A Question of Scale

[Dave Ward]

In searching for models for 3D printing - I find that a lot of tank models are in 1/56, which are also labelled as 28mm scale, It's obviously a popular wargaming scale. but what actually is it? If you look at the definition of 28mm scale - it ranges from 1/60 to 1/64 depending on source - where does the 1/56 come from?
I'm upscaling models to 1/35, which coveniently is 1.6 X 1/56 size. As a stand alone model, it may not cause a problem, but if you add in figures, and other accessories, that may look a little odd at times.
As a passing interest how did this scale come about? Scales can be verry annoying - Why 1/32 and 1/35? why 1/72 & 1/76?
You can resize according to real specs ie actual size divided by 1/35, but you can be tricked by real specs - is the length including gun forward, or not?
I resized the model of the Orient French battleship, to 1/350, or so I thought. It turns out that the length dimension I used, included the bow sprit!, so the model is probably about 1/320! It doesn't really matter, but can be.................ummmmmmm vexing
Dave

[Jim R]

I understand where you're coming from Dave. I have always been confused by scale. I understand 1/35, 1/72 etc but as to why they were chosen - I don't know. As for 28mm, HO etc - no chance.
So come on Tim and Jakko sort it out. Scale for Dummies please :smiling2:

[Ian M]

Rumor has it that Mr. Tamiya is to blame for 1/35. He wanted a tank but at 1/32 it would not fit the boxes so he had the kit sized to 1/35.
A lot of the scales are descended from the railway scales which have been around a lot longer than plastic models.
HO =1/96 halv of which is 1/48 halved again i is 1/24 again 1/12
O gauge =1/32 is one third of 1/96...half of that is.... 1/64

[Guest]

So come on Tim and Jakko sort it out. Scale for Dummies please :smiling2:

Let me give it a try, as far as I understand it, anyway …

Ratios ([ICODE]1:35[/ICODE]) or fractions ([ICODE]1/35[/ICODE]) are easy and straightforward: they simply indicate how much smaller the model is than the real thing: if you have a model plane in 1:72 (or 1/72) scale, the real thing is seventy-two times as big.

Millimetre “scales” are conventions from figure modelling, and as a result of that, also used for wargaming. ISTR that depending on who you ask, it either means the size from the ground to the top of the figure’s head (or where it would be if it had no headdress), from the ground to the eyes, or (least commonly) from the ground to the top of the headdress. The second option seems to be favoured in the UK, the first elsewhere in the world, the latter by hardly anyone because it creates obvious problems in matching figures with different heights of headdress.

Actual figure measurements vary a lot as a result, of course, but specifically the 28 mm thing comes courtesy of Games Workshop, AFAIK. Turn back the clock 40 years or so and 25 mm was a normal wargaming “scale” — call it 1:72, because 25 mm × 72 = 1.80 m, which is a good, average, rule-of-thumb height for a standing soldier-type man. However, GW for its fantasy and SF ranges began to sculpt figures bigger and more cartoonishly, yet still originally calling them “25 mm”. These then began to be called “28 mm” to distinguish them from more realistically proportioned 25 mm figures. No idea where the idea of equating 1:56 scale with 28 mm comes from, however — 28 mm × 56 = 1.568 m, which is short even for most western women, let alone men suitable for military service. Had they picked 1:64 scale it would have made more sense.

All the lettered/numbered “scales” are a total mess created by railway modellers, and I don‘t think I’ve ever really understood the hows and whys of them — but I’m guessing Tim will What I do know is they’re often derived from track gauges, and that H0 is 1:87 because it’s “half 0”, meaning half the size of Märklin’s “0” gauge, which was 1:43.5 scale.

Rumor has it that Mr. Tamiya is to blame for 1/35. He wanted a tank but at 1/32 it would not fit the boxes so he had the kit sized to 1/35.

According to something I read about it, but don’t quite remember where, 1:35 is the result of Tamiya wanting to make a motorised Panther tank kit, and to fit two D-type batteries in the hull side by side, it turned out the model needed to be 1:35 scale.

[Jim R]

Thanks Jakko. You have made more sense in your three paragraph post than most of the internet explanations I have seen.

[Tim Marlow]

Pretty much agree with Jakko on this. As I recall, 28mm figures were originally marketed as “heroic” scale 25mm, being a bit bigger and enabling the sculptor to get more detail on the figure. All it really comes down to is “if ours are bigger, other ranges won’t fit with them so we corner the market”.
Don’t try and rationalise ratio scales against figure scales because in the figure world the sculptor rules the range. Each manufacturer basically has its own core mannequin that it dresses up to make the various figure ranges. Whatever the sculptor come up with for the mannequin is their representation of that so called scale……traditionally measured foot to eye, these days, as Jakko says, they could be measured to almost anywhere
Not sure where 1/56 comes from either, but it would probably suit 28 mm foot to eye, which would be closer to the nominal 32 mm foot to top of head they would suit best. Some gamers use 1/48 vehicles, which looks ridiculous, but they are not overly worried about scale, more with the overall effect.
As to railway scales, I could do this if you want, but do you really want it I get a little carried away if I’m not careful….

It’s easy to understand when you get it, but getting it isn’t that easy…..it basically equates to the scale of the rolling stock upperworks. Almost none of the commercially available trackworks are accurate models.

The most useful, and easiest, way of looking at railway scales is their imperial measurement equivalents. An example, OO is better described as 4mm, because 4mm on the model equates to one imperial foot, and that is the way the upperworks are sized. It also comes out at 1:76 in ratio scales. Trouble is, it was launched using commercially available mechanisms that were using a narrower track gauge, so all OO railway models are grossly undersized beneath the footplate. The track should be 4 foot 8 and one half inches wide, but on OO models it is the equivalent of about 4 foot 1 inch. They all pre date decimalisation by very many years, hence the infatuation with imperial equivalences in British outline models.

What is interesting is that the nomenclature originally followed the same basic idea used on things like paintbrushes…..You are all aware of brushes in sizes OOO, OO, O, 1, 2, etc….., well model railways follow the same basic idea. There are all of those scales around, but things have got gradually smaller over the years, and some have been renamed for commercial reasons. Original Bing models from pre war were Gauge 1 or 2. HO doesn’t fit in, you say, we’ll, HO is a bastardised scale and just means Half O…..O scale is 7mm/foot equivalent and HO is 3.5mm/foot equivalent.
N gauge was originally OOO….and is 2mm/foot equivalent.
TT was a commercial scale launched by Triang, scaled at 3mm/foot, that is rarely seen these days. It means Triang Tabletop, by the way.
Z scale, well that’s just electric worms I think…….only useful for decorating Christmas cakes.

I‘m not doing narrow gauge or broad either, that gives me a headache, and I actually understand it :disappointed2:

[Dave Ward]

Thanks all for the informative replies! Although the origin of 1/56 seems a little ..................... obscure?
Looks like I'm going to have to do the research on every model! Looking at vehicles, I actually think that the width may be more constant, there aren't the protrusions front & back, in the length & the height can vary a lot ( mg mounts etc ). None of this matters, really, as I tend to do stand alone models anyway!
Dave

[Tim Marlow]

Thanks all for the informative replies! Although the origin of 1/56 seems a little ..................... obscure?
Looks like I'm going to have to do the research on every model! Looking at vehicles, I actually think that the width may be more constant, there aren't the protrusions front & back, in the length & the height can vary a lot ( mg mounts etc ). None of this matters, really, as I tend to do stand alone models anyway!
Dave

I think the origin of 1/56 is basically that the manufacturer thought it would be close enough Dave, and nobody else was making it at the time

[Jim R]

Thanks Tim. The fug is clearing a bit but by 'eck scale is a brain taxing business.

Z scale, well that’s just electric worms I think…….only useful for decorating Christmas cakes.

At least you finished with humour :smiling2:

[Tim Marlow]

Thanks Tim. The fug is clearing a bit but by 'eck scale is a brain taxing business.

At least you finished with humour :smiling2:

Actual scale is a walk in the park. It’s the way manufacturers and modellers play fast and lose with it that’s the problem Jim…..
Mind you, Isambard Kingdom Brunel could be a pain as well. His broad gauge was 7 feet and one quarter inch between the rails, apparently because that was the gauge of cart tracks in Ancient Rome. I mean….why the extra quarter inch for gawds sake……it’s like he did it to wind up modellers in the future.

[Guest]

Thanks all for the informative replies! Although the origin of 1/56 seems a little ..................... obscure?

I think it’s fairly easily explained, but forgot something earlier tonight: modern “28 mm” figures are more often closer to 30 mm, or over, and also called “32 mm” these days. And 32 mm × 56 = 1.792 m.

What is interesting is that the nomenclature originally followed the same basic idea used on things like paintbrushes…..You are all aware of brushes in sizes OOO, OO, O, 1, 2, etc….., well model railways follow the same basic idea.

Not to mention shotgun calibres, British and American wire sizes, drill bits, and all kinds of other stuff: some size has been named as “size 1” or “1 gauge” and everything bigger numbered 2, 3, etc. But what about smaller sizes? Well, size 0 of course. Smaller still? 00, 000, etc. it is! Good idea!

WTF is wrong with just giving the diameter, I wonder?

[Tim Marlow]

I think it’s fairly easily explained, but forgot something earlier tonight: modern “28 mm” figures are more often closer to 30 mm, or over, and also called “32 mm” these days. And 32 mm × 56 = 1.792 m.


Not to mention shotgun calibres, British and American wire sizes, drill bits, and all kinds of other stuff: some size has been named as “size 1” or “1 gauge” and everything bigger numbered 2, 3, etc. But what about smaller sizes? Well, size 0 of course. Smaller still? 00, 000, etc. it is! Good idea!

WTF is wrong with just giving the diameter, I wonder?

Yep, at least obscure measurements like standard wire gauge (swg) could be understood….how many wires of that diameter can you fit into a one inch tube…..

As to the number scale, used with brushes, for example, it varies by manufacturer. It just uses 1 as a baseline for bigger and smaller sizes.

I think, I’m not sure but it seems logical, that the number scales seem logarithmic in origin. 1 is the nominal start point, and O, OO, OOO etc are equivalent to 0.1, 0.01, 0.01 etc and 1, 2, 3 etc are like 1, 10, 100 etc.

[Guest]

Yep, at least obscure measurements like standard wire gauge (swg) could be understood….how many wires of that diameter can you fit into a one inch tube…..

Logical in itself, maybe, but take a step back and IMHO it’s obviously completely useless for anything else than that measurement itself … Try working out which size of drill to use for a hole for any given size of wire to go through, because as far as I can tell the numbers between the two are usually different

I think, I’m not sure but it seems logical, that the number scales seem logarithmic in origin. 1 is the nominal start point, and O, OO, OOO etc are equivalent to 0.1, 0.01, 0.01 etc and 1, 2, 3 etc are like 1, 10, 100 etc.

Good thought, but I kind of doubt it. A 2 brush isn’t ten times larger than a size 1 brush, is it? Let alone that an 00 is 1% the size of a 1. So if it is logarithmic, it’s not base-10, I would think

[Jim R]

Well Dave I reckon the can of worms is well and truly open :smiling2:

[Tim Marlow]

Not logarithmic per se Jakko, but potentially designed by someone with a classical education so familiar with the idea of the orders of magnitude, which, in turn, derived from the mathematical concept of logarithms.

The rest of it, SWG, AWG, number drills etc probably has its origins in work protectionism. Their very complexity makes them hard to follow for the untutored.

This is much like the adoption of things like rhyming slag in some occupations. Because if you can’t speak the language you can’t do the job…..so can’t take away the means of earning a living from a local that can speak it.