• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

The Real World Discussion Thread

And yet, it only outpùts 9-B GPE/KE. The latter is unreliable for durability

At some point in tier 9-B in IRL animals, you just gotta wonder why 9-A isn't any lower. Albeit 9-A relies on explosions for it's tier
Wait.

I actually found a creature that could get to 9-A.

Hector's Ichthyosaur.

In short, it's a possible ~40 m ~250 t Ichthyosaur based on one single centrum from New Zealand that was lost 150 years ago, however recent undescribed findings (supposed giant Ichthyosaur also from the same place) support it being that large.

Incredibly unreliable though.
 
@H3110l12345I20 So uh, I noticed that you have a thumbnail for chainmail armor on the wiki, and... Are you sure we really have material for it? The best I can find is this:


And that's more for knight armor in general rather than specifically the chainmail.

TBH, armor isn't my area of expertise, I just wanted to assist Mahek with stuff as good company.

What do you mean by material? Information, or how to make the armor? I'm sure the wiki has dealt with the scarcity of the former before. We have pages of horror characters with ambiguity and lack of info like giant squids.
 
TBH, armor isn't my area of expertise, I just wanted to assist Mahek with stuff as good company.

What do you mean by material? Information, or how to make the armor? I'm sure the wiki has dealt with the scarcity of the former before. We have pages of horror characters with ambiguity and lack of info like giant squids.
Info, of course.
 
I'll be adding Supernova impostors to the Supernova page and also update several things i think
 
attack potency:
supernova: 5-B (SN 2021fcg) to high 4-C (PS1-10adi)
supernova impostor: 4-C (eta Carinae)
luminous red nova: 4-C
quark nova: 4-B
 
Last edited:
Wait.

I actually found a creature that could get to 9-A.

Hector's Ichthyosaur.

In short, it's a possible ~40 m ~250 t Ichthyosaur based on one single centrum from New Zealand that was lost 150 years ago, however recent undescribed findings (supposed giant Ichthyosaur also from the same place) support it being that large.

Incredibly unreliable though.
I've seen some of the ones you've mentioned. (Apparently Maraapunisaurus and Amphicoelias are synonymous now, the former is the newer name while the latter is the older name, though there's still possibilities of them being slightly different genuses due to the species within them, and Bruhathkayosaurus and Barosaurus are also mentioned in the former article's description comparing sizes, due to being more recently updated than the latter article)

I could post articles mentioning them here for more information:




Also:
@H3110l12345I20 So uh, I noticed that you have a thumbnail for chainmail armor on the wiki, and... Are you sure we really have material for it? The best I can find is this:


And that's more for knight armor in general rather than specifically the chainmail.

Check wikipedia's sources or scholarly search engines like refseek or google scholar. You'll have more luck there.
I'mma post the main articles for different types of armour, weapons and vehicles here:

(main article for armour)



(mostly the bombsuit and NBC suit, but the spacesuit could technically also be considered since they use similar materials in certain components to protect against radiation and micrometeoroids and the like)

(main article for weapons)



(main article for vehicles)


And for extra information, as to general extremes/records in the real world:

(the category section)



(pretty sure I've mentioned them before, but worth posting again)
 
I've seen some of the ones you've mentioned. (Apparently Maraapunisaurus and Amphicoelias are synonymous now, the former is the newer name while the latter is the older name, though there's still possibilities of them being slightly different genuses due to the species within them, and Bruhathkayosaurus and Barosaurus are also mentioned in the former article's description comparing sizes, due to being more recently updated than the latter article)

I could post articles mentioning them here for more information:




Also:


I'mma post the main articles for different types of armour, weapons and vehicles here:

(main article for armour)



(mostly the bombsuit and NBC suit, but the spacesuit could technically also be considered since they use similar materials in certain components to protect against radiation and micrometeoroids and the like)

(main article for weapons)



(main article for vehicles)


And for extra information, as to general extremes/records in the real world:

(the category section)



(pretty sure I've mentioned them before, but worth posting again)
We might need to rename and relocate some entry profiles both within the Real World page and within their individual pages + add more examples...
So like ballistic shields, plate armour, weaponised armour like gauntlets, weighted sap gloves, bovver steel/composite toe boots, etc as well as the whole regrouping of firearms into their respective categories and whatnot, spears being expanded into polearms, etc etc

OK EVERYONE, I HAVE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT NEWS, I NEED EVERYONE HERE TO READ THIS!


WE'RE GOOD TO GO!
THE PROPOSAL FOR THE RESTRUCTURING AND REORGANISATION OF THE REAL WORLD PAGE HAS BEEN GIVEN THE GREENLIGHT/GO-AHEAD BY ANT, BAMBU AND MEDEUS!
(READ THE LAST POST IN THE THREAD ^ TO LEARN WHAT THIS ENTAILS AKA HOW WE ARE GOING TO RESTRUCTURE THE PAGE!)

THIS WILL MEAN A DRASTIC CHANGE IN THE APPEARANCE OF PROFILES OF REAL WORLD ENTRIES AND THE APPEARANCE OF THE VERSE PAGE ITSELF, SO I WOULD URGENTLY REQUEST YOU ALL TO HOLD OFF/HALT/PUT ALL INDIVIDUAL REAL WORLD PROFILE EDITS OR MATCH-UPS INVOLVING THE REAL WORLD ON STANDBY UNTIL THIS RESTRUCTURING/REORGANISATION PROCESS IS COMPLETE!


Thank you for acknowledging this notice.

Could you all help restructure the Real World page and entries according to the summary of the agreed-upon proposal conditions linked here ^? Please and thank you.
Additionally, ^ after said process is complete:





We should probably add:
Clostridium
(cause of botulinum and tetani being the bacteria that produce the most potent, lowest LD50 poisons)

Prions, Yersinia, Lyssavirus, Trypanosoma and Leishmania
(cause of transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (prions), Yersinia pestis (Black Death bacteria), Rabies lyssavirus (Rabies virus), Trypanosoma brucei and Leishmania (African trypanosomiasis/sleeping sickness and visceral leishmaniasis parasitic protozoa) causing the deadliest (most unlikely to survive AND/OR causing the most deaths) diseases)

As for events, maybe we can add the deadliest of each type of natural disaster (I'm not sure if anthropogenic/man-made disasters can be included too, but worth asking).
^^^
 
I've seen some of the ones you've mentioned. (Apparently Maraapunisaurus and Amphicoelias are synonymous now, the former is the newer name while the latter is the older name, though there's still possibilities of them being slightly different genuses due to the species within them, and Bruhathkayosaurus and Barosaurus are also mentioned in the former article's description comparing sizes, due to being more recently updated than the latter article)

I could post articles mentioning them here for more information:



Amphicoelias is still valid, as its type species is the much smaller ~25 m Amphicoelias altus and not the giant "Amphicoelias" fragilimus (now known as Maraapunisaurus fragilimus)

Giant Barosaurus turned out to be actually Supersaurus vivianae as it was originally thought.
 
Amphicoelias is still valid, as its type species is the much smaller ~25 m Amphicoelias altus and not the giant "Amphicoelias" fragilimus (now known as Maraapunisaurus fragilimus)

Giant Barosaurus turned out to be actually Supersaurus vivianae as it was originally thought.
Yeah, I noticed that the fragilimus species was relocated from Amphicoelias to Maraapunisaurus, and as for Barosaurus, while you're correct, Barosaurus and Supersaurus both deserve to be considered as contenders given the genus and species differences as mentioned in the article.


Also I'm not sure about Hector's Icthyosaur, I could only find these:





No Wikipedia article so far... (though that should not mean it's not valid, it's just not well-known enough)
But here's two other creatures that should also be considered (also linked a while back):


(mentioned in Wikipedia in the link below)

 
Last edited:
Yeah, I noticed that the fragilimus species was relocated from Amphicoelias to Maraapunisaurus, and as for Barosaurus, while you're correct, Barosaurus and Supersaurus both deserve to be considered as contenders given the genus and species differences as mentioned in the article.


Also I'm not sure about Hector's Icthyosaur, I could only find these:





No Wikipedia article so far... (though that should not mean it's not valid, it's just not well-known enough)
But here's two other creatures that should also be considered (also linked a while back):


(mentioned in Wikipedia in the link below)


Barosaurus based on BYU 20805 might actually get to ~43 m and be extremely large, but the supposed ~50 m megaBarosaurus BYU 9024 is Supersaurus vivianae.

Hector's Ichthyosaur is mentioned a lot more under different names which all are about the same 45 cm wide centrum from 19th century New Zealand. By the way, that u/syv_frost guy from that reddit post you sent knows a lot about Hector's ichthyosaur, so you should ask him if you want more info about it

there's no wiki article because there isn't really enough info

ignoring Hector, the largest Ichthyosaur is the fragmentary Aust specimen which I think sclaes to ~30 m and ~180 t, which is comparable to the largest blue whales.
 
Barosaurus based on BYU 20805 might actually get to ~43 m and be extremely large, but the supposed ~50 m megaBarosaurus BYU 9024 is Supersaurus vivianae.

Hector's Ichthyosaur is mentioned a lot more under different names which all are about the same 45 cm wide centrum from 19th century New Zealand. By the way, that u/syv_frost guy from that reddit post you sent knows a lot about Hector's ichthyosaur, so you should ask him if you want more info about it

there's no wiki article because there isn't really enough info

ignoring Hector, the largest Ichthyosaur is the fragmentary Aust specimen which I think sclaes to ~30 m and ~180 t, which is comparable to the largest blue whales.
The Aust one is "tentatively" linked to Icthyotitan.


also, not sure how the Dracula pterosaur can be added, but worth looking into...
and sorry, I have no Reddit account 😅.
....

I FOUND HECTOR'S ICHTHYOSAUR (BUT DAMN IT IT DOES NOT HAVE ITS OWN PAGE) IN WIKIPEDIA


Also this:

 
We can't; that thing doesn't have even a highly inaccurate weight figure tacked onto it.
You can scale it from Shastasaurus sikannensis though. Should be about 80 t for the Lilstock specimen and 180 t for the Aust specimen. Blue whale sized. Calculations based on 40 t estimate for Shastasaurus sikanniensis
 
The max height of the posterior end of the surangular in the Lilstock Ichthyosaur is 24 cm, while it is 19 cm in the 18.6 m 40 t Shastasaurus sikkanniensis. 23.5 m and
81 t
The Aust specimen has an even larger surangular, the measumerents reported in the paper is 13.8 cm while on the Aust specimen it is 9.2-10.6 cm, which means the Aust specimen is based on the Lilstock specimen is at least 30.6 m and 178 t

Be aware though that the specimen is incredibly fragmentary and all of this is incredibly unreliable due to this
 
ALSO the Spinosaurus article needs lots of updates.

No 18 m Spinosaurus exists, largest definitive Spinosaurus specimen is the holotype which is ~11 m ~3 t, supposed 16-18 specimens are now known to be about ~14.5 m instead and might not even be Spinosaurus due to the confusion regarding Kem Kem spinosaurinae morphs, as there is many material from Kem Kem too different from Spinosaurus to be the same animal. The most famous of them are the Sigilmassaurus cervicals and dorsals, but there's more. Even the proposed neotype FSAC KK 11888 has differences from the holotype which might indicate it's a different species.
 
that thing about the Spinosaurus sail isn't true, in fact if anything it'd be more likely to protect it. To paralyze it you'd need to dislocate the centra of the vertebrae, which is impossible as they're deeply buried in muscle which is even more resistant than the sail, so the spines would absorb the impact and nothing would happen to the spinal cord.
 
nevermind that, a lot of stuff needs updated

one very important thing that people seem to forget is that almost all the dinosaur and many other extinct animal lengths you see online aren't in a straight line, but are along the vertebrae (+the skull) instead (which is much more useful)
 
ALSO the Spinosaurus article needs lots of updates.

No 18 m Spinosaurus exists, largest definitive Spinosaurus specimen is the holotype which is ~11 m ~3 t, supposed 16-18 specimens are now known to be about ~14.5 m instead and might not even be Spinosaurus due to the confusion regarding Kem Kem spinosaurinae morphs, as there is many material from Kem Kem too different from Spinosaurus to be the same animal. The most famous of them are the Sigilmassaurus cervicals and dorsals, but there's more. Even the proposed neotype FSAC KK 11888 has differences from the holotype which might indicate it's a different species.
AFAIK, the reason why Spinosaurus facts and sizes are variable and disputed is due to most of the fossils of it being within an aquatic habitat.

It takes way more factors for a complete fossil to be created there. Unlike land based fossils, ones from aquatic animals would have to deal with the constant bombardment of water erosion. And when a river or freshwater environment comes to mind, what's going to next to it to bury a near by complete Spino fossil IN THE WATER?

Case in point to keep in mind when scaling spinosaurus. But it's consistently superior to the T Rex in size.
 
AFAIK, the reason why Spinosaurus facts and sizes are variable and disputed is due to most of the fossils of it being within an aquatic habitat.

It takes way more factors for a complete fossil to be created there. Unlike land based fossils, ones from aquatic animals would have to deal with the constant bombardment of water erosion. And when a river or freshwater environment comes to mind, what's going to next to it to bury a near by complete Spino fossil IN THE WATER?

Case in point to keep in mind when scaling spinosaurus. But it's consistently superior to the T Rex in size.
No? Tyrannosaurus BHI 6248 E.D. Cope is 12.7 m and 11 tonnes, Spinosaurinae indet. MSNM V4047 is about 14.7 m and 8.1 t.
 
AFAIK, the reason why Spinosaurus facts and sizes are variable and disputed is due to most of the fossils of it being within an aquatic habitat.

It takes way more factors for a complete fossil to be created there. Unlike land based fossils, ones from aquatic animals would have to deal with the constant bombardment of water erosion. And when a river or freshwater environment comes to mind, what's going to next to it to bury a near by complete Spino fossil IN THE WATER?

Case in point to keep in mind when scaling spinosaurus. But it's consistently superior to the T Rex in size.
Spinosaurus facts and sizes are also variable because it's a huge taxonomic mess composed of mostly non-overlapping fragmentary material making it practically impossible to tell what is Spinosaurus and what is not Spinosaurus with current data. The material that overlaps shows several separate morphotypes (three dorsal neural spine morphotypes, three cervical morphotypes, two quadrate morphotypes etc.).

We only have one good North African Spinosaurine and that's the neotype, the original holotype wasn't bad but it got blown up in WW2 like the other two large Bahariya theropods - Stromer's Carcharodontosaurid (be aware that the type of Carcharodontosaurus is actuall two teeth from Algeria originally named as "Megalosaurus" saharicus and the Stromer's Carcharodontosaurid actually shows some mayor differences from the Kem Kem Carcharodontosaurus neotype discovered in 1990s) and the giant ?Megaraptoran? Bahariasaurus ingens (and no it is not related to deltadromeus at all)
 
No? Tyrannosaurus BHI 6248 E.D. Cope is 12.7 m and 11 tonnes, Spinosaurinae indet. MSNM V4047 is about 14.7 m and 8.1 t.
I'm not always refering to weight when O say size. I meant length here. Btw, you can calc the J value of the spino. You just have to figure out it's GPE and how high it stood up.
 
I'm not always refering to weight when O say size. I meant length here. Btw, you can calc the J value of the spino. You just have to figure out it's GPE and how high it stood up.
well yeah, some Kem Kem spinosaurines (like MSNM V4047 and NHMUK R16421) are the longest theropods (~14.5 m). Tyrannosaurus is by far the heaviest theropod though (technically Giganotosaurus MUCPv-95 gets close at about 10 t but it's also sigificanly less complete and less reliable).
 
longest theropods I think are:
1. Spinosaurinae indet. MSNM V4047 - 14.7 m
2. tie between Giganotosaurus carolinii MUCPv-95 and Bahariasaurus ingens IPHG 1912 VIII 62 - 13.3 m
3. Saurophaganax maximus - 12.9 m
4. tie between Tyrannosaurus rex BHI 6248, Mapusaurus roseae MCF-PVPH coll., Sauroniops pachytholus MPM 2594 and Sigilmassasaurus brevicollis BSPG 2011 I 118 - 12.7 m
5. Megalosauridae indet. B1 - 12.4 m

there's another one but it has no good estimate so i decided not to mention it
 
NGL, you should join the dino discussion thread.

What's your justification for why the Theropod scales to it's kinetic energy? It doesn't seem to use it as a regular method of attack to charge at things at full force?
i copied it from the giganotosaurus page and fair
also there's a dino discussion thread? link?
 
i copied it from the giganotosaurus page and fair
also there's a dino discussion thread? link?

Unless if the animal in question could do feats that are like tanking running into a hard immovable wall, and regularly charges as a method of attack, it doesn't make sense to use KE as a method of AP.

I could give you examples as to why it doesn't make sense.
 

Unless if the animal in question could do feats that are like tanking running into a hard immovable wall, and regularly charges as a method of attack, it doesn't make sense to use KE as a method of AP.

I could give you examples as to why it doesn't make sense.
ig it's not very active but cool, thanks

fair
 
Back
Top