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

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

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

Evolution of the New Zealand Ordnance Badge

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

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

NZEF NZAOC Insignia 1916-1919

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

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

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

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

Origins of the “Mark of Shame” myth

The Crimean War (1853–1856) exposed the deep inefficiencies in Britain’s military logistics system, highlighting outdated practices and a lack of preparedness for the demands of modern warfare.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

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

The Board of Ordnance

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

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

The Commissariat

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

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

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

Myth: The “Mark of Shame”

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

Debunking the Myth: The Ordnance Badge and the Crimean War

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

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

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

Broader Impact

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

A Legacy of Service

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

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

Conclusion

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

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


Notes

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

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

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

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

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


The Archaeopteryx: A Misunderstood Symbol of Military Mobility and Adaptability

The Archaeopteryx celebrated as one of the earliest known birds and a symbol of evolution, has long been associated with fuel units in military organisations. Officially adopted by the Royal Logistic Corps (RLC) and the Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC), its use in New Zealand remains informal, linked primarily to 47 Petroleum Platoon and its successor units. However, this emblem is often misunderstood as the mythical phoenix due to its appearance and symbolic attributes.

RLC Use

The Archaeopteryx first appeared in the Royal Army Ordnance Corps (RAOC) fuel units and featured prominently on unit signs, plaques, and insignia. The Archaeopteryx symbol was retained when the RAOC transitioned into the RLC in 1993. However, it was never officially adopted as a trade identifier or an authorised uniform patch. Unofficial patches, often worn on overalls, are occasionally encountered.

The Archaeopteryx emblem is depicted in a fossil-like style, with outstretched wings and detailed feathered limbs, symbolising adaptability and evolution.

RAAOC Use

The Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps (RAAOC) formally embraced the Archaeopteryx, going beyond its traditional use on signs and plaques. The RAAOC authorised it as a trade badge for the Operator Petroleum (Op Pet) trade.

RAAOC officers may wear the Archaeopteryx badge upon completing the British or United States Army Petroleum Officers Course. Other ranks qualify after completing the required Op Pet courses, as RAAOC policy outlines.[1] This badge mirrors the RAOC/RLC Archaeopteryx design, adding a wattle wreath to reflect Australian heritage.

The New Zealand Context

In contrast to its formal adoption by the RAOC/RLC and RAAOC, the New Zealand Army has never officially recognised the Archaeopteryx. Instead, it has served as an unofficial emblem for 47 Petroleum Platoon and its successor units since the 1980s.

Unofficial patch worn by 47 Petroleum Platoon, RNZAOC, on the left arm of overalls. The patch was 100mm in diameter and was embroidered red on a dark blue background. Malcolm Thomas and Cliff Lord, New Zealand Army distinguishing patches, 1911-1991, Wellington, N.Z.1995

New Zealand Army fuel functions, now a sub-specialty within the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) Logistic Specialist Trade, have evolved over decades. Initially part of the RNZASC Supply Branch, the role transitioned to the RNZAOC Supplier Trade in 1979 and eventually into the RNZALR in 1996. Officers who attended the Officer Long Petroleum Courses in the United Kingdom during the 1970s and beyond played a key role in introducing the Archaeopteryx to the New Zealand Army, embedding it as an informal yet enduring symbol.[2]

Despite the absence of formal recognition, the Archaeopteryx remains familiar with unofficial unit patches, signs, and souvenir items associated with New Zealand fuel units.

Why the Archaeopteryx?

The adoption of the Archaeopteryx by military fuel units reflects its symbolic alignment with their role and mission:

  1. A Symbol of Evolution and Adaptability: The Archaeopteryx embodies evolution as a transitional species between dinosaurs and modern birds. Similarly, military fuel units have adapted to support increasingly mechanised military forces and evolving fuel technologies.
  2. Connection to Mobility: The Archaeopteryx, one of the earliest known flyers, symbolises mobility—a cornerstone of military logistics. Fuel units play a parallel role, enabling the movement of military machinery across challenging environments.
  3. Historical Adoption During Mechanisation: The mechanisation of warfare in the 20th century, with vehicles, tanks, and aircraft becoming critical assets, created a need for specialised fuel units. The Archaeopteryx became a fitting emblem of their vital function during this transformative period.
  4. Symbolism and Representation: Its depiction with outstretched wings and feathered limbs conveys dynamism and versatility, mirroring the qualities of petroleum units. The fossil connection to oil-rich layers underscores its relevance to the petroleum industry and military fuel operations.
Fossil of an Archaeopteryx found near Workerszell, Germany, in 1951 Photograph: Sally A. Morgan/Corbis. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/feb/07/archaeopteryx-natural-history-museum-london

Misinterpretation as a Phoenix

The Archaeopteryx is frequently mistaken for the phoenix due to its depiction of fiery colours or outstretched wings. While the phoenix represents mythical rebirth, the Archaeopteryx symbolises real-world evolution and adaptability—essential to sustaining military forces.

The Modern Legacy

Today, the Archaeopteryx serves as a symbol for RLC and RAAOC fuel units. Whether officially recognised or informally adopted, it represents adaptability, evolution, and mobility—the core tenets of military fuel units. However, the persistent misidentification as a phoenix highlights the need to educate and clarify the emblem’s unique history and significance.

By embracing the Archaeopteryx for what it truly represents—a link between past and present, evolution and functionality—RNZALR Petroleum Operators can honour its legacy while exemplifying the qualities that make them indispensable to military logistics.

Unofficial interpretation of a modern New Zeland Army Archaeopteryx badge utilising fern fonds introduced to provide a unique New Zeland Flavour to trade badges in 1988

Notes

[1] Chief of Army, Australian Army Dress Manual (Defence Publishing, Library and Information Service, Department of Defence, CANBERRA  ACT  2600 2019). https://www.army.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/Army-Dress-Manual-AL5.pdf.

[2] Greer Roberts, A History of the Petroleum Centre RLC West Moores (1996).


Should Challenge Coins Be Collected or Earned?

Challenge coins have become a familiar and accepted tradition within international military and organisational cultures. These small metal medallions or coins are tokens of camaraderie, achievement, and recognition. Challenge coins are crafted to symbolise military units, organisations, or events. Challenge coins often feature detailed images of unit insignias or emblems and usually include the unit motto and other related details. Challenge coins are not simply decorative items but represent organisational history, build connections, and reflect the shared values of their bearers.

Traditionally, challenge coins have been earned or gifted to recognise qualifying or exceptional service to an organisation or presented as a gesture of respect to guests or visitors. As such, the presentation of a coin is frequently steeped in formality after a meeting or activity, creating a memorable moment for the recipient. However, as the frequency and popularity of challenge coins have expanded, the methods and primary purpose of obtaining challenge coins has ignited a debate about the meaning and appropriate use of challenge coins.

The Evolution of Challenge Coins in New Zealand

In New Zealand, challenge coins are a recent addition to New Zealand military traditions, heavily influenced by the integration of American military culture. Historically, New Zealand military units followed British customs, favouring wall-mounted plaques to commemorate service or unit affiliations. Although attractive and often personalised by engraving the recipient’s details onto the plaque, plaques’ use and long-term retention have practical limitations compared to challenge coins. Plaques are large, unwieldy and often expensive, rendering them unsuitable for modern mobile lifestyles.

Challenge coins offer an ideal alternative. Compact and portable, they retain the symbolic weight of plaques but are much easier to carry, share, and display. Their popularity has also been fuelled by the increasing collaboration between New Zealand and other Western military forces, particularly the United States, in coalition operations such as those in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Pacific. By default, they have become the accepted international military gesture of mutual respect and camaraderie, fostering bonds between allied nations and their personnel.

What Makes Challenge Coins Unique?

Challenge coins are not only distinguished by their portability and ease of display but, by extension, by the traditions which have evolved around them. For example, the ‘challenge’ aspect stems from a popular game among military members: One person produces his coin, and others in attendance must also present theirs. The unfortunate individual unable to show their coin may be required to pay a fine, often buying a round of drinks or undertaking some other challenge to compensate. Despite being a light-hearted and frivolous tradition, it reinforces a sense of pride, belonging and shared experiences among coin holders. Understanding this context deepens the appreciation for a coin’s significance.

As with other international forces within the New Zealand Military, challenge coins have become the standard token of appreciation and recognition of membership of a unit or organisation. A challenge coin’s significance is that it represents a relationship, achievement, or shared experience recognised by the presentation or awarding of a challenge coin at a significant event or ceremony.

Collecting vs. Earning Coins

The growing popularity of challenge coins has sparked a debate on their appropriate use. Should challenge coins only be collected by those who earn or have been gifted them, or is it acceptable for anyone to collect them? This debate is at the heart of the challenge of coin culture, and understanding both sides can help you form your own opinion.

On the one hand, purists argue that challenge coins should ideally be earned or presented as gifts. Coins presented in camaraderie, gratitude or recognition will carry value and significance to the holder, providing the holder and those viewing the coin a record of service and shared experience, fostering a deep sense of esprit de corps. Purists contend that selling or trading such coins undermines the purpose and traditions associated with challenge coins.

Conversely, collectors often perceive challenge coins simply as artefacts with attractive designs, emblems, and mottos, frequently forgetting or not understanding the military and organisational history they represent, making them fascinating objects of study that, although evoking a sense of fascination, they lack the respect that a challenge coin represents. However, some organisations will produce coins for public release for fundraising or promotional purposes; these can be considered fair game for enthusiasts.

Balancing Tradition and Modernity

The key distinction lies in the intent. Coins awarded for exceptional service or specific achievements carry a unique weight that cannot be replicated simply by purchase or trading. Ownership of presented or gifted coins through purchase or trade diminishes their significance. However, collecting coins intended for sale can provide an alternative pathway to recognise and promote genuine coins’ traditions, a balance that draws a line between earning and collecting.

In New Zealand, the rise of challenge coins has also marked a shift in how the military and increasingly veteran groups commemorate and recognise their members. Where plaques once dominated as the preferred form of recognition, challenge coins have taken their place, blending the practicality of modern life with the weight of tradition. Challenge coins now serve as reminders of service, solidarity and esprit de corps, ensuring that those who serve are honoured in meaningful and enduring ways, instilling a sense of respect and honour in the audience.

Whether earned or collected, respect for challenge coins and their traditions is paramount. Challenge coins are more than a token souvenir; they are symbols of pride, belonging, and the bonds forged in service. As their use continues to evolve, they provide a powerful tool for telling the stories and sacrifices of those who have served and those who continue to serve in the New Zealand Military.


Feeding the Force: A History of NZ Army Field Cooking Systems

Field cooking equipment plays a vital role in maintaining the health and morale of troops in the field, directly impacting operational effectiveness. This article focuses on the major pieces of field cooking equipment the New Zealand military used from World War II to the present, offering a historical overview of their development, use, and eventual replacement. It intentionally excludes ancillary equipment such as refrigerators, hotboxes, water heaters and section cooking equipment to concentrate on the core cooking systems essential for food preparation in field conditions.

From introducing the No. 1 Burner during the mobilisation for World War II to adopting modern systems like the SERT PFC 500, each innovation reflects the evolving requirements of military field operations. This article highlights the importance of reliable and efficient food preparation and underscores the logistical ingenuity required to sustain forces in diverse and often challenging environments.

Through this exploration, we gain a deeper appreciation for the critical role field cooking solutions play in ensuring that troops remain well-fed and ready to meet the demands of military service.

The No 1 Burner

As New Zealand mobilised in September 1939, one of the many equipment deficiencies identified was the lack of portable cookers for preparing meals in the field. The coming war was anticipated to be one of mobility, rendering traditional cooking methods unsuitable. In response, the Army approached the New Zealand Ministry of Supply to procure 72 portable cookers for the First Echelon, with the possibility of an additional two for the Second Echelon. Samples were made available from existing Army stocks to facilitate the manufacture of the portable cookers.[1]

The portable cooker required by the Army was the No. 1 Hydra Burner, a petrol-burning device developed and patented by Lewis Motley in the 1920s. After 12 years of trials and refinement with the British Army, it was officially adopted as the No. 1 Hydra Burner, becoming the primary cooking and heating device for the British Army by 1939. The burner was designed to cook food in various ways using 6-gallon pots and frying pans, either by using a trench dug in the ground or a purpose-built stand on hard surfaces. The No. 1 Hydra Burner could also be used with Soyer or Fowler field stoves, providing flexibility in field cooking arrangements.

With samples of the No. 1 Burner available from New Zealand Army stocks, tenders were invited to supply 72 burner units and their associated parts and 432 hot boxes, dishes, fry pans, and stands.

Tendering Process and Contracts

The tendering process involved several prominent New Zealand engineering firms, such as:

  • National Electrical & Engineering Co. Ltd., Wellington
  • Precision Engineering Co. Ltd., Wellington
  • Hardleys Ltd., Auckland
  • D. Henry & Co. Ltd., Auckland
  • Alex Harvey and Sons, Auckland

Ultimately, the contract for the burners and associated components was awarded to D. Henry & Co. Ltd., while Hardleys Ltd. took responsibility for the hot boxes and dishes. Delivery commenced in late 1939, and the equipment was completed in early 1940.

The burner unit manufactured by D. Henry & Co. featured a notable redesign from the original Hydra No. 1 Burner. It incorporated an air pump into the fuel vessel and modified the filling cap with a coil around the orifice. The updated design became the No. 1 Burner (New Pattern).

Expansion of Use

By July 1940, plans were underway to equip the Territorial Force fully, necessitating the procurement of an additional 260 No. 1 Burner units. Accessories for field cooking, such as 6-gallon cooking containers, frying pans, and baffle plates, were also ordered in large quantities. To ensure distributed cooking capability down to the section level, 396 Portable Cookers No. 2 and 207 Portable Cookers No. 3 were planned to be added to the inventory.

The distribution of equipment to the Ordnance Depots at Trentham, Ngāruawāhia, and Burnham ensured that units across the country were adequately supplied. Each depot received a portion of the 260 additional burners and 96 spare units and their respective accessories.

Operational Challenges and Adaptations

The No. 1 Burner (New Pattern) was not without its challenges. Upon entering service, numerous faults were reported, including:

  • Difficulty maintaining pressure
  • Issues with the nozzle
  • Fuel leakage from the air pump

Many problems were exacerbated by using outdated instruction manuals, which referenced the original Hydra No. 1 Burner rather than the updated version. Ordnance Workshops conducted inspections to address these issues, and the manufacturer took remedial actions. Despite these efforts, the burner remained a critical component of the Army’s field cooking solutions throughout the war.

Cooks preparing Christmas dinner in the NZ Division area in Italy, World War II – Photograph taken by George Kaye. New Zealand. Department of Internal Affairs. War History Branch Ref: DA-04932-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/23073864

Post-War Usage and Decline

Following World War II, the No. 1 Burner remained in service, a testament to its robust design and utility. However, technological advancements and the introduction of lighter, more efficient equipment gradually led to its decline. In 1964, the adoption of M37 cooking cabinets began to replace the No. 1 Burner in many roles. By 1973, the burner was no longer listed as an item of supply in New Zealand Army scaling documents.[2]

Wiles Cookers

Early in World War II, the Australians developed and introduced the Wiles Senior and Junior Mobile Steam Cookers into their military service. Over 500 Junior Cookers were used by the Australian forces, earning positive feedback from American forces, who also adopted several units.[3]

In 1943, the New Zealand Commissioner of Supply acquired photos and blueprints of the Wiles Cookers and General Motors in Petone indicated they had the expertise and capacity to manufacture the cookers locally if the New Zealand Army placed an order. However, as the Army already had sufficient stocks of the No. 1 Burner, they decided against adopting the new cookers. Despite this, the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) showed some interest. In 1942, the RNZAF received a Wiles Senior Field Kitchen (trailer) and a mobile cookhouse, which was later transferred to the Army.[4]

Trailer [‘Wiles Senior’ Army Field Kitchen trailer]. The Museum of Transport and Technology (MOTAT).

By 1948, the New Zealand Army still lacked a mobile field cooker and conducted extensive trials of a Wiles Cooker at Trentham. The trials demonstrated that the Wiles Cooker was well-suited to New Zealand’s field conditions. However, the United Kingdom was concurrently testing mobile field cookers, and no immediate action was taken to purchase the Wiles Cooker, as New Zealand hoped to adopt a standard cooker based on the British pattern.

In 1951, the UK trials concluded, selecting a two-wheeled trailer-mounted steam cooker to meet British requirements. However, several factors made it unlikely that New Zealand would obtain these British-pattern cookers for several years. Consequently, the idea of purchasing the Wiles Cooker from Australia was revisited.

Re-evaluation of the Wiles Cooker revealed that it met UK specifications and offered several advantages:

  • Fuel Efficiency: The cooker uses light fuel, using only 25% of the standard fuel issue. Alternative fuels like scrub, deadwood, or dry rubbish are available. The cooker could run on wood, coal, or oil.
  • High Cooking Pressure: Reduced cooking times significantly.
  • Nutritional Benefits: High-pressure steaming preserved many vitamins in vegetables.
  • Versatility: Three-course meals could be prepared, cooked, and served with minimal discomfort or inconvenience.
  • Multiple Cooking Methods: The cooker supported roasting, steaming, and frying.
  • Mobility: Meals could be prepared while the cooker was in transit.
  • Hot Water Supply: A continuous flow of hot water was available for washing up.

Among the models available, the Junior Mobile Trailer Cooker was considered the most suitable for training cooks, supporting sub-unit camps and weekend bivouacs, serving as a reserve for national emergencies, and equipping mobilisation efforts.[5]

In 1951, the Wiles Junior Cooker was priced at £747 Australian (approximately NZD 44,130.80 in 2024). In July of that year, the New Zealand Cabinet approved an expenditure of £10,520 NZ Pounds (approximately NZD 696,003.20 in 2024) to purchase 16 Wiles Junior Cookers.[6]

Wiles Junior mobile kitchen. New Zealand Military Vehicle Club Inc

Entering service in 1952, the New Zealand Army’s experience with the Wiles Cooker closely mirrored the challenges faced by the Australian Army. By the late 1970s, the Wiles Cooker had become obsolescent and was no longer in production. Several key issues highlight its unsuitability for continued use:

  • Deterioration and Serviceability – The Wiles Cookers had progressively been withdrawn from service as repair costs now exceed the One-Time Repair Limit (OTRL).
  • Fuel Challenges – The cooker relied on solid fuel, which was increasingly impractical. Procuring solid fuel was difficult and required significant time and labour for preparation. Liquid or gaseous fuels were then considered far more suitable due to their efficiency, availability, and ease of use.
  • Maintenance and Support – The boilers required regular inspection and testing by RNZEME. Suitable repair parts and major components were no longer available, making maintenance increasingly challenging and costly.
  • Operational Deficiencies—The Wiles Cooker used rubber hoses to channel cooking steam and hot water, imparting an unpleasant flavour to food and beverages. These inefficiencies compromise food quality, negatively impacting soldier morale in field conditions.
  • Obsolescence and Reliability – The New Zealand equipment dated back to the 1950s based on a World War II design which had surpassed its economic life expectancy, with the Wiles Cooker unreliable and unable to meet the operational demands of the modern Army.[7]
Army cooks use a Wiles Junior Mobil Cooker during an exercise near Oxford in Canterbury (NZ) in 1959. National Army Museum (NZ) Ref . 1993,1912 (5691)

The Wiles Cooker was quietly withdrawn from New Zealand Army service in the late 1970s as they were an obsolete, costly to maintain, and operationally inefficient equipment. The less mobile M-1937 and M-1959 Field Stoves provided field cooking functionality until a new mobile trailer was introduced into NZ Army service in 1985.

M-1937 and M-1959 Field Ranges

The Cooker, Field Range M-1937(M37), is a United States equipment introduced during World War II as a robust and versatile field cooking system designed to support forces in diverse and challenging environments. Compact, durable, and fuelled by a gasoline burner, the M37 can prepare meals for up to 75 personnel, depending on the menu. Its design emphasises portability and adaptability, allowing it to be used for baking, boiling, and frying with the appropriate accessories. Constructed from corrosion-resistant materials, it was built to endure the harsh conditions of field operations.

M-1937 field range early model
In its original form the M-1937 field range consisted of one or more self-contained cabinets, constructed of aluminum and stainless steel, each of which contained a roast or bake pan with griddle cover and a steel cradle for supporting a large boiler and a fire unit. WW2 Field Kitchen

In New Zealand, the M37 was likely first acquired by the RNZAF and the 3rd New Zealand Division from United States Forces stocks, particularly for operations in the Pacific Theatre, where reliable hot meals were essential. Photographic evidence indicates that New Zealand forces used the M37 as early as 1956, highlighting its durability and effectiveness. Its formal adoption by the New Zealand Army likely occurred in the early 1960s as part of broader post-war efforts to standardise and modernise military equipment. The M37’s reliability in providing hot meals under challenging conditions made it an invaluable asset for field operations.

Boy Entrants School publicity. View of the camp kitchen “cook house” at the Rainbow Valley camp.

By 1982, the New Zealand Army introduced the Cooker, Field Range M-1959 (M59), as an upgraded successor to the M37. While retaining many of the original M37 components, the M59 incorporated several improvements.  The M59’s design improvements increased heat output and reduced cooking times. Adding improved safety features and compatibility with existing M37 parts eased its integration into New Zealand Army operations.

Despite the introduction of the M59, the M37 remained in service, often used alongside its successor. Both systems have continued to be a mainstay of field catering operations, supported by modern enhancements such as Gas Burner Units (GBUs) and Multi-Burner Units (MBUs). In 2024, the New Zealand Army received additional cabinets from Australia, further extending the operational lifespan of these systems. However, a growing challenge is the scarcity of replacement parts, including the original pots, pans, and utensils, which are no longer manufactured. This limits the ability to sustain these cooking systems in the long term, providing a challenge to the NZ Army to maintain proven systems with the need for investment in modern, sustainable field catering solutions.

Kärcher Field Kitchen

In 1985, the New Zealand Army introduced 28 Kärcher Tactical Field Kitchen 250 (TFK 250) units into service. Originally developed in 1984 for the German Armed Forces, the TFK 250 was adopted the following year. This highly mobile field kitchen can efficiently prepare meals for up to 250 personnel in demanding environments. Its modular cooking system includes multiple chambers, allowing a variety of dishes to be prepared simultaneously. Designed for versatility, the TFK 250 can operate using gas, diesel, or solid fuel, making it adaptable to available resources. Mounted on a robust trailer with off-road capability, it is well-suited for deployment in remote or rugged terrains. The unit’s energy-efficient heating system ensures reduced fuel consumption and rapid meal preparation, while its stainless steel surfaces simplify cleaning and sanitation. Quick to set up and dismantle, the TFK 250 meets the dynamic demands of operational environments with ergonomic controls for ease of use. Widely used by over 50 countries, humanitarian organisations and disaster response teams, the TFK 250 is renowned for its reliability, adaptability, and ability to function in extreme conditions. By the time production ceased in 2020, Kärcher had manufactured 3,000 of these mobile catering systems at their plant in Obersontheim, Germany.[8]

From 1985, the TFK250 became the cornerstone of NZDF field catering support. Supplemented by the M37/59 Field Ranges, it provided hot meals to New Zealand servicemen and women both at home and on operations around the world. Originally planned with a Life of Type (LOT) of 33 years set to expire in 2018, the TFK250’s LOT was extended by an additional seven years to 2025, bringing its total service life to an impressive 40 years.

Karcher Kitchens supporting Waitangi commemorations. 2nd Combat Service Support Battalion

SERT PFC 500

To replace the TFK250 and reintroduce laundry, shower, and ablution capabilities, the NZDF launched the Field Operational Hygiene and Catering System (FOHCS) project. This force modernisation initiative encompassed catering, shower, ablution, and laundry platforms. A request for proposals was issued on 27 March 2019, with the submission period closing on 12 May 2019, seeking a range of equipment to meet these objectives.[9]

The contract for the FOHCS requirement was awarded to Australian Defence Contractors, Nowra-based Global Defence Systems (GDS), with deliveries scheduled for completion by 2022. The platforms delivered by GDS were developed in collaboration with the French manufacturer SERT, a leader in deployable life support solutions for over 25 years. To ensure the NZDF maintained a robust sovereign sustainment capability throughout the equipment’s lifecycle, some components were manufactured in New Zealand, with engineering support services also available locally.[10]

The catering portion of the solution provided by GDS included ten SERT PFC 500 transportable kitchen platforms.[11]  The PFC 500 is installed on a modular platform designed to fit various logistic configurations, such as a trailer, two platforms in a 20’ dry ISO container, or on a flat rack.

SERT PFC 500 transportable kitchen platforms (GDS)

Each PFC 500 unit has four stainless steel gastronorm cooking modules: the MultiSert multifunction kettle, the Big CombiSert combined oven, and the DuoSert fan-assisted oven with a hot plate on top. These units are highly energy-efficient, featuring the latest-generation components and SERT’s advanced high-efficiency burners, resulting in low electric power consumption. Additionally, the units are powered by a low-power generator, ensuring full autonomy in the field.

The expandable platform provides users with a sheltered work area measuring 14 m², elevated 40 cm above the ground for ease of use and protection.[12]

Despite nearly 70 years of experience demonstrating the utility of trailer-mounted field kitchens—for training cooks, supporting sub-unit camps and weekend bivouacs, aiding national emergencies such as earthquake recovery and flood relief, and supporting significant national events—the PFC 500 is not trailer-mounted. Instead, it is mounted on a platform requiring specialised material handling equipment (MHE) and vehicles for transport, which limits its utility. Consequently, despite being delivered in 2022, the PFC 500 has not yet been utilised for any significant events, such as disaster response, national hui and tangis. Meanwhile, the TFJ205 and M37/59 have continued to serve effectively, raising questions about the suitability of modern defence procurement decisions.

Conclusion

Field cooking equipment has been a cornerstone of New Zealand military logistics, ensuring that troops are well-fed and operationally effective in a variety of challenging conditions. From the No. 1 Burner’s ingenuity during World War II to the versatile M37/59 and the robust TFK 250, each system has contributed significantly to maintaining the health and morale of soldiers in the field. However, the NZDF’s latest procurement—the SERT PFC 500—has raised concerns about the organisation’s ability to learn from its own history and past successes.

The No. 1 Burner demonstrated the importance of adaptability, while the M37/59 and TFK 250 further underscored the value of functionality, flexibility, and mobility in field cooking systems. These systems not only meet operational requirements but also adapted to evolving military and humanitarian needs, proving their worth in national emergencies and international deployments.

In contrast, the SERT PFC 500 reflects a worrying departure from these principles. Its reliance on platform-mounted configurations requiring specialised material handling equipment and vehicles has limited its usability and undermined its intended purpose. This is particularly concerning given that the TFK 250 and even older M37/59 systems remain functional and continue to provide critical support in the field and for domestic disaster relief. Despite the NZDF’s modernisation goals, the PFC 500 lacks the versatility, mobility, and proven reliability that characterised its predecessors.

The NZDF’s choice of the SERT PFC 500 raises questions about its procurement processes and ability to prioritise operational needs over theoretical specifications. While the PFC 500 may offer advanced technology, its lack of practical flexibility and mobility represents a step backwards, especially compared to the legacy systems it replaced. This oversight suggests that the NZDF has “dropped the ball” with this procurement despite decades of valuable lessons in field cooking logistics.

Hopefully, this article will not only highlight these shortcomings but also encourage further research into this often-overlooked yet vital area of military logistics. By investigating historical successes, contemporary challenges, and future requirements, researchers and policymakers alike can ensure that future field cooking systems are innovative, practical, resilient, and aligned with the realities of modern military operations. Only by learning from past successes and failures can the NZDF develop solutions that effectively support its personnel in the field and beyond.


Notes

[1] Memorandum Defence Purchase Division to the Factory Production Controller dated 2 October 1939. “War, Transport Supply – Portable Benzine Cookers,” Archives New Zealand Item No R20947073  (1939-1943).

[2]  Index to New Zealand Army Scaling Documents, vol. Issue No 7 (Trentham: Scales Section, RNZEME Directorate, 15 January, 1973). .

[3] Memorandum from the Office of the Director of Production to the Munitions Controller dated 26 July 1943. “War, Transport Supply – Portable Benzine Cookers.”

[4] “Trailer [‘Wiles’ Army Field Kitchen trailer],” Museum of Transport & Technology, 2024, accessed 1 December, 2024, https://collection.motat.nz/objects/9967/trailer-wiles-army-field-kitchen-trailer.

[5] Memorandum to Cabinet from Minster of Defence Subject: Purchase of Wiles Mobile Steam Cookers for NZ Army Dated 4 July 195. “Army Equipment.- General,” Archives New Zealand Item No R20821850  (1950-1957).

[6] Minute: Secretary of the Cabinet to Minister of Defence Subject: Purchase of Wiles Mobile Steam Cookers for NZ Army Dated 12 July 1951. “Army Equipment.- General.”

[7] “Standardisation -ABCA America/Britain/Canada/Australia] Army Standardisation – Quartermaster – Organisational Equipment – Bakery And Cooking,” Archives New Zealand Item No R6822201  (1974-1986).

[8] “The end of an era: Model series ends after more than 30 years,” Kärcher Futuretech, 2020, accessed 7 April, 2024, https://www.karcher-futuretech.com/en/inside-kaercher-futuretech/newsroom/medien-information/2152-the-end-of-an-era-model-series-ends-after-more-than-30-years.html.

[9] “Field Operational Hygiene and Catering Systems (FOHCS),” Closed Tenders, NZDF, 2019, accessed 1 Decemeber, 2024, https://www.gets.govt.nz/NZDF/ExternalTenderDetails.htm?id=20885024.

[10] “Nowra based GDS wins NZ Field Infrastucture Contract,” Australian Defence Magazine, 2020, accessed 1 Decemeber, 2024, https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/land/nowra-based-gds-wins-nz-field-infrastructure-contract.

[11] “New Zealand Defence Force overhauls Field Operational Hygiene and Catering System,” Defence Connect, 2020, accessed 1 December, 2024, https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/joint-capabilities/6009-new-zealand-defence-force-overhauls-field-operational-hygiene-and-catering-system.

[12] “Kitchen Platforms PFC500/100,” SERT Life Support, 2020, accessed 1 Decemeber, 2024, http://www.sert.fr/market-military/catering/trailersorplatforms/75-kitchensplatformspfc5001000.html.


Unkept Promises: Financial Oversights and the NZDF’s Duty of Care

It is deeply frustrating to read reports indicating that serving and former New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) personnel continue to face systemic financial challenges that could and should be mitigated by the NZDF, including breaks through the tax system. This ongoing neglect raises serious questions about the organisation’s commitment to equity, fairness, and the well-being of its members. (nzherald.co.nzhttps://ebx.sh/1sKbws)

NZDF personnel make sacrifices few of us can fully comprehend. They endure long separations from family, operate in dangerous environments, and shoulder responsibilities that most civilians never encounter. These sacrifices deserve recognition—not just in rhetoric but through meaningful support mechanisms. Yet, time and again, administrative oversights and policy failures leave service members disadvantaged, undermining morale and trust in the very institutions meant to support them.

What is most troubling is that these issues are not new. Some veterans will remember the NZDF’s failure to apply existing legislation during the 1992–94 deployment to Somalia—a glaring example of neglect that has left a bitter legacy.

At the time, Section 61(16) of the Income Tax Act 1976 stipulated that income earned in an active service area outside New Zealand would be tax-free.

Sect 61 (16) of the Income Tax Act 1976

Somalia, then engulfed in chaos and widely recognised as an active war zone by other nations, should have qualified. Yet, the NZDF failed to declare it an active service area, instead treating the deployment as a routine training exercise. This decision blatantly disregarded the harsh realities faced by New Zealand troops, who were operating within kilometres of deadly conflict, including the infamous Battle of Mogadishu.

Rather than advocating for its personnel by retroactively declaring Somalia an active-duty area, the NZDF shut down discussions. This inaction ensured deployed personnel could not benefit from tax-free status, and worse still, the relevant legislation was repealed in 1995. For those who served, this was not just a missed opportunity—it was a betrayal that set a worrying precedent.

Fast forward 30 years, and the same disconnect between the NZDF and its duty of care persists. Reports of systemic financial challenges today reflect a broader failure to learn from the past. Administrative indifference and a lack of proactive support leave many service members feeling undervalued and unsupported.

Addressing these issues is not just about fairness; it is about honouring the commitments made to those who serve. Financial policies and administrative processes must be reformed to ensure service personnel are never disadvantaged due to systemic oversight. Lessons from Somalia and other historical failures must guide us forward, not continue to haunt us as reminders of unkept promises.

The NZDF and the government must take urgent action. This means reviewing policies that affect personnel financial well-being, introducing safeguards to prevent future oversights, and—above all—placing the well-being of service members at the heart of decision-making. Without these steps, the gap between the sacrifices made by NZDF personnel and the recognition they receive will only grow wider.

For an organisation tasked with defending the nation, it is high time the NZDF defended its own.


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

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

The Need for Modernisation

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

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

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

The “Dress for the 90s” Proposals

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

Combat Clothing

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

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

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

    Barrack Dress

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

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

    Ceremonial and Mess Dress

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

    Barrack Dress – Ceremonial

    Physical Training (PT) Dress

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

    Issuing Procedures and Accounting System

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

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

    Cost Implications

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

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

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

    Supplementary Notes and Recommendations

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

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

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

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

    Implementation and Outcomes

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

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

    Conclusion

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


    Notes

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


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

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

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

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

    The Scope of AEPS No. 63

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

    Definitions and Standardisation

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

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

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

    ISO Containers and Modular Shelters

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

    ISO Containers

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

    Modular Shelters

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

    Operational Necessity of MHE

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

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

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

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

    Desired Characteristics of MHE

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

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

    MHE in Service (1988)

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

    Depot MHE

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

    Field MHE

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

    Modular Distribution Systems

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

    Strategic Interoperability and International Standards

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

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

    Distribution Policy

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

    Conclusion

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


    Notes

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

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


    The Evolution of Helmets in the New Zealand Army

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

    — General Sir John Hackett, British Army

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

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

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

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

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

    WW1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Interwar Period

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

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

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

    WW2

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

    2NZEF

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

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

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

    Home Defence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Equipping the Emergency Precautions Scheme

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

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

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

    Distribution and Post-War Transition

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

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

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

    Post-war

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

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

    The M1 Helmet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Total requestions for M1 Helmets between 1959 and 1969 were:

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

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

    M1 Helmet Covers

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

    Undyed Hessian Cover
    Dyed Hessian Cover

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

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

    Example of Mitchell M1 Helmet Cover

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

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

    Example of ERDL M1 Helmet Cover

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

    Transition to a new Helmet

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) combat helmet

    Airborne Helmets

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

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

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

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

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

    Helmet, Steel, Airborne Troops Mk II

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

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

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

    Other Variations with the NZ M1 Helmets

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

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

    Overview of New Zealand Army Helmet Development from 2000

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

    M1 to PASGT: Growing Pains

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

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

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

    Example of PASGT with M1 ERDL Cover

    2008 PASGT Upgrade: Comfort and Protection Boost

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

    PASGT fittd with Skydex Harness

    2012: Rabintex 303AU ACH

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

    Rabintex 303AU Advanced Combat Helmet (ACH)

    2021: Viper P4

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

    full cut Viper P4 helmet

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

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

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


    Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


    Unsung Enablers: A Snapshot of New Zealand’s Army Movements Control in World War II

    Given the rich tapestry of New Zealand’s World War II history, the spotlight often shines on the battlefield heroics of the combat units of the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force in the Middle East, Italy, and the Pacific. Yet beneath these narratives lies a network of unsung combat enablers whose logistical efforts ensured the execution of military operations. Among them were the men and women of the New Zealand Army Movements Control, whose largely unrecognised efforts were vital to the war effort.

    New Zealand military historians often overlook New Zealand’s military logistic functions, it’s as if logistics just happened in the background with no real consequences on the eventful outcome. However, these operations required meticulous planning, coordination, and execution. As part of New Zealand’s broader Military Logistic efforts, Movements Control was pivotal in managing the complex logistics of troop and equipment movements across various theatres of war.

    Since its origins during World War II, the role of Army Movements Operators has evolved significantly. Post-war, movement operations became a core trade within the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC), later passing to the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT), and now residing within the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR). Today, RNZALR Movement Operators are crucial in managing military logistics and ensuring the efficient transportation of personnel and equipment.

    Their responsibilities are divided into three main areas:

    • Terminal Operations: Movement Operators handle the loading and unloading of cargo from various transport modes, including aircraft, ships, and trucks. They operate vehicles like trucks and forklifts.
    • Movement Control: Movement Control Operators focus on planning and coordinating the transportation of defence personnel and equipment domestically and internationally. They manage travel logistics, including route planning, ticketing, accommodation, and customs clearance.
    • Aerial Delivery: Aerial Delivery Operators specialise in preparing and packing supplies for airdrops, calculating loads and drop zones to ensure safe delivery.
    NZ Army modified 20-tonne CAT938K loader with a FAUN trackway dispenser attached to the front. It can roll out a modular aluminium trackway, 40 metres long, from the landing craft, to support trucks driving on a beach.https://www.nzdf.mil.nz/media-centre/news/force-for-new-zealand-2023-year-in-review/

    Over the years, the role has adapted to meet the changing needs of military logistics and advancements in technology and transportation methods. However, the modern RNZALR Movement Operator trade has its roots in the movement organisations built up during World War II to support New Zealand operations at home and abroad. This article aims to provide a snapshot of this often-overlooked aspect of New Zealand’s military logistics and challenges faced by the New Zealand Army Movements Control during World War Two.

    Movements Within New Zealand

    During wartime, the Quartermaster-General’s Branch (QMG) was crucial in managing the movement of troops and materials within New Zealand and overseas. Its responsibilities included coordinating transport by road, rail, sea, and air and issuing travel warrants. To manage these extensive tasks, the QMG delegated movement operations to two Assistant Quartermaster Generals: AQMG (2) Movements, who oversaw general troop movements, and AQMG (4) Shipping, who was responsible for sea transport.

    A small but essential unit, the Transport Shipping Office, operated under Army Headquarters in Wellington. It was tasked with overseeing the receipt and dispatch of all military stores and equipment at the port and ensuring accurate records. Despite its nominal establishment of 40 personnel, it often worked with reduced numbers, reflecting the resource constraints of the time.

    The organisation of overseas deployments was complex, with troops mobilised from camps across New Zealand and transported to ports via special trains and ferries. Before departure, troopships underwent thorough inspections, with adjustments made to ensure adequate accommodations. Early in the war, ships retained peacetime fittings, offering cabins for most troops. However, as shipping space became scarce, ships were reconfigured to maximise capacity with hammocks and tiered bunks.

    Between 1939 and 1944, New Zealand dispatched over 64,000 troops overseas in regular reinforcement drafts. For instance, the 1st Echelon, comprising 6,529 soldiers, departed in January 1940, while the 10th Reinforcements, comprising 6,063 troops, embarked in May 1943. Dispatching reinforcement drafts required meticulous planning, especially in arranging final leave for troops and securing timely transport despite occasional delays.

    Deployments were not limited to the Middle East and Europe. Forces were also sent to Fiji and New Caledonia, requiring additional logistical arrangements. The deployment of the 3rd Division to New Caledonia in late 1942 involved moving 13,000 personnel in nine stages, highlighting the scale of planning and challenges posed by wartime conditions.

    The return of troops from overseas required equally detailed organisation. Movement Control ensured that soldiers disembarked efficiently, underwent medical checks, and received travel documents, ration cards, and leave passes. Large-scale returns, such as the 6,000-strong Ruapehu draft in 1943, involved special trains and ferries transporting men to their homes. In cases of furlough drafts arriving from Australia, disembarkation staff boarded ships at Fremantle to complete administrative tasks during the voyage, ensuring a seamless process upon arrival in New Zealand.

    Within New Zealand, troop movements were frequent and extensive. Movement Control coordinated the initial mobilisation of forces, weekend leave, furloughs, and transfers between camps. Given the geography of New Zealand and the distances involved, special trains or ferries were often required, particularly during peak periods such as Christmas and New Year. For example, in late 1942 and early 1943, around 40,000 troops were granted leave, necessitating careful scheduling to avoid disruptions to civilian travel.

    The cooperation of the Railways Department was invaluable, with over 22,800 special trains transporting more than 12 million troops between 1939 and 1943. Steamer ferries supplemented rail transport, often allocating large portions of passenger capacity to military movements. In some cases, civilian travel was suspended to prioritise troop transfers.

    Ensuring troop welfare during travel was another significant responsibility. Meals were provided in transit, ranging from dining room services to “bag meals” for larger groups. Army catering teams occasionally managed ferry services, particularly on long daytime voyages.

    Air transport was an increasingly vital option, especially for urgent travel. It was used for compassionate leave, medical evacuations, and the movement of senior officers. By late 1943, over 500 personnel had been transported by air to destinations such as Fiji, New Caledonia, and Norfolk Island, demonstrating its growing importance in military logistics.

    The QMG faced considerable challenges, including resource shortages, fluctuating troop numbers, and the logistical demands of coordinating movements with allied forces. The arrival of American troops in New Zealand required a collaborative approach, with joint efforts between New Zealand and U.S. military authorities ensuring smooth operations. Innovations such as adopting the cafeteria system for shipboard meals and leveraging American transport systems were vital in addressing these challenges.[1]

    Movements in 2 New Zealand Expeditionary Force

    Within the 2nd New Zealand Expeditionary Force (2NZEF), Shipping and Movements was assigned to the Assistant Quartermaster-General 2NZEF (AQM 2NZEF). This role was further delegated to the ‘Q’ Branch at HQ 2NZEF, which managed general troop movements, shipping operations, and the administration of 2NZEF Port Detachments.[2]

    To support the New Zealand Division with reinforcements and supplies, 18 to 30 soldiers were attached to British movement authorities at key ports as New Zealand “missions”. The first Port Detachment was established at Suez on 25 October 1940.[3] The New Zealand Port Detachments were pivotal in facilitating the efficient delivery of cargo and mail to New Zealand units stationed in the Middle East during World War II. As the volume of supplies pouring into the region increased in early 1941, the need for a specialised unit became apparent, and the unit was formalised as 1 NZ Port Detachment on 20 December 1942.[4] Comprising experienced shipping personnel, the NZ Port Detachments established themselves as beacons of efficiency, significantly reducing cargo losses from 15% to less than 1%, well below the peacetime average.

    Operating from its headquarters in the Suez area, the detachment meticulously handled all aspects of logistics: examining manifests, overseeing unloading operations, and ensuring that shipments destined for New Zealand forces were promptly dispatched to their final destinations. It also guarded cargoes, managed personnel movements, and handled incoming and outgoing mail—a lifeline for troops far from home.

    As the theatre of war shifted, so did the detachment’s responsibilities. Following the movements of the New Zealand Division, the No 2 Port Detachment was established. It was located in Benghazi and later Tripoli, continuing its vital operations despite enemy actions. Tripoli’s duties extended beyond logistics to include the distribution of morale-boosting parcels and tobacco, a gesture appreciated by the troops.

    The detachment’s operational equipment mirrored its adaptability and resourcefulness. The launch “Olive Jean,” once a familiar sight in Auckland, was repurposed and renamed “New Zealand,” symbolising its new role under Kiwi command.[5] A second launch, christened “New Zealand II,” was an enemy vessel salvaged, refurbished and equipped with a truck engine after being stranded on a Tripoli beach. It became instrumental in navigating the challenges of a battered port environment.

    Following the invasion of Italy and the establishment of Bari as a New Zealand base, the No 3 Port Detachment was formed on 8 November 1943.[6]

    By 1943, the No1 Port Detachment had consolidated its operations in Suez, significantly reducing the pilfering of goods from New Zealand shipments. Their resilience and dedication persisted through hazardous conditions, often operating under the cover of darkness during the advances of the 8th Army.[7]

    The tasks of the NZ Port Detachments were highly complex. Amid vast quantities of cargo, they faced the daunting challenge of locating individual cases among thousands of tons and retrieving consignments mistakenly diverted to remote ports. Their operations spanned from bustling Haifa to strategic North African and Italian ports, showcasing their dedication to ensuring every shipment reached its intended destination.[8]

    The British Army in Sicily 1943 Troops from 5th Division go aboard landing craft at Catania, Sicily, in preparation for the invasion of the Italian mainland, 2-3 September 1943. Loughlin (Sgt), No 2 Army Film & Photographic Unit – http://media.iwm.org.uk/iwm/mediaLib//47/media-47264/large.jpg This photograph NA 6297 comes from the collections of the Imperial War Museums.

    The No 1 Port Detachment was disbanded on 1 November 1945, the No 2 Port Detachment on 30 January 1946, and the No 3 Port Detachment on 26 February 1946. A Port Detachment was included in the 2NZEF contribution to J Force as part of the Commonwealth Occupation Forces in Japan.[9] [10]

    Movement Control in the Pacific

    The Third Division’s Movement Control Unit (MCU) played an overlooked role in the Pacific during World War II. Despite being one of the most minor units, it was integral to the third division’s operations, acting as the “Divisional Shipping Company.” The unit was responsible for coordinating troop movements by sea and air, liaising with American port authorities, and managing the receipt and dispatch of mail and cargo.

    Initially formed in Fiji, the unit was redeployed with the division back to New Zealand. After reorganisation and training, it was deployed to New Caledonia in 1943, facing significant challenges. Lacking local harbour facilities and reliant on overworked American resources, the MCU often had to be resourceful, sometimes acquiring essential equipment through unconventional means.

    Operating primarily from Nouméa and Népoui, the MCU adapted to differing conditions at each port. In Nouméa, they contended with intense activity amidst heat, mosquitoes, mud, and the bustle of a massive U.S. military presence. Limited dock space meant most ships were worked with wooden barges, leading to delays and occasional cargo losses. The staff had to negotiate with local workers and navigate a complex and evolving logistical environment.

    At Népoui, with minimal American presence, the MCU took full responsibility for port operations. However, only one ship could be handled at a time—and only half of it without repositioning—the absence of bureaucratic hurdles allowed for more efficient unloading. The small team worked tirelessly, often around the clock, to manage the steady flow of ships and supplies.

    New Zealand soldiers during amphibious training, Pacific area, 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: WH-0724-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. /records/22777107

    Over time, the MCU expanded its reach, establishing representatives in the New Hebrides and Guadalcanal. During their tenure in New Caledonia, they handled 476 ships— averaging 20 boats per week—with a staff that never exceeded 17 men. Their duties broadened to include boats, wharves, and harbour activities.

    When the division advanced to Guadalcanal in August 1943, MCU members established operations in the new combat zone. They faced the unique challenges of unloading ships on open coasts under the threat of Japanese air raids. Lacking proper harbour facilities, they innovated methods to ensure supplies reached the front lines despite frequent interruptions and the complexities of coordinating with American forces.

    The remaining MCU staff in New Caledonia continued facilitating reinforcements and equipment shipments to the forward areas. They efficiently managed the division’s return from Guadalcanal, ensuring rapid disembarkation and distribution of troops and equipment. Their expertise allowed thousands of soldiers to be processed in under three hours, with equipment unloaded in record time.

    The MCU’s success was mainly due to cooperation with other New Zealand units and American organisations. The Base Supply Depot No. 1 and the Wharf Operating Company supported their operations. American counterparts provided invaluable assistance, offering trucks, harbour transport, and logistical support, greatly enhancing efficiency.

    As one of the first units to arrive and the last to depart from New Caledonia, the MCU’s contributions were significant and far-reaching. They ensured the division remained supplied and mobile, directly impacting the success of New Zealand operations in the Pacific theatre.[11]

    Post War

    As early as 1944, New Zealand’s military leadership began planning for the post-war era, determined to preserve the valuable experiences and lessons learned during the war. Their primary goal was to prevent the Army from reverting to the neglect of the pre-war era, characterised by a minimal regular force. Both the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC) and the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) developed post-war establishments to align with the projected needs of the Regular and Territorial Forces. However, the responsibility for Movement Control, a critical logistics function, was not assigned to these logistics corps. Instead, it became the responsibility of the Provost Corps.

    To qualify as a 4-Star Military Police, members of the Provost Corps, individuals were required to complete basic training in core areas such as Military Law, police procedures, traffic control, map reading, and weapons handling. In addition to this foundational training, members of the Provost Corps also had the option to become fully qualified in the following specialised subjects:

    1. Functions of Movement Control
    2. Embarkation and Disembarkation
    3. Freight Movement
    4. Prevention of Pilfering of Materials[12]

    Further research is needed to determine when Movement Control functions were transferred from the Provost Corps to the RNZASC.

    Conclusion

    This account of New Zealand’s Army Movements Control during World War II offers a glimpse into New Zealand logistics units’ critical role during this conflict. This snapshot is not intended to be an in-depth history but rather a starting point—an invitation for further research and study into the contributions of these essential yet often overlooked enablers.

    Amid the chaos of global conflict, the planning, coordination, and execution carried out by New Zealand’s Army Movements Control ensured the seamless transit of troops and supplies. These units exemplified resilience and adaptability from managing complex embarkation and disembarkation processes and orchestrating domestic and international transport routes to innovating under resource constraints in the Pacific theatre. Their efforts were vital in minimising logistical inefficiencies, delivering supplies to their intended destinations, and sustaining the morale of New Zealand’s Forcers during one of the most challenging periods in history.

    This legacy continues in the modern RNZALR, where Movement Operators uphold the tradition of excellence in military logistics. Their work underscores the enduring significance of logistics in operational success while honouring the dedication and ingenuity of those who laid the groundwork during World War II.

    By recognising these contributions, we fully appreciate the intricate machinery behind New Zealand’s war effort and the unsung logisticians who ensured its smooth operation. This story deserves further exploration and study, shining a light on the individuals whose quiet competence underpinned the feats of those on the front lines.


    Notes

    [1] “QMG (Quartermaster-Generals) Branch – September 1939 to March 1944,” Archives New Zealand Item No R25541150  (1944): 73-86.

    [2] W. G. Stevens, Problems of 2 NZEF, Official history of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939-45, (Wellington, N.Z. : War History Branch, Dept of Internal Affairs, 1958, 1958), Non-fiction, 139. http://ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat00245a&AN=massey.b1793365&site=eds-live&scope=site

    http://nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Prob.html.

    [3] “Formation and Disbandment of Units – Middle East – October,” Archives New Zealand Item No R26020907  (1940), https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE55765754.

    [4] “Formation and Disbandment of Units – Middle East – December,” Archives New Zealand Item No R26020933  (1942), https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE55766664.

    [5] “Sent Overseas,” New Zealand Herald, Volume 79, Issue 24192, 6 February 1942, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZH19420206.2.55.

    [6] “Formation and Disbandment of Units – Middle East – November,” Archives New Zealand Item No R26020944  (1943), https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE55765610.

    [7] “Cargo and Mail,” Evening Star, Issue 24974, 20 September 1943, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19430920.2.46.

    [8] “Mentioned in Dispatches,” Southland Times, Issue 25336, 12 April 1944, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ST19440412.2.26.

    [9] “Formation and Disbandment of Units – Japan – October,” Archives New Zealand Item No R26020973  (1945), https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE55763893.

    [10] “Areas NZ is Taking over in Japan,” Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 90, Issue 68, 23 March 1946, https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WC19460323.2.52.

    [11] E.V Sale, Base Wallahs: Story of the units of the Nase Organisation, NZEF IP (A.H. and A.W. Reed for the Third Division Histories Committee, 1947), Non-fiction, 243-50.

    [12] “The Star Classification and Promotion of Other Ranks of the Regular Force,” New Zealand Army Order 60/1947, 9 August 1947.


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

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

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

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

    Defence Supply Redevelopment Project (DSRP) – 1984

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

    The DSRP’s objectives were ambitious:

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

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

    Defence Inventory Structure and Challenges – 1985

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

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

    Implementation of DSSR

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

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

    Defence Supply System Development (DSSD)

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

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

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

    System Enhancements: Provisioning, Receipts, and Stocktaking

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

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

    Consumer Unit Accounting – 1993

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

    Transition to SAP

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

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

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

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

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


    Notes

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

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

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

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

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

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