Vehicle Scale for 28mm figures ...

Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

I bought some of Pulp Figures 1930s adventurers at Historicon, and am
now considering what scale vehicles I want to use with them.

Any ideas? The WWII people, as I recall, generally use 1/48 scale which
is oversize for the height of the miniatures, and takes up a lot of
space. 1/64 is probably undersized for most 28s, but would have the
advantage of allowing a bit of ground scale distortion without the
vehicles taking up a lot of space, but the selection is probably more
limited...

Rob Dean

(Yes, I'll probably get a couple of each and see which fits...)
5 answers Last reply
More about vehicle scale 28mm figures
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    HI Rob: First let me refer you to Ian Croxal's dissertation on scale
    http://www.warflag.com/shadow/cast/figuresize/figures.htm

    If someone is considering using 28mm figures which are about 1/64th scale
    with 1/48th scale vehicles or buildings, their 28mm figures would be
    aproximatly 4 foot 6 inches high in comparison to the buildings. Or just
    about a 25% difference. Good size for Dwarves, but a little small for
    humans.

    On the other hand a 28mm figure is roughly 1.1 inches tall as opposed to a 1
    inch tall figure in 1/72nd scale. Just 10% difference between 1/72nd scale
    and 1/64th scale. A 28mm figure in 1/72nd scale is about 6 foot 7 inches
    high. I know lots of folks that are that tall, but damn few that are 4 foot
    6 inches tall.

    1/72nd scale vehicles are just the right scale to go with the great majority
    of plastic figures on the market. Most of the available plastics are 1/72nd
    scale with some of the older Airfix being 1/76th scale (British 00 railroad
    scale). In 1/72nd scale a 1/76th scale figure is 5 foot 8 inches, well
    within the average scale range. 1/72nd is also the same scale as the great
    majority of plastic aircraft kits on the market.

    Please take a look at our new 1/64th scale line of cars and trucks we have
    been designing just to match the 28mm scale figures.
    http://www.tin-soldier.com/whatsnew.htm

    I hope this helps. John McEwan


    "Robert S. Dean" <rsdean@erols.com> wrote in message
    news:41143683.A4D193EC@erols.com...
    > I bought some of Pulp Figures 1930s adventurers at Historicon, and am
    > now considering what scale vehicles I want to use with them.
    >
    > Any ideas? The WWII people, as I recall, generally use 1/48 scale which
    > is oversize for the height of the miniatures, and takes up a lot of
    > space. 1/64 is probably undersized for most 28s, but would have the
    > advantage of allowing a bit of ground scale distortion without the
    > vehicles taking up a lot of space, but the selection is probably more
    > limited...
    >
    > Rob Dean
    >
    > (Yes, I'll probably get a couple of each and see which fits...)
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    John McEwan recommends:

    > HI Rob: First let me refer you to Ian Croxal's dissertation on scale
    > http://www.warflag.com/shadow/cast/figuresize/figures.htm

    Allow me to counter by referring the reader to my own dissertation at
    http://www.irvania.com/25mmvs48.htm . The photo comparisons tell the whole
    story.

    The short version is that one can do all the math and come up with all
    sorts of precise answers, but when it comes down to it the plastic model
    kits are only available in three scale groupings: 1/72-1/76, 1/48, and
    1/35-1/32. (There are a few kits with weird in-between scales, but they're
    old and rare. Die-cast vehicles are another topic entirely.)

    When it comes time to hold the different samples up to each other and
    eyeball which ones look right, the 1/72 vehicles are way too small for 25mm
    and 28mm (unless you're using old, early-1980's-or-earlier 25mm figures
    when the standard was to measure the figure from base of the foot to top of
    the head, rather than the modern standard of measuring from base of foot to
    eye-level) whereas the 1/48 vehicles look just about right.

    As the photo comparisons show, the 25mm Sherman kit produced by Battle
    Honours for wargaming is almost exactly the same size as the Bandai 1/48
    Sherman and the Aurora 1/48 Sherman. The 25mm Battle Honours crew figures
    are pretty close in size to the Aurora and Bandai 1/48 scale plastic
    figures, but the 1/72 scale plastic figures are barely waist-high in
    comparison.

    Topping it all off, the 20mm figures marketed these days are designed to go
    with 1/72 scale plastic kits and soft plastic figures.

    Unfortunately, 1/48 scale plastic military vehicle kits were never hugely
    abundant, and they're a lot fewer and farther between now than they were
    twenty years ago.


    --
    David Ferris
    www.irvania.com

    I found my destiny! It had rolled under the couch
    and was stuck down there amongst all the dog toys.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    David Ferris wrote:

    > When it comes time to hold the different samples up to each other and
    > eyeball which ones look right, the 1/72 vehicles are way too small for 25mm
    > and 28mm (unless you're using old, early-1980's-or-earlier 25mm figures
    > when the standard was to measure the figure from base of the foot to top of
    > the head, rather than the modern standard of measuring from base of foot to
    > eye-level) whereas the 1/48 vehicles look just about right.

    Since I'm dealing with the 30s and adventure type scenarios rather than
    WWII, the majority of what's available would be 1:43 die cast. The
    eyeball
    question has to deal with scenery as well as figures, and to consider
    the
    groundscale distortion. If one goes with the Major General's thesis of
    keeping buildings down to the minimum possible size with the figures,
    then
    using overscale cars and such is going to look odder than if you're
    using
    O scale model railroad buildings. I should stop in at the Ordnance
    Museum and the next classic car meet and eyeball the sizes in simple
    terms--
    can I look over the deck/roof, etc.?

    Rob Dean
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.miniatures.historical (More info?)

    Robert S. Dean wrote:

    > Since I'm dealing with the 30s and adventure type scenarios rather
    > than WWII, the majority of what's available would be 1:43 die cast.
    > The eyeball question has to deal with scenery as well as figures, and
    > to consider the groundscale distortion.

    That's what it all really boils down to. "Does it look right?"

    I was thinking about this while driving home from tonight's game and
    realized that while there's a lot of wiggle room in interpreting figure
    scale (is it measured from bottom-of-foot to eye-level, or
    bottom-of-foot to top-of-head? What's the assumed average height for the
    "average" soldier, 5'6" or 5'8" or 5'10" or 6'?) there is one item that
    should be consistent, and when measured should provide a concrete,
    mathematically sound scale for a given figure. The weapons should be
    consistent. At least for WWII and other periods when standardized
    weapons were issued and the lengths of those weapons are known, you can
    measure the weapons on the figures, divide into the known full-size
    measurements, and come up with the figure's scale.

    Just for yuks I dug out some Battle Honours 25mm WWII British Paras.
    They measure between 24mm and 26mm from bottom of feet to eye level, so
    I'd say they're a good sample for 25mm figures. The Lee-Enfield rifles
    and Bren guns scale out to 1:54. Not bad.

    Then I checked out some 20mm metal WWII figures. The Mauser rifles scale
    out to 1:74.

    > If one goes with the Major General's thesis of keeping buildings down
    > to the minimum possible size with the figures, then using overscale
    > cars and such is going to look odder than if you're using
    > O scale model railroad buildings.

    Personally I never cared for that theory, but then I tend to do more
    skirmish-level gaming than higher levels so I like the buildings and
    terrain to look right for the figure's size. At that level a building is
    a building, not representative of a cluster of buildings, and a tree is
    one tree.

    The "sizing buildings down" theory makes more sense to me if the game is
    at a higher figure ratio.

    > I should stop in at the Ordnance Museum and the next classic car meet
    > and eyeball the sizes in simple terms-- can I look over the deck/roof,
    > etc.?

    That's the bottom line. Looking at photos, a soldier standing next to a
    Sherman should be about as tall as the top of the hull, maybe a tad
    higher. If a figure is looking down at the top of the turret, the
    Sherman miniature is way too small for the figure.

    DLF

    --
    David Ferris
    www.irvania.com

    I found my destiny! It had rolled under the couch
    and was stuck down there amongst all the dog toys.
  5. Force of Arms has a nice selection of interwar vehicles in 1/56 scale.
    Brigade Games carres many pulp and interwar vehicles also in 1/56 scale.

    1/56 or 1/60 is true 25/28mm with 1/60 running smaller, for larger figures, like Artizan, and Cobblestone, or Brigade Miniatures.
Ask a new question

Read More

Vehicles Games Video Games