Is the Ablative Armor Model 23 or Model 24?
When tooling around the internet looking for strange Iron Man armors, you'll probably run across Axol, the Ablative Armor. And when you do, some of the highest Google search results might make you do a double-take when you look at the model number. One popular site has it listed as Iron Man Model 24, another as Model 23. In fact, the top result on Google has it as Model 24. (Psst, Google…I want to be the top result.)
So, which site messed up? Well, neither. And which got it right? Well, that’s a long story…
According To Tony, It’s the “Ablative Armor Mark 1”
“You’re a bad, bad armor.” It’s meant to be degraded.
This is the part that even I forget about.
In the first look we get of Axol, Tony says, “It’s a prototype — The Ablative Armor Mark 1. Ablative, meaning that it’s meant to be degraded as it gets hit.” Since it’s meant for “space exploration in impact-rich environments,” he was armoring himself against the dangers in space, not a typical Iron Man enemy. I’m not sure if Tony really ever anticipated using the Ablative Armor in combat. In that way, it’s not so much the next version of an Iron Man armor as it is a new vehicle altogether. Note that he uses the designation mark instead of model. That’s probably why he called it Mark 1. The model designation is only used for fan reference, not by Tony.
Still, that doesn’t mean it can’t be known as two things. For example, the original Space Armor from the comics is Mark 5, but more space armors have come along so that the first one is often called Space Armor 1. (Here’s a blog about the Iron Man’s space armors if you’d like to know more.)
So Is It Model 23 or Model 24?
Left: All-New Iron Manual
Right: Iron Manual TPB
Turns out, it’s all Hulkbuster’s fault
Let me explain. The All-New Iron Manual came out with a cover date of July 2008 and labeled Ablative Armor Iron Man as Model 24. Considering comics often come out a couple of months before their cover date, this issue probably launched around the same time as the Iron Man movie on May 2.
Later that year, Marvel released the Iron Manual trade paperback (TPB) with a movie-themed cover, probably to coincide with the release of the movie on DVD and Blu-ray. The trade brought together material from many sources, including the All-New Iron Manual. This was the first time the Ablative Armor was known as Model 23.
So What Happened?
The earlier release, the All-New Iron Manual, considered the Modular armor (Model 13) and the Hulkbuster (Model 14) separate armors. The Iron Manual TPB did away with the Hulkbuster as a separate armor, since it was simply an add-on to the Modular armor. This makes a lot of sense; if the Modular armor added a space backpack or an arm canon, you wouldn’t consider the pieces to be separate armors. In simplest terms, the Hulkbuster was just a bunch of extra parts around the Modular’s core.
Because the Iron Manual TPB labels both the Modular and Hulkbuster as Model 13, all subsequent mark numbers were reduced by one. Axol dropped from Model 24 to Model 23.
Pictured: numerical nightmare (also, Roomba shoulders)
Couldn’t It Be Argued…
…that because the Hulkbuster in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (Earth-199999) got its own model designation, maybe the Marvel Comics Universe (Earth-616) Hulkbuster should also be considered its own model? After all, both formed with another armor at its core.
Considering we’re dealing with two completely different continuities, I see no reason why the different Tony Starks couldn’t count their armors differently. But since the All-New Iron Manual and the Iron Manual TPB are both in the Earth-616 continuity, one has to be more accurate.
So He’s Model 23?
This one, right? Can we get a ruling already?!
Because the Iron Manual TPB came out after the All-New Iron Manual, I think Model 23 is more accurate. The editor must have known Iron Man lore enough to correct the Hulkbuster numbering. If it had been any other two armors with the same number, I would consider it a misprint. But because it happened to the Modular and its add-on, I can’t help but think it’s intentional.
Two more comics have come out calling themselves Iron Manuals, one in 2010 and one in 2020. Neither had a complete list of armors or identified the models by number. That means the Iron Manual TPB from 2008 is the most recent to do so.
Or is it?
Can we just end this article already?!
The Adobe Flash game Marvel: Avengers Alliance released in 2012. While the Ablative Armor didn’t appear in that game, two comic book armors did…with their old All-New Iron Manual numbering system. (Example: The Space Ghost Iron Man armor is called Model 35 in the video game, but should be Model 34 according to the arguments made above.)
I’m going to dismiss the Marvel: Avengers Alliance numbering system for three reasons:
The game takes place on Earth-12131, not the Earth-616 that nearly all Marvel continuity takes place in. In fact, this is the first appearance of Earth-12131.
It’s probably just a case of the game developer using the “wrong” source material and no one at Marvel checking to make sure — or caring if — they got it right.
The Ablative isn’t in the game. In fact, the game only uses two armors known in the comics, Models 4 and 34 (labeled in the game as Model 4 and 35). It even uses four armors from the Iron Man movies (Earth-199999), including <sigh> — Hulkbuster.
You ruin everything.
And yes, I just referred to the MCU Hulkbuster as its own armor by including it as one of “four armors.” Sue me. (Unless you’re the copyright holder for the above image. In which case, please don’t sue me.)
Clear As Mud?
The Marvel Comic universe has seen at least 22 new Iron Man armors since 2008 (plus War Machines and Rescues and Ironhearts) so I think it’s time for an update. A revised and complete Iron Manual might put this all to rest.
Until then, I have to go with Model 23. Wanna argue about it? Contact me or visit my Ablative Armor Iron Man Facebook page!
