As previously mentioned, this is certainly corroborated by the machine gun’s absence in popular war imagery and news coverage. What might be the underlying reasons for such reluctance on the part of the army and special war artists to acknowledge the machine gun’s influence in their campaigns? For one, to quote Ellis once more: “Where was the glory, where was the vicarious excitement for the readers back home, if one told the truth about the totally superior firepower?
No heroism . Just KILL KILL KILL KILL KILL .AND BOAST .SO TO ANSWER YOUR STATEMENT ABSOLUTELY NOTHING COMPARE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF THE APPEREANCE OF THE AUTOMATIC RIFLE AND THE GUN MACHINE .
Whatever happens, we have got, the Maxim, and they have not’:
The Conspicuous Absence of Machine Guns in British Imperialist Imagery,”
“At first, before firing, one felt a little gun shy. I well remember the Instructor saying, ‘It can’t hurt you, the bullets will come out the other end.’
In 1893 in Southern Africa, British colonial police slaughtered 1,500 Ndebele warriors, losing only four of their own men in the process.
This astronomical, almost unfathomable victory was earned not through superior strength, courage, or strategic skill, but because the British were armed with five machine guns and the Ndebele were not.
The invention and development of the machine gun by engineers such as Richard Gatling, William Gardner, and Hiram Maxim proved vital in the colonization and subjugation of Africa; although Zulu, Dervish, Herero, Ndebele, and Boer forces vastly outnumbered British settlers, all were rendered helpless in the face of the machine gun’s phenomenal firepower.