The hobby of gaming with miniature figures grew out of the older hobby of collecting miniature figures. That earlier hobby was not, and is not today, concerned with the exact proportion between the full size figure and the model. Instead, figures are identified by their approximate height: 54mm, 90mm, 120mm, etc. In wargaming, despite 30+ years of separate development, we still refer to our figures and models in the same way: 6mm, 10mm. l5mm, 20mm, 25mm, and 30mm are the wargaming "scales", even though the figure height is only tenuously connected to "scale' at all. This approximation was acceptable when the predominate miniatures were all living. People and horses come in various sizes, and if figures purporting to be 25nim actually range from 24 to 28mm, well, men range from 5 to 7 feet in height, an even greater range proportionally. The occasional cannon or limber/caisson on the battlefield might be modeled to no particular scale at all, but as long as it "looked right" next to the figures, nobody much cared. That happy situation no longer applies. Those of us gaming the twentieth century wars, and world war two and later in particular. have to deal with the fact that the battlefield is dominated by machines now. In fact, what draws many people to the period is the "heavy metal" - the tanks, aircraft, big guns, and other paraphernalia of war. Unfortunately for the modeler shelling out bucks for the models, none of the manufacturers or sculptors working for them seem to have given much thought to what scale that equipment should be modeled, and It is critical: T-34-76 tanks do not vary in size no matter how sloppy Soviet manufacturing standards were. In WWII (and they were sloppy, Lord Knows), and if two T-34s from two different manufacturers are totally different in size, one of those manufacturers will make no more sales of T-34s to that modeler - he has to choose and stick with one, just to be consistent on his own table top. Thus, a lack of coherent scales for our wargaming figure sizes hurts both the modeler stuck with incompatible models and the manufacturers. To resolve this, the first question that has to be answered is what scale the figures represent In the first place. This is not a simple question, but answering it one way or the other might also provide some stability to the hobby that the notorious "figure creep" has removed too many "15mm" figures are now 18mm high, and too many "25mm" figures are now larger than the 30mm figures of 20 years ago. Since the millimeter is still the same size, we need to get some precise definitions among the manufacturers and gamers. There are two conventions common when discussing figure height, our basic measurement up to now. One is that the height represents the actual height from ground to top of the head. The other, which among others has been adopted by the 'Barrett Scale" used in The Courier magazine's reviews, is that the height represents the distance from the ground to the eyes. Now, In classical anatomical artist's proportions, the proportional distance from the line through the center of the eyes to the top of the head is 1/16 of the height of the figure from ground to crown of the head. Therefore, these two conventions represent a 1/16 or 6.25% difference in the nominal figure scale right off the bat. The second question to answer is what the basic 6-10-15-20-25-30mm figure height represents. One tradition is that is the height of a six foot man, or 72 inches. I propose that this is a poor representation, since at no time in history has six feet been the average height of the average soldier or warrior in anything but special units. While the actual average varies with race, time period, diet, and a host of other factors, I propose to use (since my concern is the twentieth century) the mid-late twentieth century average. Specifically, the US Army 1950 1970 figure, which was that the average soldier was 69 inches tall, and 95% of all recruits would be between 60 and 77 inches tall. As a starting point, this at least gives us a range of actual heights with which to compare our model figures to obtain a scale proportion. To keep this column down to reasonable length, I am going to provide figures for 15,20, and 25mm figures only. The chart below shows the results of calculating the proportional scale for each nominal size of figure, based on both the "total height" and the "height to the eyes" figure size. The result is expressed in the number of actual inches represented by a millimeter: Measurement Type Scale Inches Millimeter 15mm 20mm 25mm Total Height 4.6 3.45 2.76 Height to Eyes 4.3 3.23 2.59 In terms familiar to model railroaders and other scale modelers, the resulting scales in actual millimeters required to represent a foot are: Measurement Type Scale Inches to the foot 15mm 20mm 25mm Total Height 2.6 3.5 4.3 Height to Eyes 2.8 3.7 4.6 The proportional relationship between the models in each case and their prototypes are: Measurement Type Proportion: Model to Prototype 15mm 20mm 25mm Total Height 1/116 1/87 1/70 Height to Eyes 1/109 1/82 1/65 Now, a few observations. The 20mm full height figure Is exactly the same scale and proportion as the American HO scale model railroad equipment: 1/87 proportion, a scale of 3.5mm to the foot. The 25mm figures, however you measure them, straddle the S Scale model railroad scale, which is 1/67 proportion. Note that the 20mm figures, no matter how you measure them, are too small for the popular 1/72 or 1/76 plastic tank models - the"small" 25mm figures are actually closer to scale for those! Currently manufacturers say that their "15mm" models are 1/100 or 1/110 proportion. As you can see, while 1/110 is close to the "large" 15mm figure in exact scale, the 1/100 proportion is slightly too large unless you are assuming at least a 6 foot average height for your troops. By the way, using the maximum-minimum heights of the average soldiers (60 - 77 inches) the maximum and minimum size of figures for the various measurements and scales comes out as follows: Measurement Type 15mm 20mm 25mm Total Height 13-16.7 17.4-22 21.7- 28 Height to Eyes 14-18 18.6- 23.8 23.1-29.7 Notice that, at least as far as the figures are concerned, there can legitimately be a wide variation in height, and the maximum and minimum sizes of figures in each nominal "scale" actually overlap! However, before you run out and buy 20mm figures to mix into your 15mm collection, remember that the proportion of these figures will not be correct, nor will the relative size of any of the equipment they are carrying or using: a 6'5" man is not often proportioned the same as a 5'6" man, and the M1 rifle (or Brown Bess, for that matter) will not look proportionately the same when carried by each. What Does it all Mean? So, what does all this minor mathematical exercise mean to you the gamer? Well, I am not crazy enough to think that I can dictate what scale the figures and models should be sculpted to: in this hobby, what looks good will sell, regardless of its relationship to reality of size or proportion to other figures. Unlike the model railroaders, who had to have precise standards of size. In order to operate their hobby at all, we can play games with any size or variation of figures. However, if manufacturers wish to keep selling figures and models to the widest range of customers, I would strongly urge them to agree on a standard scale or proportion to go with our popular "figure scales". It seems to me that this, in the long run, would be a good thing for them and their customers both. For one thing, it would mean that the gamer could buy and mix figures and vehicles from several manufacturers without worrying about compatibility. Right now, even though (taking 15mm WWII models for example) one manufacturer makes better figures, another makes better (overall) vehicles, and a third makes vehicles neither of the other two manufacture, neither I nor the other gamers in the local club dare to buy any new models unless we've had a chance to physically compare them for size compatibility, We've all been burned once too often. I have the same problem trying to mix 18th century 15mm figures from manufacturers whose definition of "15mm" varies from 14 to 19mm. I had to go to a convention of numbers of gunners to identify the size of 18th century guns because no two manufacturer s cannon were the same size, and one source's "light" guns were as big as another's 'medium" guns! If in their advertising the manufacturers could state with accuracy that their figures were 1/110, 1/87, or 1/65 scale instead of saying "large 15s". '20mm' or "large 25s" the information would be a lot more accurate for the gamer. You would know that the 1/65 scale figures could range from a 24mm feisty runt with his sleeves rolled up to a near-30mm gangly fellow, perhaps with his wrists protruding from the sleeves of his too-short coat! Note that the sculptors, working from a definite scale proportion, would also have the option now to model the physical types realistically for all the wargaming periods: Gallic chiefs realistically taller than the shorter Roman Legionairies, grenadiers a realistic height and proportion compared to the tirailliers in Napoleonic figure lines. If manufacturers can not agree on standards and scales among themselves, this is one of the few areas where some kind of gainer's organization (HMGS National?) could actually do some good, by adopting standards for describing the proportions and scales. Even though the only "enforcement of these would be by the buying public, the use of such standards in reviews, and hopefully in advertising, would at least give the buyer more information than he has now before he lays down his money. Back to MWAN #100 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1999 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com