"Grooved" texture on German WWII tanks

skyprowler7 · August 1, 2007, 9:59am

What do you call the rough grooved texture on German WWII tanks like the Tiger tanks and what was the purpose of it?

Anonymous · August 1, 2007, 10:00am

field-applied zimmerit

EdGrune · August 1, 2007, 10:05am

Zimmerit was an anti-magnetic material which prevented magnetic mines from sticking to a tank.

skyprowler7 · August 1, 2007, 11:08am

Wow cool. Those (in my at best mediocre German accent) “churmons” were very saavy technologically.

espins1 · August 1, 2007, 11:29am

Zimmerit is not actualy “anti-magnetic”. What it does is create space between a magnetic mine/explosive and the metal armor, enough space so that the magnet properties of the explosive are not strong enough to allow it to stick to the tank. The reason it’s grooved is because it’s a way to create further distance from the metal armor, but uses less material and less weight than if it were laid on thick enough to do the job. Make sense? [:)]

Anonymous · August 1, 2007, 11:50am

…ditto…it had no “anti-magnetic” properties on its own…simply a barrier…

jthurston · August 1, 2007, 12:55pm

classic

crockett · August 1, 2007, 2:34pm

So, it appears that the ignorance is still abounding and the “joke” is becoming mean spirited. The field applied zimmerit discussion skewed way out of proportion and was completely mis interpreted by several people. The point of the discussion was not whether or not it was applied in the field, but the curious lack of any documented evidence as such, either by photos or in unit histories. Somebody made a comment like: “well, it was never documented that they changed oil, but…”

I agree, but if you look at the logistics involved, the demand for tanks at the time of implementation, it makes some sense that it would not be practical to apply the stuff in the “field”. The very thought of pulling badly needed tanks off the battlefield to apply zimm just doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of examples of vehicles that were depot refitted due to battle damage, and returned to service. If that is what is considered “field” application, then the argument is pure semantics. Somehow, "field " applied cammo application was documented and photographed, as well as other non-factory retro fits, but nowhere does the zimmerit application history exist. Not one maintenance record, not one photograph,not one anecdotal account…? Based on that…who is really laughing?

I think we can agree to disagree and the mean spirited jibes need to stop. They are based on ego and ignorance, not facts. I will gladly eat my hat and humble pie too if any reference can be produced to substantiate this ASSUMPTION. The problem stems from one individual who appeared on this board with a “know it all” attitude and that individual’s infintile refusal to to admit that his statement was indeed not a fact.

Anonymous · August 1, 2007, 2:46pm

…wow…

the_doog · August 1, 2007, 2:56pm

field-applied zimmerit

classic

So, it appears that the ignorance is still abounding and the “joke” is becoming mean spirited. The field applied zimmerit discussion skewed way out of proportion and was completely mis interpreted by several people. The point of the discussion was not whether or not it was applied in the field, but the curious lack of any documented evidence as such, either by photos or in unit histories. Somebody made a comment like: “well, it was never documented that they changed oil, but…”

I agree, but if you look at the logistics involved, the demand for tanks at the time of implementation, it makes some sense that it would not be practical to apply the stuff in the “field”. The very thought of pulling badly needed tanks off the battlefield to apply zimm just doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of examples of vehicles that were depot refitted due to battle damage, and returned to service. If that is what is considered “field” application, then the argument is pure semantics. Somehow, "field " applied cammo application was documented and photographed, as well as other non-factory retro fits, but nowhere does the zimmerit application history exist. Not one maintenance record, not one photograph,not one anecdotal account…? Based on that…who is really laughing?

I think we can agree to disagree and the mean spirited jibes need to stop. They are based on ego and ignorance, not facts. I will gladly eat my hat and humble pie too if any reference can be produced to substantiate this ASSUMPTION. The problem stems from one individual who appeared on this board with a “know it all” attitude and that individual’s infintile refusal to to admit that his statement was indeed not a fact.

Uhhhh…did I miss something here,?[%-)]… seriously?

espins1 · August 1, 2007, 3:45pm

I think I’m missing something here. Apparently there were issues in another thread regarding Zim?

As far as I know, wasn’t all Zimmerit factory applied?

DanCooper · August 1, 2007, 3:49pm

An amazing coincidence… just today I red an article that zimmerit, at least a substance that has the same texture and probably the same formula is still being used in winter by the city of “Leiden” (Holland) to put on their bridges so that pedestrians don’t fall by sliding. I’m not interely sure on the correctness of that article though.

Anonymous · August 1, 2007, 3:55pm

field-applied zimmerit

classic

So, it appears that the ignorance is still abounding and the “joke” is becoming mean spirited. The field applied zimmerit discussion skewed way out of proportion and was completely mis interpreted by several people. The point of the discussion was not whether or not it was applied in the field, but the curious lack of any documented evidence as such, either by photos or in unit histories. Somebody made a comment like: “well, it was never documented that they changed oil, but…”

I agree, but if you look at the logistics involved, the demand for tanks at the time of implementation, it makes some sense that it would not be practical to apply the stuff in the “field”. The very thought of pulling badly needed tanks off the battlefield to apply zimm just doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of examples of vehicles that were depot refitted due to battle damage, and returned to service. If that is what is considered “field” application, then the argument is pure semantics. Somehow, "field " applied cammo application was documented and photographed, as well as other non-factory retro fits, but nowhere does the zimmerit application history exist. Not one maintenance record, not one photograph,not one anecdotal account…? Based on that…who is really laughing?

I think we can agree to disagree and the mean spirited jibes need to stop. They are based on ego and ignorance, not facts. I will gladly eat my hat and humble pie too if any reference can be produced to substantiate this ASSUMPTION. The problem stems from one individual who appeared on this board with a “know it all” attitude and that individual’s infintile refusal to to admit that his statement was indeed not a fact.

Uhhhh…did I miss something here,?[%-)]… seriously?

…I believe Crockett is taking personally a spirited debate a while back about wether or not all zimm was applied in the factory during the transitional period of when zimm was ordered into use…I think he feels my tongue-in-cheek references to it are somehow directed to him in a “mean-spirited” way (I am assuming he is referring to me as the “know it all”…sorta blows my mind if you ask me…and also calls into question HIS ego if he feels people are actually sitting around thinking of ways to make him mad…I sent him a PM asking him to speak to me through that forum if he really felt the need, and so far he has not responded…maybe he just had a bad day, or maybe he isn’t happy that I am still in the Forum at all…maybe he will listen to reason…

DanCooper · August 1, 2007, 4:40pm

Euh, excuse my intrusion in your little fight, but couldn’t you just try and contact a surviving German tanker and ask him about it ?

jthurston · August 1, 2007, 4:46pm

field-applied zimmerit

classic

So, it appears that the ignorance is still abounding and the “joke” is becoming mean spirited. The field applied zimmerit discussion skewed way out of proportion and was completely mis interpreted by several people. The point of the discussion was not whether or not it was applied in the field, but the curious lack of any documented evidence as such, either by photos or in unit histories. Somebody made a comment like: “well, it was never documented that they changed oil, but…”

I agree, but if you look at the logistics involved, the demand for tanks at the time of implementation, it makes some sense that it would not be practical to apply the stuff in the “field”. The very thought of pulling badly needed tanks off the battlefield to apply zimm just doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of examples of vehicles that were depot refitted due to battle damage, and returned to service. If that is what is considered “field” application, then the argument is pure semantics. Somehow, "field " applied cammo application was documented and photographed, as well as other non-factory retro fits, but nowhere does the zimmerit application history exist. Not one maintenance record, not one photograph,not one anecdotal account…? Based on that…who is really laughing?

I think we can agree to disagree and the mean spirited jibes need to stop. They are based on ego and ignorance, not facts. I will gladly eat my hat and humble pie too if any reference can be produced to substantiate this ASSUMPTION. The problem stems from one individual who appeared on this board with a “know it all” attitude and that individual’s infintile refusal to to admit that his statement was indeed not a fact.

Whoa!! I don’t know what the mean-spirited thing is; I guessed I missed something. I didn’t realize there was that much of a bad-blood thing here with the field-applied zim topic. I said “classic” because I thought the respoonse bringing up the filed-applied zim was funny. That’s all. No offense, ignorance, mean-spirited comment or snide remark is intended by my comment, and I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone by saying it.

Crocket, I just thought it was funny. You will not, now or in the future, at any time or in any context, catch me making “mean-spirited” comments on this site. I did it once a long time ago when someone made an inappropriate political comment, and I won’t ever do it again. Just so you know, from now on.

TankJunky · August 1, 2007, 4:59pm

Zimmerit

To frustrate armor modellers.

the_doog · August 1, 2007, 6:12pm

[(-D][(-D]how true!!! LOL!!!

Anonymous · August 1, 2007, 6:17pm

field-applied zimmerit

classic

So, it appears that the ignorance is still abounding and the “joke” is becoming mean spirited. The field applied zimmerit discussion skewed way out of proportion and was completely mis interpreted by several people. The point of the discussion was not whether or not it was applied in the field, but the curious lack of any documented evidence as such, either by photos or in unit histories. Somebody made a comment like: “well, it was never documented that they changed oil, but…”

I agree, but if you look at the logistics involved, the demand for tanks at the time of implementation, it makes some sense that it would not be practical to apply the stuff in the “field”. The very thought of pulling badly needed tanks off the battlefield to apply zimm just doesn’t make sense. There are plenty of examples of vehicles that were depot refitted due to battle damage, and returned to service. If that is what is considered “field” application, then the argument is pure semantics. Somehow, "field " applied cammo application was documented and photographed, as well as other non-factory retro fits, but nowhere does the zimmerit application history exist. Not one maintenance record, not one photograph,not one anecdotal account…? Based on that…who is really laughing?

I think we can agree to disagree and the mean spirited jibes need to stop. They are based on ego and ignorance, not facts. I will gladly eat my hat and humble pie too if any reference can be produced to substantiate this ASSUMPTION. The problem stems from one individual who appeared on this board with a “know it all” attitude and that individual’s infintile refusal to to admit that his statement was indeed not a fact.

Whoa!! I don’t know what the mean-spirited thing is; I guessed I missed something. I didn’t realize there was that much of a bad-blood thing here with the field-applied zim topic. I said “classic” because I thought the respoonse bringing up the filed-applied zim was funny. That’s all. No offense, ignorance, mean-spirited comment or snide remark is intended by my comment, and I’m sorry if I’ve offended anyone by saying it.

Crocket, I just thought it was funny. You will not, now or in the future, at any time or in any context, catch me making “mean-spirited” comments on this site. I did it once a long time ago when someone made an inappropriate political comment, and I won’t ever do it again. Just so you know, from now on.

[#ditto]…but—and I mean this with all sincerity—I am not sure it is us who should be apologizing…I don’t feel that people should get so wound up over a little humor when it is not mean spirited…