Zimmerit. (And schurzen digressions)

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by von Poop, Jul 4, 2006.

  1. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    The magnetic effect would probably be enough to keep it on the tank on it's own. But saying that if there is a layer of slippery type material between it and the metal , when the tank is moving it would still stay on the tank but slide down or whatever with the movement of the tank. In this instance it's not like a limpet mine, the attraction would be there, but perhaps not enough to keep it in one place due do it not being metal direct to metal. Maybe that was the theory behind it.

    Does anyone know if it was successful and if so how was it effective. Or was it a well meant idea.- in theory.
     
  2. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    From an Eastern front perspective, desperate means, desperate measures, when you have an enemy that desperate they are training dogs to go under tanks with explosives.

    To be honest I don't class that as desperate. When they start getting men to climb under tanks and detonate mines..... then things are getting desperate. Even more so if I'm issued a pistol, 10 rounds and a magnetic mine with a very short fuse! :(
     
  3. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Pretty desperate for poor old Fido though!! I was listening to Antony Beevor's Berlin on tape and there was mentioned on side 10 when about 20 k of infantry were entering the city and the Russian tanks and artillery were firing through them, just because the commander wanted to break through for Konev. Using political prisoners and the like as human minesweepers.
     
  4. Kitty

    Kitty Very Senior Member

    Thanks for the answers lads, appreciate it.
     
  5. spotter

    spotter Senior Member

    apparently the dog mine was a big mistake.They trained them on russian tanks ,so when they released the poor hounds on there final mission they ran back to there own lines and tanks........:(
     

    Attached Files:

  6. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    apparently the dog mine was a big mistake.They trained them on russian tanks ,so when they released the poor hounds on there final mission they ran back to there own lines and tanks........:(
    I think it was mentioned in another post, that the canine tank destroyer came a cropper when the Germans would shoot any dog on site. I can remember stories of dogs wandering back to their own side.
     
  7. drgslyr

    drgslyr Senior Member

    I read somewhere that the sandbags added to Shermans served the dual purpose of protecting against magnetic mines, but I'm not sure how much credence to give this because adding sandbags was by no means a universal practice either.
     
  8. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    I read somewhere that the sandbags added to Shermans served the dual purpose of protecting against magnetic mines, but I'm not sure how much credence to give this because adding sandbags was by no means a universal practice either.
    Good point, I hadn't really thought of sandbags (intentionally or not) doing roughly the same thing. Ive got some excellent pics of a furious Patton giving a Sherman crew a full-on Bollocking for excessive sandbags, making them take them off, and then one shot of them putting them back on once the general had moved on.

    I'm heading towards the conclusion that Zimmerit, as expected, just has it's roots in the Eastern front where attacking infantry crawling all over your vehicle seems a more likely scenario than in many other theatres, a kind of "let's give it a go, why not?" idea. Wonder if requests came from crews, or someone just sold it to the technical bods in Germany?

    Still intrigued as to a specific Russian magnetic AT mine, If it was those Lend-lease charges then I'm going to have to try and find out how many were sent.
     
  9. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    Patton had a point. You add 20 sand bags to the front/top of your tank and you've added quite a weight. It may have added a bit of protection, but added to the tanks fuel consumption, overall weight, lowered it's manouverability and stopped it crossing quite a few bridges. Not to mention adding to the wear to tracks, running gear and suspention. Even covered in sandbags an 88 would take it out, in fact it'll be so slow that it would make it an easier target.

    I'm sure that if it was a practical thing to do, the practice would have been a lot more wide spread.
     
  10. drgslyr

    drgslyr Senior Member

    I just came across this reference to zimmerit in the book: World War II Infantry Anti-Tank Tactics by Osprey Publishing. It gives a pretty thorough explanation of the stuff and the reason for its use.

    "The Soviets occasionally plastered a thin layer of textured concrete over their tanks to hamper the attachment of German magnetic hand mines. In case the Red Army developed a magnetic AT hand mine similar to their own, in December 1943 the Germans began applying Zimmerit 'anti-magnetic plaster' on the production lines of new PzKw V and VI tanks, heavy assault guns, and some PzKw IV tanks and lighter assault guns. (The Red Army never did field such a weapon, although they did use captured German examples.) Zimmerit was a magnetic-insulating putty, not truly 'anti-magnetic', developed by Chemische Werke Zimmer GmbH and made of 40 percent barium sulphate, 25 percent polyvinyl acetate, 15 percent dark yellow pigment, 10 percent zinc sulphate and 10 percent sawdust. It was applied by hand in a first 5mm layer, and four hours later a textured 3mm coat was added with a spatula, and dried with a blowtorch. The ridged patterns made it more difficult to attach magnetic and 'sticky' grenades. It was not supposed to be applied to the turret, engine deck or track skirts where it would be worn off by crew traffic, but in fact it was commonly seen on these areas.

    Zimmerit was ordered discontinued on 9 September 1944 because it was rumoured that gunfire could set it alight; this was found to be untrue, and the plaster was not removed, but its factory application was not restarted."

    So it turns out zimmerit was a precautionary measure against a possible threat that obviously never came to pass on any significant level, or its use would have continued after 1944. On the plus side, I think it made the tanks look cool!
     
  11. lancesergeant

    lancesergeant Senior Member

    Patton had a point. You add 20 sand bags to the front/top of your tank and you've added quite a weight. It may have added a bit of protection, but added to the tanks fuel consumption, overall weight, lowered it's manouverability and stopped it crossing quite a few bridges. Not to mention adding to the wear to tracks, running gear and suspention. Even covered in sandbags an 88 would take it out, in fact it'll be so slow that it would make it an easier target.

    I'm sure that if it was a practical thing to do, the practice would have been a lot more wide spread.
    They probably thought up on the spur of the moment thinking it might offer more protection. I thought sandbags were to offer some protection against blast/pressure not penetration ie from a tank round.
     
  12. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Sandbags were oficially sanctioned by many units to the extent that by wars end pre-made racks could be obtained for welding onto Sherman Hulls.

    Back on Zimmerit,
    David Fletcher's excellent "Mr Churchills Tank, The British Infantry Tank Mk. IV, Schiffer, 1999" (Available from all good bookshops & worth every penny ;) ) has this bizzare picture on page 190 of a Churchill VI carrying the British attempt at Zimmerit combined with a German paint colour; really superb camouflage effect that underlines one advantage of Zimmerit, the 'matting' effect, though the British said rough or smooth didn't matter in terms of anti-magnetic protection:
    [​IMG]

    Apparently the intention was to put this British zimmerit into full production and then the war ended. Australia received a batch with the coating shipped separately, they chose not to bother. Mr Fletcher notes one side-effect, when a flamethrower was used on a coated and uncoated tank, the uncoated got hot enough inside to ignite the ammunition while the coated one remained 'bearable'.
     
  13. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Rereading the Spielberger Panzer series.
    Interesting to note that the mesh type of Schurzen seen on later vehicles was actually tested at the same time as the basic plate was trialed, and found to be just as effective against AT rifle rounds, and much lighter. So even that didn't represent an attempt to protect against shaped charges as is so often said (said it myself no doubt).
    The only reason given for it's lack of acceptance initially was a difficulty in obtaining the mesh material.
     
  14. Smudger Jnr

    Smudger Jnr Our Man in Berlin

    I took this close up of the zimmerit coating whilst at Munster. It looked to be pretty newly applied, but looked very good.

    I just wonder if it was Non Magnetic or just a representation.

    Regards
    Tom
     

    Attached Files:

  15. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Does anyone have a pic specifically of the Alkett Zimmerit pattern on StuG IIIs? I know the MIAG pattern, and want to see the difference...
     
  16. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    From Spielberger, Alkett waffle pattern: [​IMG]
     
  17. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Excellent! Thanks for that!

    And....does it have a pic pf the front glacis by any chance???
     
  18. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    ...and - it's not very thick!!! A lot thinner than the MIAG interpretation of the regulations!
     
  19. von Poop

    von Poop Adaministrator Admin

    Hard to say on thickness.

    Alkett:
    [​IMG]

    MIAG:
    [​IMG]
    Doesn't appear to be thick enough to rise above panel joins, so maybe the MIAG job was just neater, and didn't push the stuff around as much as the Alkett waffle iron?
    Same, or very similar amount of material used on the Alkett pattern, just not so squished about?
     
  20. phylo_roadking

    phylo_roadking Very Senior Member

    Doesn't appear to be thick enough to rise above panel joins, so maybe the MIAG job was just neater, and didn't push the stuff around as much as the Alkett waffle iron?
    Same, or very similar amount of material used on the Alkett pattern, just not so squished about?


    What piqued my curiosity was an article a while ago in CMV about the Sdkfz Foundation's StuG restoaration - a MIAG item recovered from the Black Sea.

    They did a LOT of research, and re-created Zimmerit from the period ingredients and included a LOT of petrol!!!:mellow:...and applied it as per the MIAG instructions; it was given a certain time to set, then the lines were VERY precisiely applied....THEN the petrol was sweated out with blowtorches! :p And yes it WAS a considerable fire hazard...

    It ALSO could create terrible blisters and voids in the Zimmerit, which could then flake off, especially on areas where the crew would walk/climb. So the FINAL part of the process, as it hardened at last, was to apply a "stamp" of four little rods to each marked square...thus pushing/pricking any blisters flat/closed/down again, and every square would thus look like a domino "four"!:lol: Look closely at the pic of the front and top surfaces - see all the little dots in the corners of the squares??? Unlike the Alkett "waffle"?

    The Alkett process was obviously to use a larger "waffle iron" stamp, looking not unlike a bar of chocolate, to press the nearly-dry Zimmerit down after "sweating". Problem is...looking at the pics you can see areas where it has flaked off, and this wider stamping seems to squeeze the solidifying paste until it's very thin.

    I wonder if anyone ever compared the job that each factory's covering did against a median? The article writer noted that BOTH factories' output differed slightly from how Zimmerit was SUPPOSED to be applied! :lol:
     

Share This Page