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.

-

[TGirl Kelley]

I voted mobility because when I was in the USAF our body armor sucked and I would rather shoot and scoot than rely on it.
But from what I understand of the 4e rules (I'm still learning) it doesn't seem to be much benefit in forgoing protection though. Moving only provides a -1 penalty so mechanically it would seem that if you have good cover you'll just turtle up and rely on the body armor instead of tactical movement.
If you are wearing body armor in the tropic heat you would definitely need increased hydration requirements per day and maybe more Stamina rolls and/or higher penalties depending on temp and activity levels. If you forego the flak vest you may have lesser penalties.

[kcdusk]

Random thoughts;

Not armour per se. Do you give the negative penalty if PCs are moving with their backpack? If they take an action to drop their pack, do you note where they left it (more importantly, does the player know where they left it!)?

I like the conundrum of protection verse mobility choice that players should be made to make.

In game i'd always take the protection. I think you would have to focus on NPC mobility or protection modifiers as much as PC modifiers if you are going to go down that path - and i am in favour of this. It often comes up in my game, so i think this is a great thread question.

I haven't voted yet.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Not armour per se. Do you give the negative penalty if PCs are moving with their backpack? If they take an action to drop their pack, do you note where they left it (more importantly, does the player know where they left it!)?

Yes and yes. I've tried running with a full backpack on, IRL, and it does significantly impact speed and agility negatively.

Another thought about protection v. mobility that I forgot to include in the OP is that wearing body armor could psychologically prime the wearer to take more risks on the battlefield. This is probably much more the case in the game than it is IRL. In the game, a player might make the following calculus:

"My PC can probably survive a hit to the head or torso so I'm going to have him/her charge that MG nest..." or whatever.

The irony is that armor protection might make a PC more likely to get hit.

-

[bash]

I'm not sure American doctrine in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam WRT equipment would necessarily hold in the Twilight war. It wasn't until the late 90s (our timeline) that deployed soldiers might be expected to have the ISAPO plate carriers. In T2k I think those would be super rare and rarer still in soldier's hands at the time of the game.

The average body armor in T2K would just be the soft PASGT vest which is 3lbs. Not nothing but not the 16lbs of IBA with all the plates installed or ~20lbs of the PASGT with ISAPO. I would definitely see soldiers trekking through Poland dropping plate carriers if they had them but keeping their soft armor to protect against fragments.

So for the poll I guess I pick both. Keep some protection but not being around when the bad guys start shooting is a great defense.

[Mahatatain]

Personally, based on zero experience in real life, I think that mobility is more important but that most RPGs don't reflect this, particularly in modern settings.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by kcdusk

Not armour per se. Do you give the negative penalty if PCs are moving with their backpack? If they take an action to drop their pack, do you note where they left it (more importantly, does the player know where they left it!)?

Yes. The system I use has all carried weight impacting the skill checks of characters. But the weight affects each character differently, as their Str and End stats and Condition skill are all different.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by bash

I'm not sure American doctrine in Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Vietnam WRT equipment would necessarily hold in the Twilight war. It wasn't until the late 90s (our timeline) that deployed soldiers might be expected to have the ISAPO plate carriers. In T2k I think those would be super rare and rarer still in soldier's hands at the time of the game.

Fair point. T2k body armor would have been less cumbersome (and effective) that current issue.

Originally Posted by bash

The average body armor in T2K would just be the soft PASGT vest which is 3lbs.

The PASGT vest is listed at between 7-10 lbs on the sites I checked, and the K-Pot weighs in at 3 lbs.

Regardless, I feel for the grunts that had to hump this much gear through triple canopy jungle and/or under the tropical sun. Note the soldier on the far right of the picture carrying a tube sock full of C-ration cans. It's no wonder the VC and NVA could move much faster on foot.

[Homer]

I’d have to go with “it depends”. Sitting in a static position under indirect fire, go ahead and get as much armor as you can. Moving cross country to conduct a recon, mobility may be your best bet. There’s also the compromise, like carrying your helmet in your ruck and putting it on in the ORP before actions on the objective but being in a soft cap otherwise. Being able to move and not wear yourself down more than necessary is often more important in close combat than the ability to shrug a hit- taking one in the plate still tends to take you out of the fight long enough for the enemy to do unto you if you are alone. That said, I do know a few guys who got to keep their used plates as souvenirs.

I will say the game standard Kevlar vest filled a vital role in the pre-SAPI plate army, because it was perfect to put down on an uneven surface in a vehicle as a sleeping pad. It really smoothed out the assorted brackets and buckles you’d have jabbing into you otherwise. As we transitioned to helmet mounted optics, the Kevlar helmet was increasingly worn as a more comfortable alternative to the old “skull crusher” NVG mounts.

Once the IBA and successor designs came out, it seemed like light units very quickly leaned the various pieces of armor down to plates, minimal soft armor and a helmet- and plates could be dropped at high altitude or if there was a long hump. The DAPS, groin guard, blast panties, etc all seemed the province of mounted units.

The original RBA would likely exist in T2K, but that was heavy and rare.

[Tegyrius]

Originally Posted by Targan

Yes. The system I use has all carried weight impacting the skill checks of characters. But the weight affects each character differently, as their Str and End stats and Condition skill are all different.

From a game design perspective, I have been thinking that wearing armor and a ruck should be the mechanical default. Dropping the ruck and/or going without armor should provide bonuses to mobility/evasion. This is based on players' tendency to forget inconvenient situational penalties but remember bonuses with unerring accuracy...

- C.

[kcdusk]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

From a game design perspective, I have been thinking that wearing armor and a ruck should be the mechanical default. Dropping the ruck and/or going without armor should provide bonuses to mobility/evasion. This is based on players' tendency to forget inconvenient situational penalties but remember bonuses with unerring accuracy...

- C.

this

[Adm.Lee]

Originally Posted by Tegyrius

From a game design perspective, I have been thinking that wearing armor and a ruck should be the mechanical default. Dropping the ruck and/or going without armor should provide bonuses to mobility/evasion. This is based on players' tendency to forget inconvenient situational penalties but remember bonuses with unerring accuracy...

- C.

This is a keen insight into player psychology

By George, I think he's got it!

[Homer]

I’d consider a bonus to spotting/hearing if you’re in soft cap or bareheaded. The Kevlar tended to mess with your directional hearing. Much better in a patrol cap.

When doing mounted recon we’d periodically stop, shut down, and take off the CVCs for 5-10 minutes to listen. Worked especially well in cold weather because somebody was always running an engine for heat. Also would get down off the track and and 15-25m away to smell for food, cigarettes, etc.

[The Zappster]

I always applied -2 skill to stealth when wearing a lid without head cover/ foliage applied. I will now apply it to Observation with this info. This is why I love this forum.

[Homer]

Yep- Sarmajah hated the ragtop or the boonie, but it beat the heck out of the distinctive signature of a tightly stretched Kevalar cover.

[LoneCollector1987]

I was never in combat but considering that I am big (2m tall, 120kg) I dont have much mobility, so I would go for protection.

And to your question regarding how other game systems handle it:
Shadowrun 6:
You can wear different types of armor, but only one counts.
Exception: if an armor type has the addition quality (I use german Shadowrun, so I dont know the english terms)
Example: You wear an armoured vest (Panzerweste, +3) and a leather jacket (Kunstlederjacke, +1) you have to choose between protection +1 or +3. You dont have +4.
But if you add a shield (+2), that has the addition quality, then you have to choose betwen protection +3 (+1+2) or +5 (+3+2).

I find this funny. Just imagine: a bullet comes your way and after penetrating your shield it enters the warp before hitting the leathercoat and re-enters reality before hitting the armoured vest.

But I couldnt find any negative modifiers for wearing too much armour. That is the decision of the GM.

In the Unisystem of All Flesh must be eaten RPG, Buffy RPG, Angel RPG everything has a weight and if you carry too much you are encumbered and take a -1 on your rolls (or more depending on your encumbrance). And some armours encumber you even if the weight you carry is within your limits.

[HaplessOperator]

Being small or big doesn't make much difference, and juking and jiving doesn't really help if someone's sweeping a PK on a narrow, saturating arc past you, or has that AK lined up at the door when you walk in.

A big, fatass ceramic plate can catch any of it, though, and multiple times before failing. That kevlar wraparound will suck up and stop anything short of a rifle cartridge or high-grain artillery frag.

I've been peppered with frag two or three times, hit with secondary frag, and got capped in the chest with a 7N14 armor piercing round from a Kadesih, and if I hadn't been wearing the Interceptor, MTV, or - twice - the full turret gunner getup, instead of being able to take a deep breath and keep fighting, I'd be carrying around a lot more than two pieces in me, and likely, not doing much but laying in a pine box these days. Even the Wiley-X and Oakleys held up, or I'd be too blind to type this. If I had to choose something light, it'd be a CIRAS or a FSBE.

Yeah, it sucks cuz it's heavy. Yeah, it sucks cuz it's hot. Yeah, it sucks cuz it's uncomfortable. But getting shot at and blown up during a complex ambbush halfway through a sixteen-hour foot patrol sucks anyway. It just sucks a hell of a lot more with a sucking chest wound and three penetrating trunk injuries that could be trivially avoided because you didn't want to beef up and get used to doing your morning 3-mile with a ruck, armor, and helmet on in boots and utes.

Also, if you can't do lower level entry, or clamber over a wall or up the side of your gun truck in full armor and battle rattle, you quite simply need to git gud, work out, and run more until you can do your job without falling out.

Same principle as if you're thinking you can go light on ammo or something. Yeah, it'd be great if we could count every round of a 150-round or 210-round loadout to be a kill, but we can't. Two or three of those mags is going to disappear in the first two minutes of that ambush, whether you're on the attack or attempting counter-ambush and a breakout or setting up to assault through, and then you're going to burn the rest on breaking contact or killing your attackers, and now you're walking eight miles back with half a magazine or something. You're not usually the ones that gets to make the choice about the enemy's initiative and actions unless you're clever, lucky, and intrepid, all at the same time, and you can't do that 365 days a year, and even if you could, you're going to run into someone with a little more pluck than you at some point, so it behooves one to be loaded for bear.

Also also, if you're not wearing Peltors and hearing better with a helmet on than with your helmet off while maintaining dual channels for company and battalion nets on the MBITR and simultaneously listening in on your platoon's personal role radios, you're wearing your helmet wrong.

If I'm limited to a PASGT vest and helmet, I'm gonna be rocking them, too, cuz BDUs don't stop frag, and I can't hear better with a crater in my skull. That's what frequent patrol stops are for.

[Homer]

Absolutely agree that sortie type patrolling with a high likelihood of contact, deliberate attacks, and movement to contact are times when you want to be wearing all your armor and carrying lots of bullets. Nobody ever died from a lack of shooting back…

That said, there’s always a compromise between mission requirements, mobility, sustainment, and protection. If your mission requires a 30km dismounted infil to establish an OP for 3-5 days followed by a 30km dismounted exfil, your kit is going to look a lot different than a moving mounted to a detruck point followed by a breach and assault to seize a fortified position then consolidating and reorganizing. Moving dismounted to raid a single lightly defended objective under cover of darkness with fire support available the standard 210 rounds plus a LAW and frags may be sufficient for a rifleman, allowing him to move rapidly. That same rifleman may have a double basic load plus along with smokes, frags, a claymore, and a couple LAWs if the mission requires him to seize and hold an airfield until relieved.

A rule of thumb in one organization was to carry a base load plus (300 rounds) ready, NVGs with mount, at least 2 quarts of water, medical kit, two frags, a screening smoke, front and back plates in a stripped carrier, helmet, eye and ear pro, commo gear, stripper clip guide, 1 set spare batteries, multitool/knife, and day/night marker as the default individual load on the body for close to 50-60 lbs. A second base load plus, another set of spare batts, 24 hours food, another 2 quarts of water plus, and any mission equipment or extra munitions/pyro were normally carried in an assault pack for anything more than a local security patrol. It doesn’t sound like much, but you’re already getting near to 80-100 lbs. Without the assault pack you’re still fairly agile (able to grapple, jump, run, etc). With the assault pack you’re more encumbered, as the weight isn’t as well distributed and you’re bulkier.

The above load lets you fight through most actions, and with the assault pack sustain yourself for a 24-48 hour period. Breaks in action would see ammo/munitions/water taken from the assault pack to replenish the stores on the body, a quick bite get eaten, and maybe some basic weapons maintenance performed (a wipe down or lube). Using the items in the assault pack had the side benefit of helping reduce your overall load. Bear in mind this was done at or near sea level in complex, but fairly flat terrain. Likelihood of enemy contact was very high, with every subunit of the organization usually being engaged at least once every 24 hours.

A similar organization operating at higher altitudes in more rugged terrain allowed plates and helmets to be carried or left behind for approach marches and surveillance, only donning them for assaults or when likelihood of contact was high. This allowed the unit to move faster and be less fatigued when they arrived at the objective but required more emphasis on march security and maintaining awareness of the environment.

For folks running a T2K campaign a lot of this discussion will defer to party size and style. A small group seeking to make it out of Poland may be better served by traveling light and avoiding contact as much as possible. This may mean more emphasis on carrying food/fuel/water along with a basic load of ammo while eschewing heavier protective equipment. A larger or more combat focused group may want to invest in more protective gear, and consider carrying more ammo and munitions at the expense of food/fuel/water.

Another consideration is the signature you want to present. There is no hiding a platoon of 30-50 men as anything other than what it is. A smaller group of characters could be well served to hide their armor and helmets with cover garments or by keeping them close by but not worn. A small group of characters in a civilian vehicle or on foot is going to stick out less in typical civilian headgear and garb than they will in NATO pattern uniform and helmets/kevlar vests. Even a duster worn over a flak vest with a cap is going to help you blend.

Given that Poland has been invaded multiple times by NATO, nuked by both sides, and ravaged by bands of soldiery for the past three years maybe having the ability to blend and move quietly through the landscape without attracting attention is a form of protection with a value higher than any armor.