While anything is possible, there's no evidence (so far) suggesting that the photos and written instructions in a stack of Army manuals for the M38 and M38A1 are either prototype or staged glamor shots.
On the contrary, (so far) the evidence in these manuals, along with observed reports from at least 2 (maybe 3) forum members --- is consistent with its location and description as a "spacer" --- not a "shim" or a reinforcement or doubler plate.
Sure there are plenty of mistakes in these manuals. Some have been proved mistakes by research and evidence showing the error. Some haven't. This forum is pretty good about sorting out hard evidence from opinion.
Claiming these photos are or might be “prototype” or glamor shots doesn't make it so. Without evidence it's hard to prove a negative. Non-sequitur if you ask me.
All I can do is stick to the evidence that I see and read.
Mike_B wrote:I'm also having a hard time believing the Army would require a shim between the rear crossmember and the bumperette, what purpose does it serve in that location?
Same here Mike. When you search the topic in this forum, that's the $64,000 question everybody wants to know. Including me, and I'm not going to guess about an answer one way or the other.
It's only 1/16th-inch thick. Who knows why the Army thought .0625" was essential for either a tolerance fit or would make a difference as reinforcement to lift or tie down a 3,000 pound jeep (many washers are thicker). Neither seems to make sense.
But right now all the evidence (not some of the evidence, all of it) points to spacer --- not a reinforcing doubler plate.
The Willys engineering drawing for the assembly would probably explain it.