Hi guys. Some may remember that I'm one of 'those' on the side of infantry figs being the same scale as the vehicles. Problem is that it seems from many of the threads that the modern figures are over size. I also get the impression that some are more over scale than others. As you are also no doubt aware, there are no other manufacturers making modern infantry figures that are worth buying. I had considered just selling all my modern vehicles, until I spotted a pic from Mk1 (I think) which showed Russian (?) figures behind a BMP on a bridge (can't remember which thread or I'd be more specific)... anyway, the figs looked reasonably close to scale... so I'm asking, which modern lines have figures that are under the 8mm giants? My modern units are Iraqi, Saudi and US (1991) but the US forces are an ACR company, so has very few dismount troops. Does GHQ have anything that would work for these units without dwarfing them?
P
modern infantry for Iraq war 1991
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
-
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Re: modern infantry for Iraq war 1991
Well, I always think pictures a good thing, so let's take a look-see.piersyf wrote:I had considered just selling all my modern vehicles, until I spotted a pic from Mk1 (I think) which showed Russian (?) figures behind a BMP on a bridge (can't remember which thread or I'd be more specific)... anyway, the figs looked reasonably close to scale...

This is probably the picture you were thinking of. This was a Operation Desert Storm scenario I played a few years back. Iraqi Recon vs. US ACR in a night action.
It was very entertaining. The modelling and the terrain were exceptional (done by CG Erickson, who occasionally shows up around here).

This picture is probably of even greater interest to the discussion. From the same game.
The figures were GHQ Modern Soviets and Modern US Army. BMP and Bradley are also GHQ. Everything in the battle was GHQ, including all the buildings.
I did not have any objection to the size of these figures. I thought they looked great. But you are welcome to judge for yourself.
For those that want to see more pics, here is the set, hosted on Chris Barath's ("Thunder" on this forum) website:
http://www.microarmor.com/images/MK1%27 ... index.html
Hope that helps.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
- E5
- Posts: 7272
- Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:22 pm
- Location: Jacksonville, FL
I think your infantry look very nice. I usually us the mono-lithic infantry from another company, so I do not worry/concern about dropping, bending and breaking. [Straighten that barrel on the M-2].
Nice looking battle photos from the new reporter, is he from CNN or Fox?
I may have some extra infantry men if someone may want them; can trade.....
Nice looking battle photos from the new reporter, is he from CNN or Fox?
I may have some extra infantry men if someone may want them; can trade.....
-
- E5
- Posts: 625
- Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:59 pm
- Location: Melbourne Australia
Thanks Mk1, helped a lot. They were indeed the pics I was referring to. I did a 'cut and paste' of a US soldier to remove the base height and stood him right alongside the Bradley. Hardly noticeable scale issues, even right up close, so I agree, they are more than adequate. The difference is a bit more noticeable with the Russians and the BMP... imagine trying to squish 8 of those figs into that vehicle! Still, same can be said (and has been) about trying to fit 4 Germans into a Kubel, or 4 Americans into a Jeep. They seem fine. Looks like I can keep my moderns after all!
Oh, BTW, still on the Desert Storm era... how the heck did the Iraqis manage to get a 10 man squad into a BMP? All the TOE's I've seen give the same number of APC's per platoon regardless of type (BTR, OT64, BMP) and 10 man sections. Did they ride on the roof?
P
Oh, BTW, still on the Desert Storm era... how the heck did the Iraqis manage to get a 10 man squad into a BMP? All the TOE's I've seen give the same number of APC's per platoon regardless of type (BTR, OT64, BMP) and 10 man sections. Did they ride on the roof?
P
-
- E5
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2004 3:21 am
- Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Imagine? I don't need to imagine.piersyf wrote:The difference is a bit more noticeable with the Russians and the BMP... imagine trying to squish 8 of those figs into that vehicle!

The time I've spent crawling around inside BMPs have convinced me. There is no path by which you could fit 8 of ME into a BMP. It is just not going to happen. But then, it has been said that I am a bit "out of scale"...

The Jeep was rated as a 1/4 ton truck. 1/4 tons = 500lbs load capacity. That means you shouldn't be putting more than three 150 - 160lb soldiers into a Jeep. If you want to load up with four soldiers, you should buy figures of 115lb soldiers from the other US vendor.Still, same can be said (and has been) about trying to fit ... 4 Americans into a Jeep.

Often the TOEs don't distinguish vehicle crew from dismounts. A BMP typically carried a crew of 3 and a 7 man dismount squad, I believe. Sometimes the squad leader dismounted ( making 2 + 8 ), sometimes not ( 3 + 7 ). So total number of men may be consistant with foot units.Oh, BTW, still on the Desert Storm era... how the heck did the Iraqis manage to get a 10 man squad into a BMP? All the TOE's I've seen give the same number of APC's per platoon regardless of type (BTR, OT64, BMP) and 10 man sections. Did they ride on the roof?
With the BMP-2 that went down to a crew of 3 and a 6 man dismount squad. All IIRC. Sorry, no sources to hand.
-Mark 1
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
Difficile est, saturam non scribere.
"It is hard NOT to write satire." - Decimus Iunius Juvenalis, 1st Century AD
-
- E5
- Posts: 814
- Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:26 am
- Location: Dallas Texas
I think there are so many advantages to the new figures even if they are a bit large. Maybe not to the 8mm scale but I much prefer 6mm vs 1/285 figures. I remember gaming in the 80's when figures were true to scale and they were crap! There just wasn't enough material to make the figures able to handle gaming.
As long as the size stays to 6mm you can use thinner bases to makeup the difference.
I’m one of those gamers that like infantry in my games. In some cases the infantry is the force and tanks only support the infantry.
The durability and usefulness of the new figures more than makes up for the slight increase in size.
But GHQ: Please keep them at 6mm.
As long as the size stays to 6mm you can use thinner bases to makeup the difference.
I’m one of those gamers that like infantry in my games. In some cases the infantry is the force and tanks only support the infantry.
The durability and usefulness of the new figures more than makes up for the slight increase in size.
But GHQ: Please keep them at 6mm.

I pray for Peace on Earth Good will toward men. Till then one round HE fire for Effect!