Some scale reference photos.

hotrodrock · Post by **hotrodrock** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:51 pm

Some members asked to see some photos of 1/18 figs next to 1/16 armor. The first pick is of a 21st figure in the turret of a 1/16 Kt.

Before some start saying its too small, this photo is of the 21st fig next to the fig that came with the 1/16 tank. Head and arms are identical in scale and the belt is at the same location.

Last photo is of one of the 1/18 FOV figs next to the 1/16 KT. The top of his helmet is even with the deck of the tank. If you search reference photos you will see that very few soldiers heads reach the deck of their tanks except for the tallest soldiers. If anything, the 1/18 figs might be a little oversized for 1/16 armor if not near exact. Someone posted some photos of the figs. that came with Tamiya tanks next to 1/18 armor and they looked huge. But as that member said, they appeared to be closer to 1/15 than 1/16. But I understand that opinions will vary on the appropriateness of the scale.

pcsguy88 · Post by **pcsguy88** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:17 pm

The figures that come with the HL tanks are freaks of nature. I think their bottoms fell off from loss of circulation when they tried to crawl into the hatch. No way their shoulders would make it in.

grunt1 · Post by **grunt1** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:34 pm

$&@!^^!!!!

Any more of these comparison shots and you guys are going to sucker me into 1/16 armor world.. Sheesh..

Here is a nice reference with infantry next to a Sherman if anyone has a 1/16th Sherman to photo next to some XD troops..

Some King Tigers comparison shots

CENT-ONE · Post by **CENT-ONE** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:36 pm

this one is amazing. it's all scratch-built and if the www.rc-panzerketten-forum.com forum was still up there was an amazing build thread on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLh-46rBT3Y

General Blasto · Post by **General Blasto** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:37 pm

Well let's not forget that most tankers were small people. That way they fit better and could move around easier in the tanks

Da General

tmanthegreat · Post by **tmanthegreat** » Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:03 am

General Blasto wrote:Well let's not forget that most tankers were small people. That way they fit better and could move around easier in the tanks

Da General

People in general were smaller on average, even as recently as the 1940s

In my town, one of the original buildings at our local university (built in 1910) is being renovated. The building currently houses a 1500 seat theater, however, as people's rear ends have grown a bit over the past century, the theater will have to be reworked to hold around 800 seats. I know this is way off topic, but I couldn't resist

Jesse James · Post by **Jesse James** » Wed Feb 25, 2009 12:54 am

So I'm curious, what's the difference between some of these tank companies?

For instance, I didn't know there was a King Tiger, but I see it's made by a company called Matorro... Looking them up on Ebay they seem to do the same stuff that Hen Long tanks do, but they seem more pricey (or the KT seems more pricey... I see they make a Tiger I and SturmTiger too, which I love that Sturm like you wouldn't believe already).

Anyway, is there any significant differences in the companies? How many companies make 1:16 tanks too, exactly? I figured Hen Long had the market cornered...

And are there any Shermans? I'm kinda bummed I'm not seeing Shermans and Sherman variants anywhere considering it was THE allied tank.

I'm on the verge with this stuff... i'm just building my "mad money" savings back up after the great Monkey explosion of '09.

So yeah, I'm curious, just how many companies make this stuff, and do their selections vary that much in quality, or subject?

I'm pretty excited to get my first tank... I'm assuming I'll go for the least expensive I can find for the first one, just to test the waters.

Post by **aferguson** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:46 pm

here are a couple more human/king tiger size comparison pics.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3411/322 ... b7.jpg?v=0

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/TIGER-2 ... n-Buda.jpg

i remember years ago when the tiger first came out alot of people were saying it was underscale. I measured it repeatedly and knew it wasn't but it was because of the 21c figure size that it looked underscale. 21c figures are typically at least 6 feet tall, standing fully upright and robust in form (big heads, long arms, thick chests, broad shoulders). That's why they compare well to 1/16 tanks because most people aren't Arnold Swarzenegger sized.

But i still have a bit of a problem with 1/16 tanks compared to other vehicles, planes etc....they just look goofy big to me.

Threetoughtrucks · Post by **Threetoughtrucks** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:24 pm

Is that some new military technical term "Goofy big". I mean Goofy is a big guy anyway so "Goofy big" seems redundant.

We have been mixing scales for a long time. Even down to 1/16 Jeeps. Without being side to side, I don't see a problem, especially with the big tanks....... but then that's just Goofy me.

TTT