Why Zimmerit on Panzers & Testing

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Correction: The Stug from the Tank Museum is a Stug III G not F, thanks to @shockblaster1201 for pointing this out.

[@PATTHECATMCD]

Erm.... for a proper test you need a 3 KG weight. Try holding that steady with a magnet on a moving vehicle. Like all fields, inverse square law applies to magnetic field strength at distance. Zimmerit was not so much anti-magnetic material as the gap makes the magnetic field less effective,

[@greenockscatman]

Commissioning a company to painstakingly apply 200kg of extra weight onto your tank in order to counter a non existent threat, sounds about right for 1943.

[@Rutherford_Inchworm_III]

Germany 1943: "We've now improved on the captured American bazooka, giving our infantry unparalleled protection and range against any Allied armor." Also Germany 1943: "MINE ON, APPLY DIRECTLY TO TANK SIDE. MINE ON, APPLY DIRECTLY TO TANK SIDE."

[@Winged_Gunsknecht]

​@@Rutherford_Inchworm_III It have not yet ceased to amuse me that the panzerschreck protective shield was a field expedient made official. The nerds thought neeeding an protective poncho and face mask to avoid getting burnt was fine. :D

[@bigblue6917]

As the tanks were delivered to the frontlines uncoated with Zimmerit this meant the tank had to spend two days being coated in the rear area before being released to the tank crews. Just what you need in the middle of a war.

[@Teh0X]

@@bigblue6917 3:08 he mentions it was generally applied by factories. Those two divisions who tested it were an exception.

[@cathulhu-q7y]

​@@bigblue6917zimmerit Was applied in the factory over the anti rust coat. Over that a primer in RAL7028 was layed. The final camo pattern was to be applied by the units at the front

[@cannonfodder4376]

That the allies never correctly guessed what the Zimmerit coating was for is rather indicative of the fact that magnetic AT grenades were never something they considered developing and as such could not consider that the Germans who did develop such weapons would be mirroring such fears onto the allies. An informative video.

[@kamikaziking]

even the hafthochladung that the germans used was completely useless in the field ....

[@Absaalookemensch]

And military modelers have regretted that decision ever since.

[@KettyFey]

I can confirm that a British source, of soldiers in the field, thought that Zimmerit was primarily for camouflage. As it helped to break up a vehicle's hard edges (particularly if the Zimmerit was applied locally, as I've seen examples of very roughly applied coating that gave vehicles a surface like chunky papermache/ mud).

[@kirotheavenger60]

I've read multiple allied accounts of testing Zimmerit. Seems commanders officers loved to giving a bucket of concrete to bored looking soldiers. All of them had conclusions along the lines of "absolute stonking pain in the arse to apply it, we don't even use magnetic mines anyway, but the finish is quite nice for camouflage"

[@RalfJosefFries]

Spoke once with an driver of an Panzer IV - he told me that the tankcrews liked Zimmerit because it made the tanks surface, especially when wet, less slippery - so it was easier to mount and unmount and work on the tanks. And as he told me, it was much easier to get frozen snow or ice off the tank with that zimmerit-layer between steel and snow and ice.

[@scorchedearth1451]

Why would they get snow and ice off the tank? It's free camouflage.

[@wolftamer5463]

@@scorchedearth1451The tank needs to be able to move, so exhaust ports and turret traverses can’t be covered. Otherwise everything just freezes in place. Crews on both sides even had to run their vehicles periodically just to keep the engines and pipes from freezing over.

[@scorchedearth1451]

@@wolftamer5463 That's plausibele. I saw they camouflaged their tanks with chalk. It's washed off easily when you don't need it anymore.

[@Devin_Stromgren]

@@scorchedearth1451 The fact that you had to ask this question tells me that you've never worked with heavy equipment in snow and ice before. It's amazing how little ice it takes to prevent something from working.

[@scorchedearth1451]

@@Devin_Stromgren Did you try to insult me by telling me I never worked with heavy equipment? LOL 99% of people never worked with heavy equipment. Just like most people are not pilots. I'm a truck driver, and besides my tires losing grip on the road I never had problems with snow and ice, even in the coldest winter.

[@ryanrehfuss]

It seems like the German '-it' suffix is just like the '-ite' suffix in English, given to a named mineral or proprietary compound. So we might have called it Zimmerite.

[@FirstDagger]

Yes, it is the same suffix, e.g. Magnetit = Magnetite, Hämatit = Hematite

[@RobertEkendahl]

And here I thought the informal “-ish” suffix 😊

[@poptart2nd]

this makes sense, given that english is a german language

[@wolf310ii]

Romani ite domum

[@stephenlitten1789]

@@wolf310ii Romans the people they go the house? 🤪

[@Compulsive_LARPer]

"Historian in its natural habitat" gets me every time. Have a good one, Herr Kast.

[@davidjernigan8161]

The polyvinyl acetate was probably to bind everything together since most of the other components are of a dry granular consistency

[@allangibson8494]

Dry fine powders…

[@RichFoster-zk3jo]

Polyvinyl acetate is a key component of chewing gum! Seems more like an "Yankee" (American) solution to use chewing gum on armoured vehicles.

[@lonurad1259]

The idea that it could catch fire is ironic because testing after the war showed that zimmerit paste was a good insulator (which isn't surprising considering its composition) and actually could prevent ammo cookoffs from flamethrowers. But mainly people thought it was good camoflage because it didn't shine. Something I didn't really consider how effective that would be but the british tested it on cromwells and churchills and from the images it actually does make them harder to distinguish (if camoflaged properly). Pretty neat!

[@grizwoldphantasia5005]

It's hard for me to come to grips with the idea that getting close enough to an enemy tank to slap a magnetic mine on it was the best anti-tank weapon available. Someone had a sticky one too, which I think could be thrown a few feet, and that seems just as crazy. But I've got hindsight that they didn't.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

The German military to this day has the principle "Wirkung vor Deckung" "Effect before cover / protection", in that sense it was clearly the best one at the time.

[@EXO9X8]

What about Russian magnetic mine dogs….

[@urlauburlaub2222]

Yes, but also before the age of tanks, cavalry or artillery had been attacked in point-blank-range. Also infantry with a pike or lancet. And especially the German Armies were trained to attack tanks that way, too.

[@killzoneisa]

I think it was the British with the sticky one.

[@eriks.9730]

That’s why tanks need infantry support and vice verse.

[@HistoricalHavocHub]

i like how they detailed and put it in the application manual that "not to put on the lights"... foreshadowing the situation if some of the workers would be "but it says everywhere on the front" and applying it literally everywhere as "i am just following instructions"

[@TCLe]

The surprised Pikachu was a nice touch

[@DavidCowie2022]

"Nintendo used a copyright lawyer. It's super effective!"

[@monkeyfarmer1138]

Panzerchu

[@thomaskositzki9424]

Cool video, as always! Makes my detail-freak plastic-scale-modeler heart beat with joy. 😄 The "Irrelevant" Icon is iconic! 🙃

[@lskovly]

Got zimmerit on my VW Polo, it works!!

[@outofturn331]

I can assure that my charge couldn't stick on it

[@Blue-bf8lv]

Do parking tickets stick to it?

[@lskovly]

@@Blue-bf8lv No, not anymore

[@MsZeeZed]

4:40 - Caulk (pron kawk) is not “chalk” (pron chawk). Caulk is a soft paste that hardens into a waterproof seal, it’ll be present around your bath and kitchen sink even if you don’t know what it is. Not criticising the English pronunciation here, but the audio is a bit confusing, chalk is hard, brittle and would reduce to powder in a fire. In text Peter is saying the Zimmerit will become like a sticky paste after a fire.

[@tomppeli.]

To be fair, I had a hot minute of confusion when he said chalk

[@xeroprotagonist]

It sounds like it was unintentional but it could also have been a strategic anti-KZbin-censorship mispronunciation

[@proCaylak]

@@xeroprotagonistunlikely. his english pronunciation has always had similar quirks. I don't think it's intentional.

[@MsZeeZed]

@@proCaylak ironically the phoneme “Ch” is usually pronounced “K” in German/Austrian, so it may be not realising that this English “Ch” was uncommonly a “K” (its more often “Ch” in English). What’s doubley ironic is “Calking” goes back several millennia in masonry. It’s derived from the Latin word Calico (fill in with limestone or lime-wash) and so shares a word derivation with Chalk (Calx). Calking may have acquired a different “K” pronunciation just by linguistic drift, possibly being mostly associated with ship building (waterproofing) several thousand years ago. It arrived in English from Latin via Old French and not Germanic influence. Just to show how good Peter Samsonov’s observation is the 1913 Websters definition of Cauk (no L in the American, still pron Kawk) is “Barite” (Barium Sulfate) which get’s us right back to what half of Zimmerit is made of. Post WW2 Caulk is more likely to be a Silicone Latex or polyvinyl acetate mix, but it clearly shares physical properties with Barium Sulfate which would have predated it and was used to create brilliant white waterproof exterior paint. This would have been a more commonly used weather coat in early C20th therefore, but Barium was well known to be non-magnetic.

[@proCaylak]

@@MsZeeZed thanks for the lenghty story about the linguistics around "caulk" and the history of the material itself :)

[@mensch1066]

I like how the Soviets couldn't even figure out what Zimmerit was even for!

[@00yiggdrasill00]

Why would they? They didn't use magnetic mines as AT weapons.

[@ohmyshou1der]

@@00yiggdrasill00 They probably looted several at some point

[@00yiggdrasill00]

@@ohmyshou1der probably. But would they care enough to put it together when they already decided it was an anti fire measure and made no difference to how they instructed troops to destroy tanks?

[@ohmyshou1der]

@@00yiggdrasill00 looked like the germans expected their enemies to copy the magnetic charge, I don't know how effective it was and why nobody copied it. I would expect troops were instructed to provide looted equipment for examination.

[@00yiggdrasill00]

@@ohmyshou1der I do expect such an order was in place. Though developing the same methods for using it is a different thing. Honestly, running up to a tank and planting a magnetic mine on it doesn't sound like a good way to help experienced troops survive. The Soviets were known for firebombs and bundle grenades early on and they ate hell doing it to my knowledge. But you use what you have.

[@dillonhunt1720]

Germans: It defeats magnetic mines Soviets: Its anti molotov camo Me: It looks cool

[@Redstoneprofi01]

Nah, it looks cool the first time you look at it but especially in war thunder it gets annoying, a nice shiny tank looks cool too

[@ThroughTheGatesOfHell]

@@Redstoneprofi01absolutely not, Tiger E looks significantly better than the H1 for example

[@unvaxxeddoomerlife6788]

@@Redstoneprofi01 Shiny is a bad thing on a battlefield. Shiny is visible from miles away.

[@Redstoneprofi01]

@@unvaxxeddoomerlife6788 The comment was about how it looks cool, not how it's useful. I understand that it wasn't good on the battlefield

[@edinonjunio]

@@Redstoneprofi01 To me the zimmerit finish looks way better than shiny metal

[@wsimonton3]

I have read somewhere that the application of Zimmerit was ordered discontinued September 15, 1944, which interestingly is the same day the poduction of the "chin" on the Panther began.

[@AirsoftTipsandReviews]

Great test and analysis. Great job you're doing, sir.

[@Acer_Maximinus]

This is a great video.👍 I had some knowledge of Zimmerit. But I learned a lot of interesting details here. Excellent presentation.

[@JdeMonster]

@7:07 PVA is an organic compound. Considering that you mentioned they used a blowtorch, they might have taken a sample and combusted it. The change in mass would correspond to organics/volatile compounds being expelled or combusting. Essentially they probably did a proto-Thermogravimetric analysis and that's how they came to that conclusion.

[@marcusott2973]

Much awaited, much appreciated looking forward to excellent insights as always from you.

[@Teh0X]

Tank modifications like these are somehow very interesting topic.

What I love about Zimmerit is that it was one of the few times where the germany in WW2 anticipated a thread and acted on it, only for that thread to never materialise :)

[@me67galaxylife]

Implying other nations did that a lot ?

[@NetTopsey]

Zimmerit is a classic example of a solution looking for a problem.

[@JohnSmith-ty2he]

I mean that pretty much explains German engineering during the era in general. They just kept inventing increasingly more impractical devices lol.

[@shockblaster1201]

That StuG III from Bovington looks like a G, not F, considering how different the super structure is

[@fancyultrafresh3264]

Thank you for another brilliant breakdown Bernhardt.

[@Warmaker01]

It's one of those weird things that makes you wonder why the Germans adopted it in the first place. Yeah, the Germans themselves used magnetic antitank mines, but none of their enemies had them even by mid-1943 when Zimmerit was being applied. Magnetic antitank mines were a weapon of desperation. The US Army started issuing the Bazooka as early as Operation Torch in late 1942. The British PIAT started appearing in early 1943 at Tunisia. Germany's enemies had zero reason to go for magnetic AT mines, yet they pushed Zimmerit application anyways in mid-1943.

[@geoffreyscheuerman2378]

Fiinaly, a good description of the compounds whiçh zimmerit was composed of. If you're restoring a German AFV that originally wore the stuff, that's a great thing. As far as us model builders who are replicating it on a German AFV in scale, I'll continue using Squadron or Tamiya putty to reproduce it, LOL

[@billa6825]

Thank you for your excellent and informative work.

[@mathewkelly9968]

2:22 as someone who used to fit an install conveyour belts and has worked at bitumen/asphalt plants the troops where correct . Worst idea ever , get any of that on you its off to a specialised burn unit at a top tier hospital

[@hell_march6652]

I have 2 questions. 1 : is it hard enough to set off a shaped scharge before making contact with the hull? And 2 : If number 1 is true does it give enough space between the coating and thew hull to disapate any of the shaped charges payload?

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

1) I am very certain it is. If have never heard of something "too soft" to not trigger a shaped charge, they might also use inertia fuzes. 2) No, it might actually increase the effects, it depends on the shaped charges, but modern ones have usually a tip, from what I know that tip is to extend the distance, so that the jet can properly form.

[@petesmodelcarcustoms584]

Very good and interesting video👍🤔😃. Thanks for showing and best wishes from jolly old England 👍🎅Pete 🎅

[@milgeschichte]

Sehr interessant, danke :)

[@johngillespie9459]

Said comedian, Artie Johnson, except in English.

[@PhonciblePBonehimself]

Schön Sie auch hier zu sehen :)

[@Phos9]

Did they make the grooved pattern with a tile trowel?

[@heinzhaupthaar5590]

8:55 "Abbrennen" doesn't necessarily mean "to burn down". In this case, like for example in case of removing/softening paint via heat, cleaning metal via heat or charring wood etc. pp. it means something like scorching or flaming something. In this case it most certainly meant to heat the coating via direct flame contact, probably as a simple method to heatset the compound.

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Danke!

[@lordcommander3224]

Thanks for the warning. I will be sure not to try sticking a powerful magnet onto my personal panzer collection.

[@donovanchau3483]

While it might’ve never had a chance to fulfill its original purpose, it does seem to at least disrupt the typical light glare of the armor. You can see on the second King Tiger that the side skirts and barrel reflect significantly more than the hull and turret side. That said, simple netting would be cheaper, faster to apply, and more effective.

[@all4espi]

4:40: Caulk, not chalk. Deutscher Name: Abdichtung. It's a waterproof filler/sealant. In the 1920s through 1940s, acrylic and butyl polymers were the primary ingredients, along with fibrous materials. In the 1950s elastomeric sealants were introduced, based on polysulfides, followed by silicone, latex and polyurethane in the next decade. These typically have no fibrous ingredients except in specialized applications. BASF has developed several of these products available worldwide.

[@histhoryk2648]

The captions are broken, there's a wall of text in first few sec and then there are no captions

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Thank you, should be fixed!

[@davidherron9151]

Thanks, i just assumed it was some sort of rough finish from rushing out steel from huge molds or something like that. Never occured to me it was a coating

[@ivanconnolly7332]

The first historical use of PVA I have encountered, I use it to size canvas's for oil painting .

[@themightiestofbooshes9443]

We had Zimmerit come and go before the Bf109 K-4 (Oct 1944)

[@NiallWardrop]

Given that the magnet on the back of that light did seem to stick to some extent, and those are not very strong, I'd like to see how firmly something like a magnet fishing magnet would stick. The British did have magnetic "limpet mines" using very strong magnets for sabotage operations but presumably didn't use them for anti tank purposes due to the difficulty of application. As mentioned in other comments the actual British anti tank charges used a glue like substance and could therefore be thrown from a distance.

[@allangibson8494]

And the sticky bombs were rapidly replaced with shaped charge projectile weapons (that didn’t stick to the user).

[@NiallWardrop]

@@allangibson8494 In a wartime context not that rapidly - Sticky bomb 1940, Piat from July '43. Interestingly the nature and texture of Zimmerit probably made it more likely that a sticky would stick.

[@allangibson8494]

@@NiallWardrop The PIAT entered service in August 1942. The Sticky Bomb couldn’t penetrate anything more robust than a Panzer I. The PIAT was derived from the 1940 Blacker Bombard.

[@SilvaDreams]

That magnet is fairly weak compared to some now days but it's still likely a neodymium magnet and during WW2 the best they would have are simple ferrous magnets which are much weaker.

[@NiallWardrop]

@@SilvaDreams Those work lights are designed to be easily removed, they barely stick to a painted metal surface. Long before neodymium magnets were around there were things like magnetic radio antenna mounts which were hard to remove.

[@ptonpc]

From what I recall reading (A long time ago) the production and application of Zimmerit consumed a lot of petrol too. Fuel that could have been used for something else.

[@allangibson8494]

Polyvinyl acetate doesn’t use oil to apply. It is made from acetic acid and acetylene (toxic process) or acetic acid and ethylene (less toxic process). It can however take up to a week to dry as it is usually used as an aqueous solution (and won’t dry at all in freezing conditions).

[@ptonpc]

@@allangibson8494 Good point. It wasn't the PVA that used the petrol (not oil) though. I'm trying to remember the article, it was a few years ago, that described the application process.

[@allangibson8494]

@@ptonpc Possibly drying the PVA… Waiting a week before you could use a new tank in 1944 was probably a nonstarter for the Germans however…

[@THX11458]

Interestingly, there are instances where Zimmerit was applied in a free handed method with a spatula or trowel. One example of this can be seen in the book "Panzer-IV: The Panzerkampfwagen-IV Medium Tank, 1939-1945" by Kevin Hjermstad (Squadron/Signal Publishing). On page 45, there's a knocked out Pzkpfw-IV Ausf.H with such a pattern. Strangely, from what can be seen. it appears to have been applied to horizontal areas such as the transmission housing plate (glacis) as well as the top surface of the mudguards.

[@The_ZeroLine]

I’d improvise my own sticky charge via sticking it in a dense ball of mud and then toss. What could go wrong? lol As for sticky charge countermeasures on the hull, I hear barnacles work great.

[@Bzuhl]

Just figure out the polarity of ennemy's magnets and coat your tank with magnet of the same polarity => explosives get repelled => profit.

[@RichFoster-zk3jo]

The Weald Foundation has a video on making and applying Zimmerit using the "original" formula. Consists of pulverized pebbles (quartz - which happens to turn out ochre in the video) and pine resin dissolved in gasoline. Perhaps the "factory" formula was different than that used in the field. No mention of the source of the formula.

[@jackmoorehead2036]

The problem with Engineers is, they designed things to fill a problem that doesn't exist occasionally.

[@alt5494]

Modular sections of camouflage netting spaced off armor on welded tabs. Would have been a significant improvement.

[@mlugin8050]

why not try recreat Zimmerit and apply it on a steel plate? Just an idea, would be interesting. use „Zahntraufeln“ for the pattern. Just an idea, the materials sound not so hard to get

[@jimsackmanbusinesscoaching1344]

Clearly at 2:35 there is mistake - it should be "House of the Maus". Please do better :)

[@raylast3873]

Is wood glue organic?

[@nvelsen1975]

0:58 This is why I come to this channel, to get the real facts. It did indeed influence the Croatian of a protective coating. Said Croatian didn't really like being rubbed across all tank hulls during production as it gave him a rash, but after being promised a higher salary he reluctantly agreed. 😉 (More seriously though: Ab-brennen should probably be 'to burn off' of something like you can use flames to burn old paint off of a metal surface)

[@mikeoxlong6797]

Could you do a video on why Russia or Ukraine aren’t converting old tank hulls into StuG’s??

[@rutherford2580]

4:40 It behaves like caulk not chalk. A little diffrence.

[@my_name_is_chef4856]

It's specifically designed to make the tank more resemble a wheel of cheese. Because of lack luster logistics, this motivated soldiers to protect it at all cost. Most of the time it was issued with pervitin

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

By the numbers, the Hafthohlladung had decent enough penetration, though I don't know much about its beyond armor effect or ease of use. Nor does anyone say if the attachment points just very strong iron magnets, or something a bit more exotic. In turn its a bit hard to say if the allies were missing out not developing magnetic weapons of their own. It probably would have been safer than the sticky bombs designed in Britain (nitro explosive in a glass ball surrounded by adhesive...)

[@maxasaurus3008]

He said caulk not chalk which is the material used to seal bathroom fixtures as opposed to what we used to use in a classroom.

[@Swellington_]

The tracks on the Stug sitting beside the Churchill has its left track on backwards,anyone else notice that? 🤷‍♂️ The Stug 3 F

[@bernaue4505]

The story I've heard was that Zimmerit failed to harden when applied in cold temperatures. During the autumn and winter, due to the rapid production of tanks and lack of space, assembled tanks from production line were being placed outside the factory before the Zimmerit was applied. This meant that the initial layer of Zimmerit, when being applied as two coatings, failed to harden and was left in a softened state. The workers would then apply the second layer and use a blowtorch to heat the surface so it would harden. Supposedly, the reports of Zimmerit being flammable was due to incoming shells breaking the outer layer and igniting the unset layer beneath.

[@flindude2681]

Anti tank grenades were a thing but.... not super effective when they worked because you had to get right next to tank. WIth a moderate ammount of propelent we can launch shaped charges at tanks to dispatch tanks much safer for infantry so that obviously took off.

[@matthewmcmacken6716]

I like the look, but I love the name.

[@g_glop]

Note about the demonstration: rare earth magnets like the neodymium ones in the light weren't inveneted till the 70s

[@clockdva20]

Look how much extra weight modern MBT are fitted with all the extra reactive Armour that is fitted and now anti drone and shoot down AT rockets .

[@polarvortex3294]

Sounds like when designing a tank the engine should be over-built, so to speak, just in case additions become necessary.

[@porc2109]

they considered ice before wood?

[@CGM_68]

Given that the other 4 proposed counter measures "were rejected by troops due to the fire hazard." It's a little ironic that one of the reasons it was discontinued in September 1944 was because of rumours that it could be set on fire by shell impacts. Though this was tested and officially disproved.

[@ssnydess6787]

I thought the irregular surface was also developed to counter the British "sticky anti tank bombs" ?

[@1forge2rulethemall88]

I'm suprised they didnt try covering in wooden slats. Sure It'd be weaker and have some fire risk (less than tar though), but it'd be infinitely lighter than concrete and cheaper too.

[@gasgiant7122]

Just got this video I'm my feed, don't know anything about tanks whatsoever but find them fascinating, this is an interesting topic & don't laugh at me but I have always assumed the pattern on the tanks was extra lines of welding to build up thickness😂😂😂

[@MilitaryHistoryVisualized]

Welcome aboard!

[@ChristianTheNorwegian]

"Ribbed for your pleasure" vibes here

[@outofturn331]

Heard it did help in the thrust

[@Cormano980]

It looks incredibly cool and ahead of its time

[@Mrsmith971]

Can we all just appreciate how a youtube historian/researcher (a good one at that) is using a surprised Pikachu as the graphic for germany realizing no one used magnetic AT mines against them.

[@outofturn331]

New to the channel?

[@bigsarge2085]

Interesting.

[@hind6799]

I have no opinion on Zimmerit application wether it was a good or bad idea. Just because the Hafthohlladung was not copied by the Allies does not mean Zimmerit was a 100% waste. What many fail to understand is that military technology can also have a deterrence effect. Why utilize/copy a weapon that is badly working against German tanks because of Zimmerit? Germans could have waited with the Zimmerit application, see if Allies would field mag mines. It can be a good idea to keep your new inventions in the backhand, especially with Zimmerit being able to applied quickly even in the field but Germans decided to put it on despite no intentions yet by the enemy to field mag mines. This might indicate that they wanted to play out the deterence effect as it was clear that the enemy would notice and study the new paste on German tanks. With the advent of AT launchers the deterence effect was superflous and so they stopped applying it. Another mistake is rating a technology solely by retrospective without taking perspective. By 1942 AT rifles coudn´t keep up and there was a infantry anti tank tech gap until AT-launchers started to appear later. Germans filled it with means such as the Hathohlladung and it made sense for them to fear that the allies might field this rather cheap and simple weapon aswell. Few really knew then that AT-launchers will become the next big thing. But all of this aside we all know Germans invented this to give model makers 50 years later a hard time.

[@memo_mauserlorettini5979]

Our veterans in Bulgaria : call it "Klop-mine" , because the sound which the tank crew listened when it was implied by panzer-grenadiers of 6th SS army.......

[@perimuk]

I mean even if its somewat useles it just looks cool

[@kmoecub]

Finally tested?!?!? It was extensively tested both during and after WW2.

[@avus-kw2f213]

did not know it was not the metal it makes a lot of sense now . the Germans weren't wasting a lot of money protecting the tanks from magnets

[@QALibrary]

Oh very interesting and looking forward to this one. Does anyone know if one of my tank books is wrong or correct in saying that most of the tanks covered in Zimmerit paste went to the Eastern Front while mostly naked tanks (tanks without Zimmerit paste) were used on the Western Front?

[@AppliedCryogenics]

Ochre is a mineral, so could be the main source of quartz.

[@melgross]

It doesn’t matter how old the substance is. It has nothing to do with it. It’s the distance the coating keeps the magnet from the steel that affects the holding power of the magnet. The stronger the magnet, the greater the distance it can hold from. The odd shape of the coating simply prevents the magnet from resting on a smoother surface. It doesn’t matter what the substance is, as long as it’s not magnetic itself. I assume that this particular substance and the way it was applied was simply due to prevent its destruction from the elements and the heavy vibration and shock a heavy military vehicle undergoes. Otherwise, there’s nothing special about it.

[@AsbestosMuffins]

thought the idea was you couldn't get a charge to stick to like a moving tank thats shaking and rolling

[@unfinishedthought]

The ending "-it" of Zimmerit comes from the latin "-Itus" and is generally used to name mineralic matters. Not only in german language. The information that ending a word with "-it" in german generally calls out a "thing" is entirely not correct.

[@allangibson8494]

Ochre pigment isn’t organic. It’s an iron oxide (ferric oxide).

[@Jamarkus_Delvonte]

This is basically a dealer add on package that padded up the price but you didn't want on the car.

[@Boneless_McGee]

I can't believe Pikachu made a cameo appearance in this video 😮

[@Korhanne]

Grahvel, not graevel :) Caulk is the word on the screen, (4:49) not chalk (mentioned), not sure what the correct thing is, but caulk and chalk are two different things. Caulking (Caulk) is the material you put in around a bathtub or whatever, forming a waterproof gasket/seal. chalk is for drawing on blackboards in school etc. ALSO Very happy to finally know all of this. It seems to me the tiger II at a prior date likely had it removed due to the fire hazard rumours... wasting time and resources twice. The stoppage of the application makes sense, see also waste of time, but the removal does not (What's there probably wouldn't hurt it too much)

[@JessWLStuart]

By "strong magnet" do you mean a modern rare earth magnet (like a neodymium magnet)? If so, this wouldn't be an accurate test, since rare earth magnets weren't available in WWII.

[@melonetankberry5211]

wouldn't showing a neodymium magnet failing to properly attach be an even better way to showcase the effect of the coating?

[@triumphant39]

The test proves that it has mild anti magnetic properties, but nothing else. The lack of the full weight of the mine means that it’s much likely to stick than simply a magnetic panel. The weight of the mine is offset substantially from the panel, and clearly even with the setup that was actually used, the magnets weren’t that effective because the mine had to be placed by hand, it couldn’t be thrown and be expected to stick on a tank lacking zimmerit. Likely with an accurate prop or actual artifact tested here, it just wouldn’t stick.

[@Swiftzerman]

The fact that just simply sticking mud on the tank will make zimmerit almost useless,believe it or not the Soviets did this in their tanks in Operation Bagration

[@TheCat48488]

Good against magnet You know you can just put it on top right? Extra steps yes, but not too hard

[@peypey_it_is]

Caulk, Not chalk. Caulk is Dichtmasse wie Acryl oder silikon oder ähnliches.

[@guidor.4161]

The quarz likely came from some sand mixed in.

[@andyf4292]

so they thought about putting stucco on a tank?

[@keithmcwilliams7424]

The allies never used magnetic mines against tank in ww2 ships yes

[@masudashizue777]

When I think of zimmerit, I think of those Japanese gardens with raked pebbles.

[@apstrike]

Nobody, not even the Nazis, should ever question the need for waffles.