Height of 1/30 Scale WW2 Figures compared to a Tiger Tank (1 Viewer)

[OzDigger]

Now that we are discussing preferred scales of figures and how they relate to the size of Armored Fighting Vehicles I feel it timely to revisit how high a "true" 1/30 scale figure should be.

Some manufacturers base their figures on the traditional toy soldier size of 6' but let's call him 5' 11" which is closer to 1800mm. Other manufacturers say that is to tall for the average soldier in WWII, let's say that average shorter guy is 5' 7" which is close to 1700mm being a difference of 100mm.

But wait that's not all, you need to add the height of his helmet above his head, his army boots and the figure's base to ensure a "true" 1/30 figure height. I based the following measurements on actual items that I have, of course there will be some variance between different helmets, boots and height of figure bases but I believe these are typical averages.

Helmet: 50mm (2 inches)
Boots : 30mm (1 1/4 inches)
Base : 60mm (2 3/8 inches) (base height of average 2mm x 30).

Total 140mm (5 1/2')

Add 140mm (5 1/2") to the traditional 5' 11" Toy soldier (1800mm) and he grows to 6' 4/12" (1940mm). Convert that to 1/30 scale and the traditional and taller Toy Soldier sized figure should be about 64.7mm high

Add 140mm (5' 1/2") to the shorter average and he grows to 6' 1/2" (1840mm ). Convert that to 1/30 scales and the shorter average figure should be about 61.3mm high.


There are of course other methods of measurement such as sole of feet to eye level etc, but I feel the overall method is easiest for most collectors.

In anycase the smaller average WW2 Toy Soldier figure described above should be at least equal to or a bit higher than the engine deck height of his model Tiger Tank at say 1800mm (60mm in 1/30 scale). How does yours measure up?

 

[Mitch]

As long as the AFV's are the correct scale thats really all that counts. We don't get different sized figures from manufacturers to portray the difference in sizes of ''real'' people at these times. Its pointless really trying to access if figures are the ''right'' size to the vehicles (some manufacturers have tried this!!) If one is trying to do this it leads to all sorts of issues which complicate the matter. Lets take the general sizes you state they could literally be thrown out the window if one is replicating or trying to replicate say the LAH. These troops for the first few years until most were KIA were literally huge in comparison to most units in the other SS divisions and, especially compared to the heer. One only has to look at some early books on the LAH to see the heights of these troops.

A substantial number of these would stand well above the deck plate of a tiger and, would stand well over the heights of Panzer I and Panzer II.

The number of threads on this subject at the moment is quite strange but, its mentioned here that manufacturers interpret their own way 1/30th thats what is wrong here as its not really open to interpretation 1/30th 32nd 28th whatever is what it is.
Mitch

 

[OzDigger]

I started this thread as a guide to the height of a hypothetical base mounted 1/30 scale soldier in battlegear measured against a specific AFV being a Tiger I as it seemed such a simple concept.

Mitch, you said "as long as the AFV's are the correct scale thats really all that counts." We know you do not care if your figures are sized correctly to your Armoured Fighting Vehicles. You have pushed your point of view in a number of posts and no doubt you will continue to do so. You do not seem to perceive the fact that not everyone shares your opinion and your comment that further discussion on the matter is therefore "pointless" is typically proprietorial.

Yes, there are collectors that are happy to display say 1/28 scale figures with 1/32 scale AFV's. I don't share this viewpoint but I would not be so arrogant to suggest those people are wrong and wasting their time. Like many other collectors I prefer my figures to blend well with their vehicles.

I also prefer them to be based on the traditional and default/standard Toy Soldier height of 1.8m (5' 11"). I included the 'smaller' average height of 1.7m (5' 7") as it may be of use to those that collect First Legion WW2 figures. Yes, I could have included a higher standard height of say 6' 4" to represent early LAH soldiers as you suggested but I have no desire to replicate the variance in height of "real" people even if the measurements allow this.

 

[Mitch]

Just think what you wish and interpret the post in anyway that you wish. Its obvious that you just cannot respond in a mature manner without the stupid digs of which, this is the second time in as many days you have picked up on imaginary comments.

I would think its only in your mind that I have stated what you accuse me of. respond to the facts of the issue and try and keep the immature personal digs out

Hypothetical does not work and obfuscates the issue and, height of a figure varies greatly so, one needs the correct measurements of X to work from. In this case its the AFV's which are the most important thing.
Mitch

QUOTE=OzDigger;522953]I started this thread as a guide to the height of a hypothetical base mounted 1/30 scale soldier in battlegear measured against a specific AFV being a Tiger I as it seemed such a simple concept.

Mitch, you said "as long as the AFV's are the correct scale thats really all that counts." We know you do not care if your figures are sized correctly to your Armoured Fighting Vehicles. You have pushed your point of view in a number of posts and no doubt you will continue to do so. You do not seem to perceive the fact that not everyone shares your opinion and your comment that further discussion on the matter is therefore "pointless" is typically proprietorial.

Yes, there are collectors that are happy to display say 1/28 scale figures with 1/32 scale AFV's. I don't share this viewpoint but I would not be so arrogant to suggest those people are wrong and wasting their time. Like many other collectors I prefer my figures to blend well with their vehicles.

I also prefer them to be based on the traditional and default/standard Toy Soldier height of 1.8m (5' 11"). I included the 'smaller' average height of 1.7m (5' 7") as it may be of use to those that collect First Legion WW2 figures. Yes, I could have included a higher standard height of say 6' 4" to represent early LAH soldiers as you suggested but I have no desire to replicate the variance in height of "real" people even if the measurements allow this.[/QUOTE]

 

[OzDigger]

Just think what you wish and interpret the post in anyway that you wish. Its obvious that you just cannot respond in a mature manner without the stupid digs of which, this is the second time in as many days you have picked up on imaginary comments.

I would think its only in your mind that I have stated what you accuse me of. respond to the facts of the issue and try and keep the immature personal digs out

Hypothetical does not work and obfuscates the issue and, height of a figure varies greatly so, one needs the correct measurements of X to work from. In this case its the AFV's which are the most important thing.
Mitch

You are wrong, the height of people various greatly, the height of a person 1800mm tall can indeed be used as "X" as accurately as any AFV and consequently figure size is equally important in this case.

Your continued assertions that my responses are personal are becoming tiresome, please discuss the subject without further accusations if you wish to continue the debate you started.

 

[PanzerAce1944]

I started this thread as a guide to the height of a hypothetical base mounted 1/30 scale soldier in battlegear measured against a specific AFV being a Tiger I as it seemed such a simple concept.

Mitch, you said "as long as the AFV's are the correct scale thats really all that counts." We know you do not care if your figures are sized correctly to your Armoured Fighting Vehicles. You have pushed your point of view in a number of posts and no doubt you will continue to do so. You do not seem to perceive the fact that not everyone shares your opinion and your comment that further discussion on the matter is therefore "pointless" is typically proprietorial.

Yes, there are collectors that are happy to display say 1/28 scale figures with 1/32 scale AFV's. I don't share this viewpoint but I would not be so arrogant to suggest those people are wrong and wasting their time. Like many other collectors I prefer my figures to blend well with their vehicles.

I also prefer them to be based on the traditional and default/standard Toy Soldier height of 1.8m (5' 11"). I included the 'smaller' average height of 1.7m (5' 7") as it may be of use to those that collect First Legion WW2 figures. Yes, I could have included a higher standard height of say 6' 4" to represent early LAH soldiers as you suggested but I have no desire to replicate the variance in height of "real" people even if the measurements allow this.

Matt, Your post here helping to correlate the scale comparison is appreciated. Thanks !

 

[Mitch]

very little point in replying as I have been told I am wrong. It is correct in the assumption you make that its tiresome. so, argue with yourself.
Mitch

 

[OzDigger]

very little point in replying as I have been told I am wrong. It is correct in the assumption you make that its tiresome. so, argue with yourself.
Mitch

You have been proved to be wrong, but I hope there are no hard feelings old chum.

 

[OzDigger]

Matt, Your post here helping to correlate the scale comparison is appreciated. Thanks !

Thanks PA, many new collectors do not know how tall their figures should be in 1/30 scale, and I will reiterate it here.

A 1.8m (5' 11") soldier in combat gear converted to 1/30 scale and mounted on a base should be about 64mm high.

 

[Mitch]

Actually, I have not been so, there is little need to bold the letters which is silly. show me in relation to the post what was wrong and what you have proven? what I stated was we should not see standardised figures they should all be differing heights if we are to be accurate and realistic as some posters are asking for with an alignment of figures to the size of the AFV's. I said in response to your standard size post was that you cannot generalise that figures are all at height X as this in itself causes problems as clearly they are not. A figure that stands above the deck of a tiger is no more wrong than a one that does not. thus one can only use AFV's with absolute certain measurements to get a correct scaling.

I never said anyone was wrong I am just not that arrogant its just differing ways to solve a problem which, is not difficult to sort but, manufacturers and some collectors make difficult and convoluted. Fact is the larger figures are here to stay and, I don't see it changing
Mitch


On a TS forum you don't even have to ask about hard feelingsa s its just not that important and I really don't care.

You have been proved to be wrong, but I hope there are no hard feelings old chum.

 

[OzDigger]

Actually, I have not been so, there is little need to bold the letters which is silly. show me in relation to the post what was wrong and what you have proven? what I stated was we should not see standardised figures they should all be differing heights if we are to be accurate and realistic as some posters are asking for with an alignment of figures to the size of the AFV's. I said in response to your standard size post was that you cannot generalise that figures are all at height X as this in itself causes problems as clearly they are not. A figure that stands above the deck of a tiger is no more wrong than a one that does not. thus one can only use AFV's with absolute certain measurements to get a correct scaling.

I never said anyone was wrong I am just not that arrogant its just differing ways to solve a problem which, is not difficult to sort but, manufacturers and some collectors make difficult and convoluted. Fact is the larger figures are here to stay and, I don't see it changing
Mitch


On a TS forum you don't even have to ask about hard feelingsa s its just not that important and I really don't care.

Easily done, you are wrong in your assertion that a height of 1800mm cannot be used as an X value.

As for the current variations in the size of figures said to be 1/30 scale, these differences are not the manufacturers attempting to replicate natural height differences in people. The differences are mostly due to what 'average height' they start with and other factors such as how they measure the height of a figure. For example some measure the traditional 1/30 scale height of 60mm from sole of foot to eye level while others measure the 60mm from sole to top of head. Clearly that has nothing to do with differences of scale, it is how the figure is measured. That is why Two different manufactures with different sized figures may both state 'their' figures are 1/30 scale. In a way they are both correct in what they claim but it confuses the heck out of most collectors, especially those new to the hobby, which is why I started this thread.

I prefer my figures to be around the same height and based on many years on this forum I think you are in the minority for wanting figures of various heights in the same diorama. You say you think it is too late to introduce figure height consistency, I don't agree. Furthermore you seem determined to undermine forum members that want their figures to be of similar heights and match the size of their vehicles. For what reason Mitch?

 

[Mitch]

Matt...

We are going round in circles here. I did not say and please look back at my post that it cannot be used. You are either unwilling my friend to see what I was saying or don't want to. your post initially mentioned the hypothetical size. I said if collectors want correct figure heights then there should be no standardised height. all should differ so, in that respect hypothetical figure heights based on whatever are rather mute. No figure should be the same height they should all differ as is the reality of the human.

I again, reiterate that I never said anyone was wrong just that I would use the AFV's and similar as Mike has just said weapons etc that are concrete in size ie. every MG42 was the same size or every stick grenade is X as the standard.

Its also why the size of figures does not really bother me as they are all the same height thats released and, the height of figures is variable. so, when a collector says a figure should not be above the height of the Tiger I deck (which, you used as an exempler) I said thats not correct and, can be proven in many many pictures of german troops standing by these AFV's above the deck height. why? because some troops were larger than others and, why I mentioned the LAH in my first reply.

It only seems that you consider it appropriate to keep saying I am wrong and hi-lighting that fact in bold letter. Standard unrefutable measurements exist in the hobby, in terms of figures its like saying how long is a piece of string?? A deck height of a tiger in 1/30th if memory serves should be 60mm so your mention (though I must admit I skip read it) of a 64mm figure?? would go against what many would say they wanted a figure above the height of the deck.

As I said, I did not say you were wrong you have assumed I did. I just offered another factor into the scale equation that many have stated and one I think its better to work from. No undermining from me to anyone who wants smaller figures from the current 1/28th to 1/30th if indeed manufacturers are even believeing they are using these scales I just think and clearly said it that its not going to change from the way things are. If thats undermining people stating something which is obvious and, has continued that way for many years then I don't have the same definition of undermining as you seem to have.

Its rather best that we agree to disagree as this is going nowhere.
Mitch

 

[Mitch]

just a quick picture that shows figures are the variable that cannot be stated as concrete and X. Not everyone was a standard height in WWII and this guy is from the heer. SS troops were very tall so, with current figures depicting the SS from manufacturers they could easily be said to be the correct height as they are when someone says they are wrong. there was no standard height for troops in WWII there are generational averages but, these are not the rule. You cannot IMO set a figure as the standard for the scale you intend to cover. that means everything else then must fit in with thats figure. Anyway mostly in terms of the actual discussion topic enjoyable non the less

Enjoy the pic
Mitch

 

[PanzerAce1944]

just a quick picture that shows figures are the variable that cannot be stated as concrete and X. Not everyone was a standard height in WWII and this guy is from the heer. SS troops were very tall so, with current figures depicting the SS from manufacturers they could easily be said to be the correct height as they are when someone says they are wrong. there was no standard height for troops in WWII there are generational averages but, these are not the rule. You cannot IMO set a figure as the standard for the scale you intend to cover. that means everything else then must fit in with thats figure. Anyway mostly in terms of the actual discussion topic enjoyable non the less

Enjoy the pic
Mitch

This guy in the photo is a giant. What kind of example is this. ^&confuse

 

[OzDigger]

This guy in the photo is a giant. What kind of example is this. ^&confuse

LOL - now don't be mean PA, you know full well that Brian from The Collectors Showcase used that guy as a template when TCS first entered the 1/30 scale market. Thankfully Brian soon realised his error and TCS now produce some of the best vehicles and figures in the hobby, but no one told Mitch it seems, he still has those old TCS sets and believes those giants represent an average 1/30 scale figure :wink2: ^&grin

 

[PanzerAce1944]

LOL - now don't be mean PA, you know full well that Brian from The Collectors Showcase used that guy as a template when TCS first entered the 1/30 scale market. Thankfully Brian soon realised his error and TCS now produce some of the best vehicles and figures in the hobby, but no one told Mitch it seems, he still has those old TCS sets and believes those giants represent an average 1/30 scale figure :wink2: ^&grin

I hear you Matt. An Army of 7 foot tall super men. {eek3}

 

[OzDigger]

Fun over and back to this scale debate, Mitch said

Matt...

We are going round in circles here. I did not say and please look back at my post that it cannot be used. You are either unwilling my friend to see what I was saying or don't want to. your post initially mentioned the hypothetical size. I said if collectors want correct figure heights then there should be no standardised height. all should differ so, in that respect hypothetical figure heights based on whatever are rather mute. No figure should be the same height they should all differ as is the reality of the human.

I again, reiterate that I never said anyone was wrong just that I would use the AFV's and similar as Mike has just said weapons etc that are concrete in size ie. every MG42 was the same size or every stick grenade is X as the standard.

Its also why the size of figures does not really bother me as they are all the same height thats released and, the height of figures is variable. so, when a collector says a figure should not be above the height of the Tiger I deck (which, you used as an exempler) I said thats not correct and, can be proven in many many pictures of german troops standing by these AFV's above the deck height. why? because some troops were larger than others and, why I mentioned the LAH in my first reply.

It only seems that you consider it appropriate to keep saying I am wrong and hi-lighting that fact in bold letter. Standard unrefutable measurements exist in the hobby, in terms of figures its like saying how long is a piece of string?? A deck height of a tiger in 1/30th if memory serves should be 60mm so your mention (though I must admit I skip read it) of a 64mm figure?? would go against what many would say they wanted a figure above the height of the deck.

As I said, I did not say you were wrong you have assumed I did. I just offered another factor into the scale equation that many have stated and one I think its better to work from. No undermining from me to anyone who wants smaller figures from the current 1/28th to 1/30th if indeed manufacturers are even believeing they are using these scales I just think and clearly said it that its not going to change from the way things are. If thats undermining people stating something which is obvious and, has continued that way for many years then I don't have the same definition of undermining as you seem to have.

Its rather best that we agree to disagree as this is going nowhere.
Mitch

Mitch, yes we do seem to be going round in circles and I also wonder how long it will take you to see my pov on this matter. What I'm getting at is in reality a fixed average figure height of 1800mm is no more unrealistic as your assertion that a fixed length of a AFV or even a rifle is a the only way to go. For example there are already plenty of Tiger tanks available in 1/30 scale from a variety of manufactures and they are all different sizes, the same goes for the weapons the model soldiers carry.

 

[TomB]

Fun over and back to this scale debate, Mitch said



Mitch, yes we do seem to be going round in circles and I also wonder how long it will take you to see my pov on this matter. What I'm getting at is in reality a fixed average figure height of 1800mm is no more unrealistic as your assertion that a fixed length of a AFV or even a rifle is a the only way to go. For example there are already plenty of Tiger tanks available in 1/30 scale from a variety of manufactures and they are all different sizes, the same goes for the weapons the model soldiers carry.

Wow..these discussions are only adding to my confusion on scales.....in my opinion you are both correct ....but the firms who do the models are the one's who hold the ace's.....they do the scales as they please....right or wrong...it is like computers..why does not everything work on one system without all the extra software that you have to add just to play one makers videos or whatever.....I have no solution......it sure is one interesting discussion though.....TomB

 

[Mitch]

PA...

Its a perfect example of the various sizes of the human being even though you don't see that from your reply. I can show you hundreds more from books and my own collection of pics where troops stand above this mythical too large bar some state. There is no standard height for a human troops in WWII regardless of the average height for the era they were all different sizes. I show this picture to emphasis this point only. The SS divisions were to a man very tall and would dwarf their AFV's so, were some Heer units. GD springs to mind in the early part of the war. So, for those who say they don't like large figures I am showing and stating why they don't really bother me and, can be quite accurate in scenic depictions. No more no less.

My original point was that manufacturers, if we are to have this accuracy I am supposed to be belittling, should be making figures all different sizes some tall some small some very tall to be accurate. They don't because it would be too much trouble and costly. So, what they have done is choosen to go their own way. Some do large figures CS K&C TG and some do smaller figures Figarti and FL. No matter how many discussions are based on scale they remain stuck to their choosen formats. If you want accuracy then forget it because whatever the scale of the manufacturers figures they are in that range all the same height which, is unrealistic itself. The next best is to mix and match say, FL with any manufacturers correct 1/30th AFV's. if your not bothered just display whats available. which, the vast majority do as these threads always only have a few responses.

Not forgetting that you can remove the bases (which, substantially over enlarge the figures) should you be that obsessive and, lower the height of the figures substantially to fit.

Its been said many times figures are 1/28th give or take for some while AFV's for K&C have come more or less in line with 1/30th. similar applies to TG on the whole. CS have 1/28th give or take figures but, their AFV's venture between 1/30th and 1/28th or 1/29th depending on what it is.

As Rob mentioned in his thread even the keypad is tiring of having to state what scales the hobby uses. Its a hobby based on 1/30th primarliy and, its not hard to do that. There are no differentials in attaining this scale its not hard, not rocket science but, they have choosen not to.

The larger figures are popular or they would not be made one only has to look at the comments about size when talking about FL to see many don't want smaller figures
Mitch

This guy in the photo is a giant.
Mitch

What kind of example is this. ^&confuse

 

[fmethorst]

I would like to point out that while this guy is definitely tall he is not quite as tall people may think due to perspective. The camera is below the level of the top of the hull. Camera position can be determined from box shaped objects by observing the corners of the box. If the lines representing the edges of the box bisect at any angle other than 0 degrees we know the camera is above or below the plane formed by the top of the box. In this case it's obvious the camera is below the top of the hull.

What does this mean? In the picture below I have drawn thick red lines through the front top and right top edge of the hull. From these we can deduce a plane created by the top of the hull extending forward. I have added thin red lines at intervals along the horizontal axis. These lines represent the top of the hull projected forward. as you can see the further forward an object the same height as the hull appears in the picture the taller it will appear. This guy is clearly not very far in front of the hull so he is definitely taller than the hull, just not quite as extreme as it appears at first.

Here is another example of the effect. In this case the camera is quite a bit below the top of the hull (probably kneeling) and the officer well in front

Here I am, suddenly taller than a Tiger (I'm 178cm 5' 10")

Not so fast. When we eliminate the perspective distortion by placing me the same distance from the camera things make more sense

So basically there are two ways to reduce perspective distortion. The camera must be the same distance from the objects being measured and/or the camera must be in the plane formed by the top of the object.

Frank