Hi All,

Does anyone know, for sure, if the Rye Field RM-5004, that is called a 3 in 1, M1A1 TUSK / M1A2 SEP Abrams TUSK 1 / M1A2 SEP Abrams TUSK II, can build a regular M1A1 AIM? I've seen the sprues, and it looks like the regular plain side skirts are included in the kit, and if I'm not mistaken, that should be sufficient to build a regular M1A1, but it's odd that Rye Field didn't include an M1A1 AIM as one of the options on the kit title, and make it a 4 in 1. Am I missing something?

Hi. Instead of Rye Field 5004, i would choose
Meng model TS-032




Some parts in this kit are better than RFM, and you have 2 options. You can have USMC Abrams AIM, or regular US Army Abrams AIM.

Yes, the Rye Field 5004 kit can be built as a standard M1A1 AIM. All the parts are there for it.

Thanks for the thought. I actually have 2 of these on order, but was going to build both of these as USMC M1A1s.

Thanks, Gino. I kind of thought this was the case, based on looking at the sprues, but good to get a second opinion on this.

Hey guys,

Kind of going off topic on my own thread here, but wanted to write a few observations.

Yesterday, my order for a bunch of models came in, including my first Meng TS-032 USMC M1A1/ US Army M1A1 TUSK. I was amazed at the size of the box! Almost twice as big, in depth, as a Dragon M1A1 AIM. Just looking at the sprues, my initial impression is that the details are somewhat simplified, as others have noted, making it more like a Tamiya kit than, say, a Dragon model. I noted that there are a number of details that are molded onto the turret roof, for example, whereas Dragon and Rye Field have separate parts to glue in place. Not sure if these molded on details are better or worse, but first impression is that the details are a bit ‘softer’ than DML or Rye Field. I am wondering what aspects Grzegorz thought were better on the Meng model. This is not a slam at Meng, as I’ve built severail Meng models, and I love them, and I’ll reserve judgement on this tank until it’s all done, see how well it fits and what the details look like when all painted, etc. Since I have just been working on a Rye Field M1A1, the differences between the Meng and Rye Field are available to examine closely. We’ll see how it all turns out.

I don't have the RFM kit, but I do have the Meng TUSK II, Dragon SEP v2, and the Academy M1A2 TUSK I (w/ RFM tracks) available for comparison. I've built all three and applied the main camo, but have not done detailed painting or added the MGs on the turret roof. Comparing the three, they all have their pros and cons. To my eye, the Dragon kit is "slightly" more detailed than the other two, but far more frustrating/irritating to build. I have the SEP v1 kit in the box unstarted and I'm not sure if I'm ever going to tackle that beast. There is something to be said for the Tamiya kits. Not as detailed or accurate, but joy to build.

As I recall, the Academy kit was very detailed while being super easy to build with multiple options available. The only drawback was the rubber band tracks, which were slightly too long. If I had spare Tamiya rubber band tracks, I would have slapped those on. Since I didn't, I bought the RFM tracks and those were really nice.

The Meng kit goes together well, but there is flash on some of the smaller parts. It is very buildable, but requires a little bit more cleanup than the Academy kit. Also, the tracks are nice, but harder to build than RFM because the jig is not deep enough to hold the track pads. The turret is hard to rotate. I had to sand the two tabs that hold the turret to the hull down to make the turret rotate without potentially breaking something. However, I really like the workable suspension on this kit. Gimmicky, but I like it!!!

I enjoyed building the Academy and the Meng kits, including the individual track links. The Dragon kit was a chore.

If I could go back in time, I would just buy the version of the Academy kit with the DEF tracks.