Jonny Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 I've only recently started to acquire 'armour' kits. So far I've three Tamiya and one Airfix kit. The Tamiya kits are 1/35 scale. The Airfix one is 1/32. Please excuse my ignorance but how out of scale would the Airfix one look if placed next to the Tamiya ones? any answers will be helpful! Thanks in advance, Jonny 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratch Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 The difference is about 9% and is more noticeable when you have two vehicles of the same type next to each other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spruecutter96 Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 I agree with the comment that you will notice the size difference when an identical 1/32nd and a 1/35th vehicle are put side-by-side. Having said that, I remember Francois Verlinden stating in one of his modelling-books (many years ago) that 1/32nd figures make great six-foot people when used alongside 1/35 figures. Cheers. Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratch Posted January 17, 2018 Share Posted January 17, 2018 Figures are a different kettle of fish - they come in all shapes and sizes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingsman Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 And we assume that the kit makers can measure, and convert imperial to metric, accurately. Which they often can't. Some older Tamiya kits were closer to 1/32, Trumpeter's Strv103 is closer to 1/38 and their PzSfl IVb is nearer 1/40 - for example. The Revell re-boxes of old Monogram armour are 1/32, but I'm sure they say 1/35 on the box (open to correction). But unless you're using them in the same diorama, what does it matter? Having 1/32 and 1/35 in your cabinet is no different to having 1/35 and 1/48. You couldn't use them in the same diorama though. If using 1/32 figures for Big Blokes, make sure you use 1/35 weapons and equipment on them. These do look noticeably bigger in the larger scale. And of course the figures are not just taller, they're bigger and bulkier all round. 54mm is often assumed to be 1/35, but is in fact 1/34 based on 6', 1/33 based on 5'10" or 1/32 based on the average male height for the WW2 period of 5'9". One of the problems of specifying model height for figures rather than a scale is that humans - Westerners, at least - have grown several inches taller over the last 2 millennia. A 54mm Roman and a 54mm modern average soldier figures shouldn't be the same height. The modern average soldier should be nearly a full head taller. in a fixed scale like 1/32 this would be obvious. Anyway, can anyone tell me where 1/35 came from? The natural scale should be 1/32. That is the traditional aircraft model scale, and it's the 54mm figure scale: 3/8" to the foot. 1/35 isn't even a "round" metric scale. Similarly, how did 1/76 for military and 1/72 for aircraft come to pass? Military is aberrant again. Many kit model scales are based on imperial fractions per foot as they originated in the UK and US, not metric-land. 1/24=1/2", 1/32=3/8", 1/48= 1/4", 1/72=3/16", 1/96=1/8", 1/144=1/16" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troy Smith Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Das Abteilung said: Anyway, can anyone tell me where 1/35 came from? apparently Tamiya... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1:35_scale Quote Company chairman Shunsaku Tamiya explains the origins of the scale in his book Master Modeler:[1] After the success of the Panther, I thought it would be a good idea for us to produce other tanks from different countries in the same scale. I measured the Panther and it turned out to be about 1/35 of the size of the original. This size had been chosen simply because it would accommodate a couple of B-type batteries. Tamiya's 1/35 series tanks eventually got to be known around the world, but this is the slightly haphazard origin of their rather awkward scale. 30 minutes ago, Das Abteilung said: Similarly, how did 1/76 for military and 1/72 for aircraft come to pass? Military is aberrant again. 1/72nd is half 1/36th, and was established as scale in the 1930's, as 1/36th was a bit big. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1:72_scale Quote The scale was popular for aircraft because small fighters and large bombers were represented, and was practically the only choice of scale if a modeler wanted to have all aircraft types represented in the same scale. This scale originated with the Skybirds and Frog Penguin aircraft model ranges produced in the United Kingdom during the 1930s and was subsequently used for aircraft recognition models by the Allies of World War II 1/76th is based on railway scale, OO/HO https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OO_gauge Quote OO describes models with a scale of 4 mm = 1 foot (1:76) running on HO scale 1:87 (3.5 mm = 1 foot) track (16.5 mm/0.650"). This combination came about as early clockwork mechanisms and electric motors were difficult to fit within HO scale models of British prototypes which are smaller than equivalent European and US locomotives. A quick and cheap solution was to enlarge the scale of the model to 4 mm to the foot but keep the 3.5 mm to the foot gauge track. This also allowed more space to model the external valve gear. The resulting HO track gauge of 16.5 mm represents 4 feet 1.5 inches at 4 mm to the foot scale; this is 7 inches under scale or approximately 2.33 mm too narrow old Airfix armour and figures stated as this eg old box art ofthe tanks shows this too even upto the mid 80's it seems 31 minutes ago, Das Abteilung said: Many kit model scales are based on imperial fractions per foot as they originated in the UK and US, not metric-land. 1/24=1/2", 1/32=3/8", 1/48= 1/4", 1/72=3/16", 1/96=1/8", 1/144=1/16" notice here 1/32nd is the oddity, and 1/36th would be the more obvious. 1/32nd though is the traditional toy soldier scale Quote 1:32 was once so common a scale for toy trains, autos, and soldiers that it was known as "standard size" in the industry (not to be confused with Lionel's "Standard Gauge"). 1:32 is the scale for Gauge 1 toy and model trains. It was the scale of some of the earliest plastic model car kits. It is a common scale for aircraft models and for figure modeling, where it is called 54 mm scale, from the height of the human figure. 1:32 was used for equipment to match 54 mm toy soldiers for miniature wargaming and was common in scale military modeling such as tanks and armored cars until it was largely replaced by 1:35 scale. 1:32 is now considered to be the 'Normal' scale for agricultural models such as Britains or Siku worth a read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_model note the differerent scale for different use, eg railways, cars, architectural,ships. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scale_model_scales and there were plenty of "fit the box" kits made in the 50's and 60's by US companies before 'contant scale' became the norm. HTH T Edited January 18, 2018 by Troy Smith add detail, 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chillidragon Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) Standard railway scale was O gauge, at 7mm to 1', or 1/43. Half O (HO) was 3.5mm to 1', or 1/87. Then continental manufacturers couldn't fit their motors into British locomotives, due to the prototype's smaller size. So a compromise was reached: 4mm to 1', or 1/76.2. Trouble is, OO stock is 1/76, but runs on 1/87 track. Hence HO/OO, though nowadays this combination is just referred to as OO. Less of a compromise is EM (Eighteen Millimeter gauge track, 1/76 everything else) and there are P4 and S4, both with a scale 1/76 gauge of 18.82mm. Many British modellers also settle for 1/87 figures (the first Airfix figures were nearer 1/87), and before Oxford Diecast even 1/87 vehicles. I did try crewing a 1/76 vehicle with 1/87 troops; it looked like the best ACF day out ever... The likes of Preiser (excellent figures) don't see the point, therefore, in scaling up when people here are still buying their admittedly fine products. Edited January 18, 2018 by Chillidragon 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clive_t Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 I'm in the process of building a diorama for my 1:32 Airfix 17pdr anti tank gun. Most of the diorama components I've recently acquired are officially 1:35, but I figured it won't be that obvious. In terms of actual kits in different scales being on the same diorama, if you arrange the models so that the viewer always views it with the larger model in the foreground and the smaller one in the background, you can achieve something of a forced perspective effect, which would give the viewer the impression that the field depth is bigger than it really is. At the very least, the difference in scales would be a lot less obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chillidragon Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 I've seen this in Railway circles. I've also seen it done in an Airfix annual, and by a Scottish (I think) doctor who builds small scale ship dioramas. Rather than making the scale difference less obvious, the difference becomes key in making the effect. And it really does work, too. The difference is usually greater though; yours is much more subtle than any I've seen, and for me makes this sound a very interesting project. I'd love to see the result. Of course, a photograph is the ultimate in viewing angle control... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratch Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 Forced perspective is a useful tool Airfix's 1/72 Dauntless with Tamiya's 1/700 Shikinami in a forced perspective diorama 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 Wow! Thanks, everyone, for your thoughtful replies! Jonny (Original Poster) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s.e.charles Posted January 23, 2018 Share Posted January 23, 2018 On 1/18/2018 at 2:17 PM, clive_t said: ..... views it with the larger model in the foreground and the smaller one in the background, you can achieve something of a forced perspective ... exactly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now