Got 'em, two of them in fact!

The same could be said about Meng's M2A3 w/Busk III. If I recall, there was conversation about the lack of plain side skirts with that kit. The general consensus was that the simple solution would be to use the skirts from Academy/Tamiya Bradleys that guys had stashed away. Ditto with the Dragon 3535/3536 side skirts. Plus, Voyager makes a PE set of skirts, minus the standard heavy front panel. Based on Rye's removal of some parts originally included in its first Tiger kit from the sprues for the Eastern Front Tiger, it doesn't look like Rye is keen on packing parts which aren't relevant to the current variant released. Perhaps the next Abrams kit release will contain the standard skirts.

I just want to add my two cents in that you CAN indeed build an M1A1 or M1A2 without TUSK. Normal, correct width and size sideskirts, among other things, are provided.

Why? Mr Vodnik actually admits himself that he cannot be impartial with his views regarding kits he has has not personally been involved with during the development phase.[/quote] Wow, how could I have missed this thread? I'm trying to be impartial when posting opinions about kits, but I also openly admit my involvement in design of some of them. I'm always honest. Dragon "new generation" M1 kits have flaws, new Meng M1 kit has flaws, and yes, the RFM one also has flaws. Unfortunately the biggest of them all, what I described in more details elsewhere... The flaws result from cutting corners by copying other manufacturer's parts (mostly Tamiya, but also some Dragon) without proper research - as a result most serious errors from Tamiya kit are directly copied to the RFM one It is a pity, as there are some very nice details in this kit and lots of options. As I see it now, the Academy kit coming soon seems to be more accurate than the RFM one - actually it has some details more accurate even than the Meng one. And the Academy kit will also be significantly cheaper... And to make it clear: I was not involved in any way in Academy or RFM kits design, and I only had a minimal involvement in the Meng kit design at the very end of its preparation. My deep involvement in Dragon AIM and SEP kits design is well known, but I was not involved in the most recent SEP V2 kit design. My biggest "problem" with RFM and earlier Orochi is not that the kits offer lower accuracy standards than the competition, as there is always a room for such models in the market too. But it should be reflected in the price of the kits - simpler, possibly less accurate kits, should be cheaper. Both Orochi and RFM kits are priced higher than other, more accurate, and in case of Bradley more detailed, kits on the market - and this is something that is a real "problem" here...

Let me ask you this simple question. Which one to chose. MENG, RFM, TAMIYA? I'm not an Abrams builder, but I like it. So I want to buy a good Tusk version and build it straight from the box. Which one do you recommend.

I got the RFM kit and I am confused. The B sprue has the "regular" plain skirts without bars. On the following picture, you can see the 4 skirts I am talking about. LINK Unless you are talking about something else.

I got the RFM kit and I am confused. The B sprue has the "regular" plain skirts without bars.[/quote] That statement was based on the sprue pics in the Armorama news article (in Feb) which apparently did not include the B sprue as they only show the side skirts with the ERA attachment bars. Since the kit has been released, it apparently includes the standard skirts as well.

Got you. I am actually using the RFM model to build a USMC M1A1HA. Just have to get some appropriate smoke dischargers and it should be all good thanks to the optional parts in the box.

any info on the academy kit? dont know why, but i can't find it in the usual stores i use (like LM)