"Where did this whole 1/72 thang come from?" Topic

My own WW2 stuff back when I started gaming (1980ish) was 1/76. The readily-available vehicles were Matchbox and Airfix tank kits. These were supplemented by scratchbuilds, cottage-industry resin kits, and Hinchliffe 20mm items where needed. I also had a few 1/32 Airfix figures and Monogram tank kits, but never gamed with them at the time because space and scenery.

I started paying attention to gaming again about 10, 12 years ago. For nostalgia reasons I have been acquiring bits and pieces of the same stuff. It was immediately apparent that 1/76 is basically a dead scale. There are very few new items appearing, and much of what you can buy is literally off the same tools as what I bought 40 years ago.

One of the most irritating things about modelling and gaming is the instability of the scales favoured. Warships all used to be 1/600 (1" = 50') but that got arbitrarily changed to 1/700. 1/32 was the default figure scale, but then someone decided that for the 20th century on, the scale would now be 1/35 (and no, they are not compatible – a 1/32 Sherman is 30% larger than a 1/35 Sherman).

It's not just WW2. Infamously, the preferred scale in Napoleonics has gone from 20mm to 25mm to "large 25mm" to 28mm, which is now two sizes, 28mm and "large 28mm". I have some 1980s Calder Craft Napoleonics in 30mm that are size-compatible with modern 28mm.

Other scales have appeared as well but they all inflate to some other size too – so there are 10mm figures that are 12mm tall, 15mm that are 18mm, and so on.

To some extent, I get why this happens with the figures. Figure ranges always get bigger over time. Nobody's 28mm range ever "shrinks" to be 24mm. Probably this is because they're easier to sculpt, and because once you're invested in a manufacturer's range, you are a captive customer (which AIUI is why GHQ are 1/285 and not 1/300 – they are just about too big to mix with the others).

But who decided that 1/76 needed to be replaced by 1/72? For things like scenery and terrain they are compatible, but nothing else is. I don't buy the argument that it was important to unify the aircraft versus vehicles scales. It cannot possibly have been important to gamers. Nobody looks at a 1/72 Typhoon over 1/76 tanks on a D-Day beach and says "the plane's overscale". You can mix up 1/72 planes and 1/76 tanks but you can't usually mix up 1/72 tanks and 1/76 tanks.

One of the reasons some pop stars from the 60s and 70s are so stratospherically wealthy is because by changing the format, they have been able to sell their music over and over again to the same people. The same person quite often bought the same Beatles LP on vinyl, then again on CD, then again on MP3. Or on reel-to-reel, then again on 8-track, then again on cassette, then on minidisc, then MP3, and then via some subscription live-streaming service. That's nine ways to pay to have the same thing.

Is this scale-shifting just a scam to get us to replace our entire inventory every few years? Are we suckers?

To some extent Cuirassier your summation at the end is spot on. Whatever the arguments about compatibility etc., when most manufacturers start out, those with ambition will choose a scale with the idea that they will dominate and everyone will have to buy everything for them to fit together – a captive market. It is rare that you find someone launching a range that fits with anyone else, e.g. figures might go on the same table, but not mix in the same unit. (A rare example of compatibility in my world have been the advent of Commissar and Avanpost in Russia which fit in perfectly with my preferred Perry figures.)

An extreme example is Games Workshop's Warhammer 40,000 which regularly change rules and figures and even went so far as to 'destroy' a complete world so that everyone would have to start again.

In short, economics are the bottom line rather than the true wants of players and collectors.

Yes.

Oh. You wanted more detail?

This applies to rules, too. And doubly to the rules which shift basing and army composition every few years. You can fight the system, but that is how the system is set up.

That said, my 30mm Napoleonics will be on the table tomorrow with non-commercial rules, and there isn't a thing the manufacturers can do about it legally.

Even in the 1970s there bloated 1/72nd sale offerings (Fujimi et al) alongside sensibly sized Airfix stuff. As we also used to mix in Roco, it didn't seem to matter much.

1/76 was never really a figure scale, but a Model Railway scale "00", for which Airfix produced a range of "Trackside accessories". These days, "00" railway models in 1/76 run on "HO" tracks in order to be compatible with European products, giving rise to the "HO/00" scale often quoted. "HO" scale is 1/87. Many models which were labelled as 1/76 scale never were that, with some being 1/76 in width and 1/72 in length, or various approximations. You always had to compare different manufacturers' models with each other to see if they would go together. Just look at the early Airfix figures, which varied extremely in size, with the Waterloo French Cuirassiers being very much smaller than the British Hussars in the same range.

One; a great topic to raise.

Two; Snapper69 beat me to it, but, equally, the commercial argument applies.

Three, it is infuriating that one can have serious problems mixing different makers' figures in the same unit. You only find out after you buy, sometimes!

The really irritating thing, economics aside is when a manufacturer decides that the System Internationale of measurements is merely a guide as opposed to a recognised standard of uniformity in measurement.

Hat for instance have released French infantry that is incompatible size wise with their own French infantry!

Waterloo 1815 have some fantastic Prussian generals that are huge.

Itallieri figures are more 25 mm than 20mm.

Bearing in mind that the average human in Napoleonic times was much smaller than today's European population Francesscos Franznap are probably correctly sized and uniform.

Schilling and Art Mininturan seem to understand the concept of a standard measurement too.

Incredible.

Chris

It's a great topic for discussion and as such, there is no straight forward and definitive answer that I know of. I've been in the hobby as a punter and a retailer for quite a while now. Some of the issues are driven by commercial issues, most because there are three strands to the 'hobby'. Snapper69 has it right but as well as railway modelers, wargamers, there are military scale modelers that wanted true scale 1/72nd model military vehicles to fit with their planes and it was a convenient scale for collecting. Believe it or not, there are some people out there that make models that never see a war games table…
Add into the mix that war games figures are not a true scale but simply a size. Then add in arguments about what size people should be, (dont even start me on scenery and trees) and you have a lot of factors that will result in a compromise that doesn't please everybody.
When it comes to figures, it's often not the sculpting that is the limitation but the production process, which is why some figures and weapons are so 'chunky'.
I had some problems with Airfix a while back when they simply re-branded their 1/76th scale models as 1/72nd…
link
Check out some of the box art pics.
So no it's not a scam, just chaos theory in action. Happy Modelling!

I imagine a large amount of it is driven by cost and logistics.

@Snapper69 / C M Dodson

You're not wrong re issues within the same range. Call to Arms 1/32 are a prime example: outstandingly good French line figures, terrible Dutch line, and both smaller than the Foot Guards to the point where they look like they are different scales. As Deadhead notes, you only find this out by buying them.

The other thing that really ticks me off is when a range is remodelled without notice. When Hinchliffe remodelled their Napoleonic cavalry, all the redesigned figures were far bigger, but they didn't do all of them. You had huge French line dragoons at rest, and tiny ones charging.

I'm ploughing my lonely 1/76 furrow. And I will damn well fly 1/72 planes overhead and not care. You can get a decent Tiger out of the Airfix kit with a bit of work – it's more accurate than it gets credit for. Airfix sportingly tooled a 1/76 Cromwell and King Tiger as well. I just wish the old Matchbox and Nitto kits were easier to find – some basic stuff like the Panzer III goes for collectory prices on the 'bay.

Interesting question actually. I have gone 1/72 for quite a while, and tend to avoid the early 1/76 kits because

(a) they are a bit small these days for my eyes
(b) they have a million pieces!!! I much prefer a Kwik Build so I don't have to align 400 wheels or whatever

So Armourfast, PSC, then Zvezda and Italeri – they get my money because they are Kwik Build.

Couldn't agree more.

I started earlier than you though! The only 1/72 (available to me, anyway) were Esci, but I bought the odd kit as I wasn't that fussy but they were markedly larger. I think Airfix going bust probably contributed to its demise, with Matchbox going down soon after. That just left Esci and Hasegawa and I suspect newer gaming manufacturers followed their lead, rather than Airfix.

You can still get 1/76, however, with good stuff from Airfix, EWM, BPM, S&S, Milicast etc. I've recently begun rebuilding my Desert War collection with 1/76 kit (where possible using Airfix, Matchbox and Fujimi), so it can be done but it excludes firms like PSC. I'm also using Type 1 8th Army and DAK. John Sanders rules OK!

But I've said before, I cannot understand why metal figure manufacturers moved up from 20mm.

@ Marc

The quickbuilds are your choice because they're quick, rather than because they're 1/72, right?

The whole scale question has really been rather arbitrary with only a glimmer of logic now and then. First to correct one thing, 1/35th scale is 8 percent smaller than 1/32nd, not a 30 percent difference.

Starting with that originally 1/32nd scale made sense. Monogram with their series of 1/32nd scale armor also brought out car kits in the popular 1/32 scale. It was Japanese companies, primarily Tamiya, who moved to 1/35th. The reason for this can be found in a statement by company founder Shunsaku Tamiya in his book Master Modeler:
"After the success of the Panther, I thought it would be a good idea for us to produce other tanks from different countries in the same scale. I measured the Panther and it turned out to be about 1/35 of the size of the original. This size had been chosen simply because it would accommodate a couple of B-type batteries. Tamiya's 1/35 series tanks eventually got to be known around the world, but this is the slightly haphazard origin of their rather awkward scale."

1/72nd had many origins. Remember 1/72nd armor was originally brought out not with the thought of gaming but as a smaller, more storage friendly alternative to 1/35th and 1/48th. Once again Japanese companies led the way with this scale and it did make sense to have the same scale as the aircraft they were already making. It doesn't hurt that in 1/72nd 1 inch equals 6 feet while in 1/76th it was slightly more awkward 1 inch equals 6 feet 4 inches.

As to the 10mm figures being 12mm tall or 15mm being 18mm that is one reason many of us prefer scale. For armor, for example, telling me a tank is 1/144th is a pretty solid measurement. The problem with 10 or 12mm is I find some use different scales with those numbers. So your 12mm may not match my 1/44th and your 10mm may be too big for my other 10mm.

Even in the 1970s there bloated 1/72nd sale offerings (Fujimi et al) alongside sensibly sized Airfix stuff.

As well as Hasegawa and ESCI which were 1/72. I think Fujimi were 1/76, their 251's were smaller than the ESCI ones. Then there was Nitto which were 1/76, but with very chunky tracks. Airfix were 1/76ish. I the think the early British and German combat groups were true HO scale figures like the model railway passengers. The models were a bit hit and miss too, the Crusader was significantly too long and of course there is the infamous sagged track Panther.

1/76 was never really a figure scale, but a Model Railway scale "00", for which Airfix produced a range of "Trackside accessories". These days, "00" railway models in 1/76 run on "HO" tracks in order to be compatible with European products, giving rise to the "HO/00" scale often quoted. "HO" scale is 1/87.

OO scale rolling stock always did run on HO track. If you look at the boxes of the Airfix trackside range it was labelled HO/OO. The reason OO scale came about is that British locomotives are smaller than their European counterparts and they couldn't fit the electric motors in a 1/87 model. Presumably 1/76 was the smallest scale that worked. The same discrepancy between British and Continental scales applies to N, Z and pretty well all the model railway scales.
Aircraft scales were traditionally based on 1 inch to x feet, so 1/24 1" to 2', 1/48 1" to 4', 1/72 1" to 6'. 1/72 was well established as an aircraft scale when Hornby released the first OO train set. Traditional naval scales are again based on the 1" to x' eg 1/600 1" to 60' and so on. The 1/700 stuff came out of Japan not sure why they chose that scale.
1/32 scale was the one chosen by Britain's Ltd for their toy soldier range giving a figure height of 54mm. I have no idea why the Japanese chose 1/35 scale to do their tanks in, but if definitely came out of Japan.

A lot of supposedly 1:76 wasn't really 1:76.

As for what I can trace back from my own personal experience (late 1970s), 1/72 scale has been always there.

Oh yes, there was Fujimi's 1/76 too, as the H0/00 gauge was too. But from my own location 1/72 was always seen as dominant (if I'm permitetd the expression), or favourite perhaps. So don't anger if I see it from a different point of view ("normal", I'd say).

Perhaps we should take this issue of 1/72 vs. 1/76 vs. H0/00 just the same way as we've had to take the Betamax vs. VHS video systems, or the IE Explorer vs. Firefox browsers, dilemma.

I.e., where two similarly featured things happen to concur, one is to prevail in the end. Not compulsorily the best, just the one that happens to prevail --whatever the reasons for, that are usually multiple.

Go tell my father, who in the first years of home video recorders in our country, and after a lot thinking, researching and getting informed, chose a Beta recorder because it was better than VHS!

A lot of supposedly 1:76 wasn't really 1:76

Absolutely true. Fujimi's stated 1/76 Panzer I ausf. B, for instance, was actually 1/72 scaled. Straightforwarded using any home ruler.

Check out the comparisons of Airfix, Hasegawa and S-Model Crusaders: all roughly the same size overall despite two being 1/72. I use the S-Model version, mainly because I need to re-mortgage for an Airfix one.

1/72 is an Imperial scale of 1 inch = 6 foot
1/76 is a metric scale of 4mm = 1 foot

And yes, that's a fudge. Pretty much all the differences are down to the interface between Imperial and metric measurements.

Thanks Paint it Pink I knew the 1/72 derivation but did not know the 1/76.

A bastard scale then neither one thing nor the other.

x42

A lot of scale creep has to do with the imprecision of master creation to mold creation shrinkage. 10% deviation from the same master is not uncommon. Multigenerational molds will be even more so. Amateur carvers or startups might not know what to expect.

I don't know what caused it, but I don't like it. I started my WW2 collection in 1/76 and resent having to mix in 1/72 because some unknown somebody decided to change things.

and along the same lines what's all this with 18mm ?

I mean was something wrong with 15mm or 20mm ? Doubt it. someone just thought how can I tie you into a new range that's incompatible with other stuff, so how about 18mm !

I think there must be a range nearly every 2mm…

I love PSCs 1/72 vehicle range, but for some reason prefer to use mostly metal 20mm figs alongside it, go figure ?

Snapper69 is correct. Like its smaller cousin 1/87, 1/76 was intended more for the train enthusiast than the gamer or scale modeler. Also, back in those days people didn't fuss about size differences like we do today because of advances in precision scale model manufacturing over the decades. We're kind of spoiled you might say.

@ Marc33594

1/35th scale is 8 percent smaller than 1/32nd, not a 30 percent difference.

Not so. 1/32 is 9.375% longer than 1/35, but also 9.375% wider, and also 9.375% deeper. You have to divide one scale by the other and cube the result to get the volumetric difference. As we see in 3D, the volume is what counts.

So 1/32 is (35^3/32^3) larger than 1/32, which resolves to a shade under 31% bigger. You can fit four 1/35 models into the space occupied by three 1/32 models of the same vehicles. To put it another way, a 1/32 Panther and a 1/35 Tiger II are about the same size.

The same calculation for 1/72 versus 1/76 shows the former to be just under 18% larger.

@ Fred C

Some of the Airfix tanks are definite write-offs for abject inaccuracy. What is quite interesting in some cases is how the inaccuracy arose.

The legendarily inaccurate Panther was, amazingly, an accurate rendition of an actual specimen. Unfortunately, it was the specimen nearest to Haldane Place and easiest for Airfix to get to: the one from the Battle of the Bulge that's preserved at Houffalize. It has been partly stripped and its suspension has collapsed.

The legendarily inaccurate SdKfz 234/4 was based on an example that had been "restored" by RAC apprentices. Unfortunately it was missing its mudguards and they'd never seen an intact set. So they fabricated some, based on those fitted to the SdKfz 232.

The Airfix Churchill has a stupendous design feature that's rarely noticed. Its wheels are all on one sprue and the bogies all on another and they're identically spaced. So you simply offer the sprues up to one another with glue applied and remove each wheel and bogie from the sprue after assembly. Is that not genius?

The Tiger is often dismissed as accurate but in fact it resembles a later model that's had the air cleaner gear and outer set of wheels deleted. You read reviews saying there should be more wheels and the tracks are the transport tracks, but in fact, it accurately depicts an actual museum late Tiger I that's had parts pinched off it.

It all started with model railways. American and European HO was 1/87. British OO was introduced because with our smaller loading gauge they couldn't fit the motors in, so upped the scale to 1/76 and called it OO. That's why sometimes you see a scale quoted as "OO/HO" – which scalewise is a contradiction in terms.

1/72 actually come from model aircraft.

The Tiger is often dismissed as accurate but in fact it resembles a later model that's had the air cleaner gear and outer set of wheels deleted. You read reviews saying there should be more wheels and the tracks are the transport tracks, but in fact, it accurately depicts an actual museum late Tiger I that's had parts pinched off it.

Yes I am aware of the Airfix Tiger's shortcomings. In issue one of Military Modelling, which I have (yes I am that old!), there was an article on the the Tiger and how to make a decent representation of a mid production version which I followed to make a fairly decent model. Lot of work though. These days would buy a better kit. :-)

The Airfix Churchill has a stupendous design feature that's rarely noticed. Its wheels are all on one sprue and the bogies all on another and they're identically spaced. So you simply offer the sprues up to one another with glue applied and remove each wheel and bogie from the sprue after assembly.

But you weren't supposed to glue them. Airfix had this fond notion that the tracks would move when you pushed the tank along, making suitable broom, broom noises no doubt, except of course they never did.

Have to admit doing it by volume is new to me! As to fitting 4 1/35 scale kits in the space of 3 1/32nd not quite sure how we are going to do that. For example the Monogram 1/32 scale Pz IV measures 8 5/8 inches long. 3 would take up 25 7/8 inches of length on my shelf. The Tamiya 1/35 scale Pz IV is 7 7/8 long and 4 would take up 31 1/2 inches. I usually dont stack one on top of the other for display :)

I am sure if you tell most people the Monogram kit is 30 percent bigger they would expect the Monogram kit to be some 10+ inches, at least I would. :)

But of course YMMV

I always like 1/35 better than 1/32 if just because of Tamiya. Those kits were great!

@ Marc

4 into 3 only works on a volume basis, which the actual shape prevents. But: in a line, 32 x 1/32 tanks would be as wide as 35 x 1/35. Likewise 32 would be as tall as 35, and 32 would be as deep as 35.

The total number of 1/32 tanks in such a cube would be 32,768.

The total number of 1/35 tanks would be 42,875.

The cubes would be the same size, but one has 31% more tanks in it, because the other contains tanks that are 31% bigger.

@ Aethelflaeda

Do you reckon? I bought a Tamiya 1/35 Panzer II (#35009 IIRC) because someone told me it was actually 1/32, but in fact it's a different scale in every axis, and none is 1/32 or 1/35…

@ Fred

I once got the wheels and tracks on the Airfix StuG III to go round. Not for long, natch.

Linear scale is not the only problem. The only true (near enough) scale small (1/144) figures I have ever seen are my own. These are 12mm tall (basic man no shoes, no hat and 5ft 8" tall). Why are they the only ones? Well most sculptors put lots of stupid oversized detail on the figure, like creases in trousers. That would be too small to see at real scale. Figure buyers buy stuff "Cos its Detailed". No they don't, they buy it cause its daft and oversized but has massively out of scale "detail". Its probably why some figure ranges get bigger and bigger, the distortions made to get "more detail" get worse and worse so the figure has to grow. Most figures most certainly won't fit in there vehicle counterpart for this reason (mine do most of the time).

As to scale 1/32 makes sense in the old days engineers worked in 1/32 of an inch. so 1" to 1/32 of an inch makes sense. How do you make sense of 1/35. I'v never seen a ruler with 1/35 of an inch it's DAFT again.

As an addendum to the Tamiya & 1/35 scale issue, one thing to keep in mind is that after Tamiya started releasing kits in this scale (in the late '60s is when their current MM line started), they went ahead & absolutely dominated the genre with kits. In the period of a decade they released something like 100 kits, almost a new kit a month at times. They slowed down in the '80s, but Peerless Max & later Italeri, as well as other companies like Nichimo & Nitto also chose those scales & supplemented what Tamiya was putting out. So when a modeler in the late '70s or early'80s walks into a hobby shop & sees a shelf full of Tamiya & Italeri kits, next to a handful of forlorn looking Revellogram or Airfix kits in a different scale (& often with poorer details), what are they going to choose? Military modeling, so I understand, was unpopular in the post-Vietnam period in the US, but in Japan they had no such baggage. So when the genre was "rediscovered" by US modelers, there was no way Revellogram could ever catch up (& Aurora had already folded by then). Leaving Airfix as the only other producer of 1/32 armor during this period. And they couldn't hope to catch up either!

By the time Dragon came on the scene in the late '80s, the deal was done: 1/32 as an armor scale was dead, & Trumpeter that came about a decade or so later flooded the market with their own 1/35 kits. There is simply an overwhelming variety of subjects out there in this scale that you'd have to be mad to put out kits in this scale (though collectables seem to still do 1/32 for armor, for some reason). I love 1/48 as an armor scale, but abandoned it because 1/35 has the subjects I want to build. I'd think 1/76 armor had the same issues, with little new coming out for some time, despite the spirt of kits coming out IIRC in the early '60s to mid '70s…

Damon.

I'll also add that a big part of this scale issue for plastic models has a lot to do IMHO with what the US model companies were doing (& NOT doing), and the preferences of the Japanese market, as well as the decline of US modeling companies as industry leaders.

Damon.

WOW look at all the comments here!!!!!!

Here's mine:

WHY is this an ISSUE now? Has something happened in the industry the rest of us 1/72-ers dont know about?

This topic is GI NORMOUS so I will (WAIT FOR IT) not comment.

This has been an absolutely fascinating discussion, the kind of thing I love seeing on TMP. I started gaming in the mid-60s with first generation Airfix and Roco Minitanks, and some epic battles were had, scale be dammed.

Too add, I believe that Matchbox was always 1/76th, while Airfix was 1/72nd. The difference was slight but noticeable. Someone mentioned A Call to Arms figures. They are 1/35th, not 1/32nd.

As mentioned, 1/76 was British OO railroad gauge. OO and HO both run on the same track width, so you sometimes get things marked OO/HO. Nevermind that HO ('Half O gauge') is 1/87 scale like Roco Minitanks.

1/72 is an aircraft modeling scale, which then got picked up for ground vehicles.

Tamiya tried to push a 1/100 aircraft scale in about the 1960s or 70s, but the modeling community wasn't buying enough of them to make it worth expanding the range. They are still in production, though, which made my 15mm Vietnam gaming have in-scale air support instead of 1/144 scale air support.

I've seen a few 1/600 scale ships, but more of the ship models I remember seeing and building were 1/720 scale (1"=60'). Again, the Japanese companies were building a lot of 1/700 scale models, but I'm not sure where that odd scale came from. Then we get into the 1/350 scale monsters.

I just knew this topic could run…

Never mind how Airfix Napoleonic Cuirassiers could face a British Hussar kettledrummer, twice their size.

I do love a bit of nostalgia, me.

Please…do add to this if you read….even if you have never yet added….

@ nnascati
I believe that Matchbox was always 1/76th, while Airfix was 1/72nd

Understandable, but not quite right. Matchbox was always nominally 1/76 but a number of kits seem to have come out nearer to 1/72. The Jagdpanther is often mentioned in this connection. Airfix has labelled the same kits as both 1/72 and 1/76 at different times. If you think you've seen an Airfix tank kit in 1/72, you're not wrong – you have. Here's their Tiger I boxed as 1/72:
auction

and here it is boxed as 1/76:
link

Same kit in each case. A bit cheeky IMHO. I'd know but not everyone would.

Someone mentioned A Call to Arms figures. They are 1/35th, not 1/32nd.

They're actually all labelled as 1/32:
acalltoarms.co.uk/132_2.html
- but again, you're not wrong – some actually are 1/32 and some are 1/35.

@nnascati. Airfix were always around 1/76th scale. The Crusader is a bit larger.

Matchbox were 1/76th as were Nitto and Fujimi. I only have a few 1/72nd scale models like the Esci Sherman which looks ok but the Hasegawa version is too large to fit in. I have Airfix panzer IV's converted to latter versions and then managed to get some Nitto versions which look ok together. I am a Wargamer so if it looks ok then they get used.

My collection goes back to about 1973. Some of the older models have been cut up for conversions but are usable for size comparisons. I don't do Desert so the Lee/Grant and and Crusader bought in 1973 were sacrificed years ago.

We emigrated in 1974 so our models bought earlier were sold off. I kept the models I'd just recently bought.

If you want an accurate Tiger in 1/76th scale then look at the Nitto Version, but I guess they go for silly money now.

I really love the story about how the Airfix errors occurred.

Anyone know what scale Hasegawa actually were? I have made the mistake of parking a Matchbox M16 MGMC next to a Hasegawa M3 halftrack in the past and it wasn't pretty!

This discussion is exactly why I gave up on 20mm-1/76-25mm-1/72-HO-1/87- WHATEVER scale and now game with 15mm and 28mm. Cheers!

Hasegawa were 1/72, but I haven't checked the scales on them, so there might be discrepancies. I think they chose 1/72 as they did aircraft in that scale first and the vehicles were made to fit with those. Airfix chose 1/76 as their first kits were the trackside range which were 1/76 like Hornby OO railways and the vehicles were designed to fit in with those. By the time they did kits to fit in with the aircraft range such as the various RAF sets and ground crew the scale had already been fixed.

This discussion is exactly why I gave up on 20mm-1/76-25mm-1/72-HO-1/87- WHATEVER scale and now game with 15mm and 28mm.

Then you better read these threads:

TMP link

TMP link

I have. Issues exist in all scales. Obviously. And I dont need to read the posts because I own minis in those scales. And the issues I've experienced are nothing like I had with "20mm". But I dispose if scale compatibility is the primary focus of your life then enjoy!

Quite right, Londoncalling, and a pity. A scale every 5mm would seem to offer sufficient variety for eyes, hands and table size. All the rest of it does is play hob with compatibility.

And once we've got that sorted out, we can have a go at basing systems.

I admit it. I do not really understand what the problem is here. When I started out with miniatures as a kid I was using Airfix mostly 1/76 figures with Roco tanks which were usually HO scale. If I had tried mixing in 1/76 or 1/72 tanks with those Roco tanks, it would have looked strange. However when all the tanks were HO they looked OK with those Airfix figures.

As for the difference between 1/76 and 1/72, it comes out to maybe a 1mm to 1.5mm difference in figure height. That scales out to a reasonable human height variation. I suspect 1/72 and 1/76 figures sculpted to the same standards would visually appear more compatible that 1/72 figures sculpted to the different standards used by different companies. If you do find the differences irksome, then just concentrate your existing 1/76 figures and vehicles in separate units from your 1/72 figures.

Model scale matters a lot less pre-firearms (well, pre mass-production) than post firearms.

I can put up with a lot of variation in human size, I mean there is about 2 heads difference between the shortest humans and the tallest. One gal I know in the US army barely comes up to my shoulder, while I only came up to the shoulder of one of the guys ON SUBS in the Navy.

But our rifles and helmets and whatnot are all the same size.

On the contrary, Lee494, I have seen far more discrepancy in '15/18mm' than I ever did in the nominal 1/72-1/76 days.

And as noted by others in some of the other scales, some of the worst discrepancies are internal in the lines of manufacturers.