Protection v. Mobility

[Raellus]

In Freedom, journalist Sebastian Junger (Perfect Storm, Restrepo) pointed out that in the USA's last few wars, US troops have faced more mobile opponents (on foot, at least)- this may have contributed to the USA's inability to win those wars. For example, when aircraft and motorized vehicles were not involved, both the VC/NVA and the Taliban could usually run circles around American soldiers. Why? Because the American soldier today typically carried/carries at least 70lbs of kit into battle, whilst his/her opponents often fight much lighter. A lot of the weight that American soldiers have to bear is body armor. Their enemies usually fight without. As a result of a typically heavy combat load, American troops are not only slower on their feet, they often get physically exhausted more quickly than their opponents. That begs the question, which is more important in sustained infantry combat, protection or mobility?

I think one can argue that, in game terms, protection is more important. Taking less damage due to wearing body armor means a PC has greater odds of surviving a firefight. However, there are in-game penalties to being over-encumbered.

I'm currently playing in a T2k PbP (4e rules) where the party is operating in the tropics as a commando force. I want the extra protection of body armor for my PC, but having him wear a PAGST vest and K-pot whilst humping through jungle in triple-digit heat seems somewhat unrealistic. How would you handle this conundrum?

Does one game system or another handle the downsides of wearing body armor better?

Please share the reasoning behind your poll selection in the comments.

-