On Thursday, 25 January 1975, a small Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC) air-despatch team and a Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) C-130 crew solved a very Pacific problem: how to get a tracked excavator onto a reef-bound island—fast. The solution was a heavyweight airdrop onto a marginal drop zone (DZ) on Atiu in the Cook Islands, executed without a ground Mobile Air Operations Team (MAOT), with release points computed from sea features and a tight timing window. It was logistics as an enabler, not an afterthought.
The task: Atiu needed an excavator—now
Royal New Zealand Engineers (RNZE) detachments were building Atiu’s new harbour—slipway, breakwater, seawall, and a blasted basin to about 8 ft (2.4 m)—to allow barges to work ships offshore.[1] With three detachments rotating and the schedule tightening, a tracked bucket excavator became critical. The machine was broken into three loads and parachuted in to keep the works moving. The consignment was valued at NZ$38,000 in 1975 (NZ$418,000 in 2025 terms) and was not Army property—focusing minds on a clean DZ outcome.[2]
New Zealand Army Atiu Harbour project, the building of a small harbour on Atiu Island, Cook Islands. Lighter with local people coming ashore from a supply ship just offshore. Crown Copyright 1975, New Zealand Defence Force
The unit behind the drop: 1 Army Air Supply Organisation
The airdrop rested on a decade of deliberate practice. From a 1960s nucleus (19 Air Supply Platoon), 1 AASO formed in 1966 and professionalised the Army’s air interface: rigging and restraint, DZ/LZ discipline, and a joint language with RNZAF crews. By the 1970s, 1 AASO was co-located with the RNZAF at RNZAF Base Hobsonville, working Bristol Freighters and C-130s as routine and running frequent live-drop serials. That air-minded stream later became 5 Terminal Squadron (1979) and then 5 Movements Squadron (1984), integrating aerial delivery, terminals, and movement control into one continuum.
At the same time, the RNZAF was procuring the dual-rail cargo-handling system for the C-130 fleet; in step, proposals were advancing to equip 1 AASO with 25,000-lb aircraft loaders and to uprate forklift capacity to 10,000 lb—shortening turns and creating headroom for awkward/heavy loads.[3]
Designing the load: platforms, parachutes, and a rethink
The initial design of the Atiu load split the excavator into two heavyweight platforms:
Platform A (chassis/engine): 11,500 lb (5,216.3 kg) with four G-11A parachutes.
Platform B (booms, buckets, cab, hook rams, tracks): 14,500 lb (6,577.1 kg) with five G-11A parachutes.
A test lift showed that Platform B was over-stressing the custom bearing platform. The fix was to strip the tracks into two A22 assemblies on a standard platform with two G-11As (5,000 lb), leaving the heavy platforms within safe margins.[4] The rigging and pack were completed at Hobsonville by 1 AASO. (As recorded in unit notes of the period.)
Movement from Hobsonville to Whenuapai was convoyed under Ministry of Transport escort because Platform A’s weight and high centre of gravity demanded it. Loading the Hercules was a squeeze: one 16-ft plus two 12-ft platforms (40 ft total) into a 41-ft cargo bay, extra freight on the ramp, and three 1 AASO riggers (Drivers Hirini, Baker, and Filmer) riding to supervise extractions.
Loading a pallet of supplies into No. 40 Squadron Hercules NZ7005 at Rarotonga airport, ready for dropping onto Atiu Island. Crown Copyright 1975, New Zealand Defence Force
The DZ problem: small, hemmed-in, and sea-referenced
Doctrine favoured roughly 1,000 × 500 m. Atiu offered 700 × 300 m, bounded by houses and plantations, with the extraction-parachute release point over the sea. There was no MAOT on the ground; the crew computed release from sea features. The answer: meticulous rigging, clustered G-11s, and precise, repeatable C-130 run-ins.
Air to air view, from No. 5 Squadron Orion NZ4204, of No. 40 Squadron Hercules NZ7005 preparing to drop supplies onto Atiu Island. Crown Copyright 1975, New Zealand Defence Force
On the run-in, a 15-ft release chute on a 54-ft line deploys; a knife bank severs the release gate; the pilot holds a slight nose-up attitude, and the load rolls cleanly. Elegant when the timing is right—unforgiving if it’s not.
An RNZAF Orion shadowed, and timings were relayed back to the engineers at Papakura, who in turn updated 1 AASO as each pass went in. By first light Friday, tracks were refitted, the machine drove to recover its remaining parts, and work began. A near-perfect result on a far-from-perfect DZ.
Pallet of supplies being dropped onto Atiu Island from No. 40 Squadron Hercules NZ7005. Crown Copyright 1975, New Zealand Defence Force
What the drop enabled
This wasn’t theatre. It kept a nationally significant aid project on schedule, on an island where a sealift wasn’t practical. The airdrop bridged a logistics gap for RNZE’s harbour build and showcased joint RNZAF–Army competence in heavyweight extraction, rigging, and island-scale problem-solving.
New Zealand Army Atiu Harbour project, the building of a small harbour on Atiu Island, Cook Islands. Digger taking out rock to deepen the new harbour.Crown Copyright 1975, New Zealand Defence Force
Lessons that still travel
Mission logic first. When sealift can’t meet the clock, airdrop is a tool—not an extravagance. Atiu is the case study.
Joint choreography. Small DZs, clustered G-11s, and extraction timing demand shared checklists and a common language between crews and riggers—the everyday habits 1 AASO lived.
Community interface. Pacific tasks succeed as much on relationships as on kit—RNZE’s Atiu teams integrated with the community while delivering heavy civil works, and the airdrop simply kept that momentum.
Invest in the ramp. Cargo-handling systems, loaders, and MHE are not luxuries; they’re what make precision routine rather than heroic.
Why 1 AASO matters in the bigger logistics picture
1 AASO embodied the principle that movements, terminals, and aerial delivery are one continuum. It trained with the Air Force, spoke airline and shipping fluently, and could turn a commander’s intent into assured movement when the infrastructure was thin and the timelines hard. Those habits—born in the 1960s–70s—flowed directly into the later Movements organisations and remain the template for contested logistics in the Pacific today.
[4] An A-22 container load (commonly called an “A22” load) is a standard U.S./NATO airdrop platform introduced in the Second World War and still widely used for smaller or modular cargo drops. Department of the Army, Airdrop of Supplies and Equipment: Rigging Containers. Technical Manual TM 4-48.03 (Fort Lee, VA: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2016).
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.”
As 12 May 2025 marks the 115th anniversary of the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC), it is fitting to reflect on the pioneering figures who laid its foundations and shaped New Zealand’s military logistics capability. Although New Zealand had established military logistics organisations as early as 1862, the formation of the NZASC in 1910 represented the first uniformed logistics branch within the New Zealand military, laying the groundwork for a more structured and professional approach to sustainment and support. This foundational move was later followed by the creation of the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (NZAOC) in 1917 and the New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (NZEME) in 1942, further expanding and diversifying the nation’s military logistics capabilities.
Originally published in the July 2024 issue of the New Zealand Journal of Military History, this article explores the life and enduring legacy of Brigadier General Henry Owen Knox. It traces his journey from the ranks of the British Army to his critical role in the early development of the NZASC, highlighting his pivotal leadership in reorganising and modernising New Zealand’s military logistics. Knox’s contributions provided a lasting legacy that continues to influence the structure and effectiveness of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) today.
Brigadier General Henry Owen Knox: The Architect of New Zealand Military Logistics and the Formation of the NZASC
The inception of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) in 1996 serves as a testament to the visionary decisions made in 1909, a pivotal moment when the New Zealand Military underwent a comprehensive reorganisation and reequipping initiative under the guidance of Major General Alexander Godley. The primary objective was to elevate the New Zealand Military into a capable, modern force ready to contribute to a broader Imperial defence scheme.
Brigadier General Henry Owen Knox: The Architect of New Zealand Military Logistics and the Formation of the NZASC
Major Henry Owen Knox emerged as a central figure in this transformative journey, leaving an indelible mark on the logistics landscape of the New Zealand Army. Serving under the leadership of Godley, Knox, in collaboration with a cadre of seconded imperial officers, elevated New Zealand’s military capabilities to align with those of the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada. Major Knox’s noteworthy contributions include the establishment of the New Zealand Army Service Corps (NZASC), aligning it with the latest British military logistics innovations.
This article explores the life and enduring legacy of Knox, an esteemed military figure whose unwavering commitment to service and leadership left an indelible mark on the British, Indian, and New Zealand Armies. Knox’s remarkable journey unfolded amidst a dynamic world, spanning continents and pivotal historical periods. His significant contribution in laying the foundations of the NZASC initiated a series of transformative changes, shifting New Zealand Military Logistics from a static to an operational model. This operational framework proved crucial in sustaining New Zealand’s Forces throughout the conflicts of the 20th century, ultimately culminating in the establishment of the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR). Major Knox’s enduring impact on New Zealand’s military logistics history is firmly solidified through these historical developments.
Henry Owen Knox, born on 16 January 1874 in Lambeth, Surrey, was the eldest son of the Rt Hon Ralph Knox, later Sir Ralph Knox KCB, who served as the Permanent Under-Secretary of State for War from 1897 to 1901, and Georgina Augustus Chance. Educated at Dulwich, Knox commenced his military journey by being commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the 4th Battalion South Staffordshire Regiment on 8 April 1893.
Transitioning to the Army Service Corps (ASC) as a Probationary Second Lieutenant from the South Staffordshire Regiment in 1896, Knox’s career saw swift advancements, with promotion to Lieutenant on 21 October 1897. While stationed at the ASC’s Portsmouth’s Colewort Barracks, he married Muriel Lucy Roberts, the daughter of Sir Owen Roberts, at London Paddington’s Christ Church on 6 July 1899.
Knox’s commitment extended to the South African War, where he earned promotions and commendations, achieving the rank of captain on 1 January 1901 and receiving the Queen’s South Africa Medal with four clasps on 1 September 1901. His journey led him to the Indian Supply and Transport Corps, where, in 1903, he assumed the role of officer in charge of supplies at Rawul Pindee, now Rawalpindi, Pakistan, often likened to the Aldershot of India. Accompanied by his wife, Knox welcomed the birth of their first son, Ralph Peter Owen Knox, on 5 August 1903.
Returning to the United Kingdom in 1907 after completing his five-year term in India, Knox resumed duties as a peacetime ASC officer. However, amidst what should have been a joyous period, tragedy struck with the birth of his second son, Henry Owen Murray Knox on 5 March 1909, followed by the untimely passing of Knox’s wife the next day. Despite this heart-wrenching loss, Knox found solace in a new chapter of his life, remarrying Elsie Caroline Harker on 28 May 1910.
New Zealand
After the conclusion of the South African War, the Military Forces in New Zealand embarked on a series of reforms to enhance the organisation and capability of the nation’s military, enabling it to contribute effectively to a broader Imperial Defence scheme. In 1910, at the request of the New Zealand Government, Field Marshal Viscount Kitchener inspected New Zealand’s Forces. Kitchener provided several recommendations concerning the ongoing reforms, emphasising the need for a professional Staff Corps to administer the force.
The momentum for these reforms gained further impetus with the appointment of Major General Alexander Godley as the New Zealand Military Forces Commandant in December 1910. Godley was pivotal in revitalising New Zealand’s military organisational framework in his first year, making critical command and staff appointments, promulgating the (Provisional) Regulations for the Military Forces of New Zealand, and making plans to build up the NZASC, which, although gazetted on 12 May 1910 as a designated component of the Defence Forces of New Zealand, remained a paper corps.[1]
The proposed NZASC envisaged eight Transport and Supply Columns, comprising four Mounted Brigade and four Mixed Brigade Transport and Supply Columns, one of each earmarked for allocation to one of New Zealand’s four Military Districts. Despite the existence of the Defence Stores Department, which had fulfilled commissariat functions in New Zealand since 1869, there was a lack of an ASC nucleus from which these new units could evolve.
Acknowledging the highly specialised nature of ASC duties, distinct from combatant staff and regimental officers, and the absence of suitably qualified officers in New Zealand, Godley recommended to the Minister of Defence on 4 January 1911 the lending of services of an experienced Imperial ASC Senior Captain or Major to organise and train New Zealand’s transport and supply services for three years. The Minister of Defence endorsed this recommendation with the Prime Minister cabling the New Zealand High Commissioner in London on 10 January 1910 to approach the Army Council for the:
Services of experienced Army Service Corps major or senior captain required to organise New Zealand Army Service Corps. Engagement for three years. Salary £600 a year consolidated. Pay to include house allowance. Travelling allowance of 12/6d a day and allowance for one horse if kept, will also be granted. [2]
Within two months of receiving New Zealand’s request for an ASC Officer, the Army Council promptly and affirmatively responded to the call. Having already sanctioned nine additional officers to assist Godley, the Council selected Knox, then serving in C (Depot) Company ASC at Aldershot, for service in New Zealand to organise the NZASC. New Zealand agreed to cover the costs of Knox’s secondment, encompassing first-class travel and accommodation for his family. Despite this, Knox, with a desire for a nurse for his children and a motorcar as part of his household, accepted the responsibility for these supplementary expenses. Anticipating the scale of the work required, Knox approached the New Zealand High Commissioner and requested that an ASC Clerk accompany him to assist with the upcoming tasks. However, the New Zealand High Commissioner declined this request. Bestowed with the rank of Temporary Major during his tenure as the Director of Supplies and Transport (DST), New Zealand Forces, Knox departed London with his family, nurse and a motorcar on 13 April 1911 aboard the SS Turakina, arriving in Wellington on 31 May 1911.
Under the guidance of New Zealand Adjutant and Quartermaster-General Colonel Alfred Robin, Knox assumed his duties as the New Zealand DST at the Army General Staff Offices on Wellington’s Buckle Street. His responsibilities encompassed a wide range of functions, including quarters, tender and contracts, personal and freight movement, and presidency on two standing committees related to Drill sheds and the storage and distribution of clothing and equipment to the forces.[3]
Recognising Knox’s extensive duties, he was granted the Temporary Rank of Lieutenant Colonel on 6 September 1911. With Colonel Robin’s appointment as the New Zealand representative at the War Office in London in 1912, Knox assumed the additional role of Quartermaster General (QMG).[4] Despite Knox diligently fulfilling the role of QMG and DST, progress on the formation of the NZASC was slow.
During his tenure as QMG and DST, Knox maintained a functional and collegial relationship with the New Zealand Director of Equipment and Ordnance Stores (DEOS) and head of the Defence Stores Department, Major H. James O’Sullivan. Unlike Knox, O’Sullivan was not an imported Imperial Officer but a long-serving member of the New Zealand Defence Department who had progressed through the ranks from Armed Constabulary Trooper to DEOS. It is assumed that O’Sullivan offered Knox valuable advice on the New Zealand approach to various matters.
Despite Knox’s initial request for an ASC clerk being declined, in September 1912, Knox approached Godley, suggesting the enhancement of the NZASC formation by sending four New Zealand Warrant Officers to England for training or seconding four ASC Warrant Officers to the New Zealand Forces. The latter option was accepted, and four ASC Senior Non-Commissioned Officers (SNCOs) were chosen and dispatched to New Zealand in time for the 1913 Easter camps. [5] These camps were acclaimed as the most administratively and economically successful thanks to Knox and his four ASC NCOs.
With an additional four ASC officers approved for secondment arriving in New Zealand in February 1914, Knox, having completed twenty years of service and with his three-year secondment nearing its end, began preparations for his return to the United Kingdom in June 1913.
By 1914, Knox had established 16 NZASC companies of approximately 30 men each across the four New Zealand Military Districts, with the new ASC officers serving as Assistant Directors of Supply and Transport (ADST) in each District Headquarters. [6] Although Knox had departed by the time of the 1914 divisional camps, the Inspector General of Imperial Forces, General Sir Ian Hamilton, noted following his inspection that:
The very highest credit is due to the Army Service Corps officers and their men. They have done a first-class service, although as a rule undermanned to an extent that would fill a labor union with horror. When the Army Service Corps units are up to their normal strengths, a suitable system of calling the men up to camp in relays will enable the necessary duties to be carried out as efficiently and with much less strain on the personnel.[7]
Upon departing New Zealand on 13 February 1914, concluding his three-year tour of duty, Knox left behind an uncertain legacy. Possibly due to his commitment as Quartermaster General, Knox had not significantly improved the staffing levels of the NZASC. However, he had laid a framework for improvement, passing the leadership and future growth of the NZASC to the cadre of ASC Officers and NCOs who prepared the NZASC for the challenges of the 1914-18 war. The NZASC emerged from the war with an exemplary record of service.
Knox left New Zealand with a testimonial from New Zealand’s Governor General, acknowledging his “entire satisfaction in the execution of his duties as Quartermaster General and done valuable work during the time that he has been employed by the New Zealand government.”[8]
War Service
After returning home to the United Kingdom via the United States and taking a brief leave of absence, Knox officially retired from the British Army with the rank of Major on 22 July 1914. However, the United Kingdom’s declaration of war upon Germany on 4 August 1914 prompted Knox’s recall to the colours. He was appointed to command the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) Advance Base Depot, to be stationed at Le Havre, France, where he would achieve the lasting honour of being the first soldier of the BEF to set foot in France.[9]
Departing from Newhaven on the SS Brighton at 2 pm on 9 August 1914, Knox, accompanied by five Officers and 13 Other Ranks of ASC Depot of Supply unit No 14, arrived off Boulogne at 6:15 am on 10 August Faced with the absence of a pilot and uncertainty about their identity, the SS Brighton’s Captain, who had never entered that harbour before, was assisted by Knox’s 2IC, Captain C.E. Terry, an enthusiastic yachtsman familiar with the landmarks.[10] As later recalled by Lieutenant (QM) C. Bagg in 1940, as soon as the SS Brighton was tied up, Knox swiftly disembarked, heading for unknown destinations, making him the first British soldier of the BEF to set foot onshore in France.[11]
Knox continued his service in France until he was invalided to England on 1 December 1914 due to bronchitis. Following a swift recovery, Knox then deployed to Egypt. On 4 January 1914, he was appointed to the General Staff as AQMG (Assistant Quartermaster General) to the Australian and New Zealand (ANZAC) Corps. Knox undoubtedly resumed and utilised the many connections he had established during his three years in New Zealand.
Gazetted as a Temporary Lieutenant Colonel on 1 February 1915, Knox retained the position of ANZAC Corps AQMG throughout the ill-fated operations on Gallipoli. Despite being wounded in action on 11 August, he remained present during the evacuation. Mentioned in Dispatches twice, Knox was awarded the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George Third Class (CMG) on 8 November 1915.
Gallipoli Peninsula, Turkey. c May 1915. An officer, believed to be Colonel H. O. Knox sitting outside two dugouts smoking a cigarette. The dugout on the right belongs to the Assistant Quartermaster General. AWM P02648.002.
Following a stint on the staff of General Headquarters (GHQ) Home Forces, Knox was dispatched to Mesopotamia on 18 August 1916 as the DQMG (Deputy Quartermaster General) with the rank of Temporary Brigadier General of the Mesopotamian Relief Force. This force successfully recaptured Kut and captured Baghdad. Knox received mention twice in dispatches and was appointed as an additional Companion to the Most Eminent Order of the Indian Empire (CIE) on 25 August 1917. On 13 November 1917, Knox was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in the Regular Army with the Honorary Rank of Brigadier General.
Postwar
Upon Knox’s return home in 1918, he joined the Civil Engineer-in-Chief’s department at the Admiralty. He represented the department on the Naval Inter-Allied Commission, overseeing the dismantling of fortifications on Heligoland.
In recognition of his services during the war, Knox was appointed to the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire (CBE) on 17 October 1919.
Knox experienced another joyous occasion with the birth of a daughter on 23 June 1921. Returning to the retired list as a Colonel (Honorary Brigadier General) on 1 March 1922, limited information about Knox’s post-war life is available. On 16 January 1929, having reached the age limit exempting him from recall, he ceased to belong to the Reserve of Officers.
On 5 May 1955, at a nursing home in Tonbridge, Kent, England, Knox passed away at the age of 81.[12]
Conclusion
In conclusion, Brigadier General Henry Owen Knox is an influential architect of transformation in New Zealand military logistics, leaving an enduring legacy that shaped the evolution of the RNZALR. His journey, spanning continents and crucial historical periods, reflects a life dedicated to unwavering service and leadership across the British, Indian, and New Zealand Armies.
Knox’s crucial involvement in forming the NZASC amid extensive military reorganisation highlights his visionary contributions. Despite enduring personal tragedies, including the untimely loss of his wife, Knox’s resilience solidified his unwavering commitment to service. His leadership in New Zealand from 1911 to 1914 was central in shaping the NZASC and aligning it with cutting-edge British military logistics innovations. Despite initial challenges and a gradual beginning, Knox’s dedication and collaboration with local and imperial officers ultimately resulted in the successful establishment of the NZASC.
Knox’s return to active duty during World War I showcased his continued commitment, where he played a crucial role in the BEF as the ANZAC Corps AQMG at Gallipoli and later as DQMS in Mesopotamia, his services recognised with numerous commendations, including the CMG, CIE and CBE.
[1] Based on the British logistics system the NZASC was to be responsible for the Transport and the supply of forage, rations and fuel. The supply and maintenance of all small-arms, ammunition, accoutrements, clothing, and field equipment Stores was to remain a responsibility of the Defence Stores Department which in 1917 became the New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps. Robert McKie, “Unappreciated duty: the forgotten contribution of New Zealand’s Defence Stores Department in mobilising the New Zealand Expeditionary Force in 1914: a thesis presented in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in History at Massey University, Manawatu, New Zealand” (Massey University, 2022).
[2] “Henry Owen Knox – Major, New Zealand Staff Corps [Army Service Corps] “, Archives New Zealand – R22203157 (Wellington) 1911.
[3] Julia Millen, Salute to service: a history of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport and its predecessors, 1860-1996 (Wellington: Victoria University Press, 1997, 1997), 44.
[4] The Quartermaster-General was the appointment responsible in the British Army of the early 20th century for those activities, which provided support to combat forces in the fields of administration and logistics. In the 21st Century these activities are described as Combat Service Support (CSS) and comprise Logistic Support, Equipment Support, Medical Support, Administrative Support and Logistic Engineering. In Hierarchical terms a Quartermaster General (QMG) was placed at the Army level, A Deputy Quartermaster General (DQMG) at Corps with Assistant Quartermaster General (AQMG) supporting both QMG and DQMG. Clem Maginniss, An unappreciated field of Endeavour Logistics and the British Expeditionary Force on the Western Front 1914-1918 (Helion, 2018), xxiii.
[5] The ASC SNCOs were; Quartermaster Sergeant John Wass and Staff Sergeant Major John Walter Frederick Cahill from the Horse Transport Branch and Staff Quartermaster Sergeant Philip Petty and Staff Sergeant Frank Ostler of the Supply Branch. Millen, Salute to service: a history of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport and its predecessors, 1860-1996, 45-46.
[6] The ASC Officers that arrive in 1914 were; Captain Norman Chivas Hamilton, Captain Annesley Craven Robinson, Lieutenant Hubert Harvard Wright and Captain Hector Gowans Reid. Millen, Salute to service: a history of the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport and its predecessors, 1860-1996, 48.
[8] “Henry Owen Knox – Major, New Zealand Staff Corps [Army Service Corps] “.
[9] According to the Entente Cordiale, the United Kingdom had a diplomatic agreement with France to jointly address potential military aggression from the German Empire in Europe. In anticipation of a conflict between the UK and Germany, comprehensive plans were formulated for the British Army to send a “British Expeditionary Force” to France. This force would initially comprise of six infantry divisions and five cavalry brigades with the main body disembarking in France from 13 August 1914.
[10] C.E Terry, “The Britannia Monument,” RASC Journal, September, 1938.
[11] C. Bagg, “Correspondence ” RASC Journal, January, 1941.
“Actions speak louder than words; let your words teach and your actions speak.” – Anthony of Padua
Across the military world, mottos occupy a special place in a unit’s identity. Far more than decorative phrases, they encapsulate ethos, tradition, pride, and mission. New Zealand’s Army logistic corps have long embraced this tradition, each adopting a motto that speaks to their distinct contributions to sustaining and enabling military operations. Together, these mottos form a vital cultural bridge to the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) of today.
This article explores the historic mottos of New Zealand’s logistic corps — the Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC), Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT), Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC), and Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) — and how their spirit continues in the RNZALR’s regimental motto.
The RNZASC and RNZCT: “Nil Sine Labore” — Nothing Without Labour
The Royal New Zealand Army Service Corps (RNZASC), formed in 1910 and later reorganised into the Royal New Zealand Corps of Transport (RNZCT) in 1979, adopted the Latin motto “Nil Sine Labore”, meaning “Nothing Without Labour.”
Meaning and Significance: “Nil Sine Labore” captured the essential reality of logistics: success in battle is impossible without the unceasing work of those who provide transport, fuel, rations, and supplies.
Wider Context: Like the mottos of other Commonwealth service corps (e.g., British Army Service Corps), it stresses the indispensable nature of effort behind the scenes. While combat might capture glory, labour — the unseen supply chain — sustains the force.
Legacy: The RNZCT’s adoption of the same motto ensured continuity, even as functions evolved from general service to highly mobile modern transport operations.
The RNZAOC: “Sua Tela Tonanti” — To the Warrior Their Arms
The Royal New Zealand Army Ordnance Corps (RNZAOC) proudly carried the Latin motto “Sua Tela Tonanti”, traditionally translated as “To the Warrior His Arms”, though now often rendered as “To the Warrior Their Arms” for inclusiveness.
Meaning and Significance: This motto embodies the RNZAOC’s role in arming the Army, providing everything from ammunition and weapons to clothing and technical stores. It positions the Corps not as passive administrators, but as an essential enabler of combat power.
Wider Context: Inherited from the historic British Board of Ordnance, the motto ties the RNZAOC directly to a centuries-old tradition of sustaining armies through mastery over materiel — arms to the Thunderer (Jove), or in modern terms, arms to the Warrior.
Legacy: The RNZAOC’s operational support philosophy — rapid, flexible, forward-moving supply and repair — deeply influenced New Zealand’s logistic identity into the RNZALR era.
The RNZEME: “Arte et Marte” — By Skill and Fighting
The Royal New Zealand Electrical and Mechanical Engineers (RNZEME) chose the Latin motto “Arte et Marte”, meaning “By Skill and Fighting” or “By Craft and Combat.”
Meaning and Significance: “Arte et Marte” speaks to the technical excellence demanded of soldiers who kept vehicles, weapons, and equipment operational in all conditions, often under fire. It acknowledges that engineering support is not a civilian function, but a battlefield art practised in war.
Wider Context: Similar mottos appear across the engineer and technical corps throughout the Commonwealth, blending pride in professionalism with recognition of the combat environment they work within.
Legacy: RNZEME’s ethos of skilled technical intervention in the face of adversity feeds directly into the RNZALR’s emphasis on innovation, adaptability, and operational effectiveness today.
The RNZALR: “Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata” — By Our Actions We Are Known
When the Royal New Zealand Army Logistic Regiment (RNZALR) was formed in 1996 through the amalgamation of the RNZCT, RNZAOC, RNZEME, and the All-Arms Quartermaster functions, it needed a new motto — one that would respect its heritage while uniting its many trades and traditions.
The selected motto, in Te Reo Māori, is “Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata”, which translates as “By Our Actions We Are Known.”
Meaning and Significance: This motto synthesises the underlying spirit of the earlier corps mottos. Labour, provision of arms, technical skill, and combat support all manifest through actions — actions that sustain the force and ultimately define success.
Wider Context: By choosing a motto in Te Reo Māori, the RNZALR affirmed its place within a distinctly New Zealand military culture. This reflected the nation’s commitment to multiculturalism and honoured Māori and Western traditions.
Continuity and Evolution: While the words changed, the spirit endures.
“Nil Sine Labore” – Nothing is possible without action.
“Sua Tela Tonanti” – The arms are provided through action.
“Arte et Marte” – Action is both skilled and courageous.
“Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata” – Actions define reputation.
Thus, the RNZALR motto is not a break with the past but the culmination of it — a living link between generations of logisticians who have sustained New Zealand’s Army from the earliest days to the present.
Conclusion: Living the Legacy
Military mottos are far more than slogans; they are declarations of identity, values, and purpose. In the case of New Zealand’s Army logistics corps, each motto reflects a vital facet of the broader logistics enterprise — from hard work and skilled maintenance to the critical task of arming and equipping the warfighter.
Through “Mā Ngā Hua Tu Tangata”, the RNZALR carries forward these proud traditions, reminding every Logistic Specialist, Movements Operator, Caterer, Maintainer, and Combat Driver that it is through their actions — perhaps unseen by many, but vital to all — that the Army stands strong.
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]
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.
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.”
[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).
