All Activity

I have a Beretta 300 Ultima Patrol shotgun on layaway at a local store so I was perusing the online manual. On pages 43 and 45 there is an illustration of an unusual looking bayonet adapter for the A300 as well as the Beretta 1301 Tactical. I can only assume that this was requested by one of Beretta's customers. Thought that it was an interesting development since bayonets seem to be fading away. https://dam.beretta.com/content/dam/beretta-usa/user-manuals/Beretta-USA-Semiauto-Manual-Rev-3.pdf

Oh no! Look at what was just found, that thing that never happens according to Skywalkre…. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2026/02/just-maricopa-county-recorder-finds-137-illegal-voters/

The Trump admin does not seem very intent in arresting cabinet members.

Miggo, let’s line up a few things you’ve said because there are some contradictions that need clarification: On MBT armor and infantry protection Earlier you wrote: “Covering is in that defender positions are suppressed/destroyed so badly that they literally cannot do anything (and that is covering). Only defender own drones/artillery/mines cause losses to attacker.” Later you said: “MBT armor is totally separate of rest. Drones, artillery and mines directly hit (or not) infantry where ever they are regardless where MBT is. Cover for them is not depending on MBT.” So which is it? In the first, MBTs clearly provide some covering effect. In the second, you claim MBT armor is completely irrelevant. They can’t both be true. On functional equivalence of drones and MBTs You also said: “They give all the same effects. Drones ‘absorb’ most of the fire by just dying and taking constant attention from defenders.” And later: “Also ’sustained direct-fire maneuver? armored spearhead in a degraded EW environment?’ are not effects. They are just one way to achieve ie breaktrought that is effect.” If drones achieve “all the same effects” as MBTs, how can the very things you list as MBT methods suddenly “not be effects”? That seems contradictory. On universality of drone efficiency Earlier: “In everywhere where MBT were used before you can use drones more cost effectively.” Later: “Efficiency depends of course environment, but it do same to every other system as well. Drones are no special in that. Cost effectiveness still stays way ahead of MBT as they are very expensive for what they do and protecting them more just increases cost even faster than drones.” The first implies a universal replacement. The second admits efficiency depends on environment, which undercuts the universality claim. So I’m asking you straight: you’ve made multiple claims about MBTs’ relevance, drones’ effects, and universality of efficiency. In several cases, your statements seem to contradict each other. Which one reflects your position accurately? Edro

MARTE project raises questions over Challenger 3 exports https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/marte-project-raises-questions-over-challenger-3-exports/ “The Department continues to explore export opportunities for Challenger 3 and its capabilities under the Land Industrial Strategy.” - This can be interpreted several ways, one could be the incorporation of the Challenger production turret into the universal MARTE chassis which may or may not be that of the Leopard 3, or it may signal an intent by the UK to procure the complete MARTE design model at which point the Challenger in it's present from would become eligible for export.

If the Trump admin was Machiavellian enough, any arrests would be timed for maximum effect in coming fall elections.

But no arrests.

Did Khanna & Massie make their statements on the floor of congress? If so they are generally exempt from slander laws. People who get their news from the nyt, cnn, abc, cbs, nbc will hear little of negative on the Democrats in relation to this.. The jayz mentioned. Is he the one who picks the super bowl half time act?

Also, we, and you, have not a small number of well-connected neo-Aztecs running around, and dictating policy.

Rare case for me to agree with President Zelensky

Components of Boeing Insitu MQ-27 ScanEagle https://t.me/UAVDEV/10394

Europe as a whole is questioning whether anyone from the MAGA wing of the GOP, which functionally is all of it, would risk a nuclear exchange for any sort of Europe.

On that note I did enjoy the cooking show by the Two Fat Ladies.

I do not know if this has been posted elsewhere. It is worth listing to.

Ok, I can see Poland having trust issues with the UK and France but the US? They spend a great deal on defense, always did unlike others and they are on very good terms with the US. Have been under T1, Biden and are T2.

It does not, you just do not understand it or purposebly mix thing repeatably in different context. Ie you claim I said ”supporting infantry is irrelevant”. I never said that, so are just liar and troll (infact it was troughly explained to you that drones do that already and regurally) I’ll make it simply to you. In what efect (it is originally your term, I used ”job”) MBT can do and what drones cannot. If you cannot find even single one, how you think MBT is needed anymore!

This could also have been filed in the Monkeypox thread, since it is the same demographic and transmission mechanism; https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/31/10/25-1056_article IOW, political implications will inhibit education of the public, clinicians will be wary of identifying it (if they even know about it), and the pharma houses will be wary of developing a treatment due to both politics and the toxicity of systemic antifungals.

That is typical mistake by Westerners who had no practical experience of their state and society collapsing around them, like it was in former USSR. "Post-apocalyptic" is not about food shortage, but about society collapse. Rocket scientists becoming flea market traders to feed their families, pensioners selling what little they have to buy a piece of bread, criminals becoming the masters of the cities, foreign embassies controlling policy, administrative borders becoming state borders overnight, army colonels working taxi drivers at night to earn some money (since their officer salary is not enough or even paid at all for many month), foreign NGOs writing new constitution and laws and so on - that is what post-apocalyptic. And note there is enough food around - but people have no money to buy it, and there is no strong government to establish food distribution (even, may be, minimal). Have NK survived that after USSR collapse and "international sanctions" imposed? Actually, not: all ruling systems was left in place, no known organised crime, food, while limited, was distributed, and so on. Now, when they again have access to fuel, food and fertilizers from RF (and to RF job market), they will be able to grow healthy generation.

NATOs nuclear umbrella, specifically the US, is coming into question. And it also seems extremely unlikely France or the UK would go all out for Poland.

That "nuclear project" better be power stations and fuel processing for affordable and reliable energy that boots the economy, so you can spend 6% or more of your growing GDP on conventional weapons. I'm not convinced of the cost effectiveness of nukes, when you already have a nuclear shield via Nato.

Getting it now and in no small part thanks to memes.

Miggo, you’ve made a strong, repeated claim: that drones “do all the same effects that MBTs do” and that this is true “in every environment” and “regardless of battlefield conditions.” Let’s consider your own words carefully: You’ve said drones replace MBTs universally, everywhere, at all times. You’ve also admitted efficiency “depends of course on environment” and cited variations like storms, EW, or terrain. Those two statements can’t simultaneously be absolute. If effectiveness truly depends on environmental factors, then universality is conditional, not guaranteed. You’ve repeatedly dismissed features like “supporting infantry” or “sustained direct-fire maneuver” as irrelevant because they are “just ways to achieve effects.” Yet earlier you claimed I was “proved wrong” about those exact points. So either: Those are indeed effects that MBTs provide, in which case drones do not fully replicate them, or They are irrelevant, in which case your repeated claims about “all effects” become empty. Further, your argument rests entirely on drone-centric warfare scenarios observed in Ukraine — high drone density, permissive ISR, and specific operational patterns. Extrapolating that to all future conflicts assumes that every battlefield will resemble Ukraine. That’s a massive assumption, and it is precisely what your argument depends on. So the tension is clear from your own statements: either drones only replace MBTs in specific conditions — which makes your claim situational — or you are claiming that every future conflict will mirror one recent operational environment. Your own words show these positions are mutually exclusive, yet your posts assert both. I’m not debating cost, swarms, or armor here. I’m pointing out that the structural certainty of your claim collapses under your own logic and quotations. Edro