Dispelling the myths of the Alvis Stalwart

In "Warts and all" I try to find all the myths and legends that are on the internet about the Alvis Stalwart.

The Alvis Stalwart has attracted all sorts of myths, false stories, and half true stories, often told by people who have absolutely no personal experience or real knowledge of the Stalwart.

On this page I hope to list all the myths, and provide the correct answer. Details on the Stalwart development page, and Stalwarts in other countries should provide evidence for most of these answers.

If you know of any myths then please do drop me an email. My email is at the bottom of every page.

1) The Stalwart came into service with the British Army in 1966.
No. The Stalwart came into service with the British Army in 1963. The Mark two came into service in 1966.

2) The Alvis Stalwart was replaced by the Puma helicopter.

No. The Demountable Rack Offload and Pickup System (DROPS) had been developed and started to come into service from 1986. The RCT received Leyland DAF 8x6 DROPS vehicles, which removed the need for supplies to be cross loaded from one vehicle to another, as DROPS simple drops the entire pallet. This removed the need for timely and human resources usage of people transferring stores in rear echelon areas.

Other Corps were issued with the Bedford TM RNX 6x6 when the Stalwart were withdrawn. The TM RNX was able to carry 14 tonnes, but did not have the off road capability of the Stalwart. Regular Stalwart loads, such as Pack fuel (Jerry cans) was often carried by DROPS vehicles with improved medium mobility later on.

The Puma helicopter can only carry 2 tonnes. The British Army had over 1000 Stalwarts. Quite as to how 3000 Puma are going to be on hand 24 hours a day is beyond me.

So to give you some info

• The Mark 2 FV622 Stalwart cost £20,000 in 1966. Most of the FV622 being ordered in 1965

• How much does a Puma helicopter cost when new in 1968?

• The last Stalwart was made and delivered in 1971.

• Stalwarts did not sit at river banks, waiting to ferry goods or troops across water.

• Stalwarts were primarily used for carrying fuel and ammunition to the forward units.

• Most forward units are moving across country, rather than following tarmac roads.

• Artillery units are usually located away from roads, in off road conditions. 

• The battlefront on a Russian invasion would probably be a no fly zones for helicopter trips.

• There is no evidence of any troop seats every being trialled by FVRDE for the Stalwart.

• The Stalwart was envisaged and designed as an off road truck of High Mobility.

• The Stalwart was not designed as an amphibious vehicle that could also drive on land.

• The Stalwarts were stopped from swimming in 1982 or 83, I can’t remember when I cut my splashboard off.

• Numerous other vehicles were also stopped from swimming, due to the speed of bridge building. That includes the CVRT (Scorpion, etc), and the 430 series (432 is still in service today, called Bulldog).

• The Stalwarts started to be withdrawn in 1991, almost a decade after they were stopped from swimming.

• The stalwarts were sold off in 1993, at the same time as numerous other vehicles of the 50s and 60s, like the BV202, etc.

• Most B vehicles are kept for around 20 years maximum

The above photo shows 2 British bridge systems, which started construction at the same time. Copyright is with the photographer. 

On the left, the Medium Girder Bridge (MGB), a design of the 1960s, has the Far bank part of the bridge assembled on the frame at the Home bank. 

On the right BR90, a design of the late 1980s, is across the gap. It is ready for traffic, but the centre decking and kerbs have not been laid yet.

3) The Berliet Auroch was made in France, and sold in competition with the Alvis Stalwart.

No. Alvis entered into an agreement with Berliet in 1964. Stalwart PV was marked up as Berliet Auroch for publicity shots. British Leyland took over Alvis in 1965 and killed off the agreement as a matter of priority. Berliet never made any Stalwart Auroch. The agreement was that Alvis would have made the Auroch, and Berliet would have made Right hand drive Berliet Recovery trucks.

4) The Mark 2 replaced the Mark 1 in British service.

No. All of the Mark 1 remained in service alongside the Mark 2 until disposal in 1993. Some of the Mark 1 were brought back to the UK for use here, giving frontline troops better vehicles.

5) The Stalwart was designed as an amphibious troop carrier.

No. The Stalwart was designed as a 5 ton off road cargo carrier. The amphibious part appears to come in during the trials of PV1, to see if it could ford. The amphibious part is a secondary feature, not the primary. The Stalwart's British role was to carry supplies across the European plains to the front line, using rivers when bridges had been destroyed. No evidence appears to exist of troop seating designs by the British.

8) Shell petroleum company had 8x8 stalwarts, and the diesel engine slid out the back on runners.

No. This was just Army rumour control at it's best. Shell have no evidence of owning any Stalwarts. There is no evidence of any 8x8 Stalwart. But FVRDE did look into an 8x8 Salamander airfield Fire crash tender.

9) Military customers wanted diesel engines, but Alvis found it too costly to make new fabrication jigs.

No. Evidence of the differences in the PVs, and the difference in all the Mark 2 Stalwarts sold to other countries shows that Alvis would happily change anything to satisfy the customer.

MEXE report shows the petrol engine was kept over the K60, due to the weight increase of the diesel unit.

Royal Armoured Corps Automotive Branch report AT/1151 of 1969 on "Stalwart fitted with turbo charged K60 engine" shows that the turbo version of the K60 was a good match for the Stalwart, and recommended considering fitting of the K60T. Of course it never happened.

10) That the 6 wheel drive was selectable.

No. The Stalwart was designed as an off road High mobility vehicle, hence the permanent 6x6. Specific instructions were given to User units that the Stalwart was not to be used for Garrison duties.

A civilian user in Ireland has modified his ex military Stalwart, by fitting Air lockers to the forward and rear drive shafts, to give 6x2 when on tarmac. 

11) That the Stalwart was disposed of because they were unreliable and kept breaking down.

No. Like anything, if you don't look after it then it will break. A properly maintained and serviced Stalwart will travel 50 miles without issue. Personally, whilst in service I've travelled 130 Km without issue.

12) That Stalwart was stopped from swimming, and then disposed of because they kept sinking.

No. The introduction of the Medium Girder Bridge , which could be assembled far more quickly then the Bailey bridge meant that Amphibious need wasn't so important. In the 1960's everything was designed to float, or trialled in attempts to make it float. As military bridge design progressed, the need changed from Fully Amphibious to Fording for beach landings and shallow rivers.

13) That the Stalwart has 24 shock absorbers, 4 on each wheel.

No. The Stalwart was 10 shock absorbers, and 12 hydraulic bump stops that limit the travel of the wishbone links. They have 2 of each at each wheel station, except for the front wheel station - which has just 1 shock absorber.

14) You are supposed to mount the kerb every so many miles on tarmac, to bounce a wheel up and unwind the diffs!!!

No. The diff is between the left and right sides of the transmission drive. It is a limited non slip diff, and is fully able to go around corners.

15) That drivers carried Railway sleepers in the back, and would lay them out to drive over them.

No. There is no room "in the back" to carry railway sleepers. The rear compartment is the radiator heat exhaust outlet. Putton sleepers in tthere would block the radiator air from flowing through. 

16) That the army put a request out for an amphibious truck, In the early fifties, the British Army was considering options to support an increasingly armoured force in Germany. It was thought that in any future European conflict, the Warsaw Pact would destroy all river bridges as a matter of course, and given the many rivers in the area there was a choice to be made; either to dramatically improve Royal Engineer bridging capacities or, to consider amphibious supply vehicles.

No. It's all absolute rot. There was no request from the military for an amphibious truck. There was no thought that the Warsaw Pact would blow up all the bridges in Western Europe, because the Warsaw Pact would need those same bridges to rush across Northern Europe. Watch A bridge too far to comprehend why not. The Royal Engineers, and Engineers of many other countries trained and practiced numerous times every year to destroy bridges, and lay large mine fields - to try and keep the warsaw pack back. 

It was estimatted in the 80s, tha the Warsaw Pact would take 4 days to reach the English Channell - so why would they be blowing bridges up.