|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Jul 4, 2012 18:09:09 GMT -5
I wouldn't exactly say that. It's a mouth of serrated 6 inch teeth fitted to jaws which close at 5+ tons; few creatures are coming out alive after being bitten full force. |
|
|
|
Post by Mobster on Dec 12, 2012 18:40:00 GMT -5
There's nowhere the t-rex can attack the triceratops if the latter is facing him because t-rex is too slow to flank the triceratops
|
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Dec 13, 2012 0:11:17 GMT -5
How is it too slow?
|
|
|
|
Post by mobster on Dec 13, 2012 0:37:59 GMT -5
Because it took 2 seconds to make a quarter turn. Triceratops is more stable and maneuverable due to his quadruped stance. It's head is attached to a ball and socket joint, so it can defend itself from any frontal attack. It's suicidal for T-rex. It can't win face to face.
A t-rex killing an elephant I can see. Never a triceratops. It's too low slung, agile, and well armed.
2 t-rexes against a triceratops would be more even.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Dec 13, 2012 2:56:53 GMT -5
Tyrannosaurus doesn't need to turn-it could also sidestep.
To explain the difference, sidestepping is placing one foot to a new location and then doing the same for the other, effectively moving your entire body. On the other hand, turning would be changing your angle on what is more or less the same point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tyrannosaurus on Dec 14, 2012 19:50:43 GMT -5
T-Rex was probably faster than Triceratops. However I do think that 1v1, face to face, T'tops would win.
|
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Apr 28, 2013 16:12:59 GMT -5
The frill would have offered little protection against anything but glancing bites. This battle would depend on whether tyrannosaurus could get past triceratop's horns and to the flank. no it cannot. the t-rex is too slow to outmaneuver triceratops. It will be forced to attack head on and be skewered. |
|
|
|
Post by Cr1TiKaL on Aug 19, 2013 13:05:15 GMT -5
I think the Triceratops would most likely win, though T.rex does stand a good chance.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anomonyous on Aug 20, 2013 19:23:37 GMT -5
no it cannot. the t-rex is too slow to outmaneuver triceratops. It will be forced to attack head on and be skewered. The Tyrannosaurus doesn't need to out-turn the Triceratops. |
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314 
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 14, 2013 16:15:50 GMT -5
Umm, that is simply incorrect. Tyrannosaurus would have had to have been very agile, because attacking the triceratops's head was not its speciality but rather biting its neck and back.
Tyrannosaurus was deadly mainly because of its powerful and robust jaws (a bite force at about 6 tons of force), no because of its teeth. Its dentition was only deadly because they were driven by such immense force. In reality, while serrated, they were very thick and relatively blunt.
The frill would have actually been very strong and was capable of withstanding decent amounts of force, as it was actually relatively thick. It would be completely unreasonable for the frill to be gracile with a low breaking point, as not only would tyrannosaurids be able to easily damage it (with their crushing capabilities and all), but it would not provide enough defense to the herbivore's neck, which would have been its most vulnerable area here second only to its dorsum. Triceratops' used its brow horns as its primary weapons, so its frill needed to be very strong and resistant to withstand the forces exerted specifically in interspecific conflict when it gored an opponent head-on to prevent breaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 14, 2013 16:53:02 GMT -5
I think this is at least a 50/50. Triceratops and its contemporary ceratopsians are the best herbivores within T.rex's weight range to deal with this kind of predator and the horns make dangerous weapons to the theropod. However, Tyrannosaurus can kill Triceratops if it outmaneuvered it (with the ways that have been proposed by scientists) and bit it on the neck. The frill will for some time provide a rather good degree of protection, but I think if bitten enough times and hard enough, it will succumb to T.rex's bite. And I know this is extremely dangerous (and likely rare), but if Tyrannosaurus bit off a horn (like it did in one Triceratops fossil to protect itself), it could save it some trouble. And of course, Trike can simply gore its predator to death. Though T.rex is a tad bit bigger, so I might lean extremely slightly towards it at the moment (6t vs. 6.5t or 5t vs. 6.5t).
|
|
|
|
Post by Carcharadontosaurus on Dec 14, 2013 18:10:25 GMT -5
Triceratops wins, those horns are just too much.
|
|
Godzillasaurus
Invertebrate
Reptile (both extant and extinct) and kaiju enthusiast
Posts: 314
|
Post by Godzillasaurus on Dec 14, 2013 20:20:49 GMT -5
Triceratops wins, those horns are just too much. The horns (only the brow horns, not the nasal horn) would be most effective if they impaled perpendicular to the theropod (in this case, they would cause a good deal of internal damage). Anything less perpendicular to that would not be as effective in that they would not create as deep and deadly of wounds to vital organs. If the tyrannosaurus manages to outflank the triceratops and bite its neck or back, then consider the herbivore's spine crushed. |
|
|
|
Post by rhino on Dec 23, 2013 7:37:59 GMT -5
Hey Ryan, you said T.rex did not weigh 8 tons. There was an article posted on the 1st page that said t.rex may have weighed up to 9 tons. Could you explain why it's wrong?
I'm not doubting your statement. If anything, I too am skeptical t.rex weighed 9 tons.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dinopithecus on Dec 23, 2013 7:52:36 GMT -5
I'm not Godzillasaurus, but IMO (and a few others), the models that have a 9t T.rex (particularly Sue) look a little "fat". So I'd guess 8.4 tonnes from Scott Hartman is good. I think a 9t T.rex is possible, just not for a specimen of this length (12.3 meters for Sue).
|
|
