Pic of Field-Applied Zimmerit

That is definitely an Indian soldier (Sikh. Even in the modern Indian army, Sikh soldiers wear their traditional headwear.) Which makes the setting most likely Italy.

BTW guys, just because the soldier is Indian doesn't mean Allied. Several Indians fought for the SS as well. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend, they figured.)

Tankmaster7 wrote:

BTW guys, just because the soldier is Indian doesn't mean Allied. Several Indians fought for the SS as well. (The enemy of my enemy is my friend, they figured.)

Good point. British uniform, though.

jthurston,
I am sorry for not paying attention, thank you for sharing!
I guess that M. is right, WWII German section is still looking for proof, Yes or No, was it ever field applied.
About Zimmerit and why it becomes difficult, scale affect;

Front view, Kugelblende and Main gun mantlet:

Side view, please note the cut away section and the area where it is missing under the tool mount:


This vehicle has been repainted and I don't trust their sources but the Zimm was put on there before 1945.

And here an other one found on Wikipedia:

Mud  being applied as camouflage was common on German tanks, I have several photos of it being applied as well as many completely covered in mud;

None of the photos of mud camo I have however, show it as being anywhere near as thickly applied as the photo in question. Usually this was a very thin coating, sometimes little more than a "wash" of mud, which depending on weather conditions, either remained as mud or dried on to match existing conditions.

I'm not sure what would be the point of applying the mud in such a thick layer, as a thin coating provides the desired camouflage effect. This makes me lean towards a crappy looking Zimmerit job, (read field-applied), rather than a extremely thick mud coating, which would serve little purpose other than adding additional, unwanted weight to the vehicle.

You could argue the assumption that it is anything applied to the vehicle and still only assert that it is the application of something on the vehicle. Until someone produces either a clear, definitive photo of a german crewman or maintenance tech "field applying zim", secondary documentation to confirm that it was field applied in the form of field order or other photo documetation or other photos of similar operations, the primary documentation of the first hand account of a german tank crewman or field maint. tech in a journal, letter home, field report, communique etc. or the discovery of a survivng german tank crewman that you could ask and have him say "yup, we applied it in the field" then I tend to still err to the conservatve side and say its still not found.

Thanks though for the picture and the very thought provoking discussion.

Mansteins revenge wrote:

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

It's Squadron putty for sure!

I'v read thru here and it's pretty thought provoking indeed. I admit I dont know what it is. I do have some thoughts though. IF it is mud it's very thick. Pretty thick to be "applied". Not saying it's not just my opinion. I'v seen pictures however of pits dug for the tank to drive down into and even kind of buried a little in defensive positions. That and a storm would most definately leave thick layer of earth it would seem.

It could be zimm. I have always wondered how it's applied in the field. I believe at some point somewhere it had to have been. But if they sent paint to the field in cans to be mixed with stuff such as fuel. Then I doubt they packaged up neat little forms and trowls for the guys to make those neat little lines and rows of zimm. So this is about how I'd expect field applied zimm to look. If the crew applied it per say not an equipped field repair station. Also I'd say, atleast on the verticle hull, if it was applied on purpose it was down with their hands or a mop or something. Even aplying stucco with a broken board looks better than that. No "smear" marks. Just clumps.

Does bring to mind a question. If you were applying this in the field. What would be the benifet of the patterns? Weight? Visual break up? I know if I needed this on the side of my vehicle to save me from a magnetic mine. And I had to apply it then cover it with paint. I wouldnt set and add measured lines and spaces.

I would like to point out that it is none other than the leading expert on WWII German armored vehicles, Mr Thomas Jenzt, who on page 164 of Germany's Tiger Tanks, D.W. to Tiger I, under the heading of; "Modifications After Issue", states the following:

"Starting in October 1944, field units were ordered to stop applying Zimmerit anti-magnetic coating to Panzers". This is 3 weeks after the order to factories to discontinue Zimmerit application, which is dated September 9th, 1944.

So do we simply discount what Mr. Jenzt has stated as being a mere fabrication or speculation? Surely Mr. Jenzt values his reputation enough not to be tripped-up by making up such false statements. Why doesn't someone ask him where he got this information?

Kykeon wrote:

I would like to point out that it is none other than the leading expert on WWII German armored vehicles, Mr Thomas Jenzt, who on page 164 of Germany's Tiger Tanks, D.W. to Tiger I, under the heading of; "Modifications After Issue", states the following: "Starting in October 1944, field units were ordered to stop applying Zimmerit anti-magnetic coating to Panzers". This is 3 weeks after the order to factories to discontinue Zimmerit application, which is dated September 9th, 1944. So do we simply discount what Mr. Jenzt has stated as being a mere fabrication or speculation? Surely Mr. Jenzt values his reputation enough not to be tripped-up by making up such false statements. Why doesn't someone ask him where he got this information?

...well there is some more evidence...maybe, here is some more:

This is a captured French tank pressed into German service by the 21st PD during Normandy. Here are some points I think that argue it is wearing field-applied zimm:

1) I don't believe the Germans would have transported the tank back to Germany just to apply the zimm. in a factory.

2) Obviously this vehicle is coated AND PATTERNED (similair to panther style zimm) with something that appears to be for the purpose of defeating magnetic mines, so by definition it is wearing zimmerit.  

--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...

WAY TO GO MANNY!

I believe someone asked why the lines in Zimmerit. This was to break up the texture. If it was left smooth, then it might be possible, if thin enough, for a strong enough magnetic mine to attract to the metal through it. But a rougher texture would make it more difficult.

How do we define Zimmerit, guys? Does it have to be a specific product, or do we apply the term to anything that was slopped onto a tank for the purpose of defeating magnetic mines?

I can't say if it's mud or not, although it does look like mud. But if it is mud, it was still quite possibly put there for the same purpose. So...even if it's mud, which we really can't tell at this point, Zimm, or not Zimm? That is the question.

Kykeon wrote:

Mud  being applied as camouflage was common on German tanks, I have several photos of it being applied as well as many completely covered in mud; None of the photos of mud camo I have however, show it as being anywhere near as thickly applied as the photo in question. Usually this was a very thin coating, sometimes little more than a "wash" of mud, which depending on weather conditions, either remained as mud or dried on to match existing conditions. I'm not sure what would be the point of applying the mud in such a thick layer, as a thin coating provides the desired camouflage effect. This makes me lean towards a crappy looking Zimmerit job, (read field-applied), rather than a extremely thick mud coating, which would serve little purpose other than adding additional, unwanted weight to the vehicle.

Good point, but it's not the same thing. Besides, this pic looks more like a thin paint than mud, to me. Maybe that's just me. I know in our more modern army (although I'm going back 15 or 20 years) the puposeful application of mud to any vehicle would have been grounds for harsh treatment from big men wearing stripes. (Not implying that you're wrong or that mud was not applied - But I don't know if was applied in the same manner as pictured in the PzIV pic).

Again, I'm only acknowledging that I don't know, rather than arguing some point.

JohanT wrote:

I would not argue with Thomas Jentz, but I do think I can argue the photo presented at the beginning of this thread. Very good twist M., my eyes could not say if that was factory applied or not. Which to me means that we might have seen 100's of German vehicles with field applied Zimmerit pictured without knowing. But the portal picture; Mud It would take an alchemist to turn it into something else It does present a really interesting idea for a Dio, from a modeling point of view this is really cool. Especially with the Gorkha soldier and the Olive bush

So if you are saying it could be factory applied than you are assuming a German CO would have released valuable equipment (which they were loathe to do because they rarely got it back) from his unit to take up valuable train freight space JUST TO HAVE A COAT OF ZIMM applied in a German factory...I guess they squeezed it in-between a couple of Tiger II's on the assembly line in the factory...this is begining to stretch the bounds of reason...

...most likely, a field depot in France applied it with stocks sent to front-line areas for just such a purpose...common sense doesn't end when the bullets start flying... 

jthurston wrote:

How do we define Zimmerit, guys? Does it have to be a specific product, or do we apply the term to anything that was slopped onto a tank for the purpose of defeating magnetic mines?

Personally, I define Zimmerit as...well, Zimmerit:

Polyvinyl acetate 25%
Sawdust 10%
Barium sulphate 40%
Zinc sulphide 10%
Ochre Pigment 15%

IMO, anything else applied to a vehicle should not be called Zimmerit. I personally think this is one of the things that has cause a great deal of confusion regarding the entire issue.

There are some words that come to mind. "What we have here, is a failure to communicate."

One thing to remember is most first-hand information regarding this or similar issues was originally written in German and must be translated into other languages. Now, while German is far easier to translate into English than many other languages, the specific terms used by the Germans can have completely different meanings from their English counterparts. Just look at how the Germans identified their vehicles throughout the war and I think you'll see my point.

The best example in this debate is the word, "FIELD".

In most modern day military structures, field or field-level maintenance is defined as taking part at the same location where a unit conducts normal operational manuvers. For example, the maintenance performed at Kadena Air Base is called field-level maintenance. Once an aircraft from Kadena goes up to mainland Japan for maintenance, it now becomes "intermediate-level" maintenance. This is because the logistical design was based on a tri-level or 3-part maintenance scheme.

During WWII, the German maintenance plan was completely different and their use of the word "field" had a completely different meaning. The Germans called ANY maintenance facility outside their country or those of their satellites, "field-level". Captured factories or other suitable buildings in France, Poland, and Russia, which were converted into major repair and reclamation sites, were called "field maintenance" facilities.

There is no doubt (at least in my opinion) that some of these "satellite" maintenance facilities, received, and applied 100% authentic Zimmerit paste and to the best of their ability, applied it in accordance with the standard methods required. We have first-hand information (from the Chemische Werke Zimmer company in Berlin) that pre-mixed Zimmerit was shipped to these maintenance facilities in drums. The German term for this maintenance was "field-level", but the use of this term alone can cause even greater confusion. This also completely explains the "translation" in Jentz's narrative.

By using the blanket term "field applied", historians, authors, and even some modelers are perpetuating the image of "fields of wheat" or other fields where frontline units are performing maintenance in motorpools and diving into foxholes when the enemy aircraft appear overhead. Anyone who knows exactly how Zimmerit is applied (2 coats, 2 to 7 day process, depending on the availability of torches) should understand why application of the product at the front is extremely dubious at best.

As I've stated before, I personally do not believe and have neither seen nor read any information which verifies the application of Zimmerit in the field (U.S. meaning). Was Zimmerit applied at what the Germans called "field-level" or what American military veterans would call "intermediate" or "depot-level" maintenance facilities? IMHO, this probably happened, but not very frequently.

I hope this helps to clarify both my position and the debate in general...

Foster7155 wrote:

jthurston wrote: How do we define Zimmerit, guys? Does it have to be a specific product, or do we apply the term to anything that was slopped onto a tank for the purpose of defeating magnetic mines? Personally, I define Zimmerit as...well, Zimmerit: Polyvinyl acetate 25% Sawdust 10% Barium sulphate 40% Zinc sulphide 10% Ochre Pigment 15% IMO, anything else applied to a vehicle should not be called Zimmerit. I personally think this is one of the things that has cause a great deal of confusion regarding the entire issue. There are some words that come to mind. "What we have here, is a failure to communicate." One thing to remember is most first-hand information regarding this or similar issues was originally written in German and must be translated into other languages. Now, while German is far easier to translate into English than many other languages, the specific terms used by the Germans can have completely different meanings from their English counterparts. Just look at how the Germans identified their vehicles throughout the war and I think you'll see my point. The best example in this debate is the word, "FIELD". In most modern day military structures, field or field-level maintenance is defined as taking part at the same location where a unit conducts normal operational manuvers. For example, the maintenance performed at Kadena Air Base is called field-level maintenance. Once an aircraft from Kadena goes up to mainland Japan for maintenance, it now becomes "intermediate-level" maintenance. This is because the logistical design was based on a tri-level or 3-part maintenance scheme. During WWII, the German maintenance plan was completely different and their use of the word "field" had a completely different meaning. The Germans called ANY maintenance facility outside their country or those of their satellites, "field-level". Captured factories or other suitable buildings in France, Poland, and Russia, which were converted into major repair and reclamation sites, were called "field maintenance" facilities. There is no doubt (at least in my opinion) that some of these "satellite" maintenance facilities, received, and applied 100% authentic Zimmerit paste and to the best of their ability, applied it in accordance with the standard methods required. We have first-hand information (from the Chemische Werke Zimmer company in Berlin) that pre-mixed Zimmerit was shipped to these maintenance facilities in drums. The German term for this maintenance was "field-level", but the use of this term alone can cause even greater confusion. This also completely explains the "translation" in Jentz's narrative. By using the blanket term "field applied", historians, authors, and even some modelers are perpetuating the image of "fields of wheat" or other fields where frontline units are performing maintenance in motorpools and diving into foxholes when the enemy aircraft appear overhead. Anyone who knows exactly how Zimmerit is applied (2 coats, 2 to 7 day process, depending on the availability of torches) should understand why application of the product at the front is extremely dubious at best. As I've stated before, I personally do not believe and have neither seen nor read any information which verifies the application of Zimmerit in the field (U.S. meaning). Was Zimmerit applied at what the Germans called "field-level" or what American military veterans would call "intermediate" or "depot-level" maintenance facilities? IMHO, this probably happened, but not very frequently. I hope this helps to clarify both my position and the debate in general...

...I am in agreement, for the most part, with you...However, some in the Forum have categotically rejected the idea of zimm being applied anywhere but in a factory setting...my point was, and is now, that the idea of zimm being applied at front-line depots/workshops and rear-area repair facilities could, and did, take place...

...I think it is silly to think that tank crewmen slathered this stuff on while under fire...to my knowledge no one has suggested that...In fact, I think the main reason you DON'T have surviving tank crew recounting this process is that they were probably never involved in it; since when a tank was sent to the rear for repair they usuallly went on leave or stayed with their unit to fight in another tank or role...

...I think that the comment by Jentz and the pics of the captured French tank might be the best proof so far...I haven't heard much comment on the French zimmed tank...maybe opinion is turning...

Mansteins revenge wrote:

So if you are saying it could be factory applied than you are assuming a German CO would have released valuable equipment (which they were loathe to do because they rarely got it back) from his unit to take up valuable train freight space JUST TO HAVE A COAT OF ZIMM applied in a German factory...I guess they squeezed it in-between a couple of Tiger II's on the assembly line in the factory...this is begining to stretch the bounds of reason... ...most likely, a field depot in France applied it with stocks sent to front-line areas for just such a purpose...common sense doesn't end when the bullets start flying...

You got me 100% wrong there M.
I am saying that the French picture actually proves to me that it was field applied.
And that we probably have seen loads of them but since it was well done, just as your French picture indicates, we couldn't tell.

Johan

I just hope and pray there was field-applied Zim, otherwise my first attempt (pics shortly, I swear) will make me a laughing stock!   But I can handle it!

Maybe someday some family in Germany will find Grandpa Jurgen's stash of snaps from the spring of '44, when orders MIGHT have come down, along with a formula and some large bowls, mixing sticks, and trowels, for repair crews to apply anti-magnetic paste to tanks that came in for other repairs.  That's how I envision "field-applied" Zimmerit to have happened.   

JohanT wrote:

Mansteins revenge wrote: So if you are saying it could be factory applied than you are assuming a German CO would have released valuable equipment (which they were loathe to do because they rarely got it back) from his unit to take up valuable train freight space JUST TO HAVE A COAT OF ZIMM applied in a German factory...I guess they squeezed it in-between a couple of Tiger II's on the assembly line in the factory...this is begining to stretch the bounds of reason... ...most likely, a field depot in France applied it with stocks sent to front-line areas for just such a purpose...common sense doesn't end when the bullets start flying...  You got me 100% wrong there M. I am saying that the French picture actually proves to me that it was field applied. And that we probably have seen loads of them but since it was well done, just as your French picture indicates, we couldn't tell. Johan

...oops, sorry--my bad...I re-read and understand what you are saying now: a lot of those sloppy Panther zimm jobs might have been applied in the same way as the French tank was...

JohanT wrote:

I still think the Portal picture would make a great dio Over and out Johan

...Portal Pic???

jthurston wrote:

Okay, I realize this is a contentious issue, but I believe I've found a photo of field-applied Zimmerit. NOT a photo of it being applied in the field, but one that looks fairly obvious. So here goes, and let's all have a look and draw our own conclusions, yes? Unless, of course, we decide it's inconclusive.   slightly different light: caption: These are found in Panzer IV: The Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank, 1939-1945 by Kevin Hjermstad (Squadron/Signal Publications). Here's the link to it on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-IV-Panzerkampfwagen-1939-1945-Specials/dp/0897474139/ref=sr_1_3/103-5576407-3581446?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186490971&sr=8-3 So whaddaya think?

Hello gentlemen,

my first post here on FineScale, IIRC. I am actually following the forum since loong time, along with other forums, tough.

A brief presentation; I am italian, 44yrs old, the hobby is.. of course, 1/35 german WW2 AFVs & vehicles modelling, I am in the hobby since the 70s (first TAMIYA boxes, MONOGRAM 1/32 tanks, etc..)

 Pic of the same tank (representing a PzKpfw IV Ausf H from PzRgt 26 in 1944, Italy) is also contained, along many other tank pics, in the wonderful book from Mr Daniele Guglielmi "Panzer in Italy".

The book it's well known (his author is an internationally know researcher), but probably the fact that the text and captions are in italian only, somewhat avoided it to be sold abroad as much as it deserves.

"Panzer in Italy" is made from hundreds of crisp, half or full page pics, and there are many other pics of Pz Rgt 26 tanks (as the PzKpfw IV depicted in the photo), many of them have the strange Zimmerit pattern shown.

The opinion of the author (I also discussed just about this with him) is that the Pz Rgt 26 had the Zimmerit applied in field-workshops (remember that they were in Italy, an ex-allied, and that the Panzer units there usually had top class italian workshop for their field repair units. In my town,Florence, sPzAbt 508 used for their Tiger I the FIAT workshop, many thousand of square meters with all the tools and repair facilities).

I am aware of at least a dozen pics with PzKpfw IV with the strange texture and I believe that they, along with the famous French tanks pic (one is also here in the thread) are the "smoking gun" for the unit applied Zimmerit trial.

There is also a well known SdKfz 251 with a strangely applied diagonal pattern Zimmerit texture,a nd guess what? it's still from PzRgt 26 in Italy 1944-45!

AFAIK no other AFVs types have the strange Zimmerit texture, as PzRgt 26 had his Panther Abteilung originally attached from PzRgt 4, but there is a single Ausf D Panther with odd texture in a pic..

Some extra proof (IMHO) for the Zimmerit being applied outside factories are also the cited (from Jentz) document for field unit to stop appliyng zimmerit, and some Elefant tank destroyer pic that show patches of Zimmerit clearly added later and shaped in a quite rough pattern.

I am contacting trough email Mr Guglielmi asking his permission to post the other pics from his book, but I am afraid it will take too long for thread purposes, as today is Aug 15...

 HTH anyway, cheers!

 Fabio

MC202zipper wrote:

jthurston wrote: Okay, I realize this is a contentious issue, but I believe I've found a photo of field-applied Zimmerit. NOT a photo of it being applied in the field, but one that looks fairly obvious. So here goes, and let's all have a look and draw our own conclusions, yes? Unless, of course, we decide it's inconclusive.   slightly different light: caption: These are found in Panzer IV: The Panzerkampfwagen IV Medium Tank, 1939-1945 by Kevin Hjermstad (Squadron/Signal Publications). Here's the link to it on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-IV-Panzerkampfwagen-1939-1945-Specials/dp/0897474139/ref=sr_1_3/103-5576407-3581446?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186490971&sr=8-3 So whaddaya think?     Hello gentlemen,   my first post here on FineScale, IIRC. I am actually following the forum since loong time, along with other forums, tough. A brief presentation; I am italian, 44yrs old, the hobby is.. of course, 1/35 german WW2 AFVs & vehicles modelling, I am in the hobby since the 70s (first TAMIYA boxes, MONOGRAM 1/32 tanks, etc..)  Pic of the same tank (representing a PzKpfw IV Ausf H from PzRgt 26 in 1944, Italy) is also contained, along many other tank pics, in the wonderful book from Mr Daniele Guglielmi "Panzer in Italy". The book it's well known (his author is an internationally know researcher), but probably the fact that the text and captions are in italian only, somewhat avoided it to be sold abroad as much as it deserves. "Panzer in Italy" is made from hundreds of crisp, half or full page pics, and there are many other pics of Pz Rgt 26 tanks (as the PzKpfw IV depicted in the photo), many of them have the strange Zimmerit pattern shown. The opinion of the author (I also discussed just about this with him) is that the Pz Rgt 26 had the Zimmerit applied in field-workshops (remember that they were in Italy, an ex-allied, and that the Panzer units there usually had top class italian workshop for their field repair units. In my town,Florence, sPzAbt 508 used for their Tiger I the FIAT workshop, many thousand of square meters with all the tools and repair facilities). I am aware of at least a dozen pics with PzKpfw IV with the strange texture and I believe that they, along with the famous French tanks pic (one is also here in the thread) are the "smoking gun" for the unit applied Zimmerit trial. There is also a well known SdKfz 251 with a strangely applied diagonal pattern Zimmerit texture,a nd guess what? it's still from PzRgt 26 in Italy 1944-45! AFAIK no other AFVs types have the strange Zimmerit texture, as PzRgt 26 had his Panther Abteilung originally attached from PzRgt 4, but there is a single Ausf D Panther with odd texture in a pic.. Some extra proof (IMHO) for the Zimmerit being applied outside factories are also the cited (from Jentz) document for field unit to stop appliyng zimmerit, and some Elefant tank destroyer pic that show patches of Zimmerit clearly added later and shaped in a quite rough pattern. I am contacting trough email Mr Guglielmi asking his permission to post the other pics from his book, but I am afraid it will take too long for thread purposes, as today is Aug 15...  HTH anyway, cheers!  Fabio

...well, there is your "war veteran" account, renarts...case closed as far as I'm concerned..."FIELD-APPLIED DID EXIST"

Good post, Fabio--and I don't think you have to get permission to post pics from his book as long as we use it for educational/research purposes, which we are...maybe some of the other guys can back me on that... 

renarts wrote:

You could argue the assumption that it is anything applied to the vehicle and still only assert that it is the application of something on the vehicle. Until someone produces either a clear, definitive photo of a german crewman or maintenance tech "field applying zim", secondary documentation to confirm that it was field applied in the form of field order or other photo documetation or other photos of similar operations, the primary documentation of the first hand account of a german tank crewman or field maint. tech in a journal, letter home, field report, communique etc. or the discovery of a survivng german tank crewman that you could ask and have him say "yup, we applied it in the field" then I tend to still err to the conservatve side and say its still not found.   Thanks though for the picture and the very thought provoking discussion.

Hello Renart!

We are thankfully living in a free (quite) world, so my assumption can be rejected or accepted, but IMHO there are soo many thing in WW2 german AFV (and not only) that have no pic showing it applied in the factory, still we can believe our eyes and logical way of thinking.

To me, that in such a unit like PzRgt 26 we find so many oddly shaped Zimmerit patterns (and IS Zimmerit, pictures are available of those Pz IV in cleaner enviroment and second line or march conditions) should be enough to assume that that unit's workshop was applying it (unless we want to believe the  gentlemen that, on ML forum, said that it could be a very early Zimmerit pattern from factory.. LOL.. I was enjoing his hypotesis soo much that I didn't asked him an explaination of why and how those "rare" tanks, both H & J types, ended up to a single unit.. ;) ).

Then, again, my idea is as good as any other's, unless proved wrong by trial or logical path of thinking..

S!

So we have this pretty well figured out then, in my estimation.

Photos, historian accounts, written orders and veteran tesitmony. So here's my hypothesis:

As the Germans occupied large parts of Europe, they captured extant factories and maintenance facilities, and converted them for Panzer repair and reclamation use. It was in these facilities that "field applied" Zimmerit was applied.

Field-applied Zimmerit, in the sense that the individual crew could trowel it on under maneover conditions, did not happen, but field-applied mud did (more for camo purposes than for anti-mine purposes).

Now, my hypothesis could still be wrong, of course. We still don't have, oh I don't know, 35mm film of Fritz trowelling Zimmerit onto a tank, under a sign that reads "This is a captured facility". However, from what you good folks have shared so far on this thread, this is how I believe it went down.

Manny, MC202zipper, JohanT, Brumbles, Doog, and all the rest of you who've contributed to this discussion, I very much appreciate your input and assistance. Thank you!

Only a small thing to throw into the mix on top of what Foster mentioned...the field-depot level type of application is one that has always seemed plausible and I've never taken the position that it coul "only" happen at the factory level. The time and effort involved in applying a zimmerit coat, along with the materials and resource committment, was one of the contributing reasons as to why it was discontinued. Having a valuable piece of equipment sitting for a couple extra days so the zim can dry adds up pretty quick from a production schedule stand-point. Same thing for a stressed field-depot level maintenance troop. I don' think you'll ever find evidence of "true" field-level in-the-trenches application for the same reasons that you see chipped/damaged zim on units in the field...it wasn't a critical maintenance function and it required an extended down-time for it to be applied and dried. Field-depot application, entirely possible with certain units, trench-level application virtually impossible.

The info on 26th PD is very very interesting and goes far to explain many anomalies that have surfaced on this and other forums.

wbill76 wrote:

Only a small thing to throw into the mix on top of what Foster mentioned...the field-depot level type of application is one that has always seemed plausible and I've never taken the position that it coul "only" happen at the factory level. The time and effort involved in applying a zimmerit coat, along with the materials and resource committment, was one of the contributing reasons as to why it was discontinued. Having a valuable piece of equipment sitting for a couple extra days so the zim can dry adds up pretty quick from a production schedule stand-point. Same thing for a stressed field-depot level maintenance troop. I don' think you'll ever find evidence of "true" field-level in-the-trenches application for the same reasons that you see chipped/damaged zim on units in the field...it wasn't a critical maintenance function and it required an extended down-time for it to be applied and dried. Field-depot application, entirely possible with certain units, trench-level application virtually impossible. The info on 26th PD is very very interesting and goes far to explain many anomalies that have surfaced on this and other forums.

...agree, and I don't think anyone argued ever that it was "applied while under fire"...another poster put it more elegantly in differentiating what the word, "field" implies...for everyone I have spoken with they mean it to mean exactly what you said: applied outside of the production facility, most probably in a forward depot or maint. section...many units had ample time to make such improvements on vehicles when their areas were quite; Normandy, for example...even on the Ostfront there were lulls between offenses and campaigns...

...there was some excellent info on the 26PD in the thread, but I am sure that was not the only PD that indulged in what is now termed "field applied zimm"... 

...still, it will take an actual photo of a soldier with "trowel in hand" and a background of trees to convince them that this could ever happen, and even if that pic did surface the material being applied would be called into question...

...I challenge anyone to post a pic of it being applied IN A FACTORY...and I don't mean a pic of a tank in a factory with a coat of it already on...I have that pic...I mean a factory worker with "trowel in hand"...my point is: not everything was photographed...

Thank you Robert.
I think you are right on the spot.
The vocabulary used is slightly missleading, field applied would not mean sloppy
We are talking about skilled maintenance engineers performing decided upgrades on a regular basis.

Not Lt. Schulze parking his Sd.Kfz.181 in Mr. Ivan's garden to smeer on some stuff using the neighbors garden showell.

Using the phrase "Portal Pic" is an other example of bad vocabulary, what I ment to say was that the picture that jthurston posted at the beginning of this thread still makes a great dio.
From a modelling point of view we are all good to go and smear on some mud 

Again, thank you for posting jthurston, I have learnt something today.
That must be a good thing

Pax Vobiscum
Johan 

Excellent points all.

Mansteins revenge:

...well, there is your "war veteran" account, renarts...case closed as far as I'm concerned..."FIELD-APPLIED DID EXIST"

Maybe for you, but still not for me. I can appreciate the logic of this and I will admit that my choice of words was wrong as I tend to term field applied to mean front line not rear area or occupied factory area as RL explained. But until there is definitive proof and not assumptive logic I will reiterate my position that I will err to the conservative and wait for the proof. I'm not saying that your position is wrong, I reserve my own judgement. Too often what we take from authority is not always the case of being authoritative. A good example would be the discovery of U869 off the coast of NJ in 1991. Both the German Admirality and the US Navy denied any possibility of there being a german U-Boat sunk there. All of their records showed it impossible. German orders showed that it had been ordered to Gibralter and that by their records was sunk off of Gibralter. The US Navy the American destoyer escort Fowler and the Fench Submarine chaser L'Indiscret conducted a depth charge attack on a submerged contact in the Atlantic near Rabat and reported a kill. For years the records showed (via first hand accounts, reports, etc. US Naval Intelligence reports) that this is where U869 was sunk. It was also discovered that US Naval surveys of sunk German U-boats were im some cases assumptive, possibly to put a quick end to the war and allow people to move on, and has since been revealed that this expediency has caused the misindentification of some of these wrecks. Again, we see the faltering of the application of "hard facts" to assumption proven wrong. But not until actual artefacts were extracted from the wreck off the NJ coast, giving the divers solid proof like a knife with a crewmans name on it, serial numbers off of artefacts etc. that a positive ID could be made. Mind you this was a wreck that the US navy and the German Navy catagoricly denied could have existed. So I feel very comfortable in my opinion that until someone can come up with some actual, hard nosed facts that I would consider to be reliable and directly accountable for those actions, I reserve my acceptance of assumptive logic to one of life's mysterys.

Now, I accept that somewhere in a rear area, maintenace depot, allied (country not Allied as in the winners of WW2) factory area being used as a retrofit facility etc. they aplied zimmerit paste. It was undoubtedly done in that from necessity as has been stated that there are reports of batches being sent out. In the front areas, I do not accept as the process is not conducive to successful application in these areas. (Neither is an standing order that Hitler had to approve or issue all movement and deployment orders to Panzer reserves in Normandy and we know how that worked out for him...) I would still like to see the holy grail of all photos of a factory worker/maintence tech troweling on some of the magic butter. Something I find very hard to believe does not exist as the Germans were very anal about recording everything. It helped convict many of them at Nuremberg. If they had pictures of the the final solution, woman dressed up in coveralls in the commander cuppola of Tiger Tanks, and Hitler dancing a jig at the capitualtion of France then somewhere there is a picture of some guy making a Tiger zimmerit mud pie.

As for logical assumption, well I've never been a proponent of that. They had gunpowder technology, gear mechanisms, the understanding of gasses and relatively complex machinery, enough to argue that someone could have built a gattling type gun to be used at Towton in 1465, yet nowhere does one show up on the battlefield in Europe in the Renaissance.

The reason we have more definitive information and someone goes looking for these elusive tid bits of history is that there are stubborn old cusses like me that refuse to use a single source that state what to some may seem obvious and accepted wisdom. But we know that the deeper we dig and research and find documentation and good supporting documentation the more reliable that history becomes.