Vendors selling wrong fuel pump (jeep?)

[JGilmore]

Pfarber wrote,

"You quoted two sources saying that they were the references for the monthly production. I was able to quickly locate one. It did not say what you said it did:..."


Yes it certainly did....." Summary Report..." does indeed include the information I posted from it.....which was " to this we must add the average of DUKW production for 1944 (11316 divided by 12 = 943 vehicles per month .......".
Take a look again and you will see 11316 for 1944 DUKW's.

And......"Statistical Work Sheets..." (the other one) does indeed include the information I posted from it....which was:
".....the production figures I gave for April 1945....12,226 vehicles produced would equal 12,226 motors .....plus....you must add the DUKW production for that month of 600 vehicles...

....It is difficult to give totals on "CCKW" as there were so many different trucks assembled at the same time. These are usually listed separate in the OCD-D statistical sheets and it is necessary to compile them to determine total production figures.

Example: deliveries for April 1945:
4.954 cargo wo/w LWB airborne,
4,015 cargo w/w LWB airborne,
268 cargo w/w SWB,
321 cargo 17" body LWB,
75 chassis LWB wo/w,
834 chassis w/w LWB ,
1,772 dump LWB w/w airborne,
27 tank gas 759 gal,
0 tank water 750 gal
= 12,226 units. (this does not include specialized vehicles)...."



"......That's why I asked for a scan of the document, or some sort of ID number to locate the source. The first source gives only annual information......"

Well not really...for the most part it does because it is a Summary Report. However...it is not "only annual information" as there is month to month totals in this document. They are also summaries and group like vehicles together but they do show monthly totals!

See attached photo for an example.


"......Please be clear when citing sources. Spiting out documents that you then call irrelevant is not a good thing...."

I don't know what you mean by this. The documents were clearly spelled out. When did I ever call them "irrelevant" ?


Jim Gilmore