"WWII Infantry size comparison (6mm, 10mm, 15mm 20mm & 28mm)" Topic

I posted earlier with a picture comparing 6mm, 10mm, 15mm and 20mm Sherman tanks. I thought I'd also do the same with some WWII infantry; I've included 28mm as well this time.

I hope it helps any new gamers that haven't had a chance to see the various sizes next to each other before. I know a couple of years ago I hadn't seen 10mm and I ended up buying a pack just to see what they looked like.

picture

Very well done.

Yes, Very nicely done! That should help many to understand and visualize the different scales/sizes.

Tom Dye
GFI

Great work indeed! This should be permanently posted somewhere, that way next time someone asks "what's the difference between the scales", can save a lot of time.

My I take the pics and put them on the Mainly28s site?

le Comte du Flandre
mainly28s.com

It shows a comparison between scales, although the BF 15mm may not have been a good choice as both QRF and Peter Pig figs (which I have here) are 1-2mm shorter.

Geoff
(See, I knew BF/FoW figures were 20mm really) ;-)

Thanks guys.

Comte – Feel free to take them and use them on your site.

Geoff – I agree that the Battlefront miniature is not necessarily the best choice, but it was the only one I had to hand at the time that was unpainted. It's also why I put two measurements in, one with base and one without. This weekend I'll do a picture showing a Skytrex 15mm Command Decision German next to a Battlefront German to show the possible variance in size between different companies figures. The difference without the height of the base is: Battlefront 18mm – Skytrex 16mm. With the base it is: Battlefront 20mm – Skytrex 17mm. So it's a whopping 2 – 3mm difference depending on how you measure. Of course it's not just the height that makes the difference; it's the bulk as well.

I'm going to do one more comparison across the sizes with jeeps. They will all be with drivers as it really helps give a sense of size seeing the figures with the vehicle, and the difference between them is really something.

If anyone else wants to use the size comparison pictures feel free. I did them to help illustrate the difference in figure sizes for those that haven't seen them together, so the more people it helps the better.

Really usefull (I'm just deciding which ww2 scale to start). Of course could be also better using at least a couple of producers for scale (ie. pp/fow, britannia/shq, etcetc)

Elianto (aka Cristiano)
mondialterei.wordpress.com

Elianto – I agree that having a comparison of different manufacturers' figures in the same size/ scale would be useful. I was however restricted by what I have at the moment. Now that I've started I'll try and get samples from different manufacturers to show the size comparisons. Glad you found it of some use though.

Thank you, Sparrowhawk. Look for it on the site soon.

The "same scale/size" comparison for WW2 is available at Mainly 28s- in 25-28mm (or even 30mm, depending on how you measure).
The site has been revamped a little, and is now easier to navigate.
I'm gradually expanding to other periods and eras of interest, so if there is a period or area of interest you'd like to see added, feel free to give me a shout via the site, or let the relevant manufacturers contact me.

le Comte du Flandre
mainly28s.com

Thank you very much SparrowHawk for your efforts on behalf of the wargaming community!

I/S

It shows a comparison between scales, although the BF 15mm may not have been a good choice as both QRF and Peter Pig figs (which I have here) are 1-2mm shorter.

Quite so Geoff. Also I would have said SHQ aren't typical of 20mm figures. I would put them firmly at the small end of the 20mm market. A Brittania or Raventhorpe figure would much bigger.

The difference without the height of the base is: Battlefront 18mm – Skytrex 16mm. With the base it is: Battlefront 20mm – Skytrex 17mm. So it's a whopping 2 – 3mm difference depending on how you measure. Of course it's not just the height that makes the difference; it's the bulk as well.

I was deliberately playing on the safer side, as I obviously have a declared bias. ;-)

Their bases are quite thick, but even so BF are on the top end (both in height and bulk) of the 15mm market.

Aren't the 15mm scale (and all 'mm' scales) supposed to be to the eyes, not the top of the helmet?

I thought this was because various headgear (especially in napoleonic eras) is so variable?

I think that's the debatable point.

15mm from sole to eyes makes measuring easier, but it does mean the scale changes. It also depends what you use as your benchmark height to scale against (unlike tanks, people vary in size). Don't forget also that the average height is different now than it was 100 or so years ago, and also that it varies around the world.

The pose can also have quite a dramatic affect, as the 15mm measurement should be on a totally upright figure. However few poses are strictly upright, so if anything there should be few 15mm figures that actually reach 15mm in height.

As Allen often points out, the difference in height and bulk may be less of a factor, so much as the variation in scale of the equipment carried. Generally, thicker guns are done for ease of casting, as it will reduce breakages (either in removing them from the mould or later) or miscasts. However it also serves to arm the figures with tree trunks rather than rifles, which tend to be quite slender in true scale. This probably holds less true for larger scales, as you start to get above the minimum practical/optimal thickness for casting.

Geoff

Hi guys,

I've taken on board the points brought up. But please bear in mind that this was done at the spur of the moment to help out a guy in another post. I could only work with the figures I had to hand. I chose to measure to the top of the head, as for WWII figures it makes little difference. I don't know enough about how scale/ size should be measured and simply went with what I thought would help illustrate the difference between them. When I get time to do a few more comparisons of figures I'll do some of figures in the same size/ scale from different manufacturers.

Cheers for now
Sparrowhawk

You did fine, great job.

Agreed, it was an excellent job of comparison between the scales. Well done.

Sorry to bring up an old thread, but Sparrowhawk, I'd like to use that image in proposals and size discussions, if you don't mind being properly credited as "Sparrowhawk."

Best,
JBR
johnbearross.com

Very useful – that 6mm fig looks to me like a Heroics & Ross artilleryman (based on the base and pose), but it is a bit tall for H&R. Maybe it is GHQ??? Baccus do a nice comparison of the different '6mm' figures.