Help support TMP


"Comparison photos of C in C and GHQ WW2 tanks" Topic


9 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 WWII Microscale Models Review Message Board



417 hits since 6 Nov 2018
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

jandretti06 Nov 2018 7:55 a.m. PST

Does anybody have comparison photos of C in C Miniatures and GHQ of the same tank in World War II. For example, C in C Panzer III, and a GHQ Panzer III. Trying to get an idea the difference in any in their sizes. Future thanks.

ScoutJock06 Nov 2018 9:17 a.m. PST

Here you go:

GHQ on right, CinC on left.

[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pmtYwJ9hj]

[/URL]

[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pmRekUaBj]

[/URL]

[URL=https://imageshack.com/i/pntE7lsLj]

[/URL]

The GHQ models are slightly larger, especially the Tiger, but not as noticeable on the Pz IV or Pz III. The biggest difference is the gun tubes are more robust on the GHQ models, but more too scale on the CinC.

I use both simultaneously in my games but typically not in the same unit so the differences aren't that discernible.

Landorl06 Nov 2018 9:31 a.m. PST

I regularly mix and match the two. They are almost identical in most cases. Detail is good from both manufacturers. The Tiger is one of the worst because the C-in-C turret is very low. Turrets on GHQ seem to be just a little sturdier.

The infantry from C-in-C are no where near as good as those from GHQ though

jandretti06 Nov 2018 9:51 a.m. PST

Thank you for the photos and the info, ScoutJock, and thank you Landorl for the info you provided. It helps me very much. Have a great day.

raylev306 Nov 2018 11:24 a.m. PST

Generally I use GHQ, but CinC tends to be less expensive and carries a few lines GHQ does not. Also, CinC tends to have more slender barrels.

slugbalancer06 Nov 2018 2:08 p.m. PST

Another plus for CnC is that they quite often come in smaller groups, unlike the fives which is common for GHQ. Also the plastic boxes are re-usable.

dragon606 Nov 2018 8:29 p.m. PST

GHQ infantry are nice but they aren't 1/285 – 6mm they are closer to 10mm … least the newer figures are. The block sets are smaller as I recall

Thresher01 Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2018 1:36 p.m. PST

GHQ are 1/285th, where the CinC are really about 1/300th.

GHQ's infantry are about 1/220th scale.

hindsTMP Supporting Member of TMP07 Nov 2018 3:45 p.m. PST

GHQ are 1/285th, where the CinC are really about 1/300th.

My experience differs from this. Both CinC and GHQ very much larger-looking than 1/300 such as Heroics and Ros.

For the examples I have, GHQ and CinC both look similar, baring the normal imperfections in making masters as illustrated by the images above. To avoid issues with this, I use either one or the other to represent a given vehicle. So for example, my Iranians use CinC Chieftains, GHQ M60s, etc.

Very early examples of certain vehicles were very over-scale, such as Pz IIIs and Crusader Is. This may be from the time period prior to the 2 companies splitting up however.

WRT the latest GHQ infantry, they are often noticeably larger than the ideal H&R 6mm. I deal with that by filing off portions of the GHQ feet before individually mounting them on thin plastic card.

MH

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.