For the average modeler, most Tamiya kits get them a relatively good representation of whatever they want for a decent price, detail, fit and finish on their shelf. If folks look at them, they won’t know the issue either. It fits the walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, is a duck model for them and that is great. If someone wants more, it is typically a good canvas to work from or one can get a different kit. Not every project has to be the nines. Course some do feel that way (good for them) but most do not.
5 Likes
I wouldn’t go through all the troubles by starting with a Tamiya Abrams SEP kit. Like you said, just get the Academy M1A2 SEP, Dragon 3535, RFM M1A1/2, or Meng’s and go from there to minimize all the scratch-building or kit bashing.
1 Like
I wish that Tamiya would at least use their “updated” version of M1 like 35269 M1A2 OIF Tamiya M1A2 Abrams because it has enough parts to make M1A1HC, has better tracks, and more detailed than the one from the 1990s, while retaining the Tamiya’s ease of build. That way, they can appeal to both the casual builders and “rivet counters” or more serious builders. As shown, Tamiya just appears to be taking a lazy short-cut to make money and lost a certain market. I would never buy this kit for instance.
2 Likes
Surely any future kits that do come out accurately depicting western AFV support to Ukraine will have their own decals?
1 Like
+1 Bravo. Excellent reasoning.
1 Like
Hi Doug,
I agree with your rationale to a certain degree. Playing Devil’s advocate, here are some rebuttals.
-
Although Tamiya may be able to sell this 30-year old kit to a wide audience and receive a financial gain, they would forego an opportunity to attract a larger audience by not offering the more recent option (i.e. M1A2 OIF kit), which could balance the pros and cons, as well as preserving its reputation. As presented, it is leaving an awful taste in many seasoned modelers’ mouths as a money grabbing lazy short-cut opportunity. Tamiya may not care about their reputation much (it is the pioneer in this hobby regarded as reputable and venerable) but this planned release is likely not helping improve it. There would be a lot of criticizing reviews of this release on Amazon and eBay, etc. if Tamiya moves forward.
-
Like you mentioned, benefiting the humanity by buying the model kit would be minimal at best or far-fetched. People who care about the war most likely already have established stance about it, and it’s uncertain how buying a plastic kit would have any impact. For those who don’t really care about history, I do not think buying an Abrams kit would affect them somehow. Young people building kits leading to a book report and more interest in history probably does not occur often, and it’s hard to quantify how that is really good for the humanity, judging from the availability of all the kits based on past wars. Plus, many argue that we need less wars and less weapons of war. They could argue that interests in weapons of war and building kits replicating these weapons may actually lead to more tendency to support wars (which may be far-fetched also) - thus doing more harm to the civilization.
Also as devil’s advocate argument, plastic model hobby and industry surrounding it are not quite environmentally friendly. They are contributing to plastic waste and petroleum-based resource spending. There is a good amount of carbon footprint when people buy the kits. Not to mention all the toxicant exposures from adhesives, paint thinners, 3D print resins, etc., as well as their hazardous manufacturing processes and resources involving importing. One would argue that buying and building more plastic model kits does more harm to the environment and human health than not doing those.
You make valid points but there can be many counter arguments including above.
Kind regards,
James
2 Likes
that kit doesnt have the upgraded drivers hatch that is common to the M1A2 SEP and the M1A1HC
the drivers hatch has a lip on the front edge and the vision ports are different than the ones on the earlier M1A2 OIF kit
the drivers hatch on the sand colored A1 is not accurate for a A1HC the green one is my A2 SEP V.2
is the correct drivers hatch for a A1HC ( and all A2 variants)
notice the lip on it compared to the Sand colored early A1
1 Like
I’m sure there are a whole lot of other inaccuracies, outdated and simplified details in Tamiya Abrams kits. It’s choosing a lesser evil one.
the green Abrams is my Tamiya M1A2 SEP that i converted to a SEP V.2 and the Sand colored one is my Egyptian early M1A1
While I have no doubt this is a cynical move from Tamiya, if it helps capture the imagination of a new modeller who just wants to build something that represents what is being seen in Ukraine, then that can only be a good thing.
It was only after I’d built a load of inaccurate kits, honing my “not cutting my fingers” skills that I started to look at kits more critically.
2 Likes
I’m going to wait and see what Tamiya ends up putting in the box…
2 Likes
Hey James. Please pardon my delay responding to you. I am actually trying to get some models done.
With regards (1), the people at Tamiya definitely could design and release a brand new tool Leopard 2A6 with all fittings specific to the current war in the Ukraine. I submit a priori that they have the capability, know how, and resources for such a project.
Let’s examine this from a number of sides.
Does it make sense to create a new model in this fashion? Tamiya currently offers a Leopard 2A5, tooled in 2000, and a 2A6, based on the 2A5 with additional parts, tooled in 2003. Based on my reading, these models are generally regarded as good quality.
However, modern armor evolves quickly as vehicles receive updated systems. Since many nations use the Leopard 2A6, and each nation makes specific changes, the number of possible configurations is large and continues to grow over time.
The above means that any given Leopard 2A6 model, regardless of accuracy, will not accurately portray the great bulk of variants unless the model company includes extra parts to cover those variants. The model would also need detailed instructions to steer the builder to each proper configuration.
That is messy. Based on my reading, models with complicated options and instructions confuse the great bulk of customers including quite a few who frequent forums like this one. It seems logical for a model company to avoid confusion by focusing on a specific variant, which is what we usually see.
Based on the above, for any given vehicle at a point in time, the most customer friendly option requires making a new tool model covering the specific variant. However, Tamiya already makes a good Leopard 2A6 and tooling costs are expensive. What should the people at Tamiya do? Once again, I make an a priori assertion that most of their customers want a fairly quick, fairly easy, fairly accurate model with excellent fit, a minimum of fiddly parts, and easy to follow instructions. If the great bulk of my customers will not gain a large benefit from a new tool model, why make it?
There is another consideration. Tamiya has competitors who make Leopard 2A6 models. If the people at Tamiya make a super accurate Leopard 2A6, they will bump into those competitors. Further, a super accurate model will probably include many fiddly parts which most of their customers do not want. Therefore, new tool or not, it makes sense to please customers by keeping complication to a middling level. In doing that, the product automatically drifts away from perfect accuracy. How inaccurate can the product be and still please customers?
Of course, now we are back to, how come the people at Tamiya do not make a new tool kit that is fairly quick, fairly easy, and fairly accurate with good fit and good instructions? To me, it seems obvious they are not making such a kit because they feel they already have a model that meets those major criteria.
To be clear, I would very much enjoy the hypothetical, new tool Leopard 2A6 that is very accurate and very easy to build.
With regards ‘money grab’, I do not think such a thing exists. It is fiction. As things stand today, anyone can do a little research, weight cost versus benefit, and make an informed purchase decision on pretty much anything. If a product does not meet your needs at the price offered, do not purchase it.
With regards (2), I strongly disagree with your assertions. We now live in a world awash with information. If some object captures the interest of a person, he or she can quickly look it up, read about it, watch videos about it, and gain a level of knowledge unheard of 30 years ago, and all for free. Every single person I know does this on a regular basis, including children.
The vast majority of people have very full lives. They are not watching news coverage every evening. Poll after poll shows that most people, regardless of nation, have a very tenuous grasp on current events, history, and political machinations. It is relatively rare for a person to take time away from real life to pursue self directed history research.
Yet, models do spur people to pursue self directed history research. Every single person in this forum does it. People who go to a museum and look at models do it. People who play a game like World of Tanks do it and quickly find themselves looking at a whole bunch of models.
With regards models and ecology, I am fairly certain that a model embodies less oil than a gallon or two of gasoline. A tank of gas is probably equivalent to a year or five of models. I am fairly certain that a study of model builders would show they consume less energy per unit time while building a model versus many other activities, especially anything that involves driving. Plastic in the environment is a real issue and I have no solution for it but many smart people are working on the problem. If nuclear fusion ever becomes a thing, every trash dump on the planet will become a gold mine.
With regards models of military machines fostering hate, I would argue that the people who seek to cancel history are some of the most ignorant and hateful people on the planet. People who spend their time studying history quickly become acutely aware of human failings and want to avoid repeating the errors of the past. Here I assume a good student of history employs critical thinking skills rather than dogmatically adhering to a point of view despite contradictory information.
I strongly believe that model builders, as amateur historians, are gatekeepers of history. Much like the wise men of old, they make the world a better place by inspiring and teaching the young, setting them on a path to greater knowledge and self reflection.
All right. Enough of that. Back to work.
3 Likes
Doug, I’ll simply agree to disagree.
@rfbaer, I’ll also take your approach of just waiting and seeing what Tamiya ends up doing. 
2 Likes
I think that Tamiya would benefit from using 3D printing to update parts in their kits as the 1:1 vehicles are updated. That way they can avoid massive tooling costs AND can cheaply offer multiple variants (say, Leopard 2 German, Canadian, Ukrainian, etc.) to the market.
2 Likes
Lee,
I have my doubts that Tamiya is going to get into 3D printing business. 3D modeling is not cheap when you consider the labor cost (because it takes a lot of time to CAD - I know from experience because I have been 3D printing), and if Tamiya sells the aftermarket parts, they are not going to be cheap.
It is pretty tempting for me to CAD and 3D print the update parts - not that I don’t have enough on my plate already. I’ll probably end up CADding some. 
1 Like
I respectfully disagree and here’s why: they’re already doing CAD on an industrial scale, and I’d bet all the yen in the world that they’re using 3D printers for prototyping (at least) already. If they can afford to create industrial molds for styrene, they can absolutely afford to switch some parts over to 3D printing - probably cheaper too. I buy miniature figures from a company called Reaper; they are switching over from metal to plastic and their newest figures will be 3D printed instead of injection molded. They aren’t nearly as big as Tamiya but they can afford the printing.
1 Like
Lee,
We shall see, and only time will tell.
Basing on Tamiya’s past business model, they have largely stayed away from making aftermarket parts for all the decades they have been in business. They have sold limited number of separate PEs and metal parts. No resin wheels or 3D prints all along. Also talking to some AM vendors in the East Asia, they feel safe from future competition from Tamiya (at least in the foreseeable future). Sure, things can change but I doubt it because the profit margin in 3D printing is so small - I know from experience.
Sure, Tamiya may already be using 3D printing for protypes but that doesn’t mean they’ll switch from injection molding for AM part business. Detailed 3D printing is still slower than injection molding and injection molding’s inital high cost is off set by faster mass quantity production. I work in the manufacturing sector, and my company heavily relies on injection molding, while 3D printing is limited to prototype creation and OOP part replacements. There are certain advantages to injection molding, and it’s really difficult to change the manufacturing processes just for minimal profit.
As to possible Tamiya 3D print prices (if they make them), I said not cheap judging from its current PE or metal barrel offerings. They’re limted and costly.
We’ll see.
Kind regards,
James
I should clarify; I’m not talking about Tamiya pumping out aftermarket add-on kits (even though they do that for motorcycles and some tanks already); I’m talking about swapping out parts in variant kits to correct or update them. Instead of just adding decals to an existing Leopard and calling it ‘Ukrainian’, add any variant parts needed to update it to what the Ukrainians are receiving. Expensive? Maybe, but less than the cost of cutting new molds.
It looks like Border Models is jumping into the game as well. This one should be more up to date and correct than the Tamiya one.
5 Likes
Woo hoo! Looks good!
Ken
2 Likes