The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory

Innovation in the Twentieth Century

Anneke van Mosseveld

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9783319714257
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: Australian & Oceanian History
• Index: History

This book reveals the business history of the Australian Government Clothing Factory as it introduced innovative changes in the production and design of the Australian Army uniform during the twentieth century. While adopting a Schumpeterian interpretation of the concept of innovation, Anneke van Mosseveld traces the driving forces behind innovation and delivers a comprehensive explanation of the resulting changes in the combat uniform. Using an array of archival sources, this book displays details of extensive collaborations between the factory, the Army and scientists in the development of camouflage patterns and military textiles. It uncovers a system of intellectual property management to protect the designs of the uniform, and delivers new insights into the wider economic influences and industry linkages of the Government owned factory.

© The Author(s) 2018

Anneke van MosseveldThe Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factoryhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71425-7_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Anneke van Mosseveld¹

(1)

University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia

End Abstract

Background

Army uniforms in every part of the world have evolved over time, ranging from the frocked leather skirts worn by Roman soldiers or the long tunics and pants worn by the Chinese warriors as displayed in Xi’an, the iron-plated and mesh vests worn by the Crusaders, the tailored red coats seen in Napoleon’s army and in the Union army of the American Civil War, to the brown woollen belted tunics of the British and Australian armies in the First World War, the green jungle outfits worn by United States and Australian troops in the Vietnam War, and, finally, to the loose camouflage gear worn by most present-day armies. The evolution of military uniforms provides rich material for illustrated publications, which seem to always occupy an eye-catching place on the shelves of dedicated bookshops. Displays of uniforms or uniformed soldiers in action during battle also occupy a significant floor area at military or history museums. Today, many families in the Western world will have photographs of ancestors in uniform who participated in recent wars and this has brought them closer to war histories. Clearly, military uniforms attract the interest of many people. The literature contains many descriptions and illustrations of the vast range of military uniforms, covering all ranks and functions within the three Services (Army, Navy and Air Force) and many of the uniforms are on display in the same museums that contain the military hardware.

However, while the book illustrations and the museum displays point implicitly at the importance and changing design of the uniform, the literature from disciplines such as military history or design history neglects to identify the reasons for these changes. Symptomatic of the gap in the literature is the fact that in his Official History of Australia in the War, 1914–1918, Charles E.W. Bean, the official observer and later historian and author, devotes only four pages to the uniform worn by the men of the Australian Imperial Force. He does not favour the description with further comment or analysis other than to proudly announce that

It was commonly said that no troops ever went to the front more generously equipped than this first Australian contingent. The cloth of their jackets was strong; their clothing was woollen all through… their boots were as pliable as civilian boots, and far stouter. In France countless favours were obtained in exchange for Australian boots.¹

Illustrated books showing the uniforms worn in Australia are plentiful and it would be presumptuous to claim knowledge of all of them. For those interested in these illustrations, in particular, those of the Australian armed forces, I refer to the works of Monty Wedd, John Perryman, David Miller and especially Alfred N. Festberg. Monty Wedd illustrates the uniforms worn from the Australian colonial era, continuing its journey to the early 1980s.² The illustrations are hand-drawn and very colourful. This work is best regarded as a sampling of some of the uniforms and is by no means complete. John Perryman’s book of uniforms, badges and categories of the Australian Navy also has an early start date for its contents.³ It begins with the uniforms of 1865 and, like Monty Wedd’s work, is a good sampling; it is, however, far more in-depth in nature and also describes the badges worn. However, it covers only the Navy. Both books provide a good indication of the changes that have occurred over almost two hundred years, although none of the changes are explicitly discussed and no rationale is given for the decisions to alter the uniform designs. An example of a work that describes the uniforms worn during the Second World War is David Miller’s book covering the Allied Forces dress, equipment and weapons.⁴ It contains only a small section on the Australian uniform, but is indicative of the close collaboration between US and Australian forces in the type of uniforms adopted during the war. One of the most complete illustrated works for uniforms worn during the Second World War in Australia is a publication by the Royal Australian Army Ordnance Corps Museum, edited by Alfred N. Festberg.⁵ It contains a photographic record of all uniforms manufactured in Australia that were worn in 1943. This work is particularly interesting for its vast coverage of women’s uniforms. The book includes uniforms for the Royal Australian Navy (including the Women’s Royal Australian Naval Service), the Australian Military and Imperial Force, the Australian Women’s Army Service, the Australian Army Nursing Service, the Australian Army Medical Women’s Service, the Royal Australian Air Force, the Women’s Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the Australian Women’s Land Army and the Australian Men and Women Munitions Workers.

Analytical Framework

In this book I shall touch repeatedly upon elements of the uniforms’ designs and innovations, but I will do so only in the context of discussing underlying reasons for those innovative changes. While these changes will be of interest in themselves, the analytical framework of this book is based upon an economic theory of innovation, developed by economist Joseph Schumpeter, and draws on economic and business principles. Furthermore, I apply these principles to the activities of the Australian Government Clothing Factory, the producer of the Australian Army uniforms, and to the impact of relevant actions and decisions taken by the Australian Army and the Department of Defence. For my analysis I have chosen to focus on the period 1912 (the establishment date of the Clothing Factory) to 1995 (the year in which the Factory was privatised), thereby creating an economic and business history of the Factory in the process.

The leitmotif running throughout this book is the economic concept of innovation. Innovation as a concept is nothing new to business historians, scientists and economists; it has been at the core of human development since the invention of the wheel. As an economic concept, it was also in the mind of economists such as Thorstein Veblen and Joseph Schumpeter in the early twentieth century when they devoted their thoughts to business enterprise and the role of the entrepreneur, and since that time it has been described in many ways by a multitude of scholars.⁶ In 2008 Baregheh, Rowley and Sambrook collected 60 definitions of ‘innovation’ and conducted a content analysis, extracting and counting the number of key words found. They then compiled a new definition based on the highest-count words which they hoped would finally end the quest for a succinct and all-encompassing description:

Innovation is the multi-stage process whereby organizations transform ideas into new/improved products, service or processes, in order to advance, compete and differentiate themselves successfully in their marketplace.⁷

In the first decade of the twenty-first century the term ‘innovation’ became a driving force for government industry strategies. The Australian Business Foundation held a brainstorming session in which academics and business leaders participated. The definition arrived at during this session filtered through to the Business Council of Australia:

Innovation is about doing new things and drawing on knowledge or creativity to find new and better ways to add value to products, services and processes.⁸

Both of these definitions capture key elements of innovation. The second definition is not only a simple and clear statement that contains the key elements of a process (‘doing new things’) to transform ideas or knowledge into new and improved products, services or processes, it also captures the possible use of ‘creativity’ and describes the final outcome as ‘adding value’.⁹ It does not explicitly mention any ultimate goals for the process (advancement, competitiveness, differentiation) or a marketplace environment, but in leaving this unsaid, creates a much wider world of application, including social and non-profit settings. Unbeknownst to many persons present at the brainstorming session, this working definition was directly derived from the theory of capitalism, economic development and innovation left to us by economist Joseph A. Schumpeter (1883–1950). Schumpeter’s five key characteristics of innovation—(1) the introduction of a new good with which consumers are not yet familiar or which has a new quality; (2) the introduction of a new method of production; (3) the opening of a new market; (4) the introduction of a new source of supply of raw materials or semi-manufactured goods; or (5) the establishment of a new organisation of any industry, such as the creation of a monopoly position—neatly fit the activities of the Australian Government Clothing Factory. It is easy to see how the government-owned Clothing Factory with exclusive control over the production of Army uniforms conformed to Schumpeter’s theories on the creation of a monopoly position. In the following chapters I shall explain that several other elements of his theory, particularly the introduction of new methods of production and of new sources of supply of raw materials, are also in line with Schumpeter’s idea of innovation. Furthermore, it may be observed that the Clothing Factory managers were entrepreneurs hand-picked from the private sector who drove innovation and made the Clothing Factory into a model performer. While operating a state-owned enterprise and under a constraint as a non-profit operation, they conducted the business as if it were privately-owned and profit-oriented.¹⁰

Schumpeter presents us with the idea that the process of innovation is dynamic and that it creates wave after wave of economic activity, rising and falling in intensity.¹¹ His Theory of Economic Development describes a disturbance of the existing equilibrium by new creative forces—which he baptised with the term ‘creative destruction’—in consecutive waves, each reaching a higher order from the previous one. The phenomenon of ‘creative destruction’ may be compared to a boiling pot of water, bubbles rising and exploding, each explosion temporarily making room for another bubble to grow and then explode. As the temperature rises, the bubbles will become larger, more furious. We have reached another level in the process, but it will never stay there.¹²

A second important element of Schumpeter’s analysis concerns the activation of change itself. This is the critically important part of Schumpeter’s analysis, which links with the leitmotif in the following chapters. As Schumpeter points out, the economy will not change of its own accord, but someone is needed to set the waves into motion. This someone is the entrepreneur. Schumpeter defines development as ‘new combinations of productive means’.¹³ The entrepreneur is the person carrying out these new combinations of productive means. Schumpeter regards the concept of the ‘entrepreneur’ in a broad sense and, importantly, includes not only ‘independent’ businessmen, but also ‘dependent’ employees of a company such as managers, members of the Board of Directors or even a controlling shareholder.¹⁴ When we now consider the history of the Australian Army uniform, it can be observed that the Army uniform did not evolve as it did without the action of someone to connect the combinations of the productive means. We are here not dealing with an ‘independent’ businessman, but with certain members of the Department of Defence and the Army’s clothing operations who performed the role of the entrepreneur, in line with Schumpeter’s inclusion of ‘dependent’ employees.

Innovation may be driven by external factors, including comments and complaints by consumers. I have devoted a section to this in order to show the underlying causes for innovation. However, in Schumpeter’s analysis, the users’ input into changes made to the Army’s uniform are not a critical element in innovation. In his view, whenever consumers drive changes in the final products it will merely change the data, rather than innovation or economic development itself. Schumpeter explains this at some length in the Theory of Economic Development,

To be sure, we must always start from the satisfaction of wants, since they are the end of all production, and the given economic situation at any time must be understood from this aspect. Yet innovations in the economic system do not as a rule take place in such a way that first new wants arise spontaneously in consumers and then the productive apparatus swings round through their pressure. […] It is, however, the producer who as a rule initiates economic change, and consumers are educated by him if necessary; they are, as it were, taught to want new things, or things which differ in some respect or other from those which they have been in the habit of using.¹⁵

While he presents us with his theory, Schumpeter writes little about the motivations and driving forces of the producers, apart from a desire to be leader in the chosen field, making a profit and accumulating capital. This book goes beyond Schumpeter’s analysis and I shall uncover instances where innovation just had to take place for the uniforms (and the persons wearing them) to be functional in the historical and environmental settings of war. It identifies the driving forces behind the innovations that took place in an industry dominated by the demands of war.

The main players in this scenario are public institutions (in this case the Australian Department of Defence and the Australian Army), scientists, inventors and a state-owned factory. The Australian Army’s combat ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Front Matter
• 1. Introduction
• 2. Military Uniforms and the Making of a National Industry
• 3. The Government Takes Control
• 4. The Clothing and Woollen Cloth Factories Following the First World War
• 5. The Clothing Factory During the 1930s and the Second World War
• 6. Building a New Clothing Factory—1950s to 1971
• 7. Science Takes Command
• 8. Driving Forces of Military Innovation
• 9. Military Control over Intellectual Property
• 10. The Government Relinquishes Control
• 11. Conclusions
• Erratum to: The Australian Army Uniform and the Government Clothing Factory
• Erratum to: Science Takes Command
• Back Matter