News
RyeField: Abrams TUSK 3 in 1 Details
Maki
Senior EditorCroatia Hrvatska
Joined: February 13, 2002
KitMaker: 5,579 posts
Armorama: 2,988 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 01:35 PM UTC
We covered the announcement of the new 1/35 scale Abrams from
Rye Field Model some time ago. Now the company released sprue shots and additional info on the model. Check it out.
Read the Full News StoryIf you have comments or questions please post them here.
Thanks!
Ukraine / Україна
Joined: January 26, 2010
KitMaker: 570 posts
Armorama: 553 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 02:45 PM UTC
Got to hold the horses to see Mr. Vodnik's approval comments. 'It looks like an Abrams' opinion seems not enough for me these days...
England - South West, United Kingdom
Joined: March 13, 2015
KitMaker: 418 posts
Armorama: 235 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 04:17 PM UTC
i really like the looks of this.
Buenos Aires, Argentina
Joined: January 26, 2007
KitMaker: 1,024 posts
Armorama: 1,013 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 06:01 PM UTC
I'm not a fan of their upper hull detail , nor the antiskid...
But it looks like a good option for those not willing to deal with the complexity of Dragon kits.
I would love to see they also add the latter wheel hubs. But it seems too late...
It's not too much, but it's all we got...
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 07:05 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I would love to see they also add the latter wheel hubs. But it seems too late...
The late, octagonal wheel hub covers are a feature of M1A2 SEP v2 tanks, so they would not be appropriate for any of the versions this kit will build into. It would be easy for them to include them in a later SEP v2 kit though based on them being separate clear parts.
Overall it looks good to me. The kit is very limited though. I wish the side skirts were not molded with the ERA support bars on them. This does not allow a non-TUSK tank to be built from the kit. So the kit only builds into a tank used in combat since TUSK is only installed on tanks in combat and has only been used in Iraq (US Army and USMC M1A1, US Army M1A2 and M1A2 SEP) and in A'stan on a few USMC M1A1s (parts of TUSK 1 only). This limits you to a relatively short period of time ('04 through about '12) that one of these tanks would have been used in combat.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Alabama, United States
Joined: November 10, 2005
KitMaker: 167 posts
Armorama: 163 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 08:16 PM UTC
I wonder if you could get your comments to them? Betcha they'd appreciate it!
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 06, 2002
KitMaker: 1,526 posts
Armorama: 1,294 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 09:11 PM UTC
Quoted Text
Got to hold the horses to see Mr. Vodnik's approval comments. 'It looks like an Abrams' opinion seems not enough for me these days...
Same here - I am waiting for the master's comments.
Happy modeling!
Warning: possible addiction may occur.
Currently on the bench: Maquette T-34/76
South Carolina, United States
Joined: December 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,355 posts
Armorama: 979 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 09:23 PM UTC
Quoted Text
... and has only been used in Iraq (US Army and USMC M1A1, US Army M1A2 and M1A2 SEP) and in A'stan on a few USMC M1A1s (parts of TUSK 1 only). This limits you to a relatively short period of time ('04 through about '12) that one of these tanks would have been used in combat.
I didn't see the USMC specific parts (i.e.; Smoke Dischargers), so how can it be modeled as an USMC M1A1 Abrams without sourcing those parts from somewhere else?
Also, even if they didn't have the ERA mounting rails molded on, the TUSK Side Skirts (at least the front ones) are different than the standard M1A1/2 Abrams Armored Side Skirts.
ESSAYONS!
"Man does not live until he looks to the future, and that is his salvation in the worst of times.".... (Author Unknown)
AMPS #2102
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 09:55 PM UTC
Quoted Text
I didn't see the USMC specific parts (i.e.; Smoke Dischargers), so how can it be modeled as an USMC M1A1 Abrams without sourcing those parts from somewhere else?
I wasn't implying that it could be built as a USMC tank out of the box, just that USMC tanks also wore TUSK.
Quoted Text
Also, even if they didn't have the ERA mounting rails molded on, the TUSK Side Skirts (at least the front ones) are different than the standard M1A1/2 Abrams Armored Side Skirts.
You are correct. That was part of what I was getting at with the molded on rails and TUSK/ERA skirts. Only the #1 skirt on both sides are different, thin sheet metal as opposed to the ballistic skirts in a non-ERA setup. It would have been nice if they molded the rails separately and gave another set of #1 skirts so it could be built w/out ERA blocks.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
South Carolina, United States
Joined: December 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,355 posts
Armorama: 979 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 10:19 PM UTC
[quote]
Quoted Text
I wasn't implying that it could be built as a USMC tank out of the box, just that USMC tanks also wore TUSK.
Sorry, Gino, I misread what you had written.
I did notice some parts had been removed from the sprues, so RyeField apparently has already created parts for other versions.
But it sure would have been nice if they had just included all of them to begin with into one "all-in-one" Abrams kit.
ESSAYONS!
"Man does not live until he looks to the future, and that is his salvation in the worst of times.".... (Author Unknown)
AMPS #2102
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 10:27 PM UTC
This is interesting; Rye Field are apparently treating the M1 much as they treated the Tiger. So I have a question: are the paint plans accurate in colour, and accurate for the configuration?
David
European Union
Joined: January 28, 2015
KitMaker: 2,099 posts
Armorama: 1,920 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 10:39 PM UTC
Quoted Text
But it looks like a good option for those not willing to deal with the complexity of Dragon kits.
.
The kit looks be roughly as complex as Dragon's kits of the tank, more if you include the tracks
Never gonna' give EU up, never gonna' let EU down.
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 10:45 PM UTC
Quoted Text
So I have a question: are the paint plans accurate in colour, and accurate for the configuration?
If you mean the NATO camo tank with sand TUSK parts, yes.
I actually built the exact tank that they represent in the decals a while ago. I based it on pics of the actual vehicle. You can
check it out hereField Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
bill_c
Campaigns Administrator New Jersey, United States
Joined: January 09, 2008
KitMaker: 10,553 posts
Armorama: 8,109 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 10:52 PM UTC
Our Abrams cups runneth over, haha!
South Carolina, United States
Joined: December 14, 2006
KitMaker: 1,355 posts
Armorama: 979 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 10:56 PM UTC
Quoted Text
...accurate for the configuration?
David
For the NATO three-color camouflage, the pattern appears to be off from the standard TM pattern:
The pattern is supposed to follow what's indicated in the TM (image from the web):
The tanks are painted with the pattern at the factory or major maintenance site (images from PrimePortal):
The pattern is similar, but not correct.
The colors in the illustration seem off to me, in that all three colors appear too light in shade, but it is an illustration. To me, the colors should only indicate where the called out paints should be applied. The indicated paint colors from AMMO of Mig Jimenez should be checked to confirm they are in fact accurate, which I haven't done.
ESSAYONS!
"Man does not live until he looks to the future, and that is his salvation in the worst of times.".... (Author Unknown)
AMPS #2102
Wien, Austria
Joined: July 12, 2005
KitMaker: 2,233 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 11:08 PM UTC
So the M1 paint plans are an improvement over their Tiger kits.
David
Sofiya, Bulgaria
Joined: November 08, 2011
KitMaker: 414 posts
Armorama: 287 posts
Posted: Sunday, January 31, 2016 - 11:46 PM UTC
Well, I really want to here from the Abrams gurus here.
I like this model, as I don't intend to build it as non-TUSK tank. So this and the price of USD 65 could make it a winner for Rye. Looks like Meng will be more complex kit and in some part of the world Dragon is extremely hard to find or very expensive, so this one, given it's accurate could be a welcomed addition to the market.
And the NATO/Sand colored TUSK is very interesting and unusual.
My modeling and news space:
https://redlinemodels.wordpress.com/
Sofiya, Bulgaria
Joined: November 08, 2011
KitMaker: 414 posts
Armorama: 287 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 12:00 AM UTC
And two more unusual color combos:
600344_900 by
redlinemodels, on Flickr
3009-1 by
redlinemodels, on Flickr
My modeling and news space:
https://redlinemodels.wordpress.com/
Oklahoma, United States
Joined: October 07, 2002
KitMaker: 1,280 posts
Armorama: 1,208 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 12:22 AM UTC
Quoted Text
This limits you to a relatively short period of time ('04 through about '12) that one of these tanks would have been used in combat.
Gino,
Abrams Reactive Arnor Tiles showed up in the 2007-ish time frame. We (1/3ID) didn't have them in 2005, not did 3/4ID have them when they came north in 2006. However, I will say that the Bradley tiles were definately used in Iraq in 2004, if not late 2003
Quoted Text
So the M1 paint plans are an improvement over their Tiger kits.
I would also mention that the vehicle numbers match the camo - European based 1st Armored Division with NATO camo. My guess is that someone used the Tankograd M1A1/M1A2 TUSK book or its author for a reference source.
John
John Charvat
"Hey baby, I only ride 'em, I don't know what makes them work" Oddball
Join AMPS: https://www.amps-armor.org/SiteMain/Main.aspx
#384
Nevada, United States
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 01:16 AM UTC
No excuse not to have the latest USMC commanders cupola on there, are any new release M1 kit. That's about the only version of the M1 I don't have right now and I would by a kit in an instant if someone would put one out.
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 02:04 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Abrams Reactive Arnor Tiles showed up in the 2007-ish time frame. We (1/3ID) didn't have them in 2005, not did 3/4ID have them when they came north in 2006. However, I will say that the Bradley tiles were definately used in Iraq in 2004, if not late 2003.
It makes the usefulness of the kit even less then. So from about '07 through '12 is all these tanks saw service in these versions. Really through about '10 since we were drawing down and not really using tanks in Iraq after about '10 and only USMC M1A1s w/TUSK have been deployed to A'stan. The last USMC tanks left A'stan in '13.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
Wisconsin, United States
Joined: April 05, 2007
KitMaker: 2,023 posts
Armorama: 1,234 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 03:33 AM UTC
A golden opportunity for the aftermarket people with the different wheels and side skirts if they don't correct it. But what makes this a 3 in 1 kit anyways?
On the bench :
A whole bunch of figures, Too many half built kits and a (gasp) wing thing
#384
Nevada, United States
Joined: August 23, 2005
KitMaker: 1,426 posts
Armorama: 1,316 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 03:56 AM UTC
You can build an M1A2 TUSK I or TUSK II or M1A1 TUSK
Quoted Text
A golden opportunity for the aftermarket people with the different wheels and side skirts if they don't correct it. But what makes this a 3 in 1 kit anyways?
New York, United States
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 04:00 AM UTC
Whatever the verdict is... I like it. Going to be a tough decision between the Meng and RFM kits.
I do some 3D design work. Message me for more info on what I'm doing or have done. Inquire about a product catalog.
Florida, United States
Joined: May 16, 2002
KitMaker: 17,694 posts
Armorama: 13,742 posts
Posted: Monday, February 01, 2016 - 06:37 AM UTC
Quoted Text
No excuse not to have the latest USMC commanders cupola on there...
I am not tracking a new CWS on USMC Abrams. Do you have a pic of it?
I am tracking that old M1A1 CWS being added to the M88A2 Hercules, but that is all.
Quoted Text
A golden opportunity for the aftermarket people with the different wheels...
There is no need for any different wheels. The hub cover with the two half-moon shaped lobes are correct for these versions. The newer octagon hub cover is for the newer M1A2 SEP v2 version.
Field Artillery --- The KING of BATTLE!!!
"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." -- George Orwell
Showcase
