Hello everyone! Here is a link to a wonderful Chinese site with tonnes of pictures. Even if you don't speak the language, there is a lot to see.

http://www.moxing.net/2016/0407/7208.html

Cheers all, Paul

Good stuff. It is a pity that they didn't compare the belly armor in side view - it would show the Meng advantage over the other two clearly. Also it would be nice if they showed the assembled cupolas side by side - the difference in size between RFM/Tamiya and Meng/Dragon M1A2 cupolas would be visible (with the latter two being correct size).

It is nice to see that there are still some details where the Dragon kit is not only equal but even better than any other kit

Three more observations:
-authentic, dimensionally accurate and well-proportioned Abrams tracks are yet to be produced by someone
-in China they sell RFM kit cheaper than Meng's
-however 'modern', 'well-researched' and 'advanced' those kits are, there is still plenty of areas that might benefit from aftermarket use.

I never thought for a minute that one kit would completely trump the other my take on the whole situation is that the Meng kit would be easier to build than the dragon kit and Meng being a power brand amongst modellers is where they are ahead.

The Ryefield kit looks nice from what I have seen but the thing that interests me is that some of the tusk parts look like some of the Tamiya Tusk parts.

Personally I invested in two ET models TUSK 1 sets and completed them and also took the TUSK parts out of the Tamiya kits and grafted the TUSK parts onto dragon A2s I did this because the dragon kits are to me excellent kits, I have the luxury to kick back and wait until I see any of the new kits a cheap prices then maybe I will be tempted to build one.

Cheers Ben.

Not just TUSK parts. Many other RFM parts also look a lot like Tamiya parts, including some inaccuracies unfortunately...

[quote]Hello everyone! Here is a link to a wonderful Chinese site with tonnes of pictures. Even if you don't speak the language, there is a lot to see.

http://www.moxing.net/2016/0407/7208.html

Cheers all, Paul [/quo

Hi, ALL! IMO, even though the DRAGON M1-series of kits are still more expensive than their competition, (RETAIL, that is- you can but them at decent pricing on ebay), IMO they are still "The KING of the Hill", where 1/35 M1s are concerned. I own quite a few of the DRAGON M1-series kits, and I'm NOT about to sell them off just because there are a half-dozen "New Kids On The Block" on the market today.

I like the VOYAGER and ET PE sets, which will turn any stock M1 kit into a STUNNER!!! As far as "add-ons" in resin go, there are quite a few resin updates and stowage sets out there, which I think can satisfy nearly everyone.

I'll still put my money on DRAGON 3535, 3536, and 3556. Their only downside is the inclusion of the "DS" Tracks, which most experienced modellers will usually change-out for after-market sets, anyway...

Thanks for posting!

For me the key point is that while each of these kits may have its strengths and weaknesses, they're all so much better than the older generation of Abrams kits.

When Pawel did his comparison article way back when, all of the available kits had some kind of major dimensional or detail issue, mainly because none of the manufacturers appeared to do any original research. Whether or not the Dragon kit is still the best, it raised the bar accuracy-wise and these new kits are a reflection of that.

Happy days

And it looks like the page where he placed his research is not available anymore. In my bookmarks it is called 'Vodnik's M1A2SEP kit information page', but the link is dead, and that is a shame!

Never fear!

http://vodnik.net/pages/m1-comparison/m1comp1.htm

EDIT: Re-reading the article, I see Pawel recommended Academy should completely re-tool their kit. Apparently they listened - twelve years later...

It's alive here: http://www.vodnik.net/index_feat.htm

Thank you Ed and Pawel!!!