M26 Pershing WWII Photo Marlene Dietrich (1 Viewer)

[katana]

A very interesting photo of an M26 with Marlene Dietrich and a number of US troops. The size variations of the troops and their relation to the tank are very interesting. The second photo is an FOV M-26 with an WB figure for comparison. The figure is WB #25032 and measures 60mm top of base to top of head. The firing height of a Pershing is 78 inches; which gives a size comparison for the first photo, with Marlene on the turret.

 

[uksubs]

A very interesting photo of an M26 with Marlene Dietrich and a number of US troops. The size variations of the troops and their relation to the tank are very interesting. The second photo is an FOV M-26 with an WB figure for comparison. The figure is WB #25032 and measures 60mm top of base to top of head. The firing height of a Pershing is 78 inches; which gives a size comparison for the first photo, with Marlene on the turret.


View attachment 230750View attachment 230751

The Pershing is 1/32 scale and WB Soldier 1/30 scale so would it not be correct to use Figarti 130 tank instead ^&confuse{sm2}^&grin

 

[katana]

Actually Neil the FOV Pershing measures 1/30 scale as you can determine from the photos. The Figarti Pershing is oversize for some reason and has less detail than the FOV version i.e. no tracks on the turret. I find the FOV version superior to the Figarti or TCS versions plus the excellent WB figures are size compatible.

FYI the FOV Jagdtiger also measures 1/30 and the Jagdpanther measures 1/31. 1/32 scale may apply generally to FOV armor but some are significantly larger.

The Pershing is 1/32 scale and WB Soldier 1/30 scale so would it not be correct to use Figarti 130 tank instead ^&confuse{sm2}^&grin

 

[uksubs]

Actually Neil the FOV Pershing measures 1/30 scale as you can determine from the photos. The Figarti Pershing is oversize for some reason and has less detail than the FOV version i.e. no tracks on the turret. I find the FOV version superior to the Figarti or TCS versions plus the excellent WB figures are size compatible.

FYI the FOV Jagdtiger also measures 1/30 and the Jagdpanther measures 1/31. 1/32 scale may apply generally to FOV armor but some are significantly larger.

I don’t believe FOV AFV is 1/30 scale as I had a big collection of them year back , also love to see the FOV Jagdpanther next to JJD version for comparison

 

[katana]

FYI Neil the actual size of an M26 is: Overall Length 340 inches, Width 138 inches, Height 109 inches. The size of the FOV M26 is: Overall length 11 inches, width 4.5 inches, height 3.625 inches. The Figarti M26 is: Overall Length 11 inches, Width 5 inches, height 3.75 inches. The correct dimensions for 1/30 scale are: Overall length 11.5 inches, Width 4.6 inches, Height 3.6 inches. Neither Figarti or FOV models are a precise 1/30 scale. The Figarti M26 is larger and the FOV M26 is smaller; however the FOV M26 is closer to 1/30 than the Figarti M26. The only other M26 available is the TCS M26 which measures much larger than 1/30 scale; Overall length 12.062 inches. Width 5.625. Height 3.625.

Divide the model size into the actual size to obtain the scale. The height is measured to the top of the cupola. Each model will give different scales for length, width and height. You can average the three dimension to obtain one relative scale. FOV had several production runs of the M26. My example is from the last production run. Your example may have been from a different production run an could have had different dimensions. Maintenance of injection molds requires polishing and plating, so dimensions can vary over time.

I don’t believe FOV AFV is 1/30 scale as I had a big collection of them year back , also love to see the FOV Jagdpanther next to JJD version for comparison

 

[Hunter Rose]

Lordy, here we go again with the 1/32 vehicles being perfect for 1/30 figures.

Katana, could you post a picture of the WB Paratrooper directly under the 1/32 FOV Pershing cannon barrel with the tank viewed directly from the front (not angled).

Looks from your angled setup that the figure's head would easily hit the bottom of the cannon. Since he's slouched over a little bit, that would make him approximately 6'5" or 6'6". All the other WB figures are pretty much the same height so again we'd have a bunch of NBA troops with tanks.

 

[katana]

The firing height of an M26 is 78 inches measured from the ground to the center of the 90mm barrel bore. The bottom of the barrel would than be 78-2.75=75.25 inches. The helmet adds about 2 inches to a mans height due to the webbing in the liner plus the thickness of the liner and helmet. Given these parameters a 6 foot tall mans bare head would would about stand even with the bottom of the barrel. I believe the WWII photo accurately shows this size relationship. The gun is elevated, so use the center of the mantlet as a 78 inch point of reference.

The argument presented is not one of scale; but about some FOV armor being over size and that these models can work well with true 60mm figures as demonstrated in the second photo with the 60mm WB figure. The FOV M26 is closer to 1/30 scale than either the Figarti or TCS M26.

 

[Hunter Rose]

Your angled photo doesn’t really prove anything. It’s not even at the same angle as the historic pic you’re using for comparison.

Why not just take a picture of the tank directly from the front with the figure under the barrel? It should help support your assertion that it goes well with 1/30 WB figures?

I posit the tank will look a lot smaller if you take the picture I requested. No issues if I’m wrong, just curious to see the reality since I don’t own the tank. I do own the Figarti version and it goes well with the WB figure pictured, so I am skeptical that a smaller tank somehow looks better.

 

[katana]

The photo is not angled up or down; so it does not affect the relative sizes of the subjects. The figure is 60mm top of base to top of head. The plinth under the M26 subtracts the figure base height.
The top of the figures head is at the center point of the M26 mantlet. The Figarti M26 is 1/29 scale as supported by the dimensions posted earlier. Given the price difference between the FOV and Figarti M26 the choice is obvious since the FOV model is both more detailed and closer to the correct 1/30 dimensions.

 

[Sahara]

Katana, what is the height of the base that you have the Pershing on?

 

[katana]

The spacer under the m26 is 3mm thick. The same thickness as the base on the WB figure. A new photo of the M26 from a different angle is posted below.
The FL figures would probably look even better as they are smaller than the WB figures.

 

[Hunter Rose]

The argument presented is not one of scale; but about some FOV armor being over size and that these models can work well with true 60mm figures as demonstrated in the second photo with the 60mm WB figure. The FOV M26 is closer to 1/30 scale than either the Figarti or TCS M26.

Well, since the argument is not one of scale, I'll go with how the tank will work with the figures.

Here's the Figarti Pershing with the WB figures. I'd be curious to see how the FOV looks directly from the front with 3 WB figures in front of it, especially without it propped up on a spacer, since I've never really seen anyone prop their tanks on spacers in diorama pics on this or the HB Forums (I know I don't).

I'll offer the counter view that the Figarti Pershing looks just fine with WB and FL figures even if it's closer to 1/29 in some dimensions. Just like the King and Country Tigers that are closer to 1/29 work fine with WB and FL figures. Personally, if it's not a perfectly scaled tank, I'd prefer slightly oversized to slightly undersized.

Collectors can decide for themselves.

 

[Hunter Rose]

Katana,

If you own both the Figarti and FOV Pershing, I'd love to see some pics of them together with a WB figure or two in there.

Pics from the front, side, and top would be great for comparison.

 

[Hunter Rose]

Katana,

I find your measurements above suspect.

Here's some pics I found of the Figarti Pershing next to the FOV Pershing from an earlier thread. You stated the overall length of both tanks was 11 inches, when it's pretty obvious there's a noticeable difference in length.

The FOV looks significantly smaller to my eye. The WB figures look decent next to the Figarti Pershing, if not slightly too bulky. I just can't see how they work better with the significantly smaller FOV Pershing.

 

[katana]

The M26 is on a spacer to eliminate the figure base as a point of contention. I don't display it that way either. I appreciate your excellent photos and I note you have the same WB figure I have displayed with the FOV M26. Visually your photos and my photos show essentially the same size relationship between the M26 and the figures IMO. I prefer the FOV because of cost and the greater detail. I don't have the Figarti anymore as I was disappointed with the size and lack of detail, plus the fit of the mantlet to the turret is strange. To each his on as they say.
FYI their was a thread that had excellent overhead photos of the FOV, Figarti and TCS M26's side by side; which led to a heated scale argument and the deletion of the thread. The TCS is about 1/28 with rather strange proportions. The dimensions from the sample I measured was: OAL 12 inches, Hull Lgth 9.00 inches, Width 5.625, Height 3.625. The proportions are very odd; OAL 1/28, Width 1/25, height 1/30. Like three different models and only on is correct.

Katana,

If you own both the Figarti and FOV Pershing, I'd love to see some pics of them together with a WB figure or two in there.

Pics from the front, side, and top would be great for comparison.

 

[Hunter Rose]

Here's the Figarti Pershing with FL figures.

 

[Hunter Rose]

Visually your photos and my photos show essentially the same size relationship between the M26 and the figures IMO. I prefer the FOV because of cost and the greater detail. I don't have the Figarti anymore as I was disappointed with the size and lack of detail, plus the fit of the mantlet to the turret is strange. To each his on as they say.

I may have to pick up the FOV Pershing to see for myself.

 

[katana]

Great photos with the FL figures; they are about the same size as the figures in the WWII photo. Looks like these FL figures are about the same size as the WB figures. FL must have given them some growth hormone!

 

[bradleyl30]

Here's the Figarti Pershing with FL figures.

They look the best in my opinion.

 

[katana]

The FL figures are shorter than the WB figures and the figures in the WWII photo. Will someone cite the height of the FL figures from top of base to top of head.