MovieChat Forums > Indigènes (2006) Discussion > Many of the rifles are not authentic

Many of the rifles are not authentic

The rifles carried by the French North African troops in this movie are incorrect for the period. Many of the men are carrying the French MAS model 1936, others 8mm German Mausers, a few have M-1 Garands, a few others Lee Enfields, and a couple even have older Lebel-Berthier rifles. A small number even have US Model 1917 Eddystone Enfields which were indeed widely issued to these troops. Let's see, that's a total of 5 different types of ammunition!!

Vichy French troops were armed with the MAS 36, a bolt action rifle in 7.5mm caliber and some of the reserve and colonial troops still had the old Lebel 8mm rifle. Most of the Free French who escaped to Britain were re-equipped with British Lee Enfield rifles. However, the Vichy Troops of North Africa who went over to the Allies and participated in the Tunisian Campaign were initially armed with French weapons. But by the time additional North African units were raised for service in Italy and France, they were largely re-equipped with American weapons for logistical purposes. As far as I know, none were issued with M-1 Garands, since these were in short supply. Even U.S. rear echelon troops were still issued the 1903 Springfield. And it was the Springfield and another bolt action rifle; the 1917 "American Enfield" produced to alleviate a shortfall of Springfield rifles in WWI; that were supplied to the Free French as well as to China. Both were in 30-06 caliber as was the Garand.

While the Free French made official use of all of the above rifles (except the Mauser, captured examples of which were used by the Resistance) they didn't do so all at one time and place. During the Italian campaign and fighting in France proper, these troops would have had Springfields or American Enfields, even though I saw only a couple of the latter and none of the former in the movie.


Typical Errors made by Hollywood or other movie makers.


Usually not this egregious. Usually, all the men at least have the same kind of incorrect weapon.


Interesting stuff...!



next time somebody makes a movie like this, be sure to be on the set and give them a heads up ! I have yet to see a 100% correct depiction of WW2 events on film.

Maybe they'll do it right with "The Pacific" ?


Glad to do it! Just need an invitation. As I've said previously, many films depict soldiers with incorrect firearms. But usually the same incorrect ones. I'd rather be a frontline infantryman than a supply sergeant in this movie's unit. I'd want to blow my brains out with one bullet of each of the numerous types I'd have to have on hand!



C'est manifique! Your incisive knowledge of combat weapons is exemplary! I am currently writing an adventure comedy set in Thailand...but the bumbling bandit rebels carry vintage WWII bolt-action rifles left over from the Burma British colonial days....

...Therefore, my Question of the Day is: Would they carry the British Lee Enfield rifles that you mentioned were used in "Days of Glory"?

[..."MAS 36, a bolt action rifle in 7.5mm caliber and some of the reserve and colonial troops still had the old Lebel 8mm rifle. Most of the Free French who escaped to Britain were re-equipped with British Lee Enfield rifles."...]

Moreover, do the current Karen Separatist Rebels, fighting the Burmese Army since the Brits left them in the lurch in 1948-49? (The UK promised them their own state if they'd help defeat the Japanese, which they DID, but they were abandoned after the UK granted them Independence in 1948-49? Do these Karen rebels still use old British rifles issued by the Brits to fight against the Japanese in Burma? Or have they since been re-supplied with AK-47's or M-16's...(we hope so since the Burmese army is supplied by China in its repressive weaponry!)

In any case, for comedic purposes, guanche, what sort of weapons should my "bandits" have? A bolt-action rifle with limited ammo would play into the comedy better I think...

Please write me your thoughts on this....we are looking to commence filming in Jan. of 2008...

It's called "The White Elephant"....a comedy-adventure with Elephants, Hill Tribe refugees....bumbling bandits....and more!

"I came to Casablanca for the waters".
"What waters? We're in a desert".
"I was misinformed".


Since I know very little specific information about the Karen independence movement, the best I can give you is informed conjecture. I know that many of the Karens are Christians and some are well educated. And, sadly, I believe that their movement has been pretty much defeated at this point by a central government that has recently shown how truly tyrannical it is. Just today, a number of nonviolent pro-democracy demonstrators were gunned down.

From what I can recall, the Karens were armed with whatever they could get, which was generally AK-47s, SKS's, US M-1 carbines, M-16s and, yes, .303 British Enfields for some of the old timers. In the old days they may also have had some captured WWII Japanese weapons such as the 6.5mm and 7.7mm Arisaka rifle, Nambu pistols and machine guns, and possibly even crossbows and swords. If the characters in your movie are "bandits" rather than rebels, their equipment might be as eclectic and varied as in the rather disappointing movie responsible for this discussion. I would hazard a guess that nowadays AK-47s and SKS's are probably cheaper and easier to get (as well as the ammo) than Enfields. If you're looking for more of a comic opera effect, Enfields and single barrel shotguns (which may even be legal for forest tribes in Myanmar)would probably be the most authentic and cheapest props. Arisakas in good condition now fetch premium prices although poor condition ones can still be bought cheaply. Of course, you must check the laws of the nation in which you will be filming the movie, since most won't let you import any type of firearm, even a museum piece.

Let me know if you have a part for a fat middle-aged imperialist surrounded by beautiful native women. I could use a career change.


Dear Kun Guanche (Kun is "Mr. or Mrs." in honorific Thai)

YEs! Let's explore the possibilities...!

I just sent you a "Private" message to your box...

Or you can send me an email at: [email protected]

Perhaps your keen and vast knowledge as a weapons expert can lead you being

the "Firearms Consultant" on the production...

...Let's see....

Awaiting your reply...

Archip57....(My name is Alan J....and American, born in in L.A. for the past 14 based in Thailand for The White Elephant Project...)

all the best....

"You gentlemen can't fight in here; this is the WAR ROOM"!


Vichy French troops in the mainland were armed with the MAS 36; however, in North Africa, the MAS 36 was extremely rare. Therefore, when the Vichy North African administration switched to the Allied side, the vast majority of the troops were using the 8 mm Berthier M1916 rifle (with some Lebel 8 mm) for the Tunisian Campaign. When the Americans re-armed them in 1943, they received the M1917 Enfield as well as, in smaller numbers, the M1903 Springfield.

The Free French troops were initially armed with Lee-Enfields (SMLE) up until they were combined with the aforementioned North African Army in 1943; for the Italian campaign, they had, for the most part, given back their British weaponry in exchange for the M1903 Springfield and M1917 Enfield. The exception is Free French SAS and commando units under the British (such as the Kieffer commandos who landed at Ouistreham on D-Day), who retained their British weaponry.

Only the 1st Paratroop Regiment of France was issued the M1 Garand, of which they received a tad over 700. The rest of the re-armed French Army was, however, issued many M1 Carbines.


My compliments. Your knowledge is impressive. I didn't know that any Free French troops received the M-1 Garand or even the .30 cal Carbine in WWII; although I know the Carbine was used extensively in Indochina and, I believe, eventually manufactured in France.

Do you know how many 1932 Lebels were produced? This was a rifle based on the old 8mm Berthier converted to 7.5mm and fitted with an internal Mauser type 5 round magazine loaded with stripper clips or single rounds. I once handled one at a gun show and was greatly impressed with it's looks and balance. I recall reading that the MAS 36 was adopted due to the high cost of the 1932 model. Is this true? I remember seeing a few pictures of French Resistance fighters using them, and seem to recall them equipping the French troops depicted in the late 60s movie "Dunquerque".


my god, u are a retard! DID YOU *beep* MISS THE POINT OF THE MOVIE?? or maybe u did get it but decided to watch again and again to see what weapons were inacuratte? frankly i couldnt give a flying crap if the weapons are incorrect ok? this movie was not even about the fighting, there was a message in it, hopefully u got it, seriously, this is trivial unimportant and uninteresting. People should stop caring about props and start caring about the characters, so what? they're not exactly authentic, maybe it was intentional, hell they're practically not even an army. so shut ur trap about the weapons are not authentic and try to get the meaning of the movie.

'We make mistakes, people die' William Adama


I was simply commenting on a historical detail. You seem much more obsessed with the issue than I am. Getting abusively hysterical and jumping to conclusions about me and my feelings and thought processes is a lot worse than being "retarded". How dare you assume from my simple observation that I am insensitive to the deeper issues presented by the film? I'd rather be part of the Special Olympics than a lynch mob. And the latter is precisely where your mindset belongs. I'm sure that many whom you would crassly characterize as "retarded" have a greater depth of understanding than you.


Sorry, I finally rechecked this forum after having seen the movie today (I hadn't seen it before).

Before I answer, I have to say that I too was rather displeased with the portrayal of the rifles used; not only was the MAS 36 not supposed to have been portrayed in the quantity shown in the film (if at all), but they used the incorrect post-1945 model MAS 36. The primary visual external difference between the post-1945 and pre-1945 models was the forward sight; the circular pattern seen on the rifles in the film was only put into place post-1945.

I'm not sure what Lebel 1932 you are referring to. I only know of two updates to the Lebel 1886/M93: the Lebel 1886 M93 M27 and the Lebel 1886 M93 R35. The former was a shortened Lebel rifle converted to 7.5 x 58 mm (the 7.5 mm used in the FM 1924 rather than the final 7.5 x 54 mm adopted for the FM 1924/M29 and 7.5 mm French rifles). It was not adopted due to prohibiting costs. In 1935, about 25,000 older Lebel rifles were reworked into Lebel 1886 M93 R35 carbines, which still used the 8 mm round and a tube magazine which only held 3 rounds. These were issued to rearguard troops (artillerymen, supply, drivers, etc.) in metropolitan France and French North Africa rather than the more common Mousqueton M1916.

However, those are only the official Lebel rifles considered and adopted (rejected in the case of the M27) by the French Army; there were certainly a vast number of rifles converted by the factories for civilian usage, and certainly this 1932 Lebel was probably one of those. My knowledge of French firearms is limited only to those officially used by the army at the time period.

As far as the film is concerned, in Italy the troops should have been using Springfield M1903 and Enfield M1917 rifles, except the goumiers. I'm surprised that all of the Moroccans in the film are goumiers; there were normal, non-goumier Moroccan units just like the Algerian ones too. That being said, the goumiers in Italy usually used French weaponry; they wouldn't have had the MAS 36, however, as their weapon of choice tended to be the Mousqueton M1916 (and converted Mousqueton 1982/M16, though other French weapons could be found).

Once the liberation of mainland France began, large numbers of hidden Vichy stocks of French weaponry were found; these alongside primarily British weapons used by the Resistance (who were usually incorporated into the French First Army or sent as part of the French Forces of the West who would clear the western border with the Atlantic) and captured German weaponry were used to arm newly formed units of the army, but for ammunition standardization, as you pointed out well, they were not usually thrown together in such hodgepodge fashion. Nevertheless, in some cases it is possible to find some interesting combinations; I saw one photograph of a unit in which the light machine gunner was using a Bren, a rifleman had the MAS 36, and near them was a captured Panzerfaust. Likewise, I've seen a photograph of one unit that wore 100% French uniforms but used solely captured German weaponry. For the most part, however, such makeshift units were kept for rearguard duty while the experienced forces using the M1917 and M1903 rifles, i.e. largely the French North African Army (which was the nucleus for most of the French First Army), were the ones sent to frontline duty both in Eastern France and in Germany/Austria.

In terms of the Tunisia Campaign (not portrayed in the film), the French XIX Corps (French North African Army) was still using mostly French weaponry; they were armed with about 3,000 Sten SMGs toward the end of the campaign (as they also received some British armor to replace their aging Renault D1 tanks). The Corps Francs d'Afrique used British weaponry, as did the First Free French Division in the British Eighth Army.

What the French XIX Corps used was rather different from the metropolitan Vichy Army, however.

Berthier M1916 - main rifle, as opposed to the MAS 36 (this is why it would have been non-existent in the hands of the troops portrayed in this film; the MAS 36 simply wasn't in any widespread usage in North Africa. Surprisingly, the official French Army's military history of the campaign states that there were supposed to have been 30,000 MAS 36 rifles stored in Tunisia at the time of Operation Torch; I have no clue what happened to them, but they were never officially issued as a standard weapon.)

Lebel 1886/M93 - used for reserves/guards, as well as frontline grenadiers (VB Rifle grenade) and snipers.

Mousqueton M1916 - artillerymen, other support troops

Hotchkiss M1914 and FM 1924/M29 were the primary machine guns, like in the metropolitan army. Unlike the metropolitan army, however, the MAS 38 SMG was not in use; it was an extremely rare weapon even in the 1940 campaign, and although it would be in enough quantities to supply the small mainland Vichy force (and later the Milice), it was not used in any officially known quantity anywhere else in the empire. The French North African Army did have a small number of 1928 Thompson guns that they had purchased before the armistice, but those were mostly stored; those combined with a small number of Thompsons issued by the Americans (and of course the 3,000 Stens later in the campaign) would be the only SMGs distributed in any significant number to the XIX Corps, and that was still an insignificant number. The French Army up until 1943 therefore mostly just did without SMGs.

Ruby pistols and M1892 revolvers made up the handguns used; I think in this film the officer of the reinforcements shown during the battle in Italy holds an M1892 revolver, but I'm not sure (it's hard to see).

In short, the only real time the MAS 36 and MAS 38 (which isn't in this film, thankfully) would see any official usage as the primary weapons of a single unit in active combat following the fall of France would have been when the last French Army unit loyal to the mainland Vichy regime (minus Indochina, which is a story all on its own), the 1er Regiment de France, joined the Resistance in combat against the Germans in August 1944, later to be integrated in the French First Army.


I forgot to address further the M1 Carbine. Yes, it was issued to French units; the United States high command relegated issue of it to the French as more important than for service/support personnel, but less important than issue to normal United States combat units. I don't remember the actual number (I'd probably have to fish out my copy of the official United States Army's military history of the Rearmament of the French Army in 1943), but I think it was issued in the quantity of around 20,000 (for some reason, I have the number 13,000 as the initial order in my head, with 8,000 as the second given; it's been at least a year or two since I've seen the numbers though, so I can't say for sure). I'm unaware if any M1A1 Carbines were ever given to the French, but I consider it highly unlikely.

And to the guy complaining about whether you understood the message of the film or not: we're looking at military history from an objective view, but I'm sure we understand just as well the moral and social meaning of the film. It's better to have an understanding of all the history rather than just one part of it, and this is simply discussion on the time period's military aspects. But yes, those of us who know this junk DO understand the point of the film.

I'm a history major after all.


Also, it just occurred to me that there were no parts of the movie where the French Army troops used light machine guns or medium/heavy machine guns. I wonder why. The only LMG I remember being used by the French in the entire film was an FM 1924/M29 shown in the hands of a soldier for a split second during the combat scene in Italy.


Wow!! The breadth of your knowledge is most impressive and far surpasses mine! I did some additional reading and the "1932" Lebel I referred to was actually the M35 which was reworked with a Mauser type loading system in 7.5x54mm that did not require the Mannlicher type chargers for loading. About 75,000 were produced and used to arm reserve units in metropolitan France. I didn't know that the circular sight on the MAS 36 was post 1945. I have one of these rifles which is in almost new condition. It was apparently captured from a Syrian arsenal by the Israelis, and many of these weapons were sold in the U.S. to collectors. I find it to be well balanced and accurate, but modern non-corrosive ammo is hard to find. However, like most French bolt action rifles it doesn't have a safety. I have seen some of these rifles "civilianized" with safeties and cut down fore-ends and even some that have been converted to 7.62mm NATO. However, I understand that the caliber conversion was poorly done and that these rifles aren't as accurate.

With respect to handguns, you should be aware that the official French pistol was the Model 1935 automatic chambered for the unique .32 French Long cartridge, basically a stretched .32 ACP with about 50% more power. This is also the cartidge used in the M38 submachinegun. However, the .32 ACP Ruby and 8mm Model 1892 Lebel revolver were still in use. So were some S&W revolvers in .32 S&W Long. This cartridge is often thought to be interchangeable with the 8mm Lebel revolver cartidge but it is not, although the cartidges are ballistically similar in terms of performance. Both were grossly underpowered for a miltary weapon! I'm not sure what if any British or American handguns were given to the French.

The reason for the lack of machine guns is probably related to cost and the ridiculously strict firearms laws of modern times. I understand that in England the government is starting to harass historical re-enactors about muzzle loading weapons and even blunted swords and spears! Even in the U.S. the National Parks no longer allow blank firing of muzzleloaders by American Revolution Civil War re-enactors!

Once again, my compliments on the scope of your knowledge!


Anyone else love the use of copy and paste on this forum?

Just a thought...


Not I. I'm much too much of a technotard to even try it.


Yeah, not really a copy and paste deal. Much of what I type comes from official history books. I know a lot of people like using things like Wikipedia, but good luck finding most of the info I just provided there. You'll only find the same old misconceptions (last I checked, they didn't even have a decent article on the Berthier rifles).


Thank you all for this pointless debate.


I believe you are mixing up the 1907-15 M34 Berthier and 1886 M93 R35 Lebel rifles. The only rifle issued to metropolitan French units that fit the description you provide there (Mauser system, chambered in 7.4 x 54 mm) besides the MAS 36 was the 1907-15 M34 Berthier, a conversion (of sorts; they were actually newly manufactured, not conversions, at least seemingly; documentation is slim) of the older 1916 and 1907-15 Berthier rifles. They were issued in numbers under 50,000 to metropolitan units, primarily fortress infantry units (such as those defending the Maginot Line). I'm actually in the process of trying to figure out if the fortress infantry units that performed very well at the battle of Monthermé used this rifle or not.

Any "Lebel" rifle used a tube magazine, and as such had to be loaded individual cartridges at a time. This includes the R35 carbine.

The rifles using Mannlicher-type clips were the "Berthier" rifles and carbines (3 shot clip: 1907-15 rifle and 1892 mousqueton; 5 shot clip: 1916 rifle and 1916 mousqueton).

The exception to the Mannlicher among the Berthier rifles was the competitor to the MAS 36, the Berthier 1907-15 M34 (or Berthier M1934), which is what I believe you are referring to.

As you can see, the French Army, due to its ammunition updating, used a very mixed up variety of rifles in 1940. Besides the fact that almost all support troops used 1916 (or older) Mousquetons and R35 Lebels, and almost all grenadiers and snipers used Lebel 1886 M93 rifles, the primary rifle in use varied from unit to unit (nowhere near as standardized as the SMLE was in British forces for example).

MAS 36 - (Mauser system, 7.5 x 54 mm) Best units, motorized infantry and cavalry
Berthier 1934 - (Mauser system, 7.5 x 54 mm) An initial attempt at updating the weaponry to the new ammo type before the MAS 36 was adopted instead. Issued to metropolitan fortress infantry and other troops. Rare rifle.
Berthier 1916 - (Mannlicher magazine, 8 mm) Vast majority of riflemen had this rifle.
Lebel 1886 M93 (Tube magazine, 8 mm) - Reservists
1874 Gras - Feel-sorry-for-those-poor-bastard-local-units

And then of course, there were all the non-standard rifles irregularly issued (RSC 1917 semi-auto rifle comes to mind).

In terms of handguns:

The French 1935 pistols, of which there were two completely different types (M1935A and M1935S) were extremely rare. We see here the same problem that we see with the MAS 36 and MAS 38; because they were the "officially adopted" modern pistol, modern histories tend to vastly overstate their historical importance, leading to very bad misconceptions.

First, the 1935A and 1935S pistols were very different; none of their components were interchangeable, not even the magazines used to reload them. The 1935S was an effort to make production of the 1935 model cheaper.

Not that it mattered much, because they didn't enter full-scale production until after WW2's start, and, like WW1, the French preferred to divert resources into manufacturing weapons deemed more important to make (namely, rifles).

As a result, depending on the source, only 10,000 1935A pistols (3,000 in other sources, one of which states that the number 10,000 was the undelivered total order) and about 1,000 1935S units had been issued before the fall of France. Searching for photos of M1935 pistols in 1940 is as much a game as is searching for photos of troops using the MAS 38 in 1940. You kind of go "Wow, hey look!" when you actually find one.

The vast majority of troops issued handguns were therefore still using the Ruby pistol, of which countless had been made, and the 1892 revolver, of which over 200,000 had been produced (this tended to be in the hands of officers).

Concerning the MAS 36, yes, the circular sight guard is post-1945; I have forgotten if the year that was included was 1947 or 1948 (or maybe earlier?). However, interestingly enough, it seems that the updated sight guard was included on the MAS 44, the semi-auto rifle based off the MAS 40 prototype. I'm not 100% sure on this though as war-time MAS 44 rifles are very hard to come by. The MAS 44 did see some action at the very end of World War 2 in the hands of the French First Army and stands out as the only newly manufactured French rifle in the hands of French troops after the fall of France.

The MAS 36 had no safety of course, but it was also as accurate as its contemporaries and lighter than them (despite its bulky look), as well as had a reputation for being practically a tank in its durability. The thing was a monster, known to survive artillery blasts and whatever else was thrown at it, besides it being used as a tool.

Many soldiers of the 13th DBLE of the Free French continued to use the MAS 36 until they ran out of ammunition, and as late as the Battle of Bir Hakeim you can find troops using them alongside British Lee-Enfield SMLE (and Pattern 1914) rifles.

And certainly there must have been SOME units in North Africa that received the MAS 36 rifles (at least, if the 30,000 stored in Tunisia according to official records suggest), although certainly not a significant number. They MAY have also seen some action in Syria/Lebanon in 1941, but it is extremely unlikely they had any in French Equatorial Africa or Madagascar. It is almost impossible any would have reached Indochina, although an odd test there might theoretically be possible (as with the MAS 38 in locations outside metropolitan France). Documents from Indochina were pretty much all destroyed when the Japanese and French had their final showdown on 9 March 1945.


You all remind me of the comic-book store guy in The Simpsons. Are you all trainspotters too? No-one cares that the rifles were "wrong". Yes, I'd care if I saw an uzi or even an ipod but come on guys. This is the saddest post I've read for ages.


I was going to give this riveting film 10 out of 10, but when I discovered THAT THE RIFLES WERE WRONG I immediately gave it 1 out of 10 because I was so utterly horrified.

Washing over history with films like 'Australia' is one thing, but using THE WRONG RIFLES?!? I'm gonna puke I'm so disgusted


I do not understand your reaction. This thread is not pretending to be THE one about the film ; it's dealing with some (not minor) details, that count in historical war movie, in this case, weaponry. Some firearms buffs are using the thread to exchange, confront and share their knowledge. So, what's wrong with that?


No, it does not matter to the plot and point of the film if a detail is wrong and does not always spoil it.

But, if ever you know anything about something, you will still notice if it's wrong in a film.
If they show the same car that you own, with that car's main defining feature done differently to the normal version, you will notice. Same here.

You may also notice every single film here on IMDB has a 'bloopers' section, for all the inaccuracies, mistakes and little gaffs made in the film. The guys here are just discussing one of them.

Myself, I don't mind too much, since most of my historical sources differ as to who was issued (and often, fought with) with which weapon at varying times. TO&Es say one thing, veteran accounts say several different things and all of them conflict!

I also wonder if budget and/or availability has something to do with it. Authentic WW2 blank-firing weapons are getting harder to come by and there's only so many available from companies like Bapty who supply film productions...

But then, if film-makers were going to try and be 100% accurate, the bloody films would *never* get finished!!

The Spacehunter Forum:


It took you two years to answer to my message (I read your post as an approval and augementation of mine, I hope I'm right).

My turn to reply to your answer... two years after.

Actually, without being any kind of specialist myself, I like very much those "buffs' discussions". I find them refreshingly bizarre, sometimes, and interesting, most of the time.

The movie itself, on a historical point of view, is much more dependant of a "2000 agenda" than of historical accuracy.


It took you two years to answer to my message

Sorry - As a confirmed gun freak and life-member of the NRA, I had to go learn how to read before I could structure a vaguely coherrent sentence in reply, ha ha!!!
Nay, I jest, I jest!!

I read your post as an approval and augementation of mine, I hope I'm right

I had to revisit to recall what on Earth we were discussing, but I believe you are most correct, sir!

Actually, without being any kind of specialist myself, I like very much those "buffs' discussions". I find them refreshingly bizarre, sometimes, and interesting, most of the time.

I bore easily of such things. I am a bit of a gun geek, but I find so many armchair warriors who obssess over the tiniest thing, from grains of bullets (funny how few call them rounds) down to the finish on the inside of a barrel, yet few have ever used a weapon for real and actually get much of their info from watching movies.
Same for those who went to film school and all that, but have no idea what difficulties and limitations surround a production, where half the battle is just getting everything done. If such people were on set, they'd spend years in pre-production while these folk nitpick over every little detail.

The movie itself, on a historical point of view, is much more dependant of a "2000 agenda" than of historical accuracy.

For sure, for sure.
You'll never get historical accuracy in something, even if you're Audie Murphy in a film about Audie Murphy (there is such a film, as well!), as what is realistic rarely suits the dynamic and cinematic constraints of film. It usually looks boring, by comparison.

The Spacehunter Forum:


So you're saying that the Algerian troops would have had M1903 Springfields and M1917 Enfields, Johannes? If so, would that have been right up to the end of the war?