Depends. Are the wolves able to wait for the tigers to separate and take them down one at a time (e.g. by harrying them over a large area and time)? Then maybe the wolves. If not, tigers, and this isn't close.
I dunno much about wolf/tiger interactions but wolf/bear interactions are a real thing. Solo grizzly bears and wolf packs regularly compete over food and the bear almost always wins. Of course they don't actually fight (because wolves probably like the idea of dying in a fight over a meal about as much as you or I do), but wolves will avoid the bear until it has eaten and then move in on what's left, which suggests both sides feel the bear has the advantage. Tigers are pretty similar to grizzlies in mass so I'm going to assume they're equivalent.
Now, maybe if they actually fought, the wolves would defeat the bear, and the reason the wolves defer is because even if they win they run far too high a risk of losing pack members. That's why I said that maybe 12 wolves could take the tigers one at a time, losing few enough members each time (0-2) to still have the advantage against the final tiger. But all three at once? I can't see that ending well for the wolves, not with the way wolves rely on attacking larger animals from behind in order to avoid fatal attacks from their large quarry.
I've read about this before but this is the first link I could find at short notice:
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/grizzly-bear-vs-wolves
NeoElfboy posted...
Depends. Are the wolves able to wait for the tigers to separate and take them down one at a time (e.g. by harrying them over a large area and time)? Then maybe the wolves. If not, tigers, and this isn't close.
I dunno much about wolf/tiger interactions but wolf/bear interactions are a real thing. Solo grizzly bears and wolf packs regularly compete over food and the bear almost always wins. Of course they don't actually fight (because wolves probably like the idea of dying in a fight over a meal about as much as you or I do), but wolves will avoid the bear until it has eaten and then move in on what's left, which suggests both sides feel the bear has the advantage. Tigers are pretty similar to grizzlies in mass so I'm going to assume they're equivalent.
Now, maybe if they actually fought, the wolves would defeat the bear, and the reason the wolves defer is because even if they win they run far too high a risk of losing pack members. That's why I said that maybe 12 wolves could take the tigers one at a time, losing few enough members each time (0-2) to still have the advantage against the final tiger. But all three at once? I can't see that ending well for the wolves, not with the way wolves rely on attacking larger animals from behind in order to avoid fatal attacks from their large quarry.
I've read about this before but this is the first link I could find at short notice:
https://www.yellowstonepark.com/things-to-do/grizzly-bear-vs-wolves
I feel like this would be countered by the fact that tigers are strictly solitary hunters, so it'd be quite easy for the wolves to get them to split off. The tigers certainly aren't going to be good at working together, at any rate.
Battle takes place on bubbly clouds (Mercs edition) actually
