The Beardmore-Farquhar Light Machine Gun was a direct development of Farquhar’s earlier Farquhar-Hill Automatic Rifle. The new weapon was a designed by Col.Moubray G. Farquhar and manufactured in Scotland by the William Beardmore and Company in the early 1920s. It utilised improved features from the automatic rifle including the dual spring, two-part delayed gas piston mechanism which reduced recoil and reduced feed related malfunctions. The Beardmore-Farquhar Light Machine Gun fed from a 77-round top mounted drum, which in appearance was similar to the Lewis Gun’s but differed dramatically as it relied on a spring to feed ammunition rather than the Lewis Gun’s mechanical drums.
Unusually there was also a top mounted 5-round clip feeding attachment that allowed the rifle to be hand loaded horizontally with standard .303 stripper clips. This was presumably to allow the weapon to be used as a rifle and encourage aimed fire or for expediency when there wasn’t time to load a 77-round drum magazine.
The Beardmore-Farquhar’s clip-fed horizontal loading (source)
The 1924 model of the Beardmore-Farquhar, like it’s predecessor fell victim to circumstance. Just as the Farquhar-Hill rifle had been serviceable, and was in the early stages of adoption when the First World War ended, the Beardmore-Farquhar was offered at a time when a new light machine gun was not needed.
Regardless of how advanced the weapon’s firing mechanism was and that it was far lighter than the Lewis Gun there was just no perceived need for a new weapon. The Beardmore-Farquhar was chambered in the standard .303 British service round but interestingly it was also up-scaled to the Vickers .50 (.5-inch) round for testing by the Royal Navy, in a possible anti-aircraft role (see image #4). In the end none of the British service arms adopted the weapon later adopting the Bren instead. In 1922, the Irish Times reported that a number of earlier Beardmore-Farquhar M1919’s were given to the Irish Free State to arm their military during the Irish Civil War.
Lmao bruh moment. You and I have asked for atleast the 75rd belt that was used inside of various belt drums on the MG34/42 and the 100rd linked box. It’s crazy how we have to ask for things that existed meanwhile prototype weapons and gear that was less than mass produced are in the game… Which I don’t mind having prototypes and “oddballs”, it shouldn’t come at the cost of asking constantly for it to be added.
One day they will add it and it will be great when they do!
Imagine having an MG with twice the rate of fire for 25 less round and still complaining about the supposedly OP allied weapon. Anyway, once you get you 100 rd MG belt you will still find something else to complain, German mains won’t stop whining until they get the very best weapons in the game I suppose.
Can we go five minutes without you butting in to a perfectly normal topic and reminding us about the damn machine guns? I already explained this to you, having 25 extra bullets will not help you if you don’t know how to actually use the German machine guns.
No one else but you is having this problem. Even the MG45 is perfectly lethal and fun to use even though it only has a 50 round drum.
I disagree with your statement, I also have an issue with the fact that it’s 50 and not 75 or 100. Yes that extra ammunition does indeed make a difference. If it didn’t make a difference, would you mind if the M1919 and other belted guns had their ammunition belts reduced down to 50? I’m genuinely curious because I’ve seen some people say that it wouldn’t be fair to bring the M1919 down to par with the MG LMGs, yet I’ve seen some people say it would be fair.
The MG34 and MG42 used different length belts, that being said, if the MG34/42 had a belt drum added to the side of the weapon, it would make sense because the standard belt drum had a capacity carry of 50rds. The box had 75rd and a 100rd box. Since the MG34/42 are currently being fed from the belt that is not contained inside of the boxes, it should be increased because that’s how it would be used.
No, that’s not true. Maybe some will complain but it’s not right to have all LMGs for an entire faction that is in 4 campaigns that are limited to a 50rd belt. It should be increased.
First thing I would say is that there is nothing wrong with the 50 round drum. I never feel “inadequate” or “demoralized” or this that whatever. It’s fine
Second is they should definitely add at least 100 round MGs. Question is should they just be a “variant” ie separate gun, or just have us able to switch between belt and drum in the main menu like removing a bayonet
One thing is for sure the belt round MGs BETER NOT be a premium or event squad. I don’t care about the vast majority of special squads being unique content, but the standard MGs of the Germans should be available one and all in our arsenal
I agree, I don’t feel as if it’s not useable, I do sometimes feel like I’m trying to reload more than I am shooting because I’ll be prone, trying to reload and move my butt away from the gunfire and have to start the reload over again. It’s minuscule compared to other issues in game, but it would definitely be a great addition.
It’s a very marginal difference. Mr. Parrot comments this exact thing in nearly every thread, and he keeps getting the same response: the MG34/42/45 work best in short BURSTS. The recoil is far too much to attempt suppressive fire when not mounted (exactly like it was in real life).
Therefore, adding 25 rounds will not make a significant difference because it will not change how the gun behaves: it will still chew through ammo, and it will still have uncontrollable recoil. An 100 round belt is nice, but it’s not going to be a crutch, and it’s not magically going to make you better. You still have to learn to play it properly.
No, I would not. Reloading slightly more often isn’t as big of a problem as people make it out to be.
Ah I understand. I don’t go through every post, I can understand where that comes from. I agree with that aswell, burst fire is the most effective, especially since 8mm is a good round in game.
Mind you I’m fairly decent with the LMGs provided in their current setup and state. Im not a bad player trying to cherry pick and get “good” from an increase.
Maybe we can all agree with this; the bipods can be updated and made better? Maybe the bipods are an issue that causes many to argue points that can be corrected with a different approach and method.
I wasn’t trying to insinuate you were a bad player or assume your playstyle, I apologize if it came out that way. I’m mainly just annoyed with this dude, he always has to bring up the 100rd MG thing somehow.
But yeah, the MG15 and MG45 are the best in my opinion. They shoot so fast, you can just tap the trigger and shoot 4-5 rounds.
I 100% agree. Honestly, if bipods get fixed I would like an 100 round belt for the German MGs, then you could actually use them for suppressive fire
To be fair, sometimes I think we do need to repeat our ideas and suggestions. The devs obviously do hear our ideas and thoughts, but sometimes it’s good to keep it fresh otherwise they may fade away into the past and background
For example, once in a while I bring up my various suggestions such as new Engineer constructs, radio call ins, etc
MG34 has a 75 rounds variant and MG15 has the same amout by default. And finally, for the western Allies, they litteraly only have ONE machine gun with MORE than 30 rounds in the progression levels. In both Tunisia and Pacific they only have access to BREN and BAR with 30/20 rounds and yet no one complains
As AdRock said I also mainly complain because Mr. Parrot is only complaining about the small drawback from which the germans suffers, because according to his point of view, neither US nor Soviet can complain.
That is true and a good point, however, Mr. Parrot here has gone far beyond repeating suggestion because he brings it up on every single topic he can. Seriously, my rough count is at least 20 posts on the matter. And that just the ones that I’ve seen.
Like this topic for example, this is a post about a cool variant of the Farquhar rifle. Has absolutely nothing to do with German MG belts, and yet here he his.
No matter what anyone says I want a belt fed MG with 100 rounds or 250 for end game so stop bringing up anything which is low level we need this stuff at end game But if I’m honest with myself I doubt we’re even gonna get anything so we’ll be lucky just to get 100.
And do keep in mind death stacks are a thing and you need anything you can counter that madness and don’t forget Asians are there too so you’ll be seeing a lot of interesting people when it comes to end game.
For now I lean towards 100 because that seems reasonably what a soldier would be running around with if he had to be mobile.
I’d say 250 could be a pipe dream for the future, for example if we are able to have some sort of ammo box feature. But at the same time that’s basically what the Machine Gun Nest is.
Regardless for now I’d say just give a 100 belt version
Why is everything about end game. There should be no reason why I couldn’t use a belt fed MG from the gates of Moscow to the final battle of Berlin.
I don’t look at things from a “meta” perspective, at least in the typical gamer sense.
I find all pieces of content have their place. Early, late, whatever game makes no difference to me.
And yes the Farquhar LMG should and likely will be added
Ok so why no giving a 250 rounds belt to the M1919A6 then ?
Johnson LMG will be the Rank IV machine gun with 20 rounds, should I make 10 threads and 25 post about the western allied not getting 50 or 75 rounds at lower ranks ?
So what are you afraid of fighting people from other countries than yours ? Or are you trying to discriminate people based on their ethnicity ?
Wow this topic went downhill fast… From talking about a cool looking LMG that’d I’d love to have to an endless rant about a German LMG with 100/250 rounds…
