"1:100 and 15mm" Topic

I'm sold on the matching of 1:100 and 15mm. Visually, it works. Figures in 'contemporary' 15mm, and tanks/vehicles in 1:100.

What about equipment? Is equipment made to match the vehicles, or (~1:106) to match the figures? Guns? MMGs?

I'm just wondering what people think – no criticism is being implied or 'set up' …

Phil

Cool….another discussion on 'scale'……only kidding.

Generally there seems to be a huuuge variance in size of weaponry. Guns vary greatly from manufacturer to manufacturer. I would make all mine at 1:100 beacuse it's simple!

There's more variation in size between manufacturer's than between the nominal scales.

Also typically weapons are much thicker than scale; they might be 1/100 long, but 1/60 wide….

Yes – I was thinking about things like ATRs, small Anti-tank guns etc. Are designers making them to the scale of the men, to the scale of the vehicles or just 'what looks right'?

Yes :-)

Seriously though, there is an issue between 'scale' and 'castable'. Too thick and they have tree trunks, too thin and they fail to cast, bend and/or break.

I tend to go for 1/100 scale weapons, so if anything they 'should' be slightly on the big (long and thick) side for a 'true' 15mm figure and thick enough to cast. In 'scale' that should make them a little too thick (which does make me question the overlong tree trunks that some people give them).

Presumably you are talking about 18mm '15mm'? I mean 18mm to the top of the head about 16.5mm to the eyes because 18mm to the eyes would be 20mm which is 1/87. 15mm at 1/100 is 4'11" which would only be to the chin or shoulder maybe, we haven't started measuring to the chin now have we? That would make old 25mm 21.5mm and 28mm 24mm 15mm would be 13mm and 18mm 15.5mm, 28mm would now be 32mm tall and that's not even talking heroic.

Just so we're clear.

No, I'm talking about manufacturers like Peter Pig, Battlefront and (Geoff will correct me if I'm wrong) QRF, who openly indicate that their ranges are 15mm figures and 1:100 vehicles (which is a mismatch, but which seems to work nicely).

I have some newer and older Peter Pig figures by my desk, and the newer ones look better fed and have larger heads than the older ones (not silly but certainly chunky). They are 15mm. A 1mm difference between old and new if that. An imaginable 15mm (maybe 15.5) to the top of the head, 17mm in the calipers from the underside of the base to the top of the helmet (for a figure which is pretty upright).

Not 18mm.

The vehicles are 1:100 (I've been modifying and scratchbuilding some components so have been working to scale with vehicles I can happily say are 1:100).

So I'm quite happy to confirm … 15mm figures and 1:100 vehicles and the match looks fine.

My sole question was to ponder, with gear that falls between 'figures' and 'vehicles', which scale do they go with (the vehicle scale, the figure scale, or an intuitive blend)?*

Scale creep in the figures is a different topic really …

Phil
*e.g. I have removed a BF Italian ATR from a vehicle and grafted it onto an infantry figure. It's a big weapon anyway, but the appearance is huge. If I check it, it is credibly 1:100 if 'rounded up' perhaps … So, unsurprisingly a bit big for a 15mm figure – but, of course, it comes from a vehicle …) …

The main reason it works, at least by height, is that a 15mm figure is cast on a base of about 1mm. It is then normally mounted on a base of 1-2mm, thus making it 2-3mm taller, qed a 15mm finishes up about 17-18mm overall.

15mm vehicles are, more often than not, not based, thus a based 15mm figure scales up about right when stood next to it.

Casting necessity means that any true 15mm weapons will need to be cast a little thicker than normal. I've been making ours to 1:100 lately (or a fraction shorteer) but deliberately avoiding giving an AK47 a 105mm barrel diameter…

I think it is most noticeable when they have a weapon that is not only a slightly larger scale, but also way to big in calibre.

Just so we're clear.

I just dropped in because the topic header caught my interest. Now my head hurts…

Sorry, Cheriton – no headache intended (I thought it was a simple question) …

Phil:

Sorry, Cheriton – no headache intended (I thought it was a simple question) …

No need, certainly, it was a simple question as you posed it.

I answered it. I said yes.

It seems that there is no incentive for manufacturers to stick to a common scale as each seems to have their own opinion as to what constitutes the correct scale. Cheriton's post is unfortunately true.

"If" all manufacturers produces "scale compatible" figures and vehicles purchasers wold have the option of buying the "best" from different companies rather then having to choose one as a primary supply to maintain consistency

I answered it. I said yes.

And very well considered it was…

"If" all manufacturers produces "scale compatible" figures and vehicles purchasers wold have the option of buying the "best" from different companies rather then having to choose one as a primary supply to maintain consistency"

Sacrilege!! If they all made the figures the same size then they wouldn't all need to make the same ranges over again and again. They might start bringing out ranges that compliment each other and new ranges that no-one makes.
We would no longer have to read about a 'new' napoleonic french army range in X+1mm scale. Or a new t34….yawn.

I'd actually be able to by 15mm Rif war figures. Imagine I could actually buy an arab looking gentleman firing a french heavy machine gun.
The world would stop turning if it ever happened.

Apologies for diverging from the topic old chap.

Sacrilege!! If they all made the figures the same size then they wouldn't all need to make the same ranges over again and again. They might start bringing out ranges that compliment each other and new ranges that no-one makes.
We would no longer have to read about a 'new' napoleonic french army range in X+1mm scale. Or a new t34….yawn.

It is perfectly possible to mix figures from different ranges – I do it all the time. I have a German infantry company in 15mm where no 2 figures are the same.
Even if all the manufacturers produced figures to an identical style and size I doubt you would see the plethora of ranges you assume. Despite all the posts of not more SS, Old Guard, Tigers etc you see on TMP they still sell by the shed load. I remember the fuss on the RFCM yahoo group about the XIVth Army range, with lots of people saying they would buy them, but when they came along sold very poorly. I suspect the same would apply to a Rif war range.

Commercial considerations means you need to make ranges that sell in depth to fund the more esoteric items. Shermans, Tigers, Panthers, etc are the items that sell steadily, the bread and butter, that fund the new ranges that no-one makes. There is generally a reason no-one makes them ;-)

The flip side is that it means 'everyone' sells Shermans and Tigers – the market becomes diluted and there are less funds to make the 'ranges that no-one makes' affordable.

What you may see as more choice now is likely to result in more places to buy your standard items, and fewer choices for the oddities as they become less commercially viable.

We often get requests for 'Will you make an xxx?'.
Standard question, 'How many do you want?'.
Standard response, 'Oh, just one'…
We need to be selling about 100 to cover our costs…

The Stryker was built following a specific poll request as the most popular vehicle that people wanted. Like the 14th Army range, once built it sold very poorly for quite some time, and was well over a year before it could be classed as a success.

Hey, I remember a conversation along those lines, Geoff… but I can still only justify about 16 Stridsvagen 103s (personally)!

(reminds me, I need to plan out the next QRF order. More strykers are indicated, and I need a very odd bunch of other items, too)

I'd also really like to have all the manufacturers settle on one scale for the equipment. Rifles, canteens, breadbags, and gas mask containers don't magically get bigger because the person carrying them is bigger.

You also need to factor in the miniature sculptor's sculpting preferences and style. No two sculpts are really similar.

Here's my original point …

the Ramboesque guy on the right is a Peter Pig (with swapped head, yes) LW German with a Battlefront MG42. I made it for fun – it is knowingly on the outer edge of what I'd consider acceptable (more Warhammer than you'd normally want).

The MG is obviously chunky per 'robust' and tad too big (per Battlefront's in house Warhammery style) … But it comes as a vehicle accessory, and does not look as quasi absurd on the vehicle as it does in the hand.

In this case I believe the weapon is 1:100 (because it is a vehicle accessory), the figure 1:108 (being around 16mm to the top of the head, or 15mm scale) and it shows.

Phil

I think it just shows the excessive chunkiness of some manufacturer's weapons.