11bee Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Just saw this on another site. First thought was why are they bothering since Dragon already has a very nice Abrams kit. However, this one seems to have pretty much every upgrade applied to the Abrams during the Iraq war. Commander's and Gunner's protective shields, Coax .50 cal, late sytle reactive armor, etc. It will be interesting to see how this kit compares to Dragon's. http://www.hobbyeasy.com/en/data/msp7eackhjjvf0yfqo1f.html Quote Link to post Share on other sites
shadoweng Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 SWEET! I can't wait for that one! Now if they could do some more humvees! Jeremy Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tankcommander Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I wonder if they corrected the issues with the M1A1, (turret to short) before adding in all this extra. In the past they just added stuff to inaccurate kits. A good ezample being the M4 Sherman which had the M4A3 hull and suspension. TC. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 (edited) I wonder if they corrected the issues with the M1A1, (turret to short) before adding in all this extra. There was never any issue with the turret being too short on the Tamiya kit. That was on the Academy M1A1 Iraq 2003 Abrams kit. The only issues with Tamiya's M1A1/A2 OIF kit was a lack of non-slip coating, simplified details, and not really up to date details for an Iraq tank. We'll see if they do much in the way of upgrading this one as well. I suspect that it will be their M1A1/A2 with a couple extra sprues to model the M1A2 SEP parts and the TUSK II add on armor parts. Edited September 10, 2012 by HeavyArty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
daywalker Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 Great news, I am looking forward to this release! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted September 10, 2012 Author Share Posted September 10, 2012 There was never any issue with the turret being too short on the Tamiya kit. That was on the Academy M1A1 Iraq 2003 Abrams kit. The only issues with Tamiya's M1A1/A2 OIF kit was a lack of non-slip coating, simplified details, and not really up to date details for an Iraq tank. We'll see if they do much in the way of upgrading this one as well. I suspect that it will be their M1A1/A2 with a couple extra sprues to model the M1A2 SEP parts and the TUSK II add on armor parts. I'm thinking that you are correct. If that is the case, Dragon's M1A2 still reigns supreme. Here is a crazy thought - if you really want to build a good M1A2 with all the latest mods, go with the base Dragon kit and purchase the upcoming Tamiya release just for the extra sprues. It would be expensive but still probably save you a ton of money over going with all the aftermarket extras. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K-5 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I'm thinking that you are correct. If that is the case, Dragon's M1A2 still reigns supreme. Here is a crazy thought - if you really want to build a good M1A2 with all the latest mods, go with the base Dragon kit and purchase the upcoming Tamiya release just for the extra sprues. It would be expensive but still probably save you a ton of money over going with all the aftermarket extras. Or you can use Legends' TUSK I & II sets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jwest21 Posted September 10, 2012 Share Posted September 10, 2012 I'm thinking that you are correct. If that is the case, Dragon's M1A2 still reigns supreme. Here is a crazy thought - if you really want to build a good M1A2 with all the latest mods, go with the base Dragon kit and purchase the upcoming Tamiya release just for the extra sprues. It would be expensive but still probably save you a ton of money over going with all the aftermarket extras. Only problem with that is the Dragon M1A2 SEP and M1A1 AIM are scarce. Hopefully Dragon starts cranking them out again Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted September 11, 2012 Author Share Posted September 11, 2012 Or you can use Legends' TUSK I & II sets. We could but I think purchasing the Tamiya kit (assuming it is priced similarly to their other recent releases) would be cheaper than purchasing the two Legends sets. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K-5 Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 We could but I think purchasing the Tamiya kit (assuming it is priced similarly to their other recent releases) would be cheaper than purchasing the two Legends sets. You only need one if you want TUSK II( or I). Shop around and you will find their sets for under 50 dollars which is a nominal price Asian hobby stores will charge for Tamiya kit ( but they will also charge in excess of 15 to ship it to US) Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Icehound Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Well I am looking forwards to it,no matter what faults the Tamiya Abrams may have had it was always a nice relaxing build with no stress involved. Mark Quote Link to post Share on other sites
speedlimit Posted September 12, 2012 Share Posted September 12, 2012 Looking forward to this added in my Abrams collection. Eric Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K-5 Posted October 20, 2012 Share Posted October 20, 2012 Test build of the new kit: Clicky Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 24, 2012 Author Share Posted October 24, 2012 Test build of the new kit: Clicky Saw this posted elsewhere. Looks like a nice kit, the figures are especially well done. Only issue that I saw (and this was brought up by others) is that it looks like Tamiya may have neglected to provide the upper row of tiles for the turret. The mounting brackets are there but there should be tiles as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
K-5 Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 (edited) Saw this posted elsewhere. Looks like a nice kit, the figures are especially well done. Only issue that I saw (and this was brought up by others) is that it looks like Tamiya may have neglected to provide the upper row of tiles for the turret. The mounting brackets are there but there should be tiles as well. They did miss it, or rather person building it either weren't given extra sprue (not tooled yet) or neglected it for what ever reason. Given the price of this kit in Asian online stores I'd stick with my 2 AIMs and a SEP boxing of DML's kit and either build TUSK bits by hand or get Legend's set. Shameless plug: My DML M1A2 TUSK I, finished it in early 2008 before Army bailed on the initial pattern. Edited October 24, 2012 by K-5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted October 25, 2012 Share Posted October 25, 2012 (edited) Actually, all the TUSK 2 equipped vehicles I can find only have the single row of turret side plates. I think Legend was a little over-zeleous with the tiles. The Army didn't "bail on the first patter" RWS on the Abrams, they just went with the CROWS 2 on it. This is the latest version Abrams, known as the M1A2 SEP v.2. Also, TUSK is a set of kits that can be added or deleted / customized as the mission, enemy, etc. dictates. The Army didn't abandon TUSK 1. TUSK 2 is just a higher level of protection than TUSK 1. All TUSK 1 items are under the TUSK 2 pieces. Edited October 25, 2012 by HeavyArty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tankcommander Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 That Crows mount in front of the TC is just plain stupid. How can the TC observe anything to the front. The TC needs an unobstructed view around the tank especially to the front. What were they thinking? I TCed M48A5s, M60A3s and M1s I would not want that monstosity on my tank. TC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tankcommander Posted October 28, 2012 Share Posted October 28, 2012 Also will buy the Kit when on sale but wouldn't pay retail. Come on LuckyModel. TC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 28, 2012 Author Share Posted October 28, 2012 That Crows mount in front of the TC is just plain stupid. How can the TC observe anything to the front. The TC needs an unobstructed view around the tank especially to the front. What were they thinking? I TCed M48A5s, M60A3s and M1s I would not want that monstosity on my tank. TC I guess it all depends on what you are fighting. Back when tanks were actually intended to fight other tanks, it was considered a good thing to a have a low silhouette with maximum visability for the TC. That was one of the reasons the Israelis removed the .50 cal turret on their M60's. US tanks were never as low to the ground as their Russian opponents and sticking a CROWS on top only makes it worse. However, if all you are fighting are Haji's equipped with small arms and RPG's, it really doesn't matter. If we ever go up against a competent opponent with armor, watch how quickly those things get removed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tankcommander Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) The thing is Iraq is pretty much over as far as armor is concerned and only the Marines have tanks in Afghanistan. So we are preparing for the next insurgency? Thats the Army for you they have the system they needed 5 years ago all set for a finished conflict. Do they state who is the gunner for the system? The TC can't even see the road ahead to direct the driver or scan for IEDs, pick out targets vehicle positions, just not well thought out. The old M60 cupola would have been a nice touch, the M85 could hit point infantry targets at 900meters when boresighted and zeroed. Reloading was a bear though. TC Edited October 29, 2012 by Tankcommander Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) If you think we will not fight any more insurgencies, you are dreaming. The number of near-peer competitors in the world is dwindeling. Likewise, those who are threats to us is even smaller. Small-Wars will be with us for some time to come. Tanks still have plenty of use in small-wars as well, especially with the addition of TUSK and the CROWS 2 mount. We had the M1A2 SEP v2s at Ft Stewart and they were very popular with their crews. It is a system that is adaptable and can be used in fighting both insurgents or a near-peer competator in any future conflict. The TC can see just fine when he is up out of the hatch. Also, if it is not needed, the CROWS 2 mount can be folded down and out of the way. Lastly, it is a kit that can be taken off and the original free .50 cal returned to the CWS if needed as well. The thing is Iraq is pretty much over as far as armor is concerned... You might want to keep up with current events a little better. The US Military pulled out of Iraq in Dec '11. The only US troops left are about 150 military personnel as part of OSCI (Office of Security Cooperation - Iraq) who are mainly responsible for fielding US equipment to and training the Iraqi Army. Edited October 29, 2012 by HeavyArty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tankcommander Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) If you think we will not fight any more insurgencies, you are dreaming. The number of near-peer competitors in the world is dwindeling. Likewise, those who are threats to us is even smaller. Small-Wars will be with us for some time to come. Tanks still have plenty of use in small-wars as well, especially with the addition of TUSK and the CROWS 2 mount. We had the M1A2 SEP v2s at Ft Stewart and they were very popular with their crews. It is a system that is adaptable and can be used in fighting both insurgents or a near-peer competator in any future conflict. The TC can see just fine when he is up out of the hatch. Also, if it is not needed, the CROWS 2 mount can be folded down and out of the way. Lastly, it is a kit that can be taken off and the original free .50 cal returned to the CWS if needed as well. Thanks for the info on the CROWS, who operates it the TC or the gunner? Can the TC see over it at a name tag defilade? As a tanker through and through I know tanks have their uses in all levels of combat and operations. I just thnk a more central mount might have offered more visibility. But you can't cover the blow out panels either. I hope we are done with Iraq but will the public stand for another waste of American lives. Not the forum I know. I still want the kit though should be a good build. Any word on decals? Hey I was stationed in Stewart back when it was 24th ID and we used M60A1s with IR. C co 5/32nd Armor. Hi Gino, Tom W. from Armorama, small world. TC Edited October 29, 2012 by Tankcommander Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted October 29, 2012 Share Posted October 29, 2012 (edited) Hi Tom. The TC operates it. There is a screen and joystick inside the CWS. He can see from nametag defilade. He can see under the main parts of the CROWS 2 mount. The decals are for a couple of 4 ID tanks. You can see them below. Edited October 29, 2012 by HeavyArty Quote Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted October 30, 2012 Author Share Posted October 30, 2012 If you think we will not fight any more insurgencies, you are dreaming. The number of near-peer competitors in the world is dwindeling. Likewise, those who are threats to us is even smaller. Small-Wars will be with us for some time to come. Tanks still have plenty of use in small-wars as well, especially with the addition of TUSK and the CROWS 2 mount. Not saying I agree but if you really feel that way, why are we still so top-heavy with legacy systems like the Abrams, , M2's M109, ADA, etc? Keep a few brigades of these legacy systems for any "near-peer" conflict, scrap the rest and just convert the balance of the force into light infantry. Sounds like a great way to save $. As you suggest, tanks still have plenty of use in small wars (except apparently the one we are fighting currently) but an M1 was primarily designed to kill other tanks. If all you need is a slow, heavily armored, assault gun to support grunts, you would find a better solution in something like the old M728 CEV. If you need something more mobile, we already have the Stryker with the 105mm. I don't think you need the M1's speed or the sensors to follow an infantry platoon into an urban area and take out fixed fortifications. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HeavyArty Posted October 30, 2012 Share Posted October 30, 2012 Keep a few brigades of these legacy systems for any "near-peer" conflict, scrap the rest and just convert the balance of the force into light infantry. That is pretty much what we are doing. I don't know the exact mix off-hand, but the current mix of BDEs is mostly Srtyker and Light Infantry. You still need the capability with Heavy BDEs though, that is why we still have them. Also, any near-peer conflict will require more than just a few Heavy BDEs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.