# Tell me about scales and why they differ between aircraft and armor?



## Robert Porter (Jul 8, 2017)

So in a nutshell, my google fu has failed me. I thought I had a simple question which was why and how did the common scales we use in model building originate, and why are they often different across genres?

By way of a simplified example, why is armor often modeled at 1/35 scale while aircraft seems to straddle that scale at 1/32 or 1/24?

Now I understand most aircraft at anything above 1:48 scale can get very large, hence the popularity of 1:72 scale for model aircraft. And a 1/72 typical tank would be pretty small. But why 1/35? With the ability to accurately combine aircraft and armor in the same scale it opens up worlds of possibilities for dioramas etc.

Google was able to locate a lot of references as to why and how scale model railroad scales developed, but less so for armor. The closest I could get was that Airfix and Revell settled on 1/72 initially because most scale drawings of aircraft were readily available in those scales already. 

Anyone have any information or insight into this great mystery of the scales? Just curious. And yep I know that can lead to bad things!


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 8, 2017)

Oh, and I understand ships etc being in very different scales as well as figures and busts. A 1/32 scale model of the Hood would be truly awe-inspiring but I doubt many people have a hobby workspace big enough to build it let alone display it outside a museum. And of course figures and so forth have their own reasons. So my question is really between contemporary subjects like WW2 Armor and Aircraft.


----------



## pbehn (Jul 8, 2017)

Maybe the origins are for things that go on the ground are compatible with large scale railway models as buildings were already made.
Scale has always been a nightmare going back to the earliest days of railway toys.
OO gauge - Wikipedia
HO scale - Wikipedia


----------



## mikewint (Jul 8, 2017)

Can't exactly tell you why 1/48 rather than 1/47 or 1/49 other than ease of calculation but, scale modeling grew up over a period of time from small beginnings. Different manufacturers all over the world began to produce injection molded plastic kits and there was no real reason for them to coordinate their efforts, so they produced models at scales that they each felt appropriate.

Thus, one manufacturer might be producing a range of aircraft at 1/76th scale while another might bring out a similar range but at 1/72nd scale. In the early days of the hobby standards were much lower than today and the exact scale did not seem so important. Some models – particularly those of cars and fictional subjects (such as science fiction craft and monsters) did not even quote a scale.

Over time there has been a tendency for scales to become standardized as the market has become more globalised and dominated by a few large manufacturers. Up to 2004, military vehicle (MV) modelers had two main choices of scale, 1/72nd and 1/35th. At the end of that year, Tamiya announced the introduction of a brand new scale that at 1/48th was right in the middle of the two and tried to capture the advantages of each existing scale. The 1/48th scale had been popular with aircraft modelers for a long time, but this was effectively a new scale for MV modelers.

Sometimes a part of a model may be deliberately out of scale to make the model appear more realistic, or for practical reasons, for example:
On a sailing ship, the thickness of the sails may only be a few millimeters. A typical scale for a sailing ship is 1/144th and at this scale the thickness of the sail should only be a fraction of a millimeter. Even if a model sail this thin could be produced, it would be very fragile.
An armored vehicle is usually adorned with hundreds of bolts and rivets. At 1/35th scale, which is probably the most popular armor scale, every bolt and rivet can be faithfully reproduced although they will be very tiny. However, on a 1/72nd scale tank, details such as bolts at the correct scale may be too small to be seen by the naked eye and certainly too small to produce. To be totally accurate, all of this detail should be left off because it could not be seen. However, if this was done, the model would look very simple and ‘toy like’. Thus most modelers will include these details even if they are ‘over scale’. Sometimes there is a conflict between ‘scale accuracy’ and ‘apparent realism’ and most modelers in these cases will choose realism.

Some modelers like the challenge of a really big model with hundreds of parts, where every detail can be faithfully reproduced. These models have the disadvantage of being expensive, difficult to store and take a long time to build. Other modelers prefer small scales and this may be for practical reasons such as cost, ease of building, display and storage etc. Another reason for choosing very small scales is that some modelers like the challenge of reproducing every detail in a very small model. Building in small scale is not necessarily an easy option and some of the better small scale models have the same number of parts as their larger scale big brothers.

Another practical reason for different scales is the size of the original that the models are based on. Warships are often built in scales of 1/350th or 1/700th because warships are generally very, very, big. If one tried to make a 1/35th scale model of a World War II battleship it would probably not fit into most modelers’ houses. This is the reason why the larger the size of the original the small the scale that will tend to be commonly used.

Ship modelers tend to work at scales of around 1/350th. Aircraft modelers work at 1/76th or 1/48th depending on the type of aircraft (1/48 is the traditional scale for Admiralty Board style models and Shipyard builders) models. Larger aircraft models fall into the 1/32 scale (1:32 was once so common a scale for toy trains, autos, and soldiers that it was known as "standard size" in the industry. Also known as the 3/8th scale since 3/8th of an inch equals 1 foot. It’s also the 54mm scale used in miniature soldiers in wargaming) Armor modelers tend to use 1/35th scale (1/35 as a military modeling scale lie in early motorized plastic tank kits. To accommodate electric motors and gearboxes, these models needed to be made in a larger scale. There were many companies making such tanks, but it was Tamiya's example that made 1/35 a de facto standard. This size had been chosen simply because it would accommodate a couple of B-type batteries). Car modelers tend to use 1/12th scale.

The model railroading hobby used letters to describe scale. Widespread standardization among the various rail-scales allowed for use of a simple letter code. Originally, the code referred more to gauge - the distance between rails on a given piece of track - than to scale. Thus O gauge meant model trains that used track whose outside rails were 1 1/4 inch apart. It's no coincidence, then, that HO would mean "half-O", for purposes of gauge. As interest in scale accuracy grew among toy train fans, the letters came to represent a scale moreso than a track width. Thus, O scale is 1/48 - in other words, a train that uses track 1 1/4 inches apart would be 1/48 scale. Scale and track width soon were distinguished. The plain letter denotes a scale and its gauge, while other track gauges within that scale get special attention. For instance, "HON3" means HO scale, using a narrow gauge track. This track is 3 scale feet wide, as opposed to the normal four foot- eight inches of standard railroad gauge. The N tells us that this is narrow gauge. HON30 is different, meaning narrow gauge of 30 inches. By the way, HON30 is the same track gauge as the smaller N scale! As trains went from toy to scale model, thus the letter code changed from gauge to scale.

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## pbehn (Jul 8, 2017)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Wot he said.


Toys and models are driven by the people that buy them. I remember being very impressed by the "detail" on a Bristol Bleheim when I was about 10 or 11 yrs old. In fact if it was to scale the whole plane was built with ships rivets sticking out about 3 inches from the structure everywhere.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 8, 2017)

I sort of buy that, except the difference between 1/32 and 1/35 is minimal. So my question remains why did armor seem to gravitate to such an oddball scale compared to everything else. Armor modeling at 1/35 grew to its popularity _after_ aircraft modeling at 1/72 and 1/48 had more or less standardized, so something pushed them in the direction of 1/35 and I remain curious what that was. As I mentioned I do understand how railroading scales evolved, and their history is very much divorced from that of scale aircraft and armor. In fact they are not very accurate at scale on purpose. I will try and find the youtube link I watched that explained very clearly how all that evolved it was very interesting.


----------



## stona (Jul 9, 2017)

The origins of 1/35 scale can be summed up in one word, Tamiya.
From the man himself.

_"After the success of the Panther, I thought it would be a good idea for us to produce other tanks from different countries in the same scale. I measured the Panther and it turned out to be about 1/35 of the size of the original. This size had been chosen simply because it would accommodate a couple of B-type batteries. Tamiya's 1/35 series tanks eventually got to be known around the world, but this is the slightly haphazard origin of their rather awkward scale."_

Cheers

Steve

Reactions: Winner Winner:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jul 9, 2017)

Robert, re-read my post I thought I answered all of that. Steve above just included Tamiya's entire quote about 1/35.
Model scales in the US followed the old English tradition of halves. It is a strictly mechanical process to find half of something and from there ½ of a ½ or ¼ and ½ of a ¼ or an 1/8th and so on. So the largest model railroad scale, O scale or O gauge (The name for O gauge and O scale is derived from "0 [zero] gauge" or "Gauge 0" being smaller than Gauge 1 and the other then existing standards.) used to be called 1/4 inch scale with the ratio to the real thing as 1:48 (that’s 12 inches divided by 48 which is 0.25 or ¼) with HO being, as I posted earlier half of that or 1/8 inch scale and 1:86 or 1:87. That makes it simple except that there have been some subtle changes in HO due to the influence of the metric system and it is now 3.5 mm and 1:87.1. N scale is 1:160.

Gauge, by the way, refers to the distance between the inside edges of the load-bearing rails. Various sizes of track gauge exist around the world and the normal O gauge track represents the Standard gauge of 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1.435 m) between the rails. Therefore "O gauge" model track refers to tracks that are 1.25 in (31.75 mm) apart.

Let's just look at size. O is the larger of the traditional scales. Lionel is O27 for example and is not truly O scale. S-gauge or scale, is smaller than O and came from American Flyer. S scale or gauge is a model railroad scale modeled at 1:64 scale, S scale track gauge is 0.883 in (22.43 mm). HO is the next size and has been referred to as Half O with N scale being about half of that. And then there is Z which is really small at 1:220. Z scale was introduced by the German model train manufacturer Märklin in 1972 at the Nuremberg Toy Fair. The letter Z was chosen to designate the new scale, as it was thought, at the time, that there would not be a commercial model railway scale smaller than Z. However there is a now a T gauge at 1:450 scale, or 3 mm gauge, designed in Japan and manufactured in China.

The O-27 gauge is a United States variant whose origins most likely originated with the Ives Manufacturing Company who used O-27 track in its entry-level sets. About 10 years later the A. C. Gilbert Company bought American Flyer who also used the O-27 track. After World War II, this practice was continued by Louis Marx and Company, who used it throughout its product line, and Lionel, who used it for its entry-level trains. The modern standard for O-27, however, was formalized after 1938 by Gilbert, who scaled their locomotives and rolling stock to 1:64 scale. O-27 track is spaced at the same width as regular O gauge track, but is slightly shorter in height and has thinner rails than traditional O gauge track. The O-27 name comes from the size of the track's curves. A circle made of eight pieces of standard 45-degree curved O gauge track will have a 31 inch (787 mm) diameter. A circle made of 8 pieces of 45-degree curved O-27 track is smaller, with a 27 inch (686 mm) diameter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 9, 2017)

Sorry Mike, I must have missed your explanation of the 1/35 scale for armor as being a simple accident by Tamiya, I think I got lost in the discussion of Gauge and Scale for railroad models.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 9, 2017)

Pictures are worth 1000 words so...


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 9, 2017)

Sorry I did not mean to make you think I was questioning railroad scales or their origins, I was not, I am actually pretty familiar with them. And unlike the rather arbitrary 1/35 scale for armor there are valid reasons for them. Now I know why and how 1/35 scale became a standard for armor, they backed into it based on the success of an arbitrarily designed kit. What is more interesting to me is why that scale is so pervasive. Although a quick look through industry catalogs shows there is a growing groundswell of change heading towards 1/24 and even 1/16 scales in the armor community. I doubt 1/16 will ever be a standard just because of the sheer size and expense of kits at that size. But I can see 1/32 or 1/24 becoming more and more popular for armor. It will be interesting to watch over the next few years.


----------



## mikewint (Jul 9, 2017)

Robert, model scales have always been somewhat arbitrary as to what will comfortably fit in the human hand and human sized home.
There is also the twin requirements of accuracy and realism. Smaller scales must needs reduce some details. For the manufacturer cost to make and price to sell. A 1/35 Tiger is cheaper to make and less expensive to buy than a 1/32 Tiger would be.
1/32 and 1/35 are indeed close but there is a discernible difference and you really can't mix the two in something like a diorama where a range of sizes does not exist. So a 1/32 Sherman next to a 1/35 Sherman or a 1/35 M16 next to a 1/32 M16. But with human figures no problem as humans come in many different sizes and 1/32 to 1/35 are easily within the normal range of humans.
I have two large tanks, a 1/24 Abrams and a 1/16 Tiger I. The extra detail on the 1/16 compared to the 1/35 is astounding.

Reactions: Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 10, 2017)

You are correct about not mixing scales in diorama's which is what triggered my question about why armor and aircraft did not share a common scale. Since without a common scale there can be no mixed display. And 1/16 is indeed very nice, but priced beyond the majority of the market. Tamiya has found that their sweet spot is moving towards the 1/32 and 1/24 scales for aircraft, but the overwhelming majority of the market is still 1/72 for aircraft since those models are priced within the range of almost anyone, and much easier to display. Advances in mold design and the early steps in 3D printing are bringing unprecedented detail to the 1/72 scale so I imagine we will see this scale for aircraft continue. 

My best guess at this point is we are about to see the 3D printing technology takeoff, initially in the aftermarket area, but eventually in the kit market itself. Currently the technology is not yet cost effective for large kit runs, but that is changing as well. Some of us, ahem, remember when a VHS tape deck cost over 1000.00 USD, it was less than a decade from that price point before it dropped into the sub 100.00 USD area so I have no doubt the 3D market, like the Laser printer market before it will perform in a similar fashion.


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 10, 2017)

Oh by the way, Matt wrote an interesting blog post recently about 1/16 scale in armor. It is well worth a read: 6 reasons 1/16 scale is just the worst


----------



## pbehn (Jul 10, 2017)

There is an obvious use of units in the "imperial world". an inch is a unit and so is a foot. 1/72 is one inch to six feet, very easy to imagine because we usually gauge people as how close they are to six feet tall. The same relations dont apply in metric which is all fractions or multiples of a metre/

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jul 10, 2017)

Robert Porter said:


> armor and aircraft did not share a common scale. Since without a common scale there can be no mixed display.


Asked/wondered about that myself MANY times as I do both. Now I do not do and have no interest in dioramas though they are spectacular in many cases. I do like to do comparisons so it is/was very interesting, to me anyway, to see how a 1/48 Fokker Dr1 compared to a 190 or 109. My 1/48 B-29 to a B-24 or B-17. Recently my 1/35 Maus to all the other German tanks like Tiger I and IIs.
Matt's blog was really interesting. I've only really cared enough about one tank to shell out for a 1/16 Tiger I and the 1/24 Abrams
So I do agree a 1/35 aircraft line...but then I'd have to start all over


----------



## fubar57 (Jul 10, 2017)

Tamiya do a nice batch of 1/48 armor which I am looking at more and more. I think there is another company as well but the name escapes me

EDIT: Hobbyboss does as well but not the name I was thinking of


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 10, 2017)

I think we are starting to see a convergence in scales, the three genres that seem most likely to converge and be cross-displayed together are Cars/Trucks, Armor, and Aircraft. Ships just would be too large at any of the scales used for the others. I have been eyeballing this kit for awhile. But at 1/200 it is over a yard long!


----------



## Wurger (Jul 10, 2017)

So could you imagine her in 1/48 or 1/32..../35 scale?

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jul 10, 2017)

now that's my kinda kit!!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Robert Porter (Jul 10, 2017)

Oh I can imagine it! But I would need to hire a tractor trailer to get the kit home!

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Builder 2010 (Jul 15, 2017)

First of all, didn't know about Tamiya impact. They're a terrific model making company.

Clarification: HO is half O, but it's half British O'gauge which is 1:43 not 1:48. It's why all those model die cast cars are 1:43 to the chagrin of O'scalers all over the place (except Britain). It's actually a hybrid scale: 7mm = 1 foot and HO is 3.5mm to a foot.

1/4" (1:48) scale is also the scale that the US Navy used for their massive engineering models that you see in museums all over the place. Gibbs and Cox Marine Engineers did most of them. The Missouri scales out to 19 feet long. At that scale every detail is a scale model in itself.

I love 1:32 planes, but quickly find that displaying is a logistical problem.

My main work is with my large O'gauge Railroad so all the structures I do are 1:48. You can details nicely at that scale.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Builder 2010 (Feb 2, 2018)

Prior to Tamiya coming into the American market in the late 60s, armor was generally 1/40 (an odd size) for Revell and Adams, and I believe Renwal's kits were 1/32 or something close to that. Tamiya made such an impact on the market that it became the defecto armor scale. Regarding ships, sailing and craftsman wood models were the various fractional sizes (1/48, 1/96, 1/192). Then came along Tamiya again with their big ships in the 70s at 1:350 which set that scale. The other model ship scale is 1:700 which is 1/2 1:350. Prior to Tamiya picking an actual scale, all the other plastic ship kits were "Box scale". Revell, Monogram, Aurora all had standard size boxes they used for model ships and the models were sized to fit those boxes. Model planes had the same problem. Monogram's planes favored 1:48 and did so faithfully, but Revell was all over the place. You didn't find the actual scale listed on any of those first generation plastic model companies' products.


----------



## Greg Boeser (Feb 2, 2018)

Monogram armor was a mix of 1:32 and 1:35. The tanks were 1:32, but the half-tracks and stuff were 1:35.


----------

