Zimmerit -worth it?

was the Zimmerit coating worth the weight?? I read it was about 400lbs

 

I think it depends on how effective it was in countering the Soviet use of magnetic and adhesive mines. Unfortunately I cannot find a source that tells exactly how effective it was. Its additional weight certainly made it an issue for the tanks probably, but I can't seem to find how effective it exactly was. I'll have to keep looking up on that one.

 

That helps a bit. Thanks Slipdigit!

 

yes, seems like a waste...I see they stopped applying it Sep 44

 

I don't think the weight was an issue but the time and trouble it took to apply it might be. I know the Germans had a magnetic HEAT mine but I haven't heard about the Soviets having one.

 

wasn't it about 400lbs?.....i guess that's equal to about 3 soldiers....not much?

 

400 lbs on 55 tons is not going to be a significant issue, IMHO.

 

Please try the Search function also. We have often discussed the matter before.

http://www.ww2f.com/topic/6042-zimmerit-paste-and-magnetic-mines/

 

The time and trouble taken to apply it vs. any apparent use may have been the issue...at a time when the Germans were starting to "slim down" existing designs - leaving the electric traverse motor off PZIVs etc....

Two years ago there was an article in CMV about a restoration group that undertook the restoration of a StuG III in the UK...and they contact Bovington for the exact mix...scientifically analysed during the war...of Zimmerit - and they were amazed to find that the initial "paste" contained a huge amount per volume of...PETROL!

The paste had to be applied...then the petrol "sweated out" carefully by blowtorch! Whether the petrol was good solvent for the mix of ingredients - or whether it was just the best available to the Germans in the quantities required...each factory that used it had a different design of "imprints" on the paste, controlled by the central ministry in charge or production...so if you look at pics of tanks and stugs with zimmerit, you'll see different patterns on the Zimmerit...and the actual design can be used to identify the original factory where the tank was manufactured.

Anyway - it appears that part of the function of the stippling/crisscrossing/imprinting was to help bring the petrol...which was spread throughout the paste in bubbles and pockets (remember, I wondered if its was just the best solvent available, as it certainly wasn't the best!) to the surface or at least near to the surface...and even then, some was NEVER removed successfully from the drying paste at the factory...hence the even brand new tanks and AFVS we can see in pics with scabs of Zimmerit missing

As you can see, a hell of a lot of trouble for what's thought to be little apparent success; I can certainly understand why they did away with it!

 

very interesting and great information....much thanks....to everyone....I enjoy the reading very much...yes, It took time, time they thought they had....

 

I'm not sure they did think they had the time...just that they needed to spend it - at least in the short term.

I was very surprised by the petrol issue; it made "period correct" restoration a very difficult, not to say dangerous, enterprise in the circumstances! And of course - in the restoration workshop, far more time and care could be taken to carry out the...processing...than at the factory - where indeed time as a resource would always be at a premium

Unfortunately, since buying a new laptop and coincidently upgrading to Windows 8.1 I'm having trouble attaching pics etc. on here, or else I'd be able to post up pics of the StuG in question. It does though look as if the zimmerit "paste" wasn't in itself very adhesive - hence the various patterns of indentation applied to it as it dried....not only helping to expel the raw petrol...but to keep pressing the drying paste against the armourplate!

Also - there MAY...no discussion of this in the article IIRC...have been an early form of "quantity surveying" at work...in that it was the overall thickness of the zimmerit that endowed the coating with much of its anti-magnetic quality, as well as the contents of the paste. Even the zimmerit with the pressed-in "waffle" pattern would be as effective as its thickest cross-section I.E. the TOP of the "waffles"...but by the end of its use, the more indentations that could be pressed into it, the less actual paste was needed to coat an average panzer!

 

If I'm not mistaken, the Soviets had no magnetic mines to speak of. It was a German misconception that if they fielded magnetic anti-tank mines/grenades, then the Soviets must as well. Besides, a molotov thrown into a tank's engine is something that Zimmerit simply can't protect against, yet it is something that would have been far more common than say Soviet soldiers using captured German magnetic anti-tank grenades.

 

Fargo, the issue of "liquid incendiaries" has come up recently a couple of times on AHF...whether the improvised kind - beloved of the early Home Guard as well as the Soviets - and later in manufactured form in the UK, both as a handheld grenade and a thicker-walled version for use in the Northover Projector...

The British did tests on these mid-war - and it turned out that all British tanks were proof against petrol-based incendiaries by mid-war. I would presume that the Germans, in their rapid development, had adapted likewise. Remember - the speed of German tank development was being set by events BOTH in the Western Desert AND the Eastern front Especially when their legendary leaking fuel systems would make them MORE vulnerable to fire...

Anyway - better sealing/fitting of engine bay hatches and guttering of hatchways, and more thought given to engine breather arrangements, could and did reduce to chance of such weapons being effective to virtually zero.