I have anothier stupid idea, what if Imperial mammoth of 20 tons would fight argentinosaurus, I know mammoth weighed 5 times less, but anyway, just imagine this people. if tyranosaurus could NOT run at all, and he weighed 6 tons, 100 tons argentinosaurus was moving at 10 km per hour as maximum speed, plus he had no weapon, unlike mammoth, who had 5 meters tusks, and was at least able to run.

Argentinosaurus was VERY fragile simply because it was overweighted and couldn't move properly, just imagine: 100 tons!!! 6 tons animal experiences difficulties moving, 100 tons animal was not just slow, it was almost immobile, while mammoth could run and would just gore him with 5 meter tusks few times and fight would be over, because no land animal can survive after being gored few times with 5 meters tusks.

If you want to know why t-rex culdn't run come here, you will understand that argentinosaurus couldn't move at all:

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/theropod/walk.php


I'm sorry for this stupid fight again, LOL, but what do you guys think?


I have VERY BIG doubts that these argentinosaurus weighed that much, if it did, it couldn't defend at all, it was simply too slow to do anything, it wouldn't even run away from anybody.

No offense to your theory, but you lead them to shallow water and watch a Giant Squid take em down.

not ANOTHER one of these versus threads. no offense Paul, but these threads really have no point at all

really

Sorry guys, just trying to figure out, which animal would win on land, sorry, really, , but what you think, by the way about squid, I'll also watch sperm whale killing that squid really easy, hehe, there allready was a huge discussion on that, but please express opinions, sorry for stupid versus thread, but what you think, I want to know opinions, according to facts, please.

nah man it's not you, it's jsut that there was a period when every thread on the board would be one of these. i mean it's not like ALL you post are these threads. it's jsut, to see another one come up is kinda buggin. not on you tho, sorry bout that

you know, i do hate these threads....

but what makes it worse is that that creatures involved arean't even cryptids

i mean does anyone even care who would win in an imaginary fight, it will never happen, thus the outcome is meaningless

so youre saying that argentinasaurus.... who weighed in at 100 tons.....couldnt move. how was it supposed to get food? werent saurapods supposd to eat atleast half their body weight in food?

you also said the following, which contradicts your statment that they couldnt move.

"if tyranosaurus could NOT run at all, and he weighed 6 tons, 100 tons argentinosaurus was moving at 10 km per hour as maximum speed"

10km is damn fast by my books. especially that it weighed 100 tons

I happen to think that the Argentinosaurs woud win, because it did have some weapons, it's tail, it's head, and by the way just cause the mammoth had 5 meter tusks, i don't think that they would do much to a 100 ton monster, and by the this could never happen so why are we fantasizing the what if battles like Mr. Halo said

OK, how did it get food? it got food by using it's long neck, because it was walking with speed of something like 5-10 kph, and couldn't run at all. Yes it would use it's tail, but to do this I belive it had to turn around, and his side will be vulnerable, and mammoth could gore it with tusks, because for this animal to turn aruond it would take a lot if time.

5 meters tusks would do a lot of damage to this creature, because his body was weighing like 60 tons or something, because his tail was very long and was used for balancing, and dude, ths creature was SO SLOW, it was barely moving, why do you think it needed such a huge head? to grab everything around it, I pretty much belive it lived in herds, right? like an elephant, I think mammoth would win, simply because it could move much faster than this guy. I don't know why I'm fantasizing, LOL, I just don't know, hehe.

It is never stupid to ask a question, this just may not be the right place for your question, but anyway, i think the mammoth would win the fight, since they were so large, and had thick hid,

OK, guys, after doing more thorough research on the subject I found out I knew the answer but didn't look inside myself really thoroughly, who will kill whom depends on WHERE THEY WILL FIGHT, if they fight in the place where dinosaur lived, dino will win, if they fight where and WHEN, most important WHEN, if they fight when mammoth lived mammoth would easily win.

explanation:

Now you guys will understand this "WHEN", I need to say just 2 words, COLD-BLOODED, dinos are cold-blooded, while mammoth has huge advantage here, because it is warm blooded.

SO, if they fight in Siberia or North areas, dinosaur will not be able to even move properly, because it is cold blooded animal, the tempereture in Northern parts of Siberia or Northern parts of the world are very low, so dino will be simply gored many times, if they fight WHEN mammoth lived, which is ICE AGE, dino will have no chance at all, it will be not just slow, it will be almost stunned, however if they fight in Argentina, where tempereture is relatively high, dinosaur would be a little more mobile, which means he will be able to use tail, and here mammoth would have problems, however I think even here mammoth will have speed advantage over dinosaur, plus dinosaur's body wasn't that big, body itself weighed around 60 tons, or 50 tons, many tons of bodyweight was tail and neck.

So, it depends, like in every animal fight I think, where they will be fighting, if in areas where mammoth lived, mammoth would win, if in areas where dino lived, dino would win.

Look at this guys, what a picture, of course they coudn't do that, but anyway, the pic is GREAT:


http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/...personic&a=baro



from the same site, look what they write about using tale as a whip, it was not likely, it all appeared when scientists have found dinos with bended tails, and they speculated that dinos used tail as a whip, but most of dinosaurus were not able to swing with their tails quickly, so it was not likely to be a weapon versus predators.

http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/dinosaurs/...strangetale.php

....

And featured next week, a yorkshire terrier goes one on one with a cow.

what was that about dude?

That was about emphasising that this is an absolutely ridiculous question. Aside from neither of the combatants being anything like physical equals (a mammoth would be unlikely to be much more than a passing irritation to an animal of such size), I am very quickly tiring of these childish "who would win this fight or that fight!" threads.

In some of your statements you are wrong, LOL, mammoth's 5 meters tusks would be deadly even for animal of that size, hehe, it is about 5 times smaller in size, but argentinosaurus is really slow. You don't take this fight really deep, man, you are looking only at size, take in account other factors, tiger is 17 times smaller than elephant but nevertheless sometimes kills elephant. If they would fight in areas where mammoth lived dinosaur would have very small chance to kill mammoth, why? read previous posts, however if they fight in areas where dinosaur lived, in warm areas, dinosaur will have a good chance of killing mammoth, though not 100%, because dinosaur of that size was moving so slowly, that mammoth would manage to gore it's body few times with tusks. By the way, tail-whip is not a weapon, but a means to outweigh long neck and keep balance, almost all dinosaurs were not able to use their tails as weapon except one, diplodocus, scientists belive he could, but other animals didn't have same amount of muscles near tail to be able to swing tail any quickly, thus, argentinosaurus was just LARGEST thing ever walked the earth, that's it, look at reconstructions of argentinosaurus, imagine what his body would be like, and after this imagine 5 meters tusks in his ribcage, and you will easily understand that mammoth COULD do pretty much damage with tusks. If you carefully look at argentinosaurus reconstruction, you will see, that his body is about 5-6 meters wide, so, tusks would gore him almost through, so, please, tusks would do damage, it is useless to argue, just have a carefull look at reconstruction.

You are right, this is stupid tread,
, but sorry, can't get over myself, I just ask people's opinions, what so bad, I know that it couldn't happen in real world, but WHAT IF.

....Alright, we'll play it your way.



Rubbish. A mammoth's tusks were designed to dig in the snow for food. Their method of dealing with aggressors would have been much the same as those of an elephant - they would trample things. I wish them the best of luck in trampling an animal so vastly superior in size to themselves.

A mammoth's tusks were arced towards the ground for the purpose stated above...they would be quite useless during an attempt to gore an opponent.

If your hypothetical herbivores were to decide to fight (perhaps for possession of a small shrubbery), the mammoth would be quite unarmed. His opponent, of course, would have no need whatsoever to "tail whip", as you so interestingly put it...the mammoth would simply be trampled and killed.

Now, as to the environments...you are aware, I assume, that mammoths did not actually live in cold weather? Their adaptations were merely a requirement to survive their annual migrations whenever cold weather encroached on the (rather lush) plains they lived on, in search of greener pastures. Like elephants, mammoths required a ridiculous amount of food on a daily basis - living in a frozen wasteland would not have been their cup of tea.

SOrry man, but YOU ARE WRONG, ever heard how elephant fights rhino? no, ok , I'll tell you, he gores his side with tusks, ever heard how battle elephants were fighting versus cavaliers, they were goring horses, sometimes they were goring humans with tusks, while they could trample, it is absolutely proven that elephant uses his tusks as a weapon, by the way, not all tusks were bended in, some were straight.

IF they would decide yto fight, mammoth will not be trampled, hehe, because this animal moves with speed of 5-10 kph, hehe, if it tries to move any faster, it collapses, and thus will loose, while mammoth could move much faster, like elephant, something like 30 kph, so, what will not happen for sure, is that mammoth will not be trampeled, read previous posts, man, posts about speed, I gave link there.


About environment, mammoths had fur, right? why would they need fur while it was warm? They lived in areas covered with snow, in northern areas of North America, it WAS cold, dinosaurus were cold-blooded, so, they would be barely moving at all in cold climate, while mammoth doesn't care.

I can't say that I have, no. Nor, for that matter, do I see why such an encounter would be at all relevant to a mammoth, different in many ways to an elephant, fighting an animal substantially larger than it. What you are basically arguing is something along the lines of saying that a gopher could beat dog, because a mole can beat a mouse.

In any event, an elephant's tusk are very different when compaired to those of a mammoth...besides which, by and large they are simply too small to be effective goring instruments. You inability to differentiate between a gore and a charge does not make them one and the same.



You keep saying "hehe"...have you been taking a great deal of sugar?

In any event, the animal's speed is irrelevant. The competition is not a footrace, but a fight. When an olmypic sprinter does well in the superheavyweight class of the freestyle wrestling event, I shall consider speed in place of a substantial sacrifice of size and strength a good equaliser.



They were migratory. They were adapted for cold weather in order to survive their migrations. Cold weather, however, is not ideal for herbivores. They endured it, but certainly did not live in it...have you noticed that the poles have no land dwelling herbivores of any significant size (if at all)?



Common theory is, in fact, that dinosaurs were warm blooded. That is, unfortunately, an arguement that is unlikely ever to be settled.

I agree with Shady, he's rather logical on these issues.

*slips Talon a £10 note*

Thankyou, its £20 next time though

I think right as the fight was about to begin a massive bowl of spagetti spawned deep within the earth's crust and burst forth, utterly destroying any creature within two hundred miles of the blast radius.

Well...that scenario is about as likely as a dinosaur and a mammoth having at it over a shrubbery.

So now it's Monty Python, eh?

lol, dude, you have just said that mammoth would act as an elephant, so, now you go backwards?

You see, dude, you have nothing else to say, you start being sarcastic, am I right? Yes, I mean no offense to you, but all your examples with animals are irrelevant and in this particular situation ridiculous, mammoth will not be trampled, because dinosaur was too slow, actually mammoth would be trampled if he, by his own will will run in to dinos way.


So, now you said mammoths were adapted for cold weather, from which I assume you mean that it is ok for mammoth if it is cold, right? Well, it is very very bad for dinosaur if tempereture is cold, it would not be able to move properly, because it is COLD-BLOODED.


if sprinter would have 1 meter knives on his face and wrestler would be reptile and was unable to move properly, and they would fight outside in winter season... sprinter would do just fine.


mammoth could easily get out of dinosaur's way because dinosaur was slow even in warm areas, VERY SLOW, 5-10 kph, dinosaur would have very slight chance in cold area. It would be better for dino to fight in warm areas, but even there mammoth would easily outmanoeuvre "Argentinian lizard" and gore it's side. But the outcome can be different, dinosaur will knock mammoth from it's feet using tail and trample, but that's not likely, because scientists don't think big dinos were using tails as weapon.

I fail to see why you believe that an animal that weighs one hundred tonnes would only be able to knock something over if it used its tail...



Of course I'm being sarcastic. This is a topic that I find difficult to approach seriously.



That was the point...if you failed to understand the point, I shall use smaller words in my following posts.



I say again, it is in fact the popular theory that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Of course, there is no way to truly determine this based on current evidence (there are a few circumstantial hints, little more).



Of course, we're all familiar with the sound battlefield tactics and coordinated attacks of the whooly mammoth. Just the other day, I watched as a platoon of mammoths skillfully outmanouvred a tank column, catching the commander unawares.

As the commander desperately tried to bring his firepower to bear on his left flank, from whence the mammoths approached, the attackers broke and fled. The tank commander ordered a persuit, the column organising itself into a wall formation, in order to better use its firepower.

However, as the tanks advanced, a platoon of mammoth commandos sprang out of hiding, attacking the walls rear flank. In that same instant, the origonal attacking force split in two, one group attacking from the east, the other from the west. Boxed in on three sides, the tanks had insufficient firepower to hold off the deadly and cunning mammoths on all three fronts, and were quickly overrun.

*dramatic pause*

....Of course, it's more likely that mammoths were pretty stupid.

owned

You said it Talon.

You represent ignorance about dinosaurs, MAYBE small dinos were warm blooded, but not 100 tons dinos, actually they got that big because they were cold-blooded, can you explain me why? I guess YOU CAN'T because you don't know some really well known facts about warm-blooded creatures.

you find this thread difficult to take seriously, because you have limited knowledge of dinosaurs and mammals, and what cold-blooded and warm-blooded means.


YOu had no point in your prevous post at all, dude, sorry, but I will write to you again, YOUR EXAMPLES WITH ANIMALS WERE IRRELEVANT, ok? or should I explain it even simpler? They don't match this situation, when one of animals is so big it can hardly move.


I'm, not saying that mammoth will apply military strategy and mathematical calculations in the fight, but it is that simple, he will come to dinosaur from the side and gore him with tusks, and dinosaur WILL NOT be able to turn aruond all his huge body to face mammoth.


I wish you knew at least basic biomechanics, then you would not post insensible things like "mammoth will be trampled", because you can't even imagine how slow was this dinosaur not to mention how slow it would be in cold tempereture.

I suppose you believe whales are cold blooded then?



*looks at Talon*....*mutters under his breath*

I can almost guarentee I have a far greater grasp of the mechanics of animal physiology than most members of this site...unless you happen to be a university graduate with a degree of some sort in biomedical sciences, I shall assume you are included in that "most members" collective. Do not let my often spicy, always tangy coating of sarcasm fool you.



Lather, rinse, repeat.

Dude, did you look at those link I gave? It explains how imppossibly slow dino would be at his weight. If you understand biomechanics, I assume you understand that dinosaur of 100 tons will require to have something like 120% of body mass to be muscle to move faster than even 10 kph, which is impossible, thus this animal would be so slow it would never catch quick mammoth (quick in relation to dinosaur ofcourse) and thus, after some running around mammoth will gore his body with tusks, why you think it's impossible? it is not about how fast or smart mammoth was, it is about how slow dinosaur was, in cold weather it would be so immobile that it would have very small chance, simply because it will experience difficulties only moving.

Why do you think I belive whales are cold blooded? LOL.

By the way, I'm not one of "most members" collective, trust me, I know pretty much of biology and biomechanics.

Okay people, lets put this into perspective

Talon, as much as you picture honestly did throw a very grim light on the mammoth's chances of survivial, I think we're flogging a dead horse here. Let's be honest, this topic was never designed to actually debate which animal would honestly win a tooth and nail fight (or foot and smear, I should say). It was designed for kids to rave about how the animal they like is cooler than the animal other people like.

Why do we even need to put a stupid idea into perspective?

[quote=Shadowsleet,Jul 12 2005, 02:50 AM]
Talon, as much as you picture honestly did throw a very grim light on the mammoth's chances of survivial, I think we're flogging a dead horse here. Let's be honest, this topic was never designed to actually debate which animal would honestly win a tooth and nail fight (or foot and smear, I should say). It was designed for kids to rave about how the animal they like is cooler than the animal other people like.
[right][snapback]728358[/snapback][/right]
[/quot

This picture is good, but it is not real, yes elephant would be that small, but remember, it is Imperial mammoth, he would be 4 times bigger than this elephant, so, the picture is somewhat wrong, plus it would have 5 meters tusks, soon, I'll edit picture, and you'll see how it is really, one sec.


LOL, the picture is STUPID, because argentinosaurus didn't eve look like this

Since someone is actually arguing the Mammoth would win, apparently we must



And? Actuallt look at tusks,



Do they honestly look like they are used for stabbing? More to the point do you actually beleive they wouldn't snap when they hit the side of the Argentinosaurus. They are so obviously for display purposes.

.... you mean your claiming its not a sauropaud............. oh for the luv of

Shady, why are we wasting out time with this person?

That's how it will look like really, plus this argentinosaurus is funniest I ever saw,

Plus this is not really honest: puting average size elephant near largest dinosaur.

Ok, guys, I don't know why am I wasting time with YOU guys, since you don't know even basic rules of biomechanics, or biology, ok, I have to go sleep seriously, cya all tomorow.

P.S. Noth all tusks were like this, some were not bended, I mean a little bended, but mammoth could still use them for goring.


Cya ALL.

Well since we are dealing with a hypothetical, ............



........what if the Mammoth weighed 240,000 tons and had tusks as long as buses?

Have you even read up on what your talking about?


African Elephant shown in pic = 3 to 4 m (10 - 13 ft.) tall at shoulder

http://www.indianchild.com/african_elephants.htm


Imperial Mammoth = 14 feet high at the shoulder

http://www.unmuseum.org/mastodon.htm

If your claims of it being 4 times bigger where true, then that link would say 40 feet tall.

A few seconds on google has told me that an african bull elephant averages out at a little over 10 feet at the shoulder. And Imperial mammoth was around 14 feet at the shoulder. This is not the same as being four times larger.

Please do not quote wildly exagerated statistics in an attempt to substantiate your wild exagerated claims.

Well Talon, you're a split second faster on the draw than me, I'll give you that.

And just kill of any question of mammoth's being anywhere close to Argentinosaurus


Argentinosaurus Height: 70 feet (21.4 meters) About the size of a six story building.

http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Phil100/argentinosaurus.html

Which means the picture I posted is more or less correct, the edited picture you made and you posted must be of a baby Argentinosaurus


Case closed. I am claiming victory in the name of Scotland and leaving.

Baby Argentinosaurus? No no my friend...it's a picture of an argentinosaurus, who's mother smoked while she was pregnant.

OMG, guys, I meant 4 times heavier, you demonstrate ignorance again, if it would be 4 times higher and 4 times longer it would be 16 times heavier, LOL, so, please when I say larger I mean heavier. elephant is about 5 tons in weight.
Largest Imperial mammoth who averaged 10 tons at least would be 20 tons at least for largest specimen, so, it would be 4 times heavier guys.


sorry for small argentinosaurus, ok, he would be a bit larger, and thus heavier, but anyway 100 tons animal which can move 5-10 kph versus 20 tons animal with 5 meters tusks who can move 30 kph, this is what it all about.

Your picture of dinosaur is laughable, absolutely laughable, just google argentinosaurus reconstrustions, and you will see why.

LOL




Lol, yet you notice Shady's he's the one who edited the pic to make the elephant 4 times bigger

I'm confused...



First, you say that the largest imperial mammoth was ten tonnes...you then go on to say that the largest specimen was twenty tonnes....could you kindly make up your mind which is the case, and let us know, so that we can dismantle your points again?

Dude I allready told you your picture of dinosaur is ridiculous, it didn't look like that, google argentinosaurus reconstructions and you will see why.


Plus this animal could move 5-10 kph as maximum speed, any faster speed and it collapses, how the hell you expect it to trample 30 kph mammoth?


What the hell are you talking about? I allways said largest mperial mammoth specimen was 20 tons, average was at least 10 tons.