TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

This board is for talk about tanks after WW2. The ups and downs. The ins and outs. All of it here.
User avatar
tomhugill
Captain
Posts: 4745
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 11:21 am

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by tomhugill »

tankme wrote:Since I already owned the HL Abrams from years ago and seeing the soft or wrong Tamiya details I decided to detail the HL out and not buy the Tamiya version. For what it costs you would think that they would've done better with the details.
What's wrong with the tamiya?
User avatar
c.rainford73
Major
Posts: 6104
Joined: Thu Aug 25, 2016 7:34 pm
Location: Connecticut USA

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by c.rainford73 »

You have done an outstanding job with your efforts to make this static kit come to life! The sounds are well done and it's all very impressive :thumbup:
Tanks alot.... :wave:
kintaroukinji
Lance Corporal
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:46 am

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by kintaroukinji »

tankme wrote:Since I already owned the HL Abrams from years ago and seeing the soft or wrong Tamiya details I decided to detail the HL out and not buy the Tamiya version. For what it costs you would think that they would've done better with the details.
Thanks for your comment.
I do not think that TAMIYA is wrong at all. Certainly TAMIYA is expensive, but its strength and overall quality are considerably better than cheap HL. The outer shape of HL's M1A2 is basically a copy of TAMIYA's old 1/35 MM series. Even though it is 1/16 TAMIYA, its detail and texture are better than HL. However, I feel dissatisfied with the details compared to the latest 1/35 scale model. I have remodeled several HL tanks, but I do not think that it was a mistake to select the TAMIYA display model for RC remodeling this time.
kintaroukinji
Lance Corporal
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:46 am

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by kintaroukinji »

c.rainford73 wrote:You have done an outstanding job with your efforts to make this static kit come to life! The sounds are well done and it's all very impressive :thumbup:
Thanks for your comment. It is easiest to assemble TAMIYA's full operation, but there is no extensibility of the function as the completed one is nothing more than the TAMIYA full operation kit. Then I thought that there was not much interest in making RC models.
kintaroukinji
Lance Corporal
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:46 am

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by kintaroukinji »

The M153 CROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station) mounted on US military vehicles is very few even modeled on the 1/35 scale. The 1 / 16th CROWS model is so hard to get, so I ordered it as soon as I found a 3D printed product in Shapeways HP. However, the white natural versatile plastic of this 3D printed product is a very hard material with rough surface. The surface does mot hardly become smooth by only paper sanding.

If I choose the option of another material Fine Detail Plastic, the surface must be smooth but the price is quite high. I stopped the surface treatment at an appropriate level and painted it. As a result, although it takes some time and effort, I feel that I could somehow make this model by using plastic and brass materials. Anyway, I was able to save the time and effort for the survey and work required to scratch this CROWS model.

Next, I cut the barrel of the M2 machine gun in this kit in order to enable the MG to flicker. After cutting, for the new barrel, a 2.5 mm diameter plastic tube (tapered toward the tip) is used, and two enamell wires with LED chip soldered to the end are inserted in the tube. This is my favorite method, and I think it is a method that can flicker easily and inexpensively without affecting the appearance of fine parts where optical fibers are difficult to insert. However, it is necessary to solder a thin enameled wire to a very small LED chip.

This picture shows the condition that the LED is lit experimentally.

I planned to mount this directly on the rangefinder on the turret, but for a real tank, the CROWS seems to be attached to a dedicated mount. Although the detailed whole shape of the mount can not be seen well only from a real tank photograph, I found a wonderful 3D CG image.
After all, I have no choice but to make this mount with plastic plate etc referring to this image and the real tank photograph. I will do this little by little as part of the detailing up.
Attachments
MG flickered
MG flickered
MG flickered
MG flickered
User avatar
tankme
Warrant Officer 1st Class
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Elgin, TX
Contact:

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by tankme »

tomhugill wrote:
tankme wrote:Since I already owned the HL Abrams from years ago and seeing the soft or wrong Tamiya details I decided to detail the HL out and not buy the Tamiya version. For what it costs you would think that they would've done better with the details.
What's wrong with the tamiya?
I would agree that the Tamiya 1/16 offering was molded from the Tamiya 1/35 offering. The problem with that is that the old Tamiya 1/35 offering is highly regarded as one of the worst M1A2 Abrams models on the market. Academy, Meng, and Dragon all make better, more accurate Abrams models that have been released before this kit. I have over a dozen books of reference on the M1, M1A1 and M1A2. I also own the Academy and Dragon 1/35 kits. I previously owned the 1/35 Tamiya M1 kit. I do think Tamiya did a wonderful job engineering the R/C aspects of the kit.

Things wrong or I don't like - no troop phone on rear, no NATO charging port on rear, upper rear lifting handles are round and solid (they should be square profile and hollow in the middle), solid squares on the front near the fenders (should be hollow), handle molded solid on loader's hatches, smoke dischargers are poorly modeled, ammo can holders on the front of the turret storage racks are missing, all of the filler caps are molded with soft details, all of the storage bin handles are molded badly on turret and hull, missing mine plow connection on the front of the tank, missing driver's hatch stop, wrong version of blow off hatches are in the kit for an A2, missing details on loaders hatch, missing GPS antenna, missing Blue Force Tracking system, missing all the upper bolt detail for the track skirts, fender retaining springs are molded in to the top of the fender but not along the side of the fender, one of the long engine covers is missing the grill and not sloped correctly, mounting holes for the counter sniper machine gun are missing on the two outer tabs on the mantlet, handles missing on the CIP panels, mud holes missing from sprockets, tow cable mounting hooks are molded onto the cable and not on the tank itself...

Those are just things I can see from pics I've seen on the internet. Overall the entire rear section of the tank is setup like an A1 model. An A1 model would have the generator on the left rear (with filler cover). The A2 should have a battery box back there with 3 distinct panels and no filler port. Even for an A1 the exhaust port is missing. I personally would convert the plastic footloops to actual cable and make real rubber type mud guards on the fenders. I can forgive them using the older turret bustle based compressor unit and not the new VCU (Vapor Compression Unit) since there was a transition period, but they put the new VCU on their Tusk2 1/35 kit in 2013. So why didn't they include it on this model? I can also forgive the missing DUKE system and the missing 3rd antenna mount behind the right storage box.

So with all of my research on the Abrams that's what I feel they did poorly. I'm sure if I had my hands on the actual kit I could find more things to fix.
Derek
Too many project builds to list...
User avatar
tankme
Warrant Officer 1st Class
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Elgin, TX
Contact:

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by tankme »

kintaroukinji wrote:The M153 CROWS (Common Remotely Operated Weapon Station) mounted on US military vehicles is very few even modeled on the 1/35 scale. The 1 / 16th CROWS model is so hard to get, so I ordered it as soon as I found a 3D printed product in Shapeways HP. However, the white natural versatile plastic of this 3D printed product is a very hard material with rough surface. The surface does mot hardly become smooth by only paper sanding.

If I choose the option of another material Fine Detail Plastic, the surface must be smooth but the price is quite high. I stopped the surface treatment at an appropriate level and painted it. As a result, although it takes some time and effort, I feel that I could somehow make this model by using plastic and brass materials. Anyway, I was able to save the time and effort for the survey and work required to scratch this CROWS model.

Next, I cut the barrel of the M2 machine gun in this kit in order to enable the MG to flicker. After cutting, for the new barrel, a 2.5 mm diameter plastic tube (tapered toward the tip) is used, and two enamell wires with LED chip soldered to the end are inserted in the tube. This is my favorite method, and I think it is a method that can flicker easily and inexpensively without affecting the appearance of fine parts where optical fibers are difficult to insert. However, it is necessary to solder a thin enameled wire to a very small LED chip.

This picture shows the condition that the LED is lit experimentally.

I planned to mount this directly on the rangefinder on the turret, but for a real tank, the CROWS seems to be attached to a dedicated mount. Although the detailed whole shape of the mount can not be seen well only from a real tank photograph, I found a wonderful 3D CG image.
After all, I have no choice but to make this mount with plastic plate etc referring to this image and the real tank photograph. I will do this little by little as part of the detailing up.
kintaroukinji,

I probably bought the same CROWS from Shapeways that you did. I haven't got it yet, but yours does look very nice. The 1/35 Dragon kit I have has the CROWS system on it. I have attached Doghouse mount pics. Sorry they are a little blurry. My camera doesn't do well on small objects. This assembly is mounted over the existing Doghouse. The CROWS mount to it. The hinge allows it to be folded down to the left for storage or clearance during transport.
Attachments
The round portion is a spring
The round portion is a spring
101_0223.JPG (82.51 KiB) Viewed 8258 times
101_0222.JPG
101_0222.JPG (94.35 KiB) Viewed 8258 times
101_0221.JPG
101_0221.JPG (77.16 KiB) Viewed 8258 times
101_0220.JPG
101_0220.JPG (86.14 KiB) Viewed 8258 times
101_0218.JPG
101_0218.JPG (70.83 KiB) Viewed 8258 times
Derek
Too many project builds to list...
kintaroukinji
Lance Corporal
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:46 am

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by kintaroukinji »

Thank you for your information. I did not know that Dragon had released 1/35 M1A2 with CROWS on the market. I did not know what kind of function the spring-like hinge on the CROWS mount had. Is there any benefit to folding down the mount to the left with the hinge during transport? I wonder if it will be compact by doing so.
User avatar
tankme
Warrant Officer 1st Class
Posts: 1947
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:51 pm
Location: Elgin, TX
Contact:

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by tankme »

I think they fold it down whenever the tank it being transported by rail, air, or ship just so it doesn't hit anything. They also fold down the wind sensor. Both lower the overall height of the tank. I know I've seen pics of a Navy landing ships that had a really low cargo hold ceiling. They fold it down or it won't clear the ceiling. Here is a shot of it folded, but this looks like it might be the newer PROTECTOR low profile CROWs. Once it's folded down it rests on two rubber blocks. Second pic is of the original one folded.
original.jpg
4f63edb82c7007197c1608f1caf59f85.jpg
4f63edb82c7007197c1608f1caf59f85.jpg (40.83 KiB) Viewed 8130 times
Derek
Too many project builds to list...
kintaroukinji
Lance Corporal
Posts: 156
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:46 am

Re: TAMIYA M1A2 Displaymodel

Post by kintaroukinji »

tankme wrote:I think they fold it down whenever the tank it being transported by rail, air, or ship just so it doesn't hit anything. They also fold down the wind sensor. Both lower the overall height of the tank. I know I've seen pics of a Navy landing ships that had a really low cargo hold ceiling. They fold it down or it won't clear the ceiling. Here is a shot of it folded, but this looks like it might be the newer PROTECTOR low profile CROWs. Once it's folded down it rests on two rubber blocks. Second pic is of the original one folded.
original.jpg
4f63edb82c7007197c1608f1caf59f85.jpg
Thank you very much for your valuable photos. I was looking for a such picture. I thought that the overall height would not change so much when CROWS was folded sideways. I found that the CROWS became compact when the machine gun was removed, turned 90 degrees from the front and folded to the side.
Post Reply

Return to “Modern Tanks”