cooker.[8]

Roberts 2a Oven (Travelling) for 250 Men. Archives New Zealand R22432833 Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling

Marketed as the “Salamander”, Robert’s cooker was a marvel of simplicity and efficiency, ingeniously utilising every inch of space. Half of each side was a water reservoir, each tank holding approximately 40 gallons (181 litres). These reservoirs provided boiling water for tea and helped retain the oven’s heat. The front halves house the ovens, while on top are the steamers, resembling kerosene tins placed lengthwise in wire baskets. Potatoes and vegetables are steamed with hot water poured in, generating steam for cooking.

The process of cooking a large meal with the cooker was fascinating to observe. After filling the water reservoirs and lighting the fire, the oven was brought to the required heat in about 20 minutes. Then, trays of meat were placed inside the ovens, and pans of peeled potatoes went into the steamers. The cook’s role then mainly involved stoking the fire and occasionally checking the meat until the meal was ready, ensuring everything was cooked simultaneously.

An advantage of the cooker is its ability to prepare everything simultaneously. Thanks to the heat generated by the boiling water in the tank, preparations can be made in the morning before moving off, and the meal can be cooked as the vehicle travels.

The cooker was designed to be versatile, allowing it to be operated in various setups. It could function either dismounted in a standing kitchen, mounted on a GS Trailer in its mobile configuration, or in its most common arrangement, akin to a field gun and limber. In this configuration, the cooker replaces the gun, while the limber portion houses large food storage compartments capable of carrying up to 250 pounds (113kgs) of meat, 150 gallons (680 Litres) of water, along with provisions such as potatoes, tea, coffee, and cocoa.

When unlimbering, the limber was detached from the cooker wagon with a king bolt and split pin. A strut was then extended from under the second carriage to keep it upright. The cooker stood with its funnel facing forward, protected by a screen against cold winds. Union bolts secured the cooker in position, and footboards allowed the cook to access and operate the oven doors easily.

Behind the cooker, ample floor space allows the chef to work comfortably. Fuel storage boxes were located underneath the rear of the carriage, accessible through floor lids. Every aspect of the cooker was designed to facilitate the cook’s tasks, with easy access to all parts, even while travelling. The detachability of the limber offers advantages such as adjusting to changing wind directions and easy mobility in search of provisions. Both carriages are mounted on sturdy springs for a smooth ride, and the cooker carriage is equipped with a ratchet brake for stability on slopes.[9]

Acknowledging the diverse needs of the military and the necessity to accommodate units of various sizes, the Salamander was available in the following sizes with all models, including transport cart, larder, tank and fuel bunker:[10]

NoTo Cook forApprox WeightNotes
0201 cwt (50kg)Without boiler
0a201 cwt (50kg)With boiler
1a402 cwt (101kg)With boiler
1b6021/2 cwt (127kg)With boiler
1c1003 cwt (152kg)With boiler
1d1504 cwt (203kg)With boiler
22005 cwt (254kg)With boiler
2a25051/2 cwt (279kg)With boiler
33006 cwt (304kg)With boiler
3a4007 cwt (355kg)With boiler
45009 cwt (457kg)With boiler
5100013 cwt (660kg)With boiler
Roberts No 4 (Stationary) for 250 Men. Archives New Zealand R22432833 Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling

Headquarters of New Zealand’s Military Forces were impressed with the Salamander cookers and supported by Richardsons and Robin’s reports on developments in the United Kingdom, where units could procure items like field cookers using Regimental funds, General Godley authorised New Zealand units to purchase Salamander cookers under the same arrangement, an option which the 10th Mounted Rifles Regiment took up and acquired their own Salamander cooker.  To support the Brigade camps planned for the next Easter, the Defence Department purchased 24 No 4 (500man) Salamander cookers in early 1913.[11]

The initial purchase of 24 Salamander stoves were issued on the proportion of two per regiment in preparation for the Easter Brigade Camps at Cambridge, Oringi, Yaldhurst and Matarae. These proved to be a resounding success, enabling regimental cooking to be carried out in more favourable circumstances. An additional benefit was that the Salamander cookers provided savings in labour and fuel. The savings in fuel were substantial enough to pay for the initial purchase of the cookers, leading to the recommendation that additional cookers be purchased for subsequent camps.[12]

From May 1913, Roberts undertook a series of visits to Australia to demonstrate his ovens. He provided demonstrations to Australian Officers and Quartermasters, including Colonel Selheim QMG, Colonel Dangar, Chief of Ordnance, Captain Marsh, Director of Supplies and Transport, Major Forsyth, Director of Equipment, and Mr Pethebridge, Secretary for Defence, who all expressed their satisfaction at the completeness and success of the “kitchen.”[13]

Roberts Cooker Mounted on GS Wagon for Australian Trials

With interest in the Salamander oven growing, Roberts registered the Salamander Filed Cooker Company (Australasia) in March 1913 with a capital of £3600 in £1 shares and began marketing his range of cookers not only to the New Zealand and Australian Militaries but also as a solution for railway work, contractors, shearers and flax millers’ camps, and even race meetings.[14]

As Roberts developed the Salamander cooker, this was parallel to work undertaken in Australia by Boer War veteran James F. Wiles of Ballarat. Wiles had joined the 7th Australian Infantry Regiment in 1903 and, during his time with this regiment, determined that the cooking system in the field needed improvement. This led him to invent and patent the Wiles Travelling Kitchen and enter competition with Roberts in the Australian market.

Following the success of the Salamander cookers during the 1913 Camps, an additional 11 No 4 (500 Man) and 16 2a (250 man) Salamander cookers were obtained and distributed to all the military districts with the distribution in May 1914 been;

  • No 4 (500 Man)
  • Auckland -9
  • Wellington – 10
  • Canterbury – 8
  • Otago – 8
  • No 2a (250 man)
  • Auckland -4
  • Wellington – 4
  • Canterbury – 4
  • Otago – 4[15]

A course of instruction conducted in October 1913, attended by sixty-two territorial soldiers, included training on the Salamander Cooker along with traditional methods.

During the 1914 camps, the Salamander cookers enabled regimental cooking to be carried out under more favourable conditions and again ensured considerable labour and fuel savings. The Salamanders also eliminated the need to provision for large numbers of camp ovens, frying pans, and boilers, the stock of which would have required considerable augmentation due to much of the pre-1914 stock having become unserviceable from past usage.

Providing an additional capability to the Salamanders were two Lune Valley travelling cookers that had been imported using Regimental funds by the 9th (Wellington East Coast) Mounted Rifles. A Sykes travelling cooker from England had also been received from England and allotted to the mounted brigade for the 1914 Takapau camp. [16]

Lune Valley Field Cooker for 500 Men. Archives New Zealand R24764956 Lune Valley Engineering Company, Lancaster – Portable field cooker

Resuming his appointment as QMG on his return from England, Robin requested that the three types of cookers (Roberts, Lune Valley and Sykes) be placed in competition during the Takapau Camp and reported on by a Board of Officers from the Army Service, Medical and Veterinary Corps. For the report, Robins’s terms of reference that the board of offices was to report on were;

  • Haulage and state of horses etc.
  •  Consumption of fuel per day or meal.
  • Nature of meals cooked, viz stews, Boils, Roast, Vegetables etc. and state when cooked.
  • Time of cooking, and if meals are ready at times ordered.
  • General suitability of the vehicle for NZ Conditions, weight per horse, the width of the track, if suited to road track, if considered strong enough for continued work, or vehicle could be lightened.
  • Comparison as to ease, or otherwise, of issue of cooked meals, from the cooker to the Unit.
  • Facilities for carrying any cooked rations and groceries, supply of hot water. Is the stated capacity of each Cooker possible, ie, does a 250-man Cooker etc, actually cook that amount on a colonial ration?
  • Any other points notices.

On 9 May 1914, the board of officers assembled at Takapau Camp. The board consisted of:

  • President: Lt Col J Sandtmann, 9th (Wellington East Coast) Mounted Rifles
  • Members:
    • Captain N.C Hamilton, ASC
    • Major A.R Young, NZVC
    • Major P.R Cook, NZMC

The board inspected and evaluated the three types of cookers, weighing each type’s advantages and disadvantages. However, a full evaluation was not possible due to a shortage of cookers, which necessitated the reallocation of the trial Salamander cooker from the  Mounted Brigade to the kitchen of the 7th (Wellington West Coast) Regiment; additionally, severe weather conditions prevented the conduct of the planned travelling trial. Regardless of this, the board’s report was nonetheless submitted to Colonel Chaytor, the Commander of the Wellington Military District. It was incomplete but based on their best observations.

Of the three cookers evaluated, the board concluded that the Lune Valley oil-fed cooker best met New Zealand’s requirements for the following reasons:

  • Economy of fuel and labour.
  • Ease of carrying 48 hours supply of fuel on the vehicle itself.
  • Compactness.
  • Freedom from risk of spilling.
  • Routine absence of smoke.
  • Facilities for adjusting the degree of heat.
  • Repeated reliability of cooking.
  • Ease of cleaning.

Despite positive feedback on the Salamander cookers since their introduction in 1913, the board concluded that the Salamander travelling cooker was unsuitable due to its weight and the lack of a mechanism to prevent food from overcooking if troops were late for set mealtimes.

Although the Salamander cooker was not trialled at Takapau Camp in its travelling configuration, D (Mountain) Battery of the Field Artillery had used one during their April camp, which included a trek from Palmerston North to Wellington. They were satisfied with its performance, preparing meals of stews and roasts that were generally ready within one and a half hours of reaching camp. The battery used a mixture of coal and wood for fuel, finding wood more satisfactory than coal for heating.[17]

The test of War

Soldier using a field oven, Egypt. Ref: DA-00639 Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23078026

The declaration of war on 4 August 1914 and subsequent mobilisation shifted all efforts towards providing trained personnel for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force (NZEF). The NZASC expanded its role at home and as part of the NZEF, taking on responsibility for bakeries and butcheries. However, despite ensuring the provision of necessary food items to units, cooking remained the responsibility of each unit. Further, Salamander cookers were purchased for the main mobilisation camp soon established at Trentham; however, it is less certain if units of the NZEF departing for overseas service deployed with Salamander cookers. General Order 312, which detailed the composition and strength of the NZEF, only provided an allocation of General Service (GS) horse-drawn wagons for the use of regimental cooks.[18] By January 1915, it became clear that the New Zealand units encamped in Egypt required field cookers. The NZEF Headquarters in Egypt placed orders through the High Commissioner in London for eight Imperial Pattern cookers. These cookers, supplied by the Lune Engineering Company, were delivered directly to the NZEF in Egypt.

Roberts’ efforts to break into the Australian market in May 1913 proved somewhat successful. The Australian military, benevolent organisations (which then gifted the cookers to individual units), and commercial organisations such as railways, all purchased Salamander Cookers. However, Roberts’ biggest success came after several trials comparing the Salamander Cooker against the Sykes Travelling Kitchen and the Australian Wiles Travelling Kitchen. Roberts won a contract to supply 40 Salamander Cookers to the Australian military.

1st order of 40 Roberts Travelling Cookers for Australia. Archives New Zealand R22432833 Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling

In the spirit of Australian sportsmanship, James Wiles was not pleased with the initial trial results. He convinced the Australian authorities to conduct a second round of trials, which eventfully led to Wiles supplying over 300 of his travelling kitchens to the Australian military during the war.[19]

By May 1915, as new battalions were formed at Trentham, there was a strong desire to equip them as thoroughly as possible, including with travelling cookers. Feedback from the Australians on their Salamander cookers was positive, noting they were satisfactory for infantry use but had limited utility for mounted units.

Robin, now commanding New Zealand forces, strongly advocated for purchasing New Zealand-made equipment, believing it would benefit the units by allowing them to become accustomed to the cookers before deployment. However, the Takapau report still influenced the decision to recommend the Lune Valley Engineering product over the Salamander cooker. Additionally, eight Imperial Pattern cookers from Lune Valley Engineering were already in service with the NZEF in Egypt.

Given these factors, purchasing eight more Imperial Pattern Cookers from Lune Valley Engineering in England was approved. It must be noted that the Lune Valley Engineering Travelling cookers purchased from England in 1915 were manufactured to the Imperil Pattern standard. Not the same pattern as the Lune Valley Engineering cookers trailed in 1914. The main difference was that the cookers trailed in 1914 were oil-fired. In contrast, the Imperial Pattern cooers were multi-fuel and could be fired by wool, coal, or oil.

The Imperial Pattern Travelling Filed kitchen body consists of a rectangular-shaped steel frame covered with steel sheets. The kitchen included two 75-lb capacity Steel pots fitted with trunnion plates and pins that prevented spillage when travelling over rough ground. One steel frying pan fitted with handles was also provided for use when one of the pots was removed. The body was also fitted with two roasting or baking ovens fitted with baking tins; under each oven was a receptacle for drying green wood. It fitted with a central fire grate with two funnels that could be folded down for travelling. A shovel, rake, poker, lifting bar and stirring rake carried on buckets attached to each side of the body were also provided. A limber was also provided with an additional two stew pots and storage space for rations and condiments and could be used as a serving area.

Soldiers preparing food, 1000 yards of the front line, Colincamps, France. Ref: 1/2-013114-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23131784

The failure to support the New Zealand industry by adopting the Imperial Pattern Cooker was a wise decision for New Zealand regarding training and logistics. The NZEF’s main contributions to the war effort were an Infantry Division and a Mounted Brigade. Although these formations were small and primarily equipped similarly to their British and Imperial counterparts, their contribution and quality far exceeded their size. Unlike Australia and Canada, which had the mass and industrial capacity to field national-specific equipment, New Zealand did not have this luxury.

A Wellington Regiment’s field kitchen near the front line, World War I. Ref: 1/2-013518-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22696605

Roberts continued to supply cookers to the New Zealand Military throughout the war, equipping the numerous training camps, hospitals, and rehabilitation facilities necessary to support the war effort at home. However, his focus shifted from mobile kitchens to static ones. Following the war’s end in 1918 and the rapid demobilisation and reduction of forces in the interwar period, there was little need for new equipment until existing stockpiles were depleted. It is possible that some Roberts Salamander travelling cookers remained in use with New Zealand’s Territorial Regiments post-1919, but no evidence has been found to support this.

While Roberts’ Salamander Kitchen was an excellent product, it would have been logistically challenging to support it on the other side of the world during wartime. Suppose Roberts had had a few more years to market and improve his product, increase production output, or issue licences to overseas manufacturers. In that case, he might have achieved the same success as Wiles did in the 1940s with the Wiles Junior Field Kitchen, which was adopted by New Zealand in 1952 and remained in service until the 1980s.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the evolution of field cooking in New Zealand’s military from the 19th to the early 20th centuries reflects a remarkable journey of innovation, adaptation, and perseverance. Initially relying on the resourcefulness and commitment of regimental cooks, who worked under challenging conditions with makeshift equipment, the New Zealand military recognised the need for more efficient and practical solutions as they transitioned to a Territorial Force.

The introduction of mobile field kitchens, particularly inspired by Karl Rudolf Fissler’s “Goulash Cannon,” marked a significant advancement. However, New Zealand ultimately developed its own innovative solution with the “Salamander” cooker, designed by Lieutenant James Ferdinand Groom Roberts. This cooker showcased remarkable efficiency, versatility, and practicality, capable of quickly preparing large quantities of food with minimal fuel. Its success in various camps and demonstrations underscored its value and led to widespread adoption within the military.

Despite initial competition and comparisons with other cookers, such as the Lune Valley and Sykes models, the Salamander’s advantages in efficiency, fuel economy, and suitability for New Zealand’s conditions were evident. The Defence Department’s support and procurement of additional units further cemented its role in enhancing military catering capabilities.

The onset of World War I shifted priorities, yet the lessons learned and innovations developed during this period laid a foundation for future military logistics and catering practices. The dedication to improving soldiers’ conditions through better field cooking solutions exemplifies New Zealand’s commitment to adaptability and innovation in military operations.


Notes

[1] Clayton, A. (2013). Battlefield Rations: The Food Given to the British Soldier For Marching and Fighting 1900-2011, Helion.

[2] (1911). “Lune Valley Engineering Company, Lancaster – Portable field cooker.” Archives New Zealand Item No R24764956.

[3] O’Shea, P. (1966). “ Alfred William Robin.” Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Retrieved 2 June 2024, from https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/3r25/robin-alfred-william.

[4] (1912). “Cooking equipment – Cooking ovens as used by Imperial troops re – Obtaining for use in New Zealand.” Archives New Zealand Item No R11096710.

[5]  The Aldershot Oven comprised two sheets of iron, approximately 1500mm long, rolled into a semi-circular shape. Each sheet is reinforced on each end and in the middle with an iron bar riveted to it. One sheet is slightly larger than the other, with a lip that slips under the rim of the other sheet. The oven includes two semi-circular ends.  The Aldershot oven was a ‘ground oven’, in which the fire burns in the oven and must be raked out before the bread is put in. The bread is baked by the heat retained in the oven’s walls. (1910). Manual of military cooking, Prepared at the Army School of Cookery. London Printed under the authority of His Majesty’s Stationery Office by Harrison and sons.

[6] (1912). “Cooking equipment – Cooking ovens supply to be obtained locally.” Archives New Zealand Item No R11096711.

[7] (1912). Argentine Shipments. Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 114. Wellington.

[8] (1912). Territorials. Evening Post, Volume LXXXIV, Issue 133. Wellington.

[9] (1915). Travelling Cooker Operated in Camp. Herald No 12149(Melbourne, Vic). Melbourne, Vic.: 1.

[10] (1915). “Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling.” Archives New Zealand Item No R22432833.

[11] (1912). “Cooking equipment – Field cooking ovens – For use of units in camp or at manoeuvres.” Archives New Zealand Item No R11096715.

[12] (1913). “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.

[13] (1913). FEEDING AN ARMY. Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 – 1954). Melbourne, Vic.: 10.

[14] Initial shareholders were: J.F.G Roberts £1920, R St J Beere £600, E.W Hunt £300, J.S Barton £180, J.G Roach £180, J J Esson £180, A.S Henderson £120, J McIntosh £120.  (1913). Companies Registered. Evening Post, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 10. Wellington.

[15] O’Sullivan, J. (1914). “Report of the Director of Equipment & Stores for the year ending 31 March 1914.” Archives New Zealand Item No R22432126.

[16] (1914). “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the period 20 June 1913 to 25 June 1914.” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives.

[17] (1915). “Cookers – Field- Roberts travelling.” Archives New Zealand Item No R22432833.

[18] (1914). Troopships; Embarkation Orders; Daily Field States; and a large chart of ‘New Zealand Expeditionary Forces – Personnel’ as at 1 June 1915). Archives New Zealand Item ID R23486740. Wellington.

[19] (1915). THE CAMP COOKER QUESTION. Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 – 1954). Melbourne, Vic.: 6.


The Evolution of Army Catering in New Zealand (1845-1948)

“If you were an army cook on leave and met some of the troops accompanied by their girlfriends, wives or mothers, which would you rather hear them say: “There’s the chap who turns out the great meals I’ve told you about”; or, “That’s the bloke who murders good food?”

Question placed to trainee cooks by Sergeant-Cook Instructor Bourke (Paddy to all the camp) at Waikato Camp, 1942

Over the last two hundred years, the adage attributed to Napoleon, “An army marches on its stomach,” underscored the paramount importance of sustenance in military operations. In the annals of the New Zealand army, this principle has been diligently upheld, with meticulous attention paid to ensuring soldiers are well-fed, notwithstanding the challenges posed by varying locations and conditions. Establishing the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) units during the tumultuous periods of the First and Second World Wars is a testament to this commitment. NZASC units were principally charged with baking bread, butchering meat, and procuring and distributing fresh and packaged provisions to frontline units, playing a pivotal role in sustaining the morale and effectiveness of New Zealand forces during these conflicts. Even in more recent conflicts, such as those in Southeast Asia during the 1950s and 60s, New Zealand troops operated on ration scales notably more generous than their British counterparts, a testament to the nation’s dedication to the well-being of its service members. However, despite the recognition of logistical efforts in military history, a notable gap remains in the literature concerning the contributions of New Zealand Army cooks. While Julia Millen’s comprehensive work, Salute to Service: A History of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport, acknowledges the significance of Cooks from when they became part of the RNZASC in 1948, scant attention has been paid to the preceding 103 years, from 1865 to 1948.

This article draws upon primary sources and aims to redress this oversight by delving into the hitherto unexplored realm of New Zealand Army catering. By shedding light on the endeavours of these unsung culinary heroes, it seeks to enrich our understanding of the multifaceted efforts required to sustain a fighting force, thereby honouring their indispensable contributions to New Zealand’s military heritage.

Since the first New Zealand Militias were created in 1845, there was always a need to feed the militias when called out for service. Given the nature of Militia service and the fact that they would not serve far from their home location, their messing requirements would have been minimal. Some individuals would likely have been selected from within the ranks to collect any rations provided and prepare meals.

With the advent of the volunteer era in 1858, the New Zealand military became a mixed force of Infantry, Cavalry and artillery who, on occasion, would assemble for annual camps where units within a district would assemble and conduct combined training. While rations were paid through District Headquarters and Defence Stores, messing arrangements would be rudimentary, with men selected from within the ranks preparing the meals from the rations sourced from local vendors. This situation was mirrored in the Permanent Militia, which had staffed coastal defence forts and the military depot at Mount Cook in Wellington since the 1880s.

Clutha Mounted Rifles 1899. Camp Cooks. Hocken Collection.

During New Zealand’s involvement in the war in South Africa, the issue of messing arose as large numbers of mobilising men were stationed in camps. Messing arrangements involved a combination of civilian contractors and regimental cooks. However, an inquiry into soldiers’ comfort, housing, and victualling at the Newtown Park Camp and Volunteer Billets revealed widespread dissatisfaction. Numerous complaints were lodged regarding the quality and quantity of rations provided, the low standard, and, at times, the lack of meals prepared by contractors and regimental cooks.[1] In South Africa, rations, following the British scale, were supplied by the British Army Service Corps (ASC), supplemented by fresh mutton acquired from the enemy and cooked by members of the contingent.[2]

After the conclusion of the South Africa War, interest in the military surged, prompting a reorganisation of the volunteer movement into a more robust and structured system of regiments and battalions. Despite discussions in 1904 regarding establishing a New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC), no decision was indicated in the Commandant of the Forces’ annual report on its formation.[3]

Further reorganisation in 1908 saw the ASC matter addressed by the Adjutant General, with discussions continuing into 1909. The Defence Act of 1909 disbanded volunteer forces and established the Territorial Force, supported by conscription. Major General Alexander Godley’s appointment as Commandant of the New Zealand Military Forces in December 1910 provided momentum for reform. In his first year, Godley revitalised the military’s organisational structure, made crucial command and staff appointments, and laid plans to develop the NZASC, which, though officially designated in May 1910, remained only a force on paper.[4]

Despite the Defence Stores Department’s existence since 1869, an ASC nucleus was lacking for forming new units. The proposed NZASC envisioned eight Transport and Supply Columns, divided into Mounted and Mixed Brigade units allocated to each of New Zealand’s four Military Districts and was to be organised by British ASC officer Henry Owen Knox, who arrived in New Zealand in June 1911 and later supported by four ASC officers and Warrant Offices from early 1913. While the NZASC would handle the procurement and distribution of rations, receipt and cooking remained a Regimental responsibility.

Under Godley’s command, the Territorial Army underwent rapid organisation, culminating in the inaugural brigade camps held in 1913. During these camps, the newly established NZASC established its initial depots, receiving supplies previously ordered by the Quartermaster General based on expected strength states and ration scales.

Forty-seven candidates across the Territorial Army were selected in October 1912 to undergo a comprehensive month-long training at Trentham. This pioneering catering course encompassed kitchen work and cooking techniques for field conditions, including practical exercises such as constructing and operating field ovens, fry pans, 8 and 20-gallon boilers and camp kettles.

Of the initial candidates, thirty-eight successfully qualified to supervise cooking for a regiment, with an additional seven attaining certification as company cooks. Unfortunately, two candidates were unable to qualify due to illness. For the 1913 camp, the establishment allowed for a Sergeant Cook per regiment, each granted an additional allowance of 1 Shilling 6 Pence a day (equivalent to 2024 NZD $16.16), while qualified company cooks received 1 Shilling a day (equivalent to 2024 NZD $10.10). Those who served as cooks during the camps were excused from further military training for the rest of the year.[5]

At Trentham, an additional course of instruction was conducted in October 1913, attended by sixty-two territorial soldiers. Thirty-two qualified as competent to supervise cooking for a regiment, making them eligible for appointment as sergeant cooks if vacancies existed within their units. Twenty-seven soldiers qualified as assistant or company cooks; unfortunately, three did not meet the qualifications.

By the end of 1913, this initiative provided the New Zealand Military with a potential pool of 104 trained cooks. However, it was recognised that further efforts were necessary to ensure a sufficient number of cooks would be available to meet the messing needs of the Territorial Force in the event of mobilisation.[6]

A System Under Strain, Lessons Unlearned in the Interwar Years

By the late 1930s, nearly two decades after the end of the First World War, there remained a persistent unease about the Army’s ability to feed its soldiers effectively. While institutional reforms had begun, contemporary commentary suggests that many of the fundamental issues experienced during the war had not yet been fully resolved.

A 1937 article in the Auckland Star, written by W. Revell Reynolds, provides a stark and unvarnished account of army catering during the First World War. Drawing on personal experience across training camps, Egypt, and Gallipoli, Reynolds described a system characterised not by scarcity, but by failure in execution.

Food, he noted, was often adequate at the point of issue, but was rendered unpalatable or even inedible through poor preparation. Cooks were frequently untrained and, in many cases, selected from those seeking to avoid frontline duties rather than for any culinary competence. Officers, for their part, were described as largely ignorant of catering and nutrition, with institutional focus placed elsewhere.

More concerning were allegations of systemic weaknesses in control and accountability. Reynolds pointed to instances of misappropriated allowances, questionable quality of supplied goods, and the hoarding or misallocation of rations. Whether exaggerated or not, such perceptions highlight a broader lack of confidence in the integrity of the supply and catering system at the time.

Perhaps most significantly, Reynolds drew a direct connection between poor nutrition and operational effectiveness. The absence of basic dietary components such as fresh vegetables, fats, and stimulants was linked to widespread illness, particularly dysentery and other gastrointestinal conditions, which were endemic in theatres such as Gallipoli. In this sense, catering was not merely a matter of comfort, but of survival.

Reynolds’ account suggests that the issue was not supply alone, but the absence of a professional system capable of turning rations into effective sustainment.

His concluding concern was forward-looking. Writing in 1937, Reynolds questioned how the Army intended to feed its soldiers in any future conflict, suggesting that without meaningful reform, the same deficiencies would re-emerge under the pressures of mobilisation.

The outbreak of the Second World War would force that reform. Under the pressures of mobilisation, the Army moved decisively toward a more professional, standardised, and controlled system of catering and supply, laying the foundations for the modern military catering capability.

The declaration of war and subsequent mobilisation halted any plans for further peacetime training of cooks, as all efforts shifted towards providing trained personnel for the New Zealand Expeditionary Force. The NZASC expanded its role at home and as part of the NZEF, taking on responsibility for bakeries and butcheries. However, despite ensuring the provision of necessary food items to units, cooking remained the responsibility of each unit. Cooks were trained at the Army School of Instruction at Trentham, with further training conducted at NZEF camps in the United Kingdom.In New Zealand, military and civilian cooks fulfilled the necessary messing functions at various mobilisation and Territorial Camps, while unit cooks supported units in the field.

Cooks with first frozen mutton received in the desert during WWI. Hood, D : Photographs relating to World War I and II. Ref: 1/2-067444-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23212994
Wellington Regiment cooker, and men, within 1000 yards of the front line, Colincamps, France. Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association :New Zealand official negatives, World War 1914-1918. Ref: 1/2-013209-G. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22604005

During the interbellum period, the Army School of Instruction in Trentham ceased operations in 1921, with few records of formal training for Army cooks until 1938.

In 1937, the Special Reserve Scheme was introduced to provide personnel for the coast defence batteries and three infantry battalions of Fortress troops. Under this scheme, single soldiers underwent three months of continuous training, followed by a three-year commitment to attend training for 10 days annually, with an obligation to report for service within New Zealand in the event of a national emergency. During their three months of training, they were also allowed to attend technical college, free of charge, on a course of their choice. Facilitating the necessary training, the Army School of Instruction (ASI) was re-established at Trentham, supported by District Schools of Instruction (DSI) at Narrow Neck, Trentham, and Burnham.[7]

The first account of cooks participating in this training scheme saw a batch of seventy-two, nine of whom were cooks, enter Trentham in August 1938 for their initial military training, beginning their vocational training in January 1939 with three of the cooks going to Narrow Neck in Auckland and the other six to Fort Dorset.[8] Reviewing the work of the officers and men under his command, the Officer Command the Central Military District, Colonel E Puttick, commented in April 1939 that “there had never been any complaint about the food, and it was clear that the special reservists who had taken cookery training as their vocational course in the Army Training School at Trentham had received excellent instruction”.[9]

While Colonel Puttick may have been satisfied with the catering arrangements in his district, there was dissatisfaction with the quality of rations and cooks in the northern and Southern Districts. In May 1939, reports of sub-standard rations, the performance of civilian cooks at territorial Camps resulting in their packing up and walking out mid camp and the refusals of Territorial soldiers to work on mess fatigue parties led the District Commander, Colonel P.H Bell to call an all-day conference with his Quartermaster and Quartermaster Sergeants to consider the Army’s food problems, including the quality of rations and most importantly how to resolve the fundamental problem that the Army had no cooks of its own, engaging civilians for the period of camps. [10] In the Northern District, a deputation of civilian cooks led by Mr W. R Connolly, a cook with 37 years’ experience of cooking in military camps, went directly to the officer of the Star Newspaper with their grievances following a ten-day camp with A Squadron of the 4th Mounted Regiment. Joining the squadron on 3 May at Cambridge, they deployed to Rotorua, Tauranga, and Paeroa, finishing up at Narrow Neck on 12 May. The cook’s issue was that they were civilians contracted to work in a fixed camp and not on the march, and they were at much reduced rates than they had received before the depression.[11]

Despite these challenges, the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939 prompted a renewed focus on army catering. On the declaration of war, it was decided that New Zealand would contribute an Expeditionary Force. Initially, a “Special Force” was planned, with one battalion in each of the three military districts. The Special Force was later expanded into the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2 NZEF).

Three weeks before the Special Force encamped at Trentham, Acting Prime Minister Mr Peter Fraser and Minister of Defence Mr Frederick Jones visited the site to inspect preparations for the new mobilisation camp. During their visit, the Commandant of the ASI, Major J I Brook, hosted them for lunch. Impressed by the meal, they specifically requested the Regular Force Mess diet sheet and received positive feedback from regular soldiers on the meal quality. The Ministers inquired about the possibility of providing similar meals to the men of the Special Force. In response, Major Brook suggested that providing the same meals to the Special Force could be achieved if cooks were available and ample rations were provided. Following this discussion, permission was granted to establish an Army School of Cookery under the ASI.[12]

By December 1939, under the tutelage of a fully qualified army cookery instructor, the first batch of thirty-two men had completed their training at the Army School of Cookery, with a second batch completing their training on 8 December. Initial training was on the standard equipment found in any camp, typically three ovens able to bake for 120 men. Once qualified in the basics of camp cooking, training on the Portable Cooker No. 1 and other field cookery followed.[13]

As the 2NZEF established itself in Egypt, the significance of quality cooking was duly recognised. Although the Cooks selected for the First Echelon underwent training courses at the Trentham School of Cookery,  they were not qualified cooks under Middle East conditions. They required instruction on breaking down bulk rations and handling food in the field, so arrangements were made to train New Zealand cooks at the Army School of Cookery in Cairo. Additionally, the services of a non-commissioned officer (NCO) from the 7th British Armoured Division was enlisted as an instructor to the 2 NZEF under the supervision of the Divisional Supply Column officer. With the second Echelon diverted to England, General Freyberg consulted the manager of the Lyons chain of restaurants, who was an adviser to the War Office on army catering, with arrangements made with the War Office in London for the secondment of four NCOs to the 2 NZEF to form the nucleus of the 2 NZEF cookery school. These NCOs accompanied the Second Echelon troops from England to Egypt.[14]

A typical New Zealand field cookhouse in the desert during World War II. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch :Photographs relating to World War 1914-1918, World War 1939-1945, occupation of Japan, Korean War, and Malayan Emergency. Ref: DA-00798-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23050225

With this reorganisation and expansion, the NZEF cookery school conducted thorough training and testing for cooks. Starting from February 1941, all cooks were required to be qualified either at the NZEF school or the Middle East school before being eligible for extra-duty pay.[15]

As the war progressed, the Army School of Cookery at Trentham continued to run regular courses. However, the demand for cooks necessitated the DSIs to conduct cookery instruction to train men as they were called up for the NZEF and Home Defence. In addition to male soldiers training as cooks, from 1939, the first females from Auckland Womans Service Corps were employed as cooks in Papakura Camp to supplement the civilian and military cooks. Although on the Army payroll, the initial female cooks were not considered serving soldiers. By June 1941, fifteen female cooks were working across all the Military districts. However, it was not until July 1942 that approval was given for the New Zealand Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC)  in New Zealand, formally establishing these female cooks as part of the military establishment.[16]

Cook from the Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps putting meat in an oven to roast, for men at a World War II military camp in New Zealand. New Zealand Free Lance : Photographic prints and negatives. Ref: PAColl-8602-40. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22895614

By October 1942, three hundred men of the Territorial Force had received training at Ngawahiwaha Camp. The established ratio for cooks to troops was one cook for every 50 men, two for 100, three for 150, and an additional cook for every 100 additional men. Throughout the Army, the standard of cooking, in terms of variety and quality, had seen significant improvement. It was widely acknowledged that a properly trained army cook could secure employment in a civilian hotel or restaurant upon demobilisation.[17]

Sergeant “Paddy” Bourke, veteran army cook, turns the roast. He was in Egypt with the Expeditionary Force of a generation ago; (Evening Post, 13 April 1940). Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/17717327

In May 1944, the use of WACs as cooks had become a normalised and essential function of the war effort, with an article in the Dominion newspaper detailing the work of the 65 WAACs on the messing staff of Trentham Camp and providing details of the training of the latest batch of eighteen female cooks who had just completed a three-week cooking course the Trentham ASI.[18]It’s essential to recognise that New Zealand was not operating in isolation but rather observing developments across the armies of the British Empire as they transitioned from the regimental cook system to a more centralised and professional model. In the United Kingdom, the Cook trade was under the control of the Army Catering Corps (ACC) upon its creation in March 1941, forming as a subsidiary element of the Royal Army Service Corps Supply Branch. Australia followed suit in 1943, establishing the Australian Army Catering Corps. Canada took a similar approach, forming the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (RCASC) Catering Wing at No. 1 Reinforcement Unit in Britain in August 1942 to train cooks for the Army.

A cook with the 22 New Zealand Battalion, stokes up his fire in the forward areas near Rimini, Italy, 21
September 1944 during World War II. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History
Branch

The Canadian Army’s experience was that many cooks had previously been members of their unit. However, experience revealed that they were not necessarily skilled soldiers and often functioned as poor cooks tasked with feeding their comrades. Consequently, starting in 1942, all cooks were transferred to the RCASC, which then assigned them to the various units they were to serve. This change resulted in a rapid improvement in cooking standards.[19]  Although New Zealand had adopted other British logistical organisational changes, such as the formation of the Electrical and Mechanical Engineers, with enthusiasm, it was more reserved about any changes to its cooks, combining cooks into a single corps was not a wartime priority.

In 1944, New Zealand commenced the demobilisation process, which included disbanding the Home Guard and the standing down of elements of the Territorial Force. By the war’s conclusion in 1945, most of the forces stationed at home underwent rapid demobilisation. The 2NZEF was disbanded by 1946, aligning with the downsizing trend seen in many Western militaries. However, despite this size reduction, the Government and the Army hesitated to revert the military to its pre-war dimensions and structure. Instead, they opted to reorganise it into what became known as the Interim Army.

New Zeland Army Order 60/1947 of 1 August 1947 detailed the trade classification and promotion requirements of the Regular Force. This order retained cooks as two specific All Arms trades;

  • Cooks, Hospital. A Group A trade applicable to All Arms, including the New Zealand Army Nursing Service (NZANS)
  • Cooks (other than hospital cook). A Group B trade applicable to All Arms, including the NZWAAC

The Commandant of the ASI set the syllabus for the Cooks, hospital, and Cooks (other than hospital cooks). During his period, there was no steward’s trade.[20]

In 1947, three officers and four NCOs were brought out from Britain to raise the standards of catering in the New Zealand Army. This task included providing training and instruction in cooking and catering and guidance on ration scales and meal planning. With the New Zealand Army perceived as too small for a stand-alone Catering Corps, considering that the NZASC was responsible for the Supply function, Butchers and Bakers, it made sense to emulate the Canadian model and bring all cooks under the umbrella of the RNZASC.

To facilitate this transition, the Army Board approved the formation of a Catering Group as a section of the RNZASC. It issued New Zealand Army Instruction (NZAI) 2049 on 15 February 1948 detailing the Supplies and Transport Catering Group (STCG) formation. Initially, the STCG comprised of;

  • A Staff Officer (Catering) in the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at Army Headquarters.
  • District Catering advisers (NC0s) on the staff of the Districts Assistant Director Supply and Transport (ADST)
  • Instructors on the staff of the Army School of Instruction to operate a Catering Wing.
  • Cooks and kitchenhands on unit peace establishments.

The function of the STCG was to

  • To train and provide unit cooks and kitchen hands.
  • Instruction in and supervision of the management of the Army ration scale.
  • Improvement of standard of food preparation and cooking.
  • Advice on the installation and instruction in the operation of cooking appliances and kitchen equipment.
  • Advice on the layout of mess buildings.[21]

Despite NZAI 2049 bringing all army catering services under the jurisdiction of the RNZASC, the Cooks trade remained dispersed among various units. However, this issue was addressed with the implementation of NZAI 2147 in September 1948.[22]

No 2147. SUPPLIES AND TRANSPORT CATERING GROUP, RNZASC
NZAI 1319 and 2049 are hereby cancelled.

  1. Approval has been given for the formation of a catering Group in RNZASC.
    This group will be known as the Supplies and Transport Catering Group (abbreviated title STCG).
  2. The functions of the STCG are –
    a. To train and provide unit, &c, cooks and messing staffs.
    b. Instruction in and supervision of the management of the Army Ration Scale.
    c. The preparation, cooking and serving of all rations.
    d. Advise on the installation and instruction in the operation of cooking appliances and kitchen equipment.
    e. Advise on the layout of mess buildings.
  3. Initially the STCG will comprise-
    a. A Staff Officer (Catering) on the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at Army HQ.
    b. District catering advisers (NCOs) on the staff of ADs ST District.
    c. Instructors on the staff of ASI to operate a “Catering Wing”.
    d. Messing Staff of all units
  4. In order to implement para 3 above, the following action will be taken:-
    a. From the date of publication of this instruction soldiers classified as “kitchen hands” or “Mess Orderly” will be classified as “probationer cook” or “mess steward” respectively. The terms “kitchen hands” or “mess orderly” will no longer be used.
    NOTES: –
    (i) For star classification purposes “probationer cooks” will form the “learner: class of the group “B” trade of cook and will be treated as Group “D” tradesmen
    (ii) Whenever the term “messing staffs” is used in this instruction, it will included “cooks,” “probationary cooks,” and “mess stewards”
    b. All cooks, probationer cooks, and mess stewards, other than of the NZWAC, will be posted to RNZASC.
    c. All messing staffs. including NZWAC messing staffs, in districts will be carried on the establishments of district ASC Coys under the sub heading of STCG.
    d. OsC Districts will allot messing staffs to units on the recommendations of DA DsST.
    e. Messing staffs, including NZWAC messing staffs, of Army HQ units will be carried on the establishments of the respective units under the sub heading STCG.
  5. STCG messing staff strengths will be assessed according to unit messing strengths as follows:-
    a. Unit messing strengths will be taken as establishment strength less 20 per cent (to allow for personnel Living out).
    b. Cooks. – Cooks will be allocated to units on the following scale:
    i. One cook per unit all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 650.
    ii. One extra cook p er 90 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength in excess of 650.
    iii. One extra cook for each cookhouse in excess of one.
    iv. In addition, one chief cook (WO or NCO) for each unit. The rank of this WO or NCO shall be dependent on the strength of the messing staff serving in the unit concerned,
    in accordance with the scale laid down in para 6 below.
    c. Probationer Cooks:-
    i. Two probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength of 65 or under.
    ii. Four probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength in excess of 65
    d. Mess Stewards:
    i. One mess steward for each 25 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength.
    ii. In addition, one mess steward for each 6 officers (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 42 officers.
    iii. When the number of officers exceeds 42, one extra mess steward for each 9 officers ( or portion thereof) on unit strength in excess of 42).
    iv. Mess stewards in any mess to include at least one NCO, except when total number of mess stewards is less than 3.
  6. In calculating ranks of messing staff, the following guide will be used: In every 69 messing staff OR’s carried on establishment under STCG there may be 21 NCOs from Corporal upwards on the following scale:
    One Warrant Officer.
    Two Staff Sergeants.
    Six Sergeants.
    Twelve Corporals.
  7. The chief cook in any unit will rank as the senior member of the messing staff, irrespective of the rank of the senior mess steward. He will be responsible for:
    a. The proper functioning of the messing staff.
    b. Close co-operation with the unit messing officer.
    c. Training of probationer cooks.
  8. Amended establishments will be issued shortly.
New Zealand Army Instruction 2147, 15 September 1948

With this new directive, New Zealand Army cooks (NZWAC cooks and stewards, which remained a separate corps but were under technical control of the RNZASC for catering purposes, until 1977 when they joined the RNZASC) were finally consolidated into a single corps, allowing for a standardised training syllabus. Additionally, to enhance the catering function and provide a comprehensive messing service, the Stewards trade was formalised as part of the RNZASC. By the end of 1948, the groundwork had been laid for the RNZASC Catering trade to support the evolving New Zealand army.

In conclusion, the evolution of Army catering in New Zealand from 1845 to 1948 reflects a journey marked by adaptability, innovation, and a commitment to sustaining the morale and effectiveness of New Zealand’s military forces. During this period, New Zealand’s military catering underwent a significant transformation from rudimentary messing arrangements in the early militia days. However, the importance of well-fed troops was consistently recognised, as evidenced by the efforts to improve messing arrangements, the establishment of training programs for cooks, and the integration of civilian and military personnel into the catering function. Despite challenges such as dissatisfaction with rations and the shortage of trained cooks, the New Zealand Army continually sought to enhance its catering capabilities, particularly in response to the demands of wartime mobilisation.
The establishment of the Army School of Cookery, the integration of female cooks into the military establishment, and the adoption of international best practices, such as those observed in the British and Canadian armies, demonstrate New Zealand’s commitment to modernising its catering services and ensuring the provision of quality meals for its troops.
By consolidating army catering services under the RNZASC umbrella and formalising the Cooks and Stewards trades, the New Zealand Army laid the groundwork for a more structured and professional catering function as the country transitioned into the post-war era. By 1948, the stage was set for the RNZASC Catering trade to play a pivotal role in supporting the evolving needs of the New Zealand army, reflecting a legacy of culinary excellence and dedication to service.


Notes

[1] “Newtown Park Camp (Inquiry into Conduct of),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1901 Session I, H-19a  (1901).

[2] “New Zealand Contingent (No 1): Extracts from Reports by Major Robin, Commanding New Zealand Contingent, to Officer Commanding Forces,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1900 Session I, H-06a  (1900).

[3] J Babington, “Defence Forces of New Zealand (Report on the) by Major General J.M Babington, Commandant of the Forces.,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1904 Session I, H-19  (1904).

[4] Based on the British logistics system the NZASC was to be responsible for the Transport and the supply of forage, rations and fuel. The supply and maintenance of all small-arms, ammunition, accoutrements, clothing, and field equipment Stores was to remain a responsibility of the Defence Stores Department which in 1917 became the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. Robert McKie, “Unappreciated Duty: The Forgotten Contribution of New Zealand’s Defence Stores Department in Mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in 1914: A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand” (Massey University, 2022).

[5] “H-19 Report on the Defence Forces of New Zealand for the Period 28 June 1912 to 20 June 1913,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives  (1913).

[6] “Military Forces of New Zealand (Report by the Inspector General of Ther Overseas Forces on the),” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1914 Session I, H-19a  (1914).

[7] “H-19 Military Forces of New Zealand, Annual Report of the Chief of the General Staff,” Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, (1938).

[8] “Vocational Training,” Wairarapa Times-Age, , 17 January 1939.

[9] “Military Camps,” Evening Post, Volume CXXVII, Issue 80, , 5 April 1939.

[10] “Army Cooks,” Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 103, , 4 May 1939.

[11] “Walked out Army Cooks,” Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 114, , 17 May 1939.

[12] “Soldier Cooks,” King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4856,, 1 November 1939.

[13] “Diet for Troops,” King Country Chronicle, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4856,, 1 December 1939.

[14] William Graham McClymont, To Greece, vol. 4 (War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, 1959), 23.

[15] Thomas Duncan MacGregor Stout, New Zealand Medical Services in Middle East and Italy, vol. 12 (War History Branch, Department of Internal Affairs, 1956), 47.

[16] Iris Latham, The Waac Story (Wellington, New Zealand1986), 1-4.

[17] “Moral Builders NZ Army Cooks,” Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 13760,, 1 October 1942.

[18] “Waac’s New Role,” Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 207, , 30 May 1944.

[19] Arnold Warren, Wait for the Waggon: The Story of the Royal Canadian Army Service Corps (McClelland, 1961).

[20] “Special New Zealand Army Order 60/1947 – the Star Classification and Promotion of Other Ranks of Ther Regular Force,”(1947).

[21] “New Zealand Army Instruction 2049 – Supplies and Transport Catering Group, Rnzasc,”(1948).

[22] “New Zealand Army Instruction 2147 – Supplies and Transport Catering Group, Rnzasc,”(1948).


The RNZCT Lanyard

On 12 May 1979, Officers and Soldiers of the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) marched onto paraded grounds on camps and bases across New Zealand and Singapore for the final time as the RNZASC was disbanded and its officers and soldiers split up between the Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC) and the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT). Following a short ceremony, the RNZASC Butchers, Petroleum Operators and Suppliers exchanged their RNZASC Badges and Stable belts for those of the RNZAOC. The RNZASC Cooks, Drivers, Movements Operators and Stewards, while retaining the RNZASC Stable belt, exchanged their RNZASC cap badge for the new cap badge of the RNZCT and, in recognition of the contribution and history of the RNZASC, fitted on their left shoulder a new gold and blue lanyard. Marching off with a renewed sense of elan, the soldiers of the RNZCT would wear their gold and blue lanyard with pride for the next seventeen years. However, in the years since the RNZCT Lanyard was last worn, its origins have become clouded between myth and reality, which this article will correct.

The word lanyard originates from the French word ‘lanière’, which means ‘strap’, with accounts from the late 15th century French describing how soldiers and privateers utilised ropes and cords found on ships to keep their swords, cutlasses and pistols close at hand whilst working in ships’ rigging and during combat. As with any functional military kit, lanyards evolved, with French Cuirassiers using a braided lanyard to hold their swords in place, with adoption by most militaries following. In British use, lanyards became common, used to attach pistols to uniforms, and Gunners used them to fire Artillery. In widespread use for practical purposes, the adoption of lanyards as a decorative uniform item soon followed, with coloured lanyards denoting regiments and Corps and gold lanyards used to identify senior officers.

The lanyard that the RNZCT adopted was based on the United Kingdom’s Royal Army Service Corps (RASC) lanyard that was worn until the disestablishment of the RASC in 1965. A twisted core lanyard with gold and blue strands with button loops and fixed knots at both ends, its origins have become lost to history, and some separation of myth from reality is required.

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

Many myths surrounding the RASC lanyards are based on the supposed withdrawal of the Royal Artillery at some unknown battle, with the guns saved by either the RASC (or its earlier equivalents), Royal Engineers, or even the Ordnance Corps. With the guns saved, the Royal Artillery was made to wear a white lanyard, and the Corps that came to the rescue were awarded the privilege of wearing a coloured lanyard. The problem with this myth is that the British Army is an institution steeped in tradition and commemorates its victories and defeats in equal measure, and there is no supporting historical evidence of such an event happening. Although it does make for great barrack-room and mess banter between regiments and Corps, it is similar to the myth of the cannon balls being larger than the cannons placed on the Ordnance cap badge as a mark of shame due to a historic logistic cock up. Like the Ordnance badge, the explanation for the colours on the RASC lanyard is purely heraldic.

The heraldic origins of the RASC lie with the Board of Ordnance, whose colours were Red, Gold and Blue. A British government body established in the Tudor period, the Board of Ordnance’s primary responsibilities were to manage the lands, depots and forts required for the defence of the realm and its overseas possessions, supply munitions and equipment to both the Army and the Navy and maintain and direct the Artillery and Engineer corps. Through the Board of Ordnance. The RASC had a common background with the Royal Artillery, Royal Engineers and Royal Army Ordnance Corps. The ASC’s roots as a uniformed military organisation can be traced to the Royal Waggoners.

Established in 1794 and then disbanded in 1799, the Royal Waggoners were reformed in 1802 as the Royal Waggon Train (RWT). Serving with distinction throughout the Napoleonic Wars, the regimental colours of the RWT were white and blue, which featured on the headdress, collars and cuff of the RWT uniform.

Corporal of the Royal Waggon Train,1815 Identifying the soldier as a member of the Royal Waggon Train are the White and Blue regimental cap or ‘chaco’, Collar and cuffs. https://www.facebook.com/Graveshistoricaluniforms

The RWT was disbanded in 1833, with its Supply functions (food, forage and Fuel) assumed by the Commissariat. Tarnished by its poor performance during the war in Crimea, the Board of Ordnance was disbanded in 1855. This resulted in the reorganisation of the British Army’s Logistic functions, including the resurrection of the transport functions of the RWT as the Land Transport Corps, which was then renamed the Military Train in 1856.[1] The provision of arms, ammunition and other critical stores was the responsibility of the Military Store Department which in turn would evolve into the Army Ordnance Corps. By 1864, the Commissariat and Military Train uniforms were both blue, with the Military Train continuing the tradition established by the RWT, with its uniform facings (collars, Cuffs and linings) being White.[2]

During the New Zealand Wars, the Commissariat, Military Train and Military Store Department all provided their respective specialist logistic functions in support of Imperial and Colonial units until the final withdrawal of imperial Forces from New Zealand in 1870. From 1869 to 1911, the Defence Stores Department coordinated supply and Transport functions required by the New Zealand Forces.

The Officers of the Commissariat, Military Train and Military Store Department were combined in 1869 into the Control Department, with the other ranks of the three branches combined into the Army Service Corps (ASC). A short-lived experiment in amalgamation, the Control Department was abolished in 1875 and replaced by the Commissariat Transport Department and Ordnance Store Department. In 1880 the Commissariat Transport Department was renamed the Commissariat and Transport Staff, with the ASC split into the Commissariat and Transport Corps and Ordnance Store Corps in 1881. The Commissariat and Transport Staff and Corps retained the Blue and White uniform distinctions with the 1883 Dress regulations noting that lace and cord fittings were to be gold.[3]  In December 1888, the Commissariat and Transport Staff and the Commissariat and Transport Corp amalgamated into a new ASC, with, for the first time, officers and other ranks serving in a single unified organisation. The ASC retained blue and white as its regimental colours, and in recognition of the service provided by the ASC in its first South Africa campaign, gold was included as part of the ASC regimental colours to “represent the gold lace on the tunic and to impart character, distinctiveness and greater beauty”.[4]

In ASC use, lanyards were generally only worn by personnel of Horse Transport companies to carry hoof picks. In 1899, ASC Corps Order 39 permitted Field Glasses and Whistles to be worn and carried by ASC officers. The pattern of the whistle to be used was the same pattern used by the Metropolitan Police attached to a silk lanyard, the colour of the frock, which by this stage was Khaki.[5]

As a result of its service during the First World War, in 1918, the ASC received the “Royal” prefix becoming the RASC and was divided into Transport and Supply Branches.

From 1940 all British army vehicles were allocated Arm of Service (AoS) markings. Located on the offside front bumper or nearby and repeated on the offside rear, the AoS sign was a 9 in (23 cm) square with a background colour specific to each AoS. In the case of the RASC, the AoS sign was diagonal red over green. White digits explained the individual units within that AoS. Adopted by all commonwealth ASC units, including the NZASC, the RASC red over green AoS sign remained in British use until 1950, when replaced by a blue and gold sign.

RASC AoS Signs Red and Green – 1940-50: Bule and Gold – 1950 -1965

In 1941, the British Army introduced coloured AoS strips to be worn on both arms of the Battle Dress uniform, with the primary colour facing forward. The RASC AoS strip was gold and blue, with blue facing forward on both arms. The RASC adopted the RASC AoS Battledress colours for the RASC lanyard, which was approved for wear by all ranks on 1 June 1950.[6]

The RASC continued to wear a gold and blue lanyard until its Supply functions were absorbed by the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC), and its Transport functions reformed into the RCT in 1965.[7] With the RASC gold and blue lanyard retired, the RCT adopted a blue lanyard.[8] A further evolution to British Army logistics occurred in 1993whern the RCT, the RAOC, the Army Catering Corps, The Royal Engineers Postal and Courier Service, and the Royal Pioneer Corps were all disbanded and reformed as the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC). With each foundation Corps of the RLC having values, traditions and dress embellishments, many compromises were made to carry as many as possible into the RLC. For example, the RAOC appointment of the Conductor was retained as a whole of RLC appointment. In the case of the RASC lanyard, it was also retained as the RLC lanyard.[9]

Following the departure of the Imperial Forces from New Zealand, the Defence Stores Department coordinated the Supply and Transport requirements of the New Zealand Forces. Based on the lessons of the War in South Africa, the Defence Act of 1909 laid the framework for a significant reorganisation of New Zealand’s Military Forces, including the formation of the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) on 12 May 1910 to be organised and trained by ASC Captain Henry Owen Knox.[10] Appointed as a Lieutenant Colonel in New Zealand’s Military Forces, Knox grew and shaped the NZASC in the years leading up to the First World War.

With the New Zealand Forces adopting a standard Khaki field service uniform, a system of distinguishing colour piping on cuffs, collars and epaulettes was introduced with GHQ Circular 10 of 2 February 1911 identifying white as the NZASC colour. The Dress Regulations of 1912 reinforced white as the NZASC distinguishing colour, expanding its use to stripes on trousers, forages caps and puggarees on felt slouch hats.[11]  The use of white piping on Khaki uniforms ceased during World War One. However, the NZASC Khaki/White/Khaki puggaree remained in use until 1960, when the Lemon squeezer hat and Corps puggaree was replaced by the Cap Battledress (Cap BD).

New Zealand Army Service Corps Puggaree. Robert McKie collection

During the Second World War, white continued to be the colour used on NZASC uniform distinguishing patches, except for NZASC units of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the Pacific (2NZEF (IP)) who wore an unofficial patch in the RASC vehicle AoS colours of diagonal red over green on their puggarees.[12]  After Serving with distinction in both World Wars, in 1946, the NZASC received the “Royal” prefix becoming the RNZASC. The RNZASC received further accolades for its service in Korea from 1950 to 1955, where the vehicles of 10 Transport Company RNZASC continued to use the diagonal red over green AoS sign with the digits 72.

During the 1950s, the RNZASC followed the British lead and ceased using the diagonal red over green AoS sign, replacing it with diagonal and horizontal blue and gold A0S signs, concurrently unit signage emblazoned with backgrounds of blue and gold became commonplace.

Allied with the RASC since 1921 and the RCT since 1965, the RNZASC was one of the last New Zealand Corps to seek approval to adopt a Stable belt. With some individuals already wearing the unauthorised RASC belt that had been discontinued in 1965, the RNZASC requested and granted permission to adopt the RCT pattern stable belt in September 1973.

Following the lead of the United Kingdom and Australia, who had reorganised their Supply and Transport services in 1965 and 1973, the RNZASC began the final planning to transform the RNZASC into the RNZCT in 1978. Eager to ease the restructuring of the Corps by incorporating linkages with the past in a dress embellishment, Lieutenant Colonel Steve Davies, the Director of Supply and Transport (DST) and Major Wally Fraser of the Supply and Transport Directorate introduced the idea of an RNZCT lanyard. Plaiting two samples by hand, Major Fraser provided two samples in the RASC colours of gold and blue for approval by the Army Dress Committee.[13]

Earlier attempts by other Corps to introduce lanyards had been previously rejected as the Army was unwilling to encourage a proliferation of unnecessary dress embellishments.[14]  However, Lt Col Davis and Major Fraser provided a convincing argument with Army General Staff providing authority for wearing lanyards within the RNZCT at public expense in early 1979.[15] The new lanyards were to be manufactured by RNZASC personnel with the cordage provided by the RNZAOC. To allow the manufacture of the lanyards to be completed by 12 May 1979, based on a calculation of 2 meters of navy blue cordage and 1 meter of gold cordage for each lanyard, sufficient cordage was provided to each dependency by 1 April 1979, including sufficient cordage to manufacture 100 lanyards priority mailed to Singapore.[16]  Following a flurry of manufacturing activity within RNAZSC units, sufficient RNZCT lanyards were produced before the change over parades on 12 May 1979, with the lanyard becoming an established RNZCT dress embellishment.

As only the cordage was provided at public expense, with the plating into a lanyard the responsibility of individual RNZCT soldiers, the Director of Transport Movements and Catering (DTMC), Lieutenant Colonel J.M Young was concerned about the differences in quality between lanyards and how that reflected on the RNZCT. The white Military Police and red Regular Force Cadet lanyards were provided and manufactured items, and the DRMC proposed in March 1986 that the RNZCT lanyard also be provided as a manufactured item.[17]

On reviewing the DMTC proposal, the Director of Ordnance Services (DOS), Lieutenant Colonel Terence McBeth, found that there was a discrepancy in the policy surrounding the RNZCT lanyards and that the policy be amended to bring the RNZCT lanyard policy into line with the other Corps that were entitled to lanyards.[18] Army General Staff endorsed the DOS’s recommendations, and from May 1986, the RNZCT Lanyard was provided as a standardised made-up lanyard.[19]

The RNZCT lanyard was worn on the left arm with pride by officers and soldiers of the RNZCT up to 1996 when in a similar initiative to the British Army’s formation of the RLC, the NZ Army also combined its logistic functions into a single Logistic Regiment. The significant difference between the British and New Zealand logistical changes was that the Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) was also disestablished and included in the New Zealand Logistic Regiment.

On 9 December 1996, the Officers and Soldiers of the RNZCT, RNZAOC and RNZEME marched onto parade grounds on each camp and base. Corps flags were lowered, headwear and stable belts exchanged, and the Officers and Soldiers marched off as members of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR). The transition into the RNZALR was bittersweet for the soldiers of the RNZCT. RNZALR leadership took the opposite approach to the RLC, and rather than embracing its foundation Corps’ values and traditions, it divorced itself from the past and abandoned most linkages to the past, including the RNZCT lanyard.

A dress embellishment Intended to ease the formation of the RNZCT by incorporating linkages with the RNZASC, the RNZCT Lanyard was unimaginative and relied on colours representing the traditions of the RASC rather than the RNZASC. For the sixty years from 1911 to 1960, the RNZASC had an exceptional record of service in peace and war, represented by white, red and green. From 1911 to 1960, white was present on RNZASC uniforms as piping, distinguishing patches and puggaree. From 1940 until the mid-1950s, RNZASC vehicles in the Middle East, Pacific, Korea and at home wore the diagonal red and green AoS sign. With Gold and Blue only representing the RNZASC from the mid-1950s to 1979. However, despite its historical irrelevance, the RNZCT Lanyard was an attractive embellishment that provided soldiers of the RTNZCT with a sense of elan on parade and much banter in clubs and messes as they baited gunners with tall stories of how their predecessors had saved guns abandoned by the Artillery.


Notes

[1] “The Land Transport Corps,” Hansard 1803-2005  (1858).

[2] Horse Guards Adjutant-General, Dress Regulations for the Army (London: Printed under the Superintendence of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1864).

[3] Dress Regulations for the Army,  (London: Printed under the Superintendence of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1883).

[4] “Yelow of Gold,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps  (1945): 59.

[5] “Extracts from Corps Orders,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps  (1899): 299.

[6] Len Whittaker, ” Lanyards,” The Military Historical Society  (1985).

[7] “Formation of the Royal Corps of Transport,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps  (1965): 7.

[8] “Badges, Chevrons, Titles, Embelishmets and Head Dress,” Clothing Regulations Pamphlet No 5. Table 56- Regimental Lanyards  (1966).

[9] “Lanyard and Whistle Cords,” Army Dress Regulations Part 9 Section 7 Annex D  (2017).

[10] “Captain H.O Knox,” The Waggoner: The Journal of the Royal Army Service Corps  (1911).

[11] New Zealand Military Forces Dress Regulations, ed. New Zealand Military Forces (Wellington1912).

[12] Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches, 1911-1991 (Wellington, N.Z. : M. Thomas and C. Lord, 1995, 1995), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 57.

[13] Julia Millen, Salute to Service : A History of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport and Its Predecessors, 1860-1996 (Wellington : Victoria University Press, 1997, 1997), 415-16.

[14] {, 1971 #1907}

[15] S&T 14/1 dated 22 February 1979. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86,” Archives New Zealand No R17311895  (1985 – 1986).

[16] DOS 109/4/Ord 5 Cordage for RNZCT Lanyard dated 5 March 1979. Ibid.

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

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

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


The identity of Ngāti Tumatauenga

Met by a combination of mutual mistrust on the one hand and a sense of opportunity on the other, the earliest contacts between Māori and Europeans would grow into a mutually beneficial economic relationship by the 1840s and 1850s. The Treaty of Waitangi sealed the relationship, with a vital element becoming amalgamation. Māori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects under a universal system under the treaty’s terms and early colonial laws. Unfortunately, the relationship was often one-sided, favouring the Crown and settlers who would set the terms of the amalgamation process into one of assimilation, intending to absorb Māori into the white settler world. This path led to conflict, followed by erecting barriers between Māori and Settlers that would endure for generations. One hundred and seventy-nine years after the treaty’s signing, the relationship between Māori and Europeans has matured, with many colonial-era grievances reconciled or on the path of reconciliation. A sign of how far the nation’s relationship between Māori and Europeans has matured is found in one of the institutions of the state, the Army, now recognised as the standalone iwi: Ngāti Tumatauenga – ‘Tribe of the God of War’.

Ngāti Tumatauenga is the youngest iwi of New Zealand, established in 1994 as the result of an initiative by the Chief of General Staff (CGS), Major General Anthony Leonard Birks, CB, OBE. The CGS intended to regenerate the Army’s culture into a “uniquely New Zealand Military culture by combining appropriate aspects of European and Māori heritage to enhance further the cohesion, morale and esprit de corps of the Army”.[1]Established with the blessing of the veterans of the 28th Māori Battalion, the Māori Queen and iwi surrounding Waiouru; Ngāti Tūwharetoa, Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Tuhoe. [2] Ngāti Tumatauenga blends the customs and warrior traditions of Māori and Europeans into a fusion of both, laying the basis of the New Zealand Army’s ethos and values.[3] Although Ngāti Tumatauenga is a modern conception, it has a strong whakapapa drawn from its Māori and European ancestry, reflecting its position as the guardian of all the peoples of New Zealand regardless of race, religion or creed.[4]

The path towards Ngāti Tumatauenga has been extended, as, for most of its existence, the New Zealand Army, like those of Canada, South Africa and Australia, embraced British military traditions. Regardless of the British Military influence, there has always been a desire to identify New Zealand as a unique military entity. In World Wars, Canada, South Africa, and Australia sent expeditionary forces filled with units bearing English, Scottish and Irish names, motifs and identities to battlefields worldwide; New Zealand would be the exception. Although there were Territorial units in New Zealand with Scottish identities, the New Zealand Military authorities felt that New Zealand was too small to allow these identities to be embodied as separate units within the Expeditionary Forces. New Zealand Forces would march in one khaki uniform and wore distinctive New Zealand badges up to the Second World War, often including Māori phrases and symbology.[5]

The only logical exception to this was the Māori, who participated as a distinct subunit, representing a subset of New Zealand in a manner that the Scots or Irish did not.[6] In their quest to establish New Zealand Forces as a recognisable national entity, New Zealand Military authorities inadvertently paved the way for the eventual establishment of Ngāti Tumatauenga in later years.

In addition to the British Military traditions, Māori Tikanga (cultural customs and practices) serves as the binding force for Ngāti Tumatauenga. These distinct and unique cultural practices and traditions enhance the loyalty, cohesion, and tribal identity of the Modern New Zealand Warrior. [7] Contrary to popular belief, Māori warfare was not a permanent fixture of Māori culture and life; instead, it was a practice employed depending on circumstances, such as acquiring land, countering threats, or defending Mana (prestige and authority). Māori refined their warfighting traditions as participants on both sides of the conflicts during the nineteenth-century New Zealand land wars.

In the twentieth century, Māori leaders like Sir Apirana Ngata viewed military service for the Crown as an extension of their warrior heritage and a path to equality. In his 1943 pamphlet “Price of Citizenship,” Ngata asserted, “We are of one house, and if our Pākehā (non-Māori) brothers fall, we fall with them. How can we even hold our heads up when the struggle is over if asked, ‘Where were you when New Zealand was at war?'” [8] Māori made significant and honorable contributions during the Second World War, solidifying their place in the post-war Army. A 1977 survey indicated that Māori comprised 34 percent of the Regular Force and 16 percent of the Territorial Force, a higher proportion than Māori employment in the general civilian workforce.[9] With the Māori cultural resurgence of the late twentieth century, the Army was well-prepared to embrace change, as this resurgence brought about transformations within the Army.

The rejuvenation of the New Zealand Army’s culture, initiated by the Chief of the General Staff (CGS) in 1994, was swiftly implemented. While the Army badge retained its traditional British design, it was modified to include a taiaha (a traditional Māori weapon) instead of a sword, and a scroll was added, bearing the inscription “Ngāti Tumatauenga” at its base.[10]

The Army Marae, known as Rongomaraeroa-o-ngā-hau-e-whā, was officially dedicated during Labour Weekend in 1995. It holds a special place within the New Zealand Army, serving as the central point that all members, regardless of race, gender, or creed, pass through on their military journey. Its unique orientation, facing west towards the setting sun, sets this Marae apart. This symbolic positioning conveys a powerful message: Ngāti Tumatauenga is the nation’s guardian, protecting it day and night.

Rejuvenating the army’s culture was not without its share of challenges. The Army Marae, in contrast to traditional Maraes, has a less formal atmosphere. One recruit even commented, “The Māori culture here is quite different! I come from a place where it’s deeply ingrained. I told my dad that when we went to the Marae, they spoke English!” [11] Despite this critique, another soldier of Māori descent explained that “Ngāti Tumatauenga symbolizes the fusion of the Imperial soldier’s spirit with the Mana of the Māori warrior. This reflects the positive partnership principle of the Treaty of Waitangi and fills many with pride when including Ngāti Tumatauenga in their pepeha.”[12]

The introduction of Ngāti Tumatauenga faced initial resistance and skepticism. Its swift implementation caught many Army members off guard, leading to an abrupt and sometimes aggressive cultural shift. However, many of the original detractors and skeptics have come to embrace and appreciate the benefits of adopting Ngāti Tumatauenga.[13]

Approaching its twenty-fifth year, Ngāti Tumatauenga has gained acceptance within the community as a legitimate iwi (tribe). Māori performing arts play a significant role in promoting and preserving the Army’s cultural ethos. Ngāti Tumatauenga participates in national-level Kapa Haka competitions, sometimes with non-Māori individuals leading performances.[14] [15]Additionally, Māori performing arts, such as Kapa Haka, serve as a military and diplomatic tool on the international stage, highlighting how the shared Māori and European military heritage upholds the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and advances the interests of the New Zealand people.[16]

In conclusion, the transformation of the New Zealand Army into Ngāti Tumatauenga, the “Tribe of the God of War,” reflects the aspirations of early Māori and European settlers in New Zealand and their vision of unity under the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi. The journey from 1840 to 1994 was marked by conflicts between Māori and the Crown, shaping the Māori and Pākehā relationship into one that acknowledges each other’s martial capabilities. The World Wars of the early twentieth century saw New Zealand Expeditionary Forces and Māori Battalions earning respect from allies and adversaries, ultimately paving the way for Māori integration into the post-war New Zealand Army. Riding the wave of a resurgent Māori culture, the leadership of the New Zealand Army took a significant risk by embarking on cultural rejuvenation. The New Zealand Army, transformed into the iwi (tribe) of Ngāti Tumatauenga, has evolved into a unique entity, shaped and defined by the influences of a resurgent Māori culture and the combined martial traditions of European soldiers and Māori warriors. Their shared history, heritage, and wartime experiences have cemented this transformation.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Major-General A.l.Birks. “Chief of General Staff Directive 9/94; the Army’s Culture.” Wellington: Army General Staff, HQ New Zealand Defence Force, 1994.

New Zealand Army. “The Army Culture.” NZ Army Publication (NZ P77) Why? Chapter 3, Section 1  (2014).

Secondary Sources

Published

Brosnahan, Seán. “Ngāti Tūmatauenga and the Kilties: New Zealand’s Ethnic Military Traditions.” In A Global Force: War, Identities and Scotland’s Diaspora, edited by David Forsyth, 168-92: Edinburgh University Press, 2016.

Cooke, Peter, and John Crawford. The Territorials. Wellington: Random House New Zealand Ltd, 2011.

Corbett, D. A. The Regimental Badges of New Zealand: An Illustrated History of the Badges and Insignia Worn by the New Zealand Army. Auckland, N.Z. : Ray Richards, 1980, Revised Edition, 1980.

Harding, Nina Joy. “You Bring It, We will Bring It Out”: Becoming a Soldier in the New Zealand Army: A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Anthropology at Massey University, Manawatū, New Zealand. 2016.

Hohaia, Debbie. “In Search of a Decolonised Military: MāOri Cultural Learning Experiences in the New Zealand Defence Force.” Kōtuitui (Online)  (2016).

McKenzie, Peter. “How the NZ Army Became an Iwi.”  https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/11/25/331569/peter-mckenzie-on-army-as-an-iwi-for-monday.

Oldham, Geoffrey P. Badges and Insignia of the New Zealand Army: An Illustrated Price Guide to Cap and Collar Badges, Insignia and Shoulder Titles of the N.Z. Army, Police & Militia, from 1847 to the Present Day. New and rev. Ed ed.: Milimem Books, 2011.

Soutar, Monty. Ngā Tama Toa = He Toto Heke, He Tipare Here Ki Te Ūkaipo : Kamupene C, Ope Taua (Maori) 28 1939-1945 : I Tuhia Tenei Pukapua I Roto I Te Reo Maori. David Bateman, 2014.

Taylor, Richard Tribe of the War God: Ngati Tumatauenga. Heritage New Zealand, 1996. .

Te Ao Māori News. “Te Matatini 2015 – Te Kapa Haka O Kairanga.”  https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/te-matatini-2015-te-kapa-haka-o-kairanga.

Unpublished

“Discussions conducted by author with various members of the New Zealand  Army “. 2019.


Notes

[1] Major-General A.l.Birks, “Chief of General Staff Directive 9/94; the Army’s Culture,” (Wellington: Army General Staff, HQ New Zealand Defence Force, 1994).

[2] Peter McKenzie, “How the NZ Army Became an Iwi,”  https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2018/11/25/331569/peter-mckenzie-on-army-as-an-iwi-for-monday.

[3] New Zealand Army, “The Army Culture,” NZ Army Publication (NZ P77) Why? Chapter 3, Section 1  (2014).

[4] Richard  Taylor, Tribe of the War God : Ngati Tumatauenga (Heritage New Zealand, 1996), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 110-11.

[5] Although many NZ badges follow British badge design conventions and in many cases are direct copies, many badges have also included many unique New Zealnd features such as the adoption of Māori iconography and symbols and use Te Reo Māori in place of the traditional English or latin for mottoes. D. A. Corbett, The Regimental Badges of New Zealand : An Illustrated History of the Badges and Insignia Worn by the New Zealand Army (Auckland, N.Z. : Ray Richards, 1980, Revised enl. edition, 1980), Non-fiction, 9-17.

[6] Seán Brosnahan, “Ngāti Tūmatauenga and the Kilties: New Zealand’s Ethnic Military Traditions,” in A Global Force: War, Identities and Scotland’s Diaspora, ed. David Forsyth (Edinburgh University Press, 2016), 168-83.

[7] New Zealand Army, “The Army Culture.”

[8] Monty Soutar, Ngā Tama Toa = He Toto Heke, He Tipare Here Ki Te Ūkaipo : Kamupene C, Ope Taua (Maori) 28 1939-1945 : I Tuhia Tenei Pukapua I Roto I Te Reo Maori (David Bateman, 2014), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 35.

[9] Peter Cooke and John Crawford, The Territorials (Wellington: Random House New Zealand Ltd, 2011), 371.

[10] Geoffrey P. Oldham, Badges and Insignia of the New Zealand Army : An Illustrated Price Guide to Cap and Collar Badges, Insignia and Shoulder Titles of the N.Z. Army, Police & Militia, from 1847 to the Present Day, New and rev. ed ed. (Milimem Books, 2011), Bibliographies,Non-fiction, 92.

[11] Nina Joy Harding, “You Bring It, We’ll Bring It Out” : Becoming a Soldier in the New Zealand Army : A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Social Anthropology at Massey University, Manawatū, New Zealand (2016), Non-fiction, 130.

[12] McKenzie, “How the NZ Army Became an Iwi”.

[13] “Discussuions Conducted by Author with Various Members of the New Zealsnd  Army Command Chain.,”  (2019).

[14] Te Ao Māori News, “Te Matatini 2015 – Te Kapa Haka O Kairanga,”  https://www.maoritelevision.com/news/regional/te-matatini-2015-te-kapa-haka-o-kairanga.

[15] Debbie Hohaia, “In Search of a Decolonised Military : MāOri Cultural Learning Experiences in the New Zealand Defence Force,” Kōtuitui (Online)  (2016): 52.

[16] Ibid.