Agreed.pjones wrote:I find it difficult to make definitive conclusions about who didn't supply tools based on these data (the ORD 5 and CPA contract data).
If you think I have stated that a Mfgr definitively did NOT supply tools, please point it out, and I will correct it.
By the same token, there's no reason for us to ignore the fact that a few Mfgr's were clearly used as a specification source more often and for a wider variety of tools than other Mfgrs, who were either not used at all or used very minimally, and for tools we don't even associate with G503 or GMTK. As I emphasized several times in this thread, that is not to say that the ORD was only buying tools from Mfgrs they turned to as spec sources, or, that the ORD wasn't buying tools from Mfgrs they did not use as spec sources. By the same token, it certainly doesn't boost my confidence, especially in cases where the CPA books do not indicate major contracts, either.
So, yeah, it would be great to have the SNL's from earlier. They may paint a different picture. But I can't ignore the picture that these SNL's are painting just because it disagrees with what was previously thought based on GMTK manual RAPD figures (random, not representative), repacks (risky vintage and statistically invalid), and the principle that vehicle factory toolkit suppliers were probably Ordnance Dept suppliers, too. Those approaches obviously left a whole lot of Mfgrs out, and may have overstated some others.
If it helps, here is a something you may have missed...
Wingnutt wrote: The real significance of these ORD 5 SNL's for the GMTK guys is this:
(1) verification of additional Mfgr's NOT identified by GMTK manual RAPD figures or period photos, and NOT listed in the CPA War Supply Contracts lists (which had a $50,000 minimum contract value threshold)
(2) more or additional detail in terms of what specific tools a previously verified Mfgr provided than what could be previously derived from GMTK manual RAPD figures, period photos, or the CPA War Supply Contracts lists (which are sometimes too generic in description)