Tamiya figures scale

[willc453]

Getting back into modeling after 15 years or so, but going for zombie/apocalypse dioramas. The majority of my model stash is aircraft and what armor/soft skins/figures I do have, are Tamiya w/some Peerless Max and Monogram. And yes, I know Monograms stuff is 1/32nd. The majority of my dioramas will be civilian themed, so been working on converting military figures to look like civilians. Then picked up a couple of Master Box's French Resistance kits because it has a woman in it. Started working on the woman, but when

comparing her to a Tamiya figure, she looks about 7' tall?! 

Went to Youtube for a kit review and afterwards made comments about the trouble I was having size wise with the woman. Told that Tamiya's figures are ALL to short for true 1/35th scale. They'll work when used alone, but you can't mix these figures with another companies figures because of the scale/size difference. Used my 1/35th scale ruler to compare the Tamiya WW 2 G.I., vs the woman and what I think is an Italeri German. HUGE size difference. Tamiya figure measures close to 5 1/2 feet, while the other 2 are basically at 6'. The woman is taller than normal, but think that's because of the way I put the legs into her dress.

So, are all Tamiya figures actually not 1/35th scale? The few Tamiya figure sets I have were bought in the last 40 years and wondered if anyone's taken the time to actually measure them. If so, it's not all bad news because I can convert Tamiya's figures into teenagers.

Thanks in advance for feedback.  

[joelsmith]

In my opinion the Tamiya figures are closer to reality. I read somewhere that during WWII, US troops averaged 5'8" in height, and the Germans even with "Aryan superiority averaged 5'6". It was only postwar with better medical care and better nutrition that the height of people had a "growth spurt" (pun intended). Don't forget that the world was still recovering from the great depression in 1939, so nutrition aided growth was rare. Hope this helps, Joel.

[panzerjager2]

So, all the "mocking Birds" out there are gonna get a laugh from me posting aboooot 1/35th scale. When I last built a 1/35th scale anything.... was at the time DML was really taking over. I remember scaling out their figures, and they,(DML figures) were short and skinny. I also was much more accustom Tamyia 1/35th. I don't doubt Joel's research, BUT I will add this, the most COMMON uniform size in the US Military from 1940 thru 1991, (51 years for those scoring at home) was Regular Medium. Doing the simple math that puts the average troop at  145-155 lbs and about 5 foot 8 inches (ish). After 1991 the average uniform size for the US Military went up to Large, Medium/Long. Putting the more modern troop at 175 ish, and abooot 5 foot 10 inches or so. WWII German forces had roughly the same comparison. Fallschirmjager, U-boat, and Mountain troops being the exceptions.

I don't know if this helps or not, but NO army ever from Hannibal's hordes to US Marines recruit/draft/induct one size personnel. Yes, US tankers fell into roughly the same size patterns, simple due to the size and internal space of US tanks. US Paratroopers tend to be larger, TEND TO BE. Hell you might remember Capt Chad Hennings USAF A-10 driver, and Dallas Cowboys DE. At 6 foot 6 inches I didn't think he could fit in an A-10...... But he did and fought bravely in the 1st Gulf Conflict. In my USAF unit, (CCT) we had a team member that was 6 foot 8 inches, a former tide-end at Nebraska. Point to all this, even the SS had problems recruiting 6ft Aryan Blue-eyed supermen. If you really want to learn abooot different sizes in troops, look at the SS recruiting from the beginning of the war versus the end of the war..... 

Lastly, with modeling, the late Shep Paine always tied to vary the size of his figures in order to replicate this discrepancy.... The only people who get bent out of shape with different size figures is...YOU GUESSED IT.... IPMS Jack-a-lopes 
PJ2

[moramarth]

I think the previous two posters have nailed it.
I know I've said something like what follows before, but I can't remember where or to whom; please forgive me for repeating myself. People come in a variety of sizes, and therefore so does their clothing. So you can (should?) use a variety of sizes of figures. What needs to remain constant is the scale of weapons, and items of kit such as respirator bags/ containers, belt buckles, etc. It's probably worth noting while in WW2 British Mk3 pattern and US M1 helmets were “one size fits all”, Soviet helmets came in four (later three) sizes. PJ2 will be happy to know that it's very difficult to get “standard” WW2 German helmets wrong unless you are doing one of those large scale busts and there's sufficient detail to show it's a M1941 or M1942 and it's on a figure dated before when it was introduced. This is because all models were produced in five sizes (with additional outsize items produced to order) by several manufacturers with variations in both the original colour and finish, and were subject to refurbishment and repainting both in the field and after return to stores. Additionally, most types of WW1 helmet (including the scarce M1918) were refurbished and re-issued (the Austrian patterns were preferred) although their use by front-line troops declined over time.
As for the sizes of military personnel, I'm inclined to accept that after the start of the industrial revolution and the consequent growth of urbanisation there was a diminishing of stature (and general health) of the increasingly urban portion of the population compared with both their rural contemporaries and similarly rustic ancestors. I haven't got a copy of Vegetius handy, but I think he makes similar observations when describing what sort of man makes a good recruit for the Roman Army. In addition to the inter-war depressions in the first half the 20th Century, there would be a sort of reverse Darwinism going on: the fittest and best would have been the first to be recruited in WW1, and possibly suffer greater losses in fatalities, disabilities and damaged general health. If I can generalise from the particular, my paternal grandfather was an agricultural peasant, tall and strong although not of an obliviously muscular appearance. Just prior to WW1 he became a coal miner and the family moved into an inner-city-style Victorian slum, adjacent to a tannery for an enhanced level of pollution. My father was born there and spent most of his first decade in those conditions; he grew up a full head shorter than his father, and with chronic breathing problems. Some time after the birth of his younger brother the family moved to new housing built on a hill near the sea, and away from the godawful fumes of the old town. The younger brother grew up into a virtual clone of their father, in height, build, and appearance. I too spent my first four years in the lower town, albeit in less noxious conditions, before moving to yet another new council housing estate in a previous rural area. I ended up a full half-a-foot taller than my father (more around my grandfathers size) although in other respects the similarity in our appearances was always marked, more so as I have aged (but I never developed his upper body strength, which was considerable). My father volunteered as soon as WW2 kicked off: naturally, he glossed over his weak lungs which actually seem to have improved over his years of service. I suspect that this was not so unusual, another acquaintance of mine (now deceased) grew up during the war and was determined to serve, specifically in the RAF. However he had similar health issues to my father and was found unfit for conscription. Despite having an apprenticeship to a reserved occupation, he laid siege to the recruiting office and after several rejections managed to gain admission to the RAF on the lowest possible fitness rating before the cessation of hostilities. He actually remained in the RAF for some years after the war and became a senior NCO. To take a couple of more illustrious names in vain, it's worth noting both Audie Murphy and Otto Carius were of slight build and initially had several rejections before being allowed to serve their countries. It's also worth noting rationing continued in the UK for several years after the war and may have helped continue the trend of undersized and unhealthy individuals.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the average stature of British soldiers in WW2 as being less than that of their American brethren, and even their Commonwealth cousins. Another acquaintance, whose son is currently serving, mentioned that his son had remarked there was still a noticeable discrepancy in size between the majority of his men and the Americans he was serving beside in Afghanistan.
If you're going back further in time it may be that people matured more slowly (it does appear the trend is accelerating) and would become militarily active before reaching their full growth, hence some surviving suits of armour being for smaller individuals. Contemporary accounts indicate a greater stature for nobles (probably due to differences in diet and nutrition) than for individuals from the lower classes – this may be less marked for professional soldiers as opposed individuals owing military service on an irregular basis. There are always exceptions to the rules, Richard the Third seems to have taken after his father being of a delicate build, while his elder brother, Edward IV, seems to have exceeded even Henry VIII in height. While this may give some weight to allegations Edward IV's real father was an archer of the Rouen garrison by the name of Blaybourne, it should be noted both his brother George, Duke of Clarence, and sister Margaret were also exceptionally tall.
I'll leave it there, but you may want to notice the differences in build between the US and Vietnamese soldiers (at least on the box art) in this new figure set:
www.mbltd.info/35185.htm

Regards,

M