2008 FOV Image Collection

[OzDigger]

I said the FOV Germans are 1/35 scale, NOT their tanks etc. And before someone says their German soldiers appear to be 1/32 I will clarify that I'm refering only to the Panzer crew members that I have, which are all from the initial release. The Russian Commander in the original T-34/85 is also 1/35 scale.

So, if you compare the Russian guy and say the German Commander from the Panzer IV (short barrel) to say the British commander (Matilda) or the US Commander (Sherman), which are also standing figures

You WILL see that the German and Russian guys are much shorter and slighter. Btw guys, no excuses for variations in human heights allowed in your replies

[ostketten]

I said the FOV Germans are 1/35 scale, NOT their tanks etc.

My bad, I misunderstood what you said. As for the 32X FOV figs, the only thing I have to compare them to is the 1:35 "Can Do" figures from Dragon, and these are noticeably shorter in stature than MOST of the 1:32 figures from 21C or FOV that I have seen, it's shame too because the Dragon figures are very nice and not prohibitively expensive. There was some discussion of this in a previous thread where it was suggested the CanDo figures be used as Hitler Youth due to their "stunted" height. I thought this discussion started out as a debate of sorts on the accuracy of FOV 1:72 tanks versus Dragon, and based on what I've seen at Mikes site.. http://www.mikes-tanks.com/Comparison.htm there appears to be very little if any noticeble difference in scale, at least to my eye, I think someone mentioned a difference of one millimeter in some dimension or other, and this is really splitting hairs if you ask me, even on something as small as 1:72 you'd need a magnifying glass to detect a 1 mm. difference in size. It's likely that the tanker figures you referred to were purposely made smaller in order to fit into the hatch of the tank without amputating the guys legs don't laugh... I've actually done that a few times to get 21st figures to fit in.

[EnemyAce]

The FOV Grant is clearly smaller than the Dragon M4's. If you can't see this obvious difference, especially when the tanks are inverted, I suspect I'm wasting my time discussing the other differences with you.

I suppose you really just don't want to discuss just how wrong your statement about FOV models "being closer to 1:76" really was, or how the majority of the FOV models are perfectly 1:72, or the instances where the Dragon models are actually incorrect, such as the Drgaon M1 being too small, actually 1:73 or so: http://www.onthewayuk.com/reviews/Dragon/Abramsprev.htm
or the Dragon Challenger, having a hull that is too long: http://www.onthewayuk.com/articles/C2comparisonpt1.htm

More importantly, I'd like to point out that it is better to pull out a ruler when determining thing such as scale accuracy, rather than just eyeballing up a new model with your preferred brand. Every company out there flubs up here or there, and even determining which are the most accurate measurements available can be very tricky, depending on whether the protoype had its fenders, sandshields, etc. in place or not. A good essay on the subject: http://www.onthewayuk.com/articles/scaleaccuracy.htm.

I certainly agree with you that in this scale, when inaccuracies are measured in a mm or two, it's generally not worth the bother.

[OzDigger]

The FOV Grant is clearly smaller than the Dragon M4's. If you can't see this obvious difference, especially when the tanks are inverted, I suspect I'm wasting my time discussing the other differences with you.

I suppose you really just don't want to discuss just how wrong your statement about FOV models "being closer to 1:76" really was, or how the majority of the FOV models are perfectly 1:72, or the instances where the Dragon models are actually incorrect, such as the Drgaon M1 being too small, actually 1:73 or so: http://www.onthewayuk.com/reviews/Dragon/Abramsprev.htm
or the Dragon Challenger, having a hull that is too long: http://www.onthewayuk.com/articles/C2comparisonpt1.htm

More importantly, I'd like to point out that it is better to pull out a ruler when determining thing such as scale accuracy, rather than just eyeballing up a new model with your preferred brand. Every company out there flubs up here or there, and even determining which are the most accurate measurements available can be very tricky, depending on whether the protoype had its fenders, sandshields, etc. in place or not. A good essay on the subject: http://www.onthewayuk.com/articles/scaleaccuracy.htm.

I certainly agree with you that in this scale, when inaccuracies are measured in a mm or two, it's generally not worth the bother.

LOL - I don't have a "favourite" manufacturer and just tell it like it is. If you have some arrangement with FOV I suggest you make it public so we all know your spin on this

Btw guys, Enemy Ace mentioned the "1 mm" difference not me. My Matchbox Churchill is actually 5 mm longer than the FOV Churchill which is a significant difference from my POV.

Hey everybody, why don't we ALL try the acid test and lets get some 1/72 figures out of our collection and compare their size to a FOV tank commander figure in the turret of his "1/72" scale tank.

I compared a GI from Dragon's Landing Craft diorama together with several other 1/72 figures I have from a variety of manufacturers such as Airfix, Revell, etc.

And guess what? The FOV tank guys were much smaller than all the other figures. Now maybe FOV is TRUELY 1/72 and ALL the other manufacturers are WRONG, but I doubt it

[aferguson]

i'm beginning to sense undertones of hostility in this discussion. Am i mistaken?

[ostketten]

Hey everybody, why don't we ALL try the acid test and lets get some 1/72 figures out of our collection and compare their size to a FOV tank commander figure in the turret of his "1/72" scale tank....
....And guess what? The FOV tank guys were much smaller than all the other figures. Now maybe FOV is TRUELY 1/72 and ALL the other manufacturers are WRONG, but I doubt it

I honestly don't think the size of the figure in the hatch of the FOV tank has much, if anything, to do with the scale of the model. Many (most?) of my 21st figures don't fit easily, if at all, and I have even had to resort to "surgery" on a few of these boys to get them into hatches, but that doesn't mean that 21C vehicles are way off scale. In my humble opinion, using certain figures as a way to judge the scale accuracy of a particular model or brand is unreliable at best, and misleading at worst. Someone mentioned that they were of the opinion that the FOV KT was probably smaller than the Dragon versions, and here is a pic of the two side by side... http://www.diecast72.com/pictures/compare/compare13.jpg to be honest fellas I really cannot see any difference in scale worth mentioning, but you be the judge. At any rate, I'll make this my last comment on scale in this thread, Aferg is right, emotions are getting a bit high..

[EnemyAce]

I suppose you really just don't want to discuss just how wrong your statement about FOV models "being closer to 1:76" really was, or how the majority of the FOV models are perfectly 1:72, or the instances where the Dragon models are actually incorrect, such as the Drgaon M1 being too small, actually 1:73 or so: http://www.onthewayuk.com/reviews/Dragon/Abramsprev.htm
or the Dragon Challenger, having a hull that is too long: http://www.onthewayuk.com/articles/C2comparisonpt1.htm

More importantly, I'd like to point out that it is better to pull out a ruler when determining thing such as scale accuracy, rather than just eyeballing up a new model with your preferred brand. Every company out there flubs up here or there, and even determining which are the most accurate measurements available can be very tricky, depending on whether the protoype had its fenders, sandshields, etc. in place or not. A good essay on the subject: http://www.onthewayuk.com/articles/scaleaccuracy.htm.

I certainly agree with you that in this scale, when inaccuracies are measured in a mm or two, it's generally not worth the bother.

LOL - I don't have a "favourite" manufacturer and just tell it like it is. If you have some arrangement with FOV I suggest you make it public so we all know your spin on this

Btw guys, Enemy Ace mentioned the "1 mm" difference not me. My Matchbox Churchill is actually 5 mm longer than the FOV Churchill which is a significant difference from my POV.

Hey everybody, why don't we ALL try the acid test and lets get some 1/72 figures out of our collection and compare their size to a FOV tank commander figure in the turret of his "1/72" scale tank.

I compared a GI from Dragon's Landing Craft diorama together with several other 1/72 figures I have from a variety of manufacturers such as Airfix, Revell, etc.

And guess what? The FOV tank guys were much smaller than all the other figures. Now maybe FOV is TRUELY 1/72 and ALL the other manufacturers are WRONG, but I doubt it

I never said that the difference between the Matchbox & FOV Churchill is 1mm. I said the difference between the Tigers is about 1mm. I don't know the difference in the Churchills as mine are packed away somewhere, but if you actually pulled out a ruler to measure, good for you, now go find some reliable dimensions for the real thing and get back to us on which is more accurate.

You can't really base whether a vehicle is accurately scaled just going on the size of the figure packed with it. The otherwise accurate 1:72 Aoshima fireflys came with a guy that was more like 1:60, but that didn't change the fact that the tank is 1:72. You also should remember that people come in all sizes. I'm sure that during WWII you could find British tank commanders anywhere from 6'4" 200lbs, to 5'6" 130 lbs.

I never said that FOV were all perfectly to scale. What I said was that all manufacturers occasionally make flubs here or there due to the difficulty in finding and accurately measuring the real thing, and that Dragon has made its share of scale errors too. This is why it's better to pull out a ruler and try to find some reliable dimensions to judge accuracy on rather than relating everything to any one companies products. Here's the link to an interesting essay on the subject, if you didn't read it last time I posted it: http://www.onthewayuk.com/articles/scaleaccuracy.htm


Back on subject, looking at the upcoming list of 2008 vehicles, I'm thinking that the Battle Packs theme will likely continue, as the 251/pak 40 combo seems ready to be packaged the same way as the current M3/105mm pack. That does make me curious if they have any other large vehicles yet to announce, since the Dragon Wagon, LCT, and Blackhawk are all in those packs and I'd assume they won't be carried over to next year.

[OzDigger]

I agree that you can't accurately assess a models scale purely on the size of the figure(s) that come with it.

But don't forget that some of the FOV 1/72 model tanks do appear smaller than some Dragon and Matchbox versions.

If anyone has some old completed 1/76 scale tank kits I would be interested in how they compare in size to the FOV versions.