Help support TMP


"Should 28mm 'Scale' Be Redefined as 1:56?" Topic


34 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Scale Message Board

Back to the TMP Poll Suggestions Message Board



624 hits since 22 Jan 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian22 Jan 2018 5:59 p.m. PST

Would it be useful to have 1:56 as a common standard for what 28mm is?

Personal logo Nashville Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 6:08 p.m. PST

no we all sorta know what 28mm is…. bigger than natural 25mm, and smaller than 33 or 40. Leave well enough alone.

pmwalt Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 6:13 p.m. PST

I think the market is making that decision (regardless of the merits (on either side) of the equation/argument).

Wackmole9 Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 6:17 p.m. PST

Scale Heresy!!!! I say. Scales must always be confusing and
hard to master. It is a sign of a Gamers progress when you have master the True "scale".

Joes Shop Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 6:26 p.m. PST

No.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 7:14 p.m. PST

Does it matter?

It would be helpful for ANY scale if it were consistent enough that you could order blind from different manufacturers confident that they would blend in an army or even in a unit. But the fault is in ourselves. As long as wargamers keep buying slightly overscale castings, manufacturers will keep gradually making their ranges larger--eventually to the point of complete incompatibility.

Personal logo The Beast Rampant Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 7:29 p.m. PST

But, what of the 1:57?!?

I'd settle for Ebay to freakin' wise up and merge their '25mm' and '28mm' categories.

Wackmole9 Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 8:00 p.m. PST

Ha Ha Ha HA E-bay Wising up ,That is so Funny!!!

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 9:31 p.m. PST

No.
Stop it. Just stop it.

Once again, there is the unanswerable question, "Who shall define this standard and who shall enforce it?"

Personal logo Der Alte Fritz Sponsoring Member of TMP22 Jan 2018 10:28 p.m. PST

Minden, Fife & Drum and Crann Tara are all 1/56 scale figures. In general, they are 30-32mm high and noticeably thinner than the 28mm figures
. Thus the 28mm figures appear to be larger because they are chunkier than 1/56 scale figures.

Brownand23 Jan 2018 2:31 a.m. PST

Well, as every manufacturer use different measuring sticks for their products, I think it will no be of any practical use.

Lucius23 Jan 2018 3:49 a.m. PST

The standard is defined by a ruler, if you use a scale as a standard, and not the amorphous concept of size.

It is enforced by consumers looking at a release and saying, hey, that's not in scale. Then the release dies, and future manufacturers take the hint.

Model railroaders and plastic modelers have done this for decades. It isn't rocket science, but it does require sculptors in our tiny hobby to be more disciplined than they are. And it requires consumers in our tiny hobby to break their addiction to "heroic" human anatomy. I just started 1/144 WW2. Since it is a scale, not a size, I haven't had any issued.

BalinBalan Inactive Member23 Jan 2018 3:59 a.m. PST

"28mm" is a measurement, not a scale. A 28mm high figure representing roughly a male six feet in height, would be 1/64 in scale.

Griefbringer23 Jan 2018 4:10 a.m. PST

Model railroaders and plastic modelers have done this for decades. It isn't rocket science, but it does require sculptors in our tiny hobby to be more disciplined than they are.

With modern vehicle and railroad models it is also very easy to determine whether model is in scale, since the exact dimensions of the real world object defined are known.

robert piepenbrink Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 4:50 a.m. PST

"With modern vehicle and railroad models it is also very easy to determine whether model is in scale, since the exact dimensions of the real world object defined are known."

Yes, Griefbringer. Oddly enough that would also be true of our tanks and guns. You see how that's worked out so far.

ZULUPAUL Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 5:27 a.m. PST

No

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 5:31 a.m. PST

"Who shall define this standard and who shall enforce it?"

The 1:56 ratio is defined by mathematics, rather than by convention.

The subjective part of applying a ratio scale is what you consider to be "normal" for a range. That is, what is the expected range and distribution of different body morphology characteristics. And which characteristics to choose, and what (and how) to "smooth" between.

As to enforcement, voluntary adherence to standards has a rich and varied history. Model trains and model vehicles are the common familiar example for this group, but there is much more to it than that, if you're interested in history.

YouTube link

Oberon: "Things need not have happened to be true.", Sandman, Neil Gaiman

Griefbringer23 Jan 2018 6:15 a.m. PST

A 28mm high figure representing roughly a male six feet in height, would be 1/64 in scale

Assuming that the person is exactly six feet tall, then it would be actually 1/65 scale.

However, commonly "28 mm figure" is used to indicate a figure that is not 28 mm tall, but as measuring 28 mm from the soles of the feet to the eye level. Furthermore, 6 feet tall men are not exactly typical in most parts of the world nowadays (and even less so historically).

A model in 1/56 scale that measures 28 mm to the eye level is equivalent to a real life person measuring 157 cm to the eye level.

martin goddard Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 7:07 a.m. PST

Firstly i am not convinced that the average soldier is 6ft tall. It is very wrong but often used. in fact anyone 6foot tall would be a rarity (less than 10%). More common in Dutch and Americans though. Less common in German, Russian, Brit and especially not true of Japanese, Ghurka.

Median (average) western male WW2 would be 5 feet 8 inches. gives 68 inches x 2.54= 172.72 cms divide by 56 scale = 31mm sized figures. many of these figures are 31mm high. Starting at 28mm size , creating a 56th scale would be 56x2.8cm= 5foot 2inch high man.


172cms divide by 2.8cms =61 scale

Hope you are happy with the mathematics?

martin goddard Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 7:11 a.m. PST

In the First World War, the average height of a British soldier was 5ft 7in, which had increased one inch by the Second World War. Nowadays the average soldier is 5ft l0in.


The average Japanese soldier during WWII stood at 5'3" tall and weighed 117 lbs

Ceterman Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 7:45 a.m. PST

HELL NO! I think 1/56 is way too small to be called 28mm. I know many people & Companies disagree, but every 1/56th tank I see next to 28mm figures makes me shudder at how tiny those tanks appear. Laughable. I've seen so many comparison shots with the dif scales of tanks w/dif 28mm figs next to them and then THOSE shots compared to real infantry standing by real tanks…. it's ridiculous, IMHO.

BalinBalan Inactive Member23 Jan 2018 8:27 a.m. PST

Griefbringer: If I asked you how tall you were, would you only give me the measurement from the soles of your feet to your eyes?

More traditional scales:

1/72 : 1" = 72" (i.e.a one inch tall fiigure = a six foot human)

1/76 : a slightly less than 1" figure = a six foot human

1/60: a slightly more than 1" figure (usually 30mm tall) = a six foot human

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 8:28 a.m. PST

I'm with Martin Goddard. There are a lot of different morphologies for human beings. And the (artificial) "groups" range and distribution (or average and standard deviation, if you must oversimplify) changes over time.

Also, military personnel are not a random selection of the population, as in, "You're a little bit short to be a stormtrooper, aren't you?" Then again, that doesn't always matter …

picture

Second row: Compare far left and far right.

Dagwood23 Jan 2018 8:47 a.m. PST

@ BalinBalin 1/76th is exactly 4mm per foot, or 24mm for a six foot man. And of course the reason 1/72nd became a popular scale, rather than a more rounded figure like, say, 1/75th, is because there are 72 inches in six feet, so an easy measurement to make in Imperial units.

@Martin Goddard Don't forget to add the thick soles of the boot !!

14th NJ Vol Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 9:06 a.m. PST

I'm going to vote yes scale of 1/56. Model Railroad hobby has done well using actual scales and still labeling them. They seem to have a lot less scale creep. Our wargame scales should be;
1/600 = pico armor
1/285 = micro armor or 6mm
1/144 = 10mm
1/100 = 15mm or 18mm call it either one not both
1/72= 20mm
1/56 = 28mm
1/48 = 40mm
1/35= 54mm

It's madding. Imagine model makers Tamilya with all the scale creep issues we have.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 9:30 a.m. PST

Years ago when Eureka was actively promoting the 100 Club, I submitted three requests.
FIW Highlanders in Campaign dress. Glover's Marbleheaders. Ragged Continentals.
The 100 Club did not have a Manyfacturer's Standard "scale". Previous requests had been all over the place, since the requesters had specific sizes in mind.
Since even 28mm figures had a broad range, I requested instead "Perry compatible". And so they were!

There have NEVER been consistent sizes from manufacturers, even from the same manufacturer!
Ral Partha called their colonial range 25mm. So does Wargames Foundry. So does Old Glory.
Let's suppose this Poll Suggestion actually becomes a Poll. In 5 years. What will be the result? I guess it will pass. Who is going to compel Old Glory to call their figures 1/56, Foundry 1/58 and Ral Partha 1:60? Hmmmm?

The Barret scale was a brave but ultimately pointless way to "scale" figures consistently. Measuring to the eyes supposedly meant a specific figure was 28mm, even though it could be 30mm tall.
It worked in Courier reviews, and the manufacturer went and called it what he wanted to call it anyway. The Barret scale was widely hailed and universally ignored.

As seen above, we still have disagreement over which tank scale "looks right" with a "28mm" figure.
We will ALWAYS have controversy, because it all boils down to sculpting style.
We can NEVER impose any silly standard on figures manufactured in the past. What makes anyone think it will work in the future?
It all boils down to what looks right. We can't even agree on that.

Darkest Star Games Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 9:34 a.m. PST

I've never seen a 1/56 scale scale, unless I used a 1/8" scale and used 7 groupings of 8ths. I've always felt 1/56 was a bit of a contrived scale, at least Imperial Measurements wise, and further more using "28mm" as a "scale" in a hobby that involves building SCALE models of historical places and objects was a bit daft as it has no definition as to actual measurements. You are, in effect, guessing at everything as there is no base standard to adhere to that everyone agrees on. A scale tank "looking too small" compared to "XXmm" figure probably does because the figure is just eyeballed rather than being scaled itself. (Plus, a lot of tanks historically ARE small. I was shocked how small a PnzIII really is when I stood next to one)

Now, I am biased in all of this because I work in Architecture and have spent many many many hours building scale models, working in 3d, hand drafting, and everything is to scale. Some of my lines have figures that are "15mm" size, and some are at 1/300 or 1/100 scale. Scale figures tend to be very slim compared to sized miniatures and that is a problem for most people (and can sometimes be a manufacturing challenge as well, as figures with thin ankles tend to break easily). i prefer scale to size, any day.

YMMV of course.

Personal logo miniMo Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 9:51 a.m. PST

With [delightful] exceptions like Fife & Drum etc., 28mm figures are not at all 'scale'. The go well with scale models from 1/64 (S-Scale track which is a good gauge to go with 28mm height, and 1/56 scale vehicles and buildings (it looks like the figures could walk through the doors).

Comparing photogrpahs of actual people in unifomr my general assessment is that scale models are good figures to represent actual soldiers; 28mm are good to represent re-enactors!

Personal logo etotheipi Sponsoring Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 10:51 a.m. PST

Let's suppose this Poll Suggestion actually becomes a Poll. In 5 years. What will be the result? I guess it will pass. Who is going to compel Old Glory to call their figures 1/56, Foundry 1/58 and Ral Partha 1:60? Hmmmm?

What does a poll on a website have to do with affecting behaviour in an industry? The train modeling community did not have one and yet have consistent sizing.

Customers compel vendors to behave in the way that makes the buy. A company doesn't care about a poll, except as a leading indicator of behaviour.

Mick the Metalsmith23 Jan 2018 12:50 p.m. PST

I had an issue back years ago with 1/32 vs 1/35 and realized that resistance is futile. Different manufacturers do not have the rigidity in prototyping in addressing things like shrinkage to be totally consistent with everyone even if a standard scale like 1/56 was agreed upon.

Buyer beware remains the rule.

Personal logo 22ndFoot Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 2:54 p.m. PST

As is repeatedly pointed out, people vary in size. The size of the individual therefore is, to a certain extent, irrelevant. Weapons, however, do not vary so manufacturers could do a better job of making their figures compatible by standardising on weapon size.

However, as I recognise that this is never going to happen and, as I try to stick to one range per period, I don't really care, my answer must be no.

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP23 Jan 2018 6:08 p.m. PST

My current project is TSATF American Revolution.
I regularly put a dozen or more manufacturers' figures on the table.

Griefbringer24 Jan 2018 1:04 a.m. PST

Griefbringer: If I asked you how tall you were, would you only give me the measurement from the soles of your feet to your eyes?

I am not a wargaming miniature.

I notice that you are relatively new on TMP, and thus may not be aware of the long discussions here about the differences between measuring figures to the eye level or to the top of the head, but if you look at old threads on the scale board you will find a lot of threads about the subject.

However, the current convention amongst miniature manufacturers seems to be to use term "XX mm" to denote the height of the figure to the eye level. Sometimes the expression "true XX mm" is used to denote that the figure actually measures XX mm to the top of the head, rather than eye level. Then there is the vague "heroic XX mm" to further confuse things…

Winston Smith Supporting Member of TMP24 Jan 2018 10:13 p.m. PST

"Heroic XXmm" means that it's larger than its supposed to be.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.