1845-46 Sikh artillery question.

[Don Krag]

I'm looking at some sketches of Sikh artillery pieces made a British officer (found in Dudley Pope's Guns). Basically it's a breech-trunnioned mortar mounted on a full carriage. Unfortunately, there is no other info on the pieces. I've searched all over the internet and haven't found anything. They look to be single trail carriages with wheels in the 50" range. All my other books only reference "normal" cannon type weapons from the various Sikh wars.

I was messing with mounting trunnions on my mortar tube and looking through different historical designs and ran across these sketches. They are unique and very cool looking and seemed to match what I've started very well. Using re-enforcing bands and a little creative machining I could easily get my mortar to match the larger one in the sketch.  I'd rather have an accurate repro of piece from a later period than a half-assed pseudo-repro of a pre-1600 design. I'll scan the pic this evening.

[seacoastartillery]

Don,

     Nice of you to let us know what you're up to.  Mike and I would much prefer that you decide to build the half assed repro of a pre-1600 design.  This would do the rest of us a lot of good, in that we could all declare a mental health day, or two or three and really let you know what we think in the most vicious and vitriolic ways.  We could spike the vent will spite.  We could all pile on and see if the piece collapses from criticism.  We could bash in the barrel with barbaric bombast.  You get the idea! 
     However, it would take a lots of guts to build a real piece of dog do do and then invite honest comments from your fellow cannoneers!!  Are you up to this task?
 

Seriously, we are looking forward to that scan.

Regards,
Mike and Tracy

[Don Krag]

I might have to post some pics of my perfect repro-piece of the horse drawn, carriage-mounted, 23-3/5 lb cast iron, howitzer on the single trail, west-tx mesa-carriage (the 39 1/4 wheeled version of course). This of course is an exact copy of the one captured by the 238th TX panzer division during the 1866 Fredericksburg battle of the Civil War where the union troops were ambushed as they came down the Guadelupe river. All this can be verified by my sister-in-law's boyfreind, 'cause he talked to a guy in a chat room who read it in a book once.

I just spent two days as an expert witness for defense council in a field in South TX, with a half dozen state regulators from two agencies, two attorneys etc. I'll be testifying in a week.....I might could use the practice of being shredded!

[Double D]

The rules are...

No Drinking and driving

No drinking and guns

Nope couldn't find one that said no drinking and posting, so carry on!   

[seacoastartillery]

       Not a drop, DD, not a drop.  Satire is a form of humor most folks will not use anymore.  You can thank the PC crowd for that, I guess.  Anyway, on to important stuff.

I really tried, Don, but I'm afraid you are correct; their is very little of use on the Internet about Sikh Artillery as used in the Anglo Sikh Wars, first or second.   Lots and lots of info on the battles, but just general references to use of field or heavy arty, nothing specific.  I did find several pictures of field artillery on display at FIREPOWER in Woolwich, UK, but none featured mortars, only 6 Pdr., field guns.  They do have a reference to 7 pieces of Sikh artillery being there though.  Maybe if you emailed their research staff they could possibly send you some info or maybe a photo or two.  You probably have it already, but here is their contact info anyway:

      FIREPOWER
The Royal Artillery Museum
Royal Arsenal
Woolwich
London
SE18  6ST
England

Tel:  020 8855 7755

Research Enquiries:  research@firepower.org.uk


Good luck!!

Tracy
 

[Don Krag]

Here's the pic of what I'm looking for:


The above pic is captioned as : four guns (I cropped out the upper two that are the "standard cannon style") captured by the British under command by Grl Sir Hugh Gough and Henry Harding, as drawn by Cpt Ralph Smyth. The bottom one gets my vote for the "cool factor" and other than appearing to be bronze in the pic, is a very close match for the tube I put together

I searched under every possible combination of terms. I did have a stroke of pure "duh" genius, though. Sometimes I forget that there's one of the biggest and oldest military school libraries at my disposal just a few minutes away. I searched the on-line library catalogs over at Texas A&M and found a few books specific to British artillery during the first Sikh war in 1845-46. I'll swing by there tomorrow or Saturday sometime and see what I find.

I found six museums that reportedly have captured Sikh artillery, but no pics available. I guess I can email them and see if any have something similar to the above pic, or at least have info on them.

P.S. I'll check up on that Confederate panzer division while I'm at the library, as well.

[GGaskill]

Considering the bottom right one, when the trail is down for firing, the barrel, in any reasonable position for mortar fire, is going to be relying mostly on the irons for restraint.  But I guess it has to be there for stability in recoil.  Anyway, I rotated the image into firing position for further study.

[Don Krag]

Yeah, I noticed that as well. I had planned on sinking my trunnions a hair deeper into the side rails. I was wanting to find an actual pic or existing peice to see if it was really mounted like that. I thought maybe the trail had a depression that the breech might have contacted and rotated along similar to some earlier mortar models, as well. Really hard to get a fix on it with somebody's sketch from 1846!

[Double D]

It is also adjustable for elevation so you could get some pretty good elevation adjustments!

[EL Caz 66]

 If you look closely the black rod beneath the barrel is an elevation screw...

[Don Krag]

How would y'all interpret the axle? In the pic, it looks to be a separate iron shaft. From 1846, I would have expected tapered wood, though. Guestimates on wheel height?

Yeah, the elevation is a threaded steel rod with a brass/bronze wheel. The whole carriage assembly is pretty basic and doesn't look to hard to build other than a lot of fitting of steel bands. I'll have the basic trail and side supports cut this weekend.

[GGaskill]

US carriages of 1840 used the iron skean axle that was used to the end of the muzzle loading period so an iron axle in 1846 would not surprise me.  And one should note that these are Sikh pieces; they may not have been as hidebound as other services.

[seacoastartillery]

Guestimates on wheel height?

     Don,  Mike and I think your estimation of wheel height at 50 inches is very close based on our study of Cpt. Smyth's mortar drawing.  We have been interpreting engineering drawings, field drawings and historic photos for more than 60 years combined now.  So,  the first thing we tried to accurately estimate was the largest diameter on the mortar tube.  Since the British East India Company made these guns in the northern Punjab city of Lahore. It is logical to assume that standard British bore sizes were used.  This would facilitate ammo replenishment in the field.  Another indication of British influence in this design is the method of attachement or the various wheel segments by the use of riveted, radiused iron strips, six of which are shown in the drawing.  This is exactly the same as the British used on their double trail 5.5 inch howitzer carriage used during our Revolutionary War and into the 1800s.  Most likely a standard mortar bore size of 4.52 inches was used so that each limber could carry enough shells for one skirmish in rough mountainous lands comprised of portions of today's countries such as Afganistan, Kashmir, and northern India.  We have a replica 1797 iron mortar with a 4 inch bore, (200 lbs).  The O.D. is 12 inches.  The proportions appear to be very similar to the bronze mortar in Smyth's drawing.

     We called the largest diameter 12 inches, then we printed a copy of the drawing.  Next we measured the dia. of the tube with digital calipers and found it to be .512".  Next we measured the wheel dia. and found it to be 2.173".  Placing these in our favorite formula we got:  12": .512" = X": 2.173"  We labeled these factors 1,2,3, and 4
respectively and solved for X by this method:  1 x 4 / 2 = 3 or 12" x  2.173" = 26.076" / .512" = 50.93" rounded to 51 inches.  We double checked these assumptions by estimating the trail lifting handle located on the side by the lunette.  We figured a two handed, overhand hold on each side here performed simultaneously by two crew members.  The width of the hands plus an inch free space yeilds 10" handle width on the inside.  This was measured as before and run through the formula.  This wheel dia. was reasonably close to the first and came out at 53.52".

     So, you probably would not have anyone call you on any wheel diameter from 50 to 54 inches.

Best regards,

Mike and Tracy
Seacoast Artillery Company

[Don Krag]

On the iron axles, are they solid iron completely through the axle block with a slight bend in the middle? I found lots of diagrams of iron-clad tapered wooden shafts, and references to French designs with iron axles, but I wasn't sure if they really meant a solid rod or not. Can you recommend any books with designs?

Mike,
I arrived at 50" more or less the same way. I thought the barrel looked to be about 12", assuming a bore around 5" and scaled the wheels using a ruler. I figured the pieces were probably based on British designs. Kind of ironic that they were built by the East India Trading Company, then used on the British! I haven't heard back from the Artillery Museum, yet. I hoping they have one of these, or know who does.

[GGaskill]

Considering its position in the lower part of the wood, it looks to be as much a tension reinforcement of the wood as the primary load bearer.  I doubt it is bent in the middle of the wood as that would make inserting it all the way through difficult, although it could be two pieces instead of continuous.  If the wheels turn out to be dished, the ends of the iron could be bent downward to tilt the wheels.

[Don Krag]

I guess I was assuming they were dished. Wouldn't wheels that large just about have to be dished for stability?

[GGaskill]

It certainly wouldn't be new technology by 1845 but one never knows without seeing the actual piece.  The dishing is primarily for extending the life of the wheels.

[Don Krag]

I was quite happy to check my email today. I was referenced over to a great guy over at the Victoria Alberta Museum by the Royal Artillery Museum. Turns out, he currently writing on the subject as well as doing presentations. Here's the info he gave me:

>>
>>
Dear Sir,
Yours is the first direct enquiry relating to my research subject that
I have recieved through the V&A email system. It is also coincidentally
on an area of my research I am currently working on, so was most timely.
Yes, I recognise the pieces. They are from Plate 18, figs 1 & 2 of a
folio of drawings made by one Captain Ralph Smyth of the Bengal
Artillery at some point in ca. 1848. All 252 cannon from the First
Anglo-Sikh War had been laboriously transported from the Panjab to
Calcutta and paraded in front of Govt House. Several copies of 'Plans of
Ordnance Captured by the Army of the Sutledge...' survive in the NAM, BL
and elsewhere. My article on Sutlej Guns has more detail on the
surviving Sikh cannon from the campaign.
http://www.sikhspectrum.com/112005/artillery_maharaja_ranjit_singh.htm

The pieces in question are what Smyth called Types 94 and 95.
Unfortunately I do not believe they survive today. It is just possible
they remain unrecognised somewhere in Calcutta, but more likely they
joined the majority of ordnance which was melted down at the nearby EIC
foundry at Cossipore to partly defray the costs of the war. They are
indeed Sikh mortars, manufactured probably in Lahore in the late 1830's
but unusually mounted on field carriages and not static beds as was
European practice.
Type 94 (top) is a brass 6.8" standing mortar, 258lbs in weight; L
bore: 9.8"; L to base ring: 18"; L chamber: 4"; Dia chamber 2.9"
Type 95 (bttm) is a brass 10" standing mortar, 721lbs in weight; L
bore: 14.5"; L to base ring: 28". L chamber: 7"; Dia chamber 3.3"
The weights and dimensions are unusual because all Sikh ordnance was
manufactured to Panjabi seer (sir) weights. I have calculated that a
Panjabi Seer is the equivalent of 1.167lbs.
That is the extent of the dimensional information recorded by Smyth.
Nothing exists for the carriages beyond a scale at the bottom of the
drawing. The Sikhs did however model their artillery quite closely on
East India Company models. They had access to EIC Mortar models as early
as 1809 and the block trail Congreve horse artillery carriage in service
with the Bengal Horse Artillery from 1823 by 1831. Surviving carriages
conform to the usual 5' wheel diameter current with the British
artillery, with interchangeable parts. Ornamentation produced individual
variations, like the carved and painted lion motif on the cheeks of the
upper mortar and the use of the makara on the limber hook. The bottom
carriage is in all likelihood in its original livery with light blue
painted woodwork and red lead iron fixtures and fittings. All told Smyth
recorded 96 distinct patterns of cannon, howitzers and mortars
accumulated from just 5 divisions of the Sikh army that faced the
British in 1845-6.

My research points to the Sikhs following the Maratha practice of
employing calibres of all sizes on the battlefield, and of using
multi-functional ordnance, in this case mortars as howitzers to deliver
a devastating barrage of anti-personnel ammunition in the form of
exploding shells. The Sikhs developed Shrapnell in about 1832 and were
fully conversant with the French practice of using canister of two sizes
to deliver anti-personnel fire anywhere between 200 and 400 metres. This
goes a long way to explain why British casualties in the First Sikh War
approached 50% in some engagements similar to Assaye in 1803.

Although direct comparisons are fraught with difficult due to
inaccuracies in the Returns of captured guns, I have established that
both mortars were part of a 4 gun battery that was captured at Aliwal,
commanded by Ranjodh Singh, a relation of the noted engineer Lehna Singh
Majithia. Buckle records that Lehna Singh experimented with
multi-functional ordnance long after the EIC abandoned such
experimentation as far back as 1796.

I do hope you find these comments of interest. As you can probably
gather I find the whole subject matter completely fascinating, not least
because Smyth also recorded inscriptions on some of the cannon recording
when and where they were made and who for. Unfortunately no such
inscription survives for Type 94 and 95, so we can only make educated
guesses as to the development of these designs.

I would be extremely grateful if I could have permission to use your
jpeg in future presentations. I have so far been unable to obtain a
coloured version of the plate.

Please contact me again if you have any further questions
Yours sincerely
Neil Carleton

>>
>>

Seems I wasn't too far off. I have a 6" bore, 13" long with a 2" x 3" powder chamber and an overall length for the ordinance piece of 19" and weighing 218 lbs. 60" wheels.....wow!

[Cat Whisperer]

WOW!

Don - give that fellow a gilt-edged invitation to post here!