Dutchbag said
Sources on military strength and production? Also note that it's 1950.

Vaexa said
It's still going to kick the living shit out of your entire army, since your army is still stuck in the era the IS-3 is from. The MBT era of tanks kicked off properly after Korea.

Omega said
The IS-3 is meant for an outmoded form of warfare, we are less than a year out from next generation MBTs. The IS-3 was not a big deal, the T-54 was.

Omega said
Not really, I was given Soviet equipment and just got more as Poland was meant to be the 2nd Echelon in either an offensive into NATO territory or the 2nd echelon of defense.

Vaexa said
You still lack a way to counter the IS-3 and Russian air superiority. The former isn't such a major thing. The latter /is/. I wouldn't put it beyond Russia to start bombing Polish cities if they get bogged down. You're not Afghanistan, you do not have the US as your friendly weapon-providing friend. Once you piss Russia off, that's /it/. You cut off your own weapon supply, and are suddenly surrounded by people who really do not like you.

Dutchbag said
You really don't know what you're talking about. If you don't take the IS-3 seriously, you're killing yourself. Main Battle Tanks became common good after Korea, and the T-54 was designated as a medium tank when it first rolled out. The USSR is in 1950 still developing the Stalin family of tanks, that's how outdated it is. Even if it is, your army is stuck in that era.1945? Outdated.And you weren't given a thing. You barely have an army.

Vaexa said
You still lack a way to counter the IS-3 and Russian air superiority. The former isn't such a major thing. The latter /is/. I wouldn't put it beyond Russia to start bombing Polish cities if they get bogged down. You're not Afghanistan, you do not have the US as your friendly weapon-providing friend. Once you piss Russia off, that's /it/. You cut off your own weapon supply, and are suddenly surrounded by people who really do not like you.

Omega said
, Main battle tank concept began in WWII with medium tanks evolving into the roll as armor became less useful due to increasingly effective main guns. Also i was given a great deal, including 4 regiments worth of heavy tanks. You like the IS-3 so much but seem to be forgetting I have them too. We are still in an era were airplanes have difficulty against ground armor actually. Post war tests showed most weapons were not accurate enough or not powerful enough to actually known out a tank and the necessary missile developments have not progressed to the point where you will see many AFVs defeated by airpower. I also have a noticeable sea border, if the USSR chooses to invade the US and UK will likely extend a hand of friendship.

HeySeuss said
Hi, can we get back to the RP? And by the RP, I mean the participants? Just a request, it's not like I'm in charge, but I'd like to figure out how to RP, assuming RP is still possible at this point.

Jester Acharis said
I'm just going to comment that if this takes place in 1950, Finland's president is not Urho Kekkonen, as he was elected in 1956 (Paasikivi is the president until then). Similarly, the military strength of 40,000 looks... strange. Even back in the Continuation War that only ended a few years prior to this rp, as well as in the Winter War before that, the military strength deployed was around ten times that number, if rounded up. Of course, with casualties and everything taken into account, the numbers did go down quite a bit afterwards - but not by that much. Unless you count military strength some different way.Er, sorry for butting in, just felt the need to offer some corrections, since I planned to join earlier (realized that my time doesn't permit me to join in the end), and did a double take on that while reading through the CSes and all - especially on the president being wrong because that's easily looked up. Will be going now.

Ozymandias said
I'm well aware of all of these things. I made Kekkonen the leader since this RP is in fact alternate history; having alternate leaders has already been discussed a number of times. As for the military I've already clarified that I couldn't find precise information on the size of the FDF during the 50s so I went with the modern number and rounded it up (from 36,000ish to 40,000). Not really a big deal.

Rare said
We really need UK ;-;

Jester Acharis said
Fair enough on the president then; I saw no mention in the CS of it being there due to alternative history, so I assumed that was not the case. As for the modern numbers, I see you only counted the active frontline personnel, not the active reserves (so it a case of counting strength a different way), as with active reserves taken into account it would still require an added 0. But yeah, long as you know. Going to stop spamming ye guys now.

Ozymandias said
Yeah when I looked up the size of the forces I thought that adding that number of reservists would be considered over powering until I saw other nations with millions of soldiers. Maybe I should include those?