One for the REME

Try here
http://www.rangerneil.com

As a Reme bod, I repaired quite a few Stalwarts, especially at 2nd Line Workshops.

Their main expensive weakness, and main down fall was having no differential between each wheel on either side. Of course there was a differential to take up varying drive left against right sides.
Running unladen really was a 'No,no, due to the angle of the drive shafts being at a too acute angle!
Saracens had virtually the same drive train, but had a semi- automatic box and fluid fly wheel and suffered none of the Stali's drive problems....

Fitting new tyres (larger diameter) with part worn tyres (lesser diameter) was a contributory factor to wheel station drive shaft knuckles (knocking) then collapsing.

The Stalwart suffered from being used on the road, where its drive train system could not 'unwind.' Ideally it was designed as an off road vehicle, and worked well when used so!

The other weakness were the clutch plates. The main fault was the inability to select gears due to clutch drag, caused mainly by incorrect adjustment at the flywheel.

Surpringly, I never came across many instances of 'fire.' Possibly when it did happened, was because the air intake pushed leaves from behind the cab under the decks to the radiator where they accumulated with oil mist and rubbish.

The Stali was renowned for its exhaust 'back fire,' sometimes shooting out a 6 foot flame when on overun. I believe this is the point when it was liable, from the tail pipe to ignite things luking in the vicinity.

There was no better placed for a gun crew in winter, than to sit in the radiator fan blow past area. What heaven, on a cold winter night on excercise in Germany. Clothes dried in minutes!

I worked on the Stally during the 80's and 90's.

As a Vehicle Electrician it was a nightmare to work on.

The Vehicle Mechanics had an even worse time with the vehicle.

The issue of catching fire was mainly due to hem being used as a POL carrier and as has been stated before, the backfire which created a huge flame from the exhaust. It was mainly loose cam nets were near the exhaust that caused the fires. I remember a Stally being reduced to scrap on Soltau training area back in 1983.

Good lordy....okay, I am going to reveal a fairly basic ignorance here, I'm afraid, or perhaps a certain naivete. Keep in mind, I was never in the service but a son of a serviceman and so various aspects of military life were and are as much a mystery to me as to your average civilian LOL....

If Stalwart's were so badly designed (and the name of them is then somewhat ironic, wouldn't you say :->), that raises a few questions:

1 -- How on earth, and why on earth, were they ever designed the way they were to begin with? I am no mechanic, but it seems to me some of the issues of the drive shaft are pretty basic stuff that would have been immediately apparent at the design stage or, at the very least, in the prototype.

2 -- Once it was discovered these vehicles simply did not work as they were meant to (and the problems seem pretty dangerous to me), why on earth were they continued to be employed?

3 -- It was mentioned by alan that they were originally designed as off-road vehicles. Okay, one can understand the need for such vehicles, absolutely. How, then, did they come to be used for things other than off-road? Especially when it was realized the drive train system simply did not adapt well to being used on road?

There do appear to be some rather serious design flaw issues in the Stalwart and if they had a tendency to blow up (as per the one reduced to scrap during a Soltau training) it amazes me the things were in use for as long as they were!

Certainly I understand, after a fashion, outdated vehicles continuing to be in use and patch jobs being done over the years on them...we experience that in the Canadian army with our helicopters because the federal government just wouldn't fork out the money needed to upgrade to current models (and not just our helicopters; we have frigates and such in our navy that date from the Korean War era, if not earlier! Total rustbuckets, apparently), but these vehicles -- they're deadly by all accounts.

i find all this talk of stalwarts being no good on road laughable if you have seen in locations the hinterstein thread you will see a photo of one of the stollys.

they had travelled down the autobahn from bunde a round journey of 800miles and would do this journey no problem, they were new to us at the time and maybe after a few years they did not stand up to road use but in the 4 years of use by 33sqn most of our problems came on excercise when we had been using them off road .

Ummm!

Maybe your Unit, like I said, ran the Stollys Laden on road. Thus reducing the damage, but wind up of the transmission was always there.

If you were to take a close look at ex military vehicles in private hands, I bet the suspension torsion bars have been adjusted to allow the drive shafts to run neigh on horizontal.

Obviously you were not present when the wheel stations were stripped down in 2nd Line Workshops for repairs!

Stephen,

The vehicles, just because of a few fires they were NOT on the whole dangerous.

In essence, it was mainly the users abusing the vehicles by hanging clothing and cam nets around the exhaust system and NOT cleaning under the load decks. A 6 foot flame was harmless from the exhust pipe as long as you didn't put stuff in harms way. Did you ever tie your clothing on or near any other military vehicle exhaust?

Think back! The vehicle was designed to give support to units, especially Tank Regiments having to cross rivers and the plains of Germany in the event of an attack by the Eastern Block.

In reality, years of practising for that event meant army units could only access designated training areas via normal roads including autobahns. This transit travel was the the undoing of the vehicle.

Imagine travelling 100 miles across country to the training areas. It would have upset a few farmers.

Apart from clutch failures I am not aware of any other cross country failures of the Stolly. I never as involved with the swimming of the Stolly, so I would be interested in its performance, quirks and unrelability.

Alan

point taken alan we would just tow them back into our workshops in bunde for you boys to repair, of course we would run them laden on the road that was our purpose as a transport unit not much use running empty trucks around, we just drove them where we were told you boys had the hard job after we had abused them.

4 Div Tpt Regt had a lot of Stollys and being based in Duisberg at the time this neccessitated a long unladen autobahn run to join the rest of the Div for exercises. When I was OC Wksps we had very few wheel station problems as we used a simple solution to wind up. A number of 4 Tonners carrying railway sleeprs were sent ahead of the Stollys, these were laid out in various rastplatzes at about 60 - 80 mile intervals, the the Stollys would deviate through the rastplatzes and over the sleepers, this took out the windup. The last few Stollys would pick the sleepers after they had crossed them. Needless to say this did not please other autobahn users as we closed of the rastplatze to them.

alan8376 wrote:

Stephen,

The vehicles, just because of a few fires they were NOT on the whole dangerous.

In essence, it was mainly the users abusing the vehicles by hanging clothing and cam nets around the exhaust system and NOT cleaning under the load decks. A 6 foot flame was harmless from the exhust pipe as long as you didn't put stuff in harms way. Did you ever tie your clothing on or near any other military vehicle exhaust?

I understand if one hung clothing and other such inflammables in and around the exhaust system, that just might lead to a few problems, yep! Seeing a 6 foot flame shoot out the exhaust would be a bit disconcerting but of course if nothing was 'in the way', sure the actual flame wouldn't harm anything...but, still, a 6 foot flame shooting out of the exhaust??? Fine for the Batmobile, maybe LOL

alan8376 wrote:

Think back! The vehicle was designed to give support to units, especially Tank Regiments having to cross rivers and the plains of Germany in the event of an attack by the Eastern Block.

In reality, years of practising for that event meant army units could only access designated training areas via normal roads including autobahns. This transit travel was the the undoing of the vehicle.

Keep in mind, I was never directly involved with these vehicles, being an Army Brat not actually military...but, yes, your point is well-taken.

One had to get the vehicles from Point A to Point B somehow and, short of loading them on a flatbed and transporting them that way, one would have to drive them to Point B.

alan8376 wrote:

Imagine travelling 100 miles across country to the training areas. It would have upset a few farmers.

Ehehehehe....it would, and the compensation over the years, on top of whatever compensation was already awarded to farmers for the damage done to their fields during exercises and such, would probably have bankrupted BAOR!

One has to remember the Stolly was built using many parts and technology very similar to those on an 'A Vehicle'.

These 'A Vehicles,' be they wheeled or tracked were never capable of clocking up many miles on normal roads and sadly not much further across country!

Centurian, ChieftainTank, Saracens, Saladins, Ferret Scout Car, 432's and other fighting vehicles were 'A Vehicles.'

Ever wondered how miles a Stolly did before it needed extensive clutch or transmission work! Many I repaired had not even 6000 miles on the clock.

The Chieftain, the main battle tank of BAOR, would have had luck on its side if it clocked a 1000 miles before it needed an engine change......

Two parts to this post.

First - oldtimer, the photographs of the Stalwart are on the B Vehicle page

Second - Was the Stalwart a "B" vehicle, or a "Wheeled A" vehicle?

Paul.

I think the answer to both questions are that the Stolly was an A Vehicle, but repaired by B Vehicle Fitter.

Reason being, the Stolly had a Wheeled A Veh Log Book. Was it an AB or FV 418?

Alan

alan8376 wrote:

I think the answer to both questions are that the Stolly was an A Vehicle!

Reason being, the Stolly had a Wheeled A Veh Log Book. Was it an AB 418?

Alan

Oldtimer sent me some photographs of Stalwarts, letting him know that I had finally got them on the page.

As for "A" or "B" - and double I will move it from the "B" page to the "A" page on the main site.

I never had dealings with another "Stolly" after I left 2 Fd RA.

Paul.

Just a comment on the Stalwart, if I may. We had them in 2nd Fd Regt., as Paul mentioned, in the Artillery Limber mode too. (With a crane mounted in the back for off loading palletted ammo). I might be wrong but I think that version had a B81 engine which had a power take off to run the hydraulics, much like the Saladin had, to power the turret.
On holiday in Tenby, a few years ago I had the pleasure of taking a ride in a Stalwart which regularly swam round to Saundersfoot. I imagine the rise in petrol prices will have put a stop to that by now!
Baz.

Can anyone identify this vehicle?

I suspect that it is a Humber but not totally sure.

Anyone see the "deliberate" mistake with this beastie (and I don't mean the "mascots" )

Paul.

Paul, I think this may be a Quad Gun Tractor used for towing light guns (6 pdr) and limber, could be wrong will be interested in what others think. I am sure the Corps Museum could provide a definative answer.
Bob

Well apart from a missing headlamp, the crew is definitely under age .. we had similar units radio equipped for the 'brass' to run around in at 20 Armoured Brigade in the 50's, but looking at the wheel size it could very well be what Bob has suggested ..

Len (Ciphers)

alan8376 wrote:

I think the answer to both questions are that the Stolly was an A Vehicle, but repaired by B Vehicle Fitter.

Reason being, the Stolly had a Wheeled A Veh Log Book. Was it an AB or FV 418?

Alan

Alan you're right about the Stolly being a A vehicle, but as an class A VM I was trained on them.
Cann't remember what the log book was.

I think log Book (Hard Green Book) was a AB 413?

alan8376 wrote:

I think log Book (Hard Green Book) was a AB 413?

I think it was:-

AB 413 - A Vehicle
AB 446 - Plant Equipment
AB 562 - B Vehicle

And who can forget (much as we probably like to) the infamous 1045 and 1084!!

Paul.

But I liked the 1043 and 1043A....even better. Great for writing stuff off!

Paul wrote:

Can anyone identify this vehicle?

I suspect that it is a Humber but not totally sure.

Anyone see the "deliberate" mistake with this beastie (and I don't mean the "mascots" )

Paul.

The nearside directional tyre is fited the wrong way round. Dont know what the vehicle is though