Sometimes the sharpest insights hide in plain sight. This cheeky two-page RNZASC newsletter from 1978—penned by Captain R. A. Armstrong—is cheeky by design, poking fun at mess pecking orders and flirting with the idea that the Soviets might feed their troops better. Still, it also captures a valuable moment in time. Read against what we now know, it lets us compare three things at once:
New Zealand’s still-serviceable but largely 1940s-era field kitchens and improvisation;
the Soviets’ purpose-built, highly mobile galley trucks and bakeries that promised hot meals at manoeuvre tempo; and
how both systems actually performed once reality set in—from NZ’s 1980s push to modernise ration science and packaging, to the Soviet experience in Afghanistan, where interdicted convoys turned elegant kitchen fleets back into tins, biscuits, and tea.
Crucially, this snapshot also foreshadows New Zealand’s hardware catch-up in the following decade, when the Army modernised its field kitchens with state-of-the-art German Kärcher TFK-250 field-kitchen trailers—a step-change from veteran cookers to modular, hygienic, road-mobile capability. In short, the article is satire with teeth: a Cold War snapshot that helps us separate platform glamour from supply-chain grit, and headline claims from what cooks could really deliver day after day.
SO YOU THINK OUR CATERING IS LOUSY?
By Capr D.A Armstrong
A recent article in the “Army Logistician”, the official magazine of the United States Army logistics, compared the Soviet Army’s catering services and attitudes to those of the US Army. Several interesting points were made which indicate some marked differences between Soviet and Allied thinking on the subject of feeding their respective armies. If you are thinking of defecting, but enjoy your “nosh”, perhaps you had better read on.
The first interesting point is that, despite the so-called classless attitudes of the USSR, better food is a privilege of rank in the Soviet military, with the conscripted rifleman being the lowest in the pecking order. (No prizes for guessing who gets the best food!) NCOs receive more meat than enlisted mem, while officers have a greater variety of meat, eggs, dairy foods, fruit, and vegetables. Some soldiers need to receive food or money from home to supplement their military diets. Many enlisted men suffer from vitamin and mineral deficiencies because of the lack of a variety of foods, especially vegetables, in their diets.
A typical daily menu for enlisted men is shown below.
Compare that to our rationing system, where generals and private soldiers receive exactly the same monetary allowance per day for the purchase of rations. Because of the different feeding patterns in officers’ and junior ranks’ messes, our soldiers often receive better food than the officers, although standards of service may differ between the two messes.
In combat, food supplies take the lowest priorities of all items supplied through the logistic channels. Ammunition and fuel supply priorities are not relaxed even if the troops have to forage for their rations. It must be very difficult to fire weapons or operate vehicles in the middle of a Russian winter when your stomach thinks your throat has been cut, and your navel keeps knocking on your backbone.
Within garrisons and camps, Soviet forces supplement their ration supplies by running farms for livestock, rabbits, vegetables, and poultry. Soldiers are detailed to work in the unit’s garden and to care for the animals. Where camps do not run their own farms, a unit commander may make an agreement with a neighbouring collective farm to provide soldiers on Sundays to assist with labour in exchange for foodstuffs. (And we complain about the odd maintenance days in camps).
The quantity and quality of food received by the Soviet soldier depend on a number of factors. The most important is the regimental or garrison commander’s concern for and understanding of the nutritional needs of the troops. Supplies of rations are the responsibility of the regimental mess officer. He procures the foodstuffs from division or area headquarters, and the local market.
SOVIET ARMY DAILY MENU FOR OTHER RANKS
Breakfast:
White bread
2 Slices
Black bread
1 Slice
Butter/Margarine
20g
Sugar
3 Cubes
Tea
Unlimited
Kasha*/Potatoes
300g
Fish/Meat
50g
Midday:
Soup
400g
Kasha with Meat
400g
White bread
1 Slice
Black bread
2 Slices
Fruit Compote
200g
Dinner:
Fish
100g
Potatoes/Kasha
300g
White bread
2 Slices
Black bread
2 Slice
Sugar
3 Cubes
Tea
Unlimited
Butter
20g
* Kasha is rice, buck wheat, wheat or oat porridge with salt, pepper, onion and fat.
Soviet military nutrition norms are similar to most Allied countries with a weight ratio of 1:1:5 for protein, fat and carbohydrates respectively. It is significant that no other nutrients are tabulated to ensure that all the nutrient requirements are met. By comparison, the New Zealand weight ratio of protein, fat and carbohydrate is roughly 2:0.5:4.5. (We have a far greater ratio of meat and dairy products.)
In normal feeding, the Soviets provide about 25 per cent of the calorie requirement at breakfast, 45 per cent at midday and 30 per cent for the evening meal. Usually, our meals reverse the midday and evening meal calorie contents.
As far as cooking in the field goes, the Russians are streets ahead of us in terms of equipment. The concept is that field kitchens and bakeries must keep pace with the troops they support while still providing meals on schedule. Since 1965, the Soviets have introduced four field kitchens and a field bakery which can cook on the move. With the exception of a West German kitchen truck, the Soviet Union is the only country with field kitchens mounted on trucks and tracked vehicles. These kitchens are better able to keep up with fast-moving combat forces and can cover a greater variety of rough ground than even the new US Army trailer-mounted kitchen. (Mind you, they haven’t seen the kitchens we mounted on the M818 semi-trailers for Ex Truppenant. Perhaps we are also unique?)
Two of the kitchens are known to provide physical protection in chemical, biological and radiological environments. The tracked vehicle-mounted kitchen (similar to an M113 Command Post vehicle) is hermetically sealed and is probably outfitted with a filtering ventilation system.
Makes the old sheet of canvas off the side of an RI Bedford seem pretty archaic, doesnt it?
The conclusions to be reached from reading this article are.
All RNZASC cooks should defect to the Soviets. They could no doubt use our knowledge, skills and comradeship, and we could certainly use their field cooking equipment.
Any soldier who enjoys even basic food should not even consider defecting to the Soviets. Officers, on the other hand, may be more persuaded. although the promotion and security of employment prospects are not as bright
RNZASC Newsletter No 8 July 1978
What NZ cooks actually worked with in 1978
Despite a professional corps of cooks, much NZ Army field catering kit in the late 1970s still traced its lineage to the Second World War and early 1950s:
Wiles trailer kitchens (1940s-era): still around in numbers into the late 1970s; robust but hardly “mobile ops” by modern standards.
US-pattern ranges (M-37 → M-59): the ABCA-standard M-37 (1950s) and its successor the M-59 (from the late-1960s) framed much Allied field cooking practice; NZ experience mirrored this long tail of legacy equipment.[1]
Armstrong’s quip about slinging a canvas off a Bedford tailgate wasn’t far off the mark: mobility came from trucks and improvisation, not from purpose-built kitchen vehicles. The upshot was sound, honest food—but with slower start-up, more weather exposure, and more manpower to erect, fuel, and run.
What the Soviets were advertising: mobility first
Armstrong contrasted our “Bedford and canvas” with Soviet kitchen trucks and tracked galley vehicles able to cook on the move, some even CBRN-protected. Contemporary Western handbooks and studies back him up:
Soviet materiel tables put kitchen trucks and mobile field bakeries inside divisional service units, not as bolt-ons—so hot food was designed to keep pace with manoeuvre.[2]
Cold-War analyses describe powered PAK-200 and KP-130 kitchens, with tracked/van variants and filtration for contaminated environments—exactly the “streets ahead” mobility Armstrong flagged.[3]
The kitchen of the family PAK-200 on the chassis ZIL-131ю Photo Russianarms.ru
Thermal kitchen unit PAK-200. At the top you can see the lids of the boilers, below – the firebox. Photo Dishmodels.ru
Bottom line (1978): on paper, the Soviet field-feeding platforms were more mobile, better integrated, and harder to knock off the timetable than our trailer-and-tent solutions.
Scales, menus, and who ate what
Armstrong summarised a Soviet conscript’s day heavy on bread and kasha, with small meat portions, tea “unlimited,” and rank privileges inflating the officers’ variety. He also cited a Soviet macro ratio of 1:1:5 (protein: fat: carbohydrate) versus a NZ pattern nearer 2:0.5:4.5—more meat/dairy in the Kiwi diet. (Those figures are his 1978 comparison, not a NZ regulation.) In Soviet doctrine, ration “norms” were calorie-based, bread was central, and a “dry ration” existed for when hot feeding wasn’t possible; a new one-meal combat ration appears in Soviet sources around 1978–80—again aligning with the article’s timeframe.[4]
By contrast, NZ was already edging toward modernisation on menu science—even if the pots were old. By 1985 the Army commissioned a formal redesign of the One-Man 24-hour ration, targeting ~3,678 kcal, adjusting for vitamin losses over shelf life, and—crucially—surveying soldiers about what they actually ate (and binned). High dissatisfaction with the then-current pack and heavy discard rates drove reform of menus, beverages, and packaging.[5]
Field reality check (1970s–80s NZ): long exercises in Singapore/Malaysia and NZ’s alpine winters meant weight on the back, wet/cold heat loss, sleep disruption—and the need for rations that were palatable, quick, and resilient. That lived experience shows up clearly in the Army’s 1980s ration-pack redesign work.[6]
Priorities in combat supply
Armstrong wrote that in Soviet practice, ammunition and fuel took precedence over food when push came to shove. The formal record shows why: Soviet Rear Services concepts after WW2 put huge emphasis on mobility and survivability of POL and ammunition flows, with kitchen/bakery assets nested inside that machine. In other words, feeding rode in the same convoy system dominated by POL and ammo.[7]
What the Soviet soldier actually carried (c. 1975–82)
Post-1945 Soviet feeding relied on:
Organised field kitchens.
group-feeding sets for squad cooking,
“mobile” individual rations when kitchens couldn’t keep up.
The “individual” ration wasn’t very individual. Early sets leaned on large tins—fine for crews to share, poor for dismounted troops. Specialist units often received ad-hoc mixes (e.g., East German E-Päckchen biscuits, emergency bars, malted milk and vitamin tablets, iodine water tabs, and condensed milk tubes—even commercial West European supplies), which were useful but never standardised.
A: tin of tushonka (fat-heavy), ~100 g crackers, small cheese tin, tea, sugar.
B: Two tins of kasha with meat plus crackers or plastic-sealed bread.
C: tin of stew/meat, tin of fish or vegetables/fruit, crackers, tea, sugar/drink mix.
Portable on paper, these packs were monotonous and underpowered for altitude, cold and hard marching.
The 1980 response: “Improved/Mountain” 24-hour pack + supplements. Spring 1980 introduced tins of meat dishes (e.g., chicken-and-dumplings, beef-and-vegetables), instant kasha (buckwheat/oatmeal, meat/fruit-flavoured), tea, and sugar—sometimes with early bar-coded labels. Critically, the basic pack hovered around ~1,200 kcal, so commanders were authorised supplements to scale intake:
Biscuits/wafers (~500 kcal), hard sweets and sugar (granulated or tablets).
“Army Loaves” high-nutrition crackers; extra tinned meat, jam/honey, condensed soup; a daily vitamin sweet.
Implementation varied—sometimes excellently, more often poorly—but the logic was sound: use supplements to tune calories to mission and climate.[8]
When Afghanistan stripped off the gloss (1979–89)
The Afghan war is where Armstrong’s wry “I wonder what it’s really like for the Russian soldier” meets evidence. Once the invasion forces surged past 100,000 men, convoy-based logistics over two treacherous mountain MSRs became a running battle of ambushes, mines, and blown bridges. Soviet responses included helicopter lift, pipelines down the Salang route, fixed security posts, and longer, better-armed convoys. Hot feeding kept pace when it could; when it couldn’t, soldiers fell back on dry rations and whatever reached them through interdiction. The system survived—but food variety, regularity, and morale inevitably rode the same roller-coaster as fuel, water, and spares.[9]
What’s for lunch? A typical Afghan outpost menu (c. 1979–89)
Afghanistan “eating out” ranged from canteens to mounted and dismounted operations. Outposts—typically 10–20 soldiers—sat at the hard end: weekly resupply, minimal refrigeration, soldiers doing the cooking. Long-life items dominated; variety was limited.
A day on an outpost looked like:
Breakfast: kasha with a little meat/fish, bread, and (rarely) butter—small-batch cooking could taste better than garrison fare.
Lunch: nominally soup + main (macaroni/potato/kasha) + “salad” (often sauerkraut). In practice, this collapsed to one hot main—mashed potato or pasta with tinned meat—because water, vegetables and time were scarce.
Dinner: much the same as lunch; repetition was regular.
Drinks: tea, coffee, and cocoa were standard.
Bread & extras: base bakeries supplied nearby posts; remote sites got crackers/biscuits and sometimes flour for flatbreads. Condensed milk was the near-universal dessert/morale item. Limited local purchasing occurred only when security allowed.[10]
Even excellent mobile kitchens cannot defeat interdiction and distance alone—once convoy tempo slips, menus shrink to what rides and stores well. It also explains the premium soldiers place on palatability and speed—the very factors NZ targeted in its 1980s ration redesign
Purpose-built kitchen trucks/vans; tracked variants; mobile field bakeries.
Mobility & protection
Vehicle-towed or improvised; weather-exposed; slower to set.
Cook-on-the-move; better cross-country; some CBRN-protected kitchens.
Feeding concept
Unit-level kitchens; hot meals when set up; heavy on improvisation.
Timed hot meals from integral kitchen assets; dry ration when needed.
Breadth of diet
More meat/dairy in practice; equality of ration money across ranks (per Armstrong).
Bread- and kasha-centric; rank-based variety favoured NCOs/officers (per Armstrong).
Doctrine & priorities
Practical but kit-limited; modernisation brewing (ration-pack science by mid-80s).
Rear Services designed for manoeuvre; POL/ammo priority shapes what food arrives, when.
What changed after 1978—for both sides
Soviet reality check: Afghanistan exposed just how hard it was to protect long, road-bound supply chains—even for food and water. The Soviets adapted (escorts, pipelines, more airlift), but “guerrilla-controlled logistics tempo” was a real thing.[11]
NZ step-change: Through the mid-1980s, the Army professionalised the ration—calories, vitamins over shelf life, soldier acceptability, packaging weight and noise—and began phasing in newer field cookers (Kärcher TFK-250 field-kitchen trailers) to replace Wiles trailers and M-37/M-59 ranges. The rollout was uneven, so for a time, menu science ran ahead of hardware, with many still cooking on veteran kit.[12]
So—how did the “Russian scale” compare to the NZ scale?
Using Armstrong’s 1978 snapshot: the Soviet scale he quotes (roughly 1:1:5) aimed for calories cheaply with bread/kasha and small meat portions, shading more variety up the rank ladder; the NZ pattern he cites (about 2:0.5:4.5) reflected a higher meat/dairy intake and, crucially, equal ration money across ranks—even if mess practice meant the plates sometimes looked different. Later Soviet sources note a late-1970s combat ration meal and a formal dry ration for when hot kitchens couldn’t keep up—consistent with Armstrong’s comparison.
Conclusion
On the 1978 scoreboard, the Soviets looked ahead on platforms: integrated kitchen trucks, some with CBRN protection, promised mobility NZ’s trailers and tent lines could not match. But that advantage was conditional. Once lines of communication were contested (as in Afghanistan), menus collapsed to what could ride and survive—just like fuel and spares—while NZ, for all its veteran cookers, spent the 1980s fixing the contents problem (calories, vitamins, soldier acceptability, weight/noise in the pack) and then closed the platform gap by introducing Kärcher TFK-250 field-kitchen trailers. The net effect: Soviet kitchens won on paper and on roads they controlled; NZ kitchens won fewer style points in the 1970s but fed reliably—and, by the late 1980s, paired modern rations with modern kitchen platforms, delivering a balanced, resilient feed system that travelled and performed at the tempo the Army required.
[2] US Army, “FM 100-2-3 the Soviet army: troops, organization and equipment,” Washington: GPO (1991).
[3] Gilbert H Edmondson, “Logistics: The Soviets’ Nemesis to Conventional War in Central Europe?” (1989).
[4] Edmondson, “Logistics: The Soviets’ Nemesis to Conventional War in Central Europe?”
[5] Bing David Soo, “Development of nutritionally balanced and acceptable army ration packs: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Technology in Product Development at Massey University” (Massey University, 1987).
[6] Soo, “Development of nutritionally balanced and acceptable army ration packs: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Technology in Product Development at Massey University.”
[7] Edmondson, “Logistics: The Soviets’ Nemesis to Conventional War in Central Europe?.”; Army, “FM 100-2-3 the Soviet army: troops, organization and equipment.”
[11] Edmondson, “Logistics: The Soviets’ Nemesis to Conventional War in Central Europe?”
[12] Soo, “Development of nutritionally balanced and acceptable army ration packs: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Technology in Product Development at Massey University.”
Field cooking equipment has always been more than a convenience in military life. It sustains health, discipline, morale, and operational endurance. A force that cannot reliably feed its personnel in the field quickly reduces its effectiveness, regardless of the quality of its weapons, vehicles, or training. For that reason, the history of New Zealand Army field cooking is also a history of logistics, adaptation, local manufacture, procurement decisions, and the practical lessons learned from camps, exercises, operations, and civil emergencies.
This article examines the main field cooking systems used by the New Zealand military from the Second World War to the present. It begins with the No. 1 Burner, introduced during the mobilisation of 1939–40, and follows the development of field cooking through Wiles mobile steam cookers, M-1937 and M-1959 field ranges, Kärcher TFK 250 trailer kitchens, and the modern SERT PFC 500 platform kitchen. It also considers the associated problem of keeping food hot and moving it from the kitchen to the soldier, including hay boxes, one-gallon portable containers, Norwegian insulated food containers, and Trimcast hot boxes. Together, these systems show that field catering is not simply about cooking food, but about heating, holding, moving, serving, and sustaining meals across distance and under field conditions.
Although the focus is on major cooking systems, the story cannot be understood without recognising the older implements that underpinned them. The camp kettle, or “dixie”, had served from the nineteenth century as a simple but essential item of military catering equipment. Its continued importance is shown in mobilisation-store records for 1939–40, when a general equipment statement recorded 2,100 camp kettles in stock against a requirement of 5,000, with the balance to be made in New Zealand. This demonstrates that even as the Army acquired modern portable burners, the basic kettle remained part of the practical feeding chain.
The history that follows is therefore not one of simple replacement. New systems did not immediately displace old ones. Instead, New Zealand’s field cooking capability developed in layers. Burners, steam cookers, field ranges, trailer kitchens, hot boxes, insulated containers, and basic vessels all performed different parts of the same task: feeding soldiers reliably in camp, on exercise, on operations, and during national emergencies. Through this lens, field cooking equipment becomes a useful measure of how well military logistics learns from experience, balances innovation with practicality, and supports the people it is designed to sustain.
The Camp Kettle, Continuity Beneath Change
Although this article focuses on the major field cooking systems used by the New Zealand Army from the Second World War onwards, those systems did not replace every older item of cooking equipment. One of the most enduring was the camp kettle, commonly known in British Army usage as the “dixie”. Long before petrol burners, mobile steam cookers, trailer kitchens, or containerised field catering systems, soldiers relied on simple vessels that could boil, carry, reheat, and serve food under field conditions.
The camp kettle had been a familiar part of British and New Zealand military camp equipment since the nineteenth century. By 1907, New Zealand Defence Stores reported a good supply of cooking utensils, noting that all except camp kettles could be procured in the colony, and that there was a fair supply of the kettles themselves. This is an important point, as it shows that camp kettles were not incidental domestic items, but recognised military stores within the wider system of camp equipment.
Their importance continued into the First World War period. In 1916, Defence reporting noted that a good stock of camp kettles and mess tins was either on hand or on order from Dominion manufacturers, although the increased price of tin had raised manufacturing costs. By 1917, camp kettles were still being discussed alongside washhand basins, tents, camp equipment, and cookers, while hot water provision in camps was being rationalised through fixed boilers, tanks, and modified cooking arrangements.
The adoption of more sophisticated cookers did not remove the need for these basic vessels. The 1914 annual report observed that Roberts field cooking ovens allowed regimental cooking to be carried out under better conditions and reduced the need for large numbers of camp ovens, frying pans, and boilers, but it did not suggest that all simple cooking vessels had disappeared. Instead, the new cookers sat within a broader camp-catering system, supported by utensils, kettles, boilers, frying pans, and supply arrangements.
The continued importance of the camp kettle is shown clearly in the mobilisation-store records of 1939–40. A general equipment statement dated 7 August 1940 recorded 2,100 camp kettles in stock against a requirement of 5,000, with the additional kettles to be made in New Zealand. This figure is important because it shows that, even as the Army was acquiring the No. 1 Burner and other modern equipment, the simple camp kettle remained an essential item in the feeding system. It was still required in quantity because it performed the practical tasks that larger cooking systems could not replace: boiling, holding, carrying, reheating and serving food or hot water at the unit level.
This continuity is important when considering the No. 1 Burner. The burner was a major advance because it provided a portable, pressure-fuelled heat source, but it still depended on familiar cooking vessels and accessories. As the later Second World War procurement shows, burners were ordered with hot boxes, dishes, fry pans, stands, 6-gallon cooking containers, baffle plates, and other associated items. In other words, the No. 1 Burner modernised the heat source, but it did not eliminate the basic logic of field cookery, which remained centred on vessels that could cook, hold, move, and serve food.
Seen in this way, the camp kettle provides a useful thread of continuity through the story of New Zealand Army field cooking. From Volunteer and Territorial camps, through the First World War and into the mobilisation period of 1939–40, it remained part of the practical equipment base on which field catering depended. The later history of Wiles cookers, M-1937 and M-1959 field ranges, mobile kitchens, and modern containerised systems is therefore not simply a story of replacement, but of layered development. New systems improved mobility, efficiency, fuel economy, hygiene, and scale, while older implements such as kettles, pots, pans, and serving vessels continued to perform the essential handling tasks that every field kitchen required.
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.
Cookers, Portable, No 1, Burner Unit, S.B. Type “F” (Cat No JA7360).
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] Photographic evidence indicates that a Wiles Senior was still in use at Papakura during the 1950s, although little is presently known about its subsequent service history or disposal.
The surviving body of the Wiles Senior is now held by the Auckland Museum of Transport and Technology, providing a rare physical link to this otherwise lightly documented episode in New Zealand’s wartime and post-war field catering history.
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 a lightweight fuel, consuming only 25% of the standard fuel used. Alternative fuels like scrub, deadwood, or dry rubbish are available. The cooker could run on wood, coal, or oil.
High Cooking Pressure: Significantly reduced cooking times.
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]
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 Mobile 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 because it had become obsolete, costly to maintain, and operationally inefficient. The less mobile M-1937 and M-1959 field ranges continued to provide field cooking functionality until a new mobile trailer kitchen entered New Zealand 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.
Boy Entrants School publicity.
View of the camp kitchen “cook house” at the Rainbow Valley camp.
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.
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.
Cooking with an M59
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 TFK 250 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 TFK 250’s LOT was extended by an additional seven years to 2025, bringing its total service life to an impressive 40 years.
To replace the TFK 250 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 ft 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 top hot plate. 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 immediately towable, trailer-mounted field kitchens, the PFC 500, as procured and configured for NZDF service, does not appear to provide the same simple trailer-mounted utility as the TFK 250. Instead, its platform configuration appears to require suitable vehicles and, in many circumstances, specialised material-handling equipment, limiting its practical flexibility. 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 TFK 205 and M37/59 have continued to serve effectively, raising questions about the suitability of modern defence procurement decisions.
Keeping It Hot: Insulated Food Distribution Containers in New Zealand Army Service
While cookers solved the problem of preparing food, they did not by themselves solve the problem of feeding soldiers dispersed across a field force. That required a second equipment family, insulated containers and hot boxes, which carried the meal from the kitchen to the soldier. Field cooking systems such as the No. 1 Burner, the Wiles Cooker, and the M37/59 field range solved the problem of preparing hot food in the field. A separate but equally important challenge was getting that food from the kitchen to the soldier while still hot. This required a parallel family of insulated containers capable of retaining temperature, hot or cold, across the often considerable distance between a centralised field kitchen and a forward position. In the New Zealand Army, this role was filled by a succession of containers that paralleled the evolution of the cooking systems they supported.
The Hay Box: Cook and Carry
Long before purpose-built insulated containers, the British and Commonwealth armies relied on the hay box, one of the oldest and most ingenious solutions to the field feeding problem. The hay box earned its name from the material used as insulation: hay or straw packed tightly into a tin outer box, surrounding an inner Dixie-style cooking pot fitted with a locking handle to prevent spillage and add to the seal.
The hay box was not merely a transport vessel; it was a cooker in its own right. Food was brought to a boil in the inner pot and then placed into the straw-lined outer box, where the insulation allowed it to continue cooking slowly from its retained heat, a technique later termed “retained-heat cooking.” This meant a fire was only required for part of the cooking process, with no flame, smoke, or fuel needed during transit. The principal limitation was time: if the contents remained in the box for more than about an hour without being consumed, bacterial growth became a concern, though bringing the food back to the boil upon arrival would eliminate this risk.
The same principle informed the design of the No. 1 Burner system. When the New Zealand Ministry of Supply was tendering for 72 No. 1 Burner units in 1939, the contract included 432 associated hot boxes, dishes, frying pans, and stands, the hot boxes being integral to the system’s design from the outset, intended to receive food cooked by the burner and hold it at a temperature for short-period forward distribution. The contract for these hot boxes was awarded to Hardleys Ltd. of Auckland.
The One-Gallon Portable Container: c.1940–1980
As materials technology advanced during and after the Second World War, the hay box gave way to more sophisticated thermos-type containers. The British Army adopted Thermos-style insulated cylinders for transporting rations forward during the war. These used an insulating layer, typically cork in wartime examples, later replaced by glass wool, between an outer metal shell and an inner food compartment. A vacuum seal formed as the hot contents cooled, making the lid difficult to remove; a release button or mechanism was provided to break this seal before opening.
The containers held approximately one gallon and were available in two patterns used in New Zealand service: a thermos-style canister and a stainless-steel container. Both required means of carrying them forward, and dedicated webbing carriers were developed for the purpose. The single thermos ration carrier was a canvas body with a carrying handle designed to hold one flask upright. The twin thermos ration carrier, a larger, box-like pack with a deep lid, held two flasks side by side, fitted with integral shoulder straps, a cross-chest brace to manage the weight when loaded, and metal studs on the base to protect the webbing when set down. The interior had a central divider separating the two flasks.
Following the war, an updated post-war flask of similar diameter but taller profile entered British and Commonwealth service, allowing a greater volume per container while remaining compatible with the existing webbing carriers.
New Zealand adopted the one-gallon portable container, in both its thermos and stainless steel forms, for field catering use from around 1940, retaining them in service until approximately 1980.
The Norwegian Insulated Food Container: c.1970s–c.2000
In the late 1970s, the one-gallon containers were replaced in New Zealand Army service by the Norwegian Insulated Food Container. This equipment was well established in British Army service, and New Zealand’s adoption reflected the continued alignment of Commonwealth logistical standards of the era.
The Norwegian was manufactured by Dyno Industries in Norway. It was a robust, double-walled insulated box of approximately 18 litres capacity, finished in olive drab, functioning as a large-format thermos flask capable of maintaining food or beverages at temperature, hot or cold, for extended periods substantially superior to civilian equivalents of the time. A tap and vent in the lid allowed the Norwegian to be laid on its side and used to decant beverages or soups directly, making it equally effective as a hot drinks urn or a food carrier. The standard internal configuration included removable food containers, allowing multiple dishes to be carried in a single outer unit.
The Norgie was used across the New Zealand Army by catering personnel for the forward delivery of hot meals and beverages during exercises and operations, proving well-suited to the range of conditions encountered in New Zealand training areas and on deployments. Its durability and simplicity made it well-regarded.
Limitations accumulated with time: foreign-manufactured parts increasingly difficult to source, and the rigid rectangular form was bulky relative to its usable volume. By approximately 2000 the Norwegian had been superseded by the Trimcast hot box.
Bulk Cold Storage: The Tuffboy and Its Replacement, c.1980–1990
Running in parallel with the hot food distribution role, New Zealand Army catering also required containers for the bulk storage and transport of fresh and chilled provisions. From around 1980, this role was filled by the Food Container, Insulated, 250 Litre (Tuffboy), a large insulated fibreglass container used for bulk storage and transportation of fresh or chilled food at the unit level. This was replaced from approximately 1990 by the Food Container, Insulated, 250 Litre (Trimcast), produced by the same Australian manufacturer that supplied the hot box, bringing consistency of supply and in-service support across the catering equipment fleet.
Food Container, Insulated, 250 Litre (Trimcast),
The Trimcast Hot Box: c.1990/2000–Present
The Food Container, 34 Litre (Trimcast) replaced the Norwegian as the standard insulated hot-food distribution container for the New Zealand Army. It was procured from Trimcast, an Australian manufacturer with an established record of producing rotomolded plastic equipment for the Australian and New Zealand defence forces.
Food Container, 34 Litre (Trimcast)
The Trimcast hot box was constructed by rotational moulding, producing a seamless one-piece polyethene outer shell with polyurethane foam insulation, providing a container that was impact-resistant, easy to clean, and well-suited to the hygiene standards of military food service. At 34 litres, it offered nearly twice the capacity of the Norwegian it replaced.
The container was issued complete with a matched set of internal fittings compatible with standard catering Gastronorm sizing:
One stainless steel Gastronorm insert, 530 × 325 × 150mm, with lid
One perforated stainless steel drain tray
One thermal pack for enhanced heat retention
In practice, the single full-size Gastronorm insert is frequently substituted with two smaller stainless-steel inserts, each 325 × 265 × 150mm with individual lids, allowing two separate dishes to be carried simultaneously in a single hot box, a practical advantage on operations and larger exercises requiring menu variety. The standardised Gastronorm dimensions of all inserts ensured compatibility with the broader military and commercial catering equipment pool.
A further field variation, common in practice, dispensed with the inserts entirely, with the hot box loaded instead with pre-portioned individual meal trays. This method streamlines bulk meal delivery for larger exercises and operations, allowing individual meals to be distributed directly from the container without the need for separate serving equipment, reducing both handling time and the volume of equipment that requires cleaning in the field.
The Trimcast offers improved thermal performance, greater durability, easier cleaning, and a more flexible internal configuration. Sourcing from an Australian manufacturer also simplified procurement and in-service support within the ANZAC logistical framework.
Equipment Lineage Summary
Equipment
Role
In NZ Service
Replaced By
Hot Box (Hay type)
Cook and carry / short-term retention
Pre-WWI – WWII
Portable containers
Container, Portable, 1 Gallon (Thermos)
Hot food/drink distribution
c.1940–1980
Norwegian Food Container 18L
Container, Portable, 1 Gallon (Stainless Steel)
Hot food/drink distribution
c.1940–1980
Norwegian Food Container 18L
Norwegian Food Container, 18L (“Norgie”)
Hot food/drink distribution
c.1980–c.2000
Food Container, 34L (Trimcast)
Food Container, Insulated, 250L (Tuffboy)
Bulk cold/chilled storage
c.1980–1990
Food Container, Insulated, 250L (Trimcast)
Food Container, 34L (Trimcast)
Hot food/drink distribution
c.1990/2000–current
—
Food Container, Insulated, 250L (Trimcast)
Bulk cold/chilled storage
c.1990–current
—
Conclusion
The history of New Zealand Army field cooking systems shows a clear pattern of continuity, adaptation, and occasional misjudgement. From the camp kettle and hot box to the No. 1 Burner, Wiles Cooker, M-1937 and M-1959 field ranges, TFK 250, Trimcast containers, and SERT PFC 500, each item reflects an attempt to solve the same enduring problem: how to provide hot, safe, and reliable meals to personnel operating away from fixed facilities. The equipment changed, but the requirement remained constant.
One of the strongest lessons from this history is that successful field catering equipment must be both practical and technically capable. The camp kettle endured because it was simple, robust, and multi-purpose. The No. 1 Burner succeeded because it provided a portable heat source that could be used with existing cooking vessels and adapted to local manufacture. The Wiles Cooker offered mobility, steam cooking, and hot water, but eventually became difficult to sustain. The M37/59 field ranges remained valuable because they were flexible, familiar, and supportable. The TFK 250 became the mainstay of New Zealand field catering because it combined mobility, capacity, and ease of deployment in a trailer-mounted system capable of supporting military training, operations, and civil emergency tasks.
The later history of insulated containers reinforces the same point. Cooking food is only the first part of the feeding system. Food must also be held, moved, kept hot or cold, and served safely. Hay boxes, one-gallon portable containers, Norwegian insulated food containers, Tuffboy containers, and Trimcast hot boxes all formed part of this wider catering chain. They demonstrate that feeding the force depends on a complete system, not on a cooker alone.
Seen against this longer history, the SERT PFC 500 raises legitimate questions. It is a modern, capable catering platform. Still, its dependence on specialised material-handling equipment and suitable transport appears to reduce the very flexibility that earlier systems had proved essential. This does not mean that modernisation was unnecessary. The replacement of ageing field catering and hygiene systems was clearly required. The issue is whether the selected solution fully reflects the practical lessons accumulated over decades of New Zealand Army field catering experience.
The enduring lesson is that field cooking systems must be judged not only by their technical specifications, but by their usability in the field. Can they be moved easily? Can they be operated under pressure? Can they support dispersed units, weekend bivouacs, national emergencies, and sustained operations? Can they be maintained with available skills, parts, and transport? Can they integrate with the wider system of food distribution, hot boxes, water supply, hygiene, and unit-level feeding? These questions have shaped New Zealand military catering from the age of the camp kettle to the present day.
By tracing this development, the article highlights an often-overlooked part of military logistics. Field cooking equipment may seem mundane, but it directly affects morale, endurance, health, and operational effectiveness. The challenge for the future is to ensure that new systems are not only modern but also practical, resilient, mobile, supportable, and suited to the realities of New Zealand military service. Only by learning from both the successes and shortcomings of earlier equipment can the NZDF field catering system continue to do what it has always been required to do: feed the force wherever it is needed.
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.”
[5] Memorandum to Cabinet from Minister of Defence Subject: Purchase of Wiles Mobile Steam Cookers for NZ Army Dated 4 July 1951. “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).
