There are many 6 wheel Polaris Ranger in use with FD for wildland/brush use. Typical 80gal tank (+pump, misc equipment, 2x firefighters). Reportedly hold up quite well and MUCH better than any similar ATV out there. In particular much better than the JD Gator (golf course toy).
-
Steel Soldiers now has a few new forums, read more about it at: New Munitions Forums!
Polaris Has Gone Tactical - Eating Gators
- Thread starter polarisiraq
- Start date
- 2,799
- 73
- 48
- Location
- Mesquite, NV
Kinda like a Hells Angel riding a Vespa...................
wreckerman893
Possum Connoisseur
- 15,629
- 2,054
- 113
- Location
- Akenback acres near Gadsden, AL
I imagine that for what that thing cost you could buy several deuces.
Nice rich boy toy but useless for my LZ.
Nice rich boy toy but useless for my LZ.
tatra813
Member
- 523
- 25
- 18
- Location
- Washougal Wa
Guys I dont think it was designed to protect from gun fire, I think thats obvioius. Ive got a mv7 atv version and its lots of fun. Its a little heavier than the standard sportsman, its got the same metal racks etc as the Ranger. Its basically just a lot heavier duty than the standard, a little heavier but still very capable and fun.....I wouldnt go into battle with it but around the base or scouting trails its perfect...it can also haul a LOT more weight than standard. It would be useless if you made it with armor plate they have other vehicles for that purpose.
I think we need to remember the old willis jeeps were not uparmored either an I dont think I would call them a useless veh.
The hummer has gotten over weight and has always been too large to be called a handy veh.
Looks to me like we might reconsider geting rid of the 151 jeeps? small ,fits in a helo ,light can be lifted out of a ditch when stuck by a few strong backs and it can carry all that crap much easyer than i .
I think this type veh does have a place.
The hummer has gotten over weight and has always been too large to be called a handy veh.
Looks to me like we might reconsider geting rid of the 151 jeeps? small ,fits in a helo ,light can be lifted out of a ditch when stuck by a few strong backs and it can carry all that crap much easyer than i .
I think this type veh does have a place.
- 10,866
- 763
- 113
- Location
- Appomattox, VA
While I am not a fan of the Polaris vehicle, zoo does have a point. This was designed as a utility vehicle. Utility vehicles are designed for all-purpose utility roles, not an assault vehicle, amphibious vehicle, etc. The Willys jeeps and M151s fit this role to a T. They are supposed to be relatively cheap, can go pretty much anywhere, can be used in a variety of terrain and conditions, small and lightweight to allow for ease of transport, and should be simple to operate.
The Willys MB, for example, was very reminiscent of these traits, but it was not designed for actual front-line combat. While it could be said that guns could be added to the Jeeps to make them more offensive, or armor to make them more defensive, these mods were not reflective of the original intent of the jeep's creation, or that of any utility military vehicle.
Armor, while useful in protecting modern combat troops from incoming fire and shrapnel, inflicts a heavy cost on the operation, maintenance, and maneuverability of the vehicle. The cost of armor attached to a vehicle include:
- weight and subsequent loss of speed
- additional wear on the vehicle due to weight
- reduced visibility
- added size of the vehicle from armor
- decreased interior conditions of the vehicle for riders
- cost to manufacture or modify original vehicle for armor
In World War II, a half-track or scout car would be a good example of something designed for armor, the jeep is not. In today's desert battlefront, the M-RAP is a purpose built armored vehicle for what it was designed for. The HMMWV, designed initially as a utility vehicle, is modified into the armored M1114, a role it is shoehorned into, but not well-designed for.
Not to mention, armor is a hindrance to an army under the right conditions, not a help. For instance, in the tight confines of a forest, armor (whether wheeled or tracked) would have a hard time moving quickly through the small back logging roads of say, Appalachia or Eastern Europe. Add bridge weight limit factors, the possibility of guerilla operations which could make armor paralyzed (blow the trees down and you've created an instant roadblock), and the demoralization of the troops in the armored vehicles who do not want to get out of them, or risk a sniper popping his brains out. Not to mention, while being inside armored vehicles significantly decrease your chances of getting shot, the introduction of flame weapons and warfare will easily turn your armored vehicle into an oven. Get out and get shot. Stay in and get baked.
I've digressed a bit, but back to the subject - utility vehicles are non-armored for reasons, and the Polaris, while not my idea of a good candidate, does fit that description. Armor and heavy weapons are for other vehicles to carry.
I still think the Polaris is good only for around the base, not outside in the boonies. Need something a little bigger, like a Jeep CJ-sized vehicle.
The Willys MB, for example, was very reminiscent of these traits, but it was not designed for actual front-line combat. While it could be said that guns could be added to the Jeeps to make them more offensive, or armor to make them more defensive, these mods were not reflective of the original intent of the jeep's creation, or that of any utility military vehicle.
Armor, while useful in protecting modern combat troops from incoming fire and shrapnel, inflicts a heavy cost on the operation, maintenance, and maneuverability of the vehicle. The cost of armor attached to a vehicle include:
- weight and subsequent loss of speed
- additional wear on the vehicle due to weight
- reduced visibility
- added size of the vehicle from armor
- decreased interior conditions of the vehicle for riders
- cost to manufacture or modify original vehicle for armor
In World War II, a half-track or scout car would be a good example of something designed for armor, the jeep is not. In today's desert battlefront, the M-RAP is a purpose built armored vehicle for what it was designed for. The HMMWV, designed initially as a utility vehicle, is modified into the armored M1114, a role it is shoehorned into, but not well-designed for.
Not to mention, armor is a hindrance to an army under the right conditions, not a help. For instance, in the tight confines of a forest, armor (whether wheeled or tracked) would have a hard time moving quickly through the small back logging roads of say, Appalachia or Eastern Europe. Add bridge weight limit factors, the possibility of guerilla operations which could make armor paralyzed (blow the trees down and you've created an instant roadblock), and the demoralization of the troops in the armored vehicles who do not want to get out of them, or risk a sniper popping his brains out. Not to mention, while being inside armored vehicles significantly decrease your chances of getting shot, the introduction of flame weapons and warfare will easily turn your armored vehicle into an oven. Get out and get shot. Stay in and get baked.
I've digressed a bit, but back to the subject - utility vehicles are non-armored for reasons, and the Polaris, while not my idea of a good candidate, does fit that description. Armor and heavy weapons are for other vehicles to carry.
I still think the Polaris is good only for around the base, not outside in the boonies. Need something a little bigger, like a Jeep CJ-sized vehicle.
BigWill1276
New member
- 44
- 0
- 0
- Location
- Nevada
I have two Polaris Sportsman 800's. They are the best thing since sliced bread. Don't think I would roll it around in Iraq or Afghanistan but they are built great. I've taken my in some crazy places looking for elk and deer but they weren't shooting back at me. But when you have to cover miles and miles on small trails they rock. Just me pitching in.