Hi - I've just come across in-box and built-up pictures of Rye Field Models' new Abrams M1A1/A2 TUSK and Tiger 1 'Fehrmann' here:
http://www.moxdao.com/
Enjoy!
Armor/AFV
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
For discussions on tanks, artillery, jeeps, etc.
Hosted by Darren Baker, Mario Matijasic
Pics of Rye Field's new Abrams and Tiger
system
Joined: November 24, 2008
KitMaker: 364 posts
Armorama: 363 posts
Posted: Monday, March 28, 2016 - 09:11 PM UTC
jwest21
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Monday, March 28, 2016 - 09:20 PM UTC
I am interested in how accurate the Abrams is. I guess there were issues with their CAD drawings
Thirian24
Joined: September 30, 2015
KitMaker: 2,493 posts
Armorama: 2,344 posts
Posted: Monday, March 28, 2016 - 09:34 PM UTC
So the Fehrmann Tiger is just a late, with no side mud guards, early cupola and no exhaust shields?
Dimitar
Joined: November 08, 2011
KitMaker: 414 posts
Armorama: 287 posts
Posted: Monday, March 28, 2016 - 10:40 PM UTC
By no means I'm an Abrams expert, but I do like what I see. RyeField could be the next Tamiya, if they are accurate enough.
GazzaS
#424
Joined: April 23, 2015
KitMaker: 4,648 posts
Armorama: 2,248 posts
Posted: Monday, March 28, 2016 - 11:21 PM UTC
Quoted Text
So the Fehrmann Tiger is just a late, with no side mud guards, early cupola and no exhaust shields?
Hi Dustin,
If you look at enough Tiger photos you'll find a lot of interesting variations. It seems that turret swapping at the repair yard was pretty common, and other pictures of Tigers in the field with no exhaust shields.
Gaz
SpaceXhydro
Joined: March 13, 2015
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 235 posts
Posted: Monday, March 28, 2016 - 11:40 PM UTC
the Abrams tank looks really good. It looks like you can even build an M1A1 and a non-TUSK version. there are some details that Meng's Abrams doesn't have like the detachable engine cover and it looks like they put in the first parts of turret interior.
however the i'm not much of a fan the fixed in position CITV module:
while meng have a rotatable CITV module.
But apart from this and a few other things that could be improved, i think it looks very nice from what i can see and i would happily get one of these.
however the i'm not much of a fan the fixed in position CITV module:
while meng have a rotatable CITV module.
But apart from this and a few other things that could be improved, i think it looks very nice from what i can see and i would happily get one of these.
Cantstopbuyingkits
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Monday, March 28, 2016 - 11:44 PM UTC
Should the 1945 Tiger I have zimmerit still applied or was removed from in service tanks after the paste's discontinuation?
jwest21
Joined: October 16, 2006
KitMaker: 3,374 posts
Armorama: 3,126 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 12:29 AM UTC
Quoted Text
It was still on there on some of the,, although well worn and flaking on the Ferhmann tigers. I think there is a few with zimmerit on the turret but not on the hull and vice versa as well as ones with none at all. These ones are really ones that need images googled because they were mixtures of early/late Should the 1945 Tiger I have zimmerit still applied or was removed from in service tanks after the paste's discontinuation?
Byrden
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 12:34 AM UTC
Quoted Text
So the Fehrmann Tiger is just a late, with no side mud guards, early cupola and no exhaust shields?
It's an Early Tiger. The tracks and wheels of old Tigers were sometimes upgraded, but that doesn't make them "late".
This is essentially the same kit as their previous one, without an interior, and plus the new wheels and tracks; presumably they are developing new parts for a genuine Late Tiger and this is a way to take advantage of them.
I notice that Rye Field didn't correct various errors that were pointed out during reviews of the previous kit.
David
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 01:02 AM UTC
RFM M1A2 has many features copied from the Tamiya kit. Including some inaccurate ones. The biggest problem I see in these photos is the M1A2 commander's cupola (ICWS), which is noticeably too small and the machine gun ring cannot rotate (but you can make the whole ICWS to rotate what is wrong) - just like in the Tamiya kit 
The smoke grenade launchers have too flat "faces" - i.e. launcher tubes are not spread enough - again copied from the Tamiya kit part.
The TWMP power connector enclosure seems to be too large and lacks the actual power socket detail...
The mud release holes in sprockets are poorly done.
The bustle rack extension details are quite poor - particularly the jerrycan holders on sides (I don't think the jerrycan can fit in there).
The UAAPU is missing the intake cover.
There are many nice details in this kit, but also many small mistakes.
And then there is it's price.
The smoke grenade launchers have too flat "faces" - i.e. launcher tubes are not spread enough - again copied from the Tamiya kit part.
The TWMP power connector enclosure seems to be too large and lacks the actual power socket detail...
The mud release holes in sprockets are poorly done.
The bustle rack extension details are quite poor - particularly the jerrycan holders on sides (I don't think the jerrycan can fit in there).
The UAAPU is missing the intake cover.
There are many nice details in this kit, but also many small mistakes.
And then there is it's price.
HeavyArty
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 01:06 AM UTC
Quoted Text
the Abrams tank looks really good. It looks like you can even build an M1A1 and a non-TUSK version.
With the parts included (M1A1 CWS, side skirts w/out ERA mounting bars, three options for the left rear hull, etc.) you can really build just about any M1A1, or M1A2 with or without TUSK I or TUSK II. It gives you all the options you need.
Quoted Text
...however the i'm not much of a fan the fixed in position CITV module...
The CITV could be glued in any position by removing the pin that locks it in place. Does it really need to remain rotatable?
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 01:20 AM UTC
Quoted Text
the Abrams tank looks really good. It looks like you can even build an M1A1 and a non-TUSK version. there are some details that Meng's Abrams doesn't have like the detachable engine cover
In real tank you cannot remove the engine cover until you open a few additional panels that are molded shut in the RFM kit. So the separate engine deck is just unnecessary complication. Particularly that its left edge details (cutouts) are only correct for M1A2SEP and wrong for M1A1, so it would make sense if they included two optional deck parts, one for A1 and one for SEP. With just one part it is unnecessary gimmick.
Also note that part of one of the grab handles is molded on the engine deck, while the other half is on the rest of the hull!
What the heck!? 
hliu24
Joined: November 19, 2010
KitMaker: 798 posts
Armorama: 797 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 06:57 AM UTC
Quoted Text
RFM M1A2 has many features copied from the Tamiya kit. Including some inaccurate ones. The biggest problem I see in these photos is the M1A2 commander's cupola (ICWS), which is noticeably too small and the machine gun ring cannot rotate (but you can make the whole ICWS to rotate what is wrong) - just like in the Tamiya kit
The smoke grenade launchers have too flat "faces" - i.e. launcher tubes are not spread enough - again copied from the Tamiya kit part.
The TWMP power connector enclosure seems to be too large and lacks the actual power socket detail...
The mud release holes in sprockets are poorly done.
The bustle rack extension details are quite poor - particularly the jerrycan holders on sides (I don't think the jerrycan can fit in there).
The UAAPU is missing the intake cover.
There are many nice details in this kit, but also many small mistakes.
And then there is it's price.
So Meng is better
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 09:42 AM UTC
Quoted Text
So Meng is better
Generally, yes. There is a few details that could have been done differently (in my opinion better) in the Meng kit, but it seems to be very accurate. And the Meng one is significantly cheaper.
chnoone
Joined: January 01, 2009
KitMaker: 1,036 posts
Armorama: 1,033 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 10:11 AM UTC
Seeing all these new M1/TUSK kits pouring out is generally very good news ... but if one is not really attracted by the TUSK version like myself I cannot identify any mayor improvements rendering the Dragon M1s inferior or obsolete.
From what I have seen to date I'm glad I still have some Dragon kits in stock ... the "old" ones with everything included
Having built quite some Dragon M1s I am still convinced it stays the best option to build a "non TUSK" version .... but what would really get my attention would be a new 105mm M1 in quality and detail of the already 1o year old Dragon M1s.
Never the less, it still is very very interesting to see what other option there are out there and this kit will surely build a very nice replica of the M1 .... but I haven't figured out why so many of them all at once:-?
Cheers
Christopher
From what I have seen to date I'm glad I still have some Dragon kits in stock ... the "old" ones with everything included
Having built quite some Dragon M1s I am still convinced it stays the best option to build a "non TUSK" version .... but what would really get my attention would be a new 105mm M1 in quality and detail of the already 1o year old Dragon M1s.
Never the less, it still is very very interesting to see what other option there are out there and this kit will surely build a very nice replica of the M1 .... but I haven't figured out why so many of them all at once:-?
Cheers
Christopher
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 10:40 AM UTC
Funny: it looks like RFM tank maintainers have stolen the rear engine access door from Dragon owned tank The hull serial number on the RFM rear doors doesn't match the serial numbers on other hull panels, but mysteriously it matches the serial number of the Dragon kit hull (6252)... This shows how much original research went into this kit: parts copied from Dragon, parts copied from Tamiya...
The hull serial number on the RFM rear doors doesn't match the serial numbers on other hull panels, but mysteriously it matches the serial number of the Dragon kit hull (6252)... This shows how much original research went into this kit: parts copied from Dragon, parts copied from Tamiya... 
The_musings_of_NBNoG
Joined: January 08, 2012
KitMaker: 520 posts
Armorama: 516 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 10:54 AM UTC
Aaaahhhh! That is exactly the insight I was looking for.
I already have about $600 invested in my Abrams project; and I can mix and match my own.
Thanks Vodnik
I already have about $600 invested in my Abrams project; and I can mix and match my own.
Thanks Vodnik
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 11:56 AM UTC
Quoted Text
The UAAPU is missing the intake cover.
Correction: just noticed in instructions that intake cover for UAAPU is included in the kit, but not clearly marked for which version it applies.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 01:55 PM UTC
To illustrate "the biggest problem" in RFM kit:
Note how much bigger the ICWS should be. Note that the splash guard welded on the turret top, which was around the original M1/M1A1 CWS, should be almost entirely hidden underneath the larger ICSW in M1A2. In RFM kit (as was in Tamiya one) the ICWS is only slightly larger than CWS and does not hide the splash guard properly.
Also the tiny vision blocks in RFM ICWS are just laughable (as they were in the Tamiya kit too)
By the way, the bottom right photo shows interesting and uncommon feature: a raiser ring under the ICWS. It was required on this particular tank to provide clearance over the non-standard installation of the early CROWS remote weapons station that was tested on this tank.
And to make it clear: no such problem in the Meng kit (it is computer rendering, but the kit parts really look like this):
The image above shows slightly different version of ICWS, but the kit Meng includes both types of ICWS, this one, and the one like in RFM kit.
Note how much bigger the ICWS should be. Note that the splash guard welded on the turret top, which was around the original M1/M1A1 CWS, should be almost entirely hidden underneath the larger ICSW in M1A2. In RFM kit (as was in Tamiya one) the ICWS is only slightly larger than CWS and does not hide the splash guard properly.
Also the tiny vision blocks in RFM ICWS are just laughable (as they were in the Tamiya kit too)
By the way, the bottom right photo shows interesting and uncommon feature: a raiser ring under the ICWS. It was required on this particular tank to provide clearance over the non-standard installation of the early CROWS remote weapons station that was tested on this tank.
And to make it clear: no such problem in the Meng kit (it is computer rendering, but the kit parts really look like this):
The image above shows slightly different version of ICWS, but the kit Meng includes both types of ICWS, this one, and the one like in RFM kit.
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 04:38 PM UTC
Aaaand one more problem: the belly armor in the RFM kit is too narrow with inaccurate attachments on sides... It should be wider than the hull bottom, but in RFM kit is it is narrower And guess what - Tamiya has exactly these same problems in their belly armor part in the 35326 kit... At least in Tamiya kit it was somewhat justified, because it was made deliberately that way to make the part fit the lower hull with molded on suspension arms without sacrificing the bolt details on belly armor part. In RFM it is just a result of poor (or lack of) research and mindless copying of other manufacturer's part
Academy did it much better in their upcoming kit and Meng got it right too.
By the way - interesting difference in the length of the rear narrower section of belly armor. Actually Academy part is most correct, while Meng is way too long there:
And guess what - Tamiya has exactly these same problems in their belly armor part in the 35326 kit... At least in Tamiya kit it was somewhat justified, because it was made deliberately that way to make the part fit the lower hull with molded on suspension arms without sacrificing the bolt details on belly armor part. In RFM it is just a result of poor (or lack of) research and mindless copying of other manufacturer's part Academy did it much better in their upcoming kit and Meng got it right too.
By the way - interesting difference in the length of the rear narrower section of belly armor. Actually Academy part is most correct, while Meng is way too long there:
Removed by original poster on 03/30/16 - 12:36:39 (GMT).
LTMike4208
Joined: May 23, 2011
KitMaker: 39 posts
Armorama: 28 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 05:36 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Quoted TextSo Meng is better
Generally, yes. There is a few details that could have been done differently (in my opinion better) in the Meng kit, but it seems to be very accurate. And the Meng one is significantly cheaper.
Spruebrothers.com shows a price of $59.99 for the RMF kit. Where can I find a cheaper price for the Meng kit?
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 05:47 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Spruebrothers.com shows a price of $59.99 for the RMF kit. Where can I find a cheaper price for the Meng kit?
I have no idea what local prices in the USA are, but in Hong Kong the Meng kit is $43, while the RFM one is $65... Both kits made in China.
The Academy one is on pre-order for $35!
jvazquez
Joined: September 26, 2006
KitMaker: 857 posts
Armorama: 811 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 06:00 PM UTC
Vodnik the new kit crusher! love it!
I knew there was a reason I would lean towards the Meng one or just stick with the Dragon one which is still a great kit and the best option
I knew there was a reason I would lean towards the Meng one or just stick with the Dragon one which is still a great kit and the best option
Vodnik
Joined: March 26, 2003
KitMaker: 4,342 posts
Armorama: 3,938 posts
Posted: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 - 06:07 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Vodnik the new kit crusher! love it!
I knew there was a reason I would lean towards the Meng one or just stick with the Dragon one which is still a great kit and the best option
Or wait for the Academy one, which looks really good from what we were shown so far and is the cheapest of them all.
 |
WEB HOSTING BY
Copyright ©2021 Armorama and Kitmaker Network, a subsidiary of Silver Star Enterprises
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.
All Rights Reserved. Please read our Conditions of Use and Privacy Policy.