Here are some pictures of what I did in 2004 when I was in Iraq (March - October.) I was augmenting a reserve infantry battalion, 3rd Bn, 24th Marines (abbreviated 3/24. Note that in Marine-land 3/24 sounds like "three - twenty-four" vice "third of the twenty fourth" as in Army lingo.) I ended up as an infantry platoon commander of 30 mortar and Javelin Marines who were serving as provisional infantry vice their official job. I guess that was fitting because I was a former reserve chemical warfare defense specialist (5711) who had been originally commissioned an artillery officer (0802) who had spent the 6 month prior to the deployment becoming a communications officer (0602). Odd, I know, but that's life as a Marine Officer (I guess that's why one of the unofficial mottoes of the MC is Semper Gumby [always flexible]!)
So anyway, here are some pictures from when I was there in 2004. I doubt there will be anything as interesting to take pictures of this time, but only time will tell.
On two different occasions, my platoon provided security while CB's dug up dead Kuwaitis. These were Kuwaitis that Saddam grabbed when they pulled out in 1991. When we stopped ourselves and there was no need for human shields, he killed them, a few at a time, in pits around Iraq. We dealt with two of mass graves that held about 50 people in each.
This is from one of our first big weapons caches we found.
Here are some photos of me throughout Iraq.
Here is the link to this album and others I have posted.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
When I saw the first pic. I thought right away, MAN THAT'S A HELLOFA FOXHOLE!!
aLL GOOD PICS. lIKED THE ONE OF THE DUDE SITTING AND HOLDING HIS WEAPON. Who could that be!! Rocky
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Wow, who's that handsome dude? Oh, it's our very own Captain! Well shiver me timbers! 
Thanks so much for sending me all you have lately. I am only beginning to play catch-up. I just returned from a five-day trip and am trying to get back up to speed with email, web uploads, reading all the new posts, etc.
Sure am glad you are posting this for everyone. The finds are extraordinary, and disturbing. The photos are superb, as I have come to expect from you.
Well, more later, but wanted to make at least SOME comment. Have to get back to speed with so much this morning, including all my local sites. Seems there were a few deaths while I was away, and I have to post the funeral arrangements etc., on our local website. Ah, back to work. Where do I begin???
Thanks Todd. Nop-notch! 
Marion J Chard
Proud Daughter of Walter (Monday) Poniedzialek
540th Engineer Combat Regiment, 2833rd Bn, H&S Co, 4th Platoon
There's "No Bridge Too Far"
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
When I saw the first pic. I thought right away, MAN THAT'S A HELLOFA FOXHOLE!!
Certainly not an OSHA approved fighting position!
The photos are superb, as I have come to expect from you.
As a photo major, I should hopefully be able to squeeze of a good pic now and again! I'll have to post some of my more "artsy" pictures. (That's opposed to my arty pictures, of which I have a lot, too!)
I will admit to not having taken this picture, I certainly didn't have this good of a camera or the time to take pictures as this was taken. It was taken at Fort Bragg in October of 2002 (on actual film!!) by one of the combat correspondents for the base paper. He took several that are really well done; he had a good eye and a great camera!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Certainly not an OSHA approved fighting position!
As a photo major, I should hopefully be able to squeeze of a good pic now and again! I'll have to post some of my more "artsy" pictures. (That's opposed to my arty pictures, of which I have a lot, too!)
I will admit to not having taken this picture, I certainly didn't have this good of a camera or the time to take pictures as this was taken. It was taken at Fort Bragg in October of 2002 (on actual film!!) by one of the combat correspondents for the base paper. He took several that are really well done; he had a good eye and a great camera!
That, Field Piece, is it bigger than a 155,? First time ever I see a projectile leaving, just heard them in comming. Rocky
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2006
Todd,
Thank you for sharing photos with us.
I liked watching them. my favorites is that of you!!
WOW WOW , What a very very handsome Marine . 
I liked the 3rd I will make a poster !! 
Vee 
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
Roque,
That is an M198 155mm howitzer.
Vee,
Thanks for your kind (perhaps too kind!) comments!
Todd
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Capt0; Just brought up pics of the M198- one had a short barrel the other a long one. Question; Same piece but
the barrel canbe extended for farther range or just two different ones. just curious. Roque
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
I assume you are talking about this picture?
The reason this one may look as though it has a shorter barrel is because at that moment it was recoiling from the shot. There are couple of nitrogen cylinders (equilibrators) that put it back into the original position (put it "back into battery" in arty lingo.) Judging by the elevation of the tube and the distance it is going back, they are maxing out the range on the gun (22,400 meters [13.92 miles] for normal projectiles, 30,000 meters [18.64 miles] for rocket assisted projectiles.)
Here is a picture showing where the tube was normally. Note there is a protective cover over the end of the gun were the breech and firing mech are.
What mainly dictates the range is the type of projectile (due to weight and shape), charge (amount of propellant), and the elevation of the tube. There are several other factors but those are the biggies. If you are really interested, I can tell you how the rotation of the earth can affect arty projectiles in flight (really). Back to the picture, the more propellant you use the further the gun will recoil. I've seen occasions when guns had to dig pits below their guns because they were firing max charge at max elevation. Without the pit, the recoiling gun tube, going at a steep angle straight down, could be damaged if it hits the ground.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
I assume you are talking about this picture?
The reason this one may look as though it has a shorter barrel is because at that moment it was recoiling from the shot. There are couple of nitrogen cylinders (equilibrators) that put it back into the original position (put it "back into battery" in arty lingo.) Judging by the elevation of the tube and the distance it is going back, they are maxing out the range on the gun (22,400 meters [13.92 miles] for normal projectiles, 30,000 meters [18.64 miles] for rocket assisted projectiles.)
Here is a picture showing where the tube was normally. Note there is a protective cover over the end of the gun were the breech and firing mech are.
What mainly dictates the range is the type of projectile (due to weight and shape), charge (amount of propellant), and the elevation of the tube. There are several other factors but those are the biggies. If you are really interested, I can tell you how the rotation of the earth can affect arty projectiles in flight (really). Back to the picture, the more propellant you use the further the gun will recoil. I've seen occasions when guns had to dig pits below their guns because they were firing max charge at max elevation. Without the pit, the recoiling gun tube, going at a steep angle straight down, could be damaged if it hits the ground.
ROGER ON THE --RECOIL-- FORGOT ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU SIR, ROQUE--------HIT THE DECK!!! INCOMMING!! ROQUE
|
