Are the models of Universal Carrier and L3/35 "underscaled "?

[Sunray]

My son brought some Magister Miltrum AFVs home to" borrow" my paints .  I noted that the Universal carrier from that firm is considerably   larger than its Pendraken equilivent.

Now because 10mm [sic] figures are chunky, there is a convention to creep the scale on AFVs to look more unifrom with the figures.
The Pendraken T-34s and M4 Shermans are a good example.  The new style fits and looks better. (I still have a few squadrons of the first edition in my spares box!).  The new style is now well esatablished,   indeed in recent months Leon rejected a precasting model of the Soviet ASU 57 becasue it was more old "Wendy" style scale.

Three questions:

Would the forum favour a modest scale creep in the Universal Carrier and the L3/35 ?

And is there any other models that would "benefit" ?

Or do we leave things are they are?

[Steve J]

I think both are fine. When I was at Bovington I was shocked at how small the L3/35 is, so for my money no problems on that front. I actually prefer the older look Shermans, maybe because I have quite a few already and I don't need to assemble the tracks. Anything to save time !

[John Cook]

Leave things as they are.  There are more important things to do.  Pendraken's and Pithead's carriers are compatible.  I haven't seem Magister Militum's but their Scammell is under-scale for 1:150.  The answer is to stick to a single manufacturer wherever possible.

[Techno]

John's quite right.

The wee men have to have their proportions 'messed around with'.......Plus......They need some sort of base...Which adds 'height' to the little chaps.

Vehicles don't usually have a base. (Do they ?).....That makes one hell of difference.....To what your eyes perceive.

Easy......to theoretically get a vehicle to 'the correct scale'.....But you'd never find ME trying to do that.

No wonder I prefer making 'Fantasy'.

[Norm]

Vehicles don't usually have a base. (Do they ?).....That makes one hell of difference.....To what your eyes perceive.

agreed.

[John Cook]

Vehicles don't usually have a base. (Do they ?).....That makes one hell of difference.....To what your eyes perceive.

I mount my vehicles on bases, 1mm plasticard.  Is this not usual? 

[hammurabi70]

I read somewhere on the internet that MM's scale is 1/160. We can restart the discussion from earlier this year about what 'size' 10mm is.

I prefer to use a single source for any individual project although my opponent uses 1/285 (very nice) GHQ; my troops are 1/300 H&R, as I am an impoverished toiler of the masses and have to economise. They fight against each other well enough but are not good alongside each other.

Doing Korea everyone said Pendraken 10mm were the figures to have and very nice they are too.

[flamingpig0]

I mount my vehicles on bases, 1mm plasticard.  Is this not usual? 

I always base my vehicles

[fred.]

I base my figures too. I think Phil was probably referring to cast on bases. Which are very uncommon on vehicles - I can only think of them on some motorcycles.

If you use the same external bases for both figures and vehicles, then the figure still have a height boost from their cast on bases.

Considering the normal viewing angle, i.e. from above and to one side, I suspect this kind of vertical height difference is not noticeable.

[paulr]

If I'm mounting vehicles/guns on the same base as figures, usually in 6mm, I tend to put a shim under the vehicle to bring them up to the same 'base' height as the figures

[Sunray]

Ok - thanks everyone for comments and opinions.

The key from a designer/seller's perspective is that the figures always tend to be stocky and slightly exaggerted to capture detail.  Phil's figures are the ideal scale, but even he sometimes has to exaggerate weapon detail so it looks right.

MM has an eclectic range- the Carrier and the 88 are on the big side.  The Ram/kangaroo and as John has stated- the Scammel  are undersized.  Their figures have a  charicture feel.

This is a historic problem. Older gamers will recall the Airfix Universal Carrier & Six pounder anti tank gun. The carrier driver and bombardier (?) figure were scaled to the carrier, whereas the two gunners were "kneeling giants".  Not just height, but the superman dimensions.

The brown waste material hits the fan when one has a vehicle that has to interact with figures.  If you want an example take GRV 106 (BMW & Combo) and place alongside L3/35.  The motorcycle dwarfs the tankette, as the former was scaled correctly to match the figures.  Similarly you will note that even "seated" figures have to be scaled down slightly to look right with vehicles.  The usually chunky Red3 are a good example.

Pendraken have taken the bold decision to "upscale" popular range items such as the Sherman family and T34. The Soviet ASU 57 - as it is often an ad hoc carrier will also reflect the creep factor.

These changes make sense in high volumn sale items.  Not so sure that Italian WW2 is at that level of popularity ?  Any tweak in the carriers would mean 3 or 4 different versions (airborne, 8th Army etc) to be altered.  So the balance sheet wisdom would be to keep things as they are.

Oh, if you want "in scale" crew for the L3/35- I use Peter Pig 1/144 aircrew.  The heads are just right, and used correctly it is a great wee reccie vehicle.