Memoir of the Services of the Bengal Artillery: From the Formation of the Corps to the Present Time, with Some Account of Its Internal OrganizationBuckle, E. (Edmond)
History
Memoir of the Services of the Bengal Artillery: From the Formation of the Corps to the Present Time, with Some Account of Its Internal Organization
Buckle, E. (Edmond)
India -- History -- British occupation, 1765-1947; India -- History, Military; India. Army. Bengal Artillery
The _matériel_ equipment was again submitted to the consideration of a
committee early in 1801; Lieutenant-Colonel MacIntyre was the president,
and Major Gordon, Captains Grace, Wittit, and Johnson, members. By this
time a muster-carriage for the horse artillery had been made up on the
general principle of the Madras pattern, by Major Glass, and in Colonel
Greene’s letter of instructions to the committee, he says it is “well
adapted for the purpose, and can be used with equal efficacy with a line
of infantry;” its particular construction was recommended to the
committee’s consideration, “but at the same time, as many
field-carriages are wanted immediately, and cannot be delayed so long as
required to complete carriages on that pattern,” he advised “the
adoption of the 6–pounder as altered by Colonel Duff, in preference to
the present field-carriage, for the service in the line of infantry, it
being much lighter, and having been found on trial sufficiently strong.”
The committee gave the preference to the pattern then in use, that is,
apparently, the old one with a few alterations, such as making the
axletree equally thick all through, the cheek-bolts through the
axle-bed, the elevating screw-box being removed from the centre transom
and placed a little in front, and its shoulders working in gudgeons
fitted to the cheeks; and their recommendation was adopted by the board,
who ordered the 6–pounder carriages then wanted to be made of this
construction.
An experiment was also made at this time with iron[33] cheeks for a
horse artillery gun-carriage; the wooden ones were, however, preferred,
but unfortunately no record appears of the reasons on which the iron
cheeks were disapproved; it would be interesting, now that the question
of iron carriages has been agitated; it is one of the many instances
which a research into the history of artillery shews perhaps more than
any other science, “the thing that hath been, it is that which shall be;
and that which is done is that which shall be done; and there is no new
thing under the sun.”
Another instance may be given. In 1840, Major Timbrell made a pair of
flat twisted chain traces for pole-horses, and being found very
convenient, the experiment was tried on a larger scale. Captain Brind’s
troop was equipped with them, as also was another on the march to join
the Army of Reserve in 1842, but they failed from the difficulty of
insuring perfectly good workmanship. In December, 1800, “the commissary
of stores is ordered to have a set of flat chains made up in the arsenal
as soon as possible, for the traces of the (experimental horse
artillery) harness.”
At this time then there were two patterns of light field-carriages in
use,—one a beam-trail with the galloper-guns; the other a double-cheek
with the foot artillery and battalion guns. In the accompanying
sketches, Plate No. 3 represents the galloper-carriage, while the foot
artillery retained a double-cheek pattern, modified from No. 1.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account