Ok, this are my arguments. Because people is very into this T.rex vs C.carolini thing.. but I'm too lazy, so I'm just copy pasting what I written on a forum:
-A meter or two in lenght makes a whole lot of additional body mass when projected into three dimensions. -Giganoto's skull is 1.92 cm, Rex's is 1.45. Giganoto's is significantly larger. -Even when T.rex's head seems more hevily built for it's size, remember than strong jaws and blunter teeth are often a trait of scavengers to intimidate and crush bones. (Such as bear and hyenas) Giganoto's more aerodinamic, gracefull and... sharper design lines are the trait of the predator. For much the same reason ninjas don't tend to wield maces, the longer, sharper and seemightly weaker weapons of G.carolini seem more apropiate to strike fast and deep into the bulnerable areas of prey to kill it as fast and efficiently as possible. The crushing and chewing prowess T.rex supporters mention so often are more useful once the target is dead than to actually kill it. Other than that, I think all the T.rex supporters are far too influenced by the awesome name, all the movies featuring the animal over so many more years, patriotism, you name it, over cold logic and the simple idea that Giganotosaurus just really seems to have been a larger, more dangerous animal
Yea that's right to fricking sauropods (replting to someone who said G.carolini was only dangerous to sauropods :/). Because everybody knows only pussified dinosaurs would hunt the largest animals to ever walk the fricking universe as we know it, way softer than an elephant sized ostrich with bad teeth. Which gets me to my next point. Think about their abailable prey.
Were at the time and place tyrannosaurus lived herbivores larger than itself or even of his own size? the ornitischians herbivores that roamed Laurasia back then were hardly near as big as Rex himself, whereas Gondwana's landscape was dominated at the time by the largest herbivores to ever live, the Titanosauroidea, some of them 10 times larger than Giganotosurus. A regular T.rex might have never seen anything even slightly larger than itself (a female maybe, which would be a chance to make love, not war) and would proabably run shitless if it did.
So all in all, this are not very anatomically different animals any slight advantage is rather subjective, but if they'd meet they would probably think of each other as belonging to their own kind, which is after all the only similar thing they have seen. So, what fallows would be what usually heppens when 2 animals of the same type meet if one is one is larger than the other (Don't even twice as larger, just noticeably larger or bulkier)
T woul say to himself "That is one large and ugly guy, better do not mess with.. not worth it" And G would say: "Gimme your lunch money, twerp"
That's a very nice drawing, but the 1.95 m long skull estimate (I guess 1.92 m thing is a typo) is outdated, now its skull is estimated to be much shorter at 1.56 m long, while the skull of T. rex is estimated to be a bit longer than 1.45 m now at 1.52 m, and it estimated to be 12.5 m and 7.3 tonnes, while T. rex, is estimated at 12.3 m and 8.8 tonnes (the big weight difference is not so surprising, due to the much more robust built of T. rex), so no 1 m length difference, let alone 2 m, and a 1.5 tonne disadvantage.
Seems to be true for the holotype but the newer specimen (MUCPv-95) is thought to be bewteen 6.5 8% larger, probably around 164 and 1.73 cm. But anyway, I've mostly changed my mind about this kind of discussion these last few years. A rather juvenile subject of discussion
MUCPv-95 was actually more like 2.222222222% (~2.2%) larger, as the dentary of MUCPv-Ch1 is 135 mm deep, while the dentary of MUCPv-95 is 138 mm deep (you can check it here: www.researchgate.net/publicati…), which gives a skull length of 156.4 cm (~156 cm) scaled from the 153 cm skull length of the holotype, a total length of 12.5222222222 m (~12.5 m) scaled from the 12.25 m (~12.3 m) total length of the holotype, and a weight of 7304.32843496 kg (~7.3 tonnes) scaled from the 6838.24 kg (~6.8 tonne) weight of the holotype.
No actually, you're the only one hear other than myself to seems to know what they are talking about. (lots of people still use the dubious 6.5-8% larger figures for no good reason)
it should be noted that the 3 mm difference seems to be the slightly deeper 'chin' of MUCPv-95 and the to dentary pieces side by side are nearly identical meaning MUCPv-95 is 12.25 meters long and 6.8 tonnes or so based off of MUCPv-Ch1. There would be no real difference in skull length as well.
I would have to argue that Tyrannosaurus would win. The animal weighs a good ton more than Giganotosaurus, which as you know is 2,000 pounds (although some articles suggest it could weigh 8.8 tons, the accepts value is a tad less}. In a close quartered fight I don't see the Rex being knocked over very easily. Of course, running up onto the Rex, which I don't think would ever be likely, Giganotosaurus could possibly get up to 31 mph. So if it ran and somehow hit the Rex undetected, it itself would do some damage. Now, as for the bite, Giganotosaurus' jaws were made for grabbing, manipulating, and delivering quick bites to its prey. Tyrannosaurus' was made for the resisting of any sort of stress or movement once the animal is in it's jaws. Along with it's bite force, I don't think the Giganotosaurus would be able to get away without being severely injured. In this case, I have to go with the Rex. It fought very tough prey that tended to fight back (Triceratops and any encounters with anylosaurs). Giganotosaurus mainly hunted YOUNGER sauropods, smaller than itself. Packs of them have been found trying to take down larger ones. T. Rex also was thought to have a strategy for turning. It was thought to have shrunken its neck and arms closer to its body, as well as arched its back in order to turn more quickly to face prey, etc. This could give him an easy advantage to turn and take any sort of bite it may inflict. So, alas, I do love the Giganotosaurus, I'm gonna have to stick with the Tyrannosaurus.
some people forget Giganotosaurus had a strong bite too (not nearly as strong as T.rex, but at the point of those forces, bite=kill). Really, with Giganoto's or rex's bite to the neck, it is a direct kill. It would all depend on who struck first. But considering Giga's sleeker built, Gig would probably strike first 70/100 times.
thats a 70% succes rate I advocate for, even if T.rex might be heavier, stronger bite, faster, better vision..
Technically Tyrannosaurus COULD have preyed on Alamosaurus, but it is probably couldn't be much bigger than Giga even if you use Celeste or MOR 008 or UCMP 137538 to compare. Some may argue that Celeste and UCMP 137538 scaled with Sue is bigger than Giga, but each specimen could have varying proportions. Both C.rex and UCMP are scaled from TOE BONES!!! How reliable can that be?
This is coming from a MAJOR Giga fanboy, but I do believe T. rex would win about 65% of the time. I do agree with the "bone crushing equals scavenging" thing. There is no way T.rex would get its mouth around Giga's neck anyway. As for the "ten times larger than Giga" statement, name one 450 foot long dinosaur. Most of the sauropods of the time were more like 2 or 3 times its size. Giga was indeed larger, up to 45 feet, but that's not much. T.rex was 18-22 feet tall, Giga was slightly shorter, at 18-21 feet. Giganotosaurus was estimated to have had a top speed of 31mph, while Rex was only 20. T. Rex had a brain twice as large as Giga's, but that's not saying much, as Giganotosaurus was literally a banana brain. Triceratops was not that strong at all, but Ankylosaurus was a tank! However, Limayosaurus and Andesaurus (Which were around the same size as Alamosaurus, and were the sauropods that were actually around at the same time as Giganotosaurus; Argentinosaurus evolved around the same time as Giganotosaurus went extinct, and Mapusaurus evolved from it.) were tanks in that they were 60 feet each. Giga had binocular vision, just not as good as Rex.