Best Of Detailing the Micro-Trains DODX M1 Abrams Tank Sets

[Jesse6669]

I was going through some old photos today and happened upon this, thought I would share as it might be useful for reference to paint/detail your M1A1's
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[pjm20]

Note that the MTL Abrams is an M1A2, not an M1A1. Very few Army units still use the A1, but the Marines use A1s. Easy spotting feature, the column looking device (CITV) on the right side of the turret when the turret is viewed from the front. (Pic above is of an A2, you can see the CITV on just above the left top corner of the wooden shipping crate.)

[pjm20]

Should be able too, the IM cars have max capacity of 77tons, and the heaviest M1A2 is 73.6tons

About to change with the SEP4 package to around 80 tons.

[Ike the BN Freak]

Wonder how difficult it will be to backdate the MTL M1A2 to an A1, being I model 92-94, figured the A1s will be all over then

[pjm20]

I would think removing the CITV would really be all you would need for the A1. Note that A2s did come out in 1992.

[Wolf N Works]

Pretty quick actually... just cut off the CITV down to the first protrusion / ridge.

[CHUCKGEO]

I've received my Trumpeter (no flash, all parts cleaned and separated) AAVP7A1 Amphibious Units (1/144) at L: 27', W: 11', & H: 11', and MicroTrains (sprues you'd almost expect on a 1/25th model) Abrams M1A2 Tanks (1/160) at L: 26', W: 12', & H: 8'. Obviously, I expected there to be a size difference, but they should look good on separate flats. What I didn't expect was the fine detail on the Trumpeter models, and the poor detail on the MT Tanks. And here I paid significantly more for the MT Abrams (almost twice). The Trumpeter has see through track/wheel assembly, panel separation depth, and fine details, where the MT track/wheel assembly is so shallow, there is already a "garage" industry for replacement. Plus body detail is truly lacking on the Abrams. I give Trumpeter AAAAA Plus, and MT 💩💩💩💩 (I'd give a fifth, but I subtracted one pile for trying). Now to wait on my Dragon (which I know have good detail) MRLV Rocket Launch Units, and the mixed MT Abrams set from Fifer, to arrive.

[CHUCKGEO]

Received 45 links per inch blackened chain and thin wire from "crescentlocomotiveworks" (ebay seller). Chain is so small, I at first mistook it for the chain. Well worth it as hold down for N scale loads (plus inexpensive, he sells by the foot) and very reasonable shipping. Also received two US Navy gray flats. My military vehicles will be painted in my own winter camo design, as I model Alaska Railroad. Somehow I've accumulated 10 Abrams, 4 MRLS, and 4 Amphibians, plus eleven flats to go with them. Now I need to paint my three undecorated locos for military, and decal them. This is getting out of hand.

[peteski]

While I appreciate models with fine details, I think we have to remember what is each companies bread-n-butter.

Trumpeter is a specialized plastic model kit manufacturer concentrating mostly on military models.  They also produce kits in large quantities.  That amortizes the R&D and mold-making costs. They can afford to make super-detailed models and still price them to sell. Since the military models are their mainstream models and that model field is full of competing companies, they make models with lots of details to stay competitive.

Micro Trains is a small model train manufacturer.  They focus on N and Z scale model trains (which they do quite well).  I'm sure the quantity of models in their runs is a fraction of what Trumpeter makes.  So a larger percentage of their R&D and mold-making cost is passed onto consumer.  Those military vehicles are basically an add-on item for their flat cars.  Because of all that, they are fairly simple models.

As I see it you are comparing a Lexus with a Toyota Avalon.

[Mark W]

I must be missing something.  Based on the comparison photo shared on facebook, the molding on the MT tank is clearly superior (even if only because of it's brand new age). 
Yes, the treads on the trumpeter kit are more detailed, but the rest of the level of detail is the same.  And either the trumpeter hull is made from a heavily worn mold, or just plain sloppy.  No crisp details anywhere on the hull, where as the MT shows much more crisp details, even in this low res picture. 


https://i.imgur.com/rvnMKiA.jpg


Comparison aside, both models are sure to offer great fun putting hobby skills to use! We'll look forward to seeing your results!

[CHUCKGEO]

You can't see all the panel lines on the Amphibian due to the camera flash (my fault). Detail such as grills and other indented details are far superior to the MT tank. The wheels/tread, and open (see through) casting alone is several magnitudes above the MT part.  If you could view the items in person, you would see what you assume you're missing (and I believe appreciate the design and workmanship of the Trumpeter model).

Plus, the MT Abrams in the two unit box, with shipping cost, was more than twice the total cost of two Trumpeter Amphibians (with shipping. I received four for less than $24).  The only drawback is the obvious 1/144th scale of the Trumpeter product. But by not attaching the upper weapons pod, and fabricating a small hatch, this simple fix will reduce the overall height, and give the visual impression of comparable size when placed on the flatcar.

I can also agree that MT would likely produce a better train car than Trumpeter or Dragon, just as Trumpeter or Dragon would issue a better detailed military item. And thanks for both your input, enjoy your trains, and have a great Holliday Season.  Chuck

[John]

You can't see all the panel lines on the Amphibian due to the camera flash (my fault). Detail such as grills and other indented details are far superior to the MT tank. The wheels/tread, and open (see through) casting alone is several magnitudes above the MT part.  If you could view the items in person, you would see what you assume you're missing (and I believe appreciate the design and workmanship of the Trumpeter model).

Plus, the MT Abrams in the two unit box, with shipping cost, was more than twice the total cost of two Trumpeter Amphibians (with shipping. I received four for less than $24).  The only drawback is the obvious 1/144th scale of the Trumpeter product. But by not attaching the upper weapons pod, and fabricating a small hatch, this simple fix will reduce the overall height, and give the visual impression of comparable size when placed on the flatcar.

I can also agree that MT would likely produce a better train car than Trumpeter or Dragon, just as Trumpeter or Dragon would issue a better detailed military item. And thanks for both your input, enjoy your trains, and have a great Holliday Season.  Chuck

I've seen closeout on the Trumpeters for less than $3 per copy .. with free shipping !!!!  Also, if the detail is good, you could always get some OOMOO and "shrink the mold" to make it closer to 1/160 ..  I'm going to play with that process some over the holidays ..  if it works, I have some Bradley and other 1/144 vehicles I would like to shrink

[Mark W]

...Detail such as grills and other indented details are far superior to the MT tank...

Can you get us a high-res pic?  If you're saying this detail on the MTL tank is poop, then I gotta see what beats it! 


https://i.imgur.com/ENhPPrJ.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/apuK77H.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/Bkdbliv.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/Azro14J.jpg

[John]

That looks really good .. how did you distress the top of the flat?

[John]

I have some M113 1/144 models .. I wanted to convert one to an M577 Command Post vehicle .. these are fairly close to good size .. only 3mm too long, and just about the right width ..  I know this isn't M1A1

Anyway -- here is the result ..