Topic: Scientific study on exhaustion rates in armor

[dutch206]

Linky:
http://news.discovery.com/history/armor-glitch-110721.html#mkcpgn=msn1

[dutch206]

the interpreters expended up to 2.3 times as much energy while walking and 1.9 times as much energy while running compared with wearing no armor.

"We found that carrying this kind of load spread across the body requires a lot more energy than carrying the same weight in a backpack," said Askew.

[providence13]

"It emerged that wearing these bulky armors, which weighed between 30 and 50 kg, (66-110 lbs), doubled the amount of energy required to walk or run.

Indeed, the interpreters expended up to 2.3 times as much energy while walking and 1.9 times as much energy while running compared with wearing no armor."

Huh?
I guess walking is less efficient than running in armor.

[Marc R]

Or running is less efficient than walking when unencumbered, so the layered on inefficiency had less of an impact in an already inefficient mode.

[markc]

Great article and experiment. IMHO


 I remember a similar comment that was made about the British army invading the colonies (USA today) with their heavy woolen tunics (I think the right word) and the strangely hot summer that was recorded that year. The British troops were not allowed to shed their hot cloths and this extra fatigue had an impact on there performance. IMHO every little bit of an edge the Colonials could get helped immensely. 


 About the running maybe once the person in armor got to a specific speed there fatigue rate dropped do to the momentum gained from the extra weight of the armor. Another huge factor that I noticed from the article was the test subjects comment that it was hard to get a full breath in the armor. I guess this is where fitted armor has a huge influence or armor that is designed for one person. I can also see why some armor has extra room around the chest and abdomen, besides the room to grow aspect. Also maybe it is easier to learn to breath a different way, after having spent some time in the armor.


Thanks again for the article link.
MDC

[Ynglaur]

Practice, practice, practice.  For the crazy number keepers among us, Maneuvering in Armor skill should affect exhaustion rate, and probably movement rate as well (the the MMP penalty effectively does the latter for anything more than walking).

[Zat]

I would assume that one simply can't run as fast in full armour hence the lower comparative. After all, you know you can't dash in full plate, right? 

[Marc R]

I suspect it's the flip, that running or sprinting unencumbered are already far less efficient than walking. . .so the armor penalty to that efficiency is less dramatic, and less noticeable in tactical time.

i.e. if you have a compact car (high fuel efficiency) and an SUV (Low fuel efficiency). . .you weld on a trailer hitch and tow a 5 ton trailer.

The compact car fuel efficiency plummets, the SUV takes a smaller (percentage) loss in efficiency. . .because it's already inefficient to start.

i.e. walking in armor is much harder than walking without, because walking is a very efficiant means of moving. . .running in armor is harder, but takes a smaller (percentage) loss in efficiancy.

Of course, if you can walk 20 miles unencumbered, but only 10 miles armored, that has less of a dramatic tactical impact than being reduced from 100 yards sprinting distance to 75 yards sprinting distance. . .it's a 50% hit on walking which is double the 25% hit on sprinting, but the sprinting reduction is far more noticeable in a tactical round by round situation, since it'll take a crap load of rounds to walk to 10 miles and hit your limit, but might be able to sprint 75 yards in one round and crash into that limit.