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

1 Comment Robert McKie

“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 4^th 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 2^nd 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.

Approval has been given for the formation of a catering Group in RNZASC.
This group will be known as the Supplies and Transport Catering Group (abbreviated title STCG).

The functions of the STCG are –
a. To train and provide unit, &c, cooks and messing staffs.
b. Instruction in and supervision of the management of the Army Ration Scale.
c. The preparation, cooking and serving of all rations.
d. Advise on the installation and instruction in the operation of cooking appliances and kitchen equipment.
e. Advise on the layout of mess buildings.

Initially the STCG will comprise-
a. A Staff Officer (Catering) on the Directorate of Supplies and Transport at Army HQ.
b. District catering advisers (NCOs) on the staff of ADs ST District.
c. Instructors on the staff of ASI to operate a “Catering Wing”.
d. Messing Staff of all units

In order to implement para 3 above, the following action will be taken:-
a. From the date of publication of this instruction soldiers classified as “kitchen hands” or “Mess Orderly” will be classified as “probationer cook” or “mess steward” respectively. The terms “kitchen hands” or “mess orderly” will no longer be used.
NOTES: –
(i) For star classification purposes “probationer cooks” will form the “learner: class of the group “B” trade of cook and will be treated as Group “D” tradesmen
(ii) Whenever the term “messing staffs” is used in this instruction, it will included “cooks,” “probationary cooks,” and “mess stewards”
b. All cooks, probationer cooks, and mess stewards, other than of the NZWAC, will be posted to RNZASC.
c. All messing staffs. including NZWAC messing staffs, in districts will be carried on the establishments of district ASC Coys under the sub heading of STCG.
d. OsC Districts will allot messing staffs to units on the recommendations of DA DsST.
e. Messing staffs, including NZWAC messing staffs, of Army HQ units will be carried on the establishments of the respective units under the sub heading STCG.

STCG messing staff strengths will be assessed according to unit messing strengths as follows:-
a. Unit messing strengths will be taken as establishment strength less 20 per cent (to allow for personnel Living out).
b. Cooks. – Cooks will be allocated to units on the following scale:
i. One cook per unit all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 650.
ii. One extra cook p er 90 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength in excess of 650.
iii. One extra cook for each cookhouse in excess of one.
iv. In addition, one chief cook (WO or NCO) for each unit. The rank of this WO or NCO shall be dependent on the strength of the messing staff serving in the unit concerned,
in accordance with the scale laid down in para 6 below.
c. Probationer Cooks:-
i. Two probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength of 65 or under.
ii. Four probationer cooks to each kitchen where cooking is carried out for messing strength in excess of 65
d. Mess Stewards:
i. One mess steward for each 25 all ranks (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength.
ii. In addition, one mess steward for each 6 officers (or portion thereof) on unit messing strength up to a total of 42 officers.
iii. When the number of officers exceeds 42, one extra mess steward for each 9 officers ( or portion thereof) on unit strength in excess of 42).
iv. Mess stewards in any mess to include at least one NCO, except when total number of mess stewards is less than 3.

In calculating ranks of messing staff, the following guide will be used: In every 69 messing staff OR’s carried on establishment under STCG there may be 21 NCOs from Corporal upwards on the following scale:
One Warrant Officer.
Two Staff Sergeants.
Six Sergeants.
Twelve Corporals.

The chief cook in any unit will rank as the senior member of the messing staff, irrespective of the rank of the senior mess steward. He will be responsible for:
a. The proper functioning of the messing staff.
b. Close co-operation with the unit messing officer.
c. Training of probationer cooks.

Amended establishments will be issued shortly.

New Zealand Army Instruction 2147, 15 September 1948

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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).

Transition and Transformation: RNZAOC in 1972

3 Comments Robert McKie

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Graduation List Regular Officer is divided into three Parts.

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

Part 1 – RNZAOC Regular Officers

Lieutenant Colonels

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

Majors

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

Captains

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

Lieutenants

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

Second Lieutenants

Noel Anthony Hitchings
Allan Charles Lash

Part 2 – RNZAOC Quartermaster List

Captains and Quartermasters

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

Lieutenants and Quartermasters

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

Part 3 – RNZAOC Supernumerary List

Majors

Ronald George Henderson Golightly

Captains

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

Statistics on the RNZAOC 1972 Officers List

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

Operational Service

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

Service and Age

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

Appointments

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

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

New Zealand Mobile Bath Unit, 1941-45

1 Comment Robert McKie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand Army Berets 1938-1999

Notes

“Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision.” Archives New Zealand No R17187783 (1952 -1965).

“Clothing: New Zealand Regular Forces: Scale of Issue.” Archives New Zealand No R17187790 (1950 – 1957).

“Conferences – Nedw Zealand Army Dress Committee.” Archives New Zealand No R17188110 (1962-67).

“Conferences – New Zealand Army Dress Committee.” Archives New Zealand No R9753141 (1970-73).

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

“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86.” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).

“Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87.” Archives New Zealand No R17311897 (1986 – 1987).

“New Army Uniforms and Modern Military Vehicles for Dominion Forces.” New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23033, , 10 May 1938.

“New Zealand Army Instruction 164/1942.”(10 January 1942).

“St Barbaras Day.” The Press, 5 December 1984.

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

“Wearing of Black Beret & Tank Patch.” 2 NZ Tank Battalion R.O. 26/1943 (17 February 1942).

[1] “New Army Uniforms and Modern Military Vehicles for Dominion Forces,” New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXV, Issue 23033, , 10 May 1938.

[2] “New Zealand Army Instruction 164/1942,”(1942).

[3] “Wearing of Black Beret & Tank Patch,” 2 NZ Tank Battalion R.O. 26/1943 (1942).

[4] Army 213/7/4/Q/Org Revised Appendix ‘M’ Clothing Scales Dated 3 October 1952. “Clothing: New Zealand Regular Forces: Scale of Issue,” Archives New Zealand No R17187790 (1950 – 1957).

[5] Application for Financial Authority, Khaki Berets 14 November 1952. “Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision,” Archives New Zealand No R17187783 (1952 -1965).

[6] Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army Distinguishing Patches, 1911-1991 (Wellington, N.Z. : M. Thomas and C. Lord, 1995, 1995), Bibliographies, Non-fiction, 128-29.

[7] Army 213/6/7/Q Application for Financial Authority, Berets for Special Air Squadron 31 May 1955.Ibid.

[8] Minutes of the 17 meeting of the Army Dress Committee, held at Army HQ on 9 October 1958.Ibid.

[9] Army 213/6/7/Arty Headdress – 16 Fd Regt 30 March 1960. Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18] Minutes of the 29^th meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 17 August 1961. Ibid.

[19] Minutes of the 32nd meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 16 November 1961. Ibid.

[20] Minutes of the 37^th meeting of the Army Dress Committee at Army HQ on 12 Sept 1962. “Conferences – Nedw Zealand Army Dress Committee,” Archives New Zealand No R17188110 (1962-67).

[21] Minutes of the 37^th meeting of the Army Dress Committee held at Army HQ 13 September 1962. “Clothing – Head Dress – Berets: Povision.”

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

[23] NZACC Submission 9/84 to Army Dress Committee 7 August 1984. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984,” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).

[24] NC 8/2/2/ADC HQ Home Command Amendment to Army Clothing Scales Scarlet Berets: RF Cadets 21 July 1972. “Conferences – New Zealand Army Dress Committee,” Archives New Zealand No R9753141 (1970-73).

[25] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 29 November 1983. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86,” Archives New Zealand No R17311895 (1985 – 1986).

[26] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 29 November 1983. Ibid.

[27] RNZMP Submission 3/87 to Army Dress Committee 30 September 1986. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87,” Archives New Zealand No R17311897 (1986 – 1987).

[28] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 3 November 1986. Ibid.

[29] RNZMP submission 3/87 to Army Dress Committee 30 September 1986.Ibid.

[30] RNZChD submission 11/84 to Army Dress Committee 31 August 1984. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984.”

[31] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 27 November 1984. Ibid.

[32] “St Barbaras Day,” The Press, 5 December 1984.

[33] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 24 May 1985. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1985-86.”

[34] NZSAS 5252 Change of Colour for NZSAS Beret 27 September 1985. Ibid.

[35] Correspondence CO SAS to DInf &SAS 15 December 1985.Ibid.

[36] Army 220/5/103 DRESS-NZSAS PERS 24 January 1986. Ibid.

[37] Signals Directorate 1000/1 Submission to Army Dress Committee 29 September 1986. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1986-87.”

[38] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee 3 November 1986. Ibid.

[39] Minutes of the Army Dress Committee, 12 May 1987. Ibid.

The RNZCT Lanyard

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.

New Zealand Army Combat Boots – 1945 -1980

1 Comment Robert McKie

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

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

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

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

Sole of 1956 Ankle boots. Lee Hawkes Collection

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

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

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

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

New Zealand 37-pattern Gaiter. Lee Hawkes collection

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

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

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

The sole and foot portion to be exactly the same as the Ankle Boot RS.
The height from ground level to the top of the boot was to be 10^1/2 inches.
There were to be six eyelets on the lower portion of each side of the closure and six boot hooks on the higher portion of each side (similar to the green jungle boot issued in Malaya).
The boot tongue was to be of a thinner variety and should not be longer than the height of the boot.
There were to be no straps or buckles.
The measurement around the top of the boot was to be no greater than 12^1/2 inches from edge to edge.[7]

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

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

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

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

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

Lighter and more robust than the NZ item.
Had a directly moulded sole.
It was made of better-quality leather.
Had a vastly superior appearance.
It had a very good and snug fit when broken in.

Private Wayne Lindsay, Whiskey One Company, inspects an RSA Christmas parcel from New Zealand circa 1968. Note that Private Lindsay is wearing the American Pattern Jungle boots, and there are Australian DMS Combat boots and New Zealand Combat boots under his bed. Image courtesy Noel Bell via https://vietnamwar.govt.nz/photo/private-wayne-lindsay-rsa-christmas-parcel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notes

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

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

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

[4] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Zealand Military Load Carrying Equipment, 1945 – 1975

1 Comment Robert McKie

Military Personal Load Carrying Equipment, often referred to in the New Zealand vernacular as “webbing”, is the assortment of belts, straps, pouches and other accessories which, when assembled, allows an individual soldier to easily and comfortably carry the tools of their trade, such as ammunition, rations and water to sustain them for short periods. Many period photos of New Zealand soldiers on operations and training from the Vietnam War era to the 1990s provide the impression of an army equipped with an eclectic range of Australian, British and American equipment. This view of New Zealand’s army’s equipment was partly correct. To see how this view was shaped, this article provides an overview of New Zealand’s military load-carrying equipment evolution from 1945 to 1975.

Commander-in-chief, United States Army of the Pacific, General R.E Haines (right) watching weapon training at Waiouru. 2 May 1970 Evening Post

During World War Two, Operations in Malaya, Burma and the Pacific identified many shortfalls in the suitability of training, tactics and equipment, resulting in the Lethbridge Mission to the Far East during the late war. As a result of the report of the Lethbridge Mission, it was decided to modify the standard 37-pattern equipment to make it lighter in weight, rot-proof and more water-repellent and thus more suitable for use in tropical conditions. This development of the 37-pattern equipment led to the approval of a new pattern known as the 1944-pattern.[1] Post-war, further development of the 37 and 44-Pattern equipment led to troop trials of the Z2 experimental Load Carrying Equipment, which transitioned into the 1958-pattern equipment.[2]

Following World War Two, the Load Carrying Equipment in use by the New Zealand Army was the British 1937-pattern equipment. The 37-pattern equipment was introduced into New Zealand service in 1940, replacing the 1908-pattern equipment that had been in service since 1912. As 37-pattern equipment remained the standard web equipment of the New Zealand Army, the deployment of New Zealand troops to Malaya placed New Zealand in the position of deploying troops to a theatre with equipment that had long been identified as unsuitable. To maintain compatibility with other commonwealth forces in Malaya, 44-pattern equipment from British stocks in Malaya was issued to New Zealand troops in Malaya.

Example of 37-pattern equipment. Image: Simon Moore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwnMIdynO8Y

. Given the environment that New Zealand troops could be expected to operate in and aware of the developments in load-carrying equipment, the New Zealand Chief of General Staff (CGS) requested and received one set of M1956 Web equipment from the United States for trials in 1959.[3] The American M1956 Load-Carrying Equipment (LCE) had been accepted for United States Army service, with distribution well underway by 1961.

In October 1960, the New Zealand Director of Infantry and Training demonstrated the following web equipment to CGS.

44-pattern Equipment
58-pattern Equipment
M1956-pattern Equipment

A report by a New Zealand Officer attached to the Australian Jungle Training Centre at Canungra supported this demonstration with a comprehensive report describing the research and development of Infantry clothing and equipment undertaken by the Australians. The New Zealand report described the Australian trials of the M1956 LCE alongside the 58-pattern equipment. The M1956 was chosen by the Australians, who intended to manufacture it in Australia.[4] However, it was considered unlikely that either the 1956 LCE or 58-pattern equipment would be available to New Zealand until at least 1965, when the initial distribution to the United States and British armies was expected to be completed. Aware that all 44-pattern equipment had been earmarked for use in Malaysia and that it was still in production, New Zealand’s CGS approved the purchase of 6000 sets of 44-pattern equipment to re-equip elements of the New Zealand Army.[5]

Example of 44 pattern equipment, British Corporal, Malaya, Early 1950s. Image Simon Moore https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2346362332163840&set=a.421629590114595

Following advice from the UK, the 44-pattern equipment in use with the Fare East Land Forces (FARELF) was to be wasted out as the 58-pattern equipment was introduced, implying that the New Zealand Battalion would need to be equipped with the 58-pattern equipment before the ceasing of maintenance of the 44-pattern by FARELF. With this in mind, a recommendation was made to purchase 6000 sets of 58-pattern equipment instead of the 44-pattern equipment.[6]

Example of 58-pattern equipment. Image Simon Moore. https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=2080097568790319&set=pcb.2080098398790236

In a June 1961 memorandum to Cabinet, the Minister of Defence highlighted that the current 37-pattern equipment used by the New Zealand Army was not designed for Jungle operations and was unsuitable for carrying the extra equipment the soldier engaged in this type of warfare required. No longer used by the British Army in any part of the world, the stage had been reached where the replacement of the 37-pattern should be delayed no longer. As the 58-pattern could not be made available to New Zealand for some time and field trials had cast doubt on its suitability for use in the Southeast Asia theatre, it was considered that re-equipping of the New Zealand Army should proceed with the 44-pattern equipment. The 44-pattern equipment had proved itself and was known to be suitable in the theatre where New Zealand troops were most likely to be employed. It was assumed that by the time the 44-pattern equipment needed replacement, the full facts on the suitability of the 58-pattern and the M1956 web equipment would be available to make a more informed decision on its adoption by New Zealand. It was recommended that Cabinet approve £45645 plus freight to purchase 6000 sets of 1944 Pattern equipment. [7]

By October 1961, it became clear that the 58-pattern was to be the standard issue web equipment for all United Kingdom forces worldwide and that distribution to the forces in Malaya was to happen much earlier date than earlier expected. Because of this, the Army secretary desired further investigations on the suitability of 58-pattern web equipment and, if favourable, confirm costs and potential delivery dates. With the requirement for web equipment again in flux, the submission to purchase 6000 sets of 44-pattern equipment was withdrawn pending further research.[8]

By May 1962, plans for reorganising the New Zealand Army from a Divisional to Brigade Structure were under implementation.[9] With approximately 50000 complete sets of 37-pattern equipment distributed to units or held in stores, this was deemed suitable to equip the bulk of the Territorial Force and Training units. The 58-pattern equipment was now in serial production and was the standard issue for all United Kingdom troops, with distribution to operational units in Malaya and Germany underway. Information received earlier was that because of limited production, stocks of 58-pattern would not be available for release to New Zealand for some years had been revised. It was now possible that the release of 58-pattern equipment to meet New Zealand’s requirements could be achieved earlier than anticipated. Based on this revised information, New Zealand’s Cabinet approved funding of £58750 on 10 October 1961 for 6000 sets of 58-pattern Web Equipment. [10]

Before placing a firm order for New Zealand’s requirements of 58-pattern equipment, reports received from Malaya in late 1962 indicated that the 58-Pattern equipment was, in its present form, unsuitable for use in operational conditions in South-East Asia.[11] It was anticipated that modifying the 58-pattern equipment to suit the conditions would take two to three years, an unacceptable delay in procurement as far as New Zealand is concerned.[12]

As the decision on New Zealand’s web equipment remained in flux, the New Zealand Battalion in Malaysia continued to be equipped with the 44-pattern equipment maintained under a capitation agreement with the United Kingdom. At New Zealand’s expense, one hundred sets of 44-pattern equipment were also maintained at New Zealand Battalion Depot at Burnham Camp to support reinforcements.

M1956 Web Equipment

As the time factor involved in modifying the 58-pattern equipment was unacceptable, and New Zealand was receiving an increasing amount of American equipment, the American M1956 pattern web equipment was decided to trial. The M1956 equipment had already been introduced into the Australian army, so twenty sets were purchased from Australian stocks for New Zealand’s trials.[13]

Following user experience in Malaya revealing that the 58-pattern equipment was falling short of the requirements for jungle operations, a series of investigations and user trials established that the US M1956 pattern equipment was suitable for use by the New Zealand Army. The funding for 6000 sets of 58-pattern Web Equipment was requested to be reprioritised to purchase 10000 sets of M1956 equipment direct from the United States and 400 sets of 44-pattern equipment to equip the increment for the FARELF held in New Zealand.[14]

With funding endorsed by the Minster of Defence and approved by the Cabinet, orders were placed for 10000 sets of M1956 web equipment direct from the United States. The first consignment arrived in New Zealand in early 1964, with 289 sets immediately issued to the New Zealand Special Air Service (NZSAS) and 16 Field Regiment, Royal New Zealand Artillery.

Instructions for distributing the M1956 web equipment were issued in June 1964 by the Quartermaster General. The initial purchase of 10000 sets of M1956 web equipment was to be issued to the Combat Brigade Group (CBG) and Logistic Support Group (LSG) units. Units of the Combat Reserve Brigade Group (CRBG) and Static Support Force (SSF) were to continue to use the 37-patten webbing.

	NMD	CMD	MOD (for CMD Trentham Units	SMD	MOD Stock	Issued SAS/ 16 Fd Regiment
CBG & LSG	3122	3030	401	2028	310	289
1^st Reinforcement Reserve	316	260	6	198
School of Infantry		40
TOTAL	3438	3330	407	2226	310	289

As the issue of M1956 equipment progressed, units of the CBG and LSG were to hand back stocks of 37-pattern equipment to their supporting District Ordnance Depot except for

08-pattern packs and straps
37-pattern belt, waist web
Frogs bayonet No 5[15]

The 37 Pattern belt, waist web, was to be retained by all ranks as a personal issue authorised by NZP1 Scales 1, 5, 8 or 9. The belt and bayonet frog were to be worn with Nos 2A, 64, 6B, 7A and 7B orders of dress when other equipment items were not required to be worn.

Example of M-1956 equipment. Image Simon Moore https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=2113354722131270&set=pcb.2113363968797012

Equipment Maintenance Policy Statement (EMPS) 138/67 issued by Army Headquarters on 20 November 1964 detailed that except for the CBG and LSG, 16000 sets of 37-pattern equipment were to be maintained for use by remaining elements of the New Zealand Army.[16] EMPS 145/65 was issued on 12 February 1965, detailing the management of 44-pattern equipment in New Zealand. The First Battalion of the Royal New Zealand Infantry Regiment (1RNZIR) in Malaysia was to remain equipped with the 44-pattern web equipment maintained by the UK under the existing capitation agreement. Other than 100 sets of 44 Pattern Web equipment maintained at the Battalion Depot in Burnham, there was no provision for equipping 1RNZIR Reinforcements and increments of 31 Medium Radio Sub Troop who could be expected to deploy to Malaysia at any time. EMPS 145/65 rectified this by establishing a stockholding of 400 sets of 44-pattern equipment at the Main Ordnance Depot (MOD) at Trentham

Approval was granted in November 1965 by Army HQ for the Royal New Zealand Armoured Corps (RNZAC) and NZSAS to blacken their M1956 web equipment. The Royal New Zealand Provost Corps (RNZ Pro) was also approved to whiten their M1956 web equipment. This approval only applied to unit holdings, not RNZAC, NZSAS or NZ Pro members attached or posted to other units.[17]

By April 1967, most of the New Zealand Army was equipped with the M1956 equipment. The exceptions were.

The New Zealand Forces in Malaysia and South Vietnam, who used both the M1956 and 44-pattern equipment
The SSF, National Service Training Unit (NTSU) and New Zeeland Cadet Corps (NZCC), who still retained the 37-pattern equipment

The manufacture of 37-pattern equipment had long been discontinued, and New Zealand stocks had reached the point where although having considerable holdings of individual items, based on the belts as the critical item, only 9500 sets of 37-pattern equipment could be assembled.

Based on the projected five-year supply to the NTSU, Army Schools, Camps and the NZCC plus 10% maintenance per annum, there was a requirement for 12000 sets of 37-pattern equipment. Arranging production to meet the shortfalls was deemed cost-prohibitive, and as continued maintenance could not be guaranteed, it was decided that additional sets of M1956 equipment were to be purchased. The additional sets were to be purchased on a phased program over several financial years, with 5000 sets of 37-pattern retained for the NZCC.

Disposal of the 37-pattern was to be phased over three years.

1967 all items surplus to 9500 sets
1968 3000 Complete sets
1969 all remaining 37 Pattern equipment less 5000 sets for the NZCC.[18]

M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE)

In 1967 the New Zealand Army trialled three sets of the M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE). Not specifically designed to replace the M1956 equipment, the M1967 equipment was designed for use in tropical environments and was introduced into the United States Army service in 1968.

The New Zealand trials found that the M1967 equipment was comfortable and weight-wise was similar to other web equipment in use. The pack worn on the belt was found to be heavy when fully loaded, and a pack similar in size to the 44 Pattern should be introduced, and the belt pack reduced in size by one-third.

It was identified that all the pouches required stiffening and that the plastic fasteners were not firmly attached to the pouches, although easy to operate. While using Velcro was found simple to operate, it was seen as a disadvantage due to noise and its inclination to pull apart when wet or under stress.[19]

Although the M1956 was still being introduced into the New Zealand Army, limited quantities of the M1967 equipment were introduced from 1969-72 with no plans for large-scale procurement. Nevertheless, the design of the M1972 All-Purpose Lightweight Individual Carrying Equipment (ALICE) incorporated many of the features of the M1967 equipment, and it was introduced into the New Zealand Army service in the 1980s.

Example of M-1967 MLCE. Image Simon Moore https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwj59bifFMk

Although the 44-pattern web equipment continued to be used by New Zealand units in Southeast Asia, by October 1967, the decision had been made to standardise the M1956 equipment across the New Zealand Army, and no stocks of the 44-pattern equipment were to be retained in New Zealand. All stocks of 44-pattern web equipment held by the MOD in Trentham for 1RNZIR Reinforcements and increments of 31 Medium Radio Sub Troop were issued to 1 RNZIR based at Terendak camp in Malaysia. As this stock held by 1RNZIR was wasted out, it would be replaced by M1956 web equipment. [20]

Large Ammunition Pouches

The Australian experience had shown that although the L1A1 Self Loading Rifle (SLR) Magazines fitted inside the M1956 ammunition pouch, it was a tight fit, especially when the webbing was wet. The initial solution was to modify 37-pattern pouches and fit them to the M1956 equipment. By 1967 the Australians had developed an indigenous ammunition pouch for the M1956 equipment., The Australian Ammunition Pouch Large (8465-66-026-1864) was manufactured out of cotton duck material and measured 8^1/4inches high by 4 inches wide and 3 inches deep.

To ascertain the suitability of the Australian large ammunition pouch for New Zealand service, fifty Australian pouches were sourced as a standardisation loan in 1968.[21] Feedback for the troop trials identified a lack of stability in the closure of the lid, causing the loss of ammunition and magazines. Following an investigation by the R&D Section, the RNZAOC Textile Repair Sections (TRS) modified the Australian pouches by replacing the lid fasteners with the same fasteners found on the standard American M1956 pouch and stiffing the fastener tabs. The modifications proved satisfactory in further Army Trials, and a new specification (DRDS-ICE-1) was produced with four Standard Samples provided to 1 Base Ordnance Depot (1 BOD).[22] The modified New Zealand Pouch was codified in the New Zealand supply system as Pouch Ammunition Large (6746-98-103-4039).[23]

Detail of New Zealand Large Ammunition Pouch riveted lid fasteners

Although the R&D Section had ascertained that the manufacture of the pouches was possible in New Zealand using imported components, the initial production run of 20000 pouches was contracted through the Australian Department of Supply to be included in the current Australian production run.[24] By 1974 the first production run of 20000 had been completed and returned to 1 BOD for distribution, with 2/1 RNZIR in Burnham one of the first units to receive the new pouches. In May 1974, 2/1 RNZIR submitted defect reports stating that the pouches were poorly designed, with the canvas tongue used to secure the lid failing, pouches becoming insecure, and magazines dropping out.[25]

The investigation by the Directorate of Equipment Policy and the R&D Section found that the faults were not a design problem but a quality assurance issue in that the pouches had not been manufactured following the specification.[26] Comparing the Australian-manufactured pouches against the specification, the R&D Section identified the following visually detected defects.

Canvas used to manufacture strap-holding assembly instead of webbing.
Clip end strap is wrongly sized.
Release tab is of incorrect thickness.
Polypropylene stiffener not inserted in release tab.
The male fastener is not secured to the PVC stiffener.
The reinforcement piece behind the male fastener is not included (between the PVC stiffener and lining).
Additional smaller reinforcement piece inserted between the outer cover and the male fastener.
Broad arrow marked on the outer cover and not specified.

Of these defects, only serials 3 to 7 were directly considered to contribute to the deficiencies and the initial concerns raised by 2/1RNZIR and would require rectification, and a modification instruction was produced.[27] Modification of the pouches would take until September 1977 to be completed.[28]

Due to the Broad Arrow Mark included on the first batch of 20000 New Zealand Large Ammunition Pouches, collectors often misidentify these items as Australian pouches.

White Web

By 1973, 37-pattern belts, rifle slings and bayonet frogs remained in use as ceremonial items. Whitened using proprietary shoe cleaner and paint, these items were badly worn with the whitener flaking easily and were easily marked by weather, fingerprints and the rubbing of other equipment. The M1956 pattern web belt was not considered suitable as a replacement as it was operational equipment requiring the breaking up of complete web sets to provide items for ceremonial events. Following the British lead, the Army Dress Committee approved a polythene, four-ply woven fabric of similar appearance and texture to the 37-pattern equipment in October 1973 as a replacement for the whitened 37-pattern equipment. The sling and bayonet frog designed for the SLR would be purchased with chromed or brass fittings. The material for the belts was provided on rolls which could be cut to the required size. Buckles and keepers were 37-pattern buckles and keepers drawn from existing stocks that had been chromed and polished.[29]

Combat Pack

By 1974, one of the few pre-1945 items of load-carrying equipment remaining in New Zealand service was the 08-pattern pack. Long identified as an unsuitable item, several trials had been conducted since the mid-1960s to find a replacement combat pack. Although a few alternative items had been investigated as a replacement, the 08-pattern pack remained the principal combat pack of the New Zealand Army.

In 1969/70, the requirement for 15000 combat packs to replace the 08-pattern pack was identified. Following evaluation by the equipment sponsor, the Australian Army Combat Pack was selected as a basis for developing a New Zealand combat pack. The Australian pack was chosen from a wide range of military and civilian packs, with the design modified to meet the particular training requirements of New Zealand. The modifications to the Australian pack were limited to comply with the following:

The pack must be compatible with Australian Army equipment.
The pack must be compatible with M1956 equipment currently in New Zealand service.

Against the advice of the R&D section, the Australian pack was modified by the New Zealand Army without a proper study being conducted.[30] The decision to bypass the R&D process resulted in a prototype process that extended from 1972 to 1974.[31] By June 1974, trials on the prototypes resulted in the setting of a standard design for a production run of one hundred packs for further trials.[32]

The New Zealand version of the Australian combat pack was eventually accepted into service in 1975/76. Never a satisfactory pack, the R&D section began investigations to find a replacement in the early 1980s. Hoping to leverage the experience of New Zealand Mountaineers to produce a modern pack, Army R&D embarked on the Onward Pack project. Manufactured by Hallmark Industries of Hamilton, the Onward pack was an innovative modular design that allowed the main pack to be broken down into a patrol pack and a light belt order,

The Basic layout of the Onwards pack was a main compartment divided into a main compartment and a sleeping bag compartment divided by a zip-away divider. The upper compartment was divided into the main storage area and internal space for an AN/PPC-77 set. External access to the main compartment was via a large snow collar with outlets for the radio antenna and handset built into the lid. External access to the lower sleeping bag section was provided by a zip which allowed the bottom half of the compartment to drop down. Internal sleeping mat storage was included as part of the harness and backpack. Three external removal pouches were provided, one on each side attached by domes and a larger pouch mounted on the centre front of the pack by buckles body. Behind the Large centre pouch, securing straps were provided to secure an Entrenching Tool. These three external pouches were fitted with belt loops, which allowed them to be removed and fitted to either the pack’s waist belt or standard pistol belt as a light belt order.

A small patrol pack designed to hold an ANPRC-77 Set was also provided as part of the Onward pack., The patrol pack could be mounted to the top of the Onward Pack or by utilising the pack’s shoulder straps, worn as a standalone pack. The Patrol pack was also fitted with a fluorescent recognition panel in a zip-up compartment.

Despite the host of features and the additional space provided compared to the Australian pack, the Onward Pack was fraught with issues. The proprietary plastic clips were prone to failure, and the body-hugging ‘alpine’ design caused causing severe prickly heat on users in the tropics of Southeast Asia. These and other issues with the Onward Pack contributed to an extended development period as attempts were made to rectify them. As these and other minor faults were addressed to meet the immediate needs of users while the Onward Pack was perfected, the medium American ALICE pack was introduced as an interim replacement in 1984.[33] Eventually, attempts to rectify the Onward Pack were abandoned and the ALICE pack was formally adopted as the New Zealand Army pack.

Conclusion

Entering the Second World War with web equipment of the same pattern used since 1912, New Zealand’s Force soon began to be re-equipped with the most modern British web equipment, the 37-pattern from early 1940. Near the end of the war, New Zealand was kept abreast of the development of web equipment, and when New Zealand troops arrived in Malaya in the early 1950s, they were issued with the most modern type available for jungle warfare, the 44-pattern. As the New Zealand Army reorientated from providing a division to serve in the Middle East to providing a Brigade Group to serve in Southeast Asia, it could not wait for the British to develop their new 58-pattern for tropical conditions and examine other types. Following Australia’s lead, the American M1959 equipment was adopted in 1964, with components of this type serving thought to the early 2000s. With five types of web equipment either adopted or trialled between 1945 and 1974, it is no surprise that components got intermingled. This led to Kiwi soldiers’ preferences and experiences leading them to create webbing sets that they found practicable rather than options prescribed in SOPs or instruction books leading to the outside impression of the New Zealand army been one equipped with an eclectic range of Australian, British and American equipment.

Notes

[1] 86/Development/47 (SWV1) Report on the Development of Personnel Fighting and Load Carrying Equipment 1942-48 February 1949. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189098 (1944 -1966).

[2] 86/Dev/54 (SVW1) Instruction for troop trials of Z2 Experimental Load Carrying Equipment ibid.

[3] New Zealand Joint Services Mission Washington DC JSM 1/3/13 ARM US Army Load Carrying Equipment (Web) dated 23 September 1959ibid.

[4] Attachment to JTC – Canungra dated 21 October 1960 “Stores – New Infantry Equipment for New Zealand Army,” Archives New Zealand No R17189007 (1959-1970).

[5] Army 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment dated 20 December 1960 “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

[6] Army 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment dated 20 December 1960ibid.

[7] Memorandum Minister of Defence to Cabinet dated June 1961ibid.

[8] 246/60/12/adm Army Secretary to Minister of Defence 2 October 1961ibid.

[9] Damien Fenton, A False Sense of Security: The Force Structure of the New Zealand Army 1946-1978, Occasional Paper / Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand: No. 1 (Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand, Victoria University of Wellington, 1998), 111-20.

[10] Army 246/60/12/Q(E) Brigade Group Equipment Replacement Web Equipment dated 8 May 1962 “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.” -pattern equipment

[11] BM 2 to FE16002SD General HQ FELF to The War Office (Brig Q Eqpt) 1958 Pattern Web Equipment dated 4 October 1962: ibid.

[12] 57/62 NZ Army Liaison Staff, London to Army HQ dated 17 October 1962 ibid.

[13] Army 246/60/12Q(E) Sample US Pattern Web Equipment dated 12 December 1962 ibid.

[14] 246/60/12/SD Web Equipment for the Field Force dated 18 October 1963 ibid.

[15] Army Reqn 208/63/Q(E) dated 9 June 1964 -Distribution of M1956 Web Equipment “Cookers – Web Equipment: Pattern ’37,” Archives New Zealand No R17189095 (1940-1971).

[16] EMPS 138/64 of 20 Nov 1964 ibid.

[17] Army HQ Army246/60/12/PS3 of 19 Nov 1965 ibid.

[18] Defence (Army) 246/60/2 of 26 April 1967 ibid.

[19] 1 Ranger Squadron NZSAS, Trial Report US Lightweight Equipment dated 21 March 1968″Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern,” Archives New Zealand No R17189099 (1966 -1969).

[20] Army 246/60/12/Q(E) EMPS 145/65 Frist Revise dated 5 October 1967 ibid.

[21] “Cookers – Web Equipment: Slings, Bandoliers, Ammunition Pouches: Development,” Archives New Zealand No R17189101 (1968-1970).

[22] Def HQ/R&D Section 82/1974 dated 28 Jun 1974.”Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches,” Archives New Zealand No R17231111 (1972-1977).

[23] 246/60/2 of 122055ZNOV70 NZDWN to 1BOD Trentham “Cookers – Web Equipment: Pattern ’37.”

[24] Army 246/60/70 dated 9 December 1971. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches.”

[25] FF 65/38/18/SD Modification of Ammunition Pouch item 10 May 1974. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

[26] Army 246/60/17/EP. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Ammunition Pouches.”

[27] R&D Section Minute no 160/1975 dated 21 November 1975. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

[28] Army 246/60/17/SP 22 Pouches Ammunition 22 September 1977. “Cookers – Web Equipment: New Pattern.”

[29] “Army Dress Committee Decision – White Web,” Archives New Zealand No R17188112 (1973).

[30] R&D Section 67/1974 Packs Combat date 13 June 1974. “Equipment Administration: Research & Development – Projects Personal Load Carrying Equipment: Waterproof Pack,” Archives New Zealand No R17231110 (1972-1974).

[31] Army 246/60/12/EP Sponsor Enquiry Field Pack Olive Green 2 July 1972. Ibid.

[32] Army 246/60/12/ EP Minutes of the final meeting on the acceptance of the Combat Pack held at Army General Staff on 8 June 1973. “Conferences – Policy and General – NZ Army Dress Committee 1984,” Archives New Zealand No R17311893 (1984).

[33] Inf 26.3 Minutes of a meeting to consider Project Foxhound developments held at Army General Staff 8 June 1984. Ibid.

Kelsey swivel-stock rifle

3 Comments Robert McKie

Due to its isolated location at the culmination of international trade routes, New Zealand has become a well-known centre of resourcefulness and innovation, inventing leading-edge and world-changing products. Some notable examples are Disposable syringes and tranquilliser guns, the referee whistle, the eggbeater, the electric fence, jet boats, flexible plastic ear tags for livestock, bungy jumping, flat whites and pavlova. While these products have all had a peaceful intent and provided a valuable contribution to the world, New Zealand’s war experience in the twentieth century has also contributed to military innovation. The Kelsey swivel-stock rifle is discussed here, a New Zealand invention from the 1950s that allowed a Sten Sub Machin Gun to be fired from behind cover and around corners.

Shooting around a corner from cover with he experimental Mk5 Sten “Swivel Butt Carbiner”. Courtesy MoD Pattern Room Library

During the latter stages of the Second World War, based on the lessons learned on the Eastern Front, the German military identified a requirement for aiming and firing weapons around corners and from within Armoured Fighting Vehicles (AFVs). The Germans developed the Krummlauf barrel attachment for the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44) and Maschinengewehr 42 (MG 42) to meet this requirement.

The Krummlauf was produced in two variants:

The “I” variant for infantry use,
The “P” variant for use in AFVs to provide cover over blind spots to defend against assaulting infantry

The “I” and “P” barrels for the StG 44 and MG 42 were produced with bends of 30°, 45°, 60° and 90°. However, only the “I” 30° Barrell for the StG 44 was produced in quantity.

Krummlauf “I” version. (2022, October 28). In *Wikipedia*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf

Krummlauf “P” variant. (2022, October 28). In *Wikipedia*. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krummlauf

With a very short lifespan—approximately 300 rounds for the 30° variant and 160 rounds for the 45° variant—the Krummlauf barrel was under great stress. Additionally, due to the barrel bend, bullets shattered as they exited the barrel, producing an unintended shotgun effect. Developed too late in the war for testing and refinement by the Germans, postwar testing by the United States Army resulted in some modifications; however, the Krummlauf remained unreliable despite these modifications. The Soviets also experimented with a curved barrel, producing an Experimental PPSh with a curved barrel. However, with the curved barrel seen as a novelty, interest in the concept was soon lost.

Despite the concept of a bent barrel to allow the firing around corners, proving impracticable, Lieutenant Colonel John Owen Kelsey had seen the need for such a capability during New Zealand’s streetfighting in Italy and set about finding a solution.

Colonel Kelsey was born in New Plymouth in November 1904. Before World War II, he served as an Engineering Officer with the Royal Navy for two years. This engineering background led to his first New Zealand Army Ordnance posting in 1939 as a 2^nd Lieutenant with the 13th LAD New Zealand Ordnance Corps (NZOC). Shortly after he arrived in Egypt in 1940, he was promoted to Lieutenant and posted as the Assistant Senior Ordnance Mechanical Engineer (SOME). He became the SOME and was promoted to Temporary Captain a few months later. In November of the same year, he became the Deputy Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (Equipment) (DADOS E) HQ 2NZ Division. He was also promoted to Temporary Major while holding this position and, in April and May 1941, took part in the campaigns in Greece and Crete. On return from Crete, he was transferred to the British Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) Deputy Director Ordnance Services(DDOS) office for a few months and then returned to 2NZEF as the Chief Ordnance Mechanical Engineer (COME) in August 1941. His duties were extended a year later when he became the Assistant Director of Ordnance Services (ADOS) and COME 2NZEF.

After forming a separate Corps of New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME) in December 1942, Colonel Kelsey relinquished the appointment of COME and became the ADOS 2NZEF/ADOS 2NZ Division and was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel.

Lieutenant Colonel J O Kelsey, MBE August 1943- Ref: DA-04363-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22681005

A temporary promotion to Colonel followed from February to March 1944, when Colonel Kelsey was appointed as the DDOS of a Corps for operations in Italy.

He returned home on well-earned leave in April 1944 after four and a half years away but returned to the Middle East in September 1944. He resumed the ADOS 2NZEF and 2NZ Division appointments and maintained these responsibilities until the war ended, completing six years with the division and participating in every campaign. For distinguished service, Colonel Kelsey was Mentioned in Despatches.

On his discharge, Colonel Kelsey went into business as an accountant at Whakatane but was not very successful. He relocated to Auckland, where he obtained a post in the Public Relations Office but was subsequently asked to leave. Setting up a public relations office in Devonport, where he slept on a couch in the office because he could not afford to board, Colonel Kelsey set to work developing his Sten Gun adapted to fire around corners.

In June 1953, The Press announced that a Sten gun adapted to shoot round corners had been developed by Colonel Kelsey, known as the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle and that the army had tested it at Waiouru Military Camp. Following the success of these tests, the device was sent to the War Office in London for further examination.

Colonel Kelsey had adapted the Sten gun to have a swivel butt and a unique sight. Unlike the wartime Krummlauf, it was not a weapon with a bent barrel but a standard Sten Gun. The weapon could be used in the usual way, with shooting a round left or right corners enabled by simply resetting the butt to 90°to the parrel and sighted using a unique sight. The sight was based on the principle of the periscope, using prisms with exact details placed on the secret list.

With no reply from the War Office by the end of 1953 and confident with his design and that it could be adapted for other firearms, Colonel Kelsey took out world patent rights and intended to fly to England or America to try to sell the invention to armaments firms. However, despite being optimistic about his future, Colonel Kelsey struggled with the toll of adjusting to peacetime life, business failures, financial difficulties, a failed marriage and some unhappy love affairs and was discovered by the police on the floor of his office in Clarence Street, Devonport, at 5.30 pm. on 8 February 1954. Under his body was a .22 calibre rifle, which he appeared to have been holding.

A letter on the table addressed to whom it may concern said he was experimenting “to try to find the reason for dissipation of recoil in a rifle or submachine gun. This is immensely important to me now that the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle has proved successful.” He added “that there was considerable risk in the experiments,” with a footnote adding that the tests were to be made at training grounds near Whenuapai.

After reading some of Colonel Kelsey’s letters in chambers, the Coroner found that there was ample evidence that Colonel Kelsey had many personal difficulties. If he had intended to test the rifle at the time of his death, he would not have needed to write the letters, in one of which Kelsey stated he was “going to die,” The Coroner said he was forced to conclude that the cause of death was suicide by a self-inflicted bullet wound in the head.

With Colonel Kelsey’s passing, the development of the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle progressed no further.

In Leroy Thompson’s 2012 history of the Sten Gun, a variant of the Sten Gun matching Colonel Kelsey’s device is precisely described. This indicates that the weapon was tested and, although never progressing past the prototype stage, a record of its existence, along with some photos, was kept.

L. Thompson, M. Stacey, and A. Gilliland, *The Sten Gun* (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012).

Vintage Airsoft Update April 2019
Airsoft Sten MkIII: https://vintageairsoft.wordpress.com/2019/07/21/sten-mk5-folding-stock-experimental-model/

No other New Zealand Ordnance Officer has held such a variety of appointments on active service. Colonel Kelsey was an OME, SOME, DADOS(Equipment), COME, ADOS, DDOS, and acting CREME. Despite his wartime service and the award of the MBE and Mention in Dispatches, there was no place for Colonel Kelsey in the regular post-war army. Despite his optimistic belief in the success of the Kelsey swivel-stock rifle, Colonel Kelsey struggled to adjust to the post-war world. Without understanding the effects of wartime stress that exist today now, he fell through the gaps and took his own life. Additionally, given the stigma surrounding suicide that has existed for many years, his wartime service and potential achievement as an inventor have never fully been recognised.

10 LAD, Water Supply – Operation Compass, December 1940 – January 1941

The identity of Ngāti Tumatauenga

2 Comments Robert McKie

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]

Examples of early New Zealand Army Badges that include Māori phrases and symbology

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.

Corps	Colour (BCC designation)	Headband
RNZA	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZE	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZ Sigs	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZASC	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZAOC	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZEME	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZDC	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RF CADETS	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZChD	Blue (Purple Navy – BCC192)	Black
RNZAC	Black (Jet Black – BCC 220)	Black
NZ Regt	Green (Rifle Green – BCC 27)	Black
NZSAS	Maroon (Maroon – BCC 39)	Black
RNZAMC	Dull Cherry (Ruby – BCC 38)	Black
RNZ Pro	Blue (Royal Blue – BCC 197)	Black
NZAEC	Khaki (Khaki – BCC 72)	Brown
RNZNC	Grey (Grebe – BCC 82)	Black
NZWRAC	Green (Tartan Green – BCC 26)	Black

World War Two

A System Under Strain, Lessons Unlearned in the Interwar Years

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Part 1 – RNZAOC Regular Officers

Lieutenant Colonels

Majors

Captains

Lieutenants

Second Lieutenants

Part 2 – RNZAOC Quartermaster List

Captains and Quartermasters

Lieutenants and Quartermasters

Part 3 – RNZAOC Supernumerary List

Majors

Captains

Statistics on the RNZAOC 1972 Officers List

Operational Service

Service and Age

Appointments

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

M1956 Web Equipment

M1967 Modernized Load-Carrying Equipment (MLCE)

Large Ammunition Pouches

White Web

Combat Pack

Conclusion

Notes

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Bibliography

Notes

Share this:

Like this: