Video duration: 230 seconds
Global video hits: 950733
The Abrams is the US's main battle tank, and arguably the best of it's type in the world. With its sophisticated electronics and 120mm smoothbore main gun, it is capable of a 95% hit rate at distances of over 4km. It is powered by a 1500hp gas turbine, it is protected by state-of-the-art armour which can incorporate depleted uranium. Music: H-BlockX - The Power
i'm sorry has the t ... By: cheeseburger04. on 18 Apr 08, 03:37:07 i'm sorry has the t-90 been proven against anything sorry but i am not going to take an opinion of a country that supports a communist president
i dont care what ... By: ruggs1515. on 18 Apr 08, 01:21:04 i dont care what anybody say about the damn t-90 it aint shit compared to an abrams. and i will let the facts out- the abrams is better protected and better electronics. the t-90s missle aint gonna do nothin to an abrams. Plus with the u.s. army deciding to use TUSK almost as primary armor considering that the added ERA adds the abrams survivability. the t90 has an era that the old DU round could not penetrait so the army came out with the new DU round and i have the say La La Later! to the T-90
same cannon as the ... By: hkusp45compact. on 17 Apr 08, 21:48:41 same cannon as the abrams fucktard
The LEOA6 IS THE ... By: g36c1. on 17 Apr 08, 16:24:08 The LEOA6 IS THE BEST TANK IN THE WORLD HAS THE BEST MAIN CANON IN THE WORLD THE RHEIMMENTAL L55. can destroy abrams t 90 s everything
Ineffective? What ... By: seriousmtb. on 17 Apr 08, 10:31:18 Ineffective? What do do you mean? In modern local conflicts it much harder without tanks, than with them. Imagine Americans in Iraq and Russians in Chechnya without tanks, they would be still assaulting capital cities. And all normal countries prepare they tanks and tank crews BEFORE war, only banana countries put badly-trained people and degraded technic into battle. And no one cares, what are fighting with tanks, they are fighting the enemy, no difference, is is it trained/equipped, or not.
Yeah, this argument ... By: Keffy3000. on 17 Apr 08, 02:35:49 Yeah, this argument is stupid, all tanks are generally ineffective in modern wars, they are only supposed to be efective against big targets. They're fighting under-equiped, un-trained, hidden enemies. Both tanks are good (Abrams and T90) but they're not in conflicts where they're practical
From Wiki- Bumper B ... By: rusak24. on 17 Apr 08, 02:25:59 From Wiki- Bumper B-23 TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division - Large caliber shaped charge, then hit by an unknown round, likely a KE (non-DU)- Two hits, one on the rear grills, another penetrated both sides of the hull. Catastrophic damage by fire. Check it out theres more.
still has been ... By: hkusp45compact. on 17 Apr 08, 01:11:30 still has been proven the t-90 isnt fighting other tanks in chechyna so fuckin can it man and show me proof that an rpg took out an abrams and i will take you to the worlds most expensive strip club and pay for it all
Proven against what ... By: rusak24. on 17 Apr 08, 01:01:25 Proven against what? Old, inferior, under equipped armys? You think Sadam had new, highly trained tanks? hahaha Abrams is not proven, they are fighting against a guy wearing a burlap sack and armed with an RPG, and still lossing. If thats what you call proven, then so is the T-90. It is fighting in Chechnya right now, against similar burlap sacks, so that makes it proven too right?
maybe a better ... By: hkusp45compact. on 17 Apr 08, 00:55:12 maybe a better range than the round the T-90 shoots bottom line is its not proven in battle and the abrams is so that makes the abrams the best whatever is on paper doesnt meant shit
Well, because you ... By: wtfdoihavetodohere. on 16 Apr 08, 04:02:06 Well, because you seem so certain in your views. And seeing that you have so many negative things to say about Americans, I'm curious to know where you get these ideas and how accurate they are. TV perhaps?
Looks like you ... By: seriousmtb. on 15 Apr 08, 21:31:16 Looks like you don't get the idea, this ERA is probably most advertised armor in world. DU (depleted uranium) sabot has kinetic (not cumulative) hit effect, it's sends ~12MegaJoules of energy to target. Reactive armor won't even see it coming. ERA is very effective against cumulative warheads, and it's NOTHING against an uranium rod.
why r u so ... By: gumushtr. on 15 Apr 08, 18:13:54 why r u so interested in how i got the information about American people and history?
Hellfire is fast ... By: seriousmtb. on 15 Apr 08, 15:44:30 Hellfire is fast rocket, ARENA can't intercept it, but SHTORA can block laser beam. Unfortunately, new Hellfire 2 can acquire target using radar (AH-64D Longbow). T-90 has few (about 6 ones) rockets, which require some conditions when using them. M1 has plenty of APFSDS-T, each one can hit it's target on ~4 km range. Anyway, in case of Russia vs. USA conflict(I hope it will never happen), americans will be facing T-72, T-80 and their modifications, and no any T-90's.
Russian K-5 ERA CAN ... By: rusak24. on 15 Apr 08, 15:37:48 Russian K-5 ERA CAN survive a hit from the DU round of the abrams, because 60% of the energy from the DU round gets used up trying to burn through the armour, so the ERA disperses the 60% right there leaving 40% to do the actual penetration.
This missile is ... By: seriousmtb. on 15 Apr 08, 13:00:19 This missile is very effective, but to use it as superiority, crew must find a flat place, where they will have at least 5 km of visual contact on enemy. Also this missile is laser-guided, but western tanks have SHTORA smoke screen analogs. Also if there is less than 5 km of open ground, hostile tank will be able to engage russian armor too. M1's smoothbore is capable to hit enemy tank on ranges up to 4 km. And if M1 with DU armor can survive missile hit, russian tank is no match for DU SABOT.
gumushtr - I'm ... By: wtfdoihavetodohere. on 15 Apr 08, 07:18:03 gumushtr - I'm wondering where you get your information about the American people. Do you live in America?
Funny, i haven't ... By: rusak24. on 15 Apr 08, 06:40:41 Funny, i haven't seen anyplace where it says the gas turbine of Abrams can run on diesel. The Refleks 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead is effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters. The missile, which can penetrate 700-mm of RHAe out to 4000+ meters, gives the T-90 the ability to engage other vehicles and helicopters before they can engage the T-90, missile has further range than round itself.
so can the abrams ... By: hkusp45compact. on 15 Apr 08, 02:47:57 so can the abrams it runs of any flammable liquid BS nothing will take out the longbow i know it can mix rounds but missles out of tanks arent very practical when tank rounds shoot the same distance
Arena and Shtora ... By: rusak24. on 15 Apr 08, 02:40:29 Arena and Shtora will take care of Hellfires from Ah-64's. T-90 can mix rounds with missiles, can have all missiles if it wants and vise versa. Mask heat? with what thermals will see through smoke. T-90 has multi fuel engine, can run on anything from diesel to jet fuel to vodka, plus it has heaters in fuel compartment.
ya but in the ... By: hkusp45compact. on 15 Apr 08, 01:40:16 ya but in the terrain that it will prolly fight in it wont be able to see that far and thats why you have the apache longbow to shoot missles at tanks i would rather carry more rounds for my main gun than missles that i cant use you can mask the heat signature and diesel engines are louder and diesel gels up
yes German ... By: redfan45x. on 14 Apr 08, 21:18:34 yes German engineering is very smart and good
I don't give shit, ... By: rusak24. on 14 Apr 08, 05:06:04 I don't give shit, I will give Abrams one thing, the night vision, but with the gun T-90 has advantage seeing as it can shoot missiles out to upwards of 5km, so it can engage Abrams before Abrams sees T-90. Also gas turbine engine has higher heat signature than diesel.
we dont need the ... By: hkusp45compact. on 13 Apr 08, 20:17:52 we dont need the german engineering its fine as is its already having a replacement tank designed
Not being ... By: CorkedMagician. on 13 Apr 08, 20:15:18 Not being anti-american. Just saying. the Abrams a nice tank and it has the benifet of being prodcued there making it cheap and easy to get ahold of. Unfortunately you don't get the benifet of German Tank engineering. Theres benifets to both.
@Scoutrussp7 ... By: R0bb89. on 31 Aug 10, 13:27:36 @Scoutrussp7 usually you don't use new tanks as dummy targets on firing ranges.
2:06 oh shit it can ... By: Scoutrussp7. on 30 Aug 10, 10:08:01 2:06 oh shit it can kill 50 years old BMP-1 !!!!!!
@stewart113 why? ... By: jtoatoktoe. on 29 Aug 10, 17:55:06 @stewart113 why? You know the Challenger 2 may actually be changing to the same smoothbore that the U.S. and Germans use because 1. Same Ammo and 2. Its performed better in British testing. The Sabot fin projectile shoots straighter because of its fin than the rifled rounds.
@lilbeezy4utoo
... By: snafubmx234. on 27 Aug 10, 03:47:59 @lilbeezy4utoo
Incorrect. The sabot itself is either aluminum or composite, while the penetrator (housed in the sabot) is typically DU, sometimes tungsten.
Conveniently ... By: konstantinNeo. on 26 Aug 10, 19:13:39 Conveniently omitting the DU (depleted uranium) nature of the sabot. DU dust stays in the area poisoning for ages the surroundings, causing birth malformations, cancers of all sorts in anyone that comes in contact through touch, inhalation or open would infection. A true masterpiece.
Lol, just kidding ... By: 33wiIdcatpride. on 25 Aug 10, 13:44:37 Lol, just kidding guys Im talking to myself : ) Yes I am TheEvilAmerican
@33wiIdcatpride No, ... By: TheEvilAmerican. on 24 Aug 10, 23:28:26 @33wiIdcatpride No, 105mm rifled cannon for the original version of the Abrams. The M1A1 and all second and third generation Abrams have 120mm smoothbore cannon. You're making yourself look pretty stupid if I do say so myself :D
ive forgotten exact ... By: dmays690. on 23 Aug 10, 16:18:42 ive forgotten exact specs. does anybody know if the russians missile that can be fired from the tank is more deadly or more effective in disabling a tank?
it looks like a ... By: dmays690. on 23 Aug 10, 16:09:51 it looks like a thumbtack stuck on the end... haha
Anyway, to answer ... By: 33wiIdcatpride. on 21 Aug 10, 15:27:47 Anyway, to answer your question as well drbackjack, the Abrams has a 90 or 100mm cannon.
@Dogmeat1950
His ... By: drbackjack. on 21 Aug 10, 00:28:07 @Dogmeat1950
His comment was actually kinda funny.
@wardog044 um...No ... By: Dogmeat1950. on 16 Aug 10, 21:18:17 @wardog044 um...No it's still DU lol.. in fact the Abrams armor has DU layered armour
@stewart113 fine ... By: Dogmeat1950. on 16 Aug 10, 21:16:47 @stewart113 fine example of a person that doesn't know jack about Weapons. don't need to rifle a tanks gun when it has a 99% chance of hitting
@stewart113 They ... By: JimRaynor55. on 15 Aug 10, 23:25:20 @stewart113 They intentionally went AWAY from rifled guns. A smoothbore gun allows you to fire a projectile at higher velocities than a rifled gun. Rifling can help increase accuracy, but the benefits of rifling also decrease if the round is long (which anti-tank rounds need to be). The Abrams' smoothbore gun is still extremely accurate, and the tank has an excellent fire control system. This "shitty smoothbore" has dominated opposing forces for decades.
M1A2 Abrams would ... By: stewart113. on 15 Aug 10, 16:18:34 M1A2 Abrams would be alot better if they got rid of the shitty smoothbore gun and got a rifled gun.
@lilbeezy4utoo it ... By: wardog044. on 15 Aug 10, 12:47:36 @lilbeezy4utoo it used to be DU but now its just steel arrow becouse DU is not allowed to use
Lets see a T90 beat ... By: PandaWithAShotgun. on 12 Aug 10, 22:00:01 Lets see a T90 beat that.
@locoawise well, I ... By: ghemminger1. on 07 Aug 10, 02:44:17 @locoawise well, I can assure you that MBTs will have their place...Somalis would decided to riot in Mog had their minds changed when tanks showed up as a show of force. That and when a tank backs towards you and the exhaust is several hundred degrees fahrenheit, you tend to lose ur resolve to complain. tactics have evolved to allow armor to fight in urban enviros. We'll prolly see smaller designs going fwd, but there will be a core of heavy armor...keeps the ChiComs honest ;)
@ghemminger1 Wow, ... By: locoawise. on 06 Aug 10, 23:26:07 @ghemminger1 Wow, that's a lot of physics.. no wonder T72 couldnt withstand the round.The future of MBTs is not very promising,but this weapons will probably remain in ppls imaginary as beautiful craft.
@locoawise it's " ... By: ghemminger1. on 06 Aug 10, 19:22:54 @locoawise it's "soft" and therefore peels as it goes through armor. It applies all of that kinetic energy on a small diameter cross section. So the DU peels as it goes thru the armor, keeping all of that energy on a half dollar sized entry point...that's why you heard lib geeks whining about DU dust from the US using DU rounds. the ceramic style armor on the M1 is design to dissipate the heat of a KE round...steel will just melt, adding to the jet upon entry in to the turret...
@ghemminger1 I ... By: locoawise. on 06 Aug 10, 13:49:45 @ghemminger1 I tryed hard but I couldnt remeber where I read that DU is not necessarily the hardest material, what makes it "special"is that when it hits the target so fast it "explodes"making unnecessary to fill it with explosives. Cant check how truth that is if I cant check it again tho
@locoawise it's ... By: ghemminger1. on 06 Aug 10, 12:34:33 @locoawise it's great in theory to think ERA will shear a 12lb DU slug traveling at 6,000 ft/s. Works on the physics chalk board - not so good in reality. I've seen the active armor systems - frankly, technology needs to progress probably 20 years before they will be marginally effective. The israelis tout that they have a system (can't remember the name) that's effective vs RPGs...we'll see...
indeed, the soviet model wasn't that each individual soldier/wpns system was good, but mass was...
@ghemminger1 Of ... By: locoawise. on 06 Aug 10, 00:44:48 @ghemminger1 Of course individualy the T 90 is inferior to the M1,but it's easier to make and cheaper to produce,so it's like the T34 to the Tigers,only the americans have thousands of abrams,but the effectiveness of the T90 against such adversary would have to rely on strategy,since it can't go toe to toe with itBut the actual response to a M1 equivalet was the T95 cancelled project.It happens that,apart from the project failures,the new war moved form open tank battles,so havin many isnt worth
@Celeon999A
Indeed ... By: ferroxian. on 23 Jul 10, 05:04:57 @Celeon999A
Indeed: The nod STILL must go to the turbine, here's why. The reciprocating engine WEARS. It can be shown and is a matter of record and fact that whereas the turbine runs hotter and burns more fuel, it can run for 100,000 hours and STILL look as if it were brand new. The Diesel IS durable but far outclassed by the turbine: Look at any jet engine maintenance manual and compare with a Spitfire or P-51. The Leopard will be on the sidelines while the Abrams is ROCKIN!
'nuff said.
@ferroxian
Yes ... By: Celeon999A. on 22 Jul 10, 13:17:52 @ferroxian
Yes but the diesel engine of the Leopard 2 is also a multi-fuel one. That was one of the requirements for the MBT 70 project that spawned the Abrams and the Leo series. Abrams and Leo use the same primary fuels, diesel oil, gasoline and kerosine and can run on a variety of fuel mixtures from alcohol to cooking oil.
But actually the Abrams has a logistic disadvantage here : The really bad fuel efficiency of gas turbines. A Leopard runs longer with the same amount of fuel.
It doesnt matter ... By: master15243. on 17 May 10, 11:11:04 It doesnt matter what tank the M1A2 faces, it will put a sabo round through the turret and then a high explosive round through the hole it just made. It.will.kill.you
@ferroxian well ... By: TheModernwarfare2009. on 01 May 10, 23:58:45 @ferroxian well leopardII was made in 1979 and the Abrams was made in 1980 so i think both of the tanks are equal
@Shadowmoose
... By: ferroxian. on 24 Apr 10, 17:40:38 @Shadowmoose
Indeed: A show called"Future Weapons" rated the LeopardII over the M1A2, I wondered why because they did not do a point-4-point comparison, just made points. I researched it.
The Abrams IS a heavy tank, as they point out. The Leopard does have off the shelf powerplant/repair capability BUT, BUT..the Abrams will burn ANYTHING for fuel except water!!! THAT is a tremendous - even outrageous advantage for a logistic and tactical mission planner. Forget 'ease of repair' if you r dead!
funny thing is ... By: poonjoo. on 08 Apr 10, 19:27:36 funny thing is EVERY t90 wont have shtora, EVERY t90 won't have all the armor kitting, and EVERY t90 will certainly not have the extremely well trained crews we have. We might be in a new generation, but the russian tank doctrine sure as hell isn't any different and they will mass produce that which is cheaper for them.
@30DOTCOM
Are you ... By: SaMuRaIFoRFuN. on 24 Mar 10, 17:35:05 @30DOTCOM
Are you going to kidding me a heat round from a tank never penetrates 950mm of RhA it hardly will penetrate 300mm.Or are you talking from the AT-11 SNIPER B?
No, it doesn't, if ... By: 30DOTCOM. on 24 Mar 10, 11:31:14 No, it doesn't, if it had, I wouldn't have seen RPG-7s tear through it's back armor.
Dude yes it does ... By: Bigjonmetal. on 24 Mar 10, 06:21:15 Dude yes it does have reactive armour. Please dont compare the paper armour on the T-90 to this.
yes, but its almost ... By: taterfrickintot. on 19 Mar 10, 02:03:01 yes, but its almost impossible to mass produce a challenger
As well as anti ... By: master15243. on 15 Mar 10, 23:17:36 As well as anti missile technology and 3 and or 4 machine guns on the turret
The abrams is fully ... By: master15243. on 15 Mar 10, 23:15:20 The abrams is fully integrated to the enrire military, has the most powerful armor know to man, can hit an area within 2 ft of where it aimed if not exeactly spot on from miles and miles away. The abrams is also biologicaly and chemicaly impervious.
@azz578, it doesn't ... By: 30DOTCOM. on 13 Mar 10, 04:34:51 @azz578, it doesn't have reactive armor plating. T90 HEAT-FS 125mm smoothbore will poke a 950mm hole in your Dorchester. Then put in a fragmenting round (which it can actually fire with enough computer-guided accuracy to hit that hole, challenger 2 can't do either) into that hole just to make sure.
Nope. T-90 has ... By: 30DOTCOM. on 13 Mar 10, 04:30:57 Nope. T-90 has radar which can detect infantry, it can fire a shrapnel round from 5km away which is further than the range of a Javelin.
During testing T90 ... By: 30DOTCOM. on 13 Mar 10, 04:27:32 During testing T90 used it's SHTORA system to guide away incoming missiles. After which it fired it's own ATGMs through a turret. it proved invulnerable to chemical and biological attack and can be submerged 10m underwater. It can also fire shrapnel and gas rounds with automatic reloading right above the heads of enemy infantry. The Abrams can't do any of these. All of T90 competition bogged down in Malayan jungle. It's an entirely new generation of tanks compared to Abrams.
The T90 takes 6 ... By: 30DOTCOM. on 13 Mar 10, 04:22:28 The T90 takes 6 rounds 120mm from 200m range. After this it is taken to a range for grenade launcher/RPG testing. After taking another 6 of the most modern rounds used by top militaries it is taken to inspection. Only outer frame is damaged. T90 proceeds to take out 7 targets 5 km away at distances 2-3km from each other in 53 seconds. After which it treads through 900km of Malayan jungle.
The Abrams is heavily damaged by 60s model RPG7 in Iraq and breaks down on testing grounds losing a tread.
i love it how it ... By: MyPancakeMan. on 03 Mar 10, 05:04:06 i love it how it says "Giving it a weight of only 70 tons" the Abrams is the heaviest operational MBT in the world
Is it just me, or ... By: superhakujin. on 26 Feb 10, 00:03:52 Is it just me, or are the comments' order and placement all messed up in this thread?
@GarettandBounty, were you replying to me or @oppeer? If me, well, I used the Wikipedia article to verify some stuff I'd been told when I was in the Armor Corps; if @oppeer, I can't even figure out what he's saying :)
Wikipedia is not ... By: GarettandBounty. on 25 Feb 10, 22:51:24 Wikipedia is not the place to go to get info on tanks, bud.
No there will be no ... By: oppeer. on 25 Feb 10, 04:15:11 No there will be no drone there will be a M1A3 but not for a Long TIme look it up on wikipedia
garbage? By: zlzkzjzh. on 18 Feb 10, 10:57:03 garbage?
@ISinisterI wat the ... By: 44centz. on 10 Feb 10, 10:57:54 @ISinisterI wat the fuck is wrong with you? dont u think the designers thought about this!? ANTI MISSLE TECHNOLOGY? AND FLARES!? 2 defences rite ther
That drone he is ... By: bogner174. on 02 Feb 10, 05:33:31 That drone he is talking about is not a main battle tank Its like a baby Bradley. A m1a2 tank is the best battle main battle tank in the world And has the best armor. It will never be replaced there will always be a need for a Main battle tank. Russia china and North korea have tons of main battle tanks. We need the M1a2 tanks to destroy there t-72 t-90 tanks
not always true ... By: Kingweb08. on 23 Dec 09, 05:04:56 not always true they do have the side protection that blows up missiles and the armor is being improved with every addition of weapons such as the javalin
According to the ... By: superhakujin. on 13 Dec 09, 08:15:28 According to the wikipedia page on the M1, several tanks survived direct APFSDS hits to the glacis and turret face, although not to the side or rear armor. The wikipedia article on the Javelin mentions that it was tested on M1 tanks but I'd say its HEAT warhead would be ineffectual against the front hull and turret armor. The side, rear, and top armor of the M1-series is still quite thin, however, and would almost certainly be breached by the Javelin.
I first started ... By: pawnsacrifice1. on 06 Sep 10, 22:49:46 I first started going to clubs in the mid eighties in the uk when this on all the time
@dajkptwinna Well I ... By: fifteenaces66. on 05 Sep 10, 21:15:34 @dajkptwinna Well I am not in chicago no more. I am deep in the heart of Texas. San Antonio!
Well I am not in ... By: fifteenaces66. on 05 Sep 10, 21:14:50 Well I am not in chicago no more. I am deep in the heart of Texas. San Antonio!
@fifteenaces66 ... By: dajkptwinna. on 05 Sep 10, 19:38:44 @fifteenaces66 What's happening CHICAGO ? I miss my hometown but I love my mama more obviously...down here TRAPPED in this lil no town St Pete! Just hollinacha
Damn nostalgic. ... By: fifteenaces66. on 05 Sep 10, 15:51:06 Damn nostalgic. Great song! I remember my friends and I used to jam this on WGCI in chicago. And hang out at the La Mirage.
it was 1985 when ... By: kalulujuha. on 05 Sep 10, 04:30:27 it was 1985 when this classic hit the clubs of kenya. I had just graduated from high school. My kids are 12 and 18 and they love this song
Man this was a club ... By: socom6. on 04 Sep 10, 01:12:56 Man this was a club and party anthem back in the day for years. If it didnt play the dj was whack.
@MsPeacheys 85, ... By: theman2017inc. on 01 Sep 10, 23:31:18 @MsPeacheys 85, seems like yesterday!!! :-(
@MsPeacheys there ... By: ramoseven. on 01 Sep 10, 18:15:43 @MsPeacheys there is good music these days but the repeative and schitty music is all on tv and radio looks like everybody likes the repeative music thats just sux but lucky that whe got internet
This song was ... By: 48state. on 27 Aug 10, 23:28:06 This song was released in '85, not '82. Abrams released his first track in '84. I remember the song being out reaching number #3 in the UK and number#1 in the US.
@Miccherry26 Did it ... By: theman2017inc. on 22 Aug 10, 23:00:59 @Miccherry26 Did it? Well the track went large here (the UK) that was in 85
@MsPeacheys YOU and ... By: theman2017inc. on 22 Aug 10, 23:00:03 @MsPeacheys YOU and me both!!! 85 was a GOOD year!!!!
@MsPeacheys
Yeah ... By: jrag1000. on 22 Aug 10, 06:51:38 @MsPeacheys
Yeah it's sad... Just like the movies that come out today... anything past the 80's is crap, and the farther you get from the 80's the worse it gets...
this song came out ... By: Miccherry26. on 21 Aug 10, 22:07:49 this song came out in 82...not 85...the video didn't come out till 84...
@MIXMASHUP for a ... By: Miccherry26. on 21 Aug 10, 22:02:39 @MIXMASHUP for a minute...hell yeah!!!!!...lmmfao...
people used to bump ... By: Miccherry26. on 21 Aug 10, 21:55:31 people used to bump this in the chi... house music lives....
He was rockin' ... By: madamecarroll. on 20 Aug 10, 00:10:33 He was rockin' those epaulets!
Classic Dance/Club/ ... By: bigallovepal. on 18 Aug 10, 10:33:51 Classic Dance/Club/R&B jam.
we loved this...... ... By: waytoohappy1. on 15 Aug 10, 01:41:09 we loved this...............
sounds like watch?v ... By: itcamefromabove. on 12 Aug 10, 16:27:39 sounds like watch?v=KNi8aW8Nf6s
pointer sisters lol
give us back the 80s By: samilugi. on 11 Aug 10, 16:58:42 give us back the 80s
this is a good song ... By: frankzx9r. on 11 Aug 10, 07:30:35 this is a good song god i miss the time that thy made good music
is this lebron ... By: MIXMASHUP. on 11 Aug 10, 01:53:47 is this lebron james dad?
5 people don't know ... By: wwfdaoo. on 10 Aug 10, 16:49:17 5 people don't know what good music is.
Watch his hands, ... By: karaloca. on 03 Aug 10, 20:28:18 Watch his hands, the mans a magician.
Video duration: 189 seconds
Global video hits: 6851
Creator/executive producer JJ Abrams talks about trying out different ideas and flashbacks. The crew discusses how they got the title and theme of the show.
@quicksite As ... By: paleycenter. on 10 May 10, 20:07:10 @quicksite As indicated in the title of the clip, this was filmed in 2005.
hmmm... Was this ... By: quicksite. on 09 May 10, 14:03:22 hmmm... Was this event held March 2010 -- or was it held in 2005? Unclear. the actors surely didn't know where they'd be by season 6, but Damon & Carlton did... it's not clear whether JJ was in on the creation of the 5-6 year arc including time travel, battle of good & evil, etc. .... AT the same time, the question itself -- what would have instigated that thought? ...
@PuristRealist
I'm ... By: Josephhart112. on 20 Apr 10, 18:40:38 @PuristRealist
I'm pretty sure that JJ and company pitched the show to ABC with the intention of running 6 seasons.
@PuristRealist I ... By: GuyWithThreeEyes. on 11 Apr 10, 08:21:47 @PuristRealist I don't think so....
At around 0:38, ... By: PuristRealist. on 01 Mar 10, 20:41:05 At around 0:38, Jorge Garcia talks about flashbacks in season 6 (or "like season 6") Was it already public knowledge back then that the show would run 6 seasons?
Check? out ... By: FlowinnRevolution. on 09 Sep 10, 01:52:49 Check? out FlowinnRevolution video!
Like,Subscribe,Comment!
Click on us!!
@somatic95 you sick ... By: stacyracy. on 09 Sep 10, 01:40:51 @somatic95 you sick freak! are you trying to impress people? nobody here thinks that is cool! thats just wrong!!
that is Bad ass ... By: ginnnichi. on 09 Sep 10, 00:48:46 that is Bad ass solo !
Im still unsure as ... By: JJmakesfunofu. on 09 Sep 10, 00:42:37 Im still unsure as to what cool guys don't do...
after i saw this i ... By: somatic95. on 09 Sep 10, 00:32:45 after i saw this i got a cat and put fireworks and walked away slow motion
WOW lol thats funny ... By: p3t3y12g. on 08 Sep 10, 23:50:23 WOW lol thats funny
I would stare at an explosion.
I would prefer to ... By: gamesthefreak. on 08 Sep 10, 23:29:53 I would prefer to look at the thing thats just about to kill me
Im not cool. I make ... By: anthrax70. on 08 Sep 10, 23:05:32 Im not cool. I make explosions, watch them, and post em on youtube! Sorry is im not cool to not look at explosions. It's a genetic thing.
@davida3606
That ... By: mega17. on 08 Sep 10, 22:42:53 @davida3606
That says enough about just how cool you are.
@illwhisperNO
you ... By: Skynamo. on 08 Sep 10, 22:33:18 @illwhisperNO
you just insulted Paul Rudd
@davida3606 Iraq? ... By: roymateus. on 08 Sep 10, 22:33:02 @davida3606 Iraq? Go get treatment!!!
Why the hell would ... By: davida3606. on 08 Sep 10, 22:07:16 Why the hell would any one not want to look at an explosion? It is so cool! I had so much fun in Iraq getting to watch things blow up!
I can't believe it. ... By: marioparty345. on 08 Sep 10, 21:58:20 I can't believe it. Every video i watch, the rated comments are things like: "1239184901238910238 people miss the like button and accidentally clicked the dislike one"
2,175 look at the ... By: thesmoshfan23. on 08 Sep 10, 21:32:24 2,175 look at the explosions
@illwhisperNO the ... By: stevezissou55. on 08 Sep 10, 20:25:14 @illwhisperNO the guy playing JJ Abrams, is JJ Abrams
Before you say ... By: funmover09. on 08 Sep 10, 20:14:51 Before you say anything about this trailer, better you watch it at Free Movie Zone . n e t
@illwhisperNO
... By: legoclonedude. on 08 Sep 10, 19:19:18 @illwhisperNO
that is jj abrams?
anyone else think ... By: illwhisperNO. on 08 Sep 10, 18:44:50 anyone else think the guy playing JJ Abrams looks like Paul Rudd?
Mark Wahlberg is ... By: jellostaplerjp. on 08 Sep 10, 18:04:47 Mark Wahlberg is wearing a hat!!!
Lonely island are ... By: knuckles12stealth. on 08 Sep 10, 17:36:16 Lonely island are the best of the best. Justin Bieba doesn't deserve to suck their dix.
somebody was ... By: duck97. on 08 Sep 10, 16:29:47 somebody was listening to "lost in the supermarket" on a loop when they wrote this song =P
Video duration: 417 seconds
Global video hits: 10322
READ MORE: bit.ly JJ Abrams has done it all: writing, producing and directing for television and movies. The 'Star Trek' director answers reader questions here
I would go gay for ... By: sarcasticduck44. on 15 Jul 10, 04:08:06 I would go gay for JJ Abrams I love him that much.
@ ... By: ilovepanslabyrinth. on 13 Jun 10, 07:20:04 @monsterproductions27
Yeah, got the DVD of Cloverfield, such a freakin awesome movie
Love MI3 and especially Star Trek
He is a wonderful wonderful talent
you fucking asshole ... By: thelinkman. on 25 May 10, 02:50:55 you fucking asshole.......
WORK ON CLOVERFIELD 2
j.j Abrams ROCKS ... By: gaudenz11111. on 11 May 10, 16:27:14 j.j Abrams ROCKS HARD!!!!!!!!!
And it isn't so ... By: John27346. on 13 Mar 10, 01:37:44 And it isn't so already? It's been dragged out for years.
Interviewers need ... By: monsterproductions27. on 02 Mar 10, 02:07:35 Interviewers need to ask JJ about the Cloverfield sequel more so he gets the hint that we want a sequel soon.
i know that lost ... By: enginecof. on 04 Jan 10, 15:46:58 i know that lost has been on for a long time but its hard to believe that its coming to an end....such a great series!
but if it keeps on air i believe its gonna get fucked up and saturated!
OMG the interviewer ... By: IPawnt. on 17 Nov 09, 03:49:16 OMG the interviewer looks just like Oscar from the Office.
i really wish that ... By: bberny2009. on 28 Oct 09, 01:24:54 i really wish that the interviewer would stop mumbling the questions
Really? I mean ... By: Raymint. on 12 Oct 09, 14:41:35 Really? I mean there are so many ways to validate their relationship and I don't know what this means to you but JJ did say that he felt it'd be best to go down a more comedic route with this as Star Trek has been parodied so many times, taking it straight faced and seriously this time round may just hurt it.
And for all we know they could have been together in the past anyway.
I thought it was a ... By: ptfp111. on 12 Oct 09, 14:33:10 I thought it was a bit unnecessary.
What you didn't ... By: Raymint. on 12 Oct 09, 14:16:27 What you didn't like that either?
Ok that's an ... By: ptfp111. on 12 Oct 09, 14:14:40 Ok that's an interesting view of it.
I think it's fine. ... By: Raymint. on 12 Oct 09, 14:04:48 I think it's fine. George's death made Jim an asshole and he fucked up his chances with her at the bar - so it's an interesting and fun twist that makes sense.
Just as a matter of ... By: ptfp111. on 12 Oct 09, 13:52:16 Just as a matter of interest, what did you think of the Spock/Uhura love interest?
That's the problem ... By: ptfp111. on 12 Oct 09, 13:51:12 That's the problem a lot of actors face after doing a long running tv show or movie series. People don't cast them because they stick out and the audaince only recognize them as 'him' from 'whatsitsname'.
I'm not even ... By: ptfp111. on 12 Oct 09, 13:48:50 I'm not even arguing anymore I'm just pointing out the things i didn't like about the film and why I didn't like them. I grew tired of this argument the moment I walked into D9 yesterday.
Karl Urban wasn't a ... By: Raymint. on 12 Oct 09, 13:12:29 Karl Urban wasn't a real southerner. Is that it? so what about the rest of the Trekkies who think he out DeForrest Kellied DeForrest Kelly? Are they wrong?
You sound like your ... By: Raymint. on 12 Oct 09, 13:04:13 You sound like your finding random alternatives for the sake of validating your argument - Bleach Bypass would be stupid to even consider, why bother mention it?
Accents? OK - was Anton Yelchin doing Russian? And Scotty's accent was even more questionable than it was in the series. He's from Aberdeen but what came out of his mouth was Aberdeen via Kilborn.
But it was the same with the series - accents were intergalactic.
Jesus ... Boy ... By: Raymint. on 12 Oct 09, 12:45:08 Jesus ... Boy listen, Josh Holloway would have stuck out like a sore thumb as "that guy from lost" - he's too CalvinKlein and I can't say leaves more of an impression than the rest of the LOST bunch.
They probably did audition him and found that he didn't fit the part. Or he has work to do on LOST.
As JJ said; casting was harder than usual on this one - and what that usually means is there's no one else on the planet who could do their jobs better.
He looked the part ... By: ptfp111. on 11 Oct 09, 21:41:40 He looked the part and he did the accent sort of right, but you could tell he wasn't really a southerner. Not like DeForrest Kelly. In my opinion, they should have taken Josh Hollowoy (Sawyer from LOST)
And yes I DO think ... By: Raymint. on 11 Oct 09, 17:33:31 And yes I DO think Karl Urban was good as Bones. I think he was dead ringer.
Case and point. And ... By: Raymint. on 11 Oct 09, 17:23:57 Case and point. And I think I'll go as far as saying, now that Star Trek has the ass of a 10 year old boy, It's cool to be a Trekkie.
The special effects ... By: ptfp111. on 11 Oct 09, 17:05:25 The special effects in Star Trek were first class indeed, maybe even largely due to the lensflares.
Although I am normally opposed to artificial lensflares, but I must admit it made Star Trek look very unique and in a certain way...shiny.
I gotta agree with ... By: TheRhysMurphy. on 11 Oct 09, 16:59:59 I gotta agree with raymint.
![Cool Guys Don\](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Sqz5dbs5zmo/2.jpg "Cool Guys Don\")
Latest comments made on this video:
By: cheeseburger04. on 18 Apr 08, 03:37:07
i'm sorry has the t-90 been proven against anything sorry but i am not going to take an opinion of a country that supports a communist president
By: ruggs1515. on 18 Apr 08, 01:21:04
i dont care what anybody say about the damn t-90 it aint shit compared to an abrams. and i will let the facts out- the abrams is better protected and better electronics. the t-90s missle aint gonna do nothin to an abrams. Plus with the u.s. army deciding to use TUSK almost as primary armor considering that the added ERA adds the abrams survivability. the t90 has an era that the old DU round could not penetrait so the army came out with the new DU round and i have the say La La Later! to the T-90
By: hkusp45compact. on 17 Apr 08, 21:48:41
same cannon as the abrams fucktard
By: g36c1. on 17 Apr 08, 16:24:08
The LEOA6 IS THE BEST TANK IN THE WORLD HAS THE BEST MAIN CANON IN THE WORLD THE RHEIMMENTAL L55. can destroy abrams t 90 s everything
By: seriousmtb. on 17 Apr 08, 10:31:18
Ineffective? What do do you mean? In modern local conflicts it much harder without tanks, than with them. Imagine Americans in Iraq and Russians in Chechnya without tanks, they would be still assaulting capital cities. And all normal countries prepare they tanks and tank crews BEFORE war, only banana countries put badly-trained people and degraded technic into battle. And no one cares, what are fighting with tanks, they are fighting the enemy, no difference, is is it trained/equipped, or not.
By: Keffy3000. on 17 Apr 08, 02:35:49
Yeah, this argument is stupid, all tanks are generally ineffective in modern wars, they are only supposed to be efective against big targets. They're fighting under-equiped, un-trained, hidden enemies. Both tanks are good (Abrams and T90) but they're not in conflicts where they're practical
By: rusak24. on 17 Apr 08, 02:25:59
From Wiki- Bumper B-23 TF 1-37, 1st Armored Division - Large caliber shaped charge, then hit by an unknown round, likely a KE (non-DU)- Two hits, one on the rear grills, another penetrated both sides of the hull. Catastrophic damage by fire. Check it out theres more.
By: hkusp45compact. on 17 Apr 08, 01:11:30
still has been proven the t-90 isnt fighting other tanks in chechyna so fuckin can it man and show me proof that an rpg took out an abrams and i will take you to the worlds most expensive strip club and pay for it all
By: rusak24. on 17 Apr 08, 01:01:25
Proven against what? Old, inferior, under equipped armys? You think Sadam had new, highly trained tanks? hahaha Abrams is not proven, they are fighting against a guy wearing a burlap sack and armed with an RPG, and still lossing. If thats what you call proven, then so is the T-90. It is fighting in Chechnya right now, against similar burlap sacks, so that makes it proven too right?
By: hkusp45compact. on 17 Apr 08, 00:55:12
maybe a better range than the round the T-90 shoots bottom line is its not proven in battle and the abrams is so that makes the abrams the best whatever is on paper doesnt meant shit
By: wtfdoihavetodohere. on 16 Apr 08, 04:02:06
Well, because you seem so certain in your views. And seeing that you have so many negative things to say about Americans, I'm curious to know where you get these ideas and how accurate they are. TV perhaps?
By: seriousmtb. on 15 Apr 08, 21:31:16
Looks like you don't get the idea, this ERA is probably most advertised armor in world. DU (depleted uranium) sabot has kinetic (not cumulative) hit effect, it's sends ~12MegaJoules of energy to target. Reactive armor won't even see it coming. ERA is very effective against cumulative warheads, and it's NOTHING against an uranium rod.
By: gumushtr. on 15 Apr 08, 18:13:54
why r u so interested in how i got the information about American people and history?
By: seriousmtb. on 15 Apr 08, 15:44:30
Hellfire is fast rocket, ARENA can't intercept it, but SHTORA can block laser beam. Unfortunately, new Hellfire 2 can acquire target using radar (AH-64D Longbow). T-90 has few (about 6 ones) rockets, which require some conditions when using them. M1 has plenty of APFSDS-T, each one can hit it's target on ~4 km range. Anyway, in case of Russia vs. USA conflict(I hope it will never happen), americans will be facing T-72, T-80 and their modifications, and no any T-90's.
By: rusak24. on 15 Apr 08, 15:37:48
Russian K-5 ERA CAN survive a hit from the DU round of the abrams, because 60% of the energy from the DU round gets used up trying to burn through the armour, so the ERA disperses the 60% right there leaving 40% to do the actual penetration.
By: seriousmtb. on 15 Apr 08, 13:00:19
This missile is very effective, but to use it as superiority, crew must find a flat place, where they will have at least 5 km of visual contact on enemy. Also this missile is laser-guided, but western tanks have SHTORA smoke screen analogs. Also if there is less than 5 km of open ground, hostile tank will be able to engage russian armor too. M1's smoothbore is capable to hit enemy tank on ranges up to 4 km. And if M1 with DU armor can survive missile hit, russian tank is no match for DU SABOT.
By: wtfdoihavetodohere. on 15 Apr 08, 07:18:03
gumushtr - I'm wondering where you get your information about the American people. Do you live in America?
By: rusak24. on 15 Apr 08, 06:40:41
Funny, i haven't seen anyplace where it says the gas turbine of Abrams can run on diesel. The Refleks 9M119 AT-11 SNIPER laser-guided missile with a hollow-charge warhead is effective against both armored targets and low-flying helicopters. The missile, which can penetrate 700-mm of RHAe out to 4000+ meters, gives the T-90 the ability to engage other vehicles and helicopters before they can engage the T-90, missile has further range than round itself.
By: hkusp45compact. on 15 Apr 08, 02:47:57
so can the abrams it runs of any flammable liquid BS nothing will take out the longbow i know it can mix rounds but missles out of tanks arent very practical when tank rounds shoot the same distance
By: rusak24. on 15 Apr 08, 02:40:29
Arena and Shtora will take care of Hellfires from Ah-64's. T-90 can mix rounds with missiles, can have all missiles if it wants and vise versa. Mask heat? with what thermals will see through smoke. T-90 has multi fuel engine, can run on anything from diesel to jet fuel to vodka, plus it has heaters in fuel compartment.
By: hkusp45compact. on 15 Apr 08, 01:40:16
ya but in the terrain that it will prolly fight in it wont be able to see that far and thats why you have the apache longbow to shoot missles at tanks i would rather carry more rounds for my main gun than missles that i cant use you can mask the heat signature and diesel engines are louder and diesel gels up
By: redfan45x. on 14 Apr 08, 21:18:34
yes German engineering is very smart and good
By: rusak24. on 14 Apr 08, 05:06:04
I don't give shit, I will give Abrams one thing, the night vision, but with the gun T-90 has advantage seeing as it can shoot missiles out to upwards of 5km, so it can engage Abrams before Abrams sees T-90. Also gas turbine engine has higher heat signature than diesel.
By: hkusp45compact. on 13 Apr 08, 20:17:52
we dont need the german engineering its fine as is its already having a replacement tank designed
By: CorkedMagician. on 13 Apr 08, 20:15:18
Not being anti-american. Just saying. the Abrams a nice tank and it has the benifet of being prodcued there making it cheap and easy to get ahold of. Unfortunately you don't get the benifet of German Tank engineering. Theres benifets to both.