Gryphonne Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I noticed that the Panther in the media section has zimmerit covered side skirts. Surely, this wasn't common practice was it? From all the pictures I've seen skirts were never zimmerit coated? I take it the Panther model in-game doesn't have the skirts with zimmerit coating? Same goes for the Pz IV, i see it with zimmerit on some of the skirts. However, in Bil's AAR the hull skirts are without zimmerit and the turret skirts are stilll coated? Can anyone elaborate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smeel Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 i have no idea if it was common practice, but while googling "Zimmeriet sideskirt panther", i found this picture: Though not a panther, it's still zimmerit on a sideskirt. So I guess they occasionally did... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gryphonne Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Thanks, didn't expect that But I guess this solves it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetchez la Vache Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Isn't Google wonderful. You ask for "zimmeritt sideskirt panther" and get a PzIV. :-) However I did spot the same skirt-zimmeritt-thing in pictures posted of the Panthers and PzIV in CMBN and I did think "that doesn't look right" at the time. I've got books showing zimmeritt applied to the Panther side skirts, but most pictures show them without though. It think it's a matter of whether the tank had side-skirts when it left the factory - which was when the zimmeritt was applied. However I would guess that the zimmeritt would quickly flake off since the thin side skirts wouldn't be a nice solid base for the paste. I'm not a Panther modelling fiend so I don't know the definitive detail answer that some people could give you about all the various zimmeritt patterns and applications made by the various factories (MAN, Demag, etc). I hate trying to re-create the stuff on models so I tend to avoid that particular era of German AFVs! However I would stick my neck out and say zimmeritt on skirts is the exception not the rule. BTW I think (and I am not a Panther fiend so I could be wrong) that the picture on top is meant to be a Panther A of late 1943 since it's got zimmeritt, the ball mount MG and the TZF12 binocular sight. However it's not a good historical reference since it's obviously been tarted up in the museum - although I know you just posted the picture as an illustration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 novice about to speak warning ... the "bumpy" texture of the armour plating in the first image on the front of the turret (as opposed to smooth plate finish) , what were the benefits ? was that by design ? i understand the concept of armour at an angle for deflection purposes, was the "bumpy" texture there for anything other than aesthetics ? /curious faction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 novice about to speak warning ... the "bumpy" texture of the armour plating in the first image on the front of the turret (as opposed to smooth plate finish) , what were the benefits ? was that by design ? i understand the concept of armour at an angle for deflection purposes, was the "bumpy" texture there for anything other than aesthetics ? /curious faction. It was paste to counter magnetic anti-tank mines, because the Allied AT mine tank hunter teams inflicted such grievous and constant losses on German tank units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 It was paste to counter magnetic anti-tank mines, because the Allied AT mine tank hunter teams inflicted such grievous and constant losses on German tank units. Ah i see thanks, just learnt something new Simple now you mention it, so its purely to stop magnetic mines sticking. Awesome thank you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medex Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Did American or British troops use magnetic mines much during WW2? I got this quote from the wikipedia: Zimmerit was a coating produced for German armored fighting vehicles during World War II for the purpose of combating magnetically attached anti-tank mines, although Germany was the only country to use magnetic mines against tanks in great numbers. It was created by the German company Chemische Werke Zimmer AG.[1] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetchez la Vache Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Simple now you mention it, so its purely to stop magnetic mines sticking. Awesome thank you. And to annoy the bejezus out of military modelers 60 years later. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Did American or British troops use magnetic mines much during WW2? No. I was actually joking about the losses inflicted by mines (I think the Russians did, but that's not my area), but they slapped that paste on nonetheless. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 As hinted at, it was a concrete layer added ontop of the armor to prevent magnetic mines from being attached to the tank. The Germans used magnetic mines, especially in the period when they were caught by surprise by the how good Soviet tanks were. (This is relative: obviously the conditions to place a magnetic mine against an enemy tank were such that not many could survive doing it.) The Germans reasoned that their enemies would use the magnetic anti-tank mines, as well. The layer of concrete kept the magnets far enough away from the steel that they could not hold a mine in position. I do not think the Western allies even had magnetic anti-tank mines. I think the Soviets had them, but very limited numbers. It ended up being a countermeasure against a technique that was not utilized. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 its funny, i considered myself relatively well read in the field of WW2 before reading some of the posts in this forum , i guess in some cases its about specialised knowledge but it has to be said i have been impressed by the depth of understanding about many subjects ... this thread is probably not the best example (was quiet obvious really, just me being dumb missing it). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 lol even wallpapers cannot escape...what a headache for BFC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 basically PVA and sawdust, with stuff... http://www.panzerworld.net/zimmerit.html 40% Barium Sulphate, BaSO4 - is made from Barium (Ba) treated with Sulpheric acid (H2SO4), and is water-insoluble 25% Polyvinyl Acetate, PVA - commonly known as white carpenters glue 15% ochre pigment, An earth-toned colouring material 10% Zinc sulphide and ZnS - a natural mineral, and a Zinc ore. 70% Zinc Sulphide and 30% Barium Suphate give Lithopone, a white pigment 10% sawdust 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Reading contemporary Allied accounts of encountering zimmerit on German tanks its obvious they didn't have a clue what its function was for. The most common explanation was camou to eliminate the glare from flat metal surfaces. They couldn't believe that Germany would go to such effort and expense to protect against a non-existant threat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 On the topic of Panther skirt zimmerit. I just dug out my thick Jentz reference on the Panther tanks. The Zimm'd Panther A reference shot has skirts with zimmerit on them. There's also a well known photo of a captured Panther A being tested at Aberdeen Proving Grounds. Zimmerit skirts on that one as well. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fetchez la Vache Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Yup, Jentz was where I saw the picture of the zimmer'ed Panther D as well. I couldn't see any such pictures in the Panzerwrecks books I've got though. This topic made me curious and I noticed that online there is a widely quoted wording about the Dec 1943 OKH order that noted that turrets and side skirts were NOT to be pasted with zimmerit. Such online quotes are pretty dodgy ground I know and obviously if this was the order then at least the bit about turrets was widely ignored! Hmmm, maybe it's time to purchase that Panzer Tract, or one of the Concord books, that I keep seeing on Amazon... You see. THIS is why people love WW2 German armour - it's interesting! I simply can't see why my wife doesn't understand this. :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 No. I was actually joking about the losses inflicted by mines (I think the Russians did, but that's not my area), but they slapped that paste on nonetheless. The Allies didn't use magnetic mines against Germans, so you can't say that it didn't work! This is also why I'm selling these fine protective anti-abduction thought screens. So far, no one who has used one has been abducted. WORKS!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 A Dec '43 order not to apply Zim to skirts would have little effect in Normandy where pre-December built vehicles would be happily sitting in depot waiting for action. It would make all the difference for the Bulge title, though, after the German tank force in the west had been pretty much decimated in Falaise and had to be rebuilt from scratch. One would assume a fair precentage of tanks fighting in the Ardennes were new builds with very low odometer mileage racked up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I wonder what the weight of the Zimmerit coating was? It seems to be a pretty thick coating of the stuff so I reckon the extra weight is substantial. Just what the panzers needed! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wuehlmaus Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Did American or British troops use magnetic mines much during WW2? No, but they used to similar effects the socks of a GI, standard model, filled with TNT and coated in grease. As has been demonstrated in "Saving Private Ryan" by Tom Hanks. ;-) Bye, Wuehlmaus 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 The zimmerit was about as useful as all those sandbags on Shermans. I will give this to the sandbags, however: despite the official testing which showed ad hoc field mods to the Sherman would usually make it MORE vulnerable to German armor piercing rounds, I'm willing to be the sandbags reduced a lot of bullets from ricocheting around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I suspect the sandbags were meant more for Fausts than AP rounds. I frankly don't know what a pile of waterlogged sandbags stacked on a M5A1 Stuart bow would do against a Panzerfaust 30 round. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Anything that would ignite a HEAT round prior to hitting the metal armor would have a big effect. Not sure what sandbags would do vs Armor Piercing tho.' 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted March 23, 2011 Share Posted March 23, 2011 Yeah, as I understand it anything that substantially disrupts the delicate plasma penetrator from a shaped charge warhead before it hits your main armour is a major bonus. I have heard that sandbags made KE projectiles more likely to penetrate the plate beneath though; maybe because they make ricochets unlikely and are prone to simply normalise the projectile onto the plate? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.