"French Horse Artillery during the Revolution" Topic

Your continued pejorative comments do nothing but demonstrate the bankruptcy of your opinions.

And you failed to support your conclusions regarding the weight and caliber of ammunition of the different armies.

Because of that, your posting makes little sense regarding that subject.

By the way, perhaps you and I could list the source material we have on hand on period artillery. I have quite a few in my personal library in different languages which I have used for years. Care to list what you have? I'm more than happy to list those I have on hand.

Brechtel,

"And you failed to support your conclusions regarding the weight and caliber of ammunition of the different armies."
What are you hectoring Von Winterfeldt about?

The quotes VW posted were :

"the gunners trained to use a 6-pdr could readily use captured guns, whereas gunners trained to use an 8-pdr would need more training time to use a 6-pdr effectively and be aware of ranges."

Pretty obvious …. if the French gunners normally used 6-pounders, and they captured foreign 6-pounders, then it would be easier for the crews to adapt.

"The 8-pdr was supressed because [among other reasons] …. [it] could not fire captured munitions, [and] therefore was none standard in the theatre of war in which the French were operating "

This one is also pretty obvious …. The An-Xi 6-pounder was of course designed to have, by a slight amount, the largest diamenter of projectile.

diameter of a ball round
British 9-pounder :3.854 French inches
French Gribeauval canon de 8-livres : 3.802 French pouces
[French Gribeauval canon de 8-livres diamter of the bore : 3.916 French pouces]
FRENCH GRIBEAUVAL 8-POUNDER *COULD NOT* FIRE CAPTURED BRITISH 9-POUNDER ROUNDS unless their diameters were slightly reduced in size (corrosion, chipping, machining, etc.) by about 50 thou.

French An XI, Denmark canon de 6-livres : 3.435 French pouces
Pays-Bas, Russian 6-pounder : 3.383 French pouces
Baden, Wurtemburg 6-pounder : 3.375 French pouces
Saxon 6-pounder : 3.354 French pouces
Hessian 6-pounder (Grand Duchy era) : 3.344 French pouces
Prussian, Bavarian 6-pounder : 3.343 French pouces
British, Hanover 6-pounder : 3.283 French pouces
FRENCH AN XI 6-POUNDER *COULD* FIRE ANY CAPTURED 6-POUNDER ROUNDS, although the British and Hanoverian rounds, 150 thou undersize, might have needed to be wrapped in paper or cloth

See : link

So what is the problem with VW's quotes ?

================

Brechtel posted,
"The favorite field piece of the French horse artillery arm was the 8-pounder.
The 4-pounder was also used, but they preferred the 8-pounder."

Have you found anything like a contemporary source for your assertions? …. or ado you now admit that these comments are merely a product of your imagination?

@Le Breton

As I wrote previously there were two camps in the French artillery, the big bangers – who loved the 8 pdr, due to its big bang, see above quote – and others – including Boney himself who thought in other terms, 4 pdr too small, 8 pdr too big, therefore a 6 pdr for sort of bread and butter gun.

I am surprised the B cannot come up with any contemporary quotes in French, of French artillery officers – ergo he cannot read French contemporary sources.

B asserts a consensus, not just a difference of opinions.

If he can't read French, that would explain alot however.

if there would be a consensus – why introducing the 6pdr at all, the big boss wanted evidently that 4 pdrs as well as 8 pdrs were replaced by it.

For republican French armies to have any artillery at all would have been difficult, to have horse artillery would have been a total luxury. The problem was not guns but horses…. And an 8pdr requires MORE horses. And a Horse battery EVEN MORE horses. Dont forget they had just guillotined most of the Aristocracy too which dont work too well for your equestrian 'needs'. 6pdrs are irrelevant as the French did not use them in the revolutionary wars btw, unless they captured them in large numbers with ammunition of course.

6 pdr's weren't that irrelevant either, because the French made use of captured guns, especially Austrian ones and continued to use them in the Napoleonic wars.
France mobilized fully – sort or total war, they got the horses, though initially they went for mounting the gunners on their ammunition waggons (6 companies out of the initial 9).
Still, horse artillery – confirmed by various sources did use 8 pdr guns as well as for a short period (1793) – 12 pdrs.
What I cannot find out to what extend the 8 pdr gun was used – for artillery à cheval or as it also was called for a short period artillerie légére.

Three Armies the mobility of light (or Horse) Artillery was recognised as being more useful to the infantry of the Republican armies as field artillery was relatively immobile on the battlefield. Yes there was a shortage of horses but this did not stop the government from expanding the number of light artillery companies. John Lynn's study of the Army of the North, 'Bayonets of the Republic', has been very informative in this regard.

Chad47 and Von Winterfeldt,
Good points.
The number of artillery à cheval / artillerie légère compagnies is clearly very high compared to the era of the empire – as a ratio to artillerie à pied or as a ratio to cavalry formations. So I think it is pretty likely that the main mission was *not* to maintain the pace of cavalry movements, but instead was, as Chad wrote, "more useful to the infantry of the Republican armies as field artillery was relatively immobile".
Interesting.

The regulation gun teams for an 8-pounder was four horses unless it belonged to the horse artillery, and then it was six.

The 12-pounder always was supposed to have six horses in the gun team.

Foot artillery was not 'relatively immobile' but the gunners walked which made it slower to emplace fully.

The horse artillery was intended for several missions. One of them was to support cavalry.

@Le Breton

Yes indeed, this is confirmed by Lauerma or Coutanceau

I didn't say they didn't exist I just suggested that Horse artillery in the Revolutionary wars would have been as rare as rocking horse $H!7 Von Winterfield my post did reference to use of captured pieces of 6pdrs. ;)

Three Armies

FRom 'Bayonets of the Republic':

January 1792: 2 companies
April 1792: increased to 9 companies
February 1793: increased to 20 companies
Summer 1793: increased to 30 companies
1794: 54 companies

Lot of Rocking Horses there I think.

According to page 25 in Moltzheim:

Towards the end of 1791, 2 companies of artillerie a cheval were created; number increased successively until 30 companies were formed under the name Compagnies d'Artillerie Legere or Volante, formed into 9 regiments in 1794.

18 Floreal (1795) – 8 Regiments d'Artillerie Legere each with 6 companies. [8 regiments a pied each with 20 companies].

November 1799 – Garde des Consul – 1 company d'Artillerie Legere.

10 October 1801 – 8 Regiments d'Artillerie a cheval each with 6 companies; 1 company d'Artillerie a cheval de la Garde [8 regiments a pied each with 2 battalions and a battalion had 10 companies].

At the start of 1805 – 1 squadron of 2 companies d'Artillerie a cheval de la Garde Imperiale; 6 Regiments d'Artillerie a cheval with 37 companies between them; [8 regiments a pied with 176 companies between them]. Note: 2 companies of each foot regiment and 1 company from 6th a Cheval were destined for service in the Colonies.

1806 – 3 squadrons each of 2 companies d'Artillerie a cheval de la Garde Imperiale.

1808 – 6 companies d'Artillerie a pied de la Garde Imperiale created, but d'Artillerie a cheval de la Garde Imperiale reduced to 4 companies.

1809 – 3 additional companies d'Artillerie a pied de la Garde Imperiale created.

August 1810 – Dutch artillery became 9th Regiment d'Artillerie a pied.

Start of 1812 –
Garde imperial:
1 Regiment Artillerie a Pied (11 companies)
1 regiment Artillerie a Cheval (4 companies)
Ligne:
9 Regiment Artillerie a Pied (207 companies)
1 regiment Artillerie a Cheval (49 companies)

1813 –
Garde imperial:
2 Regiment Artillerie a Pied (21 companies)
1 regiment Artillerie a Cheval (6 companies)
Ligne:
9 Regiment Artillerie a Pied (261 companies)
1 regiment Artillerie a Cheval (54 companies)

I suppose there existed plenty of rocking horses ;-)).
Horse artillery was widely used, and very agressivly, they are paling Senarmont in the French Revolutionary Wars, see Lauerma.

Actually, does the size of artillery piece actually matter that much?

If used offensively then surely the actual presence of a horse artillery battery would have a greater effect on the enemy than the weight of shot?

Wouldn't the higher rate of fire from the smaller-bored pieces compensate for their smaller amounts of canister-shot?

And wouldn't the 12-pounders be firing hollow round-shot anyway (which would negate any usual weight advantage)

"Actually, does the size of artillery piece actually matter that much?"

Yes – don't underestimate the aspect of inflicting damage on the morale, some French artillery officers believed a lot in this, you have to beat the moral equilibrium of the enemy.

Of course you are right too, clever tactics are important as well.

really 30 companies is a lot? Someone needs a maths lesson. The French army at the time would have been well over 300 battalions of line infantry alone nearer 600 so for every horse gun battery you field you would need a minimum of 30 battalions of infantry on the table. Probability wise on a wargames table they are anmd should be as rare as rocking horse dung.

Just on the maths point, then the figure doesn't relate to how many French infantry battalions there were overall, but how many of both were with the field armies and not in garrison or otherwise employed. They will probably still be rare,but not quite rocking horse dung rare…

Well history is more relevant than maths alone, for example in the Armee du Nord in September 1794, each division was supported by some artillerie legere, according to Sabron;

Souham's Division; 4 officers and 83 men ; split into three detachments, one for each brigade.
Moreau's Division: 1 officer and 12 men
Lemaire's Division; 5 officers and 122 men from 2 different coys.
Despaux's Division; 3 officers and 45 men.
Bonnaud's Division; 2 officers and 76 men, divided into 3 detachments, one for each brigade.
Delmas' Division: 68 men.

Obviously as has been pointed out elsewhere the detachments were not all of full company size. Each of these divisions had a cavalry component of various sizes, but no rocking horses have been recorded.

Overall the army had 4 guns/1000 men.

Regards

Garry Wills
caseshotpublishing.com

Three Armies

I don't think I implied anywhere that I was interested in employing significant numbers of arillerie legere. You raised the ‘rocking horse' analogy and I simply suggested they were not as rare as you stated. Can I also suggest you look at my original question, which had nothing to do with the number of batteries/companies available as I already had some information on that as shown.

Garry, thanks. That information is most useful in terms of the game size I am planning.

As to types of pieces, Army of the Rhine 17 Aug 1794, according to the Nafziger collection, citing Hennepin:
with the light artillery: 19 8pdr
with the battalions:56 4pdr
batteries in the line: 12 12pdr, 16 8pdr, 14 4pdr, 3 howizers
bunch of various pieces in the park, a few in depots.
Looks like a pretty good case for the artillerie legere using 8pdrs to me, at least in the Rhine army.
Phil

The 8-pounder was an excellent field piece, was easy to maneuver, and was not too heavy.

Unfortunately, too many have tried to make a case that it was none of the above, in order to make a case for the newer 6-pounder. It is noteworthy with the new Valee Artillery System the French adopted in 1827, the only long guns adopted for that system were an 8- and a 12-pounder.

"It is noteworthy with the new Valee Artillery System the French adopted in 1827, the only long guns adopted for that system were an 8- and a 12-pounder."

Maybe noteworthy, maybe not.
And itis Valée, not Valee.

They changed just about everything but the barrel :
--- new firing mechanism
--- new sight
--- new lighter rounds pre-made with less powder and sabots
--- new carriage (much lighter, no need to put the barrel into a different position for moving the piece, no coffret, all-iron axle/hub assembly)
--- lighter limber
--- new caission (with coffrets)
--- places for the gunners to ride instead of walking.

So, it was possible that the Gribeiaval "system" for the 8 pounder was deemed too heavy in 1827, but more acceptable with re-design of all the vehicles.

There were various proposals 1817-1826 …. including using gun-howitsers similar to Russian 24-pound licorns, light 12-pounder canons, and many others. Using the barrels with the proportions of the Gribeauval 8 and 12 avoided the immediate need to cast barrels, which might not have been affordable.

Indeed, can you provide any evidence that economy of barrel production was not the over-riding, "winning" concern in 1827? For example, how many 8 and 12 pounder barrels of the Gribeauval proportions were produced *after* 1827?

The following statistical extract for the French artillery arm for the years 1795, 1801, 1804, 1809, 1812, 1813, and 1814 might be useful:

French Artillery Organization

1795:

Artillerie a Pied: 8 regiments of 20 companies each.
Artillerie a Cheval: 8 regiments of 6 companies each.
Ouvriers: 12 companies.
Pontonniers: 1 battalion of 8 companies.
Canonniers Veterans: 13 companies.

1801:

Artillerie a Pied: 8 regiments each organized in two battalions of 10 companies each.
Artillerie a Cheval: 6 regiments of 6 companies each.
Train d'Artillerie: 8 battalions of 6 companies each.
Artillerie a Cheval de la Garde: 1 company.
Train d'Artillerie de la Garde: 1 company.
Ouvriers: 15 companies.
Pontonniers: 2 battalions each of 8 companies.
Canonniers Veterans: 13 companies.

1804:

Artillerie a Pied: 8 regiments totaling 176 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval: 6 regiments totaling 37 companies.
Train d'Artillerie: 8 battalions totaling 48 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval de la Garde: 1 squadron of 2 companies.
Train d'Artillerie de la Garde: 1 battalion of four companies.
Ouvriers: 15 companies.
Ouvriers de la Garde: 1 company.
Pontonniers: 2 battalions totaling 16 companies.
Canonniers Veterans: 18 companies.
1809:
Artillerie a Pied: 8 regiments totaling 176 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval: 6 regiments totaling 37 companies.
Train d'Artillerie: 26 battalions totaling 156 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval de la Garde: 1 regiment of 4 companies.
Artillerie a Pied de la Garde: 6 companies.
Train d'Artillerie de la Garde: 2 battalions totaling 12 companies.
Ouvriers: 16 companies.
Ouvriers de la Garde: 1 company.
Armuriers: 4 companies.
Pontonniers: 2 battalions totaling 16 companies.
Canonniers Veterans: 18 companies.

1812:

Artillerie a Pied: 9 regiments totaling 207 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval: 6 regiments totaling 49 companies.
Train d'Artillerie: 27 battalions totaling 189 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval de la Garde: 1 regiment of 4 companies.
Artillerie a Pied de la Garde: 1 regiment of 11 companies.
Train d'Artillerie de la Garde: 2 battalions of 12 companies.
Ouvriers: 19 companies.
Ouvriers de la Garde: 1 company.
Armuriers: 5 companies.
Pontonniers: 2 battalions totaling 19 companies.
Canonniers Veterans: 19 companies including 1 Guard company.

1813:

Artillerie a Pied: 9 regiments totaling 261 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval: 6 regiments totaling 54 companies.
Train d'Artillerie: 27 battalions totaling 189 companies.
Artillerie a Cheval de la Garde: 1 regiment of 6 companies.
Artillerie a Pied de la Garde: 2 regiments totaling 21 companies.
Train d'Artillerie de la Garde: 2 battalions totaling 24 companies.
Ouvriers: 19
Ouvriers de la Garde: 1 combined company of ouviers and pontonniers.
Armuriers: 6
Pontonniers: 3 battalions totaling 31 companies.
Canonniers Veterans: 19 companies including 1 Guard company.

1814:

Artillerie a Pied: 9 regiments of 27 companies each.
Artillerie a Cheval: 6 regiments of 6 or 7 companies each.
Train d'Artillerie: 27 battalions of 7 companies each.
Artillerie a Cheval de la Garde: 1 regiment of 6 companies.
Artillerie a Pied de la Garde: 1 Old Guard regiment of 6 companies and 1 Young Guard regiment of 14 companies.
Train d'Artillerie de la Garde: 2 regiments of 12 companies each.
Ouvriers: 19 companies.
Ouvriers de la Garde: 1 combined company of ouvriers and pontonniers.
Armuriers: 6 companies.
Pontonniers: 3 battalions totaling 28 companies.
Canonniers Veterans: 20 companies including one Guard company.

"It is noteworthy with the new Valee Artillery System the French adopted in 1827, the only long guns adopted for that system were an 8- and a 12-pounder."

Maybe noteworthy, maybe not.
And itis Valée, not Valee.

You need to get over yourself. Semantics, grammar, and spelling games are just a bit much.

And if you want to criticize those subjects, perhaps you need to check your own postings for spelling. For example, above the wording/spelling is 'it is' not 'itis.' I have no idea what an itis is.

I submit that if the 8-pounder was 'deemed' to be too heavy, then Valee would not have included it in his new artillery system. What is also significant is that he did not include the newer 6-pounder, probably because the 8-pounder was more effective.

Those looks so good…!
1/72

Amicalement
Armand

Armand – 8 pounder or 6 pounder?

Actually, probably 4 pounder

G'Day Gents

Could someone give me the source to this:

"The favorite field piece of the French horse artillery arm was the 8-pounder. The 4-pounder was also used, but they preferred the 8-pounder."

Best Regards
Art

From the American Artillerist's Companion by Louis de Tousard, Volume II, 45 and 47:

'…in order to give [horse artillery] the advantage of superior fire to that of the other powers, 8-pounders and 6-inch howitzers were adopted. These two calibers appear to have, hitherto, completely answered every object which was expected from them, and the ammunition required for these dimensions did not occasion an excess of wagons, or an embarrassing weight, which, in bad roads, would follow very tardily the rapid movements which this kind of artillery is constantly performing.'

'Though the 8-pounder be the most preferable caliber for the general service of the horse artillery, still the 12-pounder may be employed very advantageously; for it is equally susceptible of celerity in its motions…'

That's not precise enough…

Perhaps in Susane, Belair, or les calculs du cheminement de artillerie a cheval..with an off chance with general La Riboisiere

The question now is: who is Tousard referring to when he writes that the 8 pounder is the most preferable caliber, his own, the committee, or the officers and men of the artillerie a cheval?

It appears that Tousard is also referring to the 1792 – 1800 period, as it is aimed at the two calibers of 4 pounder and 8 pounder. This is substantiated when he mentions the possible use of the 12 pounder but not 6 pounder…

And General Ruty pushed for the replacement of the 6-pounder in December 1814 with the return of both the 4- and the 8-pounder.

And when the new Valee artillery system was instituted in ca 1827, there was no 6-pounder, but both an 8- and a 12-pounder.

And the Gribeauval 8-pounder was still in service as late as 1809 with Davout's command.

And the Systeme AN XI was not in production until 1805 and the only pieces that were produced in any numbers were the 6-pounder and the 5.5-inch howitzer.

And as Professor N Persy states on page 18 of his Elementary Treatise on the Forms of Cannon and Various Systems of Artillery, 'With very few exceptions, all the innovations prescribed by the decree of the year XI, and those which came after it were abrogated, and the system of Gribeauval, exhibited in detail in the tables of construction, rigorously restored.'

Tousard was published in 1809 by C and A Conrad and Co., Philadelphia. I do believe that it is precise enough.

Your not answering my question

Who claims the following:

"The favorite field piece of the French horse artillery arm was the 8-pounder"

You, Tousard, the committee, or the officers and men of the artillerie a cheval?

I believe everyone else knows that Tousard had his volumes published in 1809. -that has already been discussed…but it doesn't answer the question.

It doesn't matter when Toussard is published it would matter when did he leave France and settled in the US – from then on he hardly would have had first hand experience neither be in touch with French artillery committees.

G'Day Hans – Karl

It has been a long time old friend…

I agree, that is why I wrote that "Tousard had his volumes published in 1809. -that has already been discussed".

Best Regards
Art

Then the best thing to do is to provide information that credible disagrees with both Tousard and Ruty.

And your question has been answered-it was about the 8-pounder as a horse artillery weapon.

And regarding Tousard as a source, Rene Chartrand in his two-volume Osprey study of the French artillery of the period, stated in the bibliography:

'A most valuable and detailed account of the Gribeauval System and British mid-18th century artillery, both types of guns being used in the United States.'

Chartrand also used Gassendi's Aide-Memoire, Lauerma's excellent study on period field artillery, Nardin's biography of Gribeauval, Picard's 'essential' study of the French artillery of the 18th century, DeScheel's Memoires d'Artillerie, and Duteil's invaluable Usage de l'artillerie.

Chartrand's work is excellent, well-researched, and scholarly. They are the best of the Osprey publications.

You made the statement

"The favorite field piece of the French horse artillery arm was the 8-pounder"

what first hand source do you have to validate your statement?

Was it A,B,or C:

A..Tousard
B..The committee
C..the officers and men of the artillerie a cheval

The Austrian Cavalry Gun in Comparison to the Horse Artillery of Other States

By: Karl Baron Smola, OberLieutenant in the Austrian Artillery

Translated by: Digby G. Smith, Thetford, 2010.

Translator's Note: The following is a translation of the article Streffleurs Österreichishe Militaerische Zeitschrift which was first published in 1827

France.

The batteries of the French Artillerie à cheval consist of 6 guns in three sections, each of two 6- or 8-pounder cannon, or two 24-pound howitzers…

But, it seems that the 8-pounder cannon is preferred to the 6-pounder. Gun barrels and carriages are the same as for the Foot Artillery;

link

Another expert about artillery, Steven Smith has to say this

From 1807/1808 a lot of 8-pdr carriages were stripped of metal work to furnish parts for the new 6-pdr carriages, further reducing the stock of usable 8-pdrs in France. In 1814 what 8-pdr carriages remained, were used to mount the 6-pdr and 24-pdr howitzer, as this was cheaper and quicker than building new 6-pdr carriages. The 8-pdr was really non standard from 1808 onwards. Yes Valee brought back the 8-pdr, but he was very much a partisan of the Gribeauval system and the politics of the time made it highly suspect to favour anything produced under the republic or empire. When Ruty made his report in 1814, of course he was going to find in favour of the 8-pdr, as saying actually this 'Republican kit is better than Royalist kit' could have ended up with a nasty consiquence. Ruty is a fascinating man, but from his file at Vincennes he was a clear headed pragmatist in 1814/1815, who supported 100% which ever regieme came along with no hesitation or quarms about changing sides. Without understanding Ruty, and the politics he was working with, it is very easy to take what Ruty says as carte blanche fact. Ditto the tests done in 1803 to prove the new gun tubes were superior than the old tubes.

And the source for this is…what?

From Ruty:

'The 8-caliber has, in all respects, an undeniable advantage over the 6-caliber. The use of the former, in preference to the latter, could not be put in doubt if we disregarded all economic considerations in the use of the resources. If, on the other hand, we proposed to coordinate with these last considerations, rather than with the first ones, the determination of the field calibers, the advocates of the old system would oppose to the 6 caliber, the 4 caliber which, for the economy of resources, obtains more advantages in relation to the 8 caliber. Yet, if the question was considered from the only one of these points of view, it would be discussed in an incomplete and wrong way. In order to grasp the real point of view of the question, we must determine, in a more precise manner, the various purposes the cannon can serve in field warfare and then, examine if, for a definite sum of resources, the combination of the 8 and 4 calibers serves better these purposes than the intermediate 6 caliber.'

'If the reasoning itself did not suffice to establish the advantages of the 8 caliber or the 6 caliber in the formation of the batteries…it would rely on the memories of the past to convey its undeniable advantages…Twenty years of brilliant success had sanctified it. Nobody can feel more inclined than an artillery officer to grant the personnel a share of merit it has to claim in these successes; yet it is for the same officer to judge to what extent the nature of the weapon has played a part in obtaining these successes. It seems impossible to deny that t he material and positive superiority of a caliber more significant than the usually weaker caliber, had a lot to do with the superiority of our horse artillery batteries generally accepted at the time of the war currently being discussed. This opinion was so widespread that the gunners brought themselves reluctantly to renounce a weapon that so many reasons of pride and trust made it precious to them. They seized with eagerness the opportunity to take it back, wherever the 8 caliber was still accepted in the composition of field companies, in competition with the 6 caliber, which has been introduced in our armies only successively.'

So, it looks like General Ruty believed that 8-pounder was the favorite in the French horse artillery arm.

It does not look like Ruty's opinion on the 8-pounder had anything to do with 'politics' but the superiority of the 8-pounder over the new 6-pounder. And Davout's command in 1809 was equipped with 8-pounders and very few 6-pounders for the campaign against Austria that year. Massena's and Oudinot's corps were equipped with the new 6-pounder as those corps were newly organized for the campaign.

Ruty's biography can be found in Georges Six excellent Dictionnaire Biographique des Generaux & Amiraux Francais de la Revolution et de L'Empire (1792-1814).

G'Day Hans – Karl

General Dessales at Waterloo sheds light on Ruty …and he deserted the Grande Armee and fled to the King…cad ;-)

Even General Allix wondered about Ruty and brought it to General Gassendi's attention.

Hans – Karl

Where is Vox?

Best Regards
Art

…from then on he hardly would have had first hand experience neither be in touch with French artillery committees.

And this 'information' comes from…?

General Dessales at Waterloo sheds light on Ruty …and he deserted the Grande Armee and fled to the King…

There is no General Dessales listed in Six…There is a General Dessole, but he was not present at Waterloo.

Le général Dessales (Victor-Albert) ou meme de Salle…

l'orthographe de son nom a été rectifiée en de Salle en vertu d'un jugement rendu en 1819 par le tribunal de Versailles.

le commandement de batterie provisoire général Dessales en 18 juin 1815…

Getting back to my original question:

"The favorite field piece of the French horse artillery arm was the 8-pounder"

what first hand source do you have to validate your statement?

Was it A,B,or C:

A..Tousard
B..The committee
C..the officers and men of the artillerie a cheval

You've been given (1) Tousard's comment on the 8-pounder being preferred for French horse artillery, and (2) General Ruty's statements above.

Those are two primary source references.

There are two General Salles in Six. Neither of them are artillery officers. The first listed is Adrien-Nicolas Piedefer, Marquis de La Salle and the second is Jean-Charlemagne Maynier, comte de La Salle.

your statement is therefore based upon Tousard and Ruty

You have a good day

And Ruty is speaking from experience and is speaking about the opinions of the horse artillerymen who served the pieces.

Where is your evidence regarding 'Dessoles'?

Art is pretty correct about Desalles

Dessales

Le général Dessales (Victor-Albert) est né à Versailles en (1776). Il s'engage en 1792 (à l'âge de seize ans) dans un bataillon de volontaires de Seine-et-Oise, et y est élu premier sergent de la compagnie des canonniers. Il combat à Jemappes et à Fleurus. Il est nommé capitaine en novembre 1793, prend part au siège de Mayence, et combat en Italie sous Scherer et Championnet. Devenu chef de bataillon, il remplit en 1805 et 1806 des missions diplomatiques auprès des princes de la Confédération du Rhin. Il combat en Espagne en 1809. Rappelé à la Grande Armée, il est directeur des équipages de pont et se fait remarquer pour la construction d'un pont de 60 toises (120 mètres) tout d'une seule pièce sur un bras du Danube à Enzersdorf, qui permet le passage de l'armée française et la victoire de Wagram.
Il devient ensuite Directeur général des ponts militaires et dirige l'arsenal de Metz. En 1813, il commande l'artillerie du 7e corps, puis participe à la défense de Magdebourg. Il est alors nommé général, mais son grade ne sera pas confirmé par Louis XVIII, à qui il s'était pourtant rallié avec enthousiasme. Aussi est-ce avec des sentiments mêlés qu'il voit revenir Napoléon de l'Ile d'Elbe : "Je ne dissimulerai pas, écrit-il, que si mon amour-propre n'eût pas été froissé, j'aurais été franchement pour les Bourbons contre lui qui, en abdiquant, nous avait déliés de tous nos serments. "
Napoléon lui rend son grade de général de brigade et le nomme chef de l'artillerie du 1er corps. C'est dans cette fonction qu'il fait la campagne de Belgique, et qu'il commande la grande batterie, dite de 80 canons, qui fut établie pour soutenir l'attaque du 1er corps.
Ayant fait sa carrière militaire sous la Révolution et l'Empire sous le nom de Dessales, l'orthographe de son nom a été rectifiée en de Salle en vertu d'un jugement rendu en 1819 par le tribunal de Versailles.
Des extraits des Souvenirs du général Dessales, ou de Salle, ont été publiés dans le numéro du 15 janvier 1895 de la Revue de Paris.

from napoleon series org

Desalles or de Salle (Victor-Able)

Born: 17 February 1776
General de Brigade: 1 February 1814 (Not confirmed under the restoration)
General de Brigade: 28 April 1815
Chevalier of the Legion d'Honneur: 5 August 1804
Officer of the Legion d'Honneur: 21 April 1813
Wounds received during the period 1792-1815: None
Died: 28 October 1864

and surely has was commanding artillery in 1815