Why were kiwi soldiers so good?

[hoffies]

sup guys Australian here

I'm trying to figure out why kiwis were such an effective combat force (both WW1 and WW2 but particularly the latter). From what I understand they were on par with Australians, or perhaps even better if Rommel is to be believed (apparently he regarded kiwis as his finest opponents).

The explanation for AIF combat performance is pretty easy: highly motivated volunteers with extremely thorough training led by brilliant commanders. I should think the NZEF was on par with the AIF in the last 2 departments, but I was wondering about the volunteer aspect, because I know NZ had conscription. In particular, what % of NZEF were volunteers?

Another random thought I had was that on top of sharing the Australian's motivation to prove to the world they were the best soldiers, kiwis may have had an additional one: to keep up with and perhaps outdo the Australians. Not sure if that has any basis in the history though.

[Dave Homewood]

I don't have enough knowledge to comment on WWI but I think a lot to do with our soldiers being so good at what they did as the Second World War progressed came down to the fact that the Reinforcements who were sent to the front line had been in the Army for perhaps two to three years already, and had been occupied on garrison duty which effectively meant constant training and exercises at home till their skills were sharp as they could be, and then they were taken into the line with NCO's who'd already been there and learned their skills on the job in battle from NZ's first entry into proper war in Greece. Together they made an awesome combination. The early echelons were not well trained when they left in 1940 and 41, and had to learn skills quickly. But the guys that came to join them from 1942 onwards were better trained in all manner of skills and tactics and actually probably better soldiers.

New Zealanders also have a knack for common sense and fair play, like the Aussies, so they read situations better and react to them better than other nations I think.

It also must be remembered that in both WWI and WWII New Zealand was mostly a rural nation, and a huge majority of the soldiers were hard, hard men who were used to roughing it in the bush or breaking in rough back country farms. Most were also already proficient riflemen, and a big proportion of the NZ Army had undergone Territorial training before their regualr Army service, and some had been through the compulsory military service scheme too.

Just some idle thoughts....

[Calum]

I don't know that they were.

What real documentary evidence do we have that Kiwi or Australian Soldiers were markedly better or worse than English, Scottish, South African, Indian or American Soldiers?

I'm always wary of the x solders were better than y soldiers statements, I think there is a big risk of parochialism / jingoism which can result in exploits being over emphasised and failures ignored.

There is a great book written by an Australian Author (Graham Wilson) called Bully Beef and Balderdash Some Myths of the AIF Examined and Debunked.

What all these guys, regardless of nationality, actually went through is interesting/impressive enough without people trying to make one lot better than the other.

[phil82]

Like Calum, I'm always wary of nationalistic jingoism when it comes to claims that the fighting men of one particular country were better than another. In New Zealand and Australia, the troops that actually did the fighting were very much your typical hard, independent, and capable men who were very good at what they did, and not just because someone like Rommel said so.

In 1939 New Zealand had a population of just over 1.6 million: one of the smallest independent countries in the world, yet it had plans to raise an infantry division which, per head of population, was the equivalent of Britain raising 25 divisions. Both NZ and Australian troops were largely amateurs, yet they consistently showed that when push came to shove they could cut it with the best.

That largely came from their national streak of independence that came from their settler backgrounds.

[ngatimozart]

Feb 23, 2013 0:12:13 GMT 12 phil82 said:

Like Calum, I'm always wary of nationalistic jingoism when it comes to claims that the fighting men of one particular country were better than another. In New Zealand and Australia, the troops that actually did the fighting were very much your typical hard, independent, and capable men who were very good at what they did, and not just because someone like Rommel said so.

In 1939 New Zealand had a population of just over 1.6 million: one of the smallest independent countries in the world, yet it had plans to raise an infantry division which, per head of population, was the equivalent of Britain raising 25 divisions. Both NZ and Australian troops were largely amateurs, yet they consistently showed that when push came to shove they could cut it with the best.


That largely came from their national streak of independence that came from their settler backgrounds.

None of which explains the particular abilities of the 28th Māori Battalion. How would you explain their contribution in the context of the above explanations?

[corsair67]

Feb 23, 2013 11:09:57 GMT 12 ngatimozart said:

Feb 23, 2013 0:12:13 GMT 12 phil82 said:

Like Calum, I'm always wary of nationalistic jingoism when it comes to claims that the fighting men of one particular country were better than another. In New Zealand and Australia, the troops that actually did the fighting were very much your typical hard, independent, and capable men who were very good at what they did, and not just because someone like Rommel said so.

In 1939 New Zealand had a population of just over 1.6 million: one of the smallest independent countries in the world, yet it had plans to raise an infantry division which, per head of population, was the equivalent of Britain raising 25 divisions. Both NZ and Australian troops were largely amateurs, yet they consistently showed that when push came to shove they could cut it with the best.


That largely came from their national streak of independence that came from their settler backgrounds.

None of which explains the particular abilities of the 28th Māori Battalion. How would you explain their contribution in the context of the above explanations?

I watched "Once Were Warriors" - Maori love fighting! :-)

[Dave Homewood]

I would explain 28 Battalion's contribution as being no more than any other 2NZEF Battalion, and in fact in case of some battalions, less. They have just had much more publicity since the war thanks to being a minority. They certainly had a slightly different battalion culture, they openly admitted to being the best theives and looters of 2NZEF, they disregarded the idea of stealth when moving up to the lines or making an advance, and they were fearless almost to a man, but because they did some things differently does not mean they did things better.

[Luther Moore]

Maybe because you are from this part of the world..If you went somewhere else people may not agree or say they were no better then soldiers from their country.

[Dave Homewood]

Thye must have been better than the Germans and Italians, the scoreboard tells us that much.

[mcmaster]

I agree there was nothing intrinsic to Aus or NZ fighting men which made them superior. However as has been mentioned their physical fitness, size and no nonsense practicality most likely came from the rural bush origins of these guys. the myth is reinforced in Aus because of the significance of ANZAC day which with Aus Day has over the last 10 years moved from a day of reflection to a pretty jingoistic celebration. my guess is that any conscription today would not reap the same hard practical types of the past. No gym can replicate scratching out a living in the drought and without modern farm machinery. Mind you modern urban war is different, makes me think being partly nuts to start with might be what you need.

[Dave Homewood]

Agreed there McMaster. If a war erupted today the conscription would cetainly bring in a really different calibre of people than it used to. Now most people work in offices on computers nowadays (even the farmers to a certain extent).

People were hardy in 1939 as they'd survived coming through the Great Depression which affected families pretty badly in NZ. Most were used to going without meals and being thin and wirey, and working hard to make a few shillings to stay afloat. Joining the Armed Forces was a godsend to may of the veterans I have talked with as it finally presented them with three square meals a day, and in the case of the RNZAF, a bed of their own to sleep in often for the first time! When people say "They bred them tough back then" it's no exaggeration. I'm sure it was much the same in Australia, the USA and other countries.

Another factor with NZ soldiers, sailors and airmen in WWII is they were brought up in the era when rugby was compulsory at school. I think this is one of the things that really did set kiwis apart, they all played rugby, even at the battlefront, and were all therefore fit and nimble and able to take punishment and carry on. Not like the soccer playing nations who fall over and cry if someone bumps them.

[Calum]

Feb 23, 2013 14:53:44 GMT 12 mcmaster said:

I agree there was nothing intrinsic to Aus or NZ fighting men which made them superior. However as has been mentioned their physical fitness, size and no nonsense practicality most likely came from the rural bush origins of these guys. the myth is reinforced in Aus because of the significance of ANZAC day which with Aus Day has over the last 10 years moved from a day of reflection to a pretty jingoistic celebration. my guess is that any conscription today would not reap the same hard practical types of the past. No gym can replicate scratching out a living in the drought and without modern farm machinery. Mind you modern urban war is different, makes me think being partly nuts to start with might be what you need.

Interesting, even in the first world war, the vast majority of Australian troops were from Urban areas rather than Rural ones.

IIRC the Aussie soldier being a rugged Bushmans one of the myths addressed in the book I mentioned earlier.

Despite the myth Australia has always been primarily a urbanised nation

[Luther Moore]

I agree that back then the boys would of been less nonsense tough sort of guys but I do believe that our Generation would still stand up and fight if we needed to,only it would be a bit harder to get us in line.

Even if a world war broke out now it would be even on both sides because both sides would be brought up in today's world.

[mcmaster]

Feb 23, 2013 15:40:44 GMT 12 Calum said:

Interesting, even in the first world war, the vast majority of Australian troops were from Urban areas rather than Rural ones.

IIRC the Aussie soldier being a rugged Bushmans one of the myths addressed in the book I mentioned earlier.

Despite the myth Australia has always been primarily a urbanised nation

Not sure how much things changed in 8 years to 1914 but the ABS says (comparing 1906 to 1996) "In 1906 (almost half the population lived on rural properties or in small towns (less than 3,000 people). One in three Australians lived in a city of at least 100,000 people in 1906, the most populous cities, Sydney and Melbourne, had populations only of little more than half a million people (538,800 and 526,400 respectively).

In stark contrast, most Australians (53%) lived in a city of close to, or more than, a million people in 1996. These city dwellers outnumbered almost threefold those living in small towns and rural properties, whose proportion of the total population had fallen to 18% in 1996."

[Calum]

Bully Beef and Balderdash covers this Myth in respect to the AIF in WW1 (Wilson calls it "The Crack Shot from the Bush) in depth in chapter 3.

He used 1914 edition of Year Book Australia for populations figures using populations of greater than 3000 (which would be a big town in those days) to define urban. This book also had employment fgures

He even goes to the extent of listing all the number of each occupation in each Battalion in the AIF, and then even covers the replacements.

I can't really summerise his findings here, as it's quite involved (and I really don't have the time to type it out) but his evidence is pretty overwhelming. It also goes to to address the poor marksmenship and general soldiering of the AIF when it arrived from Australian. British SNCO's were bought in improve the training of the AIF's .

If you're an Australian this book is worth a read. All good local libraries should have a copy.

PS to the OP, sorry for the thread drift.

[corsair67]

Billy tea and Damper obviously makes better soldiers.

[alanw]

I lost three Great Uncles from WWI.
The Dickey side of the family, were farmers from Bay of Plenty/Auckland.
Willoughby side of family were also farmers, and from family photos, were lean and fit (good looking too ;D).
I don't doubt their ability to live in the trenches, or for one the grounds at Gallipoli and put up with hard life.

I think a lot of men who joined up did so with National pride (both Aussies and Kiwi's (Maori/Pakeha)) certainly I know my family did so for King and Country.

I suppose also, that many thought it to be a big adventure. Which would have changed once bullets started flying and shell started exploding - Well beat the Hun, and be home by Christmas type
attitude.
Listening to stories from my Grandparents and great Aunts, I think the "Colonial Larriken" was characteristic about them.

I have told previous, the story of Kiwi soldiers who rescued the British soldier from being tied to the gun carriage, and the officer in command telling the British officer (who threatened Court martial action for this) to watch his back if he did, there would be a bullet with his name on it.

Another story (no disrespect to any of our UK members) was a Kiwi soldier on leave in Britain (possibly convalescent), when berated by an British officer for some possible misdemeanor on the street, replied with this "Go home and tell your Mother you've seen a real man" and walked off leaving the Officer, totally astonished.

In WWII, I had both Grandfathers serve in various respects.
My maternal Grandfather, fought in the Pacific (Solomons) he was a University graduate.
My paternal Grandfather was not called up till much later, he was a market gardner suppling the war effrort.
He missed being shipped off due to VJ day. Knowing him, I believe he would have given a good account of himself.

I think the ANZAC Legend was a result of the younger generations listening to feats and stories (the actual servicemen, I have found didn't really want to talk about it), have built it up to where it seems
the ANZAC's fought at Gallipoli till the last man or in the trenches
the Germans knew they were facing Aussies or Kiwi's and ran
(which we know was not so true).
Are ANZAC's better than other armies? They would be similar to other men/women who volunteer in other countries.

A quote from the Movie "Pearl Harbor", Alec Baldwin playing Jimmy Mitchell. "There's nothing stronger than the heart of a Volunteer".
I think that comment is descriptive of Aussie/Kiwi men and women from WWI/WWII/Korea/Vietnam/Peace keeping ventures etc.

Regards

Alan

[chinapilot]

Brigadier George Clifton when captured,and meeting Rommel due to his rank,was told by Rommel that "NZ troops are gangsters" (this was recently after the much disputed hospital massacre of German wounded by a Maori unit).

It would be interesting to see where Rommel is quoted as saying the NZers were the best troops or is this just folklore passed down?

[Dave Homewood]

rnzaf.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=6557

[phil82]

I have a book entitled "Alamein:War Without Hate" Written by John Bierman, and Colin Smith which is possibly the best I've ever read on that topic.

It is hugely detailed, yet carries no specific comment attributed to Rommel in respect of New Zealand troops, although he did say that the "Englishmen"f the Long Range Desert Group were excellent and better than his own forces, though possibly without realising that the LRDG was comprised mainly of New Zealanders.

He is also reputed to have made the following observations on the calibre of his enemies:
Australians: “Rough” men, but unlikely with a “bad heart.” Highly ranked as fighting troops but “inclined to get out of hand.”
Indians: “Well-disciplined and correct” professional soldiers.
New Zealanders: “The finest troops” on the Allied side.
South Africans: “Good material” but simply “too raw,” to be of much use early in the campaign, although their armoured car units were a credit.
British: “Promising amateurs,” although their special forces are “better than Germans.” [See comment above about LRDG: Rommel thought they were British]