Pic of Field-Applied Zimmerit

LOL - That's right, Ben1227. Zimmerit is the paste used by the Germans during WWII. They applied it to the vertical surfaces of many of their tanks, in order to prevent the possible use of magnetic mines by enemy troops.

The question here has been, whether it was ever applied in the field, or only in the factory. We've been kinda looking for photographic evidence of field-applied Zimmerit, especially pics of it actually being trowelled on in the field.

Very interesting jthurston!  Thanks for post that pic.

Zimmerit is a non-magnetic material that the germans applied to their armored vehicles.  It has the texture that it has so as to create distance between a magnetic mine or other magnetic explosive device which prevents it from "sticking" to the metal.  The texture allows more distance with less material.

Man. that's UUUUUUUGGGLLY!!!

What about those early Panther D's that have that nasty-looking rough zimmerit; there's not even a pattern in it--surely that wouldn't have been done at a factory? 

If the picture depicts a Sikh or Gorkha soldier it is probably from Northern Africa where the use of mud for camoflage was common.
North Africa combat conditions don't really call for Zimmerit so my 2 cents are;
Mud

JohanT wrote:

If the picture depicts a Sikh or Gorkha soldier it is probably from Northern Africa where the use of mud for camoflage was common. North Africa combat conditions don't really call for Zimmerit so my 2 cents are; Mud

JohanT wrote:

If the picture depicts a Sikh or Gorkha soldier it is probably from Northern Africa where the use of mud for camoflage was common. North Africa combat conditions don't really call for Zimmerit so my 2 cents are; Mud

...not so fast...they also fought on Sicily and in Italy...about the time Zimm was introduced (Aug '43)...hmmmm...

the doog wrote:

JohanT wrote: If the picture depicts a Sikh or Gorkha soldier it is probably from Northern Africa where the use of mud for camoflage was common. North Africa combat conditions don't really call for Zimmerit so my 2 cents are; Mud I never thought of that...excellent point; I concur with you!

Also, I believe you meant to type: "Gurkha"...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

the doog wrote:  JohanT wrote: If the picture depicts a Sikh or Gorkha soldier it is probably from Northern Africa where the use of mud for camoflage was common. North Africa combat conditions don't really call for Zimmerit so my 2 cents are; Mud I never thought of that...excellent point; I concur with you! Also, I believe you meant to type: "Gurkha"...

..."H" models never made it to Africa, so you are assuming that the author has also misidentified the Mk of the tank as well...hmmmm

If the picture depicts a Sikh or Gorkha soldier

Probably not a Gurkha - wrong head gear.

However, Indians were involved in Monte Cassino, and other actions in Italy ... possibly until the end of the war.

There is another explanation, you know - concrete.

Brews wrote:

There is another explanation, you know - concrete.

Hmm...Doesn't look like concrete to me, but it is certainly possible.

Also, I'm not thinkin' mud, because of the way in which it has broken off from the turret schurzen - too sharp to be mud.

Probably not the same thing as the stuff that got gooped on in the factory, but I think we've got some kind of secondary external covering here. Something obviously applied in the field, or at least under field conditions. Just my thinkin.

Brews wrote:

If the picture depicts a Sikh or Gorkha soldier Probably not a Gurkha - wrong head gear. However, Indians were involved in Monte Cassino, and other actions in Italy ... possibly until the end of the war. There is another explanation, you know - concrete.

...or pizza dough ! Anything but zimmerit, God forbid !!!

And I think that's a Sikh headdress.

Not entirely sure, mind you - but it's real close to what the Sikhs around here wear.

(Probably showing my ignorance with that one, huh?)

But I still think Zimmerit's the most likely answer. Hence the caption, I figure.

Not so fast? I only through in my 2 cents m8 and no, I was not reading the text so I could not say that I deliberatly turned down the authors depiction.
Since I still think its mud, I will dig deeper though
I did not misstype, I wanted to type Gorkha, they take their name from an Indian guru by the name of Gorakshanath.

Agree with you Brews.

And when it comes to the tree, well that is not a tree but an Olive bush that only grows in Tunisia.

I doubt it's concrete.What would be the point of it that thin?

I wouldn't venture a guess either way though. It looks more like mud to me but then again I wasn't there.

I'll reserve my judgment until a better picture comes around.

Great photo though for discussion!!

...okay, let's look at the facts:

--if it is an H model Mk IV it couldn't have been in Africa; H models never made it there

--the early H models had the bolted on armor that the pic shows; they were introduced mid-late 1943

--Sihk/Indian soldiers fought heavily in Italy; the Italian Campaign was during the time period of mid '43 to the end of the war; zimmed tanks were common in Italy

--transition period to zimm was late summer 1943 (roughly August)

--something rather substantial is stuck to the tank, even to the bolt heads on the front armor...it looks to have been applied deliberately...pattern does not match known factory patterns of zimmerit...seems to have had a thick viscocity: look at how it is stuck to the tranny cooling hatches which are open...look at the way it has flaked off, not crumbled like mud...cement is much more of a slurry; hard to keep it on vertical surfaces w/o formers... 

I'll go along with all but the point about how mud comes off.I've spent enough time on the farm to see mud come off vehicles just like what is shown.I'm not saying what is pictured but discounting mud for the reasons stated is not correct.

Especially on a thinner piece of metal that has taken a shock, like a shroud on a tractor or the shurzen that is shown.

In my opinion, it looks very much like concrete/mortar and very similar to other photos I've seen of field applied dried mud/clay mixtures. Both of these types of materials were commonly applied in the field by axis forces in Italy (and other locations) according to first-person narratives. That is, German tank maintenance personnel, crewmembers, and commanders have described the use of these materials in their memoirs or in official unit histories.

IMHO, many historical authors over the years have mistakenly used the word "Zimmerit" as a generic term to describe ANY non-magnetic material applied to vehicles. While I have no way of knowing why this author has chosen to use the word here, recent other errors in the captioning of historical photos lead me to be leary of relying only on this evidence.

In any event, people will have to make up their own minds. If you choose to take the author's statements as completely true, it's Zimmerit. If you don't, it could be any hastily applied material. There's really no way to make a definitive determination one way or the other based on these photos alone.

STUG61 wrote:

I'll go along with all but the point about how mud comes off.I've spent enough time on the farm to see mud come off vehicles just like what is shown.I'm not saying what is pictured but discounting mud for the reasons stated is not correct. Especially on a thinner piece of metal that has taken a shock, like a shroud on a tractor or the shurzen that is shown.

...possible, there are all types of mud aggregates, and I'm sure you can find some mud that has clay-type properties...but zimm also chips just like is shown in the photo...

...funny how we all seem to accept that it could be mud a lot easier than field-applied zimm---I wonder why?  Can anyone produce "written orders" to apply mud to a tank like this? That is what some have called for as proof of field-appled zimm...

I know that early in the desert war mud was applied in the field as camo, but from what I have seen it was usually much thinner than this; in fact, it is difficult to tell most mud applications from paint...if this is mud applied to a tank in Africa, it is curious that it has been applied at the last stages of the campaign, when equipment was already painted in brown when delivered...and we can assume it had to be in early '43 as no "G's" were available until then...However, it the author is right, and it is an "H" then it was NOT in North Africa...

If you're saying possible to the picture being mud O.K.

If you're saying possible to mud acting that way, no possible about it, I've seen it.

I have no problem with it being Zim.The question, as I took it, was if it was proof.To that I'll hold off my judgement.Besides, I'd LOVE it to be truly field Zim....That pattern I can replicate for sure!!!!!

STUG61 wrote:

If you're saying possible to the picture being mud O.K. If you're saying possible to mud acting that way, no possible about it, I've seen it.   I have no problem with it being Zim.The question, as I took it, was if it was proof.To that I'll hold off my judgement.

It is possible for some types of mud to act that way.

The point I was trying to make earlier was that Zimmerit was applied for a purpose.
The German's had a magnetic Anti Tank mine, and since they knew how to do it they figured that the opponent would find out to.
During the Barbarossa operation and especially in the battle surroundings of Stalingrad the German tanks where subject to Infantry attacks, foot soldiers placing deadly charges directly on their vehicles.
Tar, fat, glue, what ever the Red Army soldier could find that would bound a charge to steel did the trick. The combat conditions called for a counter measure.
So they Germans came up with Zimmerit.
Did not help much against Molotov Cocktails since the recesses let the fluid stay on the surface...
But these combat conditions where not a threat in the North Africa or Mediterranean campaigns.

Looks like we've got less evidence than we had before.

I guess I stand corrected on the mud. And it was common in Italy for German troops to cover their tanks in mud? I can't imagine what my section sergeant would've done, had I covered my vehicle in mud for any reason - but I don't figure I would have survived it.

I don't pretend to know what this stuff on this tank really is - I just wanted to show the pic here, as I ran across it shortly after we all had that big, hairy issue over field-applied Zimmerit before. I thought maybe this would help.

jthurston wrote:

Looks like we've got less evidence than we had before. I guess I stand corrected on the mud. And it was common in Italy for German troops to cover their tanks in mud? I can't imagine what my section sergeant would've done, had I covered my vehicle in mud for any reason - but I don't figure I would have survived it. I don't pretend to know what this stuff on this tank really is - I just wanted to show the pic here, as I ran across it shortly after we all had that big, hairy issue over field-applied Zimmerit before. I thought maybe this would help.

...no, actually I think if anything we are where we were before, or maybe have a tad more evidence for it...

...and no, it WAS NOT common for tanks to be smeared with mud in Italy...you might be referring to the discussion of German tanks in Africa during the early stages of the campaign to be smeared with mud for CAMO purposes...good post... 

JohanT wrote:

The point I was trying to make earlier was that Zimmerit was applied for a purpose. The German's had a magnetic Anti Tank mine, and since they knew how to do it they figured that the opponent would find out to. During the Barbarossa operation and especially in the battle surroundings of Stalingrad the German tanks where subject to Infantry attacks, foot soldiers placing deadly charges directly on their vehicles. Tar, fat, glue, what ever the Red Army soldier could find that would bound a charge to steel did the trick. The combat conditions called for a counter measure. So they Germans came up with Zimmerit. Did not help much against Molotov Cocktails since the recesses let the fluid stay on the surface... But these combat conditions where not a threat in the North Africa or Mediterranean campaigns.

...actually the final straw for the Germans seemed to have come after the battle of Kursk, when many a German tank fell to Infantry weapons...