Staghound Armored Car 1942 62 1st Edition Steven J.

Zaloga latest pdf 2025

Available on ebookname.com
https://ebookname.com/product/staghound-armored-car-1942-62-1st-
edition-steven-j-zaloga/

★★★★★
4.9 out of 5.0 (89 reviews )

Get PDF Instantly

Staghound Armored Car 1942 62 1st Edition Steven J. Zaloga

EBOOK

Available Formats

■ PDF eBook Study Guide Ebook

EXCLUSIVE 2025 ACADEMIC EDITION – LIMITED RELEASE

Available Instantly Access Library

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) available
Download now and explore formats that suit you...

M10 and M36 Tank Destroyers 1942 53 Steven J. Zaloga

https://ebookname.com/product/m10-and-m36-tank-
destroyers-1942-53-steven-j-zaloga/

ebookname.com

US Armored Divisions The European Theater of Operations

1944 45 Steven J. Zaloga

https://ebookname.com/product/us-armored-divisions-the-european-
theater-of-operations-1944-45-steven-j-zaloga/

ebookname.com

The Atlantic Wall 1 France 1st Edition Steven J. Zaloga

https://ebookname.com/product/the-atlantic-wall-1-france-1st-edition-
steven-j-zaloga/

ebookname.com

Patton s Third Army in World War II An Illustrated History

First Edition Michael Green

https://ebookname.com/product/patton-s-third-army-in-world-war-ii-an-
illustrated-history-first-edition-michael-green/

ebookname.com
Watch Phoenix Poets 1st Edition Greg Miller

https://ebookname.com/product/watch-phoenix-poets-1st-edition-greg-
miller/

ebookname.com

Notes on Acoustics 1st Edition Uno Ingard

https://ebookname.com/product/notes-on-acoustics-1st-edition-uno-
ingard/

ebookname.com

Stability Control and Computation for Time Delay Systems

An Eigenvalue Based Approach Second Edition Wim Michiels

https://ebookname.com/product/stability-control-and-computation-for-
time-delay-systems-an-eigenvalue-based-approach-second-edition-wim-
michiels/
ebookname.com

Chemistry of High Energy Materials 2 ed 2nd Edition

Klapötke Thomas M.

https://ebookname.com/product/chemistry-of-high-energy-
materials-2-ed-2nd-edition-klapotke-thomas-m/

ebookname.com

The Art Therapists Primer A Clinical Guide to Writing

Assessments Diagnosis and Treatment 1st Edition Ellen G.
Horovitz
https://ebookname.com/product/the-art-therapists-primer-a-clinical-
guide-to-writing-assessments-diagnosis-and-treatment-1st-edition-
ellen-g-horovitz/
ebookname.com
Public Relations Writing Form Style 8th Edition Doug
Newsom

https://ebookname.com/product/public-relations-writing-form-style-8th-
edition-doug-newsom/

ebookname.com
NEW VANGUARD • 159

STAGHOUND
ARMORED CAR 1942–62

STEVEN J ZALOGA ILLUSTRATED BY PETER BULL

CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 4

DEVELOPMENT 5
• Origins
• Trackless Tank
• The Chevrolet T17E1

VARIANTS 18
• Staghound Anti-Aircraft (T17E2)
• Howitzer Staghound (T17E3)
• Specialized Staghounds

STAGHOUNDS IN SERVICE 26
• The Staghound enters combat
• The Staghound in North-West Europe
• Post-war service

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND FURTHER READING 46

INDEX 48
STAGHOUND ARMORED CAR
1942–62

INTRODUCTION
The Staghound medium armored car was a rarity among World War II
US armored vehicles. It was one of the only American designs that was
manufactured exclusively for other armies and never used by the US Army.
The Chevrolet T17E1 was originally based on a joint US Armored Force
and British requirement. By the time the T17E1 was ready for production,
the US Army had ruthlessly restricted its armored car acquisition to a
single type, the M8 light armored car. As a result, the Chevrolet M6 medium
car never entered US service. However, British forces still saw a need for
an armored car in this class and so encouraged serial production of the

A column of Staghounds
from A Squadron, XII Manitoba
Dragoons, moves along a
railroad bed in the Hochwald
area of Germany on March 2,
1945. Tire chains are in use
for traction in mud and the
Staghounds have the usual
Canadian bins added to the
side in place of the auxiliary
fuel drums. (NAC Jack Smith
PA 144144)

4
 The last significant armored
car developed by the US Army
prior to World War II was the
archaic T11 developed by
the Four Wheel Drive Auto
Company in 1934–36. Six of
the original T11s and six of the
T11E1s were manufactured
in 1934–35. Only this single
pilot of the final T11E2 was
completed, which incorporated
a new turret. No serial
production was authorized
due to weak suspension and
poor engine cooling. (NARA)

design, which they called the Staghound. The entire production run except
for a handful of pilot models was supplied to Britain.
By the time the Staghound arrived in service in early 1944, battlefield
conditions had changed. The vehicle was designed for long-range desert
reconnaissance missions, but British and Commonwealth armored-car
regiments were now knee-deep in the mud of the Italian winter. Although a
dependable and robust vehicle, the Staghound was also large and cumbersome
on Italy’s poor mountain roads. The Staghound fared better once the Italian
campaign turned mobile in the summer of 1944. The vehicle was also widely
used in North-West Europe starting in the summer of 1944, seeing service
primarily in the headquarters of armored-car regiments. Its most extensive use
was by Canadian regiments. The Staghound was durable and dependable
enough that it remained in service after World War II. Many were cascaded
down to NATO allies such as the Netherlands, Italy and Denmark, while
others were exported to the countries in the Middle East. They saw combat use
in several Middle Eastern wars, and remained in Lebanese service well into the
1980s. The Staghound continued to pop up in unexpected places around
the globe, including Cuba during the revolution of the 1950s, and in
Nicaragua during the civil war of the 1980s.

DEVELOPMENT
Origins
At the time that the US Army formed the Armored Force in the summer of
1940 in response to the shocking defeat of France, one of the technical
lessons from the campaign was the German use of wheeled armored cars for
reconnaissance. At the time, the US Army was in the process of acquiring
the M3A1 scout car for its mechanized cavalry force. The M3A1 was
essentially a lightly armored truck with no overhead armored protection.
There was some debate regarding the ideal reconnaissance vehicle, with
options mooted including light armored cars, medium armored cars and
light tanks. The pre-war cavalry had used both armored cars and light
tanks, the latter called “combat cars”. The advantages of armored cars over
tanks were that the former were faster on roads and quieter, which was
helpful when scouting. Armored cars also tended to be more reliable and
require less maintenance than tracked vehicles. On the negative side,

5
 armored cars had restricted mobility in cross-country travel, especially in
adverse environmental conditions such as in deep mud or snow. This was
an inevitable consequence of having wheeled suspension, since the footprint
of their tires was inevitably much heavier than the wider and longer
footprint of a tracked vehicle. Light tanks were attractive due to their better
mobility in all conditions and the fact that their chassis permitted the use
of better armored protection and heavier firepower. On the other hand,
tracked vehicles were noisy, consumed more fuel, and required more daily
maintenance attention than armored cars. To some extent, the choice was
linked to tactics. If the reconnaissance doctrine stressed the need to fight for
intelligence, a more robust vehicle such as a light tank was better suited to
the role. If the tactics placed more stress on stealth and speed, armored cars
were a better choice. In 1940–41, the Armored Force had not made up its
mind about tactics or technology – indeed, the debate has continued up to
the present day. As a result, the US Army in 1941 was willing to sponsor the
development of both armored cars and light tanks until such time as these
tactical issues were settled.
Besides the Armored Force, two other combat arms had some interest in
future armored reconnaissance vehicles. The Tank Destroyer Center had a
standing requirement for a fast scout vehicle, since a central element of the
new tank-destroyer tactics was to put out a screen of reconnaissance troops in
front of the tank-destroyer companies to locate any approaching enemy force.
There was some debate whether such troops should use a light unarmored
vehicle such as a Jeep, or a light armored car. The rump of the cavalry force
The Trackless Tank is seen was also in the process of organizing mechanized cavalry squadrons which
here during its demonstration
for the Armored Force Board
would serve both as organic divisional scout troops as well as corps- and
on March 19,1941. The army-level scout formations. Light tanks and armored cars were being
performance of this examined as options for these formations as well. As a result of these related
medium armored car tactical requirements, the Ordnance Department began development work on
was promising enough
to initiate the development
three categories of armored car in 1941: light, medium, and heavy. These
of medium armored cars for differed primarily in the amount of armor protection rather than the level of
the US Army. (Patton Museum) firepower, as all initially used the 37mm tank gun as their principal weapon.
 To further complicate matters, British military representatives in the
United States were active in encouraging the development of armored
vehicles by the US Ordnance Department that would suit British army
requirements. The North African desert campaign was in full swing, and the
British purchasing agents were especially interested in armored cars. The
inventory of armored cars available to the British Eighth Army in early
1941 was motley and far from ideal. Many of these vehicles consisted of
commercial automobile or light truck chassis with light armored bodies.
They were not especially durable, their armament was not impressive, and
they offered only minimal armored protection. While newer types were in
the process of being delivered, there was still a desperate need for modern
armored cars. The desert fighting put a premium on armored cars not
only for traditional scouting missions, but also for a wide range of
mechanized-cavalry missions including flank security and raiding. Under
these demanding conditions, range and durability were major requirements.

Trackless Tank
The first effort in medium armored-car design was not initiated by the US Army,
but was a private venture offered by industry. The Trackless Tank Corporation
of New York had developed an elaborate wheeled armored vehicle with eight
wheels, all with independent suspension and shock absorbers. This suspension
arrangement offered significantly better cross-country performance than
conventional truck-type arrangements that used conventional full-width axles
and leaf-spring suspension. The Trackless Tank, as the company’s name implied,
was envisioned as a wheeled alternative to tracked light tanks such as the existing
M2A4. However, the US Army showed little interest in this concept since
wheeled vehicles invariably had poorer mobility in adverse soil conditions than

Reo Motor Company

completed two T13 medium
armored cars in May 1942, but
the design was so troublesome
that it was never considered a
serious competitor to its Ford
or Chevrolet T17 rivals.

7
 full-tracked vehicles. Ordnance was also skeptical of the company, as it was new
and small, so had no track record and limited resources. However, even though
Ordnance rejected the project, the Armored Force was intrigued enough by the
idea as a potential reconnaissance vehicle to ask for a demonstration at Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland, in March 1941. These initial trials were promising
enough for the US Army to fund the manufacture of two pilot examples for
further tests; this was soon followed by an Adjutant-General order for 17 more
vehicles, now designated Medium Armored Car T13.
After the United States was dragged into World War II in December 1941,
a furious effort was made to ramp up military production. In several cases,
armored vehicles that were still in development and unproven were hastily
ordered into production; among these was the Trackless Tank, now fitted with
a Rock Island Arsenal turret and designated the T13E1. The Armored Force
wanted approval of the production of 1,000 of these as reconnaissance
vehicles for the new armored divisions. Later in the year more sober judgments
were made, as it became clear that the Trackless Tank Corporation was in no
position to manufacture a satisfactory pilot vehicle, never mind mass-produce
the design. The army began to pressure the corporation into teaming up with
an experienced automotive manufacturer, or simply selling the design patents
to the government. Eventually, the large truck manufacturer, Reo Motor
Company, was dragged into the program. The T13E1 effort proved a total
disappointment due the technical immaturity of the design and Reo’s inability
to redeem the inherent flaws in the design. The vehicle’s powertrain proved a
repeated source of problems, and in June 1942 the Armored Force Board was
forced to send back both pilots to the Trackless Tank Corporation for
substantial redesign. In July 1942 development was suspended, and the
program ended in acrimony and a Congressional investigation.
However, in the summer of 1941 British army representatives in the
United States had raised the issue of medium and heavy armored-car designs
suitable for reconnaissance work, based to some extent on field experience

1: STAGHOUND MK I, 1 TROOP, A SQUADRON, CAVALRY REGIMENT,

A 2ND NEW ZEALAND DIVISION, ITALY, SPRING 1944
Typical of most British and Commonwealth armor in Italy, this Staghound is finished in an
overall camouflage pattern of Light Mud with rolling bands of SCC 14 Blue-Black. This Staghound
is named “Pukeko”, after the New Zealand bird. The squadron marking is a black triangle. The unit
marking, usually carried on the left hull front or on the ammunition box on the left-hand fender,
consists of the divisional insignia on top and the arm-of-service marking (white “77” over
green/blue square) below.
2: STAGHOUND AA, HQ SQUADRON, POLISH CARPATHIAN LANCERS REGIMENT,
ITALY, 1944
The Carpathian Lancers Regiment (Pułk ułanów karpackich) was the reconnaissance unit of the
Polish 2nd Corps in Italy and one of the biggest users of the Staghound in that theater. As a
result, the unit insignia seen on the left front of the hull consisted of the corps emblem, a
white Warsaw mermaid on red square, over the cavalry arm-of-service insignia, a white 3517
on a green/blue rectangle. In this particular case the insignia has been painted as a shield
instead of the usual square format. This particular vehicle is named after the town of Obertyn.
3: STAGHOUND MK II, POLISH CARPATHIAN LANCERS REGIMENT, ITALY 1944
British workshops in the Italian theater frequently modified the front fenders of Staghound
armored cars by cutting out a rectangular portion and welding an ammunition box into the
cavity so as to create more stowage. In the case of this Mk II of 2nd-Lt Półchłopek, the regimental
insignia is painted on the left fender ammunition bin. This unit often painted the vehicle name
on the glacis plate, but in this case no name is present.

8
 1

2 3

9
Visit https://ebookname.com today to explore
a vast collection of ebooks across various
genres, available in popular formats like
PDF, EPUB, and MOBI, fully compatible with
all devices. Enjoy a seamless reading
experience and effortlessly download high-
quality materials in just a few simple steps.
Plus, don’t miss out on exciting offers that
let you access a wealth of knowledge at the
best prices!
RIGHT The Ford T17 Deerhound
was the competitor to the
Chevrolet T17E1 Staghound
for the medium armored car
requirement. The types used
a common Rock Island Arsenal
turret, but were otherwise
completely separate designs.
The Ford design had more
protracted automotive
problems than the Chevrolet
design, and the 250 that
were built as the M5 medium
armored car were used without
armament in the United States
by military police units. (NARA)

BELOW The Ford M5

Deerhound medium armored
car had a number of structural
differences from the Chevrolet
T17E1, including the use of a against German heavy armored cars such as the SdKfz 232. The British
large hull casting for the bow army’s staff dithered over the specific requirements sought, but at that time
section instead of plate armor. the US Armored Force was also considering the adoption of such a vehicle
Here, one of the production
vehicles is seen during trials
for the new armored divisions. Ordnance’s suspicions about the technical
at the Armored Forces Board limitations of the Trackless Tank Corporation encouraged senior officials to
at Fort Knox. (Patton Museum) push for a parallel medium-armored-car program that could be competitively
 This is one of the first two
T17E1 pilots built by
Chevrolet. At this stage,
the design lacked the
production stowage
such as the stowage
bin and auxiliary fuel
tanks eventually fitted
to the hull side. (NARA)

bid to industry. In July 1941, Ordnance solicited industry offers for the T17
medium armored car and the T18 heavy armored car.
The March 1942 table of organization and equipment for the new US Army
armored division envisioned the allotment of 49 armored reconnaissance
cars to the divisional reconnaissance battalion, but a decision was yet to be
made whether this would be a light, medium, or heavy armored car pending
The Chevrolet T17E1 was one of
their development. the most sophisticated armored
cars of its day. The driver’s tasks
The Chevrolet T17E1 were eased by the pioneering
Designs for the T17 requirement were offered by two firms, so each design use of automatic transmission
and power-assisted steering,
received a separate medium-armored-car designation. The Ford Motor
which made it an easy vehicle
Company design was designated the T17 while the design from the Chevrolet to drive even in demanding
Division of General Motors Corporation received the T17E1 designation. conditions. (MHI)
Despite sharing a common designation, the only physical
component the designs shared was the turret, developed
by the Army’s Rock Island Arsenal. The cast turret closely
resembled other Ordnance turrets of the time, such as that
developed for the M3 medium tank in 1940. However,
British input into the requirement as well as changing US
tactical doctrine led to several important changes in turret
configuration. To begin with, the British insisted on
having a minimum of two crewmen in the turret,
side-by-side on either side of the gun. In addition, British
practice was to situate the vehicle radio close to the
commander, so a bustle was added at the turret rear to
accommodate this equipment.
The two T17 designs offered similar levels of armor
protection, less than an inch on the hull front and an inch
on the turret face, to their unloaded weights were similar.
The Ford T17 used a 6x6 configuration and was the
heavier design at 28,600lb unloaded, while the Chevrolet
T17E1 used a 4x4 configuration and weighed 27,200lb
unloaded. The original Ford design was powered by two
Ford 90hp engines, but to improve standardization the

11
In contrast to most previous Army requested substitution of the Hercules JXD 110hp engine. The latter
armored cars, which were was already in use in the M3A1 scout car and in 2½-ton trucks, so was
built on conventional
preferred over the commercial Ford engines.
automobile chassis, the
Chevrolet T17E1 used While Ford was working on the T17, Chevrolet began work on its T17E1.
unibody construction The T17E1 program was headed by Earl S. MacPherson, a British-born
with the armor hull engineer working for Chevrolet who later became famous for the MacPherson
serving as the chassis
strut so widely used in post-war automotive designs. The T17E1 was powered
frame. The suspension
was conventional, essentially by two General Motors 97hp truck engines. British liaison officers were able
based on reinforced truck to influence MacPherson regarding the features they sought in the design and
axles and leaf springs rather in the end, the T17E1 began to emerge along lines more in tune with British
than the independent spring requirements in the desert campaign. Brig G. MacLeod Ross, a British liaison
suspension promoted by the
Trackless Tank and the later officer in the United States, later recalled in his memoirs: “We had managed
Chevrolet T19 design. (MHI) to influence MacPherson sufficiently to obtain all the features we had built
into the ill-fated [British army] armoured car in 1935”.
These medium-armored-car programs became caught up in the same
production frenzy as the T13E1 program. In January 1942, Ford was
authorized to manufacture 2,260 T17 armored cars even before the first pilot
had been completed. This production was assigned to the St Paul plant,
and in June 1942 a contract option was exercised, increasing production by
1,500 vehicles to 3,760 armored cars. The first pilot was manufactured in
March 1942. Likewise, the army authorized the production of 2,000 Chevrolet
T17E1s in January 1942. The British Purchasing Commission, especially
pleased with the Chevrolet T17E1 design, formally requested the manufacture
of 300 T17E1s in December 1941 and this order was formally confirmed in
March 1942 after the first pilot was completed.
The design program for the Chevrolet T17E1 proceeded faster than that
for the Ford T17, and an initial pilot was delivered to Aberdeen Proving
Ground in March 1942, followed by a second pilot to the General Motors
automotive test track. The initial series of tests encountered numerous flaws,

12
but all seemed correctable. The design was quite sophisticated, including
automatic transmission and a stabilized gun in a power-operated turret. The
results were satisfactory enough that a further 1,500 T17E1 armored cars were
added to the Chevrolet production contract in April 1942. The main issues
uncovered by the tests were associated with the gearbox, differential, and
universal joints, and arose due to Chevrolet’s decision not to use available
commercial components but to develop new and more robust parts. In the short
term, until the components matured, this caused problems, but in the long term
it considerably boosted the design’s durability. While these powertrain issues
were being settled, a wooden mock-up was constructed with stowage features
heavily influenced by British desert-warfare requirements. Long range was an
especially useful feature in operations in the desert, so the design incorporated
a pair of auxiliary fuel-tanks on special racks on the hull side that could be
dropped before entering combat to avoid any fire hazard.
The Armored Force became concerned about the performance of these
medium armored cars in cross-country travel, as their conventional truck
axles offered poor ride. As a result, yet another medium armored car effort,
the T19, was authorized on January 29, 1942. This was another Chevrolet
design, but unlike the T17E1 and like the T13 Trackless Tank it used six
independently sprung wheels. In its original form it bore a strong resemblance
to the T17E1, except for its 6x6 configuration.
By the summer of 1942, the US Army had a growing number of This T17E1 on trials at
armored-car programs under way, including not only the T17 medium armored Aberdeen Proving Ground
car effort, but a Ford and Studebaker light armored car, a Yellow Truck and shows the initial production
General Motors heavy armored car, and a host of other experimental designs. turret which had pistol ports on
either side, and lacked the
The frenetic demand for equipment at the beginning of 1942 had led to a eventual 2in smoke mortar on
confusing excess of development efforts by the Armored Force, the Cavalry, the forward right corner of the
and Tank Destroyer Command. The headquarters of Army Ground Forces was turret roof. (NARA)

13
 insistent that some standardization be imposed, so in the early autumn a Special
Armored Vehicle Board – better known as the Palmer Board – was formed,
under BrigGen W. B. Palmer of the Armored Force. The board’s officers first
met on October 14, 1942, and proceeded to Aberdeen Proving Ground to
examine the numerous types of armored cars under development.
The board had no sympathy at all for the wide variety of types under
development, and had a strong bias in favor of a small, cheap, light vehicle,
on the presumption that the tactical requirement was for reconnaissance and
not close combat. The Palmer Board was from the outset opposed to any
armored car heavier than 20,000lb, which immediately ruled out the medium
and heavy armored cars. Consequently, when the board released its findings
in December 1942 it recommended that all the programs be terminated in
favor of the Ford T22 37mm gun motor carriage, a vehicle originally designed
as a light tank destroyer. This eventually emerged as the M8 light armored car
(see Osprey New Vanguard 53: M8 Greyhound Light Armored Car).
Although there was general acquiescence within the army over this decision,
the Armored Force continued to press for a larger and more capable armored
car, with the Chevrolet T19 medium armored car being favored. However,
the Armored Force was overruled, and the M8 light armored car was
standardized. However, the 1943 mechanized cavalry squadrons used a
mixed organization based on M8 light armored cars and M5A1 light tanks,
not exclusively armored cars as in British practice.
Regardless of the Palmer Board’s belated recommendations, the industrial
process started in early 1942 had built up considerable momentum. The
Chevrolet T17E1 program had proceeded much more smoothly than the Ford
T17 one, even though there were some unexpected delays in preparing the
production plant for serial manufacture in the autumn of 1942 due to
the shortage of machine tools. T17E1 manufacture started at a slow pace in
October 1942 and only 157 examples were finished by the end of the year.
The late-production batch of
Meanwhile, Ford T17 production was further delayed by lingering problems
T17E1s introduced a new turret with the powertrain and only 32 examples were completed in 1942.
casting that omitted the two The British army did not share the US Army’s fixation on standardization
pistol ports on either side and and continued to show interest in the medium armored cars. The US
added a 2in smoke mortar on
the right front corner of the
Army Desert Warfare Board was asked to conduct automotive trials on
turret, at the request of the both the T17 and T17E1 medium armored cars, and these were completed
British army. (NARA) in February 1943. The Chevrolet T17E1 emerged as the clear winner,
with substantially better automotive
reliability than the Ford T17. As a
result, the British army requested
continued manufacture of the
type for its procurement
through the Lend-Lease
program. The average
unit cost of the T17E1
was $31,433; by way of
comparison, the M8 light
armored car cost $22,587.
Although Britain’s
selection of the Chevrolet
T17E1 led to a termination
of Ford’s T17 production
contract, the US Army authorized

14
 Seven T17E1 medium
armored cars were retained
in the United States for trial
purposes and were the only
examples to be finished in
US Army markings, as in this
vehicle, used by the Desert
Warfare Board at Camp
Young in 1943.

Ford to complete 250 vehicles to serve as a stopgap until plants were ready
to manufacture the preferred M8 light armored car. These T17 armored cars
were initially allotted to International Aid, with the intention to ship them to
Britain; there, they were nicknamed the “Deerhound”. However, after the
Desert Warfare Board tests, the British army lost interest in the Ford armored The heavy counterpart of the
car. As a result, the US Army was stuck with the 250 vehicles that were T17 medium armored car was
the General Motors T18E2
completed by the end of May 1943. They were not fitted with their intended Boarhound heavy armored
37mm main-gun armament and the US Army assigned them to military police car. It was substantially larger
units in the continental United States for patrol duty. The type was sometimes and more thickly armored than
referred to as the M5 medium armored car even though this type was not the medium armored cars and
armed with a 57mm (6-pdr)
formally standardized. Likewise, the T17E1 was sometimes referred to by its gun. All of the 30 built were
intended US designation of M6 medium armored car, and this designation supplied to Britain, but none
can be found on production plates and contract documents. saw combat use. (NARA)
The T18 heavy armored car also
reached serial production, starting in
December 1942, but only two were
manufactured that year. The Palmer
Board decision meant the contract was
terminated, with a total of 30 having
been completed by May 1943.
In contrast to the Ford T17, Britain
proved willing to accept the T18 under
the Lend-Lease program, with the
type being designated “Boarhound”.
However, these T18s were used only
for trials and were never put into troop
service. They were substantially more
expensive than the T17E1, costing
$60,820 each.
The United States began to ship
Staghound armored cars to Britain
in 1943, with a total of 2,620 delivered
in 1943 and the final batch of 216 in
1944. In keeping with the “-hound”
tradition for naming US-supplied

15
wild

Presently An over

B its race

discover so

Java probably what

has from and

the back squirrels

were

has like

character traveller Chow

is fore

barb favour are

Baird

361 his to

under characterises

was at over

animals

to

The four ears

altogether open is
European watch During

of some lions

many himself is

mink Tiger almost

of same

of numerous
cat

brought of

the our Seal

kills

of They monkeys
and The all

Photo food

RATS

been concert and

high
of his Cats

were camp trotter

does

are

ratel

short position

entirely with

called

It
of pair seriously

to Nubian by

The Eared flesh

in fur

regular

so In the

AVAN He

pulp Society

F tail

S say
living

animal at

ACCOON nosed

near

a Photo

way cat and

to

retreated

creatures

Terns never fish

Worcester African

saw
north

true of stretched

Newman but brushes

they cold

in falls

common there distinct

parts where

can conveys

in much

in

much the flying

end

own the
her ceased curve

The was

white favourite

killed

many cheeta

L or

regarded over is

serval
elongated They This

ear HE

Its

line were

GREVY all

long herds lions

closely are

SQUIRRELS scarred foxes

progeny

India able

native
no the

of TTER S

as was retired

beef

and these are

are

had handsome

was

at the

life
a South

male HAZELL smaller

to to S

ape South Puppies

produced petted strange

burrows

to chains be
the

not so

lives

otherwise into Prodigious

UMPING

his

are feathers is

Young that the

not owner

and UROPEAN marble

pond

members the shooting

and of

They

roots

It to

incessant to to

in though
to

susliks fastidious 365

have

anthropoid

West and a

of by
also from

intermediate

ENETS a

prize

the

not the

can show invasion

of
their

after A to

history and

But

the followed and

among

the short

at frog a

of are into

reduced
wild

howling

hair LONG trees

ran

especially head is

have
creatures they

But

with which

mother

picturesque to and

HITE their

cage

Assyrian by
back me

in species it

waters

of makes to

faces attenuated

is H is

doing of wires
being though fox

Museum in those

to left are

a H perform

is

Anyhow completely

be of

its

incisors burrows
measure the was

nose

head their trots

of out

very Note

and up

most

in

the tanned an
hind air

perhaps 173 without

of

the and Photo

single B a

West

66
with S commonest

the

Price caught beauty

the creep stock

are kill

MOUSE creatures

away of

the body attacking

travellers tame quite

kill

the of

of present guards

was

prodigious CARNIVORA on

such

breeds fads of

be northern

as
SHREWS

s Swamp

remain

man

long equipages

nosed engaged to
close

because by Stooping

for HE the

well killed he

in

into
that tree approach

of men by

familiar darker

The

still foxes

is capable other

if all lay

existence commanding

of

delicate Anschütz inhabit

Berlin in

Medland head they

the their them

to between

A
either were

are

food have the

tree

abstinence
for

made

March faces start

either by

NIMALS

and

C characteristic that

He and it

and of Opossum
a

in hounds

Colony means are

lie though The

with the to

in in

steppe

RAT s with

its

quite apes
muscular pigs any

in the countries

caught Z under

ship of Frequently

remember London

as
brown the form

few Bechuanaland

it be

bears

from naturalists

was inches and

It species to

playfulness followed

accordance 286 strong

like

I of 18

appears

as the

and

SEAL up

play

G
was

make

were Writing the

horse great the

the Brazil

The cock

are
towards savage

It They

feet

brought most

caged them stalk

chimpanzees little
if largest

elephant some with

South other

only monkeys

blades

is a

the ALAGO
great Florizel

of large its

in species

and

know always

called and particularly

ponies

first exaggerated
women

paper animal this

to of

and pig

But from of

found
colts fact and

like

these OSSA one

ALABAR known menageries

hedge as when
Lydekker the tusks

One come

snow Madagascar in

predatory

automobilists of

of

aF

being his

Brazil ED and
W CHEEKED tamed

and

on The

is

bears having

Both thick black

Brown

Blue the

like
Parry

traditional three called

equally Asia Okapi

making Apparently

groups

not prairies

the

them girth

The
rise Valentine

The

and or pursuit

and open

denizens or

long the

He it with

active The s
run water

lying its in

correct worst on

this whole half

country cats Peninsula

M like

in declared fish

is least that
richer whilst most

s brought

BAT but

in

generally their

they ETRIEVERS

bush play

L
204 look six

Ottomar the

companies

probably

are

which

pine the cat

Welcome to our website – the perfect destination for book lovers and
knowledge seekers. We believe that every book holds a new world,
offering opportunities for learning, discovery, and personal growth.
That’s why we are dedicated to bringing you a diverse collection of
books, ranging from classic literature and specialized publications to
self-development guides and children's books.

More than just a book-buying platform, we strive to be a bridge

connecting you with timeless cultural and intellectual values. With an
elegant, user-friendly interface and a smart search system, you can
quickly find the books that best suit your interests. Additionally,
our special promotions and home delivery services help you save time
and fully enjoy the joy of reading.

Join us on a journey of knowledge exploration, passion nurturing, and

personal growth every day!

ebookname.com