By altering the battlefield into a far more deadly place of mechanized death, the Maxim gun made war far more costly than ever before, and thus made many countries more relcutant to send their young men to war knowing that this weapon would mow down hundreds of them.
Alternately, the machine gun made mass murder far easier to achieve and more accessible, you no longer need an army to do it.
The adoption of the Maxim gun by the British Army changed the tone of its colonial affairs. The sheer mass of firepower it offered made it much easier to subjugate colonial natives.
From a military standpoint, the machinegun changed infantry tactics because it was now relatively simple for a small number of machinegun-equipped soldiers to defend against a very large number of attacking infantry. The machinegun caused defensive tactics be much more successful than offensive tactics. It became much easier to hold ground than take it.
As noted above, the machinegun (in combination with the bolt-action rifle) allowed colonial powers (Britain, France, Germany) a huge advantage over native folks, which meant that very small numbers of colonial soldiers could fight and conquer vast countries in Africa, India, and Asia cheaply and quickly.
Unfortunately, the very first answer above is decidedly untrue. Native uprisings continued well after the introduction of the machinegun, with a universal outcome of the colonial power killing large numbers of the natives. In addition, the European countries which had the machinegun (and used it on their colonies) failed to re-think their own military strategy when fighting eachother. The mass slaughter of WW1 is a direct result of this failure - WW1 generals were still using Napoleonic tactics where the offense is stronger than the defense. Sadly, the machinegun (and other recent technologies) gave the defense the stronger position, and thus using offensive tactics were a great failure. Only after WW1 was over did countries really absorb the less of the power of the machinegun.
Answer One of the most poplar machine guns was the Maxim, which was named after its inventor.
He was born in the US in 1840.
It did not. The Maxim Machine Gun was a separate unrelated invention. Some forms of the Gatling are more powerful than the Maxim- I refer you to the 30mm GAU-8 Gatling gun aboard the A-10 aircraft.
They used Maxim type or Lewis guns. They are both machine guns. .303 British .30-06 Springfield 7.92x57mm Mauser
First Self Powered Machine GunInvented by Hiram Stevens MaximWeapon Most Associated with British Imperial conquestSaw Action in: Russo-Japanese War, Russian Civil War, and First Matabele WarPatented July 1883first Prototype Demonstrated in 1884Do i need to continue??
Sir Harim Maxim, 1883
sir harim maxim invented the fully auto matic machine gun
No, Hiram Stevens Maxim did not receive a Nobel Prize. He was a British-American inventor known for inventing the Maxim gun, which was the first portable fully automatic machine gun.
the Maxim machinegunMaxim machine gun.
The first self powered machine gun ever made was called the Maxim gun made by Hiram Maxim in 1884. The precursor to the Maxim gun was the Gatling gun which required physical operation rather than truly "automatic." So in regards to how long it took: A long time.
The maxim gun,invented in1884, was the world's first automatic machine gun
While some would say the Gatling gun was the first,I consider the Maxim machine gun the first true full auto machine gun.
The maxim gun,invented in1884, was the world's first automatic machine gun
Hiram Maxim invented the Hiram machine gun
Hiram Maxim
Hiram Maxim
Hiram Maxim