1:48 or 28 mm, that is the question.
But of course one is a scale and the other is a size. 28 mm is usually described as 1:56 scale but.....
For reasons that are too trivial to discuss most of my late war models are 1:48 plastic or 1:50 diecast whereas my friend Shaun uses 28 ml.
On the right we have a 1:48 plastic Tamiya STUG III from my collection and a Bolt Action resin STUG from my friend Shaun's collection.
They are not the same size but the difference is small.
On the right a Marder built on a Pz 38(t) chassis and on the left a Pz 38(T) from the same manufacturers as above.
The figures in the 1:48 Marder are 28 mm Bolt Action.
But have a butchers at these three, all 28 mm Bolt Action models and all on the same T34 chassis.
On the left a resin T34/76, then a resin SU 122M, and finally a plastic T34/85.
They are not the same size.
Moral of the story? Don't get hung up on scale. There is almost as much variation between ranges from the same company as between the two scale extremes for 28 mm wargaming. It is a good idea to use the same range for the same vehicle but otherwise it's not much of an issue.
This whole scaling issue with the vehicles has been sort of bugging me since I became interested in BA a few months ago. Considering that I have a lot of old unpainted 1:48 scale WWII models that I would love to employ somehow, knowing that they're a bit too big has been keeping me from doing anything with them yet, but I'm also tempted to try out some actual BA kits. Your post has definitely illustrated the issue for me...and now I still don't know which way to go.
ReplyDeleteLOL, sorry neverness. Use 1:48 if you want to. Honestly it really doesn't matter.
DeleteSo John do you have any suggestions when you cant see something in person and trying to keep to simillar scale as say 28 mm GW vehicle. I see things online all the time and wish I could compare size in person before sink money into it
ReplyDeleteNo AB, there is no solution to this but to suck it and see. The problem is that there is no uniformity as you switch ranges even if they are nominally the same.
DeleteUnless they are side by side on the table there isn't a huge difference....I used mixed scales all the time...problems is one scale does not make them all....gah! Sounds like a Lord of the Rings reference!
ReplyDeleteOne scale too bind them all......but yes, I agree.
DeleteI'm building in 1:72 lots of choices for vehicles, troops, and the occasional aircraft/field. Right now my German armor collection includes kits from hazegawa, plastic soldier company, armourfast, zvezda, and Revell. They all match up because they are to scale, not size.
ReplyDeleteLOL, I tend to mix 1:72 & 1:76. You know even 1:72 figures differ between manufacturers: see plastic soldier review.
Deleteconsider this: put your model next to a vehicle, then go to google and find an image from WW2 with your vehicle and some troops around it. Find the closest match. I don't understand the 'too big' argument, since BA really only allows one or two vehicles, so the footprint isn't big even at 1/48
ReplyDeleteI agree. It's only when you put the same vehicle alongside another from a different range that you notice differences.
Deleteand John, do a side shot of the first two tanks, let's look at the difference from the side. That's more how we would look at it on the table top
ReplyDeleteYes, I have another article looking at things from this viewpoint in mind.
DeleteI went through this too...
ReplyDeletelet's face it ALL tabletop battle systems have innaccuracies of scale, I mean you arent telling me that 10 space marines fit in a Rhino..
the key is to let it go... (not easy, it drove me nuts for months) and see these more as playing pieces than scale models..
I mean, just look at the proportions on your infantry.. these are not accurate depictions, they are game pieces, and should be viewed as such; if nothing else, in order to stop one of those obsessions digging in :)
Exactly, these are playing pieces.
DeleteI always found the idea that you couldn't get 10 Space Marines in something the size of a Rhino hard to understand - given this...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/car-manufacturers/mini/9680859/One-Mini-28-people-and-a-new-Guinness-World-Record.html
Ahh but they are soft and squishy and not in ceramite armour
DeleteThe very point I was about to make. Have you seen how many students can get into a union bar at closing time.
DeleteYears ago someone modeled up 10 marines in a rhino, sitting/standing, whatever, and they did indeed fit. Albeit tightly. This was the original Rhino kit BTW with 2nd edition era Space Marines.
DeleteAs modeller I'm tempted by the Tamiya 1/48 models, they look soooo much better than the Warlord resins. I'm more worried about them holding up to repeated gameplay than the scale issue.
ReplyDeleteI tend to leave off the very small bits from Tamiya as they fall off when the glue dries and gets brittle.
DeleteI don't get the scale question tbh. I think if it look right then why not use it. I mostly use 1/43 vehicles for most of my modern/70's spy games sometimes the choice just isn't there.
ReplyDeleteI also use 1:43 diecast vehicles for Dr Who, 7TV and VBCW. They look fine.
DeleteThere are the same discrepancies in scale among 1/72nd / 20mm manufacturers, as Joshua noted above. Usually they are not too egregious and they all tend to look ok when on the table. The two foot rule is your friend when there are small differences in size.
ReplyDeletePlastic soldier review is interesting because it shows how much 1:72 figures can vary in scale.
Deletehttp://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/index.aspx
Given how many compromises most wargame figure and vehicle manufacturers make to get their products capable of manufacturing with the equipment they have combined with our slightly distorted views of the human form built up from looking at too many tabletop figures - not to mention the massive ground scale versus high fudges in most rules etc. - I just try not to get hung up on scale as long as they look good together on the table and don't "jar". A very handy set of comparison photos though John - thanks!
ReplyDelete