germans fell for this.

germans fell for this.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    HOLY FRICK IS THAT A TIGER?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      No, you can tell because it has a stabilized gun, a reliable transmission, sloped armor, and wet ammo stowage. Also because it's a bouncy castle.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is this picture somebody's thought experiment in how to get a Sherman tank to kill a T-90?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          it's a joke, bromo
          someone made it for giggles

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Is this picture somebody's thought experiment in how to get a Sherman tank to kill a T-90?

        Seems israeli

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >bouncy castle.
        they're called jumpy houses.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >jumpy houses.
          They're called boingy bungalos

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      fricking tiggers

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Well yeah, the resolution of photo recon in 1944 was like 1 meter, and at 1 meter resolution that bouncy castle looks a lot like a Sherman

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >inflation tag

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      mein Gott! das ist ein Panzerdepot, schnell! Bombenangriff auf sie!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      IS THAT PATTON? HANS ZE ALLIES WILL INVADE IN CALAIS!!!!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thats hilarious

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Fake stories tend to be.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          It may be fake but is at least entirely plausible.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By what metric?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Fake stories tend to be.

              Why would a French museum keep a wooden bomb in it just to stroke bong egos?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I imagine it's reason is similar to why Napoleon's height at death is recorded in archaic French units by a British Doctor in a British territory who just happened to have one of these measuring sticks lying around and randomly decided to record his height using an outdated, unused and completely inappropriate measurement system.

                The alternative of course would be that Napoleon was actually 5'2" and that's rather embarrassing for The French for whatever reason. Also, whilst you're at it, don't pay any mind to the fact Napoleon wasn't even French.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If me and my entire nation got our ass kicked brutaly multiple times by a midget then im the one who would be ambarrassed

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Why would you build a rollercoaster to kill prisoners?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Fricking lost.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You underestimate the character of Brits born to WWI vets.
              They used to be based af.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By what metric?

            Fake stories tend to be.

            One serious historian has looked into it, Pierre-Antoine Courouble, and he concluded it probably did happen and collected over 300 testimonies of people who claim to have witnessed it. He even wrote a book about it that you can buy on amazon:
            https://www.amazon.co.uk/L%C3%A9nigme-bombes-bois-Wood-wood/dp/2812700645

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I hate that you gays are making me link snopes but here we are. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wooden-bomb/

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I think I'll take the real historian who wrote a book over snopes, which itself says it's "unproven".

                I imagine it's reason is similar to why Napoleon's height at death is recorded in archaic French units by a British Doctor in a British territory who just happened to have one of these measuring sticks lying around and randomly decided to record his height using an outdated, unused and completely inappropriate measurement system.

                The alternative of course would be that Napoleon was actually 5'2" and that's rather embarrassing for The French for whatever reason. Also, whilst you're at it, don't pay any mind to the fact Napoleon wasn't even French.

                What the frick is this unrelated nonsense? How does that relate in any way to anything under discussion?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >What the frick is this unrelated nonsense?
                I'm just saying that if you examine any story in history with some degree of scrutiny you'll find a lot of holes in popular tellings of events.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You mean like the historian did? And found over 300 people, allied pilots, french civilians and German officers willing to testify that it happened?
                I think you're really just seething because this is a story that makes the bongs look cool, and that pisses you off for insane autistic reasons. That's what's really going on here.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No, I just think it's really funny that Napoleon was actually a 5'2 Italian and the reality of that makes French people really mad.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                He wasn't 5'2. And he was Corsican. Nobody is mad about this.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                french rhymes with stench

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >He wasn't 5'2
                Sure, if you measure in archaic French units, which France had stopped using in the 1700s.
                The source for him being 5'2 is his death certificate, which was recorded by the British in St Helene. Which, of course, why wouldn't they have a 300 year old French measuring stick lying around. And of course, why wouldn't they then record that in a unit that isn't even being used in France at the time on his official documents... Sure. Makes total sense.
                >He was Corsican
                Sure, in the same way that a dog born in a stable is a horse. Napoleone di Buonaparte was born to Tuscan nobility.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >left wing democrat owned Snopes

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still mad that your favorite politician turn out to be gay?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >unironically linking fricking Snopes
                holy shit this board is on fricking life support

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Brits bringing the bants.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      My opinion on this is:
      >1) a "fake" airfield probably requires about 80% of the effort of creating a real one, since building plausible runways and hangers would be the main challenge
      >2) letting your opponent know you aren't falling for his deception is moronic, and means that he will:
      >3) just put in the minor effort required to make the "fake" airfield operational

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        80% is high. It doesn't have to last or even provide weather proofing.
        Still at least 25% of the work I would say. Logistics of planning and having to post men to build it is your biggest cost

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >80% of the effort of creating a real one
        >ignoring the effort of making the aircraft and training pilots

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So Anon, this might blow your fricking mind/dick off so brace yourself. Manufacturing aircraft and training pilots is an entirely separate process to making an airfield.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >He leaves his real airfields empty

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I'll assume you meant to respond to someone else given that I never said anything close to that

              Also, the purpose of making an airfield specifically to get bombed is very different than making one to specifically not get bombed.
              Even if the fake airfield took MORE effort, it'd still be worthwhile if it allowed multiple other airfields to function without being bombed.

              If you want to make it convincing you're going to have to erect enough fake infrastructure to make it worth the Allied effort to devote resources to. Sure, you can lay down a couple thousand feet of gravel as a runway and a couple camo nets over wooden 109s, but at most you'll likely get a few P-47s strafing it. And even with that minimal effort you still have most of what you need to at least be able to act as a forward airfield for fighters, which was my point that you're still putting in a good amount of the effort needed for a "real" airfield.
              >Even if the fake airfield took MORE effort, it'd still be worthwhile if it allowed multiple other airfields to function without being bombed
              Or, you know, you could make a functional airfield that provides you additional assets

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Make Functional Airfield.
                >It gets bombed.
                >ROI: 0

                >Make Fake Airfield for express purpose of being bombed.
                >It gets bombed.
                >ROI: Above 0.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Even if the fake airfield took MORE effort
                Just completely regard this deranged prior claim?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >make functional airfield
                >it's a functional airfield
                >make fake airfield
                >it's not a functional airfield
                Yes, it might get bombed. But it's also somewhere you can base fighters out of to intercept those bombers.

                True but if you consider it, which is arguably valid the difference in effort skyrockets.
                Fake planes need no fuel, engines, maintenance or ammo and fake pilots need no training and room/board

                But the number of airfields you have is entirely divorced from how many planes/pilots you're producing. It simply allows you to be more flexible in your basing.

                >I never said anything close to that
                > Manufacturing aircraft and training pilots is an entirely separate process to making an airfield.
                No airfield is empty, if you ignore all the extras you're a simply moron.

                Assume you have 1,000 planes and 20 airfields. Now imagine you have 1,000 planes and 21 airfields. Does that 2nd scenario mean that one airfield has to be empty?

                https://i.imgur.com/RfEPBMr.jpeg

                Hangars? Runways?

                Sort of my original point, a "fake" airfield is pretty much entirely usable by the aircraft of the time.

                If your SuperSecret code isn't broken and you have a convincing schedule for moving fake plans and vehicles around in a way well enough to fool 1940s cameras and sometimes divert real aircraft to its area it is not bad.

                >checked

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                But, if you're making an airfield with the express purpose of getting it bombed, you're going to be building that airfield somewhere different than if you didn't want it to get bombed.
                The whole point is misdirection and occupying the enemy's attention somewhere else. It's not comparable in cost of military infrastructure when there isn't overlap in purpose.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                While true, that also means that you're building in a place that (presumably) is of limited or no use to you, which likely means that your opponent will be less inclined to expend resources attacking it as it's presence doesn't interfere with his plans.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's the neat thing, a fake airfield can very quickly be converted in a real airfield.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes, that was my point from the very beginning

                My opinion on this is:
                >1) a "fake" airfield probably requires about 80% of the effort of creating a real one, since building plausible runways and hangers would be the main challenge
                >2) letting your opponent know you aren't falling for his deception is moronic, and means that he will:
                >3) just put in the minor effort required to make the "fake" airfield operational

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >I never said anything close to that
                > Manufacturing aircraft and training pilots is an entirely separate process to making an airfield.
                No airfield is empty, if you ignore all the extras you're a simply moron.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >a simply moron.
                simply moronic*

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If your SuperSecret code isn't broken and you have a convincing schedule for moving fake plans and vehicles around in a way well enough to fool 1940s cameras and sometimes divert real aircraft to its area it is not bad.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Also, the purpose of making an airfield specifically to get bombed is very different than making one to specifically not get bombed.
            Even if the fake airfield took MORE effort, it'd still be worthwhile if it allowed multiple other airfields to function without being bombed.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            True but if you consider it, which is arguably valid the difference in effort skyrockets.
            Fake planes need no fuel, engines, maintenance or ammo and fake pilots need no training and room/board

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        You'd be surprised how little effort it could take to make an actual airfield, let alone a dummy one

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hangars? Runways?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What do people find so compelling in this story that people feel the need to keep bringing it up? The Germans also knew of allied fake airfields but they didn't waste flight hours dropping fake bombs on them (probably).

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Germans didn't have the resources, unfortunately.
        Once Lend-Lease took effect the game changed.
        Analogous to current Ukraine

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        germans have no humor
        brits know how to bring the bants
        if i were a reconnasaince pilot i'd take the job to drop a dake bomb and it wouldnt even take much resources

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Why drop a toilet on the enemy?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't know we fought India in WW2.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >A-1 Skyraider
            >WWII
            Shiggy Diggy

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Proving that Germans don't understand what a sense of humor is.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It's a flex. Not only did they show that they knew damn well it was fake, but they proved that they thought nothing of sending a plane over (probably a Mosquito, itself made of wood) and dropping a wooden training bomb on them. Essentially, they deemed the threat level to be so low that they could pop over and do some shit like that without a care in the world.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >being too poor and resource-starved to fly a plane to drop a fake bomb for the lols
        pathetic

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I wanna buy one of these. It would unironically make a neat kit for airsoft milsim events
    > lightweight pvc frame with lil wheels on the bottom
    > plasticky fabric that won't tear to BBs
    > guy standing inside simply pushes it along, no danger of squishing people so no observers necessary
    > cannon shoots... more BBs or smoke or whatever the frick

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why not just add plywood/plastic to UTV?
      Having some kind of 4 wheeled bike frame, like an "MTB" version of those double pedal cruisers would be great.
      Or something with a fairly low battery capacity so your team would have to "refuel"

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what does the filename mean?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The Churchill is a very slow tank.

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    IT'S LIKE I'M SEEING DOUBLE

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Even when you're a tank you still get catfished.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      FOUR SHERMANS

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        underrated

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Shape, Shine, Shadow from 3000 ft.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A tank is a tank

  9. 3 weeks ago
    mindless self indulgence
  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Apparently several tank crews fell for this.
    I guess you underrestimate how easy it was with the tech available back then to fall for decoys.

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You'd fall for it too if all your spies had been flipped and the only way to verify information fed to you was by high altitude spy planes.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I think it's understated how shit German intelligence was throughout the war

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Technically, not really. They fell for the false intel of the Spaniard, Juan Pujol Garcia, aka Garbo. A true centrist, he despised both Fascists and Commies, both who dragooned him to fight in their civil war. In WWII, he took his own initiative to be a fake spy for the Germans. Go read his wikipedia article. He is the only one to get the Iron Cross AND MBE at the same time.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the germans did similar stuff

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *