Bringing History To Life

Last summer I was contacted by a group of British World War II reenactors planning to display a Bofors 40mm antiaircraft gun at Peak Rail in England. Sam Harris, the contact person for the group, explained their desire to go beyond a simple static display and properly dig-in and man the gun. I was happy to provide drawings and dimensions of standard AA gun emplacements, photographs of field fortified forties, and an outline of how a Bofors would be operated by sight control.

Sam's soldiers absorbed this information and did an outstanding job, as seen in the above photo. Gun pointers wearing tracer goggles are seated and ready, the loader/firer is at station, and an ammunition handler is passing another clip up to the gun. In the background, another soldier is standing in the pit that would have housed an M5 director. Sam and his crew presented a very respectable recreation of a U.S. 40mm fire unit ready for action. The display was well received.

Here in the United States, there are several privately owned Bofors guns. It is not uncommon to see one or two show up at airshows, like the one held every June in Reading, Pennsylvania. However, to the best of my knowledge, no one has attempted to bring the old pieces to life as did our British friends. That's too bad. I am a firm believer that living history can be a powerful vehicle to teach our younger generation about the past. It is impressive enough to see a 40mm AA gun on display. Consider the educational impact that same display could have with the gun properly emplaced  and manned.

I expressed these very sentiments to Sam last year. This summer, I relocated and discovered that I now reside within a few miles of two Bofors guns. Perhaps it is time for me to put my convictions to action and see if a group of Americans can pull together a presentation that would be just as good as the one created by our friends across the Atlantic. Is anyone interested?

Of Modelers and M16s

I, like almost every other web publisher, habitually track the traffic sources for my website. By far, the scale modeling community sends the largest number of visitors to Antiaircraft Command. This may surprise some, but it does not shock me. Scale modelers take their prototype research seriously. Many are intent on reproducing every rivet and guaranteeing their creation is painted in the proper color (when viewed under the lighting source of the room in which the model is to be displayed, of course). Historical accuracy is something that is to be pursued with all vigor. I understand that. Yes, I even respect that.

Recently, a conversation started on a modeling discussion board that left me a little befuddled. It seems that a modeler was seeking photo evidence that M16 halftrack crews actually folded down the side panels of their carriages. After all, why model a halftrack that way if the practice was rare? A kind fellow modeler posted a link to Antiaircraft Command in reply and created a huge spike in my traffic for that day. (Thank you.) That alone is nothing unusual. The M16 has consistently been one of the most commonly modeled World War II vehicles and my M16 page presents plenty of good information for fine scale craftsmen. What puzzled me is that many posters insisted they saw no photos of M16 halftracks with folded down panels on the website's page. Of the six M16 photos presented there, three depict the track with side panels in the down position, including the image reposted here. The conversation eventually careened into a discussion of modified M2 halftracks and the always somewhat mysterious M16B. Although I was impressed with such a display of AA savvy, that sidebar really had nothing to do with the original question.

Strangely, of the several hundred people who viewed these photos, nobody thought to email and ask me to resolve the question. So, for all modelers interested, the answer to the perplexing puzzle is a simple "yes". The M16 halftrack (and not the M16A1 or M16B) was designed with hinged side and rear panels that could be folded down. This design feature allowed the halftrack's M45 quad mount turret to depress to ten degrees below horizontal in order to place fire on ground targets. Not only do the three photos on the Antiaircraft Command webpage illustrate this, but so do many others in my collection and in other publications. Model on, modelers. Build your M16 halftrack with panels down.

Incidentally, I would be happy to post photos of modeled World War II antiaircraft equipment here on the blog. In addition to the M16, I know some have been working on scratchbuilding or kitbashing models of the more challenging M15 halftrack and the Brisbane M15 Specials. I'd love to see your handiwork. Please feel free to send a shot or two.

They Also Served

I get many requests asking for detailed information on specific AAA battalions. The unit of interest is most commonly that of a father, grandfather, or great uncle. Many relatives hope to confirm that their family member was involved in one of the significant actions of World War II. "Did my grandpa land on Omaha Beach?" "I heard that my great uncle's battalion was in Bastogne." There is an understandable desire to pass along a courageous epic from a great conflict as part of our family heritage. We all want to claim a hero in our personal history.


The simple fact is that only a small percentage of antiaircraft battalions can generate stories of such proportions. The statistics show that an antiaircraft artilleryman had one of the best jobs in the Army if his primary goal was to survive World War II and come out uninjured. I often cringe when I reply, "Yes, your grandpa landed on Omaha Beach - on 29 July." That response just doesn't ring with historic overtones if you were assuming he waded ashore on D-Day.

What can be said about the countless AAA organizations that saw limited action? How do we view the battalions that accrued just one or two Category II claims for the entire war? Were they unimportant? Heaven forbid we take that view! It may not be glamorous enough for a TV mini-series or a major motion picture, but the battalion that released its vehicles to a provisional trucking company played a critical role in keeping supplies moving forward. A fire unit from a semimobile battalion in position near a bridge or in a critical railyard may have been bored (or frozen) stiff waiting to fire, yet their presence may have warded off a potential attack that could have had disastrous results for the boys closer to the line. Success in antiaircraft work was not measured only by number of aircraft destroyed. The AA mission was admirably accomplished if the potential target the unit was assigned to protect remained unscathed.

War is not an individual effort. Each unit played its own important role. All served. While we rightly honor and celebrate the frontline action of those who helped write our history books, let us not forget the countless others who made those heroics possible. I care not if your great uncle was in Bastogne with the Screaming Eagles for Christmas 1944 or whether he enjoyed a warm breeze there on a spring day in early 1945. He has earned a crisp salute and a nation's gratitude. Be proud.

The Peca Computing Sight

The American version of the 40mm Bofors AA gun was often equipped with one of two different computing gun sights for on-carriage fire control. A computing sight mechanically calculated a firing lead and physically adjusted the sights to assist the gun pointers in more accurate aiming. Both the British Stiffkey Stick and the more sophisticated M7 computing sight, better known as the Weissight, were widely used by AAA units during World War II.

Occasional passing references to a third computing sight, the Peca sight, are found. This sight was developed in North Africa during early 1943 through the inspiration of Lt. Col. Peter S. Peca, then CO of the 103d Coast Artillery Battalion (AA) Separate. The innovative Col. Peca would later become Antiaircraft Officer of V Corps.

I have recently been provided with photos and primary documents relating to the Peca sight. It is the first solid information I have encountered on this sight and it tells a fascinating story. The sight's potential was not lost on the Allied Force AA Officer, Col. Aaron Bradshaw, who ordered the design to be produced locally in a quantity sufficient for testing under North African combat conditions. Unfortunately, the story of the Peca sight seems to have a somewhat abrupt ending.

The Antiaircraft Artillery Board (AAAB) supposedly evaluated at length all known types of on-carriage sights before settling on the Weissight in May 1943 (Cibula 1946). Col. Peca was eventually informed by the Antiaircraft Command that his sight was rejected due to its fragility (Semmens 2004). This is curious, since one of the design criteria for the Peca sight was to produce a device that was “of rugged and sturdy construction.” Peca's design team was also aware of the instability and lack of ruggedness inherent in the Stiffkey Stick.

As I begin my examination of the Peca sight, several questions come to mind. Was the Peca sight given a fair evaluation by the AAAB? Considering that a prototype of the design was not ordered to be shipped to the States until late March 1943, was the standardization of the Weissight several weeks later already a fait accompli? Since H.K. Weiss was employed by the AAAB, was the Board too heavily invested in his design? Would the further development of the Peca sight have engendered some resentment on the part of the British if it outperformed the Stiffkey? Often such questions cannot be definitively answered at this late date. However, the topic is one well worth investigating. The work of Col. Peca and all involved in his project should be remembered and preserved.