Army recruitment videos

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Army recruitment videos

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Rudi Hedman Caterham 01 Feb 18 1.27pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays So you think the military needs to attract those who think of crying onto training for front line battle groups? That's called a civvie army forced to fight....it isn't sensible advertising for the professional army. The military is in principle mainly about killing people for the protection of the nation state. Here's advice for anyone with an atom of sense.....if you are thinking about joining the military but are weak emotionally......don't join. You are going to waste your time and money and the state's. There....I could have saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds. As I understand it plenty of hard men in the army have emotions and emotional moments away from the battlefield and not on it. Do you think they don't? I know a lot of the population are a bit stupid but to think they'd expect crumbling in battle in the army is okay? I know you love a debate, but come on. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 01 Feb 18 1.27pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

So you think the military needs to attract those who think of crying onto training for front line battle groups?

That's called a civvie army forced to fight....it isn't sensible advertising for the professional army.

The military is in principle mainly about killing people for the protection of the nation state.

Here's advice for anyone with an atom of sense.....if you are thinking about joining the military but are weak emotionally......don't join.

You are going to waste your time and money and the state's.

There....I could have saved the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of pounds.

As I understand it plenty of hard men in the army have emotions and emotional moments away from the battlefield and not on it. Do you think they don't? I know a lot of the population are a bit stupid but to think they'd expect crumbling in battle in the army is okay? I know you love a debate, but come on.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Feb 18 1.30pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC I don't like the title but the army is a bit like a family isn't it? Especially for young men who have left home and may not have had much experience of life. On another note I saw the ads designed to attract muslims into the army - I didn't like them. I don't like the film style of the adverts now. Preferred the ones where people jump out of armoured cars. I was in the army several years. The closest I got to an armoured car was lying down next to a column of tanks as it trundled past on Salibury plain and looking in a captured Iraqi one. As for winning wars we all seem to have missed the point of WW2. The highest trained, motivated, co-ordinated and best equipied army of WW2 lost to the mass hordes with poorly made equipment of the Allies. Mainly the Soviets. We seem to think that well-trained soldiers and better equipment guarantee us a win, in reality China or even North-Korea could probably overrun most western armies within a few days. Not because we are rubbish or we have emotions, but because there are millions of them and a couple of hundred thousand of us. The Russians lost an estimated ten million fighting the Germans. What they did to the Russians was disgusting....like what they did to many groups....similarly what the Russians did to the Germans later was just as bad. You need to remember the Germans were invading Russia....it's far more easy to resupply a host force....once the new and better Russian tanks took the field the fight was lost in late 41. It's wrong to think that Russia would win using the same tactics today.....firstly Stalin's generals shot people falling back from the front. That Russia doesn't exist anymore. The only nation willing to fight like Stalin or Vietnam today is North Korea. It should be remembered that Hitler also refused his units to retreat....but the difference between the Germans and Russians was that the Germans ran out of men. Also it shouldn't be forgotten that....crazy like his plan was....Hitler nearly succeeded in Russia....which was mad considering he was also fighting on the western front. We owe his stupid decisions for survival and later victory.....Decisions which even went against his earlier judgements. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 1.42pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Feb 18 1.30pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I don't like the title but the army is a bit like a family isn't it? Especially for young men who have left home and may not have had much experience of life.
On another note I saw the ads designed to attract muslims into the army - I didn't like them.
I don't like the film style of the adverts now. Preferred the ones where people jump out of armoured cars. I was in the army several years. The closest I got to an armoured car was lying down next to a column of tanks as it trundled past on Salibury plain and looking in a captured Iraqi one.
As for winning wars we all seem to have missed the point of WW2. The highest trained, motivated, co-ordinated and best equipied army of WW2 lost to the mass hordes with poorly made equipment of the Allies. Mainly the Soviets. We seem to think that well-trained soldiers and better equipment guarantee us a win, in reality China or even North-Korea could probably overrun most western armies within a few days. Not because we are rubbish or we have emotions, but because there are millions of them and a couple of hundred thousand of us.

The Russians lost an estimated ten million fighting the Germans. What they did to the Russians was disgusting....like what they did to many groups....similarly what the Russians did to the Germans later was just as bad.

You need to remember the Germans were invading Russia....it's far more easy to resupply a host force....once the new and better Russian tanks took the field the fight was lost in late 41.

It's wrong to think that Russia would win using the same tactics today.....firstly Stalin's generals shot people falling back from the front. That Russia doesn't exist anymore. The only nation willing to fight like Stalin or Vietnam today is North Korea.

It should be remembered that Hitler also refused his units to retreat....but the difference between the Germans and Russians was that the Germans ran out of men.

Also it shouldn't be forgotten that....crazy like his plan was....Hitler nearly succeeded in Russia....which was mad considering he was also fighting on the western front.

We owe his stupid decisions for survival and later victory.....Decisions which even went against his earlier judgements.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 1.42pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 01 Feb 18 1.33pm
Didn't Russia lose 20 million? How many of them in conflict with Germany? COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 01 Feb 18 1.33pm

Didn't Russia lose 20 million? How many of them in conflict with Germany?

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Feb 18 1.37pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman As I understand it plenty of hard men in the army have emotions and emotional moments away from the battlefield and not on it. Do you think they don't? I know a lot of the population are a bit stupid but to think they'd expect crumbling in battle in the army is okay? I know you love a debate, but come on. ? Don't you understand the point. Everyone has emotions, the battlefield scars everybody. This isn't about the make believe fact that men exist that aren't affected by genuine trauma. It's about who you are advertising for. You need to attract those who are resolute and determined. The military should be obsessed with attracting patriotic tough young men with testosterone and giving them trades. Who do you think succeeds in the SAS for example....those who are crying about stress? These adverts are ridiculous and a massive and embarrassing waste of money. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Feb 18 1.37pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

? Don't you understand the point.

Everyone has emotions, the battlefield scars everybody. This isn't about the make believe fact that men exist that aren't affected by genuine trauma.

It's about who you are advertising for. You need to attract those who are resolute and determined. The military should be obsessed with attracting patriotic tough young men with testosterone and giving them trades.

Who do you think succeeds in the SAS for example....those who are crying about stress?

These adverts are ridiculous and a massive and embarrassing waste of money.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Feb 18 1.38pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Didn't Russia lose 20 million? How many of them in conflict with Germany? I don't think the exact figure is known. But I've read that they lost ten million fighting in WW2. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Feb 18 1.38pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Didn't Russia lose 20 million? How many of them in conflict with Germany?

I don't think the exact figure is known. But I've read that they lost ten million fighting in WW2.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Feb 18 1.39pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays The Russians lost an estimated ten million fighting the Germans. What they did to the Russians was disgusting....like what they did to many groups....similarly what the Russians did to the Germans later was just as bad. You need to remember the Germans were invading Russia....it's far more easy to resupply a host force....once the new and better Russian tanks took the field the fight was lost in late 41. It's wrong to think that Russia would win using the same tactics today.....firstly Stalin's generals shot people falling back from the front. That Russia doesn't exist anymore. The only nation willing to fight like Stalin or Vietnam today is North Korea. It should be remembered that Hitler also refused his units to retreat....but the difference between the Germans and Russians was that the Germans ran out of men. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 1.31pm) Fair enough. Russia's modern tactics are a bit like Blitzkreig: send in the air force and the tanks followed by a mass of men and equipment. They have a far larger military than the UK - but then again, so does just about everyone. Probably would be pretty difficult to invade Britain though but Russia has had plenty of easy pickings in Europe already. When I said mass-hordes I was also talking about Britain and the US. If you look at it each German tank or even infantry man would probably kill a few of the enemy before being destroyed themselves (often from the air). As you say Germany could not replace its men or equipment - the allies, in particular Britain and the US had basically unlimited Shermans, ammo, fuel and manpower too. Shermans were crap - not really a match for a Panzer 4, yet there were 10s of thousands of them and always another tank crew ready to drive them. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Feb 18 1.39pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You need to remember the Germans were invading Russia....it's far more easy to resupply a host force....once the new and better Russian tanks took the field the fight was lost in late 41.

It should be remembered that Hitler also refused his units to retreat....but the difference between the Germans and Russians was that the Germans ran out of men.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 1.31pm)

Fair enough. Russia's modern tactics are a bit like Blitzkreig: send in the air force and the tanks followed by a mass of men and equipment. They have a far larger military than the UK - but then again, so does just about everyone.
Probably would be pretty difficult to invade Britain though but Russia has had plenty of easy pickings in Europe already.
When I said mass-hordes I was also talking about Britain and the US. If you look at it each German tank or even infantry man would probably kill a few of the enemy before being destroyed themselves (often from the air).
As you say Germany could not replace its men or equipment - the allies, in particular Britain and the US had basically unlimited Shermans, ammo, fuel and manpower too. Shermans were crap - not really a match for a Panzer 4, yet there were 10s of thousands of them and always another tank crew ready to drive them.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Feb 18 1.48pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC Fair enough. Russia's modern tactics are a bit like Blitzkreig: send in the air force and the tanks followed by a mass of men and equipment. They have a far larger military than the UK - but then again, so does just about everyone. Probably would be pretty difficult to invade Britain though but Russia has had plenty of easy pickings in Europe already. When I said mass-hordes I was also talking about Britain and the US. If you look at it each German tank or even infantry man would probably kill a few of the enemy before being destroyed themselves (often from the air). As you say Germany could not replace its men or equipment - the allies, in particular Britain and the US had basically unlimited Shermans, ammo, fuel and manpower too. Shermans were crap - not really a match for a Panzer 4, yet there were 10s of thousands of them and always another tank crew ready to drive them. I see a lot of sense in your analysis. Russia spends 5.3 GDP on its military while we barely spend 2 percent.....We are also a richer country than Russia on GDP. Currently Russia appears to be using our airspace and waters as a training ground for its forces. Manpower makes a difference like you say. I think us trying to fight abroad against a main country like Russia or China is a definite non starter.....not that we would want to anyway as these fights would only realistically be as apart of Nato. However, like you say, the idea of them invading us is complicated by them being able to land their troops here. Until our useless politicians abandon our military even further we have a strong....ish navy and airforce.....and of course we would be fighting as Nato. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 2.03pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Feb 18 1.48pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I see a lot of sense in your analysis.

Russia spends 5.3 GDP on its military while we barely spend 2 percent.....We are also a richer country than Russia on GDP.

Currently Russia appears to be using our airspace and waters as a training ground for its forces.

Manpower makes a difference like you say. I think us trying to fight abroad against a main country like Russia or China is a definite non starter.....not that we would want to anyway as these fights would only realistically be as apart of Nato.

However, like you say, the idea of them invading us is complicated by them being able to land their troops here.

Until our useless politicians abandon our military even further we have a strong....ish navy and airforce.....and of course we would be fighting as Nato.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 2.03pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Feb 18 1.58pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I see a lot of sense in your analysis. Russia spends 5.3 GDP on its military while we barely spend 2 percent.....We are also a richer country than Russia on GDP. Manpower makes a difference like you say. I think us trying to fight abroad against a main country like Russia or China is a definite non starter.....not that we would want to anyway as these fights would only realistically be as apart of Nato. However, like you say, the idea of them invading us is complicated by them being able to land their troops here. Until our useless politicians abandon our military even further we have a strong....ish navy and airforce.....and of course we would be fighting as Nato. I'm kind of going off the point here but one of the things on my mind about the Brexit narratives is that Europe has not at all mentioned defence. I would have thought Britain was integral to Europe's defence - unless they think Poland's T-55's will save them. I mention it because you mentioned NATO. NATO worries me as it was always US led and Trump, and maybe Presidents to follow, do not seem too keen to cough up for NATO anymore. Could go the way of the UN. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 01 Feb 18 1.58pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I see a lot of sense in your analysis.

Russia spends 5.3 GDP on its military while we barely spend 2 percent.....We are also a richer country than Russia on GDP.

However, like you say, the idea of them invading us is complicated by them being able to land their troops here.

Until our useless politicians abandon our military even further we have a strong....ish navy and airforce.....and of course we would be fighting as Nato.

I'm kind of going off the point here but one of the things on my mind about the Brexit narratives is that Europe has not at all mentioned defence. I would have thought Britain was integral to Europe's defence - unless they think Poland's T-55's will save them.
I mention it because you mentioned NATO. NATO worries me as it was always US led and Trump, and maybe Presidents to follow, do not seem too keen to cough up for NATO anymore. Could go the way of the UN.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

YT Oxford 01 Feb 18 2.05pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Didn't Russia lose 20 million? How many of them in conflict with Germany? Rudi, I recall from 'The World at War' that the Soviet Union lost 20m of its population in WW2 ie combatants and non-combatants combined. I believe that number has been revised upwards since, but obviously it will forever be an estimate. 10m military losses sounds feasible. Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)
Alert a moderator to this post

Oxford 01 Feb 18 2.05pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Didn't Russia lose 20 million? How many of them in conflict with Germany?

Rudi, I recall from 'The World at War' that the Soviet Union lost 20m of its population in WW2 ie combatants and non-combatants combined. I believe that number has been revised upwards since, but obviously it will forever be an estimate.

10m military losses sounds feasible.

Palace since 19 August 1972. Palace 1 (Tony Taylor) Liverpool 1 (Emlyn Hughes)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Feb 18 2.06pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC I'm kind of going off the point here but one of the things on my mind about the Brexit narratives is that Europe has not at all mentioned defence. I would have thought Britain was integral to Europe's defence - unless they think Poland's T-55's will save them. I mention it because you mentioned NATO. NATO worries me as it was always US led and Trump, and maybe Presidents to follow, do not seem too keen to cough up for NATO anymore. Could go the way of the UN. I understand concern with Trump but he definitely sees himself as aligned with Britain in an historical sense. He's also appointed a lot of military in his administration and while he quite rightly thinks Europe should be spending more on its own defence he's not realistically going to abandon us to the Russians. It was Obama who got rid of Churchill's bust from the White House, Trump put it back. Our defence abilities.....even in their current weakened state are significant in an EU sense. It's us and France and not a lot else......It's our money and defence and security that the EU are interested in. All things that the left are utterly pathetic on. Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 2.08pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Feb 18 2.06pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I understand concern with Trump but he definitely sees himself as aligned with Britain in an historical sense.

He's also appointed a lot of military in his administration and while he quite rightly thinks Europe should be spending more on its own defence he's not realistically going to abandon us to the Russians.

It was Obama who got rid of Churchill's bust from the White House, Trump put it back.

Our defence abilities.....even in their current weakened state are significant in an EU sense. It's us and France and not a lot else......It's our money and defence and security that the EU are interested in.

All things that the left are utterly pathetic on.

Edited by Stirlingsays (01 Feb 2018 2.08pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 01 Feb 18 2.09pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays ? Don't you understand the point. Everyone has emotions, the battlefield scars everybody. This isn't about the make believe fact that men exist that aren't affected by genuine trauma. It's about who you are advertising for. You need to attract those who are resolute and determined. The military should be obsessed with attracting patriotic tough young men with testosterone and giving them trades. Who do you think succeeds in the SAS for example....those who are crying about stress? These adverts are ridiculous and a massive and embarrassing waste of money. I trust those in command to weed out anyone unfit for the army. Anybody with that grain of doubt they're as tough as needs be may now decide to commit. Anybody who was going to commit anyway won't be put off by this. I trust and respect our army and the security it provides when we're not even aware of it in busy areas. This advert doesn't alter my trust. Sure they may be some from this who don't graduate but there will also be some from this who will. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 01 Feb 18 2.09pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

? Don't you understand the point.

Everyone has emotions, the battlefield scars everybody. This isn't about the make believe fact that men exist that aren't affected by genuine trauma.

Who do you think succeeds in the SAS for example....those who are crying about stress?

These adverts are ridiculous and a massive and embarrassing waste of money.

I trust those in command to weed out anyone unfit for the army. Anybody with that grain of doubt they're as tough as needs be may now decide to commit. Anybody who was going to commit anyway won't be put off by this.

I trust and respect our army and the security it provides when we're not even aware of it in busy areas. This advert doesn't alter my trust. Sure they may be some from this who don't graduate but there will also be some from this who will.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 01 Feb 18 2.18pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman I trust those in command to weed out anyone unfit for the army. Anybody with that grain of doubt they're as tough as needs be may now decide to commit. Anybody who was going to commit anyway won't be put off by this. I trust and respect our army and the security it provides when we're not even aware of it in busy areas. This advert doesn't alter my trust. Sure they may be some from this who don't graduate but there will also be some from this who will. Sure, at expense they will weed them out....... while a percentage of those that they should be attracting will take one look at those videos and laugh. Like I say, I presented two videos.......one of them was an army recruitment video designed to attract the kind of people you need in an army. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

01 Feb 18 2.18pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Sure, at expense they will weed them out....... while a percentage of those that they should be attracting will take one look at those videos and laugh.

Like I say, I presented two videos.......one of them was an army recruitment video designed to attract the kind of people you need in an army.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Army recruitment videos

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors