Help support TMP

"March Update from Force of Arms" Topic

31 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.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Return to the March Update from Force of Arms News

Areas of Interest


Featured Hobby News Article

Featured Ruleset


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 

Featured Showcase Article

Heroscape: Road to the Forgotten Forest

It's a terrain expansion for Heroscape, but will non-Heroscape gamers be attracted by the trees?

Featured Workbench Article

Marking With the Silver Sharpie

Trying out the silver Sharpie...

Featured Profile Article

Late for Christmas, Must Be Thanksgiving!

Delayed by circumstances, the 2016 Christmas Project finally arrives!

Featured Book Review

2,453 hits since 10 Mar 2005
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

TMP logo


Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Ditto Tango 2 110 Mar 2005 1:09 p.m. PST

You can get away with "28mm" for figures but not for hardware which has definite dimensions.

So what scale is it? "in the 1/56th end of that spectrum" sounds like there is no serious scaling done at all, which I can hardly believe, because, John, you've done a BEUATIFUL job on that vehicle!

Well done! grin

Grinning Norm10 Mar 2005 1:21 p.m. PST

I bet it's 1/56 with compromises where needed, like with thickness of surfaces here and there. People just love to hear 28mm. Don't you?

And yes, it looks awesome.

kallman10 Mar 2005 1:36 p.m. PST

1/56th is what many 28 mm WW II wargamers (myself included) consider closest to the "proper scale" although I believe 1/60th is suppose to be true 28 mm I think. Regardless many vehicle makers for 25/28 mm WW II go with 1/56th as it hits close to home to both those with 25 mm minis and the 28 mm users. The difference in size between 1/56th and 1/60th is minor. 1/48th is also popular but that is mainly due to the fact that untill folks like NZWM (now part of Army group North) Force of Arms, West Wind, and S&S came along and started making the 1/56th scale 1/48th was the best a 25/28 mm wargamer could do for vehicles. This was because models kits in this scale could be had from Japanese plastic model manufacturers and die cast tanks from Solideo and GasoLine. Also for a while Crusader 29 made nice resin 1/48th WW II stuff but he has since quite the business I believe. Also there was a company All Fronts Armor Depot that had some very poor quality resin 1/48th scale AFV's and trucks but I'm not sure he is business anymore either.

But when the craze for WW II in 25/28 started that was what was available at the time. Now thanks to NZWM/AGN and Force of Arms and the others I've mentioned we have a good selection for vehicles and it is growing.

I think even Lon at Brigade GamesI getting things going for 1/56th scale vehicles and had started with some very nice stuff for WW I. The FT-17 he makes and sells makes me want to do WW I in 28 mm.

O.K. I think I answered your question and also have given a fair miniature history lesson concerning 28 mm WW II. I'm sure if I got anything wrong or left anything out the HUGE group of WW II gamers on this forum will let me know. grin

wehrmacht10 Mar 2005 1:44 p.m. PST

Wow, nice Demag. I have a friend who owns one of those... in 1:1 scale ;-)


No Name0210 Mar 2005 1:47 p.m. PST

I love it - yes I have heard that FOA is working to 1/56th now so everything will work together.

Disco Joe10 Mar 2005 2:07 p.m. PST

It really does look good. I think I will have to get a few of them.

wehrmacht10 Mar 2005 2:08 p.m. PST

God, they need a website.


wehrmacht10 Mar 2005 2:17 p.m. PST

Whitemanticore, you might add that for the 1/48 and 1/50 enthusiasts there is a broad, and ever-expanding range of new products.

In particular, the new Corgi die-cast 1/50 range is growing, with Tigers, Panthers, and Shermans as well as more obscure stuff like the German 8-ton prime mover halftrack and British Cromwells and Churchills. Not to mention cheap Jeeps and Kubels. Retail on the big tanks is anywhere from $20-$50 depending on their "collectible" status.

Also, Tamiya is expanding its range of 1/48 AFVs at a good pace. Currently there are Tigers, Shermans, and STUGs available, as well as a nice Kubelwagen and the Kettenkrad utility vehicle. The tanks have a die-cast metal hull which gives a pleasing heft to the model. Price point appears to be around $15 USD if eBay is to be believed (shipping from Hong Kong will add).

Just added this note to make clear that the rumours of 1/48's demise are greatly exaggerated. Personally, I prefer 1/48 for 28mm WWII because of price, availability, the fact that it looks nicer with figures on GW-style bases, and last, but not least, since that's what I started collecting a few years ago, before 1/56 caught on.


whill410 Mar 2005 2:23 p.m. PST

Does anyone know where I could get a list of the individual products Force of Arms has available? Wayne

Ditto Tango 2 110 Mar 2005 2:25 p.m. PST

"People just love to hear 28mm. Don't you?"

Nope, I hate it. I'd prefer to hear 1:56 or 1:35 or 1:72 or 1:300 rather than 28mm, 54mm, 20mm, 6mm. It's a personal crusade of mine and many have heard it and will roll their eyes when they see me writeing about it again, but I can't pass up the chance. I believe many sculpters use it as an excuse for the fact they can't sculpt a properly scaled human being and appropriate weapon to any scale, let alone proper body proportions.

mattspooner10 Mar 2005 2:38 p.m. PST

And check out the Vietnam range, the figures are superb

kallman10 Mar 2005 2:45 p.m. PST

wehrmacht you are quite correct that 1/48th and 1/50th is expanding and I never was trying to imply that it was a dead scale. I too started with 1/48th stuff and still use it for things that are currently not available in 1/56th. With out getting into a which scale is best row I think one should use what one feels works best.

I've seen and run games using both and I think you are fine as long as all of your Shermans say are the same scale and it does not matter if the German Pz II's are another. Also I feel that games of WW II in 28 mm are more about the infantry than the vehicles. However it is nice to have trucks and half tracks and things that would have supported infantry into battle. One of my pet peaves is seeing a 28mm WW II game with entire tank platoons on both sides. It just does not work if one is trying to be at least somewhat accurate in terms of tactical doctrine. Which is why I am glad that many of the 1/56th scale kit makers are doing more of the things like 251's, and 222's and such. These are far more playable in 28mm than a Tiger tank.

Regardless I'm glad to see 28mm WW II starting to come into it's own. Understandably this era is dominated by 20mm and 15mm. (BTW I play 15 mm WW II as well) But I think we can look forward to seeing more of the 28 mm games at conventions and at gaming clubs.

MONGREL110 Mar 2005 2:49 p.m. PST

Lovely work John and if I was into WWII I would be getting the pre-order in immediately :-)

Congratulations on a lovely piece of kit mate!


Patrick R10 Mar 2005 3:11 p.m. PST

Save me a few for Salute !!!

John FoA10 Mar 2005 4:01 p.m. PST

Thanks for the VERY kind feedback.

The waffle abourt scale was accurately picked-up as a poorly worded reference to the vehicle's scale; that it wasn't 1/48th (which we don't do) and 1/56th (which we do, do).

It's just tricky to mention it without re-igniting the-prefered-scale-for-equipment debate. That I am NOT trying to do.

Anyway more details/lists can be obtianed from **

Thanks again


Kid Kyoto10 Mar 2005 4:13 p.m. PST

"I believe many sculpters use it as an excuse for the fact they can't sculpt a properly scaled human being and appropriate weapon to any scale, let alone proper body proportions."

But is scaling always viable/desirable?

Part of mini gaming requires that players be able to tell from several feet away what a figure is supposed to be and what weapon it should have, resulting in some oversized weapons.

Figures can be made more dynamic by making the heads and limbs larger and de-emphasizing the torso (see Games Workshop). Faces are more important to people than bodies to figures seem more natural and less toy-like with larger clearer faces than with smaller properly scaled ones.

On vehicles some of the same principles matter plus there are pragmatic issues. Somethings are just too small or too thin to properly do in scale.

So I really think 28mm is a better label. Minis should look good first, worry about proportion second.

wehrmacht10 Mar 2005 4:13 p.m. PST

Excellent! The Editor should update the Manufacturer Directory. Any chance of photos soon? The M113 is fantastic!


emanoj10 Mar 2005 4:29 p.m. PST

I've used the compaint button against John FoA to let the Editor know. Serves John right for releasing such minis at a time when I cannot attend Salute ;)


kallman10 Mar 2005 6:14 p.m. PST

Ohmygodohmygodohmygod he finally has a webpage! Yippie! You know John, Mike Owens of Artizan speaks very highly of your vehicles. I understand you have a very nice Vickers tank model for 28 mm which would go well with my Artizan 8th Army Brits. Oh the Pz III is very nice, I'll need at least one of those if not two. Can't wait till you get photos up of everything. Will there be a Grant tank in the future perhaps? I'll also put in a plug for Marmon Heringtons. Yea, I'm trying to do the early Desert War stuff.

@ Tim Marshall,

You know I think maybe you need to spend some time trying to sculpt something before you make such a blanket statement about sculptors. Kid Kyoto makes a very good point about what works visually when dealing with miniatures. Most sculptors CAN make a figure that is proportional in every way and then if you were to plop it down on the table (providing things like bayonets or rifles did not just break off due to being too thin) the figure would look wrong. A good example can be seen in the classic Michealangelo statue of David. If Michealango had sculpted The David in proportion then the figure as it is viewed would look out of proportion. Michealangelo most certainly could have done a figure to true proportions no matter what the size of the statue. However he understood the need to use the artistic eye to convey the desired effect. Just so with mini sculpting. Sometimes proportion is sacrificed for drama and also for casting limitations as well.

Ditto Tango 2 110 Mar 2005 7:09 p.m. PST

HI Kid,

"But is scaling always viable/desirable?

Part of mini gaming requires that players be able to tell from several feet away what a figure is supposed to be and what weapon it should have, resulting in some oversized weapons."

I disagree stronly with this statement, but I've heard it before to justify what I (and I've said it before, but this is my opinion, but it's a very strong one) consider awful looking miniatures.

Why do you need to be able to tell from several feet away? Not that it's a problem. I can tell from across a ping pong table whether properly scaled 1:72/6 Soviet infantrymen are carrying ATRs, SMG, rifle, LMG or if they are crewing an MG.

Yes, that's fine for a wargamer who knows WWII, one might say, but what about a newbie?

That's a good question. I'll use my experience with playing Warhammer with my friends.

I still can't tell the difference between a lasgun, bolter and all the other unfamiliar weapons. Whenever I play, I end up losing a lot of figures thinking they might be appropriate cannon fodder, when in actuality they were important weapons.

So over sized weapons don't make a jot of difference to me.

Besides, it could equally be argued that soldiers across the battlefield can't see their opponents weapons in the way that wargamers can see small figures carrying gigantic telephone poles.

For LOTR, ancients, a properly scaled sword or axe or spear or pike is a very distinctive thing to see on a figure.

It's my theory that our interests in so many periods are so exact that when sculpters began filling the void, many of us just yelled hooray and grabbed them up, despite the lack of resemblence of some to human beings.

And I do apologize to all, but I think parts of our hobby have become much like caricatures of isolated inbred groups of people with respect to our taste for miniatures. I don't think I need to explain this similie.

Historical wargamers play with model soldiers. A lot of the stuff I see people oohing and awing over are more like cartoon characters made 3d. They ain't "model" soldiers.

Ditto Tango 2 110 Mar 2005 7:46 p.m. PST

"You know I think maybe you need to spend some time trying to sculpt something before you make such a blanket statement about sculptors."

Why? I can't sculpt. Does this mean I'm not allowed to have an opinion?

If you insist that "I believe many sculpters..." is a blanket statement, let me qualify it. It refers to the efforts of sculpters of most of the the figures I see in Wargames Illustrated, TMP, and other forums.

It would be wonderful if some of these fellows could indeed sculpt figures with the proportions of David, it would be much better than some of the figures that look like awful miscaricatures that have stepped out of a badly drawn comic book.

Again, as I said to Kid Kyoto, this is my opinion.

"if you were to plop [a properly scaled figure] down on the table (providing things like bayonets or rifles did not just break off due to being too thin) the figure would look wrong."










These look OK to me, for the most part.

And apart from me, there is a whole world of military modellers out there that would politely disagree with your statement above. The issue is what you're used to seeing. If you're used to seeing figures with hands bigger than heads, legs shorter than an unbelieveably wide torso and weapons as thick as oak trees, then that's what you're used to seeing.

Tamiya, who many here are excitedly looking forward to providing vehicles for 28mm, would also strongly disagree with you as well.

kallman10 Mar 2005 9:14 p.m. PST

Appears that most of what you are gaming with are 20 mm plastic figs from the various maufactures that make these quite wonderful miniatures that are a) difficult to get primer much less paint to stick to and b) the original scultps are done at many many many times the original size and then a machine much like what is used to scale down model cars, matchbox, and yes WW II tanks to keep the proportions in scale. Sorry Tim but this is apples and oranges. It is of course much easier to sculpt something larger then have it reduced as these final miniatures are, Where an original metal figure is sculpted the size it is going to be cast in with a minimum of size reduction. And no one does not have to be an artist to appreciate art.

I've looked back through the archives and I see this is an on going topic for you so I'll not waste my time or yours trying to see who can tick who off first. You have your opinion which is fine even though I think it is a strange rant. But that is my opinion. I also like how you claim that there is a great host that agrees with you and that may be true. Know what I can make the same claim about those who like the 28 mm stuff. Perhaps we like something a bit more dynamic. That is no reason to take as much offense at the way we game and what we like to buy, paint and play on the wargame table. I'll end with I think your photos of your minis are very nice. Some of the best jobs I've seen with the plastics. I glad you felt the need to share so many.

StarfuryXL510 Mar 2005 9:59 p.m. PST

"although I believe 1/60th is suppose to be true 28 mm …"

There is no true 28 mm scale, and there can’t be unless everyone who makes figures agrees as to the same standards and reference points, whether you measure your 28 mm to the eyes or to the top of the head. As everyone probably knows, a scale is a ratio of the original size to the scale size. 28 mm is just a measure. Unless you agree as to what it’s measuring, it doesn’t mean anything scalewise. If 28 mm is equals 6 scale feet, or 4’ 3” in scale, or some other concrete measure, then it means something. If different manufacturers choose different measures, there can’t be any consistency.

As an example, in the ’80s it was generally understood that a 25 mm fantasy figure represented a 6’ person. That can be represented as a scale: a 25 mm figure is 1/72 the size of what it represents. But Grenadier was producing 30mm figures that they called 25 mm. The reason? They said that a 25 mm figure represented a 5’ person. By that standard, a 6’ person is actually 30 mm in scale (and that would be 1/60 scale). So calling a figure 25mm meant different things to different manufacturers, and by their underlying logic, they were both right - but not compatible with each other.

Until some kind of standard is established and agreed upon, 28 mm will mean whatever a manufacturer wants it to mean, there will be no “true” scale, and the only way to tell if it works for you is by visual comparison.

Ditto Tango 2 110 Mar 2005 10:00 p.m. PST

"Appears that most of what you are gaming with are 20 mm plastic figs"

Nope, they are 1:72/6. grin

How figures are made is irrelevant. BTW, are you saying properly proportioned metal figures such Fantassin and SHQ metals are also made the way you decsribed? It's the finished product that is my concern.

I don't like making this a plastic versus metals issue. There are very bad plastics out there - a lot of the Matchbox figures I never liked and certainly would apply the misshapen description to some of those.

BTW, the vast majority of my plastic figures are not primed. I've never really had a problem with painting them. Many of the figures in the pictures I provided from my web site were painted in the late 80s and lived in a jumble of other unbased figures in plastic utility boxes for many years until I started basing them. But I've always worked with plastic - I wonder if there's techniques of some sort we unconsciously follow for metal versus plastic that conflict somehow?

" I also like how you claim that there is a great host that agrees with you and that may be true. "

You stated that properly proportioned figures would not look right on the table. I gave you the example of military modellers who would disagree with that statement.

I'm just fascinated at how we have come to accept such figures. And even more puzzled at the suggestion that properly proportioned figures would not "look right". If that's the case, why would John at FoA do such a breathtakingly beautifully accurate sculpt of the half track he's presented us? I would expect, at the very least, the gun be the same thickness as the diameter of the wheels.

starsnbars111 Mar 2005 12:45 a.m. PST


Have you ever stood next to an actual Tiger II? Well I have.
But if you have, then you''ve definately noticed that this armor vehicle is a big Bleeped textin' tank!
Therefore 1/48th scale might be the most realistic compatibility with 25mm-28mm sculpted lead figures, as 1/60th scale is frickin on the small side, and that 1/50 or 1/56 might be more compatible with those size figures.

in anycase, the Tiger II, JagdTiger, and JagdPanther were huge in size comparison to the crapper Sherman and Cromwell.

John FoA11 Mar 2005 2:16 a.m. PST

Guys, Guys

Clam down.

The scale thing was mentioned inorder to direct gamers who collect 28mm figure sand use 1/48th that if they do buy this it will not be compatible with their existing vehicles.

I, of course, think they should throw all their 1/50 & 1/48 stuff in the bin (ebay it) and buy all new from me! LOL

In my experience gamers are idosincratic at best and we're all barking at worst. Look 'collect what you like' is my motto,if that involve items that are not strictly scaled together then some bit it. After all in a previous incarnation I sold 20mm figures, which where gamed with 1/87, 1/76 and 1/72 models none of which are exactly correct and not a hair was turned.

I can assure you that the actual production of scale models, in a engineering sense of accurate scale would be possible but so wildy expensive that it is unaccepable.

Once you've grasped that then understand all else is compromise.

Enjoy that game

And really THANK YOU ALL for the feedback, we are most pleased and will offer photos with the crew as soon as possible.


John FoA

SgtPerry11 Mar 2005 2:28 a.m. PST


That's true, my WWP Panther is big


Sir Able Brush11 Mar 2005 7:21 a.m. PST

Have you also seen their range of 1920'2 and 30's lorries etc. 1/60th scale

PDF link

Wildman11 Mar 2005 9:56 a.m. PST

John FOA

You hit the nail on the head. Enjoy the game.

kallman11 Mar 2005 1:34 p.m. PST

John can we get a list of what you currently have and a price list? Like I said I understand you also have early WW II Vikers Tanks and I'd like to have two just to start.

John FoA11 Mar 2005 5:46 p.m. PST

Yes from the site or by emailing me at or clicking on ndb9999's link above.

At the email address I also answer your questions (not life the universe and everything though but Vickers E tanks are part of the range listed.)

John FoA

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.