Vehicle scale best for 28mm figures?

[FramFramson]

Basing matters a lot. I use larger 30-32mm figures, but on thin pennies they look far too tall compared to a 1/48th car or truck, with bonnets typically up at the figures' neck level, which looked absurd IMO. 1/56th ended up looking much closer to me, so that's my scale of choice for regular vehicles.

Trains and planes I find work at 1/64th (S Scale), even it can be quite difficult to come by kits in that size. 1/56 planes or trains simply take up too much table space and 1/48th planes look egregiously out of scale to my eye even next to 35mm figures.

This also lines up with the fact that the interiors of any buildings I make would be seriously undersized in terms of square footage, but they look fine as long as they're not absurdly small and the HEIGHT stays reasonably proportional to the figures you're using. With planes trains and especially buildings, I find that the eye is strongly drawn to doorways as a scale reference, so having these match your figures covers up a lot of other scale fudging.

[Tom Dulski]

Here’s a picture of me standing next to a Panther tank and a black tree figure standing next to a corgi 1/50 panther. The scale is spot on.

[CapnJim]

Here’s a picture of me standing next to a Panther tank and a black tree figure standing next to a corgi 1/50 panther. The scale is spot on.

That's good to know.  Been thinking of getting one - a hobby shop not far from me has several of the Corgi tanks in stock.

I see that 1:1 Panther has its own base...

[tin shed gamer]

Shadowbeast,
You've actually hit on one of the misconceptions of scale in both wargaming and scale modelling. Is that every thing is to scale ,its absolutely not. If you look for example at scale model 1/48 tank with crew and compare it to exactly the same tank from a half a dozen scale model manufacturers. They should if the axiom of scale is followed be Identical to the point of being indistinguishable from on another. What is even more alarmingly obvious is the crew figures they often fluctuate from 1/52 to 1/43 and if you go back a little over ten years it could be as much as 1/36.
Then if you spin over to wargaming 1/56 vehicles are rarely actually 1/56 detailing has to be tweaked to allow for casting and proportioned to avoid a Chibby look.
When it comes to miniatures it's just as sketchy several of the manufacturer mentioned bounce all over the place with the over all sizing on miniatures with in the same range and period. Not simply a case of making taller human figures. But rescaling equipment and weapons.
1/56 if done as a figure is 28mm foot to eye give or take half a mil . No all my weapons etc are scaled to this.But if I make a scale Human who's over 6' and give him this equipment.  Then people complain that they're heroic scale and don't fit with the other miniatures. Totally ignoring that the equipment is the same size if the human is 5'10" or 6'4". The same argument Is put forward when you sculpt someone who's under 5'10". That don't scale with other figures.
There in lies the issue . The preconceived notion of standardisation of that which naturally fluctuates . If people truely wanted 1/56 miniatures then they'd bounce any where from 24mm to 33mm foot to eye, With out complaint.
Nope what people actually one is a generic 28mm tall figure with everyone neatly identical in height. It's something we've all been imprinted with as we've grown up with lovely standardisation that allows for easy mass production. Coupled with the natural in built desire for symmetry .
If don't believe me just look at multi part fantasy figures.How often to you find a short elf in your shield wall. More over how soon  would you notice it a unit.
Lot of waffle I know.
But just for fun ( and because tiger tanks are becoming a theme.)
Here's a few pictures to show the folly of Using a Human as a scale reference when building from scratch.

[tin shed gamer]

Musing has nothing to do with people thinking my sculpting looks like this in 1/56 vehicles.

[Grumpy Gnome]

Tin Shed Gamer, I agree with you but also disagree with you.

Scale did not matter so much to me until I recently got back Ingo 20th Century wargaming. Mixing 25mm, 28mm and 32mm minis for earlier periods did not bother me and I was quick to champion diversity in human sizes.

However, the first problem for me was a 1/56 Warlord Sherman that looked dinky to  there was the discrepancies between sizes of the same weapons between WGA, Perry and Warlord. That and the differences between Perry and Warlord on their American M1 helmets which I know to be (at times annoyingly so) one size fits all. Then I noticed the difference between Warlord plastic M1919s and metal ones, as well as the plastic M1 helmets and the metal ones.

Now I know it is weird that I prefer the look of non-realistically scaled plastic Warlord figures to the more accurate Perry ones, no one is more surprised than I am at that. But I tried again last night to work on some WW2 Perry Americans in hopes of using them but I just was not satisfied and they will go on eBay.

It was interesting that the plastic Perry M1919 is the same size as the metal Warlord metal M1919.

So that was a long winded way of saying, I do not mind variety in things being modeled that have diversity in sizing but an M1 helmet, M1 Garand and M4a1 Sherman (generally) only come in one size.

[tin shed gamer]

That's sort of my point.
If everything (for arguments sake) That's sold as 1/56 was indeed 1/56 then there would be no variation in the size of webbing ,Helmets, rifles. Regardless of figure height.
Even when there is standardisation in these parts people still expect the figures to be of uniform height and proportions.
This also applies to vehicles if everything was truely 1/56 the you simply couldn't tell one manufacturers Sherman from another.But that's just not the case you can clearly tell one manufacturer from another. Just the same way you can tell one sculptors work from another's it's just a little more subtle.
The idea of scale is nothing more than a reference point to imply that these products will sit comfortably with your personal aesthetic and preconceptions of the subject matter.
Only your personal experience with these products will 100% let you know if they work for you. You've found your aesthetic  and those 1/56 that didn't fit it are now to be Ebay fodder.

As I'll always argue with any fan boy .The only true scale is the one your personally happy with. The rest is just marketing.

[Grumpy Gnome]

What can I say, I am lazy. I want to be able to look at a simple label and be reasonably confident it will be the size I want. The idea that I am going to have to do this individually with each model is a bit frustrating. And more expensive as well as time consuming.

But I take your point.

I just wanted to be clear that I am someone who wants standardization in what is standard, like M1 helmets but say more modern American Kevlar helmets and webbing, which has different sizes, can have some diversity just as humans can easily run 4 foot to 7 foot tall.

[Michi]

I only read two answers containing statements about 1/64th scale. I consider that the perfect scale too, but I know that I'm rather alone with this opinion. All my civilian vehicles are in that scale and I have even a few WW2 soft skins. This means that a miniature can only be in full cover (LOS blocked completely) if it's going prone behind a normal car. Check this with a 1/50th or even 1/43rd scale car.

[Rich H]

1:48 Vs 1:56 Vs 28mm

For me it a sliding scale.
Small stuff, especially with a direct human interface (guns motorbikes, artillery) needs to be 1:48

Big stuff like heavy tanks needs to be 1:56 to stop them getting too large

Everything else somewhere in between.

Note individual weapons are generally hugely over sized.

[David H]

1:48 Vs 1:56 Vs 28mm

For me it a sliding scale.
Small stuff, especially with a direct human interface (guns motorbikes, artillery) needs to be 1:48

Big stuff like heavy tanks needs to be 1:56 to stop them getting too large

I voted for 1/56 - most 1/48 stuff I have bought just looks too large too me.

Some very interesting points made on this subject. All very valid points too. However, I'm afraid I do not totally agree with your statement on artillery motorbikes etc. I bought a 2pdr with crew from 1st Corps, its a lovely model but at 1/48 is way too large for the crew figures. It was a small gun, this just isn't compared to the crew.

Re motorbikes too, the 1/56 scale 3d print I purchased recently has a reasonably sized rider on it - it is similar in size to Warlord figures, and the bike scales pretty accurately to 1/56. a 1/48 bike would be massive compared to the rider.

As has been said, I think it all comes down to personal taste - if it looks good to you that's what is most important, but if there was a vehicle only available in 1/48 that I really 'needed' I would buy it, despite my preferences. 

Also, I guess that once items are on the table, being viewed at a distance of several feet, the disparity in size diminishes a lot. To each their own.....

Either way its a great time to be a wargamer - so many choices, and so very different to the scene 30 or 40 years ago!

[Kikuchiyo]

totally lost in this world myself at the moment - looking for modern stuff is just as difficult

[Shahbahraz]

I've stuck with 1/56, simply because before I started 3d printing my own kit, the Rubicon range was my preferred supplier of vehicles. I love the look of the 1st Corps vehicles but they just look too big to me at 1/48.

[Rich H]

I voted for 1/56 - most 1/48 stuff I have bought just looks too large too me.

Some very interesting points made on this subject. All very valid points too. However, I'm afraid I do not totally agree with your statement on artillery motorbikes etc. I bought a 2pdr with crew from 1st Corps, its a lovely model but at 1/48 is way too large for the crew figures. It was a small gun, this just isn't compared to the crew.

Re motorbikes too, the 1/56 scale 3d print I purchased recently has a reasonably sized rider on it - it is similar in size to Warlord figures, and the bike scales pretty accurately to 1/56. a 1/48 bike would be massive compared to the rider.

As has been said, I think it all comes down to personal taste - if it looks good to you that's what is most important, but if there was a vehicle only available in 1/48 that I really 'needed' I would buy it, despite my preferences. 

Also, I guess that once items are on the table, being viewed at a distance of several feet, the disparity in size diminishes a lot. To each their own.....

Either way its a great time to be a wargamer - so many choices, and so very different to the scene 30 or 40 years ago!

Interesting as I've done a number of motorbikes all at 1:48 as 1:56 looks far too small to the customer

[Mako]

I voted 1/48th, but use both 1/48th and 1/50th together.

Many/most humans are about the height of a Sherman's or Tiger's hull, so they ARE quite large vehicles, prior claim to the contrary notwithstanding.

Considering the thickness of figure bases plus their height, this works out pretty well to me.

1/56th seems far too small for ALL figures with the exception of 25mm ones.