Category: This great Nation & Its People
During the morning of March 24, 1945, more than 9,000 men of the US 17th Airborne Division landed behind German lines on the east side of the Rhine.
While the Wehrmacht was in deep trouble, many of their units remained effective, and any available Panzers could pose a significant threat to the freshly landed paratroops. American planners had anticipated this in their preparations for Operation Varsity, and mixed in among the Bazookas and M9A1 AT rifle grenades, the 17th Airborne paratroopers had the new M18 57mm recoilless rifle.
The recoilless guns quickly proved their worth. At the end of Operation Varsity, the 17th Airborne’s combat report recorded that “Five tanks were destroyed, two by recoilless 57mm AT guns attached to the First Battalion, two by heavy artillery and one by a Gammon grenade.”
The 17th Airborne officers also recommended that “training to include familiarization firing with all weapons to include the new recoilless type 57mm and 75mm guns”, and that “recoilless rifles should be included in the T/E of an airborne division.”
Artillery for the Infantry
“While the necessity of providing our troops with superior fire power has long been recognized, experience in this war has sharply emphasized this principle.
Warfare today is not static warfare of position, with great armies confronting each other along well-defined lines and relatively small fronts; rather it is fluid warfare, a swiftly changing panorama of breakthroughs, airborne and beachhead actions, and frequent isolated engagements.
Hence the need for highly mobile and portable weapons quickly became apparent and has resulted in such successful developments as the rifle grenade, the shoulder fired rocket launcher, mortars and similar light weapons.
As the urgency for improved accuracy and increased range in weapons of this type grew apace, the Ordnance Department initiated projects to provide equipment capable of firing high explosive shell with these characteristics, yet light enough to accompany infantry in almost every tactical operation.
A controlling factor in weapon design has always been that of weight, and weight is inevitably largely determined by the phenomenon of recoil. As recoil increases so must the weight of compensating mechanisms or support increase.
To produce equipment that would possess the desired characteristics several weapons have been designed in which recoil has been eliminated. This has been accomplished by balancing the forward and rearward momentum that occurs in firing — the simplest and most efficient method.
The elimination of recoil and consequent heavy carriages has meant that these weapons are extremely light; that they can be produced rapidly and economically and that they can be readily shipped, an important consideration when supply lines cross oceans.
The recoilless rifles have been produced to provide infantry with assault weapons comparable to artillery. Their light weight, simple design, and ease of handling indicate employment in a great many tactical situations heretofore unsupported by superior firepower.” — From “Recoilless Weapons”, produced by US Army Ordnance during February 1945.
Enter the Kromuskit
By World War II, the notion of recoilless guns was not completely new, but no such weapons had yet been developed for infantry use. That changed during the airborne invasion of Crete during May 1941, as German paratroopers deployed the new 7.5cm LG 40 recoilless gun (designed by Rheinmetall).
The Germans continued development of their recoilless gun concept and, by 1942, they fielded the 10.5cm Leichtgeschütz 40. Captured examples were soon in the hands of US Ordnance, and the US Army’s Artillery Section began work on a 105mm recoilless cannon using the 10.5cm LG 40 as a guide. The German style of recoilless ammunition used a plastic “blow out plug” in the cartridge case.
At the same time, the US Army’s Infantry Section assigned a two-man engineering research team to study the recoilless gun concept.
These engineers, William J. Kroeger and C. Walton Musser, working at Frankford Arsenal, were tasked with developing a man-portable recoilless 57mm gun. This weapon was given the designation “T15” and was nicknamed the “Kromuskit”. Instead of a blowout plug, the T15 used a British recoilless development, the “Ordnance, RCL, 3.45 inch”.
The British design featured hundreds of tiny holes in the walls of the cartridge case, protected on the inside by a plastic lining. The American design team also picked up on a RCL 3.45 inch feature by engraving bands onto the 57mm projectile to connect with the T15 barrel’s rifling.
Ultimately, this gave the US 57mm weapon a higher muzzle velocity (1,200 fps) and greater accuracy than other recoilless guns of the era. The T15 was in line with most recoilless cannons, following the “1-to-9 ratio”, with 10% of the propellant gas sending the projectile downrange, while 90% of the gasses are vented out the back to counteract the forward force and achieve the recoilless effect.
Testing quickly revealed that the 57mm Kromuskit was far superior to the Artillery Section’s 105mm design, and the lighter infantry weapon was approved for production. By October 1944, the T15 received the official designation of “M18 57mm Recoilless”. Production of the guns and ammunition was slow to ramp up, and examples were not sent to troops in the field until March 1945, when 50 M18’s were sent to the ETO.
In early 1945, US Ordnance described the new M18 in the following manner:
The 57mm rifles, T15E13 and T15E9, operating on the recoilless principle, have been designed to provide an anti-personnel and anti-tank weapon of lighter weight and greater range and accuracy than other comparable light weight weapons.
This rifle operates on principles like those of a conventional gun except in the characteristics of the breech. Upon ignition of the propelling charge, a controlled amount of gas is allowed to escape to the rear, which, with the forward momentum of the shell, creates equal and opposing forces within the rifle.
The force exerted by the projectile in its forward passage through the tube counteracts the force of the gas escaping through Venturi openings in the breech. Hence, since these two forces are balanced, the rifle does not move appreciably. Moreover, the Venturi openings are designed to exert a rotational reaction which offsets the torque induced in the rifle by the movement of the projectile through the rifling.
The cartridge case of the round for this rifle is smaller in diameter than the interior of the chamber; it is perforated to allow radial escape of gas into the chamber and thence to the rear until controlled by the Venturi openings. The round as thus proportioned is compact and easily transported.
The rifles T15E9 and E13 differ only in the rifling of the tube. The rifling in the T15E9 is one turn in 25 calibers and in the T15E13, one in 30 calibers.
The Extendable Front Handle T3E1 and Bipod T3E1 are provided. The latter, when folded, becomes a shoulder rest, permitting the rifle to be fired from the shoulder in standing, sitting or kneeling positions.
The front handle may be extended and the bipod unfolded to furnish three-point support for prone firing. The rifle may also be mounted on the cal. .30 Machine Gun Tripod. Front Sight, T91 and Sight Mount, T120E2, provide attached iron sights, the rear sight leaf being similar to the cal. .30, M1903 rifle. The Telescope Sight T130E2 may be quickly attached to the Sight Mount T120E2.
The H.E. Shell, T22, was developed to provide a high explosive, antipersonnel round for the 57mm recoilless rifle. This round is provided with a point detonating fuse, T119E1.
The H.E.A.T. Shell, T20E2, was developed to provide a round for use against armored vehicles. It is provided with a point initiating fuse, T123E1, and has penetrated homogeneous armor plate up to 3” at 20° obliquity.
The WP Shell, T23, was developed to provide a round for smoke screening, anti-personnel effect, and for spotting. The T119E1 fuse is used with this round.
All of these rounds use a perforated steel cartridge case instead of the usual solid case. The case has a paper liner that retains the propellant charge and bursts upon ignition, allowing the release of gases through Venturi tubes in the rear of the gun. All shells have pre-engraved rotating bands to reduce the amount of pressure required to expel the shell from the rifle.
SHELL TYPES:
- Smoke (WP), 57mm, T23
- H.E.A.T., 57mm, T20E2
- H.E., 57-mm, T22
Note: All shells weigh 2.75 pounds. All complete shells weigh 7.12 pounds.
The M18 in action during World War II
In the ETO
“We need more of these guns as soon as we can get them.” — 17th Airborne Division report after Operation Varsity
The 17th Airborne Division carried the first M18 rifles into combat during Operation Varsity, the airborne crossing of the Rhine River in March 1945. The recoilless guns were specifically detailed for anti-tank work, and special permission was initially required to fire on targets other than enemy vehicles.
An after-action report of the 507th parachute infantry of the 17th Airborne Division records:
“Anti-tank work was called for as soon as we got down. Only the turret of the enemy tank was visible. I fired one round at 600 yards and hit the turret. His firing stopped and he gave us no more trouble. It was probably a Mk. IV.”
The 57mm quickly proved itself accurate and capable, as another tank was struck in the side and set on fire while it was on the move — an almost impossible shot with a bazooka.
While the armor-piercing performance of the M18’s HEAT round was only about 3” (about an inch less than the standard M6A3 bazooka rocket), the troops were greatly impressed with its accuracy. General Miley, the commander of the 17th Airborne Division, praised the new recoilless rifles for their anti-tank capability:
“The airborne division is particularly vulnerable to armor. With the addition of the 57mm and 75mm recoilless weapons, airborne troops have the means to assist themselves against tanks and self-propelled guns. In my opinion, the recent operation has proved the practicality of the recoilless rifle, and it should be issued to units, with high priority given to airborne divisions.”
I found a few other comments about the use of the M18 in the ETO. Despite its short time in combat, the weapon clearly made a strong impression:
“The effective range of the gun for direct fire is the range of visibility. It is as accurate as an M1 rifle, and you can hit a tank any place you desire. 600 yards would be an ideal distance for fire against tanks.”
“The flashback is no tactical detriment and is no danger to the firer since the gun is so light it can easily be set up so that it has a clear area behind it.”
“Ammunition should be kept in the cardboard cartons until ready for use. It will withstand heavy handling under normal use. We have had no duds and no premature bursts.”
In the PTO
Only a handful of M18’s saw combat in the Pacific Theater, with the first significant use of the weapon coming during the latter stages of the Okinawa campaign.
The US Army publication “Weapons for Jungle Warfare”, produced in June 1944, described the anticipated use of the M18 in the Pacific.
“There is under development by the Ordnance Department a recoilless gun of 57mm caliber which may be used as a shoulder-fired weapon or be adapted to firing from a machine gun tripod.
The project for the 57mm Recoilless Gun was initiated early in 1943. The first pilot model was tested in July 1943, and the first completed service test model was demonstrated on November 9, 10 and 11, 1943.
It is believed that the maximum range of approximately 5,000 yards possessed by this arm, with its accuracy and powerful hollow charge projectile, will permit it to be utilized at ranges up to 4,000 yards for many of the functions now performed by light artillery.
The gun is breech loading and has a rifled tube. It weighs 36 pounds, fires a special 2.75 pounds projectile of the HEAT type (now under development) at a muzzle velocity of about 1,200 feet per second, and has sufficient accuracy to hit a rectangle 25″ x 33″ at a range of 600 yards.”
There were few Japanese tanks to worry about during the late stages of the war, and the M18’s HEAT round could easily penetrate any known Japanese armored vehicle. However, its portability, accuracy, and penetrating power gave GI’s an effective bunker-buster for use against Japanese pillboxes and cave defenses (this was also noted by US Army Ranger units that used the M18 during the Korean War).
10th Army Action Report: Ryukyus, March 26 to June 30, 1945
During the later phases of the campaign the 57mm and 75mm recoilless weapons were tested and used in combat against the enemy with excellent results.
A total of approximately 670 rounds of ammunition was all that was available. Based on the limited use made of these weapons, it is believed they have definite possibilities, especially for close support against fortified positions.
77th Infantry Division, Okinawa report
The development of the 57mm recoilless weapon and the 75mm recoilless weapon appears to be in the right direction, especially in view of many situations where steep terrain impassable to vehicles will be encountered.
Pacific Area Material Report (July 1945)
The 57mm Rifles, T15E13 and M18, operating on the recoilless principle, have been designed to provide an anti-personnel and anti-tank weapon of lighter weight and greater range and accuracy than other comparable light weight weapons. They have been found particularly effective when fired into cave entrances.
The rifles M18 and T15E13 differ only in the rifling of the tube. The rifling in the M18 is one turn in 25 calibers and the T15E13 is one turn in 30 calibers.
An extendable front handle and bipod are provided. The latter, when folded, becomes a shoulder rest, permitting the rifle to be fired from the shoulder in standing, sitting, or kneeling positions.
The front handle may be extended and the bipod unfolded to furnish three-point support for prone firing. The rifle may also be mounted on the caliber .30 machine gun tripod.
Sight, Front, M26 and Mount, Sight, M74 provide attached iron sights, the rear sight leaf being similar to that of the caliber .30 M1903 rifle. Telescope, M86C, may be quickly attached to the Mount, Sight, M74.
Post-WWII Development
In December 1948, the US Army released its “Summary of Recoilless Weapons Development”, and their findings showed that upon deeper review, the M18 was showing several deficiencies. Its weight and insufficient armor penetration were the Army weapons development board’s primary concerns.
The US Army weapons development board stated in December 1948:
57mm Rifle: The present 57mm rifle is too heavy. Development and redesigning should continue to reduce the weight, improve the reliability of mechanical functioning, decrease the time of flight of the projectile, improve the accuracy, and relocate sights and operating mechanisms for the comfort of the operator.
Findings: Recoilless weapons of 75mm or smaller in caliber will not, even with the best-known designed weapon and ammunition, be able to meet the armor penetration required by the Anti-tank Defense Conference.
(Requirements set up by the Antitank Defense Conference at Fort Monroe, Virginia, for a man-portable recoilless weapon which will have an effective range of 2500 yards against the frontal armor of any potential enemy tank with 75% first round accuracy, assuming not more than 5% range determination error under optimum conditions.)
In summary, it is apparent that the 57mm Rifle, M18, does not meet the requirements for frontal armor penetration, or accuracy, and is not provided with sighting equipment to perform the mission.
The present weapon is classified as a close-in anti-tank weapon and due to its lack of penetration must be employed to deliver flanking fire. It is more accurate than the 2.36- or 3.5-inch rocket launchers and has a greater maximum usable range. It lacks the penetration of the 2.36-inch rocket launcher because the projectile is spin stabilized.
However, the Infantry Conference concluded: That the Infantry Regiment retain the present recoilless weapons of 57mm and 75mm caliber, and the following actions be taken.
A) Reduction of breech blast effect, flash and smoke.
B) Reduction of weight and volume of propelling charge.
C) Increase in muzzle velocity and armor penetration.
D) Improvement of waterproofing of propellant.
Korean War, and Beyond
While the M18 was standard issue for US Army rifle companies during the Korean War, its use was normally restricted to bunker-busting and anti-personnel work. Anti-tank duties had passed to the more powerful M20 75mm recoilless rifle.
In Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall’s 1951 “Commentary on Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea”, the M18’s use in bunker-busting is compared to the newer, but heavier M20:
“The 57 is too light for such work at ranges exceeding 1000 yards, though troops have wasted an excess of 57 ammunition trying to prove otherwise; of the weight problem with the 75, it is often left behind during movement into the higher ridges, and the attempt is made to substitute the 57 at prohibitive ranges. …
On the other hand, the 57 becomes invaluable during the closing infantry assault on an enemy-held high hill mass. Always a few bunkers remain in operation; those which were protected from the long-range fires by the folding of the ridge are likely to be almost unscathed. Falling back toward these works, after quitting the outer line of foxholes, enemy skirmishers are apt to seek protection in small caves and behind rock outcroppings. The 57 can blast them out from cover which would normally provide immunity to bullet fire.”
During the late 1940s, the US government provided the M18 to several countries as part of various foreign aid packages. A set of blueprints was provided to the Nationalist Chinese, and these were captured by communist forces at the end of the Chinese Civil War. Consequently, the People’s Republic of China copied the weapon and produced it as the Type 36 (later Type 52).
The Type 36 was first encountered with Chinese troops in the Korean War, and then with NVA and Viet Cong forces during the Vietnam War. America’s 57mm recoilless soldiered on, in allied and communist hands, until the early 1970s.
A painting by Hugh Charles McBarron, portraying American troops in the American War of Independence (Wikimedia Commons)
As the world prepares to commemorate this coming Saturday’s 250th anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence, new historical and archaeological evidence and analyses are allowing both academics and the public at large to more fully understand how and why the American War of Independence was even more violent than often popularly believed.
Research over the past few years has shed new light on the massacres, ethnic cleansing and extreme maltreatment of prisoners that occurred during the war.
Although most western European conflicts of the 18th century (such as the Wars of Spanish and Austrian Succession) were on much greater scales, they had much lower atrocity rates.
The American War of Independence was particularly atrocity-prone because it had a unique combination of features: it was an anti-government insurrection, a civil war and an ethnic conflict all combined into one particularly brutal war.
Because it was a rebellion, the British regarded American troops as treason-committing rebels and traitors and treated them with unimaginable cruelty.
Because it was also a civil war (the American population was split between pro-independence and pro-British camps), it was a particularly bitter domestic internecine struggle – and because both sides used Native American tribes as allies, indigenous people were subjected to extraordinarily violent racism expressed through appalling massacres, ethnic cleansing and, in one case, what would today be considered a genocide.
A book published in 2023 (Memory Wars: Settlers and Natives Remember Washington’s Sullivan Expedition of 1779) reveals the ways in which indigenous and European-originating Americans have, over the years, remembered George Washington’s invasion of the Haudenosaunee [Iroquois] Confederacy, a military campaign now regarded by numerous historians and others as an act of genocide.
And last year, another US academic (Professor Joshua Catalano of Clemson University, South Carolina) published a study of the mass execution of dozens of Native American men, women and children by American pro-independence forces in the Gnadenhutten Massacre of 1782. The new research evaluates how myth-making and cover-ups were weaponised to enable frontier land grabs. And, over recent years, archaeological and ethnographic investigations have shed important new light on the 18th-century village where the massacre took place.
Other research (including two books: Relieve Us of This Burthen: American Prisoners of War in the Revolutionary South [2012] and The American Revolution on Long Island [2017]) has investigated disturbing new evidence about Britain’s treatment of American prisoners of war.
The disease-ridden prison ships in which the British mistreated American prisoners of war and allowed many to starve to death, have been compared to concentration camps by some historians.
Inside a British prison ship. At least 12,000 American prisoners of war died, while incarcerated in such vessels (Wikimedia Commons)
Indeed almost twice as many Americans died in those virtual death camps as in battle.
Around 30,000 African-Americans served in the war (on both sides), but research has revealed that, largely due to shocking racially discriminatory practices, their death rate was roughly four times greater than that of white troops.
Very recent research by US scholars (in 2022, 2023 and early 2026) has also shed important new light on how the British military almost certainly used or planned to use germ warfare (smallpox) against pro-independence Americans.
Significantly, over very recent years, several museums have been launched or expanded, providing coverage of the atrocities. The Museum of the American Revolution (in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania), which opened in 2017, includes material on the more appalling aspects of the conflict.
The American Revolution Museum in Yorktown, Virginia reopened in 2016 with equally objective coverage of the brutality of the war.
And throughout the 2000s, the very moving Prison Ships Martyrs Monument in New York was totally restored and modernised with new and detailed explanatory displays.
And, in London, the British Museum is launching an exhibition of three key artefacts linked to Native American peoples involved in the conflict (Declaring Independence: USA 250 will run from 30 June to 29 November in the Museum’s Room 3). The three Native-American-linked exhibits are:
- The 1777 Washington Peace Medal (presented to a key native American ally of George Washington, but later confiscated by the British)
- A shell-bead wampum belt used in 18th-century diplomacy between two Native American nations, who then suffered civil war, betrayal and destruction at the hands of both the British and the Americans
- A ceremonial pipe-tomahawk, given by a British aristocrat to a pro-British Native American leader (Thayandenagaa [Joseph Brant]), who the British Crown had largely betrayed.
And from mid-September, the exhibition will also include the only known ceremonial copy of the Declaration of Independence itself. It is owned by West Sussex Record Office, which will be loaning it to the museum. It will be the first time that the document has ever gone on general public display.
Research by Professor Danielle Allen of Harvard University suggests that it was given as a present by the American revolutionary Thomas Paine to an aristocratic British sympathiser, the Duke of Richmond in late 1787 or early 1788. Professor Allen has just published a book in the US on the subject, entitled Radical Duke (due out in the UK in August).
Significantly, the full-size ceremonial vellum copy of the declaration, due to go on display at the British Museum in mid-September, is actually much better preserved than the original 1776 Declaration in the National Archives Museum in Washington DC. Sadly, the writing on that original is no longer legible – but the one in Britain still is.
(I myself am just shocked by this. Seeing that both sides fought dirty etc. Bottom line – War means fighting and fighting means killing. Seeing that it’s always been that way and sadly it will always be that way! Grumpy)
Images courtesy RockIslandAuction.com
It’s the most expensive single firearm sold at auction, according to Rock Island Auction Company. Pairs of guns have gone for more, but this one’s connection to the surrender of Chiricahua Apache Chief Geronimo and impeccable condition added up to a new world-record on April 30, 2016.
Captain Henry Lawton and Lt. George E. Albee served together during the Civil War. The latter went on to work for Winchester, while the former stayed in uniform and later captured Geronimo.
The friendship they forged during the War Between the States ran deep, though, so when the legendary firearm maker was rolling out a brand new carbine—the Model 1886—Serial No. 1 went to Lawton. The engraving isn’t fancy. In fact, it’s so understated it carries a timeless eloquence. The wood, too, is good, but probably wouldn’t turn too many heads.
Albee obviously knew his friend well. Lawton led troops in a rugged time, when troopers relied on their tools and personal possessions to survive and thrive in the scorching sun and pouring rain. Fancy enough to attract longing stares wasn’t—and still isn’t—an asset in the Chiricahua Mountains of the desert Southwest. 
A pocket watch presented to Lawton by businessmen in New Mexico—part of the gun’s auction lot—punctuates that point. He didn’t want to attend the ceremony, but he received a direct order that he would. He described the timepiece as valuable, and from its looks it was rarely, if ever, used.
At 130 years old, the carbine is in great shape and finally, perhaps for the first time since it rolled out of the factory, back in the news. For more of the gun’s history, visit Rock Island Auction’s blog and watch a detailed video about the gun here.
