Hi. Just happened to pick this kit up before Xmas this year to put aside for one of my kids to get me and was able to get started on it the other day. Boy am I somewhat disappointed in it. Been some time since I've picked up a 'winner' of a kit, but I must say this one has to fit the bill here.

Now I know that this isn't a new kit, just an older one with some new parts added to it, but I must say if mine is a representative of the others out there, this kit looks more like one made during the '60s or '70s, rather than the 90s. Flash here and there, warped parts, parts that do not line up correctly, etc. I also happened to get the Tamiya Abrams with the Mine Plow this year as well, so I decided to put the Dragon model back and work on Tamiya to see the difference between them. Kind of like night and day too.

But I'm determined to get the Dragon kit together, one way or the other, but it's definitely going to be an uphill struggle, compared to Tamiya's.

One thing's for sure, if I what another kit by Dragon--no matter what it's of-- I'm going to give it a good look see at the parts before I buy it, so as not to get taken again. Know what I mean? Dragon is not on the top of my list as far as quality goes any more.

Of cxourse, while I was working on Dragon's M1, I was also doing some work on Tasca's 'Luch' vehicle as well, and if this kit doesn't spoil a person as to quality of plastic moldings, nothing will. Ha! That could have been part of it too.

Take care, sgirty

Girty:
I started this kit back in Ocotber and I found even small things like the light guards are pretty poor compared to Tammy. I'll finish it up someday but it's not on my "best of" list (though it's still better than some other kits I've had)

Yep , know what you mean . The DML kits do need quite a bit of clean up . I have built 3 of the M1A1 kits ( 2 mine plows , and the HA with crew ). The T-80 and the T-72 , BMPs are the same also . Lots of flash , pin marks the works . When ever I get up the nerve to try a DML kit I add a day to clean it up . They do make some of the Ooooo I want to build that kits , so it is hard for me to gripe too much about . Good luck with the Abrams it'll be ok .

Yep in total agreement with you on that!
I have it also orginial version still a piece of crap!
I think for the group build will use the old Tamiya kit!
I to bite the bullet also have two old Trumpeter kits one with blade and one without.
You think as long as the real one has been out That Somebody would do the Darn thing Right by now bet it if it was Something German would have been 15 of them out by now

Cheers (:-) (:-)

The Abrams in 1/35 has been done by Esci (M1/M1A1), Tamiya (M1/M1A1/M1A2), Academy (M1A1), Trumpeter (M1A1/M1A2), Italeri (M1A2) and a Revell rebox of the DML M1A1 and Italeri M1A2. How many more major armor manufacturers are left to produce an Abrams? Skif, Eastern Express or Maquette?


Right now the Italeri M1A2 is better than the rest, but I haven't seen the new Tamiya M1A2 to judge it. The DML kit is more accurate than the others (less Italeri), but has been a notoriously fidgety build. But hey, they gave us an M1A2 in 1990. It was the only one around until Trumpeter made one about 4 years ago and Italeri last year.

i have to agree the dml version is a pain in the butt to build!with some tlc a very nice model can be made out of it...havent got tamiyas yet but will when its available at vls.sure wish some one would redo the bmp's as the dml ones are a pain in the butt also....

I am going to look into the Italeri one then!
Heck why not have another one to go with the 4 or 5 I have now!!
Think I could cobble one up out of all of them. I have the big Buck Model Point Barrel
made to fit the Tamiya kit!
Thanks for the go on that Italeri one.
Is their are Review somewhere on it? (:-)

It seems like all the modern stuff that DML has done is like this. Pin marks ,flash. and do we remember the figures that they had in the BMP and T-72 kits.

Reviews of all three recently released M1 kits can be found here...

- Tamiya :
http://pmms.webace.com.au/reviews/vehicles/tamiya/tam35269.htm

- Dragon:
http://pmms.webace.com.au/reviews/vehicles/dragon/dr3533.htm

- Italeri
http://tanxheaven.com/m1a2/M1A2%20Review/m1a2review.htm


Hope this helps.

BT6

Howdy fellas,

I was also working on a Dragon M1A1HA for my OIF Task Force Tarawa build-up, when I put it aside to work on my crazy T2K Campaign behemoth. So, I'm not an expert on the M1A1/A2 kits out there to begin with (I've just really started on modern 'stuff').
Anyway, it's probably just me, but I don't see that much of a problem with the kit so far (of course I've only got the basic bits put together).But this kind of critique has popped up before.
I guess I'm from the 'old school' train of thought. I've been modeling off and on since the early sixties when ALL models had godawful flash and minimal general detail. So, kind of like my wife's father, who lived through the Dust Bowl, I have come to appreciate the quality I do get. :-) That's not to say there isn't room for critique. What with today's technology you would come to expect more wouldn't you? Especially when you come across certain items like the Tasca 'Luch' sgirty mentioned, or a recent jaw-dropping moment for me when I opened Tamiya's Leopard 2A5 kit and saw the rear engine deck screens!! Have any of you guys seen them? I scratched my head for quite awhile just trying to figure out how they laid out the mould to make that piece of artwork happen!
What I'm trying to say (the long way round apparently ) is, that the basic question I always ask myself when it comes to kit quality is; Would this be any easier to 'scratchbuild'? To be honest with you, I've always had a sore spot for the manufacturer's because it has always seemed that the Aircraft guys always get it 'easy' IMHO, and the armour modeler's are always expected to change this, or scratch that.....why? But ya know what? This tendency to have to scratch something together to either accurize or complete a kit has elevated my scratchbuilding skills tremendously. And I don't mind that at all :-) :-) .

Tread.

Hi I do think that TreadHead has hit on something that's good for us modelers to remember every now and then. It's really not so much the kit as it is the builder as to whether a model comes out well or not. With new releases coming our that seem to be getting better and more detailed, as far as quality plastic moldings go, it does tend to throw us at times when we run across something that doesn't quite come up to par with other kits in the market place. And when we happen to run across something like this, it's not too unusual for us, and I admit I that this ran through my mine on this particular kit, to either junk the whole darn thing or consign the usuable parts to the spares box for future use on something else down the road.

Kits like these do, or should, stimulate the old 'scratch-building' triggers in us to try our very best to try to salvage something good out of the kit's building and make it into something presentable, at least to us. And if it does work out we, come out of it with a good sense of satisfaction that we corrected and built the kit, despite the short-comings of it.

But it still sort of ticks me off that Dragon would release something like this in this day and age. Several years ago, when I first started getting back into building models, I was really impressed with Dragon's line of AFVs and the amount of detailed small, well molded parts that had to be put on them. Felt I was really getting my money's worth when I bought one, as I know it would be really something to build. But this partiuclar kit has sort of taken a back step or two from those quality kits of yesterday. I do so hope that the new ones being made by this company are not following along the lines of this particular kit's quality.

Luckily for me, I had Tamiya's earlier Abrams to build up after putting aside Dragon's kit, so now I am learning more about this partiuclar vehicle and how it's basically put together in model form so that when I do get back to the Dragon unit, I will be more aware of the certain short-comings in the kit and be able to correct things better as I go along. And that spells "winner", both in finishing the kit and sharpening my modeling skills for other projects in the future. Hope this makes sense.

Take care, Sgirty

I built Revel`s M1A1 ( the reboxed Dragon M1A1) . 'In my opinion , I think the kit which is the more accourate is the best,,,even if it takes 1 week for it to clean up the bad plastic parts before assembling .
I never built a TAMYA Abrams , but I bought up some old Tamya Abrams already built from a friend .. I recently ordered the new Tamya Abrams M1A2...at least I want to assemble one Abrams from tamya just to see ,.

Back to the DRagon M1A1 (revell) ...THe assembing of the turrert and the baskets , are really tough
and so does the assembling of the tracks. Many modelers say the Anti -slippery surface that only the Dragon M1 has is essential for such a kit ....indeed the anti slipery surface looks great but I think when you airbrush the DRagon kit with Nato colors and then apply sand pastels on it and do some washing you won t recognize anymore with a naked eye the anti slippery surface.

So I conclude when airbrushing the M1 in sand colors then use the Dragon M1 as you would recognize well the anti sllippery surface... Use tamya s M1 if you paint it in NAto colors.

Anyone who truly wants to trash an Abrams kit needs to search on eBay for the Esci/AMT/Ertl M1A1 or M1. I built several of these kits for friends (other lieutenants) when I was in Germany. This was before aftermarket was much more that a few resin and PE sets from Verlinden (none for an Abrams). DML's M1A1/A2s were a godsend compared to those two kits (Tamiya only made the original M1 in a motorized wire R/C or static version back then).

As does the Trumpeter M1A1HA (#TP00334)....

Thanks for the reviews BT6.
I see the Italeri lower hull is 3 pieces Goosh I hate that But will soon grab me one and use the donor kit of tamiya for wheels.
Thanks again Bud! (:-) (:-)

Hope hobby lobby has some more M1's in stock when they have their 50% off sale!!
From Tamiya!
noticed they picked up the Pershing !!

I'm, in the Process of "Trashing" three of this Kit into a "conceptial Recovery Vehicle........

Hi guys...

I think I mentioned it in another thread, but I have built kit of the "major Competitors" except the New Italeri one (gotta get to it) and each kit really has one annoying flaw...here is a by company review:

Tamiya: by far the easiest to build. Two most annoying drawbacks are the motorization holes and the missing anti-skid surface. And yes, you really do notice it when it is missing, specifically if you know it should be there.

DML: Not so easy to build, at least of the three manufacturer's. I have no problem cleaing up knock-out pin marks or flash. Annoying drawback is the fiddly buildability...it has an annoying turret basket. Now, having said that, I just finished the USMC version before Itook off for holidays (photo's to follow as I find the time) and, as always, it was not as bad to build as people make it sound like. Maybe it is just me, but the kit is not too terribly much more work to build than the Tamiya kit.

Trumpeter: A nice blend of Tamiya and DML...good detail, good buildability. ANNOYING PART is the screwed up left front turret face...SIGH. Otherwise this would have been my favorite. Oh yeah, the inside of the tracks pads have what look like a big rivet in the middle of them...?

Italeir: Having fondled...er, looked over the kit in the box, it looks to be at least as good as the DML kit, although it does look a touch "fiddley", ie it has a three piece hull, etc...

but overall I would have to agree with Rob on all this...compared to what was available in 1990, no matter which kit you buy, you get something you can make shine pretty easy...no need to fret...

Hello
Thought that all of you would be interested in checking out this comparison review of the M1 by DMl, Trumpter and Tamiya. I do not own any of these kits.
http://www5b.biglobe.ne.jp/~TANK-GUY/KIT-REVIEW05.html
Cheers
mech

Mech's hot link