Troop Quality: Regular Romanian infantry and cavalry units should be rated as veteran with the Dorobanz/Kalarash (territorial) infantry and cavalry being rated as green or levy. Chasseur units may skirmish.

Leadership: King Charles 1st should be rated as exceptional. All others are rated as average.

Organization: The Romanians provided 1 Corps made up of 3 Divisions of Infantry and 1 of Cavalry. The following is for full strength units. Scale 1:300.

Romanian Corps:

Corps HQ: 1 Leader

2 Infantry Divisions each:

• 1 Leader
• 2 Infantry Regiments of 5 stands each
• 4 Dorobanz Regiments of 5 stands each
• 1 Chasseur Battalion of 3 (4) stands
• 3 Foot Batteries

1 Reserve Division:

• 1 Leader
• 4 Infantry Regiments of 5 stands each
• 3 Dorobanz Regiments of 5 stands each
• 2 Chasseur Battalions of 3 (4) stands each
• 3 Foot Batteries

1 Cavalry Division:

• 1 Leader
• 2 Line Regiments of 2 stands each
• 7 Kalarash regiments of 2 stands each
• 1 Horse Battery

Turkey

Weapons: Turkish troops were better armed than the Russians. The majority of the regiments were armed with the Martini-Peadbody rifle, which is classed as a 2BL. The rest of the troops, to include the reserves, were armed with British Snider rifles and are classed as 1BL. Most of the artillery was bronze Krupps (BLA). However, there were some steel Krupps (IBLA) in the arsenal and these were given to all horse artillery batteries and eight foot batteries. Therefore, the Turks may not field more than four of their foot batteries with IBLA. All cavalry was armed with the Winchester and is classed as a 1BL.

Troop Quality: Most Turkish troops should be classed as veteran and the reserves as green to levy. The Bashi-Bazouk (frontier) troops should be rated as levy. Rifle and Frontier battalions may skirmish. All cavalry may dismount.

Leadership: There should be few “exceptional” leaders and several “poor” leaders. Osman Pasha and Baker Pasha should be rated as “exceptional” while Suleiman Pasha should be rated as “poor”.

Organization: The Turks had no set organization higher than the battalion level. Battalions were formed into add-hoc regiments and assigned to seven total Corps across the empire. Divisions, likewise, were add-hoc units. The following represents this organization and is for units at full strength. Scale is 1:300.

Turkish Corps

Corps HQ: 1 Leader

Corps attached:

9 Frontier Battalions of 3 (4) stands each

1 Horse Battery

2 Cossack Regiments of 3 stands each.

Division assets: 2-3 Leaders

Infantry:

• 5-7 Infantry Regiments of 8 stands each
• 5-7 Rifle Battalions of 3 (4) stands each

Cavalry:

• 3-5 Cavalry Regiments of 3 stands each

Artillery:

• 4 Foot Batteries
• 1 Horse Battery

Notes:

• Frontier Battalions may group three battalions together into one unit.
• There can be up to three Divisions per Corps. Up to three Divisional commanders have been assigned per Corps for this. The Turkish commander assigns units to them as they desire. Typical Divisional organization is as follows:

1 Leader

4 Regiments of 8 stands each

4 Rifle Battalions of 3 (4) stands each

1 Cavalry Regiment of 3 stands

2 Batteries

Egypt

Weapons: All armed with 2BL.

Troop Quality: Green

Leadership: Poor

Organization: One Division was supplied by the Egyptians to the Turks. It consisted of 20 battalions of Infantry each approximately 400 strong.

Bibliography:

My information came from two sources: The Russo-Turkish War 1877 by Drury and Ruggeri (part of the Osprey series) and Russian Campaigns in Turkey 1877-1878 by Greene (this is the official document about the war and is a reprint of the 1878 edition).

Design notes:

Greene’s book provided a wealth of information, but this mostly covered the Russian troops. For the Turks what exactly made up a Division was not standard so this was averaged and three leaders provided so that the player could organize them as they saw fit. I feel this is in the flavor of the Turkish army since most tactical units, such as the Regiment, were administrative units only.

I didn’t have good information on the Egyptians in terms of what their organization was. All I know is that there were about 8,000 of them in 20 battalions. I leave it to you to organize them if you wish to use them. According to Osprey these troops were great in quality, but in Greene’s book these troops were terrible. At Cerkova the author notes that the Egyptian contingent lost only 4 killed and 32 wounded, but this was because the entire Division ran upon first volley from the Russians!

There was a need to make an amendment to the basic F&FF rules to account for the inferiority of the bronze breech-loading artillery. Steel Krupps were far superior and I feel that the new range bands give a good “feel” for how they work.

I chose to ignore the mitrailleuse on both sides in the artillery organizations. These were not used in the war and were left behind by both armies; restricted to fortress garrisoning.

I did not give any sides tactical doctrines. This was mostly a war of dug-in Turkish infantry being assaulted by Russian infantry. At first I believed that the Russians used massive columns to deliver their attacks, but after reading Green’s analysis of the Russian tactics I concluded that this was incorrect. Russian assaults were done with a screen of skirmishers followed by massive lines of men supported by battalions in company-sized columns. This tactic was too slow moving and cost them dearly at Plevna.

To close, my group of gamers plays F&FF without Brigade commanders. If your group wishes to add them as another chain-of-command then for every Division of infantry or cavalry add a two Brigadiers (most Russian and Turk Divisions consisted of two Brigades each).

It is my hope that you have fun with this variant. If there are any questions or comments contact me a BBradf3021@aol.com