A forum to discuss HaT products, ETS, uniformology, modeling, painting, and other essentials associated with HaT products.
I've read the various posts on this thread & respect people's feelings.
My opinion is I don't find size discrepancy a huge (pun intended) problem.
Sure there's some sets that are unusable but mostly if you keep them in discreet units it doesn't matter.
Revell, Wodenfeld, HaT, Imex, Esci, Zvesda & more: here's my 7YW armies in action:
Scratch built, Bill.
one of our group is a terrain-making genius.
My two favourite French Imperial Guard sets are those produced by Airfix and Zvedza because they are well sculpted and wear Full Dress Uniform. However, you can not line these two sets up side by side or it will look like young boys along side their fathers. This sort of discrepancy in physical bulk is a real shame in our hobby where I think the sales of both would benefit from them being made correctly, in this case Zvedza got it right but I only bought 1 box of them whereas I have a few more of Airfix. At present I use the Airfix casualty figure with my Revell British Line Infantry for the AWI since he is hat less and well sculpted. The Airfix French Line Infantry casualty lying face down with no hat has also been conscripted into the same army.
The bulk of my collection(75000+?) is based on hat,esci,and airfix.So I want figures compatible with those.I was plannig an extensive 18th cenrtury FI,AWI,7yrs but the italeri and revell figures were just to big.
One of the issues is how to measure the figure.
The old Courier magazine (much missed!) made a smart move when it adopted "Toby Barrett" measure in its reviews. Basically, all figures are measured from the top of the stand (or bottom of the feet) to the eye level. Figures may have headgear of various sizes, but almost all allow the eyes to see out*.
In addition to this, the figure was classed as light, medium or heavy for its bulk.
This standard at least made it easier to compare figures from various sources.
I agree that in a scaled size, such as 1/72, there is no reason that objects such as rifles should not always be the same size.
* some gladiator helms do not have eye slits, but that's Sparticus's problem.
Different perspectives here, everyone is entitled to have his own, this is mine:
I like my figures in 23 mm, Asians smaller.
I won't buy any 26+ mm figures, not matter how well they are sculpted and how dearly I "need" them, because they are not compatible to my collection. Regards, Pat
I would buy at least one 28mm figure to go with my average joe 1/72 figures and that would be a correctly done character figure of Harald Hardrada(at least according to the Saga)in Emma... and thats being conservative..
A few Figures(pun intended)
BEF would have to be 23.6mm minimum to be accurate for 1914(5ft 7inches tall otherwise you get sent away)
Roman Soldiers official height is 6 Roman feet(5ft 10inches) so 24.7mm in 1/72... but shorter(and taller) men were accepted... largest foot size I know off is size 14uk 15us for a roman military boot.... belonging to a Centurion
I have not bothered to read the expansive list of responses to this post. However, that said, I have always enjoyed the discrepancies of size believing they add a touch more realism to the craft. Many is the change of command and retirement ceremony, I participated in, where troops lined up from tallest to smallest behind the squad leaders to form the platoon. People are different sizes and piecing these slightly different scales together merely reflects that.
To quote from BLACK ADDER GOES FORTH, "King and Country would have us believe that all British soldiers are strapping 6 footers with muscles the size of Bormoth." (my apologies to those across the pond if misspelled) And the Germans never obtained divisions of their 6 foot, blond haired, blue eyed, ideal soldiers.