They are completely different animals. Crocodiles don't have a thick layer of fat or fur.
Oh. So you're saying that the bear has THICKNESS and not durability. Okay, that makes sense.
Hair makes a huge difference compared to crocodile and rhino skin. And i'm talking about gripping with their claws.
Claws? Lol they won't do crap do a bear. The force of the blow is what does damage most of the time, but the tiger can't really hurt the bear that way.
Not even an inch of fat? That's laughable, have you ever seen a bear? They have to accumulate enough fat to survive long hibernation.
Polar bear's coat is around 1-2 inches, while it's fat layer is up to 4 inches thick.
The coat (if you mean fur) is thick, but the hide isn't. The fat is actually thick though, you're right. I don't know what was wrong with the previous source, but further research (had to use books) proved you right. However, when the teeth sink and make an opening, the tiger's mouth can move down. So, we have a tiger clamping down on the neck (the area without 4 pounds of fat, only at most 2, because the stomach holds most fat) and barely piercing a polar bear. That is different, but the sheer force/pressure (1,000 pounds per square inch!) should really hurt the bear. Pain would prevent a quick solution, cause confusion, and crush the bear's internal neck (can it withstand 1,000 pounds of pressure PER SQUARE INCH? That's like putting a 100 thousand pound pebbles on a bear's neck.) The teeth could not reach that far, but the pressure still allows for a kill.
In animal fights like these, weight is everything. And yes it does indicate size and strength.
Of course weight indicates size and strength, that's not what I meant. I meant that the weight is irrelevant because the size and strength (factors tied to weight) have been determined and used as arguments already.
So this is a 1075 pound Tiger vs 2200 pound bear? You do realise it is double it's weight, right?
Which is why a head-to-head battle is hopeless for the tiger, which would get around the bear to eventually get on it's back and bite the neck.
This is a straight up fight though... and the tiger is not hiding from the bear's sense of smell.
The bear knows where it is, but smell takes time. The bear would probably need a few seconds to locate the exact place the tiger is currently at. Obviously tigers can ambush since it happens in Siberia, unless they somehow beat bears head to head.
Ok, but the tiger is in the bear's sight. Tigers never run off and then come back to ambush.
This is a hypothetical situation. We don't even know what would happen. I'm guessing it would ambush (not run of, but run to a location where it could ambush. I guess same thing?) because that's what they know to do. Charging head first into battle is against every fiber in their body and all their instincts. Animals have heavy values of self-preservation, so I think that even a bloodlusted tiger would relocated itself to get an advantage (a real tiger would run.)
Yes the lion will be a non-factor.
No, it can distract. For at least 10 seconds if not more (dodging, trying to attack, getting killed by a swipe, the bear checking for death, etc.) which gives the tiger ample time to blindside the bear.
It wasn't an insult, in my previous response I thought you believed a tiger would win in a direct fight, but I stand corrected.
Oh, okay. Anyone that mental I would insult too.
As I said, yes tigers have eaten female, young and hibernating bears, never a fully grown male in a direct confrontation, but you agree with this.
Yeah. Tigers COULD ambush bears that are over 1000 pounds and kill them, but they don't. That's due to risk. Like I said, self-preservation is the main instinct of animals (that aren't parents lol) so that makes them cautious.
However, your whole argument is about the tiger ambushing the bear, but this is a straight up fight, not a hunt. The tiger would not run away just to ambush it.
The ambush part might seem misleading. I mean it would get around the bear to jump on the back, but that means getting out of the bear's line of sight in order to come from behind (because bears don't just stand there and wait for creatures to walk around them.) In reality, nobody knows what the tiger or bear would do if they HAD to fight. Because they never would, since they are both top predators and they respect each other in a way (or respect the damage they could do.) I take the tiger's hunting tactics and apply it to the fight, because that's the only thing I can do. Naturally, the tiger (in my opinion) would apply its hunting skills with the bear.
However, we are humans. We think tactically. What WE think a bear would do and a lion would do isn't what the actual creatures would do. So, this fights depends on how the animals decide to battle each other. That's why I dislike animal battles with vague OPs; they make us decide how animals act.
Log in to comment