Got a Real World Weapons or Armour Question? Mk XI

[Yora]

case in point: the brits, instead of adopting a PDW*, instead used the L22 version of their existing L85.

That's where carbines come into play. I'm not sure how much the US still uses the "full size" M16, as they seem to focus more on the "compact" M16.
The G36 also comes in a "short" and a "compact" version and there is a short version of the AK-74 as well. And the entire point of bullpup designs is to achieve the very same result.
You have almost exactly the same parts, which is good for training and maintanance, but with a shorter barrel that doesn't get as much in the way when moving through tight spaces. There should be a slight decrease in accuracy (or was that precesion?), but I think combat ranges have become increasingly shorter in recent decades, so that shouldn't be too much of a downside, especially when you can expect to fight inside buildings. But you still have the full power of rifle cartridges.


Completely different question: What would be common weights for chainmail armor, both for the variant with full sleeves and legs, and the one with quarter-sleeves and a short skirt?

[Spiryt]

Completely different question: What would be common weights for chainmail armor, both for the variant with full sleeves and legs, and the one with quarter-sleeves and a short skirt?

-About 15 pounds.

- Are you crazy? My mail is 40 pounds and still won't protect well from pollaxes on bohurt in Belarus....

And so on.

Generally, we have really, really few even remotely complete mail suits from before ~ 1450, so answering that question can be very challenging.

There certainly were some "typical" combinations, but generally, everything will depend on rings size, wire thickness, construction etc.

Wallace Collection has some roughly complete hauberks from XVth century, and weigh visibly varies a lot between similar examples.

[Galloglaich]

-About 15 pounds.

- Are you crazy? My mail is 40 pounds and still won't protect well from pollaxes on bohurt in Belarus....

And so on.

Generally, we have really, really few even remotely complete mail suits from before ~ 1450, so answering that question can be very challenging.

There certainly were some "typical" combinations, but generally, everything will depend on rings size, wire thickness, construction etc.

Wallace Collection has some roughly complete hauberks from XVth century, and weigh visibly varies a lot between similar examples.

I agree it could vary a lot but based on what has survived I'm personally closer to the 15 lbs (or less) end of the spectrum like that very nice 10 lb shirt Spiryt linked above from the Wallace Collection. For a complete panoply covering the entire arms, legs, neck and so on, you might be closer to that 40 lbs.

But they did make mail with rings of various guage, some was steel especially later in the period which tended to be lighter and of smaller rings, most was iron which was by necessity a bit heavier.

But generally speaking most RPG's and computer games tend to badly overestimate how much mail weighs.

Of course the other thing is that mail was usually worn with textile armor, at least in any period where we can verify; often not just under the mail but also over the mail which seems to help a great deal with making the mail impervious to arrows.

Note for example in 'The Kings Mirror', section XXXVIII

The rider himself should be equipped in this wise: he should wear good soft breeches made of soft and thoroughly blackened linen cloth, which should reach up to the belt; outside these, good mail hose which should come up high enough to be girded on with a double strap; over these he must have good trousers made of linen cloth of the sort that I have already described; finally, over these he should have good knee-pieces made of thick iron and rivets hard as steel. Above and next to the body he should wear a soft gambison, which need not come lower than to the middle of, the thigh. Over this he must have a strong breastplate made of good iron covering the body from the nipples to the trousers belt; outside this, a well-made hauberk and over the hauberk a firm gambison made in the manner which I have already described but without sleeves.

Of course that is 13th Century so you are already getting into transitional / plate armor.

G

[Spiryt]

I always thought that such really light mail like one from WC would obviously be one used mainly as addition to something - under breastplate or linen jack etc.

While actual standalone mail of earlier centuries, which was main protection, would be obviously more substantial.

Sadly, it just "sounds logical" - there's generally nothing about mail hauberk that really tells what was it intended use, sadly.

As far as King's Mirror goes, I wonder what exactly was "blackened linen". Somehow I doubt that one would care about colour that much.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

That's where carbines come into play. I'm not sure how much the US still uses the "full size" M16, as they seem to focus more on the "compact" M16.
The G36 also comes in a "short" and a "compact" version and there is a short version of the AK-74 as well. And the entire point of bullpup designs is to achieve the very same result.
You have almost exactly the same parts, which is good for training and maintanance, but with a shorter barrel that doesn't get as much in the way when moving through tight spaces. There should be a slight decrease in accuracy (or was that precesion?), but I think combat ranges have become increasingly shorter in recent decades, so that shouldn't be too much of a downside, especially when you can expect to fight inside buildings. But you still have the full power of rifle cartridges.

The USMC still primarily uses the M16, the Army has mostly switched over to the M4. A shorter barrel will decrease precision and velocity (and, consequently, energy).

As to combat ranges, they have been generally getting shorter. However, recent experience in Afghanistan has shown a need for longer effective ranges, leading to a return to the larger 7.62x51mm cartridge.

[Yora]

I should probably have instead asked how much a complete set of armor weighs and not just the mail shirt itself.
That's actually a bit like asking for the weight of a tank without the gun, fuel, ammunition, and crew, which is quite a different thing.

[Joran]

The USMC still primarily uses the M16, the Army has mostly switched over to the M4. A shorter barrel will decrease precision and velocity (and, consequently, energy).

As to combat ranges, they have been generally getting shorter. However, recent experience in Afghanistan has shown a need for longer effective ranges, leading to a return to the larger 7.62x51mm cartridge.

I was about to ask what guns they were going to use, since the M-14 was the only U.S. standard issue rifle that I knew used the 7.62 NATO and I thought it was out of date.

Then Wikipedia came to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_E...d_Battle_Rifle

[Galloglaich]

I should probably have instead asked how much a complete set of armor weighs and not just the mail shirt itself.
That's actually a bit like asking for the weight of a tank without the gun, fuel, ammunition, and crew, which is quite a different thing.

It depends on the amount of coverage, say, anywhere from 40% (torso and head) to 95% (everything but the eyes) which might range in weight from 15 -20 lbs all the way up to 60 lbs or more for mail.

For plate armor the range is probably something like 20 lbs on the light side to around 80 lbs for a full 'heavy' Milanese harness, whereas some of the lighter Gothic harness (which may lack protection for the back of the legs or thigh) could be as low as 30 -40 lbs for basically cap-a-pied protection.

I always thought that such really light mail like one from WC would obviously be one used mainly as addition to something - under breastplate or linen jack etc.

While actual standalone mail of earlier centuries, which was main protection, would be obviously more substantial.

There is a lot of debate if mail was ever worn or used without textile armor - I have my doubts about that. But I've seen a bunch of tests done with light, pretty good (not great, but pretty good) quality riveted mail armor which seemed almost impervious to every some pretty good swords, though the late -medieval type swords with very narrow points could get inside of a ring.

Like this series of tests by ARMA Hellas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbJ6_KoXvqM

Sadly, it just "sounds logical" - there's generally nothing about mail hauberk that really tells what was it intended use, sadly.

I think that depends a lot on the period, we do have graves (Towton, Wisby) where bodies were found with armor, in some cases including traces of the textiles, and plenty of literary (records, accounts) evidence of what people wore and how it was made from as far back as the 10th Century. In Northern Europe before that it gets a little more rare but we still do have data.

Consider for example this account from Usamah Ibn Munquidh

"In the morning we found ourselves near Dumayr. Salah-al Din (Saladin)
said to me 'Shall we not dismount and eat something? I am hungry and have
been up all night.' I replied 'I shall do what thou orderest.' So we
dismounted, and no sooner than we had set foot on the ground, when he said
'Where is thy jerkin?' Upon my order, my attendant produced it. Taking it
out from it's leather bag, I took my knife and ripped it at the breast and
disclosed the side of the two coats of mail. The jerkin enclosed a Frankish
coat of mail extending to the bottom of it, with another coat on top reaching
as far as the middle. Both were equipped with the proper linings, felt
pads, rough silk, and rabbits hair."

They were still using mostly mail armor on both sides in this period (1190 AD) but it seems to have been remarkably effective...

“By this time the vanguard of the Frankish horsemen had reached me, so I retired before them, turning back my lance in their direction and my eyes toward them lest some one of their horse should prove to quick for me and pierce me with his lance. In front of me were some of our companions, and we were surrounded by gardens with walls as high as a sitting man. My mare hit wit it’s breast one of our companions, so I turned it’s head to the left and applied the spurs to it’s sides, whereupon it leaped over the wall. I so regulated my position until I stood on a level with the Franks. The wall only separated us. One of their horsemen hastened to me, displaying his colors in a green and yellow silk tunic, under which I thought was no coat of mail. I therefore let him alone until he passed me. Then I applied my spurs to my mare, which leapt over the wall, and I smote him with the lance. He bent sideways so much that his head reached the stirrup, his shield and lance fell off his hand, and his helmet off his head. By that time we had reached our infantry. He then resumed his position, erect in the saddle. Having had linked mail under his tunic, my lance did not wound him. His companions caught up to him, all returned together, and the footman recovered his shield, lance, and helmet.”

-An Arab-Syrian Gentleman and Warrior in the period of the Crusades. Usamah Ibn-Minqidh, 12th Century AD

That sounds like a pretty hard hit to me!

As far as King's Mirror goes, I wonder what exactly was "blackened linen". Somehow I doubt that one would care about colour that much.

Yeah I was wondering about that too. I have a theory which exists on a rather thin thread; in the Hebrides and Orkneys and in certain parts of Scotland and Ireland, where Norse-Gaelic Galloglass mercenaires were operating as late as the 16th Century (or maybe later, 17th?) there were some references to a special type of 'aketon' which was covered in pitch, apparently as a form of waterproofing. Which would make a lot of sense for wearing something like that in a damp climate or on ship-board, a textile armor would get waterlogged pretty easily and rot if exposed to the rain for a long time.

The blackened linen might be something like that. The Galloglass were linked to Scandinavian immigrant culture and they still used mail armor quite late.

G

[Cerlis]

I was wondering about how many miles the average traveler would cover in a day using a wagon or horse. This is assuming non rushed and camping to sleep.

Trying to figure out how big the adventuring area should be. I dont want it to take more than a week or two to get to the edge of the plains.

[Spiryt]

There was misunderstanding, I also think that some textile armor, or at least, substantial, thick textile would be most probably worn under mail.

I'm just wondering, if mail hauberk worn under breastplate, or coat of plates, like this would be usually done, wouldn't be much lighter than 'standalone' main defense one worn only with aketon/gambeson/whatever.


Such really fine 10 pound ones from Wallace collection got my interest here.

That would make plenty of sense, because everyone only had one spine, but haven't ever seen any actual evidence.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I was about to ask what guns they were going to use, since the M-14 was the only U.S. standard issue rifle that I knew used the 7.62 NATO and I thought it was out of date.

Then Wikipedia came to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mk_14_E...d_Battle_Rifle

There's also the Mk. 11/SR-25, the M110 SASS, and the Mk. 17, in service with various units.

[Mike_G]

The old M 14 is still in limited use as well.

[Matthew]

Yeah I think that happened quite often, especially with English knights who often fought on foot.

Late to say so, but the Battle of the Standard is my favourite example of knights fighting with cut down lances.

[Thiel]

Yeah I was wondering about that too. I have a theory which exists on a rather thin thread; in the Hebrides and Orkneys and in certain parts of Scotland and Ireland, where Norse-Gaelic Galloglass mercenaires were operating as late as the 16th Century (or maybe later, 17th?) there were some references to a special type of 'aketon' which was covered in pitch, apparently as a form of waterproofing. Which would make a lot of sense for wearing something like that in a damp climate or on ship-board, a textile armor would get waterlogged pretty easily and rot if exposed to the rain for a long time.

The blackened linen might be something like that. The Galloglass were linked to Scandinavian immigrant culture and they still used mail armor quite late.

G

Sounds a lot like oilskin. Take your sailcloth of choice and stitch it into a set of loose fitting clothes then cover it in pitch. It was used as late as the 1940ies at least. The reason you used sail cloth was that it was very common and quite cheap since you could make an entire suit of oilies out of scraps. In Scandinavia wool remained the sail cloth of choice for a long time. Im not sure how far back it dates, but the materials were in common use on Viking ships so it's not much of a stretch to assume the Vikings knew how to make it. If that's the case then I'd be very surprised if they didn't wear it on land.

[Brother Oni]

I was wondering about how many miles the average traveler would cover in a day using a wagon or horse. This is assuming non rushed and camping to sleep.

Trying to figure out how big the adventuring area should be. I dont want it to take more than a week or two to get to the edge of the plains.

This is highly dependent on the pace, terrain, numbers and how much travelling time a day.

I've read for a modern holidays with a horse drawn caravan, they cover 7-20km in 2-5 hours on roads. A wagon drawn at walking pace (4mph) would cover the same distance as a man on foot, while trotting (~8mph) can be maintained for several hours over a few days with ease depending on load of the wagon.

On horseback, I've seen values of 20-100 miles for a lone traveller in a day's travel, depending on how hard they push their horse.

Usually the larger the numbers of travellers, the slower the pace since getting everybody organised is an issue, but there are exceptions: a Mongol army covered 180 miles in 3 days before the battle of Mohi (they use multiple horses to allow them to set a high pace).

I'd set it to be ~200 miles for a week's travel on decent terrain at a leisurely pace (30 miles a day) for a small group of people on horseback. With a medium loaded wagon, probably about 25 miles a day.

[GraaEminense]

For what it´s worth, I´ve also heard the interpretation of "blackened linen" as linen cloth covered in pitch or tar. It does fit reasonably well with both the modern Norwegian and the old Norse meaning, and it makes some sense as armour as well -in addition to waterproofing, "blackening" cloth would seem to greatly increase friction, making it more resistant to arrows in particular.

For wear over mail, I could see the use.

Massive amounts of disclaimers: I have not actually tried to blacken a gambeson and shoot it full of arrows, nor have I seen such a test done.

[Mathis]

How much would a height advantage for a unit of archers positioned on a hill say 50 meters, or 100, or 200 meters higher than the ground below it benefit this unit if they were firing down on a similar unit of archers on flat ground firing up at them?

Would the units on the higher ground recieve an advantage from added momentum since they are firing downwards, and not upwards? If so does anyone know how much, or how I could calculate the difference?

Could someone explain to me what exactly the benefits of firing from a high ground are? I think I know, but I've been proven wrong so many times that I'd like to hear it from someone with some proper experience.

[Galloglaich]

This is highly dependent on the pace, terrain, numbers and how much travelling time a day.

I've read for a modern holidays with a horse drawn caravan, they cover 7-20km in 2-5 hours on roads. A wagon drawn at walking pace (4mph) would cover the same distance as a man on foot, while trotting (~8mph) can be maintained for several hours over a few days with ease depending on load of the wagon.

On horseback, I've seen values of 20-100 miles for a lone traveller in a day's travel, depending on how hard they push their horse.

Usually the larger the numbers of travellers, the slower the pace since getting everybody organised is an issue, but there are exceptions: a Mongol army covered 180 miles in 3 days before the battle of Mohi (they use multiple horses to allow them to set a high pace).

I'd set it to be ~200 miles for a week's travel on decent terrain at a leisurely pace (30 miles a day) for a small group of people on horseback. With a medium loaded wagon, probably about 25 miles a day.

One thing to add to this, is the reality of the horses. Horses can't ride forever, and different horses have different capabilities vis a vis riding. Most people "back in the day" in Europe anyway would try to get a horse with an ambling gait for traveling, which is a special sort of fast-walk (very interesting to watch, they still have some icelandic ponies which can do this)

See the 'Tolt' starting at 1:51:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ijnYlcJQ6w

Notice the rider was holding a beer while riding without spilling it, the ambling gait was very easy on both the horse and the rider.

that a horse can maintain for a long time. But even amblers can only walk for so long, they have to be watered and fed, and horses have to be allowed to cool down especially if they have been running, or else they just die. Horses can only run for so long, it varies by breed and I am no horse expert, but I think it ranges from something like an hour to a few hours. Not all day and all night like you typically get in genre fiction. None of this ever seems to be represented in RPG's or computer games.

Like Brother Oni said to deal with this problem in real life the Mongols used to bring a string of many horses per rider, sometimes as many as six per rider, in order to be able to sustain a fast pace on the march. This was one strategy also used by others in Europe and Central Asia, (a knight for example would often have an ambler for travelling, a courser for scouting / war, and a charger for war as well as pack horses or mules) but obviously there was a downside (care and maintenance / feeding of 6 horses per rider), another strategy was to walk more and ride the horse less.

G

[Galloglaich]

Sounds a lot like oilskin. Take your sailcloth of choice and stitch it into a set of loose fitting clothes then cover it in pitch. It was used as late as the 1940ies at least. The reason you used sail cloth was that it was very common and quite cheap since you could make an entire suit of oilies out of scraps. In Scandinavia wool remained the sail cloth of choice for a long time. Im not sure how far back it dates, but the materials were in common use on Viking ships so it's not much of a stretch to assume the Vikings knew how to make it. If that's the case then I'd be very surprised if they didn't wear it on land.

For what it´s worth, I´ve also heard the interpretation of "blackened linen" as linen cloth covered in pitch or tar. It does fit reasonably well with both the modern Norwegian and the old Norse meaning, and it makes some sense as armour as well -in addition to waterproofing, "blackening" cloth would seem to greatly increase friction, making it more resistant to arrows in particular.

Yah that is very interesting, thanks for chiming in with that. I think this is probably the meaning then. Good to know.

I can also see using linen for this instead of wool when it comes to armor because you get so hot so quickly when fighting, even in cold weather.

G

[Mike_G]

One thing to add to this, is the reality of the horses. Horses can't ride forever, and different horses have different capabilities vis a vis riding. Most people "back in the day" in Europe anyway would try to get a horse with an ambling gait for traveling, which is a special sort of fast-walk (very interesting to watch, they still have some icelandic ponies which can do this)

See the 'Tolt' starting at 1:51:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ijnYlcJQ6w

Notice the rider was holding a beer while riding without spilling it, the ambling gait was very easy on both the horse and the rider.

that a horse can maintain for a long time. But even amblers can only walk for so long, they have to be watered and fed, and horses have to be allowed to cool down especially if they have been running, or else they just die. Horses can only run for so long, it varies by breed and I am no horse expert, but I think it ranges from something like an hour to a few hours. Not all day and all night like you typically get in genre fiction. None of this ever seems to be represented in RPG's or computer games.

Like Brother Oni said to deal with this problem in real life the Mongols used to bring a string of many horses per rider, sometimes as many as six per rider, in order to be able to sustain a fast pace on the march. This was one strategy also used by others in Europe and Central Asia, (a knight for example would often have an ambler for travelling, a courser for scouting / war, and a charger for war as well as pack horses or mules) but obviously there was a downside (care and maintenance / feeding of 6 horses per rider), another strategy was to walk more and ride the horse less.

G

Infantry can actually move faster on a sustained march over rough terrain than mounted troops, because men need less rest per hour marching than horses do.

This assumes good light infantry, in decent shape, used to marching.

[Spiryt]

How much would a height advantage for a unit of archers positioned on a hill say 50 meters, or 100, or 200 meters higher than the ground below it benefit this unit if they were firing down on a similar unit of archers on flat ground firing up at them?

Would the units on the higher ground recieve an advantage from added momentum since they are firing downwards, and not upwards? If so does anyone know how much, or how I could calculate the difference?

Could someone explain to me what exactly the benefits of firing from a high ground are? I think I know, but I've been proven wrong so many times that I'd like to hear it from someone with some proper experience.

They would obviously benefit from greater range. Details will really hugely depend on fletching, bow, arrow spine, angle, wind etc. But from 50 meter elevation, at least 20-some meters of additional flight can be obtained.

I'm not sure if any 'additional' momentum would be really acquirable, but certainly momentum losses would be much lower - arrow actually has some gravity on it's side the whole time, so losses due to friction and vibrations are diminished.

While shooting upwards, effect is obviously reverse - arrow looses velocity rapidly while flying up - and it doesn't have any time to gain some of it back.

[Beleriphon]

Infantry can actually move faster on a sustained march over rough terrain than mounted troops, because men need less rest per hour marching than horses do.

This assumes good light infantry, in decent shape, used to marching.

However, infantry can't care 200 pounds of gear each and still march. So there is that. Horses for long distance travel for warfare are much better for carrying heavy loads at a moderate pace. If you really want to haul truly massive loads you use oxen, but then you're moving at an absolute crawl.

[Galloglaich]

I think they used mules and burro's a lot for carrying supplies, as well as horses and sometimes oxen pulling wagons.

G

[Galloglaich]

Leo shooting a Balestrino. I never realized from all the photo's I'd seen how small these things were

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se_N8...ature=youtu.be

G

[fusilier]

However, infantry can't care 200 pounds of gear each and still march. So there is that. Horses for long distance travel for warfare are much better for carrying heavy loads at a moderate pace. If you really want to haul truly massive loads you use oxen, but then you're moving at an absolute crawl.

Infantry can carry a fair amount of equipment on their backs. A horse can carry more than *a* infantryman, but it may be cost effective to have more infantry (especially if you are expecting horses to carry soldiers as well). Discipline, health, and motivation are factors, although health is also a factor for horses and mules. Well trained and/or motivated infantry can sustain hard marching (i.e. over several days) better than horses. The traditional response among cavalry is to have spare horses, but that might be costly. Generally speaking infantry survives "force marches" much better than cavalry.

As a side note, during WW1 there were positions on the Italian Front where everything had to be brought in on foot, they couldn't even get pack mules up there. When the war ended the equipment was often left behind, because it was too hard to retrieve. This has resulted in small war "museums" in difficult to reach caves that only rock climbers can visit. :-)

[Brother Oni]

Leo shooting a Balestrino. I never realized from all the photo's I'd seen how small these things were

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=se_N8...ature=youtu.be

G

The scary thing I found was that he could take the bow down in about a minute, along with the extremely inconspicuous readying with the screw jack. I can see how they were termed assassin's bows.

Infantry can carry a fair amount of equipment on their backs. A horse can carry more than *a* infantryman, but it may be cost effective to have more infantry (especially if you are expecting horses to carry soldiers as well). Discipline, health, and motivation are factors, although health is also a factor for horses and mules. Well trained and/or motivated infantry can sustain hard marching (i.e. over several days) better than horses. The traditional response among cavalry is to have spare horses, but that might be costly. Generally speaking infantry survives "force marches" much better than cavalry.

Expanding on this a bit, the Roman Legion usually managed ~25 miles a day on force marches, 15-18 on normal. This is including setting up camp (with fortifications) at the end of the day.

The optimal weight carried by fighting infantry was found early on and has remained pretty much stable at about 60lbs since antiquity.

As a side note, during WW1 there were positions on the Italian Front where everything had to be brought in on foot, they couldn't even get pack mules up there.

Unless you're Polish and thus had Private Wojtek on your side.

[Galloglaich]

Unless you're Polish and thus had Private Wojtek on your side.

That is ... an amazingly wonderful story. And really, a continuation of an old tradition isn't it? In the Medieval period (and before, presumably) many armies adopted bears as their symbol, and used to keep actual bears. I know it was the mascot, so to speak, of the Swiss city of Berne and their militia (see below) and also of the Samogitians in Lithuania. I believe it was also pretty common in Poland as well in various places.

Very amusing, thanks for posting!


In Switzerland, even the bears carry longswords!


G

[Brother Oni]

That is ... an amazingly wonderful story.

You're welcome.

Some more links have been added to the Wikipedia article since I last read it and you're correct that other regiments had animal mascots, such as bears, but Wojtek was the only one to be formally inducted into the Polish Army (apparently when the British said 'no animals', the Poles made him a private then waved the recruitment papers at the British officials as they boarded the ship ).

I'm a big fan of little footnotes in history like these, something that adds a little quirkiness or human touches to the big sweeping events of history, like the hapless Korean conscripts that were captured by the Allies on D-Day.

[Saph]

A question for the military types (since I know you visit this thread!):

What would the effective range for a modern pistol/SMG and for a modern rifle/assault rifle be for the following rough classes of gun user?

• Novice (no marksmanship training at all)
• Hobbyist (someone who shoots occasionally on an amateur basis)
• Professional (competent infantryman)

By 'effective range' I mean the distance at which the shooter can hit a man-sized target with at least 50% accuracy.

[Raum]

A question for the military types (since I know you visit this thread!):

What would the effective range for a modern pistol/SMG and for a modern rifle/assault rifle be for the following rough classes of gun user?

• Novice (no marksmanship training at all)
• Hobbyist (someone who shoots occasionally on an amateur basis)
• Professional (competent infantryman)

By 'effective range' I mean the distance at which the shooter can hit a man-sized target with at least 50% accuracy.

Not sure I'd call 50% effective. ;) It really depends on what type of shooting we're talking about - a static target at a range with all the time in the world; a speed competition where time matters; or a stress situation where you may well be a target as well?

As an ex-military hobbyist who shoots at amateur Steel Challenge and USPSA matches, I can hit multiple targets at 25 yards with very few misses. At a static range with no time pressure I can hit a silhouette target at 25 yards 20 of 20 shots. Do note, this is with a pistol not an SMG. Don't use an SMG if you want targeted shooting.

I've taught friends to shoot at a static range. It doesn't take long to get them on target at 10 yards. Past that it's a matter of practice, getting used to the mechanics, and refining small movements.

Edit: For stress situations Fairbairn & Sykes' Shooting to Live, Jeff Cooper's Principles of Personal Defense, and even Paul Kirchner's Jim Cirillo's Tales of the Stakeout Squad are worth reading.