This study compares three routing protocols for wireless mobile ad-hoc networks: Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV), and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR). The protocols were evaluated through simulations in various scenarios, including a random movement model and three realistic scenarios: Conference, Event Coverage, and Disaster Area. The simulations were conducted using the Network Simulator (ns2) and involved varying mobility metrics and traffic loads. The results show that reactive protocols (AODV and DSR) generally outperform DSDV, especially in high mobility and traffic load scenarios. At moderate traffic loads, DSR performs better than AODV, while AODV performs better than DSR at higher traffic loads due to the source routes in DSR data packets, which increase network load. The mobility metric introduced in this study captures the relative motion of nodes and is used to evaluate the performance of the protocols under different conditions. In the Conference scenario, DSR and AODV performed well, delivering high packet delivery rates with low delay. In the Event Coverage scenario, DSR and AODV also performed well, with DSR slightly outperforming AODV. In the Disaster Area scenario, DSR and AODV managed to deliver about 55% of the traffic, while DSDV delivered only 30%, indicating that proactive protocols like DSDV are not suitable for high mobility environments. The study concludes that reactive routing protocols are superior to proactive ones in mobile ad-hoc networks. DSR is efficient in finding routes with fewer control packets, while AODV has lower byte overhead but higher packet overhead due to periodic HELLO messages. DSR is recommended for scenarios with limited hop counts and low packet overhead, while AODV is better suited for scenarios with many hops and low byte overhead. Future work includes further analysis of other protocols and the inclusion of QoS mechanisms for real-time and non-real-time traffic.This study compares three routing protocols for wireless mobile ad-hoc networks: Destination Sequenced Distance Vector (DSDV), Ad-hoc On-demand Distance Vector (AODV), and Dynamic Source Routing (DSR). The protocols were evaluated through simulations in various scenarios, including a random movement model and three realistic scenarios: Conference, Event Coverage, and Disaster Area. The simulations were conducted using the Network Simulator (ns2) and involved varying mobility metrics and traffic loads. The results show that reactive protocols (AODV and DSR) generally outperform DSDV, especially in high mobility and traffic load scenarios. At moderate traffic loads, DSR performs better than AODV, while AODV performs better than DSR at higher traffic loads due to the source routes in DSR data packets, which increase network load. The mobility metric introduced in this study captures the relative motion of nodes and is used to evaluate the performance of the protocols under different conditions. In the Conference scenario, DSR and AODV performed well, delivering high packet delivery rates with low delay. In the Event Coverage scenario, DSR and AODV also performed well, with DSR slightly outperforming AODV. In the Disaster Area scenario, DSR and AODV managed to deliver about 55% of the traffic, while DSDV delivered only 30%, indicating that proactive protocols like DSDV are not suitable for high mobility environments. The study concludes that reactive routing protocols are superior to proactive ones in mobile ad-hoc networks. DSR is efficient in finding routes with fewer control packets, while AODV has lower byte overhead but higher packet overhead due to periodic HELLO messages. DSR is recommended for scenarios with limited hop counts and low packet overhead, while AODV is better suited for scenarios with many hops and low byte overhead. Future work includes further analysis of other protocols and the inclusion of QoS mechanisms for real-time and non-real-time traffic.