Eclaireur | 02 Aug 2015 10:39 a.m. PST |
I know this is a subject that has come up before… …and I know different manufacturers are accused of scale creep… …and I know that it's up to the individual gamer what floats their boat and 'looks right'… But here we go anyway! I'm just finishing assembling a Rubicon 1/56th StuG III. As I put it together I noticed the MG34 machine gun on top looks noticeably smaller than the one my Perry plastic Afrika Korps machine gunner is carrying. So I measure. The Rubicon MG34, as you'd expect from a plastic kit manufacturer is very precisely scaled. The real gun is 1219mm long so divide by 56 and that gives you 21.76mm which I would say is exactly the length of the plastic MG34 I'm fitting to the StuG. The Perry one is marginally over 24mm long, which gives you a scale of just over 1/50. Now I realise that Perry are regarded as being on the smaller end of 28mm minis and their weapons more realistically sized than some other sculpts. So having used a concrete yardstick (the length of the MG34 rather than this issue of the height of a man and whether you measure that to his eyes of the top of his head) I'm thinking that the 28mm minis I'm using are definitely not 1/56. So when we put the Stug by the guys its meant to be supporting it definitely looks a bit small to me – and I imagine the effect would be even more pronounced with some of the other manufacturers. So why did the plastic and resin vehicle makers go for 1/56th? It might look just right for old school 25mm minis but I don't quite think it works for me. Why not something like 1/52nd? I've got a couple of the 1/50 Corgi WW2 AFVs that I picked up cheap on eBay and with them a tank really looks like a tank… EC |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 02 Aug 2015 11:17 a.m. PST |
I find 1/48 is the best fit for two reasons: 1) the size of 28mm is all over the place, and 1/48 keeps the vehicles looking like vehicles instead of kiddy cars, even if they are a little over-sized. 2) 28mm miniatures tend to be individually based, and vehicles tend to be left unbased. Bases add significant scale height to each miniature, and larger scale vehicles maintain their proper vertical scaling with based infantry. Just my thoughts. |
YogiBearMinis | 02 Aug 2015 11:40 a.m. PST |
I agree with punkrabbit, BUT something I thought about the other day is the interaction with buildings--buildings are not to scale and maybe using undersized vehicles (1/56 rather than 1/48) helps in that regard even though the 1/48 looks better just compared to the figures. |
Mick in Switzerland | 02 Aug 2015 11:43 a.m. PST |
I also prefer to use 1/48 scale for the same reasons as punkrabbit describes. |
ataulfo | 02 Aug 2015 11:44 a.m. PST |
Afrika Korps it`s MG33 not .34 |
Griefbringer | 02 Aug 2015 11:54 a.m. PST |
|
jowady | 02 Aug 2015 12:07 p.m. PST |
The problem is that miniatures are molded in sizes, not scales. And as has also been pointed out bases add additional height. |
Ron W DuBray | 02 Aug 2015 12:23 p.m. PST |
well I like 1/48 because the 1/58 scale drivers look like teen age kids next to the other troopers even from the same company, So if the 28mm mini needs to be made much smaller (about 23mm) then your field troopers to fit in a vehicle then the vehicle at 1/56 is to small a scale for 28mm. :)
so not only do the troopers look to big to fit in a 1/56 scale veh they are to big to fit. |
Schogun | 02 Aug 2015 12:31 p.m. PST |
This has always confused me, too. If you sculpt to a *size*, like 28mm, then discrepancies will occur. BUT…if you sculpt to a scale, like 1/56, then it should be to scale! Yes, there may be some changes during casting, but still. |
Big Red | 02 Aug 2015 12:39 p.m. PST |
Regardless of the debate about correct "scale", as Rwphillipsstl mentioned above, the 1/56 scale vehicles along with many gaming buildings have a smaller footprint on the gaming table compared to 1/50 or 1/48. When considering how out of wack the ground scale is to the figures size, most vehicles are going to be about the size of a gravel barge compared to ground scale. We are really just going to be talking about what looks best to you I use 1/56 because most of the guys I game with use it. Both 1/48 to 1/56 will work according to tastes. I do feel that 1/60 look a little too small and 1/43 look a little too big – at least to my myopic vision. |
Disco Joe | 02 Aug 2015 12:58 p.m. PST |
Alex, I never heard of an MG33 before. Do you have any links to this? I was always under the impression that the Afrika Korps used MG34's. So please provide links to substantiate what you have stated. |
Mako11 | 02 Aug 2015 1:28 p.m. PST |
Yep, 1/48th – 1/50th for me. |
christot | 02 Aug 2015 1:38 p.m. PST |
Mg33? He's pulling your chain. No such weapon. Mg34 panzerlauf was the variant for vehicles, but iirc this was for coax rather than pintle mount types |
John Treadaway | 02 Aug 2015 2:06 p.m. PST |
Size versus scale: what everyone else has said. If we'd just stick to a scale for which there's lots of vehicles (and not a few figures) – say 1/48th – none of this would be an issue. But I've been saying that for years, so I'll shut up HG Wells – surely one of the fathers of wargaming as we know it – wanted his epitaph to read: "I told you so. You damned fools" If it's good enough for Wells it's good enough for me. John T |
Fred Cartwright | 02 Aug 2015 3:15 p.m. PST |
1/48 looks a bit large to me with 28mm figures. 1/56 looks fine, but I base vehicles and that adds to the height. I use 1/48 vehicles with the bigger figures like 1-48 Combat and the ex Northstar 1/48 range, mixed with Corgi prepaints. |
Eclaireur | 02 Aug 2015 3:23 p.m. PST |
With the figures I'm using 1/48 vehicles might be overcooking it… Yes, it's a fair point about the figures being based and therefore a little taller. But In the end I return to the point about a measurable piece of equipment like an MG34: at 1/56th it's too small for the ranges most of us are playing with, so the same goes for vehicles in the same scale. I'd love to hear from one of the vehicle makers about how 1/56 evolved as the scale of choice… EC |
BAMeyer | 02 Aug 2015 5:33 p.m. PST |
I cannot speak for anyone else but when Company B started in 2006 our original aim was to fill in a few small holes in WW2 vehicle offerings. You know, maybe make a couple of Stuarts that no one else did. At the time Bolt Action was quite popular with WW2 gamers and Paul Hicks who was sculpting the line was recognized as a premier sculptor. Through Brigade Games we established a relationship with Paul and he did some crews for us. We acquired a good selection of Bolt Action figures and set about deciding on a vehicle scale. Like everything else in gaming it is all in the eye of the beholder. Terrain, particularly buildings is never really to scale. Various manufacturers `have their figures' weapons sculpted for ease of casting or ruggedness, not scale. Really a bit of a dilemma all around. We decided to use the "shoulder" measuring method. That is, place an unbased figure next to an unbased vehicle with the shoulder at a spot even with a distinguishable horizontal surface of the vehicle. Then look at all of the historical pictures you can find and see what the match was in real life. Shoulders are a better gauge than heads because head size is all over the place with manufacturers. 1/50 when checked was often 1/48, sometimes larger, was simply too tall. Model kits were the truest but Die Cast often played around with height vs. width vs. length. Bolt Action vehicles were a proportioned 1/56 or so and their figures scaled right out with them. So we said 1/56 it is. Figures are almost always based, vehicles often are not. A true relationship has to be the starting point so the comparison has to be no base to no base. That's why we went with 1/56. In the end it is the divergence of the figure manufacturers that raise issues. Well fed giants versus realistically proportioned figures, how do you build a vehicle that services both? |
BAMeyer | 02 Aug 2015 5:44 p.m. PST |
An interesting anecdote about figure scale. Having lived in Asia for 14 years I had acquired an a large interest in WW2 in the Pacific. The average Japanese soldier was more than 6" shorter than the average US Marine. It seemed natural to sculpt the line with the Japanese figures shorter and leaner than the Marines. My partner in the line was dead set against it saying "they'll never sell." So we did a straw poll at Historicon. The result was virtually unanimous. To a man the response was interesting idea but it just wouldn't look right on the table….. |
Eclaireur | 03 Aug 2015 2:26 a.m. PST |
@BAMeyer Thank you very much for giving the manufacturers' perspective – all the more valuable since Company B make such nice stuff :-) I think your key point is that figure manufacturers shift scales all the time. True dat, as they say in parts of Baltimore! Clearly a vehicle manufacturer has to work to some sort of constant, and with 1/100th that seems to work pretty well with 15mm figures. I'm tempted to measure some of the more recent 1/56th vehicle offerings like Blitzkrieg or JTFM to see whether they've suffered any scale creep or remain constant to true scales because of course you want your different vehicles to be in correct proportion to one another (as well as to the infantry), which is what has stopped me going the 1/50th Corgi die cast route for armour. Anyway, thanks again for your explanation. EC |
Disco Joe | 03 Aug 2015 6:41 a.m. PST |
Mine are all 1/56 vehicles. |
Fred Cartwright | 03 Aug 2015 8:03 a.m. PST |
There is also scale distortion to consider. A weapon that is the correct scale for a figure looks ridiculously small and fragile when put on a figure scaled to match. I remember this particularly when I first made Tamiya 1/35 scale troops. The rifles and SMG's looked way too small for the figures, but we're accurate 1/35. For that reason many manufacturers over scale weapons so they look right to the punters. |
Heisler | 03 Aug 2015 8:13 a.m. PST |
Oddly enough I just had a post on my blog about this very subject which arose in another forum. Personally I feel that 1/48th is not just big its way to big and here is my argument against it:
Top to bottom HO Scale Standard gauge track (1/87th) O Scale Narrow gauge track, 30" between the inside rails (1/48th) S Scale Standard gauge track (1/64th) O Scale Standard gauge track (1/48th) Granted the miniatures in this case are not WWII but they do come from a variety of manufacturers. Two of which would be consider on the large side of things.
I messed up that picture a bit because the bottom of the bases is even with the top inside rail instead of the soles of the feet. That is the O Scale or 1/48th piece of standard gauge track which measures 4' 8 1/2" between the inside of the rails. We are playing with some very short miniatures! The miniatures from left to right are: Black Scorpion, Reaper, Foundry, Dixon and Knuckleduster. I prefer the proportions on the S Scale track a bit better but for me this pretty clearly shows that 1/56th is a good compromise scale for things. On the other hand I tend to use HO, S and O scale parts when I scratch build things because its the proportions that are important. In the end of it looks good to you then go with that. One last shot that kind of corrects the issues with the location of the feet against the rail.
Black Scorpion miniature from their Tombstone line and it looks to be just a bit over 5' tall in 1/48th scale. And if you want to read my while opinion on the matter you can find it here: link |
Condotta | 03 Aug 2015 2:54 p.m. PST |
1:48 for most of my armour. Why? Because there are usually just 2 or possibly three per side in 28mm games, and I want them to be imposing beasts compared to puny humans. I don't base vehicles, and the figures to my eye look better with 1:48 vehicles. A Tiger is a scary beast and should look the part! ;^) |
Eclaireur | 03 Aug 2015 3:26 p.m. PST |
Fred Cartwright – very valid point about the scaling of weapons. It's always trickier with the individual casting because you can't decide whether the soldier is meant to be 5ft tall or 6ft 3ins! Condotta – I hear you. And in games where the arrival of a lone tank could tip the whole balance I have a 1/50 Churchill and will look to acquire a German vehicle or two… |
Vigilant | 04 Aug 2015 10:08 a.m. PST |
I'd be happy if manufacturers stuck to the same scale with their figures. The new Warlord plastic German Grenadier is a case in point. The Stg 44 is the same size as the Mg 34, when it was in fact 3/4 the size. This means that the arms holding the weapon have to be out of scale so the figure looks like a gorilla! The MG 34 scales out at 1/56 whilst the Stg scales out at 1/43. For vehicles I would prefer 1/48 so that they would mix with scale kits of aircraft and O gauge railway accessories, but since that isn't going to happen I use the same scale for whichever period I am fighting – 1/56 for WW2, 1/48 for more modern because I like the HLBS range. |