Recently went to a show in Friedrichshafen Germany but couldn´t find the Dragon 3 in 1 panzer IV so instead I got the Tamiya J model #262 with the Eduard photo etched zimmerit. All the fotos I have seen show zimmerit on the turret skirt but this kit has none. Also, there are no side skrts in the kit and I want the full bull so , where do I get them? Also, the same fotos that show coating on the turret skirts show none on the side skirts. SO, I guess what I want to know is does anyone make an aftermarket skirt set for this kit wih the correct zimmerit application? Thanks for any help ya´ll can offer. 44 Mac
Historically applying zim to these skirts was ridiculous since they were removed and put back on, lost, banged up… I have seen only a few pics with the zim on these, but most have only the cammo on with the zim on the turret sides itself. Do a search for aftermarket parts if you’re into it that much…
…And I don’t think it was practical also. Shurzens were for countering shape charge weapons. Zim for countering anti magnetic mines. No point of putting Zim on the shurzens as it would probably just blow up the shurzen if a mine was used.
I don’t recall seeing and pics of that either.
I have many photos of Pz IVs with Zimmerit on the turret schurzen, while not exactly rare, it wasn’t that common either. Zimmerit on the hull schurzen was much less common, down right rare, but photos of it are not that hard to find. Page 40 of Squadron’s Panzer IV in Action has a photo of one. Page 65 of Spielberger’s Panzer IV and it’s Variants also has a photo of a Panzer IV with full Zimmerit on the hull and turret schurzen. Unless you are building a particular vehicle, I wouldn’t worry about omitting it on the turret skirts. Since the Ausf J was built both during the period of Zimmerit application and afterwards, you can build it either with or without Zimmerit altogether.
IIRC, Aber and maybe Eduard make a set of hull side skirts in a p/e set. If not one of those companies, look for Lion Roar or Voyager. HTH
I would say the vast majority didn’t have zim on the schurzen for the exact reasons already given…it made no sense against hollow charged weapons. Most refs I’ve seen show none.
This is a commonly held misperception…one that has remarkable survivability for some reason. Schurzen were introduced as a counter to AT rifle use on the Eastern Front and only later had the added benefit of offering some counter protection to shaped charge weapons encountered on the Western front. Look at placement of schurzen, timeframe of introduction, armor thickness of the vehicles for where they are mounted and which did or did not receive them, etc. and the shape charge explanation doesn’t hold up from the historical point of view.
AT rifles where widely issued to Russian forces but they never developed a shaped charge stand off weapon but the Western forces did…so that explanation has always stuck for some reason.
Hey tanks, that’s good info. Never though of that [oops]
[%-)] Just to clarify… you can’t counter an anti magnetic mine, since there are no anti magnetic mines.[;)] Your above statement implies that Zim would be magnetic and attract anti magnetic mines. [:D]
Zimmerit had no magnetic or anti magnetic properties. It simply created an irregular, non conductive surface that also made a gap between mine and surface that ultimately hindered magnetic properties and made it difficult through surface texture and space for the mine to make a good attachment. Vehicle movement/vibration would shake the mine loose or not allow it to attach.
Think of it as putting a layer of celuclay under a fridge magnet and see how well it stays on the fridge door.
You could give a shot at scratchbuilding the schurzen. There is enough reference out there that you could easily make a pattern for the plates and brackets and make the fix. Its not unusual to see vehicles with missing and or removed schurzen either.
Oh, oh. Didn’t we have a point/counterpoint debate on this already? [;)] I thought about adding those comments, but didn’t want to fire up that topic again. I’ve seen it argued both ways…
Tigerman,
Anything can be argued, just takes two people who don’t agree on something. [:D] While points can be raised both ways, the weight of evidence IMHO falls on the side of the AT rifles as the initial reason for the introduction of schurzen given that
-
Soviet doctrine around AT rifle usage and deployment was established and continued throughout the period when German armor was still on the offensive and not reverting to the defensive and other German mods (increased armor (applique and welded), addition of wider tracks, upgunned Pz III and IV variants, enhanced “buttoned up” vision capability for commanders) in the same time period were in direct response to experiences primarily on the Eastern front
-
The vehicles in question fitted with Schurzen (late Pz III, mid IVs (G and later), StuGs and early Panthers (only lower hull w/ thinner armor) but not Tigers or Ferdinands) and their proven vulnerabilities to AT rifles at varying ranges dictating their design and introduction selectively vs. universally coincides with encoutering AT rifles in large numbers on the Eastern front but absent shaped charge vulnerability in main theaters of combat at the same time
-
Timing around when Schurzen are first fielded and on which vehicles vs. their discontinued use or absence on subsequent vehicles not vulnerable to AT rifles but still vulnerable to shaped charge weapons
and you have a strong case for the inital cause for schurzen being prevalent use and vulnerability to AT rifles even though they also later had a secondary benefit against shaped charge weapons when encountered in use by non-Soviet forces. Since those forces did not use AT rifles (Western Front) it is natural when reading their versions of things to adopt that explanation but in doing so negates the Soviet tactics and immediate battlefield conditions at the time of schurzen introduction vs. later Western front conditions IMHO.
Yes, you certainly make a strong case. I guess I wonder why they waited until the war was 2 years old to introduce them if AT rifles were a menace from the outset. Just MHO. Also the case can be argued about zimmerit. Is it true the Russians really had no magnetic mines or am I confused? If they didn’t, why the zimmerit? Of course the Germans carried gas-masks for the entire war even though no one used any gas.
The Russians never developed a magnetic anti-tank mine, but since the Germans had invented the Hafthohlladung 3, introduced on November 12th, 1942, they were afraid the Russians would develop a similar weapon, thus precipitating the invention and introduction of Zimmerit to counter this perceived threat. While difficult and dangerous to use, it’s 140mm penetrating power made it an effective anti-tank weapon, at least until the introduction of the Panzerfaust. There was also the threat of the Russians using captured Hafthohlladung weapons against the Germans. With some 553,900 Hafthohlladungs produced, some were sure to fall into enemy hands.
For a bit of history behind the development of schurzen, including references cited by Thomas Jenzt and Walter Spielberger, please read the following; http://www.ciar.org/ttk/mbt/news/news.smm.ww2-armor-plate.AxzC7.1483$MP2.350801029@news.orangenet.dk.txt
Cavalier makes a nice zimmerit set for the Tamiya IV J. It includes zimmerit for the turret skirts but nothing for the hull skirts. Cavalier #0111.
This set from Atak Model seems to have the zimmerit for the hull skirts on the H but I am not familiar with the company.
Thanks for the link Kykeon.
Look at timeframe of initial threat encountered (mid-1941), timeframes of overall German production of different vehicles (remembering that Barbarossa was supposed to be another quick/Blitzkrieg campaign) including the slowdown in production in 1940-41 due to belief of “short” war vs. variants already on the line vs. drawing board, and overall logistics around factory production for variant changes coupled with the tests mentioned in the link Kykeon gave and that’s why there’s a lag. It’s the same reason that other more permanent factory line (as opposed to field mod) counter-measures to the Eastern front begin appearing in late 1942 and early 1943. You can see the same kind of counter-counter reactions on Russian armor development and types of vehicles fielded on a roughly parallel course as the war progressed and their changes in tactics also evolved.
Thanks to all for the scoop! The reference I have PANZER A Pictorial Documentation by Horst Scheibert who was a WWII German armor battalion commander has pics of coated and uncoated turret skirts on coated tanks but no coated side skirts. He says that “Skirts are carried for extra protection against hollow charges.” and “for protection against the attachment of magnetic mines, panzers would receive an anti-magnetic “Zimmerit” overcoat.” Once again thanks for the help and the links! 44Mac
[#oops] I had a brain fart there! Typed to fast without reviewing what I wrote… [
]
Did the Soviets get lend-lease bazookas?
It is hard to pin-down any numbers, but they apparently received a few bazookas in 1943.