Valiant 1/72nd FJ weapons — tiny LG-40

[John D Salt]

The wonderful Plastic Soldier Review has just given us a peek at Valiant’s new 1/72nd Fallschirmj<span id=”ContentPlaceHolder3_lblHeader” class=”HeaderText”>ä</span>ger heavy weapons:

http://www.plasticsoldierreview.com/review.aspx?id=2426

I am surprised that they did not comment on the diminutive size of the 7.5cm  LG-40 model offered in the pack. It’s not a big weapon, and Paras naturally look quite chunky in their big clothes, but to my eye it seemed much too small. From the muzzle to the end of the venturi, this weapon measured 1150mm, so in 1/72nd that should be 16mm long, as near as makes no difference. As near as I can make out from the photo provided, the Valiant model seems to be 13mm — almost 20% under scale. Really, how hard can t be to get this sort of stuff right?

Well, at least I’m relieved that I won’t need to buy any to replace the two scratch-built LG-40s I made for my FJ.

All the best,

John.

 

[Steve Burt]

But it will go very nicely with my 1:76 scale chaps.

 

[willz]

Yes I saw them in person the other week and thought it looked smallish.

If I was just starting in WW2 I would buy Valiant figures, however with several thousand Airfix, Revell, Caesar figures they just a tadge on the big side to mix in with my figures.  Though I have gamed with them in separate battalions just not mixed with other figures (old Esci the exception).      I like them but it was a marketing decision buy Colin R, if you buy them you stick with them, it makes good business sense.

[John D Salt]

Steve Burt wrote:

But it will go very nicely with my 1:76 scale chaps.

It’s more like 1/87th, though.

willz wrote:

Caesar figures they just a tadge on the big side to mix in with my figures.

Yes, I bought a couple of boxes of their British and Germans when they first came out. Unfortunately their absurdly big heads and over-scale weapons mean that I shan’t be buying any more — one of the reasons I never got in to metal figures was the unappealing goblin-like appearance of far too many of them, and I see no reason to introduce this defect into the world of plastics.

All the best,

John.

 

[John D Salt]

Interesting — the fine chaps at the Plastic Soldier Review have replied to an e-mail of mine, and assure me that the length that should be 16mm does, indeed, measure exactly 16mm. Which I suppose demonstrates the hazards of leaping to conclusions based on measures taken from a photo, and confirms that the rating of “10” for historical accuracy is, in fact, justified.

All the best,

John.

[Author]

Posts