| per Company. | per Battalion. | Total. | Returns Dec. 1796. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colonels. | 1 | 3 | 2 | |
| Lieut.-Colonels. | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| Majors. | 1 | 3 | 3 | |
| Captains. | 1 | 5 | 15 | 15 |
| Capt.-Lieutenants. | 1 | 5 | 15 | 15 |
| Lieutenants. | 2 | 10 | 30 | 29 |
| Lieut.-Fireworkers. | 1 | 5 | 15 | 14 |
| Serjeants. | 4 | 20 | 60 | 50 |
| Corporals. | 4 | 20 | 60 | 59 |
| Drummers. | 2 | 10 | 30 | 30 |
| Gunners. | 8 | 40 | 120 | 120 |
| Matrosses. | 56 | 280 | 840 | 512 |
| Serangs. | 1 | 10 | 30 | 30 |
| 1st Tindals. | 2 | 20 | 60 | 60 |
| 2nd Tindals. | 2 | 20 | 60 | 60 |
| Lascars. | 56 | 560 | 1680 | 1733 |
CHAPTER IV.
Matériel organization, and its successive changes—Guns and carriages first used—Royal pattern—Madras pattern—Ammunition-carriages—Tumbrils—Horse Artillery ammunition-carriage—Elevating-screws—Ordnance in use—Siege-carriages—Howitzer and Mortar combined carriage—Gribeauval’s pattern—French caisson—Hardwicke’s pattern—Horse Artillery guns—Mountain-train carriages—Siege-carriages and ordnance—Royal pattern (block trail)—Gun and Ammunition carriages introduced.
Having traced the personnel of the regiment up to this point, let us take a retrospective survey and endeavour to track out the matériel; this cannot be satisfactorily done in the early stage; the absence of records and drawings renders it almost impossible; little more than a general idea can be given, and in this even there must be some guesswork; occasionally restoring (as the geologists say) a carriage from a few points found scattered in the reports of committees, or incidentally alluded to in other documents.
During Clive’s early wars, 6–pounder guns seem to have been generally in use, mixed occasionally with howitzers and 3–pounders, and when battalion guns a few years later became the system, two 3–pounders were with most native battalions. In his organization of the army in 1765, this became the establishment, and with the European companies of artillery there were six 6–pounders and two (probably 5½ inch) howitzers: 12–pounders as field-guns were introduced later.
The carriages at this time were probably of a double-cheek pattern, and from the histories of the actions, we find they were weak and often breaking down. When Colonel Pearse came into the command of the regiment, it will be recollected that he found great fault with them: “They flew to pieces with common firing in a week;” and his sweeping condemnation was probably quite just.
About 1770, it is believed that Colonel Pearse succeeded in introducing the carriage then in use in England, adapting its limber to bullock-draught (Plate No. 1). It is clumsy and ugly certainly, and with its wooden axle[[31]] not very strong; doubtless it was an improvement on the old one. This appears to have been the pattern till the beginning of this century; minor improvements and alterations were made from time to time as experience pointed out their necessity, but no radical change. An iron was probably substituted for the wooden axletree, during or at the close of the war with Hyder. Iron axles first appear on the ledgers of the arsenal of Fort William in 1782–3; the ledger of the preceding year is missing, and in the antecedent years they are not mentioned. At this time too the number is so small (2) as to lead to the supposition that the introduction was an experiment just being tried. The entry in the ledger is not sufficiently detailed to determine whether the axletrees in question are for siege or field-carriages; but as we find Colonel Deare alluding to four siege-carriages with iron axles sent round to Bangalore as having stood well, it is probable that about this time they became generally in use.
During the wars with Hyder, the Bengal artillery was brought into contact with that of the Madras Presidency, and comparisons were of course made as to the relative efficiency of the matériel of the two corps, which doubtless led to the adoption of some improvements by both.
The campaigns with Tippoo in 1790–1–2 again took a large portion of Bengal artillery into the field with the Madras regiment, and the general superiority of the Madras carriages for light field-pieces was admitted by our most experienced officers. A committee, composed of Majors Woodburne and Montague,[[32]] Captains Horsford, Howell, and Glass, all officers who had served during these campaigns, was appointed in 1793, and continued sitting until 1796, to report on, and suggest improvements to, the ordnance carriages and equipments.
This committee declared that the Bengal 6–pounder carriages were much too heavy and unwieldy for field service, but that the weight and construction of the limber was by far the most objectionable part. The extension of the pintle behind the axletree lengthened the draught nearly three feet between the wheels; the height of the wheels threw the weight nearly all on the rear axletree, increasing the draught, and frequently rendering it impossible to turn the carriage without unlimbering the gun. The pintle being fixed, tore the trail-transom to pieces in travelling over rough ground; and the position of the elevating screw-boxes in the centre transom weakened it: these objections rendered it often impossible to keep up with infantry in cases of emergency when guns would have been of the greatest use; this happened frequently in the late war, when guns, mounted on the Madras pattern carriage did not meet the same difficulties.