It's All a Matter of Scale

To today’s toy soldier collectors, particularly those who are dioramists, consistency of scale, i.e. size, has become almost an obsession. Many individuals have, and are, using it as a primary buy/don’t buy criterion, regardless of the accuracy, level of detail, or quality of the figure, vehicle, or aircraft under consideration. On the various toy soldier forums I participate in there is almost a continuous series of discussions on the subject, which frequently get rather contentious, to put it mildly. Not only will people conduct a detailed comparison of models versus the real thing by mark and mod, but will compare the efforts of the various manufacturers, as to how accurately they have replicated the actual tank or truck in scaled size. This is compounded by the fact that today not just 1:32 scale is being used, but 1:30 scale as well. In addition there are individual manufacturer's variances/interpretations of each of these scales, some intentional and others through apparent lack of in-depth research. It is amazing how much difference there is between a figure or vehicle of 54mm (1:32) and 60mm (1:30), a mere 6mm.

That was not always that case. As a classic example, W. Britains Ltd. produced an entire series of trucks which were based on a composite design of a  Commer Q4 lorry and a Morris LC5 lorry, both extensively used by the British Army in World War II. These included Sets No. 1334, 1335, 1433, 1512, 1513, and 1641  Although the vehicles were of various configurations, they featured a common “bonnet” (hood/front end) and cab design of identical dimensions. In addition the post-WWII Britains revised design, introduced in 1946, appears to be a lorry from that year rather than from the actual period of the war years (1939-1945). In the final configuration there is a slight, but discernible, elongation of the bonnet dimension, as well as a revised front end configuration. Somehow, while Britains were still considered toy soldiers, the matter of scale was not an issue of any consequence, and did not appear to impact either popularity or sales volume. I do not think that would be the case with collectors today. There is another thought that bears conjecture, and that is with the limited availability of manufacturing materials in the immediate post-war period, smaller size was perhaps an intentional conservation measure.

Example of a Commer Q4 lorry in use by the British Army

A Morris LC5 lorry configured as a civilian Ambulance,
observe the side windows not present in a military version 

Another Commer Q4 lorry built as a RASC maintenance van

Although the wheelbase and road clearance varied, based on the use and configuration of the lorry. the cab and front end remained reasonably identical. Following are the basic dimensions. The first set of numbers being precise scaling of an actual vehicle, in this case a Truck 3 ton x 4 General Service Commer Q4 (previous photograph). The second set (in parentheses) being the size of Britains replication.

Length (overall) of 22.5 ft. converted to 1:32 scale is 8.44 in. (5.6 in.)

Width of 7 ft. 5 in. converted to 1:32 scale is 2.78 in. (2.25in.)

Height of 10 ft. 8 in. converted to 1:32 scale is 4.0 in. (2.5 in.)

Cab Length of 8.20 ft. converted to 1:32 scale is 3.075 in. (2.5 in.)

Wheelbase of 13 ft. 11 in. converted to 1:32 scale is 5.22 in. (4.0 in.)

The conversion equation used is; 1/32 = .03125 x Actual dimension (converted to inches).

In order to determine the scale of any figure/vehicle/aircraft, to covert actual dimensions to a desired scale, or to determine a given scale, see the following link: http://webpages.charter.net/sinkwich/sdventure/html/sd_scalecalc2.htm.

Here are photographs of five of the lorries produced by Britains in the post-WWII period. As can be seen in the numbers, correct 1:32 scaling coincident with the toy soldiers (54mm/2.25 in.) would have resulted in significantly larger toy lorries. One additional observation, because of the disproportional difference in both wheelbase and overall length, it appears that the cabs, bonnets, beds, of all the Britains lorries have also been shortened. In summary, today's collectors should try and remember that these were still toys, not military miniatures.

Wm. Britains Army Ambulance, Set No. 1512

Wm. Britains Army Ambulance, Set No. 1512
Last configuration

Wm. Britains Army Lorry, Set No. 1335
with six wheels and dump bed

Wm. Britains Army Lorry, Set No. 1335
Last configuraion

Wm. Britains Covered Tender, Set No. 1433
Caterpillar Type

Wm. Britains Covered Tender, Set No. 1433
Last configuration

Wm. Britains Army Lorry,  Set No. 1334
with four wheels and dump bed 

Wm. Britains Heavy Duty Lorry, Set No. 1641
Rare, manufactured only in 1946-1948

Wm. Britains Heavy Duty Lorry, Set No. 1641
A little closer look

The Heavy Duty Underslung Lorry, Set No. 1641 in its last
configuration with box, from the author's personal collection

The Truck, 15cwt, 4 X 2, GS (Commer ‘Beetle’) entered limited production in 1935, and achieved only limited popularity within the British Army, being soon largely replaced by the Bedford and Morris 15cwts. However a model of the truck was introduced in 1940 by W. Britains Ltd in Set No.1877 Bettle Lorry, and in 1950 Set No. 2048 a mechanical clockwork set including the truck, and remained popular until discontinued in 1960.

A story is rumored that initially the British Army was accepting the Beetle as its Standard 15cwt truck and Britains quickly made the model. It was only after they made the molds that the Army then went for the Bedford and Morris 15cwts.

Extended research by the author failed to discover the dimensions of the actual truck, but reverse engineering from the model proved very revealing. The model measures; in length 4 7/8 in., width 2 1/4 in. and height 2 5/16 in. Using Britains nominal scale of 1:32 yields a set of dimensions (1:1 scale) in length of 156 in (13 ft), width of 72in (6 ft) and height of 74 in (6 ft 2 in). Too much of a coincidence! These dimensions place the real vehicle precisely within the physical envelope of the other actual 15 cwt trucks.

In another case, the Britains’ Centurion Tank, Sets No. 2150 and 2154 (identical except color) are extremely close to an accurate 1:32 scale of the Centurion Mk I, a much larger "vehicle" than the lorries. The dimensions of the tank model are so close to coincident, as to be negligible.

Length overall (w/gun forward) of 32 ft. 4 in. converted to 1:32 scale is 12.125 in.

Length of  hull of 25 ft. 8 in. converted to 1:32 scale is 9.625 in.

Width (including skirts) of 11 ft. 1.5 in. converted to 1:32 scale is 4.172 in.
Height of 9 ft. 10.5 in. converted to 1:32 scale is 3.703 in.

The Centurion Mk I main battle tank as produced by Wm. Britains Ltd.

Wm. Britains Centurion Tank Mk I, Set No. 2150

Another view of the Centurion Tank Mk I

And another view of the Centurion Tank Mk I

Frontal view of Centurion Tank Mk I

Wm. Britains Centurion Tank Mk I, Set No. 2154
Desert Operations

Wm. Britains Centurion Tank Mk I, Set No. 2154
Rear view of tank

Cannon to Right, Cannon to the Left, Cannon being copied all around Them

The first “set” of W. Britains I acquired as a child I still have, but it was not a set of toy soldiers, but a field gun. Set No. 1201 Royal Artillery Gun, was one of many magnificent fully operational model guns Britains produced to accompany their sets of toy soldiers. It appears to be an accurate copy of the Ordnance, Quick-firing, 18 pdr, used extensively by the British Army as it’s standard in World War I. The toy gun was produced from 1932 to 1967. It came in at least two colors I'm aware of, an olive drab (Official designation: Khaki Green 3 or SCC 2), and the later British Army ordnance dark green (Official designation: Olive Green SCC 15). The gun also came in a shade of dark blue for a period of approximately a year. 

View of an original W. Britains Royal Artillery Gun in
the late Olive Green SCC 15

The same gun from a different angle 

Again a side view of the gun

Exact same gun in the earlier olive drab color
also showing one of the earlier boxes

W. Britains Set No. 39, King's Troop Royal
Horse Artillery. Last configuration.

Principal different being that the hydraulic recoil buffer tube on the model is under the barrel (like the QF 15 Pdr Mk I) and the splinter screen is of a slightly different configuration from the real gun, actually permitting higher elevation in the toy.

Further enhancing the toy was Britains adaptation of the Mk IV carriage, a box trail. This eliminated the original central pole trail, which had restricted elevation on the real gun, allowing increased elevation to 37.5 degrees and hence increased maximum range from 6525 to 9300 yards with the 2 charge shell.

Due to the fact that Britains incorporated this gun in an update of Set No. 39 King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery with Gun, Limber, Team, and Escort galloping, some confusion arose. The Royal Horse Artillery employed the Ordnance, Quick-firing 13 pdr, a smaller, lighter version of the 18 pdr, but very similar in overall configuration. See a direct comparison of the two guns in the following photographs and in the video below. Perhaps Britains was using the 13 pdr as its prototype.

Ordnance, Quick-firing 18 pdr, the "real thing"

Ordnance, Quick-firing 18 pdr the "business end"

A side view of the Ordnance, Quick-firing, 18 pdr, showing
one of the early models of the gun with the central pole
trail which saved weight, but unfortunately restricted the
 elevation, and consequently the range of the gun.

A detail of the actual gun. Note in the background the
 standard British Army Anti-aircraft Searchlight which
 Britains also produced as a working model in Sets No.
1640 and 1718

Britains Set No. 1718. Note fine wires which could be
connected to dry cell batteries

A close-up of the Ordnance, Quick-firing 13 pdr.
Note shorter caliber (barrel length) of gun compared
 with the 18 pdr.

King's Troop Royal Horse Artillery deploying a 13 pdr
for ceremonial "Royal Salute"

All of this background is merely intended to show the care and accuracy, with which Britains researched all of their product line.

The main purpose of this blog page however is to show a classic example of plagiarism which occurred (polite term for outright design theft), even though Britains included the word “copyright” embossed in the underside of the gun carriage. The example shown is a Japanese copy, and at least is embossed “Japan”, and probably produced in the post-WWII years, judging from its condition. As can clearly be seen in the photographs, an excellent piece of reverse engineering. The only readily discernible differences being the lack of the slight "lip" at the muzzle, and the lack of a bend in the tip of the breech mechanism of the copy. It is not known how many of these flagrant counterfeits were actually produced, or remain in existence.

Britains had to continuously fight this issue throughout its company history. To quote from Joe Wallis’ excellent book, Armies of the World Britains Ltd. Lead Soldiers 1925-1941;

            “One measure of its success was that Britains soon found it necessary to sue “pirates” of their figure designs. Warnings featuring the details of their successful lawsuits are found in their early catalogs, aimed at deterring such misappropriations. Paper labels with copyright notices were also affixed after 1900 to the underside of the base of each infantry figure. Beginning in 1900 for mounted figures, and in 1904 for foot figures, the copyright notice and date of issue were engraved in the mold itself so that a more permanent marking was made on each item. The Sculpture Copyright Act was altered in 1911 so that a date marked on each piece was no longer required for protection – and the company’s name and “Made in England” were inscribed on the base thereafter. In 1926 the Britains Ltd. trademark was officially recorded with the registration number of 459993 (which helps in determining how early a particular box label might be. If it lacks the number 459993 near the trademark on the box label, then the box predates 1926). Other British firms such as Johillco, Reka, and Taylor and Barrett, adopted the hollowcasting process, but developed their own designs that avoided copyright infringement, even though the same hollowcasting technique was being used by them. Britains had so overcome the German dominance of the English toy market that there was room for these and other smaller British enterprises.”

For those who may be interested this video is a short presentation of the Ordnance, Quick-firing 13pdr and 18pdr employed as the main field artillery pieces of the British Army in WWI.

A Comparison of the WWII GAL 49/50 Hamilcar Mk I and AS.51 Horsa Mk I Gliders

Because of the sustained popularity of the pages in this blog regarding the WWII General Aircraft Ltd. GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I Heavy Assault Glider, as well as the Airspeed AS.51 Horsa Mk I Glider, thought it might be beneficial to present a one-on-one comparison of both aircraft.

As can be seen in some of the photographs of personnel standing under the wing of a Horsa, it was not a small aircraft. However, it was dwarfed by the Hamilcar. Even though it was only a foot longer in overall length, the fuselage and the wing span and area of the Hamilcar far exceeded that of the Horsa. Obviously it was these dimensions that provided the massive payload capacity of the glider, which was well over double that of the Horsa. The wing span of the Hamilcar exceeded that of the Horsa by 22 ft. and the wing area by 553.5 ft².

A AS.51 Horsa Mk I showing the 25 air landing troops
embarking, which comprised the glider's full capacity

Also note the disparity in the vertical stabilizer design of the two aircraft. Stability and control is a compromise between the two factors. And overly stable airplane will tend to resist any change in direction, and a very nimble aircraft would require constant adjustments to keep flying straight .

The stabilizing effect of the vertical tail surface is a function of its size and the distance between its location and the position of the center of gravity of the airplane; so a smaller tail located further aft would be as stable as a larger tail that is kept closer. A simple matter of leverage. Compared to the Horsa, the center of gravity of the Hamilcar was much further forward on the glider due to the positioning and distribution of their vastly differing payloads.

While not of a calculated precise scale, the drawings which are shown are approximately proportional to each other (with a slight error which occurs in transferring images; this can be corrected by enlarging and copying off-line), affording a direct comparison of the size of the two gliders. It is unfortunate that accurate original plans for the Hamilcar seem to be non-existent.

Profile of the General Aircraft Ltd. GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I

Top View of the GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I

General Aircraft Ltd. GAL 49 Hamilcar Mk I General characteristics

• Crew: 2
• Capacity: 7 tons (17,500 lbs)
• Length: 68 ft (20.73 m)
• Wingspan: 110 ft (33.53 m)
• Height: 20 ft 3 in (6.17 m)
• Wing area: 1,657.5 ft² (153.98 m²)
• Airfoil: RAF.34 modified
• Empty weight: 18,400 lb (8,346 kg)
• Max. takeoff weight: 36,000 lb (16,329 kg)

Performance

• Never exceed speed: 187 mph (300 km/h)
• Maximum speed: 150 mph (240 km/h)
• Stall speed: 65 mph (105 km/h)
• Wing loading: 22.37 lb/ft² (109.2 kg/m²)

Profile of the Airspeed AS.51 Horsa Mk I

Top View of the AS.51 Horsa Mk I

Airspeed AS.51 Horsa Mk I General characteristics

• Crew: 2
• Capacity: 25 troops (20-25 troops were the "standard" load – 7,130 lbs)
• Length: 67 ft 0 in (20.43 m)
• Wingspan: 88 ft 0 in (26.83 m)
• Height: 19 ft 6 in (5.95 m)
• Wing area: 1,104 ft² (102.6 m²)
• Empty weight: 8,370 lb (3,804 kg)
• Loaded weight: 15,500 lb (7,045 kg)

Performance

• Maximum speed: 150 mph on tow; 100 mph gliding (242 km/h / 160 km/h)
• Stall speed (fully loaded): 69 mph (flaps up), 55 mph (flaps down).

Wing loading: 14.0 lb/ft² (68.7 kg/m²)

A side-by-side profile view of the two gliders showing the more box-like voluminous fuselage of the Hamilcar, as compared with the narrower tubular fuselage of the Horsa. 

The following are detailed cut-aways of each glider showing both design and structural features. As can  be seen both aircraft had an airframe constructed entirely out of wood.

An additional segment of historical film footage showing the Hamilcar glider in flight, as well as unloading some of the many heavy payloads it could carry.