# Spinosaurus vs Mammoth



## FireEel (Dec 29, 2009)

*The King of All Dinosaurs(sorry Rex) VS The King of All Mammals*

Facts

_Spinosaurus aegyptiacus_
Length: 18m
Height: 6m
Weight: 10 tonnes
Key Points: Indisputably the largest carnivorous creature ever to walk the Earth. What made it more badass than t.rex was that it was 20% larger, and it lived with a whole bunch of other predators that all rivaled, or were larger than the t.rex in size, including t.rex-like Carcharodontosaurus(8 tonnes), croc-jawed Suchomimus(4-6 tonnes) and king croc Sarcosuchus(8 tonnes).
_
Mammuthus sungari_
Length: 9m
Height: 5.5m
Weight: 10 tonnes
Key Points: Was not ever hunted by anything during the time when it lived. Even elephants today may be hunted by enormous prides of overly brave lions, but this Mammoth was untouched even by sabre-toothed tigers. In case anyone is wondering, this is known as the Songhua River Mammoth, and was even larger than the Woolly Mammoth.

Fight happens on an open plane in a neutral setting for both contender in full sight of each other. Both are equally blood-lusted.

Which king of it's time would survive the fight? (note the pic below is to scale)


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 29, 2009)

Size =/= everythign in the Dinosaur realm. T-rex would give any of them an ass whupping (only contender for most dangerous would be Gigantosaurs) becuze of the fact that T rex has teh strongest bite by far. While the others needed multiple bites to down, T-rex possessed what u could term an OHK of the dino world.

besides, by studying spinosaurus's teeth and jaw structure, you can see it primarily fed on fish and small animals (conical stabbing teeth and a crocodilian type jaw) and would have had a much less deadly bite than a T rex.

but on topic, Are you fucking sure the mammoth is 9 metres. Thats fucking huge. Thats a triceratops size, and a mammoth of 9 metres >>>>> triceratops of 9 metres, becuz a good 2 metres or so of the triceratops is tail, and its not nearly as tall.

but okay assuming the mammoth is 9 metres long, it rapes the spinosaurus hard. T-rexes (which usualyl hunt much larger prey than spino) dont dare hunt triceratops unless desperate, and since as said before the 9 metre long mamooth >>>>>> triceratops, mamooth will pwn spinosaurus hard.


----------



## FireEel (Dec 29, 2009)

pikachuwei said:


> Size =/= everythign in the Dinosaur realm. T-rex would give any of them an ass whupping (only contender for most dangerous would be Gigantosaurs) becuze of the fact that T rex has teh strongest bite by far. While the others needed multiple bites to down, T-rex possessed what u could term an OHK of the dino world.



The rex may have the strongest bite, but that is due to it lacking other weapons. Carcharodontosaurus had a weaker jaw, but arguably better teeth(they sliced like kitchen knife). Spinosaurus had the advantage of size, and its strong forearms.



pikachuwei said:


> besides, by studying spinosaurus's teeth and jaw structure, you can see it primarily fed on fish and small animals (conical stabbing teeth and a crocodilian type jaw) and would have had a much less deadly bite than a T rex.



Funny. Nile crocodiles have conical stabbing teeth and crocodilian jaws, but I am pretty sure they are more than capable of hunting full-sized buffaloes, and potentially kill leopards and lions.



pikachuwei said:


> but on topic, Are you fucking sure the mammoth is 9 metres. Thats fucking huge. Thats a triceratops size, and a mammoth of 9 metres >>>>> triceratops of 9 metres, becuz a good 2 metres or so of the triceratops is tail, and its not nearly as tall.



The shagginess of the mammoth is what gives it its apparent size. A triceratops may have a tail, but it is bulkier(both are in the 10 tonnes range). I will put my money on tri-horns if they ever fought.



pikachuwei said:


> but okay assuming the mammoth is 9 metres long, it rapes the spinosaurus hard. T-rexes (which usualyl hunt much larger prey than spino) dont dare hunt triceratops unless desperate, and since as said before the 9 metre long mamooth >>>>>> triceratops, mamooth will pwn spinosaurus hard.



How would you know if a t.rex would hunt a triceratops unless it was desperate. Evidence thus far points otherwise(bone fragment of tri-horns in rex's poo fossil, and signs of tri-horns with scarred frill, suggesting it having fought against rex).


----------



## Glued (Dec 29, 2009)

Mammoths were preyed upon by 1.25 ton Giant Short-Faced Bears. 

This Ate Mammoths


You're going to put a mammoth against a predator of equal weight.


----------



## piccun? (Dec 29, 2009)

I vote for the mammoth for mammalian solidarity.


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 29, 2009)

FireEel said:


> The rex may have the strongest bite, but that is due to it lacking other weapons. Carcharodontosaurus had a weaker jaw, but arguably better teeth(they sliced like kitchen knife). Spinosaurus had the advantage of size, and its strong forearms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well T-rex's teeth sliced like steak knifes, so i dont really see the difference between steak knifes and kitchen knifes

and oO are u sure those cave bears hunted fully grown mammoths? more likely than not they hunted the juvenile and sick ones over a healthy bull.

And Triceratops were much more dangerous prey than all but anklysaurs to teh T-rex, so it would have likely chosen hadrosaurs or young and sick triceratops over a full grown healthy triceratops. The evidence of T-rex hunting triceratops doesnt contradict my claim that T-rex would be less likely to hunt Triceratops than other prey, since i didnt say T-rex didnt hunt triceratops. As for me saying that T-rex would not readily hunt Triceratops is the same as why lions wouldnt readily hunt rhinos and Elephants. They were dangerous and could seriously injure the lions, and while there are much easier prey such as zebra, the lions wouldnt go after the rhinos and elephants as much.


----------



## Mowgli Uchiha (Dec 29, 2009)

pikachuwei said:


> Size =/= everything in the Dinosaur realm. T-rex would give any of them an ass whupping (only contender for most dangerous would be Gigantosaurs).



clearly someone hasn't seen Jurassic Park 3 :ho


----------



## Glued (Dec 29, 2009)

pikachuwei said:


> Well T-rex's teeth sliced like steak knifes, so i dont really see the difference between steak knifes and kitchen knifes
> 
> and oO are u sure those cave bears hunted fully grown mammoths? more likely than not they hunted the juvenile and sick ones over a healthy bull.



These are not cave bears, they are Short-Faced Bears. Much bigger.


----------



## Soledad Eterna (Dec 29, 2009)

Mowgli Uchiha said:


> clearly someone hasn't seen Jurassic Park 3 :ho


which has a shitload of inconsistencies?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 29, 2009)

Truck-a-saurus Rex>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>both animals :ho


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 29, 2009)

Spino is far larger and should take this. Not that we really know all that much about it.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 29, 2009)

Hey! Hey! Truck-A-Saurus Rex!

:ho


----------



## FireEel (Dec 29, 2009)

pikachuwei said:


> Well T-rex's teeth sliced like steak knifes, so i dont really see the difference between steak knifes and kitchen knifes



True that t.rex's teeth did sliced, but they were not truly effective cutters, as said compared to a shark's. Instead, t.rex's teeth were more built to crush.



pikachuwei said:


> And Triceratops were much more dangerous prey than all but anklysaurs to teh T-rex, so it would have likely chosen hadrosaurs or young and sick triceratops over a full grown healthy triceratops. The evidence of T-rex hunting triceratops doesnt contradict my claim that T-rex would be less likely to hunt Triceratops than other prey, since i didnt say T-rex didnt hunt triceratops. As for me saying that T-rex would not readily hunt Triceratops is the same as why lions wouldnt readily hunt rhinos and Elephants. They were dangerous and could seriously injure the lions, and while there are much easier prey such as zebra, the lions wouldnt go after the rhinos and elephants as much.



Lions wouldn't go after rhinos or elephants by merit of the fact both prey species are significantly larger than them, and thus far more able to fight back.

Buffaloes are dangerous prey to lions, comparable to a triceratops to a rex, but lions would still hunt buffaloes regardless. The triceratops is only slightly heavier than a rex(10 tonnes versus 8 tonnes), I don't see why a rex would hesitate, unless it was facing a whole herd of them.


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 29, 2009)

Spino=teeth that cut through meat like hot butter and crush bone like a monkey with a rock does to dishware. It's also more agile and dextrous. It circles the Mammoth, attacks it for the kill from either the flank or behind, kills with a bite to the neck, or abdomen (ruptures stomach/other internal organs)


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 29, 2009)

dinossaur would break one of his fingers and die a week later from infection


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 29, 2009)

thats why they use TEETH, and it'd have to be a piercing fracture for it to be infectable and even then its not assured it'll get infected.

i think that'd be more of the mammy, you know, with a long ass gash on its side/neck due to steak-a-tooth that would get infected


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 29, 2009)

I HAVE seen JP3 and it is full of inconsistencies, like how the T-rex got the first bite in and the spino didnt die, when T-rex has by far the calculated strongest bite in the Dinosaur kingdom. The tyrannosaurids all had much more powerful bites than any other theropod. (may be outdated,but its one of the main inconsistencies).

and have you EVER seen a spinosaurus's tooth? It's an eyesore...disappear...This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair.This chair! 
as you can see it is conical and edgeless, not exactly the best teeth shape to slice through flesh with. However, very good for catching and holding small prey, like fish. Against larger animals, Spinosaurus would have more likely latched on with the teeth and used its claws to eviscerate the animal. analysis of Spinosaurus stomachs and Baryonyx, a close relative, have shown evidence of fish scales and juvenile iguanadon scales, pointing towards the Spinosaurids as mainly feeding on fish and small to medium sized prey, much smaller than the mammoth here.

now compare the Spino's teeth with those of a
T-rex 
and a Carcharodontosaurus Link removed

as you can see the latter two have much more curved and serrated teeth, much more effective at slicing flesh.

Spino's teeth =/= slicing through flesh like hot butter and crushing bones easily. The T-rex and Carcharodontosaurus's teeth would much better fit the description, especially the T-rex, who had the largest teeth and strongest bite. In fact that is one of the reasons why some believe T-rex was exclusively a scavenger, as its bite was so massively overkill (other therapods with much less biting power still easily got the job done) that the Rex evolved the powerful bite to crack the bones and get at the marrow, which only scavengers usually do.


and i looked up Giant Shortfaced bears and the person who said it was 1.25 tonnes is clearly bullshitting. THe maxmimum weight for Giant Shortfaced bears was estimated to be around 800 kgs.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 29, 2009)

^ You copied that from Wikipedia.


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 29, 2009)

^the only thing i actually copied was the baryonyx and spino having fish scales in their stomach part, and even that wasnt really copy

it was read and rewrite XD

but i am serious about my dinosaurs so yeah.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm serious-er about them!


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 29, 2009)

Regardless of this, Spino wins, right?


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 29, 2009)

hadomaru said:


> I'm serious-er about them!



^.^

well i dunno if Spino really takes this, as most evidence points to Spinosaurus not hunting prey of Mammoth's stature. If it was T-rex or Carcharodontosaurus i would give it to them

but for now ill say mammoth has the lead.


----------



## FireEel (Dec 30, 2009)

I am serious enough about dinosaurs to have fossils of them!

And I live in Singapore. How many Singaporean do you know actually has a real fossil?


----------



## paulatreides0 (Dec 30, 2009)

FireEel said:


> I am serious enough about dinosaurs to have fossils of them!
> 
> And I live in Singapore. How many Singaporean do you know actually has a real fossil?



YOU RACIST BASTARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Glued (Dec 30, 2009)

pikachuwei said:


> and i looked up Giant Shortfaced bears and the person who said it was 1.25 tonnes is clearly bullshitting. THe maxmimum weight for Giant Shortfaced bears was estimated to be around 800 kgs.



I was not bullshitting, I was using the highest outlier. 2,500 lb


----------



## orky5000 (Dec 30, 2009)

Wow o.O tough match up. I'd put my money on Spino.....but I'd have to say, it's be close....they both have close to the same number of advantages and disadvantages, so it would really depend on the stamina of the specific Mammoth and Spinosaurus that are pitted against each other.


----------



## Azrael Finalstar (Dec 30, 2009)

teeth be damned, Spino is still a whole hell of a lot bigger. It could probably knock the mammoth over on its side and that would be the end.


----------



## Glued (Dec 30, 2009)

[Youtube]CPEJfWGe9tc[/Youtube]


If a mere bear can hunt them, then Spino has no problem.


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 30, 2009)

the link says 1000 kg. . . thats 1 tonne

and this is the sungari mammoth, not ur average mammoth (look at OP)

and also, i highly Doubt the spinosaurus can just easily knock over the mammoth. The OP's stats state that tehy are around the same in weight, so the Spino doesnt have a very large weight advantage. The mammoth being shorter and stouter and standing on 4 legs would in fact probably be more stable than the spinosaurus, so when push comes to shove, the spino may be the one who falls over.


----------



## Genyosai (Dec 30, 2009)

> If a mere bear can hunt them, then Spino has no problem.



I don't see them prove that in that video (Although I skipped the beginning parts to them talking about its hunting ability). All they have is evidence that the short faced bear ate Mammoths, not that it hunted them, unless they found consistent cases of bites inflicted on Mammoths that had re-healed bone, showing the bites occurred while the Mammoth was alive, and that attacks were common enough that you could say that they were not one off cases.

Otherwise, it's just a maybe.


----------



## pikachuwei (Dec 30, 2009)

if shortfaced bears hunted mammoths, im pretty sure it would only be young mammoths and sick ones.

I mean

a mammothus sungari is to a shortfaced bear what a normal bull african elephant is to a lion
in size, perhaps even more

now we dont see lions soloing bull elephants do we?


----------

