"1/72: How Tall In Millimeters Really?" Topic

According to "Plastic Soldier Review":

"There is often confusion over how tall a figure should be. The height will depend on two factors – the average height of the real subject and the scale being used. These notes provide an explanation of both so that a better judgement can be made of the size of any figure.

The average height of a human being has increased through history as a result of better diet, improved healthcare and various other factors, mostly social. The rate of this increase varies in different parts of the world as they have developed at different rates, so the height of an individual will depend on both location and the period. For models of soldiers another factor will be deliberate selection – for example grenadiers and elite units have generally been reserved for taller men in many armies. Finally, gender is also clearly a factor as men are on average noticeably taller than women.

The following is a table showing the average height of a Western European male.

Date Height
AD 100 162 cms
1000 167 cms
1900 170 cms
2002 175 cms

This website is concerned with 1/72 scale models, but also encompasses other scales that are close enough for most people. So what height should those figures be? Well in 1/72 scale we can see that an average Roman man should be about 22.5mm tall, while an average Napoleonic man would be 23.5mm and a modern soldier about 24.3mm. Obviously these are very small measurements, but these figures are a reasonable guide to what to expect from 1/72 scale figures."

Source: link

Is that the best explanation out there?

And would that be total height (to top of head), or toe-to-eye?

CC

As 1:72 is a proper scale ratio PSRs heights would be 1/72 of the real thing, so it would be sole of foot to crown of head.

A six foot man would be 1 inch tall.

Divide the real world measurement by 72 and you have the dimension in 1:72 scale.

If you prowl scale modeling sites you find that we often gripe that things are not modeled to the right size. "The wingspan is 6 scale inches short" and that sort of thing.

Now if only the rest of teh miniatures world (other than naval) would only start modeling to scale rather than size we might get somewhere.

28mm is a size not a scale.

It's relatively easy to solve the height question in scale, what's more difficult are the other dimensions which are important for compatibility. Of these head and hand proportions are the most critical. In real life you would be struck by the sight of an adult of normal height who's head was one sixth of their height. Such a person would be one in a thousand. At the other extreme a person of normal height who's head was less than one eighth of their height would be equally peculiar. The range of normalcy, where 90% of people fall, is 7 to 7 ½, quite narrow. Yet gaming figures depicting normal people can be anything down to four and a half heads, which are the proportions of a typical three year old child.

Tom, would that be a heroic, muscular three year old child? Possibly brandishing a sword the size of an ironing board?

One issue here is that a scale figure of 1/72 might not be, as there are two (three?) scales in this realm:
1/72 (as above, 1":1 foot)as in model aeroplanes
and
1/76.2 (4mm:1 foot) as in British OO/EM/P4 railways!
In military models, 1/76 is getting rarer and 1/72 more common but you may find 1/76 figures branded as 1/72.

How big is a person: apart from coming in different sizes, we can evaluate averages. That is where I disagree with your source. Yes, the 20th century saw a huge increase in mean height in the Western world but archaeological evidence suggests our ancestors did not start out as midgets and grew.
For instance, in America, in the 1700's an average height of white male settlers has been worked out as 69 inches!
It could have been 66 inches in much of Europe.
If we suggest (to make it easier to guesstimate) a height of 67" which is close to 1700mm,
1/72 would be about 23.6 mm
and 1/76.2 would be 22.3 mm.

What would a pure 20mm figure be? This is the third scale which goes back to the plastics of the '60s and early '70s as manufacturers tried to marry the railway guages of OO and HO (I/87 or 3.5mm to 1 foot!)
it works out about 1/85!

hmm – I'm not scaling rifles.

I agree with Reddrabs that the assumption that early man was shorter is erronous.

People from 1000AD were generally much the same height as modern man. People lived in small comunites were very active and ate a healthy diet.

Following the industrial revolution there were a lot of people in cities with very poor diet, no fresh fruit and veg, and not much food either.

In WWI the British army had to drop the height restriction and troops of 5'3" were quite common.

From personal experience I think in the last 10-15 years teenagers in the UK are getting much bigger (due to improved diets). At universitities undergraduates 10 yrs younger than me all seem much taller than me.

@CC: Don't forget that until deep in the 5th century the minimum lenght of a Roman Legionnaire was 7' 10" ( quite tall for a Roman, and also for that time ).
Only when there was an acute need for manpower the standard was lowered to 7' 7"…

Well, no wonder they conquered half the known world.

I posted this guide not too long ago. Tom didn't like the big thighs.

picture

The thighs aren't unrealistic, it's common for people to be that chunky, it's just I thought they represented a more robust than average male and that people would benefit from seeing a range of phenotypes. I like to look at models from before bodybuilding became fashionable. Look at Muybridge's photos of workmen and athletes, there are a few with thighs like that, but most not.

The trouble with measuring from soles to crown of the head has always been most figures do have a hat, helmet, some kind of head covering which makes figuring out where the crown should be an exercise in guessing really.

So some folks prefer to use the eye, which works fine except when the figure is wearing a helmet with some kind of eye covering so you have to guess at that as well.

Tom, I intentionally chose a fairly slim athletic female and muscular male because, IMO, they are more representative of the bodytypes regularly seen with fantasy figures (the genre that I do most of my work in). You were correct that a wide range of bodytypes for comparison would be helpful, but I couldn't fit it onto the page. I may go back and add one in though.

"makes figuring out where the crown should be an exercise in guessing really."

This is a fallacy I have seen so many times I feel like I'm fighting a hydra which keeps growing heads. In 95% of humans the eyes are located within ten millimeters of a point about ten millimeters below the middle of the head.

In other words, if you can see the eyes and the chin you know where the top of the head is within .5%. or on a 30mm figure .15 mm about the width of a thick hair.