Edit: Here’s a 47 rounder with AA sights:
Another instance of not having a British weapon for a certain BR, in this case, BR IV and BR V. The Lewis Guns, both variants, should’ve been added to the Allied Tech Tree long ago, anyways.
Dear God not this version over the air-cooled barrel. 
I’m not going to put up with the rarer (for ground use) aircraft version of the Lewis in the tech tree.
That’s the version I found. XD
Plus, it looks similar to what the Japanese and Germans already have in their Tech Tree. If you have images of the other version (which I didn’t know existed) send them over and I can replace my images with that.
I think this is the gun we want in the game.
Wouldn’t that just look too similar to the Event version? (Which should be in the TT.)
the magazine is noticeably different.
97 rounds pan mag is larger and taller than 47 rounds mag pan.
Anyway wouldnt be the first gun that is only different in magazine size (ppsh drum - stick mag)
Changed it.
All the versions are air cooled. None of the production model Lewis guns (to my knowledge) used water cooling.
Anyways afaik, apart from the Dutch variant and fixed AA positions, the 97 round magazines were only offiicially used on the aircraft variants of the Lewis, include those which were then modified for ground use for the Home Guard and stuff. If you look at the photos provided by OP with the 97 round mags on the regular Lewis guns you will notice that the front sight is too short to be used with the magazine.
AA sights preferable… you can hate it but i’d much rather have a lifted sight that gives me view of everything instead of the usual and ESPECIALLY on the lewis.
You don’t typicly call a straight barrel “air cooled”. It’s technicly true, but misses the mark…
The barrel jacket of the Lewis we are typicly used to seeing was designed to vent air through it, making it (guess what,) air cooled. The aircraft version dispensed with this feature, because it’s intended to be used up in the air, with the cool winds and swishing of air going past it. So, whilst yes, both are using air to be “air cooled”, one was using a clever (and fairly unique) design to achieve this, the other was relying on external factors not inherent to the design itself to achieve the same result. I feel like it’s fair to make a distinction in this case.
In other words, if an MG has a special method for cooling it, that gets applied as a label to it.
Most MGs rely on barrel change to manage heat, others rely on water cooling, other rely on being up in the air, others just went for having a heavier barrel to cope with the heat.
The Lewis, used a ingenious method to force air through it’s barrel-jacket, a fairly unique cooling method.
I hope I’ve made my point. @CapitalLen
yes.
however it needs a sight.
else…
it will be like the patronomel mg except worse.
Added a variant with AA sights to the pictures. (Though it has the 47 round magazine.)
Also, looks like BR IV is winning the poll. I thought more people would’ve wanted it in BR V.
I have no idea where you got this impression from, but the idea that a barrel only counts as air cooling if there’s some jacket cooling system or something is absolutely abnormal. A regular barrel absolutely does count as air cooling under regular terminology. Not only that but, especially back in the day, many machine guns didn’t have quick barrel changes at all. If we follow this logic the M1918A2 BAR, with just a regular barrel and no barrel changing mechanism, has no cooling at all and just retains heat until the death of the universe.
Is this where I bring up that the lack of a changeable barrel and no other method of cooling was a huge flaw of the gun which hampered its performance as the SAW of the US…?
Almost like denoting the special characteristics of a weapon has some purpose behind it…?
No, that can’t be. 
Oh well, you may disagree, but that just makes you wrong though. You’ve displayed your ignorance on the subject, this is just a you problem…
The BAR is a terrible example of a typical Machine Gun. Despite being used in an LMG role by the US in WW2 and Korea it simply wasn’t designed, or fit for that role. It, like the Chauchat, was specifically designed for Trench Warfare seen in WW1 and wasn’t a good choice for any role but that.
You completely missed my point to such a comical degree that you somehow thought it was a gotcha against me.
Not sure if I should be impressed or saddened.
