RC Tank Warfare community hobby forum

Ad Lav wrote:I have the atak zimmerit on my King Tiger. Going to get some generic sheets for the jagdpanzer iv as the supplies stuff is pooh

Have you posted pics of the Atak on your KT, Adam? If not, perhaps you could pop a few in here. Knowing your impressive record, I'm sure you did it justice..

"My only reservation is that when zimmerit was bonded to tanks, it rarely came off, and was seldom patchy unless the tank had absorbed some battle damage...That's my understanding, but I could be wrong."

Hi,

Yes, that 1/16 KT write up is a Tamiya Master Model built over a decade ago, and your zimmerit theory, while interesting, is mostly your theory. Check out the photos in both "Tigers in Combat, Vol. 1 and Vol. II" and perhaps, read the books too. Anyway, I don't like the looks of zimmerit and it isn't a necessary finish on a KT as posted above. Even a few of the early Tiger IIs were fielded without zimmerit.

Enjoy, John

Samurai Modeler wrote:"My only reservation is that when zimmerit was bonded to tanks, it rarely came off, and was seldom patchy unless the tank had absorbed some battle damage...That's my understanding, but I could be wrong."

Hi,

Yes, that 1/16 KT write up is a Tamiya Master Model built over a decade ago, and your zimmerit theory, while interesting, is mostly your theory. Check out the photos in both "Tigers in Combat, Vol. 1 and Vol. II" and perhaps, read the books too. Anyway, I don't like the looks of zimmerit and it isn't a necessary finish on a KT as posted above. Even a few of the early Tiger IIs were fielded without zimmerit.

Enjoy, John

A moot point indeed. Incidentally, I have looked at hundreds, nay thousands, of Tiger 1 and 2 photos, and also compiled a file on Pinterest of destroyed tanks (many sporting zimmerit). But then, I wasn't looking specifically for zimmerit damage.
That said, I've not noticed many examples of tanks- damaged or otherwise- with a patchy coating. Not that it really matters. Like you, I don't particularly like the look of zimmerit, except on the front of a Stug.
Oddly enough, not that much is known about zimmerit itself. Mike Gibb describes trying to recreate it for the restoration of s Stug (p.p. 62-63 'Tiger tank: owners' Workshop manual). Apparently,( he maintains), when newly applied, zimmerit contained benzine (and sawdust), which made it something of a fire risk when hit. In the cold winter of 1943-44, tanks would often leave the factory with the coating still wet; but this wouldn't necessarily cause to fall or flake off. Flames, it seems, had the effect of hardening it.
In reality, this was a useless product that added 75 to 225kg to the weight of an armoured vehicle.
I like your model, by the way it's very tastefully done. If you could post a pic with a slightly higher resolution, it would look even better. Louis, a contributor here, ('Imcq11) has a knack of posting pics that seem to leap out like a jack-in -a box- of detail.
Roy.

The ATEK zim kit I got didn't fit the rear of my Taigen King Tiger very well, every thing was a little off.

But the rest of the kit fit very well!

Thanks, Adam! You do not disappoint. That's a real pro job. From a cursory comparison, I'd say the Atak (assuming it's properly applied) has the edge over the Tamiya offering. I have a Torro metal Ed KT (the one that comes with its very own crate..) and the lower hull there has an integral zimmerit embossed pattern. The turret has none. The pattern on the hull is not as visible as it is on the Tamiya or Atak versions. I quite like it, in fact, as an instance of a semi-zimmerit coating. Right now, I'm not bold enough to consider the Tamiya or Atak offerings; but if I'm swayed later, Atak would probably be my choice. Puttings decals on zimmerit doesn't look like child's play, either A spray on stencil looks the best solution for that....

43rdRecceReg wrote:

Samurai Modeler wrote:"My only reservation is that when zimmerit was bonded to tanks, it rarely came off, and was seldom patchy unless the tank had absorbed some battle damage...That's my understanding, but I could be wrong."

Hi,

Yes, that 1/16 KT write up is a Tamiya Master Model built over a decade ago, and your zimmerit theory, while interesting, is mostly your theory. Check out the photos in both "Tigers in Combat, Vol. 1 and Vol. II" and perhaps, read the books too. Anyway, I don't like the looks of zimmerit and it isn't a necessary finish on a KT as posted above. Even a few of the early Tiger IIs were fielded without zimmerit.

Enjoy, John

A moot point indeed. Incidentally, I have looked at hundreds, nay thousands, of Tiger 1 and 2 photos, and also compiled a file on Pinterest of destroyed tanks (many sporting zimmerit). But then, I wasn't looking specifically for zimmerit damage.
That said, I've not noticed many examples of tanks- damaged or otherwise- with a patchy coating. Not that it really matters. Like you, I don't particularly like the look of zimmerit, except on the front of a Stug.
Oddly enough, not that much is known about zimmerit itself. Mike Gibb describes trying to recreate it for the restoration of s Stug (p.p. 62-63 'Tiger tank: owners' Workshop manual). Apparently,( he maintains), when newly applied, zimmerit contained benzine (and sawdust), which made it something of a fire risk when hit. In the cold winter of 1943-44, tanks would often leave the factory with the coating still wet; but this wouldn't necessarily cause to fall or flake off. Flames, it seems, had the effect of hardening it.
In reality, this was a useless product that added 75 to 225kg to the weight of an armoured vehicle.
I like your model, by the way it's very tastefully done. If you could post a pic with a slightly higher resolution, it would look even better. Louis, a contributor here, ('Imcq11) has a knack of posting pics that seem to leap out like a jack-in -a box- of detail.
Roy.

Hi,

From March 2011, a photo brief for Tiger II Custom Full Option IR RC, go to the bottom of the page:

viewtopic.php?t=7011

The other Tiger II was sold off, so no more photos on hand.

FYI, this site does not seem to not consistently like large, clear web photos, say saved as a jpg at a 15" width by 72 dpi.

Enjoy, John

Thanks Samurai, the images enlarge nicely now, and do justice to the models. I use the 'Preview' feature in Mac OS to compress jpg. images to the Forum max of 351KB, (ratio of roughly 1210 pixels across by 1008 down - I forget the precise figure ) It's handy for getting the clearest detail out there.

Hi,

I use Mac Preview, Adobe Elements 15 and Adobe Photoshop, depending. Still the larger jpg saved file sizes you recommended do not always upload.

The message is: The file is too big, maximum allowed size is 350 KiB. Working today though.

John

Samurai Modeler wrote:Hi,

I use Mac Preview, Adobe Elements 15 and Adobe Photoshop, depending. Still the larger jpg saved file sizes you recommended do not always upload.

The message is: The file is too big, maximum allowed size is 350 KiB. Working today though.

John

HI, John, The recommended maximum pixel-wise (having just checked) is: 1920- wide, by 1080 high. So... all you have to do in Preview is select 'adjust size', and reduce the height, or width to just below the limit. Assuming the pic ratio is already roughly letterbox, the other dimension- the height or width- you didn't adjust will automatically adjust when you click 'save'. It works for me every time. Just aim for 349 KB, say. Normally, you will only get the 'too big' message if one of the height of width pixel counts exceeds the stated limit. Sometimes, I'll crop the pic slightly to get the overall size down.