I know there are a bunch out there, but who has the best in terms of accuracy, fit, detail, etc?

Of the three I own, (Trumpeter, DML, Italeri) I say the Italeri kit. I have heard very good things and some iffy things regarding the new Tamiya M1A2. Not having seen it, I can't make an informed judgement one way or the other. I have heard from reliable sources that the only modification done to the lower hull is new tracks. If that is correct, then the lower hull of the Tamiya kit is very devoid of detail around rear hull/engine grill area.

The Tamiya kit will build easier OOB than the other three. Do this at your own risk, the Abrams Nazis are getting to be as bad as true Shermaholics and German armor builders when you build a kit OOB without addressing any inaccuracies.

Abram Nazis? That's too funny. I'm glad some one will defend the OOTB builders. That's probably about as far as I will ever make it.

Let em wallow in their juices.OOB people probably aren't worried if armor plate A is exactly at the correct angle.The Abrams Nazis are just ferverant followers of fashion.

I have built the majority of Abrams kits (not aftermarket stuff) that are available in the states. My personal favs are Dragon's. The only downside for OOB is the turret bustle, which is fragile and will take time to remove from the sprues. Most people here seem to jsut make their own with sprue or wire, I just take my time and remove carefully and sand even more carefully! Detail is great, with only a little inaccuraces that most people will never notice, at least my wife doesnt! :-) She never notices the little things that make it look more real.

ps: FWIW, I havent had a chance to build the new M1A2 by Tamyia, I generaly build USMC armor.
Sempre Fi

I guess it does sound a little harsh. I really mean no disrespect to those who strive for excellence in reproducing the details of whatever vehicle they tend to model. I just wonder why they expect others who are mildly interesting in building a Tiger/Sherman/Abrams/M60/whatever to put the same level of dedication into the detail they do and deride them when they do not. I tend to notice this most when I delve into the German armor modeling world.

I've just noticed the Abrams is the latest target since the references are everywhere (real vehicles and in action photographs). It'll probably surpass the Tiger as the favorite tank to build.



Melon, I believe that the M1A2 comes with the bits & pieces necessary to build a USMC M1A1HA from OIF, but I've not seen the kit in the flesh though. (Trying to bring this back on topic).

I was leaning towards the Italeri or the Tamiya, this confirms that. I seem to remember seeing some box shots of the Italeri kit, but can't find them, anyone know where those were?

Heres a link to a review of the Tamiya M1A2 on the PMMS web-site, has photos of the sprues, decals, tracks and clear parts.

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

And a review of the Italeri M1A2 from Tanxheaven.

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

Gentlemen,

I have both new Tamiya M1A2 and Italeri M1A2. I also have Trumpeter M1A1 and Dragon (DML) M1A1 - these do not have A2 specific parts, but other than that are the same as their A2 versions. I have only built a Dragon kit from those listed, but I spent some time comparing parts in boxes.

And in my opition the winner for the overal detail quality is Tamiya. It has several problems however. Main problem is the fact that the hull was taken from old M1A1 kit and has motorization holes in it, which have to be filled. There are also some detail inaccuracies in the hull that have to be corrected to get fully accurate model. Another problem of the kit is the lack of non-slip surfaces on the hull and turret. For me it is not a problem at all since I devised my own way of adding it (see Features section on my website). Turret parts are all new and really made to the highest quality we use to expect from Tamiya. Kit indeed comes with all parts needed to make three variants out of the box: US Army M1A2, US Army M1A1 (HC) and US Marines M1A1 (HC). T-158 tracks included in the kit are made of glueable vinyl, but they are real masterpieces - very accurate and look much better than Italeri plastic link and length tracks.

Italeri Abrams suffers from a problem typical to all Italeri kits - sink holes... There are many of them and some in places that will be real pain to fix. Model seems to be quite accurate (dimmensions of some details, like CITV, however, appear to be different from those in Tamiya kit), but details are softer and more crude than in Tamiya model. Some parts like wheels look just bad. Tracks are plastic link and length type, but are poorly detailed. There are non-slip surfaces molded on parts, but IMHO they are a bit overdone and in places like turret blast panels look like scribed with the thin needle.

Trumpeter Abrams is their early kit and is a far cry from their later releases quality-wise. The main advantage of this kit is suspension with separately molded arms - this allows to "animate" the suspension on dioramas and when the mine plow is attached to the tank. I've heard that lower hull part and suspension from this kit can be easily attached to other Abrams models (like Dragon one). Details in Trumpeter model are even more soft than in Italeri kit and there is this infamous turret shape problem. You get both plastic and vinyl tracks, but both have some strange bumps molded on inner side of each link - impossible to remove from vinyl tracks and real pain to remove from plastic ones.

Dragon Abrams is still among my favourites - it is a pain to build, because some parts like turret bustle rack are overengineered and molds start to show thier age (warped hull is quite common), but detail and accuracy wise this is still one of the best Abrams models available.

Now I think that probably the best M1A2 Abrams model can be made by combining hull parts from Dragon kit with new Tamiya turret (of course non-slip surfaces have to be added to it to match those on Dragon hull).

Best Regards,
Pawel