"New Version of Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-9 BP Lists" Topic

Good Day to all

You can find a new version of my Black Powder army lists for the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-1879 at

link

Illustrated version at

link

This one includes

A) Army Lists for Ottomans and Russians

B) Historical and ahistorical OOBs plus system for generating forces

C) Six a-historical scenarios

D) A bit of hobby information.

Feel free to playtest and send me comments or requests for changes.

Enjoy!

With Respect
K.Travlos

Thanks, K. Travlos,
I've had 10mm figures for this war, but have not done anything with them. This is what I needed to get started.
John

Hey John. Glad to help. If you click on the 19th century tab on my blog you can check up some posts on my Russian division.

You can also use your minis with Neil Thomas 19th century rules. I use those for fast games while I am collecting my BP army.

Damn me for a fool

Here is a sharable link for the pdf

link

Hi Kostas,

Cards on the table: I myself am addicted to playing historical scenarios for actual battles. Occasionally I'll get to play in a game which is a generic non-historical encounter, or perhaps a schematic representation rather than a direct depiction (eg a Seven Years War flank attack set-up that was a sort of Leuthen but without being Leuthen). Even though these are good entertaining games, I find myself left feeling strangely unsatisfied, and that there is something missing.

So I looked at your "typical" RTW scenarios. Very nice work! I like your mechanisms to handle reserves, flank marches, etc. As an intellectual exercise in categorizing the different types of action, and in creating a system for generating forces and situations, I like what you've done very much. It's an approach that has a lot of appeal, and one I have explored myself in the past.

But having said that, I know I myself would rather fight a historical battle. Rather than have a system to generate a redoubt assault that is "like" Lovtcha, or a river crossing that is "like" Nicopol, or a contest for a pass that is "like" Shipka – why not just create scenarios for Lovtcha, Nicopol, Shipka etc? You can still build in variable forces as "what ifs" to ensure replay value.

I think what it comes down to is that I like the complexity, the specific factors, and the unique subtle texture of each historical situation. For me, an invented scenario, however imaginatively contrived, is always likely to be bland by comparison with a real one.

This is all meant purely as friendly musings from a personal point of view, no criticism intended. I think your scenarios should do a great job at what you want them to achieve. Thanks for sharing them.

Chris

Bloody Big BATTLES!
link

For weapons, I would give all rifles the same range, but a slower rate of fire for muzzle-loaders. Range extensions happened with universal rifling (in the 1840's through 1860's) then again with the smokeless-powder cartridge in 1886. Rate of fire increases happened with the breach loader (starting in the 1860's) and magazine (1870's). The percussion system resulted in a more reliable weapon, but a re-enactor would have to say whether they fired faster or not. Carbines should bump down a range factor in each case.

ChrisBBB. The main issue is that the big battles of the RTW are very big for Black Powder, Multi corps actions. Not that you cannot use it for them, but it would require a collection much bigger than what I would want to put my effort in to collect. When I was collecting the Russians I was already hankering for 1864 Austrians and Danes.

At least from my Barry book it was hard to find a a division length scenario. Gourkos actions fit it best, but those are still a bit big.

Not for historical battles I rather have rules that have less requirements in miniatures than Black Powder, like BBB.

Murvihill. Thank you for the ideas and I can see your point, but I essentially based ranges on what contemporary witness said about the weapons. And in the story they present, there are differences between Martini-Peabodies vs. Krnk vs. Berdan II. The carbine issue is me surrendering to my co-palyers. They just felt cavalry was too weak. Personally I wanted to make the cavalry even worse, especially the Ottomans.But your condensed model of reality must be one your friends are willing to take part in.

Both of you, thank you for your suggestions,

Hi KTravlos,
For sources you might want to look at Francis Vinton Greene's account of the war. He was an American observer with the Russians and he has excellent descriptions of the equipment, men, and battles. These can be found online on Google books, or used for a reasonable sum. A used copy might be best as he has excellent illustrations.

Another one is Frederick Maurice's 'A Strategical Sketch'. It too has been digitized and is well worth a look.

Otherwise I like the look of your ideas. There are plenty of small to medium sized actions that would probably work with the scale of what you are trying to do. There was some fierce fighting around the Dubniks (Gorni and Dolni) after the Russians decided to besiege Plevna. Those fights are probably about the size you are after. The fights in the Shipka are similar in scale, as much because of the difficult terrain as anything. I highly recommend a visit, as there are still entrenchments and things dotted around.

NickinKS thanks for the suggestions. I wish I had them when I started this, because the next version may be several years down the the way. I do intend to visit Plevna, preferably in Spring or Summer.

The battleground at Gorni Dubnik is largely intact, and there were still some trenches to be found in the underbrush along the dirt road running to the monument. I was there in 2003 with Chris, of BBB fame.

Chris was kind enough to le me use an early version of his rules with my students, and I ran the battle of Froeshwiller in class. I bought my copy of the rules and scenarios at Fall In this year. :-) I'm a big fan of the period.

If you want more detail William Von Herbert was an adventurer and he fought at Plevna. He wrote an excellent account of his experience. If you can find a copy, the first edition is the best as later editions were abridged.

If you read French, Osman Pasha's account can be found online. He wrote it with his ADC Talaat Bey.

The little museum at Grivitza was worth seeing, as was the one surrender house in the centre of Plevna. The museum of the Liberation in Plevna was excellent and it is a must see.

Kostas, fair point about wanting to create manageable sized games for BP.

Murvihill: I believe the "Berdans" were badly-made Russian copies, while the converted Krnk was a piece of jnk. The Martini-Peabody was a far superior rifle and it mattered.

Chris

From my few sources the russians armed with Berdan II did outshoot the Ottomans.Both the Barry and Osprey book note that for what its worth. Merry Christmas or Happy Winter Break!

KTravlos,
I've read the attaché reports from the French, Austrian, British and U.S. officers who observed the war. I am not familiar with that claim. Having owned a Berdan II, and a Turkish Peabody Martini, I can attest that I would much rather use the latter. The Berdan II had a gap between the base of the bolt and the receiver, which meant that there was propellant gas released into the face of the firer when it was fired. Furthermore, the long range sights were only added after the war. No such problem with the Martini Peabody.

I think the claim about the Berdan out shooting the Martini Peabody might come from the fight at Gorni Dubnik (possibly a couple of other places too), where they were used by proper marksmen of the Russian guard. Even there Finnish accounts have the Ottomans outranging them (one of the main regiments was the Finnish Guard Jaegers). Alternatively, and this is my own view, this impression comes from the fact that it was superior to the dreadful Krnk (which is essentially a really crappy Enfield Snider), and thus seemed better than it was.

As for the Berdan and Martini Peabody: the Russians also had problems with their cartridges. I cannot remember the exact details, but there was a design problem and many failed to fire. It was something to do with the material used to hold the bullet in the cartridge.

Hi Kostas,

I've trawled through Barry. Which pages are you referring to? He mentions Berdans being sighted to 1500 yards and Martinis to 1800. Not that anyone would hit much at those ranges but it may indicate relative effective range. On p250 he says the Turks were unpleasantly surprised at Cerkovna by 26th Div's Berdans – but because they didn't have the same advantage as they had enjoyed over the Krnk, not because the Berdans were outshooting them. Have I missed another reference somewhere else?

Chris

If they are saying Berdans were sighted for long range I really don't think that is correct. I am pretty sure the Russians did not add long range sights until the 1880s.

It may very well be the reading I did of those events you both mentioned. Both the Barry and Osprey book do note the better sighting for the Berdans. Might be worthwhile for one of you to contact Quintin Barry and discuss it with him.

excellent information all round

Thanks!

It is good to see there is still interest in The Rtw