|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 0:23:38 GMT 5
Or, you know, ambush the thing and crush its neck or spine. Daspletosaurus is certainly taller than most of its prey and could definitely rear higher than it (not "tripod-pose" mind you) to deliver a good bite. The mammoth can catch the dinosaur with kicks and lunges. The dinosaurs present a large target, and they have to close into the mammoth's strike zone to damage it. The mammoth has the advantage.
The nature of weapons when used against prey of equal or similar size. It's not a good analogy.
That's correct; ambush is the most common. However, if you're hunting prey like ceratopsians, you're bound to have knowledge of hit and run if the ambish fails and you desperately need to eat. Elephantids are not very dextrous or particularly fast, nor particularly specialized for close quarter kicks and lunges. The tyrannosaurids meanwhile will have a relatively easy time avoiding the attacks. As for my analogy: How come a hyena, with very blunt teeth, did this to a wildebeest then, with approximately the same size disparity and no serrations to boot?  By grabbing on to loose skin and genitals, that's how. Loose skin the mammoth would not have, and getting beneath an animal 3x your weight will result in you getting trampled and kicked. The mammoth doesn't need to be particularly fast. The dinosaurs have to sink their blunt teeth into the mammoth's hide and punch through thick muscles. The mammoth will be moving around and kicking when this happens. The daspletosaurs are More likely to get hurt severely than the mammoth. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 0:32:31 GMT 5
That's correct; ambush is the most common. However, if you're hunting prey like ceratopsians, you're bound to have knowledge of hit and run if the ambish fails and you desperately need to eat. Elephantids are not very dextrous or particularly fast, nor particularly specialized for close quarter kicks and lunges. The tyrannosaurids meanwhile will have a relatively easy time avoiding the attacks. As for my analogy: How come a hyena, with very blunt teeth, did this to a wildebeest then, with approximately the same size disparity and no serrations to boot? By grabbing on to loose skin and genitals, that's how. Loose skin the mammoth would not have, and getting beneath an animal 3x your weight will result in you getting trampled and kicked. The mammoth doesn't need to be particularly fast. The dinosaurs have to sink their blunt teeth into the mammoth's hide and punch through thick muscles. The mammoth will be moving around and kicking when this happens. The daspletosaurs are More likely to get hurt severely than the mammoth. Actually, the Columbian mammoth (unlike the Naumann's elephant) would have lived in what is now Central America, a relatively warm climate. It's likely it would have looser skin to maximize surface area. As for how fast the bites can cause damage, it would be faster than you may think - probably similar to tegus, who have serrations but can crush too, similar to Daspletosaurus. Their bites are quite nasty on larger animals - people included - and inflict damage very quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 1:59:38 GMT 5
By grabbing on to loose skin and genitals, that's how. Loose skin the mammoth would not have, and getting beneath an animal 3x your weight will result in you getting trampled and kicked. The mammoth doesn't need to be particularly fast. The dinosaurs have to sink their blunt teeth into the mammoth's hide and punch through thick muscles. The mammoth will be moving around and kicking when this happens. The daspletosaurs are More likely to get hurt severely than the mammoth. Actually, the Columbian mammoth (unlike the Naumann's elephant) would have lived in what is now Central America, a relatively warm climate. It's likely it would have looser skin to maximize surface area. As for how fast the bites can cause damage, it would be faster than you may think - probably similar to tegus, who have serrations but can crush too, similar to Daspletosaurus. Their bites are quite nasty on larger animals - people included - and inflict damage very quickly. The columbian mammoth also inhabited california and northern/central north america, which would have gotten cold. Have you seen the teeth of a tegu? They are nothing like a tyrannosaurs. The tego has smooth, sharp front teeth that vary in structure from species to species, with large shield shaped rear teeth, which on some species are like those on zueglodonts. The front teeth grip and slice, the rear teeth crush and tear into seallowable chunks. The closest analogy to the tegu is the aforementioned group of whales. Tegu also est prey significantly smaller than themselves. They just are not a good analogy for tyrannosaurs apart from having sturdy powerful jaws. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 2:03:53 GMT 5
By grabbing on to loose skin and genitals, that's how. Loose skin the mammoth would not have, and getting beneath an animal 3x your weight will result in you getting trampled and kicked. The mammoth doesn't need to be particularly fast. The dinosaurs have to sink their blunt teeth into the mammoth's hide and punch through thick muscles. The mammoth will be moving around and kicking when this happens. The daspletosaurs are More likely to get hurt severely than the mammoth. Actually, the Columbian mammoth (unlike the Naumann's elephant) would have lived in what is now Central America, a relatively warm climate. It's likely it would have looser skin to maximize surface area. As for how fast the bites can cause damage, it would be faster than you may think - probably similar to tegus, who have serrations but can crush too, similar to Daspletosaurus. Their bites are quite nasty on larger animals - people included - and inflict damage very quickly.   |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 2:35:36 GMT 5
Actually, the Columbian mammoth (unlike the Naumann's elephant) would have lived in what is now Central America, a relatively warm climate. It's likely it would have looser skin to maximize surface area. As for how fast the bites can cause damage, it would be faster than you may think - probably similar to tegus, who have serrations but can crush too, similar to Daspletosaurus. Their bites are quite nasty on larger animals - people included - and inflict damage very quickly. The columbian mammoth also inhabited california and northern/central north america, which would have gotten cold. Have you seen the teeth of a tegu? They are nothing like a tyrannosaurs. The tego has smooth, sharp front teeth that vary in structure from species to species, with large shield shaped rear teeth, which on some species are like those on zueglodonts. The front teeth grip and slice, the rear teeth crush and tear into seallowable chunks. The closest analogy to the tegu is the aforementioned group of whales. Tegu also est prey significantly smaller than themselves. They just are not a good analogy for tyrannosaurs apart from having sturdy powerful jaws. Yes, my bad. I was mixing tegus up with another type of reptile - might be the Nile monitor but I am not sure. Will need to recheck. On another note, there is the tiger and bull shark too, which seem very tyrannosaurid-like in terms of bite (they have serrations, but also very high bite forces, especially the bull shark, and have been known to both damage hard tissue and kill sizeable animals). As for the more northerly populations, depends on which mammoth pop we use. I still think the 3 Das can bring their weapons to bear on a tight skinned specimen, as the teeth can pierce relatively quickly due to serrations and strike speed. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 2:40:40 GMT 5
The columbian mammoth also inhabited california and northern/central north america, which would have gotten cold. Have you seen the teeth of a tegu? They are nothing like a tyrannosaurs. The tego has smooth, sharp front teeth that vary in structure from species to species, with large shield shaped rear teeth, which on some species are like those on zueglodonts. The front teeth grip and slice, the rear teeth crush and tear into seallowable chunks. The closest analogy to the tegu is the aforementioned group of whales. Tegu also est prey significantly smaller than themselves. They just are not a good analogy for tyrannosaurs apart from having sturdy powerful jaws. Yes, my bad. I was mixing tegus up with another type of reptile - might be the Nile monitor but I am not sure. Will need to recheck. On another note, there is the tiger and bull shark too, which seem very tyrannosaurid-like in terms of bite (they have serrations, but also very high bite forces, especially the bull shark, and have been known to both damage hard tissue and kill sizeable animals). As for the more northerly populations, depends on which mammoth pop we use. I still think the 3 Das can bring their weapons to bear on a tight skinned specimen, as the teeth can pierce relatively quickly due to serrations and strike speed. Monitors are tearers. The sheer bite strength can cause crushing damage, but their teeth are not similar. Nile monitors are an exception, but they too demonstrate digimorphic teeth like the tegu, so they're not a good comparison. Shark teeth, jaw structure, and bite pattern are so different to from tyrannosaur teeth it's a massive stretch to compare them . They certainly could bring their weapons to bear on a tight skinned specimen, but the mammoth can do the same to them and has the home field due to its defensive stance in the fight. |
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Jan 19, 2020 2:47:36 GMT 5
|
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 3:37:27 GMT 5
Yes, my bad. I was mixing tegus up with another type of reptile - might be the Nile monitor but I am not sure. Will need to recheck. On another note, there is the tiger and bull shark too, which seem very tyrannosaurid-like in terms of bite (they have serrations, but also very high bite forces, especially the bull shark, and have been known to both damage hard tissue and kill sizeable animals). As for the more northerly populations, depends on which mammoth pop we use. I still think the 3 Das can bring their weapons to bear on a tight skinned specimen, as the teeth can pierce relatively quickly due to serrations and strike speed. Monitors are tearers. The sheer bite strength can cause crushing damage, but their teeth are not similar. Nile monitors are an exception, but they too demonstrate digimorphic teeth like the tegu, so they're not a good comparison. Shark teeth, jaw structure, and bite pattern are so different to from tyrannosaur teeth it's a massive stretch to compare them . They certainly could bring their weapons to bear on a tight skinned specimen, but the mammoth can do the same to them and has the home field due to its defensive stance in the fight. Yeah, looks like I was at least (sort of) right about Nile monitors. There's also the mako shark, which while not the PERFECT analogy, has a tyrannosaurid like gape and teeth that lack serrations but have sharp tips. They have been known to attack very large seals, boats, etc. And I think these (pseudo)comparisons at least should show that the Daspletosauruses can cause damage relatively quickly. As for the mammoth, it does have the home field, but the weapons that are most likely to do any damage, due to kicks and striking out in close quarters being rather limited, are the tusks, which would be relatively easy to bypass and/or avoid. They wouldn't be able to gore; the mammoth would have to knock down and trample each tyrannosaur using its tusks to aid it, and that's fairly easy to avoid. Maybe a size comp would be useful? |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 4:01:49 GMT 5
Wait, we weren't in the daspletosaurus thread? |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 4:06:40 GMT 5
Wait, we weren't in the daspletosaurus thread? No, we weren't. I should have started the discussion in this thread. But I suppose we can continue here just fine. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 4:07:08 GMT 5
Monitors are tearers. The sheer bite strength can cause crushing damage, but their teeth are not similar. Nile monitors are an exception, but they too demonstrate digimorphic teeth like the tegu, so they're not a good comparison. Shark teeth, jaw structure, and bite pattern are so different to from tyrannosaur teeth it's a massive stretch to compare them . They certainly could bring their weapons to bear on a tight skinned specimen, but the mammoth can do the same to them and has the home field due to its defensive stance in the fight. Yeah, looks like I was at least (sort of) right about Nile monitors. There's also the mako shark, which while not the PERFECT analogy, has a tyrannosaurid like gape and teeth that lack serrations but have sharp tips. They have been known to attack very large seals, boats, etc. And I think these (pseudo)comparisons at least should show that the Daspletosauruses can cause damage relatively quickly. As for the mammoth, it does have the home field, but the weapons that are most likely to do any damage, due to kicks and striking out in close quarters being rather limited, are the tusks, which would be relatively easy to bypass and/or avoid. They wouldn't be able to gore; the mammoth would have to knock down and trample each tyrannosaur using its tusks to aid it, and that's fairly easy to avoid. Maybe a size comp would be useful? Tyrannosaurs actually have serrations on their teeth. The jaw structure and bite pattern along with the long, thin teeth of the mako just make it a plainly bad comparison for tyrannosaurs. Elephants can kick quite well and quite quickly, actually. If the tyrannosaur bites the rear leg or moves in and the elephant kicks, the elephant has a good chance of causing damage. Once the tyrannosaur is on the ground it is doomed. No size comp needed (why?). |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 4:07:44 GMT 5
Wait, we weren't in the daspletosaurus thread? No, we weren't. I should have started the discussion in this thread. But I suppose we can continue here just fine. -straightens glasses - Well then. Ok. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 4:29:04 GMT 5
Yeah, looks like I was at least (sort of) right about Nile monitors. There's also the mako shark, which while not the PERFECT analogy, has a tyrannosaurid like gape and teeth that lack serrations but have sharp tips. They have been known to attack very large seals, boats, etc. And I think these (pseudo)comparisons at least should show that the Daspletosauruses can cause damage relatively quickly. As for the mammoth, it does have the home field, but the weapons that are most likely to do any damage, due to kicks and striking out in close quarters being rather limited, are the tusks, which would be relatively easy to bypass and/or avoid. They wouldn't be able to gore; the mammoth would have to knock down and trample each tyrannosaur using its tusks to aid it, and that's fairly easy to avoid. Maybe a size comp would be useful? Tyrannosaurs actually have serrations on their teeth. The jaw structure and bite pattern along with the long, thin teeth of the mako just make it a plainly bad comparison for tyrannosaurs. Elephants can kick quite well and quite quickly, actually. If the tyrannosaur bites the rear leg or moves in and the elephant kicks, the elephant has a good chance of causing damage. Once the tyrannosaur is on the ground it is doomed. No size comp needed (why?). I know; my point was that makos, with tyrannosaurid like gapes and no serrations are able to do substantial damage to larger things despite the aforementioned lack of serrations and the small teeth. If the sharks, with the smaller, thinner teeth and no serrations to boot, can quickly inflict severe damage on very large targets I see no reason why Daspletosaurus, with larger, serrated teeth could not do so. And I highly doubt the mammoth can kick backwards fast enough or with enough range to knock one down, at least most of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by kekistani on Jan 19, 2020 5:44:18 GMT 5
Tyrannosaurs actually have serrations on their teeth. The jaw structure and bite pattern along with the long, thin teeth of the mako just make it a plainly bad comparison for tyrannosaurs. Elephants can kick quite well and quite quickly, actually. If the tyrannosaur bites the rear leg or moves in and the elephant kicks, the elephant has a good chance of causing damage. Once the tyrannosaur is on the ground it is doomed. No size comp needed (why?). I know; my point was that makos, with tyrannosaurid like gapes and no serrations are able to do substantial damage to larger things despite the aforementioned lack of serrations and the small teeth. If the sharks, with the smaller, thinner teeth and no serrations to boot, can quickly inflict severe damage on very large targets I see no reason why Daspletosaurus, with larger, serrated teeth could not do so. And I highly doubt the mammoth can kick backwards fast enough or with enough range to knock one down, at least most of the time. The mako usually targets fish and soft-boiled prey (seals are jiggly for a reason) that is usually smaller than them. Most prey is struck in ambush and have no chance to defend themselves. I have yet to see a mako inflict severe damage on a boat. The daspletosaurs are going to be attacking an animal much larger than themselves that can defend itself. If the dinosaur is biting the mammoth and it kicks, it will be bowled over. The mammoth certainly can kick fast enough to defend itself. |
|
|
|
Post by dinosauria101 on Jan 19, 2020 6:34:44 GMT 5
I know; my point was that makos, with tyrannosaurid like gapes and no serrations are able to do substantial damage to larger things despite the aforementioned lack of serrations and the small teeth. If the sharks, with the smaller, thinner teeth and no serrations to boot, can quickly inflict severe damage on very large targets I see no reason why Daspletosaurus, with larger, serrated teeth could not do so. And I highly doubt the mammoth can kick backwards fast enough or with enough range to knock one down, at least most of the time. The mako usually targets fish and soft-boiled prey (seals are jiggly for a reason) that is usually smaller than them. Most prey is struck in ambush and have no chance to defend themselves. I have yet to see a mako inflict severe damage on a boat. The daspletosaurs are going to be attacking an animal much larger than themselves that can defend itself. If the dinosaur is biting the mammoth and it kicks, it will be bowled over. The mammoth certainly can kick fast enough to defend itself. This: www.newsweek.com/shark-attack-swordfish-mayotte-france-indian-ocean-1467929. And bear in mind this was a feeding bite, not a full on attack. And yes, a kick will easily bowel a theropod over. The question is if it can land it, which I seriously doubt for all the reasons I gave. |
|
