"H&R Infantry" Topic

So way back in the early 90's, I was on a business trip to England and stopped into Heroics & Ross and bought a large list of product, going heavy on things that GHQ was not good at such as infantry, anti-tank and vehicles they didn't support. The infantry is in packages with "Navwar Productions"

So I have a lot of infantry from that period and I'm fixing to do Italian and then Israeli infantry/heavy weapons, etc. THe figures GHQ has a really great, but really expensive if you're going to do a large army.

Heroics & Ross is really limited on their pictures on their website, especially infantry. And what pictures they do have are poorly lighted and size of image is too small and/or too far away (it's not that expensive to buy a small 'light box' for photography guys and gals)

My question is are the H&R infantry being sold today the same was what was sold back in the 90's and if not how good are they compared to GQH?

I don't mind spending the money on really good figures. Question is should I use what I have or buy GHQ or is there a "New H&R" that is much better than old H&R?

The latest H&R stuff is really pretty nice. Definitely different from their earlier stuff, which seemed to be mainly about the silhouette (which was good, TBF).

I did some comparison shots on my blog a little while back: link

The older figures are listed as "classic". If you have packs from a while ago and want the new buys to match that is what you buy.

Figures listed as NEW are new masters and very much in the same quality as GHQ. They have also taken over a few ranges, Main Force and Adler, and those are shown as separates generally (if not always).

Hope this helps.

Thank you!

Heroics & Ross is really limited on their pictures …

Pictures? Did he say he wanted to see pictures? I could have sworn I heard something about pictures….

I focused on H&R infantry in the 1990s. My largest WW2 army, my Russians, are primarily H&R. My WW2 continental French army are almost all H&R.

Then GHQ came out with their individual figures line (vs. the en bloc infantry that had been their leading offer before). I built my Italian, my Romanian, and my French Colonial (Armee d'Afrique) forces using GHQ figures.

During the time I was putting together those forces I also built my US Army force, using the 1990s H&R figures.

Comparing the two I found that the (older) H&R figures were notably less detailed, and a little smaller. But not so much smaller that I would shy away from mixing them, not only on the same table, or in the same force, but even on the same stand. The GHQ figures look better, the H&R figures are more robust for game-time use, and have a better selection of poses and weapons.

More recently I expanded my Italian army with new H&R figures. Their new castings are very good. I consider them a match to the GHQ figures in terms of detail. They are a bit more robust in construction -- they don't look big and bulky, but I expect they will stand up to regular use better than GHQ figures. Mixing them on the same stand, you would not be able to see which is from which vendor if I didn't tell you. H&R still offers a better selection of poses and weapons.

To wit:

Dismounted US Army mech infantry company, and armored recon platoon, done with older H&R castings.

US Army engineer team with mine-clearing equipment, done with older H&R castings.

Dismounted platoon of French dragoons (motorcycle troops), done with older H&R castings.

Italian infantry company (continental uniforms) done with GHQ figures. The packs did not come with enough LMGs, so I had to improvise with other prone figures from the extras bin and still didn't have enough for the proper TOE.

Romanian infantry platoon done with GHQ figures.

Close-up of Romanian rifle squad and company command squad. The detail and quality of the figures is really superb.

Italian infantry bolstered now with additional LMG teams from the new H&R castings.

Side-by-side of GHQ LMG team (right) and new H&R LMG team (left). Note that the prone LMG loader on the GHQ stand is a random figure from the extras bin, as GHQ does not provide loaders for the LMGs.

New H&R Italian engineering figures in process. Details and poses are really superb.

Close-up of new H&R Italian AT Rifle team placed with GHQ infantry squads. I see them as fully mixable. The H&R figures still provide a better selection of weapons and poses.

Kind of a lot there. Hope it helps.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

Plus H&R have now acquired the Mainforce range, which is also very good. The range of figures is more limited than the standard 'new' H&R equivalents.

Robert

"Old" / original H&R infantry is closer to scale than GHQ, as the latter is too large compared to 1/285 and 1/300 vehicles.

For that reason, I've always preferred the original H&R, although I'll use GHQ for stuff like WW2 Indians (turbans), compensating for the height by cutting off part of the feet (I mount infantry individually without the cast base).

In case scale matters to you…

MH

"Old" / original H&R infantry is closer to scale than GHQ, as the latter is too large compared to 1/285 and 1/300 vehicles.

While I do agree that the older H&R are smaller, I shy away from absolute terms suggesting some are too large or too small compared to something else.

Here, from left-to-right, are: GHQ WW2 Romanian infantry figure, GHQ WW2 US artillery crew figure, GHQ WW2 US armored infantry (mounted) figure, H&R WW2 US artillery figure (older casting). Yes, I can see that they are different. For my purposes I do not find the differences great enough to exclude one or the other.

‌
Here are 3 one-to-one scale figures, with a WW2 one-to-one scale vehicle. From left-to-right are: Mk 1, Steven Zaloga, and Michael Greene. Yes, I can see that they are different. For my purposes I do not find the differences great enough to exclude one or the other. Even when mounting with properly scaled vehicles (as shown).

I will go so far as to say "not for me" when the case is clear. If "the Chieftain" (aka: Nic Moran) was present in the above pic, I might say he was out-of-scale to the vehicle. Even though, in truth, while he is bigger (at about 6'5") he isn't out-of-scale. But for my gaming purpose I might say "too big".

Similarly the GHQ WW2 US Paras and US Vietnam infantry appear to be larger. I don't own any, so have no first-hand experience with them, but based on pictures I've seen of them next to other figures, and next to mm measuring tapes, they appear to be too large to me.

I would offer the same regarding Scotia infantry. Here I have experience, but only with their WW2 French infantry, infantry support, command, and artillery crew figures. The figures that are not in a pose that disguises their size somewhat are too large for my taste. This is the only case, in my first hand experience, where some 6mm figures were too large for me to use. Mostly. Not entirely (I do use a few, but not many).

Here are my Romanian crews manning Skoda 100mm howitzers. The guns are from the GHQ Italian line. The gun crews (at least the two closest to the camera) each have 2 GHQ artillery crew figures and 1 H&R older cast crew figure. The security section with the LMG are GHQ Romanian infantry, the command stand has one GHQ artillery crew figure, one H&R older cast artillery crew figure, and one Scotia French infantry/command figure.

Here are some examples of the extent to which I mix GHQ figures with vehicles. ie: not just in the same force, but even mounted with/in/on the vehicles. If I were to reject GHQ figures as not mixing with vehicles at this scale … well I'd be much the poorer in terms of my gaming forces.

I do not mean to suggest how others should or must mix figures from various vendors. Perhaps others will find the quality of this to be unacceptable. I find that, if I don't tell folks which is which, they will struggle to consistently judge on their own. Which to me indicates they are fully mixable, not only in terms of in a force, but even in a unit and even on the same stands.

Your tankage may vary.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

@Mk 1:

For my purposes I do not find the differences great enough to exclude one or the other

I didn't say I exclude the larger figures, such as the GHQ Indian infantry. I said I cut off the feet to match the H&R I bought back in the 70s. My convention is to have infantry standing (as that's what most of the H&R strips were doing in the original releases), and heavy weapons kneeling / prone (again per the poses provided).

Put your standing infantry next to, say a Panther. If in scale, the head should be below the engine deck. Of course, everyone has their preferences…

MH

I apply this standard to my discussions as well. I do not suggest what others should or should not do, but I share my experiences and approach and welcome the opportunity to see how others approach the same issues.

Hence my perspective …

I mentioned "If 'the Chieftain' (aka: Nic Moran) was present in the above pic, I might say he was out-of-scale to the vehicle."

This is why I would say that:

Here you see the Chieftain, when he was assigned as the liaison officer to a neighboring French unit while serving on the staff of the 11th Armored Cav in Afghanistan.

I believe, but am not sure, that the vehicle he is standing next to is a French VAB.

Here is a picture of a more typical French soldier standing next to a VAB.

We can say that the Chieftain is out-of-scale, but in truth he is shown at the same scale (1-to-1) as the vehicle and the other soldier. Tell him he's too tall, and he will probably agree. This is part of the reason that his YouTube videos on "Will the Chieftain fit in a …" is so amusing.

In fact people come in many sizes. They are not all exactly 5'8" to the eye, and 6' to the top of their helmet, when measured from the bottom of their boots.

Put your standing infantry next to, say a Panther. If in scale, the head should be below the engine deck.

And yet, if you put me next to a Panther, in boots and with a helmet, the top of my head will be noticeably above the engine deck (as pictured). And if you put the Chieftain next to a Panther, his chin will be above the engine deck. Yet when you put Steve Zaloga next to a Panther, his chin is below the lower-to-upper hull joint.

So for me at least, I don't mind if some figures are larger than others. I'll mix them all on the same stand, and put them next to the same models. My gaming figures selection is the richer for it, and I think the appearance is more realistic, not less.

Your tankage may vary.

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

@Mk 1:

And yet, if you put me next to a Panther, in boots and with a helmet, the top of my head will be noticeably above the engine deck (as pictured).

To the contrary, as pictured in your previous post, you are standing next to Panther "501", with the camera sight line looking *up* to the engine deck. No helmet, but I'd guess you are 4-6" below without.

So for me at least, I don't mind if some figures are larger than others. I'll mix them all on the same stand, and put them next to the same models. My gaming figures selection is the richer for it, and I think the appearance is more realistic, not less.

No problem with these statements; your stuff looks good, and the thick circular bases you use would hide any height issues anyway.

But to reiterate my original point, I still maintain that on average my original H&R is more to scale with 1/300 and 1/285 than most later "6mm" figures. Most gamers don't care much about exact scale, and if that's what makes them happy, then all is good (recall the convention in naval games of using out-of-scale aircraft, for example).

MH

Here are some original H&R (WW2 American I think, painted as Israeli / Iranian). Notice the size (yes I know real people vary in size; am talking average size here).