[INM@RLM]

More haste less speed it seems. Having checked back to my main file I need to correct the early part of my clarifications set out in post #12 above.

The document posted by Lyn Ritger was not the (cumulative) "Fw 190 delivery position at 31-Dec-44" but only that for the month of December 1944.

My statement "Mimetall delivered no Fw 190s during 1944, but they did in 1945." must change to "Mimetall delivered Fw 190s beginning in December 1944 and this continued into 1945."

The reason no deliveries from MME/Mimetall were mentioned in this Fertigungsstand report posted by LR is because it is a high-level report setting out the position in summary and at Programme level.
The Mimetall Fw 190 deliveries made in December 1944 are included but they are hidden within the total given for Arb.Gem.

That can be established by comparing these Fertigungsstand report figures with those in the more detailed monthly reporting titled Beitrag zur Beschaffungsmeldung for Dec 44.
Two points in passing here:
1. The Beitrag zur Beschaffungsmeldung report series replaced the RLM C-Amts Monatsmeldung series when the Speer Ministry of Armaments and War Production assumed responsibility for aircraft production from the RLM and the Air Ministry.
2. The Dec-44 report for aircraft deliveries that is missing from RL3/3733 in the BA-MA, does survive and was very fortunately found by Steve Coates in the IWM under document reference FD5562/45. For some reason it seems this document was not selected for repatriation to Germany. Mistakes happen.

So the Fertigungsstand for the month of Dec-44 evidences 126 Fw 190 delivered by Arg.Gem. split between 84 x D-9s and 42 A-8/-9s. (You arrive at these sub-type totals by adding up the delivery figures for each Dekade.)

For the same month the Beitrag presents a sub-total of 132 Fw 190 described as "Gesamt: Arb.Gem".
This comprises:
8 x A-8 from MME/Mimetall
74 x D-9 from MME
14 x A-8 from WFG
36 x D-9 from WFG
Add those up and the sub-total of 132 is split 22 x A-8s and 110 D-9s

So there is an overall difference of 6 between the two sets of figures, and the D-9 figure is understated by at least 20 with the A-8s overstated by the same quantity. Mistakes happen.
The bottom line though is that categorically most of this Arb.Gem. output came from MME/Mimetall.

You can perform the same exercise on the Fertigungsstand and Beitrag figures for January 1945, and here again Mimetall accounts for most of the Arb.Gem. output. The difference between the two sets of figures here narrows to just 1 with 108 in the Beitrag, and 107 in the Fertigungsstand, which in this case gives no split between sub-types.

As to the surprise inclusion of A-8 deliveries from plants intended to exclusively deliver D-9s, this points to blips in the supply of Jumo 213s and of the extra fuselage section required for the D-9, with the labour available then being used to build the far more available assemblies and engines of the A-8.