NEWS: 1/35 VOIIO M1A2 SEP v.3

VOIIO is updating their v.2 kit to make it a v.3. The v.2 was not as detailed as Rye Field or Dragonbut went together OK. I can’t speak to it’s accuracy, though.

US Main Battle Tank M1A2 SEP V3 Abrams (Plastic model) - HobbySearch Military Model Store (

1 Like

Sounds like a kitbash is in order…

1 Like

Check here for some issues w/their M1A2 SEP v2 that they hopefully fix on the v3.

M1A2 SEP v3 - Armor/AFV / 1:1 Tank Talk - KitMaker Network

Boxart too.


1 Like

Reading this and the other thread, you’d get the impression that the Voiio model is a poor second place to the Rye and Dragon kits, but it really isn’t. The sprocket SNAFU is real, and the rubber-band tracks are simplified. But the Rye kit, whilst it is fine, has its own shortcomings - some missing and incorrect details on the turret roof, for example, which Voiio gets right. The Dragon V2 is pretty poor IMO - the base kit is nice, but the V2 parts are ‘Black Labelled’ and not to the standard of the rest of the kit.

Personally I think Voiio did a fine job on their first outing, but as every modeler focuses on different things, you can make up your own mind here.


I do not find the mistakes in the V2 Voiio kit as deal brakers. One can always source an aftermarket track and if he has built a couple other Abrams kits with extra wheel hub covers he can replace those as well.

If the price is right it might prove a good purchase.

My thoughts exactly. Most of the V2 parts on that kit are either dimensionally incorrect or with crude details.

Never said it was a bad kit, just that it has some issues that the modeler may want to fix. Pretty much all models have an issue somewhere. None are perfect.


Shouldn’t that be “Dragonbutt”



Good news!! Can´t wait!

1 Like

Too true.

So now back-from-the-dead Voiio have pitched their hat in the ring, who’s next to announce a V3? These things never come in ones.

1 Like

The big question is is the turret correct for a SEP V.3 as it has more Armor on the front of the turret

1 Like

If you can go by the box art (and how often have modelers been disappointed that way?) the front is correct - it has the “blunted” appearance on either side of the mantlet.


Well that was a weird typo :rofl:

1 Like

To each his own here. I’d still rate RFM M1A2 SEP V.2 1st, Academy and Voiio 2nd. Not even going to mention Dragon’s poor V2 parts. All kits have certain shortcomings and one can exercise some corrections using modeling skills and reference photos. Also, it’s a balancing act of price v. quality v. how much time/effort you want to spend on fixing errors.
If Voiio fixes those errors and gets V.3 right, it may be the best Abrams kit on the market. Or another disappointment. We shall see.


Yes, I respect your opinion, and I like the Rye kit a lot too, particularly for its options. This could end up as one of those how-may-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin discussions.

But beyond the goofs you already highlighted, in other places Voiio put some serious research into their V2 which I think deserve kudos. This pic shows some of the areas where Voiio scores over Rye Field - and in some cases Academy - and there are a few more.


Can you elaborate a bit on what you’re pointing out ?



  • Voiio captured the two welds on the gun rotor not on any other V2 kit.
  • There’s a conduit to the base of the CITV that Rye Field missed.
  • The base of the commander’s weapon station is wrongly shaped in the Rye kit - I think they copied it from the Dragon kit which is also wrong.
  • There’s a subtle bevel in front of the turret blow-off panels which Voiio captured but is missing from Rye, Dragon and Academy (Meng got it).

Other details not shown included:

  • There’s a bracket on the back of the GPS cover / CROWS mounting box / whatever you call it that only VOIIO spotted.
  • The bolted plate in front of the crosswind sensor is a raised box on the V2 - Rye and Dragon missed this.
  • There are extra reinforcing (?) bars on the base of the turrent bustle rack that VOIIO included.

And so on…

Don’t get me wrong - not representing myself as an Abrams expert, just have some great references. When I looked through in detail, it seemed to me VOIIO had done a great job. But they still messed up the sprockets…

1 Like

I remember seeing a side profile pic of the V.2 and V.3 turrets and on the V.3 is noticeably thicker
so I wonder if VOIIO captured that?

Going by their own pics, looks like they got it right

Matches the photos I took.