# Allosaurus vs White Rhino



## Glued (May 12, 2011)

2.5 ton Allosaurus vs 2.5 ton Rhino.

Who wins this battle.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (May 12, 2011)

I'm gonna go with the giant predator with razor-sharp teeth and claws.

The rhino is very impressive against smaller animals that cannot penetrate its skin, of course, but this isn't a factor here. And the allosaurus should have a definitive agility advantage.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 12, 2011)

Allosaurus stomp.


----------



## familyparka (May 12, 2011)

Allosaurus, obviously


----------



## BenTennyson (May 12, 2011)

There is no stomp here on any side.

The Rhino is the one with the stability advantage and maneuverability advantage. It will require far less time to turn around than the Allosaur will.

The Allosaur's bite force is also very weak for its size, comparable to a leopard's. It's best bet will be to attempt hatchet like motions in bringing its jaw down and darting in and out.

On the other hand, that will be difficult to do given the Rhino's greater turning ability, and the positioning of the latter's horn will allow it to quickly gore upwards of the theropod's stomach, which would give it the OHK.

A head on attack will be difficult for the Allosaurus due to the speed of the upward horn thrusts, and attacking the mammal's flanks will be difficult as it will take it more time to circle around the Rhino than it takes for the Rhino to simply turn in place. The Rhino is also the one with the greater ability to end the fight quickly, and its lower center of gravity will ensure that in a close tussle it will be able to knock the lithe, and comparatively unstable theropod down. If that happens, the fight is over. The fall itself will hurt the theropod somewhat due to its large weight, but its main problem will be in difficulties getting back up in the middle of a fight, especially while it's being gored of course. The Rhino's vision isn't the best, but its less of a factor in close quarters.

I'm giving it 60/40 to the mammal. Hell, it will have the stamina advantage as well due to being a mammal.


----------



## Disaresta (May 12, 2011)

I think the rhino is getting munched on, though I doubt its a stomp, it goes down none the less, Allosaurus chomped on things twice it's size.


----------



## BenTennyson (May 12, 2011)

^This is a fight scenario however, not an ambush. Which is why it favors the Rhino. Predators generally don't fight their prey, and they fail far more often than the succeed in the end anyway.

It also was not a swift killer of big prey. It did not crunch through bone like a Tyrannosaurid, it sliced off flesh and weakened the prey.


----------



## Disaresta (May 12, 2011)

^what kind of dexterity does the rhino have though, if a full on charge doesn't blind side the Allosaurus I dont see it being able to compete,


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (May 12, 2011)

BenTennyson said:


> I'm giving it 60/40 to the mammal. Hell, it will have the stamina advantage as well due to being a mammal.



..... I don't think you know what you think you do.


----------



## Glued (May 12, 2011)

Whether Dinos were warm blooded or not is up for serious debate. Although birds did evolve from theropods, there was a vast divide between Archaeopteryx and Allosaurus.


----------



## BenTennyson (May 12, 2011)

Azrael Finalstar said:


> ..... I don't think you know what you think you do.



It's a minor point of discussion that isn't going to decide the winner in this particular fight, hence I mentioned it last as an aside, but I did kind of simplify the issue; diet is also a factor.

Dinosaurs are deduced to be able to take in and use oxygen more efficiently than many modern reptiles yes, but I don't think that extends to putting them on par with mammals. Ben Grimm is correct on his point.

But yeah, like I  was saying, diet is also a factor, and herbivores naturally have a less energy efficient diet.


----------



## Artful Lurker (May 12, 2011)

The 1 that every1 else voted 4


----------



## FireEel (May 12, 2011)

Allosaurus wins. Not a stomp, but it still wins.

Allosaurus has a great deal of trouble before it kills the Rhino if it is cold-blooded. Reason why I say so is because based on current day predatory patterns, solo-hunting non-venomous reptiles usually go only for prey they outsize.

Examples....

1000kg Saltwater Crocodile taking 250kg bull shark, 600kg young gaur, fishes.
120kg Anaconda taking 80kg caiman, 60kg cabybara.
100kg Alligator Snapping Turtle taking 10kg young alligator, 2kg snake, fishes.
10kg Nile Monitor taking 3kg python, small mammals, snakes.

If Allosaurus was warm-blooded however, it takes the fight much easier, as warm-blooded predators usually have little issue taking on prey with a size advantage, much less if the prey is of the same size.

Examples...

800kg Grizzly Bear taking 1200kg Moose.
350kg Benegal Tiger taking 1000kg Gaur.
15kg Haast Eagle taking 200kg Moa.

In no way am I saying that cold-blooded reptiles lose to prey of the same size, I have little doubt of a Saltwater crocodile's ability to kill an equal-weighted water buffalo(assuming the buffalo is in for a fight, and not trying to escape), but that they would have a great deal more trouble than warm-blooded predators doing so.


----------



## Cygnus45 (May 13, 2011)

> The Rhino is the one with the stability advantage and maneuverability advantage. It will require far less time to turn around than the Allosaur will.



Stability, yes, maneuverability not so much since for it's size a Rhino's legs are still pretty stubby. In contrast, an Allosaurus' legs are thin and long but very muscular. Also, it's jaws would be just above the Rhino; swerving around and supported by a long, flexible neck. It's claws could also cause damage as well.



> The Allosaur's bite force is also very weak for its size, *comparable to a leopard's*. It's best bet will be to attempt hatchet like motions in bringing its jaw down and darting in and out.



Where on earth did you hear that? And that strategy would be hard to pull off on a Rhino, other than making it loose a lot of blood in a short amount of time. As an animal, the Rhino might freak out from loosing so much blood in the best case scenario and would tire itself out. I'm not sure if the dinosaur would be clever enough to employ this strategy. Realistically, it wouldn't fight something it's own size with such a dangerous weapon unless it was hungry and couldn't find anything else.


> On the other hand, that will be difficult to do given the Rhino's greater turning ability, and the positioning of the latter's horn will allow it to quickly gore upwards of the theropod's stomach, which would give it the OHK.



I agree, it would be very dangerous for the theropod to approach the Rhino from the front. But the Rhino can't pick up much speed if they're in close quarters, thus it's horn won't be as damaging. But a full-power thrust to the belly would end the fight.


> The fall itself will hurt the theropod somewhat due to its large weight, but its main problem will be in difficulties getting back up in the middle of a fight, especially while it's being gored of course. The Rhino's vision isn't the best, but its less of a factor in close quarters.



It's not a Tyrannosaurid, the Allo has longer arms and can get up faster. Not that falling and lying on it's side won't leave it vulnerable. 



> Allosaurus has a great deal of trouble before it kills the Rhino if it is cold-blooded. Reason why I say so is because based on current day predatory patterns, solo-hunting non-venomous reptiles usually go only for prey they outsize.



I always thought Allosaurus hunted Stegosaurids and Sauropods?

Don't mammals need to eat more and a wider variety of food, hence why they tend to attack things that are bigger? A lion, wolf, or bear kills something huge, digs in, then finishes it off throughout the week. Once it's finished, they kill time with smaller prey like fowl, cattle, rabbits, etc. 

Snakes and crocs bring down something, then eat it all at once and don't eat again for a long time. Their metabolism is different. Crocodiles have proven that they can take on and overpower zebras, wildebeasts, etc and there was a video of a python eating a baby hippo. This doesn't happen all the time because it's just not practical to burn up energy attacking something so big. For mammals, this is less of an issue, they have greater stamina, and they eat several different things throughout the week in addition to a big kill. Big reptiles only need one or two things so they want to make it count.


----------



## I3igAl (May 13, 2011)

At first Ithought, the Allosaurus wins with ease. But after reading some posts and giving this a second thought I'll side with the rhino.

_Wikipedia says:_
"This type of jaw would permit slashing attacks against much larger prey, with the goal of weakening the victim."

_and:_
"According to their biomechanical analysis, the skull was very strong but had a relatively small bite force. By using jaw muscles only, it could produce a bite force of 805 to 2,148 N, less than the values for alligators (13,000 N), lions (4,167 N), and leopards (2,268 N), but the skull could withstand nearly 55,500 N of vertical force against the tooth row. The authors suggested that Allosaurus used its skull like a hatchet against prey, attacking open-mouthed, slashing flesh with its teeth, and tearing it away without splintering bones."

It seems they hunted huge Sauropodes only in packs.

Even if the Allosaurus were warmblooded it's reactions have to be slower than the rhino's because of it's significantly greater length.

Also the horn of the rhino is 90-150cm that's enormous and can cause a really nasty wound if a bloodlusted rhinoceros charges. 

Last but not least: I'm wondering what happens if the allosaurus' legs get tackled? The rhino's shoulder is somewhere beetween 1,5m and 1, 9 meters. When it lowers it's head going for a charge, it will probably the lower part of the Allosaurus' legs. 
Therefore the impact could perhaps make the dino trip, what would probably result in a strained ankle.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (May 14, 2011)

This thread interests me...

Here's a size comparison of the two:



The largest version of Allosaurus on the chart is highly speculatory based on a few frgamented bones. As it is said, the largest fairly complete skeleton on Allosaurus in size is in red.


----------



## I3igAl (May 14, 2011)

The average one was below 2 tons, so we'd need a larger sepecimen, to make it 2,5 tons, but I'm too lazy to calculate.


----------



## Glued (May 14, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> This thread interests me...
> 
> Here's a size comparison of the two:
> 
> ...



Not really that impressive, the record size of a White Rhino was 5 American tons.

I put the weight cap at 2.5 to see who was the best pound for pound


----------



## BenTennyson (May 14, 2011)

I3igAl said:


> The average one was below 2 tons, so we'd need a larger sepecimen, to make it 2,5 tons, but I'm too lazy to calculate.




^According to that paper, they found a best estimate of 3300 lbs for Big Al.

Big Al is 7.5 meters according to that chart, so it would it would take an Allosaurus of about ~8.614 meters to be 5000 lbs/2.5 tons. Which is about average.


----------



## Waking Dreamer (May 14, 2011)

So that means the 2.5 tons Allo would be the second smallest one on that chart.

I dont see a problem of that Allo toppling over if it gets hit by the charging rhino...If he drops, hes pretty much open to a horn stabbing on the ground...


----------



## Disaresta (May 14, 2011)

Waking Dreamer said:


> So that means the 2.5 tons Allo would be the second smallest one on that chart.
> 
> I dont see a problem of that Allo toppling over if it gets hit by the charging rhino...If he drops, hes pretty much open to a horn stabbing on the ground...



Thats a pretty big if, I wouldn't count on the rhino getting that chance


----------

