20mm WW2...endangered species?

[Just a few orcs]

28mm when playing platoon size actions on a standard 6' x 4' table are way too big. a single squad covers around 12" , no room to maneuver.  The figures have to be assembled, and I find a complete pain to paint.

There are still some very good 20mm manufacturers out their -
Simons Soldiers
Lancer Miniatures
Newline do a small but very nice range
Lancashire miniatures
Frontline wargames
The old Platoon 20 range is still available from East Front.

I don't think it is dying out.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

Let’s not forget the many excellent plastic figure sets, particularly those from Italeri and Caesar, which provide a wealth of options.

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

Crikey, Mr Cholmondely. Why would you subject yourself to that? I was thinking of picking up the Pegasus Tiger 2s in 1/72. They come in about ten pieces each 🥹

This is a very fair question, which I can only answer by saying that although I am well aware that the skills and patience required to build them to the standard they deserve are beyond me, I am unable to resist having them in my collection, albeit unbuilt. In fact, I’ve just ordered a Tiger I (Early Production). I’ve never claimed to be sensible or pragmatic. I just love nice things.

[carlos marighela]

I'm a fan of 20mm but it always makes me laugh when people start talking about scale compression and which scale/size works and which doesn't.

Let's assume that our notional 20mm player is playing a platoon sized skirmish game using a 1:1 ground scale. Let's assume has deployed his squad in arrowhead formation*' a common formation , a formation used from WW2 to the present day for an advance to contact in open ground.

10-12 figures in your squad? In reality the spacing between figures should be at least five to six metres, going by the book. Arrowhead is going to be roughly half as deep as it is wide. Assuming that the convention of 20mm means a six foot man that means what? About 10mm or so to each scale meter (3mm to a foot)? so that's 6cm between each figure and about 60cm across the formation, possibly slightly less, say 50 but also around 25-30cm deep.  Similar deal, obviously with no depth, for extended line, your typical assault formation and probably the one field formation wargamers do use, albeit often unwittingly.

Hang on! That's around 2' X 1' of your 6'X4' table isn't it? Just one squad too! Two squads up, one behind, spacing between the squads? Lot of model real estate they are covering.

Now I doubt many of us have access to the floors of scout halls to play our games on, so I suspect most people employ a bit of scale compression. Otherwise, folk could happily fire from one end of a six foot table to another given line of sight.

We probably use a bit of scale compression in other ways, when we don't require our typical model buildings to have two to three times the footprint that they might in real life or our model trees to be three to five times their height to match reality. Our model rivers tend to be brooks rather than model Rhines, our model artillery and mortar fire falls within Danger Close ranges most of the time and almost certainly would using a 1:1 ground scale.

So if we accept that we aren't playing at a 1:1 ground scale either with our figures or our terrain the it becomes a simple matter of what mathematical ratio we apply and that's applicable to all scales. Now remind me of why 20mm is in someway superior in terms of scale compression to 28mm? It might or might not, depending on the eye of the beholder, be more aesthetically pleasing. Purely a matter of taste.



*Not that most wargamers use any recognisable formations, they are usually lines or amorphous blobs.

[SJWi]

Carlos, as ever you make some excellent points about the realities of "scale compression". As one of the people who raised that one I'll surrender, but personally cite "the eye of the beholder"defence! I game WW2 and Cold War in a variety of scales a ranging from 3mm through to 20mm, and even dabbled in 28s before disposing of them. I do see why some of my mates use 28mm for platoon level "Chain of Command" but personally struggle with it for bigger games than that . I'll no wget back to painting my 15mm Japanese armour! 

[carlos marighela]

Eye of the beholder is an important issue. Miniature wargaming is an aesthetic experience, otherwise we would simply play with counters. What appeals to one, what looks right is entirely subjective if it works for you or me then that's the important thing. 

[Captain Darling]

I know several other gamers who game WW II in 1/72, I have both 1/72 and 1/56 WW II myself, I think the bigger figures get the press purely due to their size and supposed better details.

BTW when did 20mm and 28mm become scales? They are sizes, 1/72, 1/76 and 1/56 are scales 🙄…

[SteveBurt]

20mm has several things going for it.
Huge availability of every figure or vehicle you could ever want
Fairly cheap (compared to 28mm), and obviously easier to store
Big enough to be used for 1:1 skirmish, small enough to look Ok when playing a divisional action as in Eisenhower
In my case, having started miniature gaming in the 60s, it's what I already had, which is always the cheapest and easiest option

[robh]

I don't think 20mm WW2 is in any danger either, just cannot compete with the marketing clout of suppliers like Warlord.

The SHQ range is an uncertainty at the moment, Grubby Tanks are extremely unreliable these days. The extensive Liberation Range is in a similar position, officially still active but Rolf seems to have gone out of contact again.

You also have Elheim who are excellent & reliable and the newly revived FAA plus smaller manufacturers like XAN (who added some new pieces to their range last week), S&S Models, Wespe Models, Germania Figuren etc.

3D printing will obviously have an effect; some of the above listed already produce models this way, but printed 1/76-1/72 troops are still very fragile so I don't see it taking too much of the market away from metal and soft plastic gaming figure ranges yet.
Vehicles are more of an issue, although still marginally more expensive than equivalent plastic kits, the limited number of pieces (unless you have to remove and clean up the print supports yourself) is a bonus for a lot of gamers.

[SJWi]

Robh, I'm intrigued by your comment "newly revived FAA". I have lots of their figures and a few years ago bought some 1939 Poles managing to get them back to the UK via a mate's holiday in Canada. From memory the FAA's P&P rate to UK was prohibitive and almost made me wonder if they wanted to do business with anyone in Europe . I thought they had "disappeared" until I read your post. What is the most recent news?

Thanks

[robh]

I thought they had "disappeared" until I read your post. What is the most recent news?

The ranges are still with Lost Battalion but they have more recently made an effort to put up pictures of the entire selection, both WW2 and Modern.
P&P is still shocking, but as far as I can tell they don't mark it up over what USPS actually demand for packets these days. You need to email and request price including shipping.
Be warned though the myshopify site is dreadful to navigate (being a single flat data file per range) and they still retain the old, confusing ID codes so you have to know what you are looking for/at.

I have my eye on a few packs of the US Marines and Chindits for variety amongst my Indochina French, but need to sell more of my redundant stuff to raise funds first.

http://eff9b5-99.myshopify.com/collections/world-war-ii

[TacticalPainter]

I'm a fan of 20mm but it always makes me laugh when people start talking about scale compression and which scale/size works and which doesn't.

(Snip)

We probably use a bit of scale compression in other ways, when we don't require our typical model buildings to have two to three times the footprint that they might in real life or our model trees to be three to five times their height to match reality. Our model rivers tend to be brooks rather than model Rhines, our model artillery and mortar fire falls within Danger Close ranges most of the time and almost certainly would using a 1:1 ground scale.

So if we accept that we aren't playing at a 1:1 ground scale either with our figures or our terrain the it becomes a simple matter of what mathematical ratio we apply and that's applicable to all scales. Now remind me of why 20mm is in someway superior in terms of scale compression to 28mm? It might or might not, depending on the eye of the beholder, be more aesthetically pleasing. Purely a matter of taste..

The compression issue for me is how scale impacts the playing area and therefore the tactical options and the way the game plays out. It’s surprising how different a table arranged to the same map appears in 28mm and 20mm. I’m not suggesting either is better but I would suggest they are likely to give a different game. The pictures give some idea of that difference. Its’s probably a greater one than you might initially imagine.



Similarly this map in 20mm presents the attacker with a lot more space to cover than that of the second map in 28mm.

[robh]

Those pictures illustrate well the problems bigger scale models cause on fixed size tables, (they also serve to illustrate, by inference, why 1/300 would give an even better reflection of WW2 combat and 1/600 better again..............but that is another discussion  )

Ground scale, which a lot of newer game rules like Bolt Action don't even bother with, never applies to the physical vehicle models or weapon ranges. iirc the 88mm Anti Tank gun in Bolt Action's recommended 1/56th has a maximum range that scales out to about 100 yards.

[bluewillow]

A big fan of 1/72- 20mm, it has been my chosen scale for more than 20 years.
My collection is around 3000 figures, vehicles, aircraft and buildings.
 
I like the fact you can purchase just about any vehicle, aircraft, and gun that you require. Yes some ranges have disappeared, but new ones have appeared or old ranges rereleased (hinchcliff for example with EWM), SHQ have found a new home and can still be ordered, FAA are back on the scene for example.

I play Rapid Fire for larger games and COC or Battlefront for skirmish. The advantages over 1/56th- 28mm are huge when it comes to ground scale, cost and storage.

The terrain is easily available, I predominantly use HO model railway kits for buildings, trees, trains, and smaller bits even though it is 1/87th.

 3d printing has changed massively the availability of buildings and vehicles for every scale.

With the demise of “the guild” as a stalwart of 20mm Wargamers a number of us are on “The Wargamers Forum” now still posting and producing painted figures.


Cheers
Matt

[Cholmondely Percival IV]

I wondered if some readers - more specifically sir_shvantselot - might be interested in seeing part of my growing collection of Vespid 1:72 kits, the latest of which, the Tiger I, arrived today. It offers an interesting comparison with the Pegasus kit of the Tiger II, which, we are told, has a total of ten parts. The Vespid Tiger I, in contrast, has nine sprues (three of them duplicated) in addition to separate pieces for the upper and lower hull sections, turret, stowage bin and commander’s cupola. This is merely the plastic, three other materials being represented: a photo-etched brass fret to make up the grilles and smoke dischargers, aluminium for the main gun in two sections, and a 3D printed muzzle brake (either resin or filament - I claim no expertise). I am aware that what my need to highlight this suggests about me may be the real talking point here.