What does AMC within an Army Contract # mean?

RonD2 · Post by **RonD2** » Sat Jan 02, 2021 3:35 pm

Certainly could be mistaken, but I always thought "AMC" was "Army Material Command" (the U.S. Army command awarding that contract number).

I never noticed any service agency insert the acronym or name of the company that won the contract into the contract number.

Brinken · Post by **Brinken** » Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:50 pm

A very good remark Ron, maybe you are correct on this.
BUT, this contract was not for the US Army but for export to Saudi Arabia. Couldn't it be correct then to have the acronym of a sub-supplier marked on this item?

rgmutchler · Post by **rgmutchler** » Sat Jan 02, 2021 4:55 pm

According to a google search ( and we know google is always correct)
In 1969, American Motors Corporation and Kaiser Industries reached an agreement whereby AMC would purchase Kaiser Jeep. The deal was consummated in 1970.

So if the tank is dated 1964 seems like AMC would not stand for American Motors.

RonD2 · Post by **RonD2** » Sat Jan 02, 2021 5:12 pm

I think the Army changed it's contract number format many times over the years, and certainly reorganized who was buying parts and selling jeeps around the world. All I'm saying is that I've never seen a contract number where the awardee was named in the contract number. Look on your M38 or M38A1 data plate contract numbers, I think you'll find they say "ORD" --- Ordnance Department --- which was replaced by the Army Material Command (AMC) about 1962. Have you ever seen a contract number with "Willys" or "Frigidaire" in it?

I believe Foreign Military Sales ("FMS") have to be contracted by the procuring agency, for example, selling M38A1's and parts to the Saudi's. The jeeps and repair parts have to be contracted and managed by the U.S. Army by law before they can be sold to hopefully friendly foreign governments.

As an example, but maybe not definitive proof, I found a photo of a vintage data plate for the M715 truck......should the contract number have KJC ("Kaiser Jeep Corporation") instead of "AMC"? Or is this a typo or a mistake?

Post by **wesk** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 1:25 am

OK guys, I think we have belabored the point far enough. Yes the acronym AMC replaced ORD in Aug 1962 but apparently did not show up on many serial plates until mid-1963. Yes that is a Dept of the Army , Army Material Command contract number. The AMC I typed as manufacturer was a typo induced by the amc in the preceding number and I knew darn right well 57-70 was Kaiser Jeeps and 71 on AMC jeep. This would not have resulted in this prolonged hijacking of our Swedish friend's post if one of you wiser gentleman had simply sent me an email or PM and asked why I selected AMC instead of Kaiser and I would have corrected it.

Brinken · Post by **Brinken** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 2:50 am

Hi guys.
Thank you for your engagement in trying to solve my question about the text on the fuel tank.
In no way it was my meaning to start a quarrel about AMC, it was my thought about the meaning and my lack of wisdom, My apologises for this.

I wish you all a happier 2021........

Post by **wesk** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:07 am

No worries Jan-Olaf and a Happy New Year to you as well.

RonD2 · Post by **RonD2** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 11:03 am

Gentlemen,
I apologize as well if one is due. I certainly didn't comment on Jan-Olof's question to start a quarrel, but rather to offer an opinion that I think bears directly on the question asked. I thought doing that was not only allowed in this forum, but welcomed and encouraged. That's because I'm under the impression that this forum exists to foster free and open discussion and exchange of ideas and opinions.

I didn't think my comments were a "hijack" either. I think of "hijack" as changing the subject of a topic in midstream, but I could be mistaken about that too.

I must've missed the etiquette rule that alternate opinions should be offered in private before posting them in open forum, so I apologize for that too as necessary. Etiquette has never been one of my strong suits.

Brinken · Post by **Brinken** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:33 pm

Ron my friend.
No offence from my side, I completely agree with you in your opinion and your answer.

Post by **wesk** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 3:41 pm

BUT, this contract was not for the US Army but for export to Saudi Arabia. Couldn't it be correct then to have the acronym of a sub-supplier marked on this item?

Jan-Olaf, At that time the current production US Army tactical vehicle (M38A1) was provided to Saudi under the MAP (Military Assistance Program) and thus would have been produced under a US Army procurement contract. These 6 volt Saudi M38A1's were not purchased from Kaiser by Saudi.

Brinken · Post by **Brinken** » Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:05 pm

Thanks Wes, I get new and important information every time I start a thread on this forum, which I appreciate very much, even if I read “between the lines” sometimes. It is not my intention to start anything inappropriate with my questions, only to gain more wisdom.