# Mughal Indian War Elephant vs T-Rex



## Glued (May 16, 2011)

A Mughal Indian War Elephant, decked out with steel plated armor and its tusks replaced with sharpened daggers. This elephant has been trained to battle other elephants, horses and soldiers since the day it was born.

8000 steel plates intwoven with chainmail. 300 lb of armor. 25 lb of armor on the throat alone.

[YOUTUBE]mBPtIyfd1No[/YOUTUBE]

vs a T-rex


----------



## OS (May 16, 2011)

The elephants tusks seem to be the real problem since the elephant is smaller than the T-rex and the T-rex will strike for the elephant and get stabbed. So I'm going for the battle elephant.


----------



## enzymeii (May 16, 2011)

The T-Rex is gonna have a hard time getting a killing grip through the steel armor... How dramatic is the size-difference?


----------



## OS (May 16, 2011)

enzymeii said:


> The T-Rex is gonna have a hard time getting a killing grip through the steel armor... How dramatic is the size-difference?



The T-rex is only taller by its head. Not that much of a size difference.


----------



## enzymeii (May 16, 2011)

ORIGINALxSIN said:


> The T-rex is only taller by its head. Not that much of a size difference.



In that case the elephant stomps, especially since its trained to fight and use its tusk-daggers offensively.  No way the T-Rex is getting through that armor.


----------



## Glued (May 16, 2011)

The main prey of T-rex was triceratops and ankylosaur. T-rex had 12x the bite force than a crocodile. It had huge armor piercing teeth, some as long as 12 inches.

[YOUTUBE]4URe7c7Gq30[/YOUTUBE]

It is perfectly designed for fighting armored prey.


----------



## OS (May 16, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> The main prey of T-rex was triceratops and ankylosaur. T-rex had 12x the bite force than a crocodile. It had huge armor piercing teeth, some as long as 12 inches.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]4URe7c7Gq30[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> It is perfectly designed for fighting armored prey.



Well it depends on the tactics and dinosaurs aren't that smart. If a T-Rex charged those blades heads on it would get stabbed.


----------



## Glued (May 16, 2011)

ORIGINALxSIN said:


> Well it depends on the tactics and dinosaurs aren't that smart. If a T-Rex charged those blades heads on it would get stabbed.



True, but T-rex, though stupid, fought an animal with twin blades as well. An animal known as Triceratops.

Of course the Indian War Elephant is bringing twin blades *steel.*


----------



## Disaresta (May 16, 2011)

The t-rex enjoys itself a very heft meal


----------



## Glued (May 16, 2011)

Disaresta said:


> The t-rex enjoys itself a very heft meal



I'm not so sure T-rex would win, but I'm not sure the war elephant would either.

However if T-rex did win, he would certainly get his daily dose of iron.


----------



## passerby A (May 16, 2011)

Those elephants have soldiers riding on them.

Can arrows and spears kill a T-rex?


----------



## FireEel (May 16, 2011)

A quick chart I made.

I am using a large Tyrannosaurus Rex of length 13m, and weight 7.5 tonnes, along with a large bull Indian elephant of shoulder height 3m, and weight 5 tonnes(excluding armor).

Imo, T.rex wins. It would not kill the elephant easily, but the elephant was trained to take on human, horses, elephants, not an enormous apex predator bigger than itself with jaws filled with bone-crunching teeth the size of large bananas.


----------



## Disaresta (May 16, 2011)

I think it depends on weather or not the t-rex is fast enough to get behind the elephant, which I can see it doing, really sounds like a game of chance though, one which neither animal would survive in the end, even if one won I imagine it would be at a steep price.


----------



## Nevermind (May 16, 2011)

The T-Rex did have a huge bite force with basically railroad spikes for teeth. It can probably bite through a car.

Steel, steel blades for tusks ain't gonna be a nice day for T-Rex. Could go either way.


----------



## LazyWaka (May 16, 2011)

I say T-rex, but only out of Bias I have for the big lug.


----------



## ~BLAZxBLUE~ (May 16, 2011)

Does T. Rex have prep time?


----------



## LazyWaka (May 17, 2011)

Does t-rex get his ninja skills from tlbt?


----------



## ~BLAZxBLUE~ (May 17, 2011)

HachibiWaka said:


> Does t-rex get his ninja skills from tlbt?



You would bring up Sharp Tooth


----------



## Eldritch Sukima (May 17, 2011)

You'd need something a lot tougher than this elephant to take on Sharptooth.


How about this Mammoth Tank instead?


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 17, 2011)

Whats stopping the t-rex from ramming the mammoth in the side? that would cause hefty damage, might even tip it. and if it loses its ballanc its all over.


----------



## FireEel (May 17, 2011)

Azrael Finalstar said:


> Whats stopping the t-rex from ramming the mammoth in the side? that would cause hefty damage, might even tip it. and if it loses its ballanc its all over.



That's true. T.rex did have a reinforced skull and a very powerful neck. It was highly probable they did head-ramming attacks against each other, or even on prey.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 17, 2011)

The T-rex is also def. gonna have the psyche advantage here. 
I'd say it wins handily, it just has too many options


----------



## Masa (May 17, 2011)

Eldritch Sukima said:


> You'd need something a lot tougher than this elephant to take on Sharptooth.
> 
> 
> How about this Mammoth Tank instead?



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UCwH36lXT8&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]
The Rulons have that covered.


----------



## Glued (May 17, 2011)

FireEel said:


> A quick chart I made.
> 
> I am using a large Tyrannosaurus Rex of length 13m, and weight 7.5 tonnes, along with a large bull Indian elephant of shoulder height 3m, and weight 5 tonnes(excluding armor).
> 
> Imo, T.rex wins. It would not kill the elephant easily, but the elephant was trained to take on human, horses, elephants, not an enormous apex predator bigger than itself with jaws filled with bone-crunching teeth the size of large bananas.



The largest T-rex specimen ever found "Sue" was believed only to weigh 7 tons, 14,000 lb.

It may not have met an apex predator bigger than itself, but it has gone into battle and faced real war.

Plus your picture does not do just to the length of an Indian elephant's tusks.



T-rex may have been killed as well by a similar animal, the Tricertops



Eldritch Sukima said:


> You'd need something a lot tougher than this elephant to take on Sharptooth.
> 
> 
> How about this Mammoth Tank instead?




Sorry, but Ackbar was putting cannons on his elephants long before the Soviets.

[YOUTUBE]IAHtMrT9Vgw[/YOUTUBE]

However for this thread, no cannons, spear men or arrow men.


----------



## FireEel (May 17, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> The largest T-rex specimen ever found "Sue" was believed only to weigh 7 tons, 14,000 lb.
> 
> It may not have met an apex predator bigger than itself, but it has gone into battle and faced real war.
> 
> ...



And Indian elephants don't usually get to 3m tall at the shoulder either. Hence I mentioned "large".

Also, the triceratops is quite abit larger than the Indian elephant, and still there are evidence of active predation by Rex on adult trikes.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 17, 2011)

really, wouldn't an elephant run from a rex?


----------



## OS (May 17, 2011)

It truly can go either way. T-Rex I'm sure have lost to Triceratops.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 17, 2011)

Which as noted, are bigger.


----------



## Glued (May 17, 2011)

Although it is true that the Triceratops can grow to weights twice that of an Indian elephant.

The Elephant has tusks that are longer than the triceratops's horns. Some tusks grow to 1.8 meters.

Also an Indian Elephant is faster, able to run at 25 mph. T-rex could do 15 - 18 mph.


----------



## Genyosai (May 17, 2011)

Aren't two legs a big disadvantage versing 4 legs in a match of them coming together in a clash?

Of course the T-rex can probably make up for that. Better to have a war mammoth, yes.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 18, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> Although it is true that the Triceratops can grow to weights twice that of an Indian elephant.
> 
> The Elephant has tusks that are longer than the triceratops's horns. Some tusks grow to 1.8 meters.
> 
> Also an Indian Elephant is faster, able to run at 25 mph. T-rex could do 15 - 18 mph.


I thought recent evidence stated they could go faster than that.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (May 18, 2011)

I would say a stalemate. The T-Rex would kill the elephant due to its teeth but would die shortly after because of the gaping holes caused by the Elephants tusks/daggers


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 18, 2011)

Assuming 
a) that the t-rex gets in front of the mammoth
and 
b) that it gets gored in a vital place


----------



## Masa (May 18, 2011)

The elephant would have to get lucky and hit something vital with the daggers where as the T-rex could likely just bite right through the armor. Considering the armor was designed to deflect human wielded weapons, I highly doubt it would be useful against a T-rex's mouth.

edit:

3-9 tons per square inch bite force. The armor might as well be made out of paper, it will only serve to weigh the elephant down. All the elephant has going for it are the tusk swords, but that puts its head in biting range of the T-rex. 

The best the elephant can do is get lucky and cut a vital artery and hope for a double KO. In most scenarios, the T-rex comes out maybe with some light injuries.


----------



## POOHEAD189 (May 18, 2011)

Wow, that is an interesting match up. The T-Rex is assumed to be 30 feet from tip of the nose to the tip of the tail, and to weigh 6-7 tons. The elephant is about 10-12 feet long, but weighs just as much. I don't know really, perhaps the elephant would be protected from an overheaded bite with the steel plates, although the T-Rex bite force is a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## Akatora (May 18, 2011)

Ben Grimm said:


> Although it is true that the Triceratops can grow to weights twice that of an Indian elephant.
> 
> The Elephant has tusks that are longer than the triceratops's horns. Some tusks grow to 1.8 meters.
> 
> Also an Indian Elephant is faster, able to run at 25 mph. T-rex could do 15 - 18 mph.





Personally I support the option of the youngsters being faster than that where as the grown ups were slower possibly this speed area


THe younger ones living more of hunts while the grown ups more of scavenging



Come t think of it would be interesting to see how an Elephant battle when it's trunk is of little use and it's opponent doesn't fight tusks to tusks(assuming this is how bull elephants fight)


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 18, 2011)

POOHEAD189 said:


> Wow, that is an interesting match up. The T-Rex is assumed to be 30 feet from tip of the nose to the tip of the tail, and to weigh 6-7 tons. The elephant is about 10-12 feet long, but weighs just as much. I don't know really, perhaps the elephant would be protected from an overheaded bite with the steel plates, although the T-Rex bite force is a force to be reckoned with.


t-rex was about 40 feet.


----------



## I3igAl (May 18, 2011)

This should be "Which one would you rather want to have as a mount?" not a fight.

I seriously don't know which of the two would win.


----------



## BurningSol (Jun 26, 2011)

Old topic being brought up but this has to be stated.

*Be warned*, long read, but I'm going to be more thorough as to why T-Rex would have the significant advantage here.

  First off the T-Rex on average would've been bigger then the Indian Elephants, with only the African elephant rivaling the T-Rex in weight range (however not in height or length wise of course).

Not to mention the Mughal elephant would stand shorter then an average T-Rex as well.  The largest asian elephant recorded stood around 11 feet tall, over 26 feet long and around 8 tons.  While just the average T-Rex would've stood 12-13 feet tall at the hip, 40 feet in length and up to 7 tons in weight.

If you were to calculate the "largest" T-Rex found, and no, Sue is only the largest most complete T-Rex specimen at 13 feet tall (at the hip mind you, the head would've stood higher then that) and 42 feet in length and weighed 7 tons in weight.  However this is still average in size.

An even larger one which is called Mor 008, It's skull measuring 5 feet in length while Sues is shorter around 4.5 feet.  Mor 008 even with conservative estimates would've been 1-2 feet taller in height and 2-3 feet longer in length as well as obviously weighing much more then Sue.

UCMP 118742 another T-Rex specimen takes it to an even greater height.  It was only a sub-adult that died at around 16 years of age, and yet it was roughly the same size as Sue was!  

Had this specimen survived to full adulthood, its size would've been 14.8 meters long (that's 48+ feet!) and weighing in at 13,000-16,5000 KG.  This puts the T-Rex in the same size range as that of Spinosaurus, and as the largest land predator known to date. 

So in contrast, the largest recorded Asian elephant doesn't even dwarf the average size Tyrannosaurus Rex, while the largest estimated Tyrannosaurus would've easily towered over any Asian or African elephant species today.

In case, the overall average size of a T-Rex would've been larger then the average size of Mughal Elephants.

Power is also something that is undermine here.  Elephants exhibit great power, however a Tyrannosaurus Rex is the most powerful land predator that we know of today pound for pound.

The Tyrant Lizard King is the most heavily muscled giant theropod dinosaur we have discovered to date.  It sported a massive barrel chest, very powerful stout legs, and the thickest neck muscles of any giant land predator known.

Biting power of a Tyrannosaurus Rex is in the Legendary Rankings.  Predator-X an animal that lived in the oceans of the past was calculated to have a 33,000 lb bite force which is ridiculous, however T-Rex would've trumped that predator as well.

In 2002 and 2007 they did a study on the true biting power of Tyrannosaurus Rex.  We all know of Erickson's study of the 3,500 lb bite force on a single tooth.  However he did note that it was only from One single tooth and that the bite force measured was from a feeding bite, not the actual killing bite.

With the most recent studies, and computer analysis of an accurate T-Rex skull, the bite force of a T-Rex clocked in at 200,000 to 250,000 newtons of force.  This equates to a bite force of 44,000 lbs and more, and the only known animal to rival this sort of bite force was the Megalodon (Giant shark from the past, basically think a Great White Shark but upwards to 60-70 feet long and weighing 50+ tons).

With this killing tool, a bite from a T-Rex would be devastating to say the least.

You also have to factor in other things as well.  During T-Rexes time their were larger and I'm sorry to say, more powerful prey items then Elephants during T-Rexes time.  Their were Hadrosaurs that grew to lengths equaling and even surpassing that of T-Rex, they had the 7+ ton Triceratops (larger Triceratops specimens would've been in the multi-ton weight range), the heavily armored plated Ankylosaurus which would've also been in the 6-7 ton weight range.

Then you also have the Alamosaurus which was a sauropod, and clocking in at over 60+ feet long, standing 25+ feet tall, and weighing in the multi-ton levels.  All of these animals would've rivaled any elephant today in size and yes, would've surpassed them.

Yet T-Rex was a predator to all of these as potential prey items.  The tusk of an Elephant are not going to be a big deal for the T-Rex considering they have discovered the horns of a Triceratops that was bitten in half by a T-Rex.  So the idea that the tusk are going to be some sort of ramming weapon is pointless.

Considering this, if an Elephant gored the T-Rex, then where is the T-Rex going to fall?  On the head of the elephant which defeats the purpose of using it as a significant weapon, yes we've seen African elephants goring rhinos, however Rhinos are not 40 feet long and 13 feet tall animals either.

I'm not even going to list the other advantages that the T-Rex would have, such as better locomotion, one of the greatest noses in the animal kingdom of all time, incredible binocular vision (able to see in front, much like the apex predators today such as raptor birds, big cats, wolves etc, etc).

Lastly, the psychological and animalistic behavior as well need to put into play here.  T-Rex was an animal that was engineered to hunt and kill large prey animals, so seeing an elephant wouldn't of even phased it.  An elephant within their evolutionary line has never ever witnessed nor seen a predator that was equal too and in most cases larger then they were.

In fact the largest predatory land animal to have ever existed during the Elephants evolution was the Short Faced Bear, and although huge weighing in at upwards to 2,500 lbs, that's a midget compared to a T-Rex.  

Simply put T-Rex hunted much larger and more powerful prey items, and the Mughal elephant would be nothing more then another prey option for it.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Jun 26, 2011)

Necro, but i don't care cause its awesome!


----------



## Amorozov (Jun 26, 2011)

Good post, but weren't T-Rexes scavengers/nerophages rather than predators?
Also even though Tyrannosaurs may have killed many triceratops, fight between them was not usually easy for either of them, and could go either way really.

A simulation of what would happen when two tyrannosaurs tried to hunt on triceratops:

*Pok?mon Double Trouble*

I agree though that the King of the predators should win this match-up.

Edit: the YouTube linking system seems to be down


----------



## BurningSol (Jun 26, 2011)

Amorozov said:


> Good post, but weren't T-Rexes scavengers/nerophages rather than predators?
> Also even though Tyrannosaurs may have killed many triceratops, fight between them was not usually easy for either of them, and could go either way really.



The Pure Scavenger theory was proposed during the time in which their was no giant theropod that was even remotely considered to equal the T-Rex in size.  However today, we know of a few who would be equal too or possibly greater, Giganotosaurus and Spinosaurus for example.

To say that T-Rex is a scavenger would also mean that other large theropods of similar size were also just simply scavengers which isn't correct whatsoever.

Firstly, during T-Rexes time, it was literally the only giant carnivore dinosaur left roaming in its wake.  The only other predators would've been Deinosuchus a giant crocodile but that would've left it to rivers and streams.  You also had Dromaeosaurids but they were no bigger then a human.  So their would've been a huge niche in the predatory line here if T-Rex was simply a scavenger and not capable of hunting.

Because the small raptors would've posed no potential threat to the large herbivores which would've basically eaten themselves to death if T-Rex as a species was incapable of hunting.

Not to mention we know now that T-Rex grew tremendously fast as an animal.  Considering in its early teens from the ages of 12 to 19 years of age it packed nearly 4-5 lbs per day through out that tenure.  An animal simply relying upon dead carrion would be dead with such a growth rate.

Another glaring factor is this, if T-Rex was only a pure scavenger then why was its species the most dominant carnivore dinosaur at the time?  Take for example the evolution of the Ankylosaurus.  Tyrannosaurids and Ankylosaurids were basically having an arms race with Weaponry vs Armor Protection.  No other Ankylosaurid species was as well armored as Ankylosaurus was during the time of T-Rex.  This evolution race wasn't to try and keep away the small raptors, and the obvious reasons was because this was needed in order to contend against the T-Rexes crushing jaws.

Then you have the other factor, T-Rex only needed to be fast enough to hunt its contemporary prey items.  There was a study done on this as well, which show cased that T-Rex was faster then any of the prey available to itself during its time (hadrosaurs, ceratopsians, Ankylosaurids etc, etc).  Now this isn't to say it was a long distance chaser, but considering this that out of the other dinosaurs such as Giganotosaurus, and Spinosaurus.

Tyrannosaurus Rex had the best equipped legs for running, which tells you a lot considering their legs resemble close to those of ornithomimids which happen to have the best well adapted running legs of any dinosaur (Gallimimus for example).  Again, this doesn't equate that T-Rex was blasting at 40 mph, however being fast enough to catch your prey was all that it needed, and T-Rex was fully capable of that.

Think of this for example, an elephant anatomically and even morphology wise is even less adapt at running then a T-Rex.  However Elephants at full charge can run faster then even a human being.  So when we considered that, it should come as no surprise that T-Rex would've been a very effective ambush predator.

Lastly, along with the available evidence already of re healed Triceratops frills, re healed Hadrosaurs tails which when the teeth marks were studied came from none other then Tyrannosaurus Rex.

That's basically the smoking gun, so if anyone tries to simply assume that T-Rex was a pure scavenger and unable to hunt, they are clearly not looking at the current data of Tyrannosaurus Rex who was more then capable of being a hunter.

This is not to say that it wouldn't of ever scavenged because being the largest predator on the block you could basically steal food whenever you wanted.  A full grown adult Tyrannosaurus Rex would've been able to take food from sub-adults to younger T-Rexes and even the raptors during its time.  So hunting and scavenging would've been a frequent matter for T-Rex just like any other large carnivore dinosaur that came before it.

As for a Tyrannosaurus Rex taking on a Triceratops.  Well yes, T-Rex would've had success in killing it as well as having unsuccessful hunts as well, just like any other predator, it would've failed as much as it would've succeeded.  

This is why Elephants wouldn't pose a threat to T-Rex, because in general T-Rex would've viewed an elephant just like how they would've viewed a Triceratops, Ankylosaurus or Edmontosaurus, as prey item.

In all honesty, the prey that would've been the most difficult to kill for a T-Rex and by far the most dangerous would've been Ankylosaurus.  A 7-ton stocky, heavily bone armored, low to the ground animal with a bone club would've been imposing to any T-Rex.


----------



## Amorozov (Jun 26, 2011)

I totally agree on you in T-Rex defeating an elephant, and for the rest, well, I am not an expert but it seems that you are so I give up and + reps for good post.


----------

