Flamethrowers: A Fiery Legacy and Uncertain Future?

by , | Jun 3, 2024

Flamethrowers

In warfare, few weapons are as terrifying as the flamethrower. Horrific imagery captured in iconic photographs from the First and Second World Wars cemented its reputation for inflicting excruciating burns and long-term physical and psychological effects.

Given the burgeoning uses of flamethrowers and the obvious potential military applications of flamethrowers in ongoing armed conflicts (e.g., tunnel clearing in Gaza), this post considers the treatment of these devices under the law of armed conflict (LOAC). It briefly describes the historical development and use of flamethrowers. Next, it considers some legal issues related to the regulation of this means and method of warfare. Finally, the post concludes with thoughts about how LOAC should evolve to address flamethrowers.

Usages and State of the Art

Broadly and historically speaking, there have been three types of flamethrowers: emplaced; portable; and mechanized (International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Conference Report, para. 69). Emplaced flamethrowers have been used for perimeter defense of fixed and temporary positions. Portable and mechanized flamethrowers have been effective in attacking pillboxes and other strongpoints and in clearing vegetation that could conceal enemy personnel, units, or equipment (ICRC Conference Report, para. 70). Employing flamethrowers to attack strongpoints, however, has some drawbacks. These include “limited range, limited duration of fire, vulnerability to enemy fire, and the need for frequent resupply” (ICRC Conference Report, para. 70).

Existing commercial technologies foreshadow how flamethrowers might be adapted for use in modern armed conflicts. For example, the TF-19 WASP is a commercial drone flamethrower attachment designed to ignite aerial and ground objects remotely. This flamethrower attachment, with an onboard first-person view camera, can perform many critical commercial tasks, including debris clearing from power lines, pest management, nest elimination, forest fire containment back-burns/pre-burns, and remote agriculture burns. Manufactured by Throwflame, the TF-19 WASP reportedly has a range of twenty-five feet and carries one gallon of fuel which can sustain a minute and a half of continuous firing time.

More fascinating is the recently unveiled Thermonator, the first-ever flamethrower robot dog. Also manufactured by Throwflame and commercially available for under $10,000, the Thermonator is equipped with a flamerthrower mounted on the robot’s back. The Thermonator can be operated remotely with WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity and features obstacle avoidance capabilities and first-person view navigation. Significantly, the Thermonator weighs less than 40 pounds, and like the TF-19 WASP, it can support a variety of commercial and personal uses. Even Elon Musk has become associated with flamethrowers.

The History of Flamethrowers

Fire is a weapon of antiquity (Keegan, p. 319). Projecting fire as a means and method of warfare goes back centuries. The early Greeks appreciated the value of fire as a weapon and Thucydides described the forerunner of what became known as “Greek Fire” in The History of the Peloponnesian War (Mountcastle, p. 2). The 10th-century Chinese used a form of flamethrower known as the “Fire Lance” by filling bamboo shafts with flammable substances that expelled flame toward their enemies when ignited.

The modern age of the flamethrower began in the First World War when Germans used flamethrowers against Allied forces near Malancourt, France in 1915. British military leaders described the flamethrower as “an inhuman projection of the German scientific mind” and considered it a sadistic tool. Ironically, German firemen were behind developing and employing military flamethrower equipment before the First World War (O’Connell, p. 260).

Not surprisingly, flamethrowers proved to be tactically challenging for several reasons. The first was their relatively short range. The second was the vulnerability of flamethrower operators to Allied machine gunners, in part because they were laden with heavy flame-throwing equipment. Interestingly, the British developed and used the largest flamethrower of the First World War with a range of 100 yards. This heavy apparatus required a two-person team to carry, assemble, and operate (G.A. Sheppard, p. 196).

The Second World War witnessed the use of flamethrowers across different theaters of operations. Their employment, which could provide pinpoint delivery of devasting effects, differed depending on the particular theater of operations. For example, their precision proved invaluable to the United States against Japanese forces, who often took refuge in caves and refused to surrender. By contrast, European fighting favored movement with defenders, who, when pressed, frequently retreated. The use of flamethrowers in Europe was more sparing than in the Pacific. However, it is essential to note that tanks proved to be a particularly effective delivery system (Neer, p. 58-59).

Flamethrowers were also used in both the Korean and Vietnam Wars. They were seen as valuable close-combat weapons that served to reduce positions that had resisted other forms of attack (Field Manual 20-33). The U.S. experience in Vietnam, however, forced a rethinking on the use of incendiary weapons in armed conflict (Neer, p. 175). A photograph of 9-year-old Phan Thi Kim Phuc running unclothed and screaming in agony after aircraft dropped napalm on her village came to symbolize the horrors of the Vietnam War and helped turn public sentiment against the use of incendiary weapons. The Vietnam War marked the last time U.S. forces employed flamethrowers on the battlefield. In 1978, the United States effectively stopped using and developing flamethrowers for tactical purposes (Perkkio, p. 2-3). However, the continued utility of flamethrowers against certain targets, such as deep bunkers, tunnels, and mountainous hideaways, has raised the specter that these weapons could find a resurgence on the modern battlefield.

Flamethrowers under LOAC

While incendiary weapons, like flamethrowers, seem to have an aura of illegality, the law is clear that they are permissible in armed conflict subject to certain restrictions. Of relevance to flamethrowers enhanced by drone technology is the restriction related to the prohibition on “air-delivery” of incendiary weapons found in the Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III) of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW). Article 2(2) of Protocol III provides “[i]t is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons.” The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Law of War Manual helpfully notes that a “concentration of civilians,” includes concentrations that are permanent or temporary, such as in inhabited parts of cities, in inhabited parts of towns, or camps or columns of refugees or evacuees, or groups of nomads (U.S. DoD, Law of War Manual, § 6.14.3.1).

Article 2(3) of Protocol III further proscribes the use of incendiary weapons stating,

It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.

Most certainly, the drafters of Protocol III envisioned flamethrowers, whether emplaced, portable, or mechanized, as the type of “other than air-delivered incendiary weapons” addressed in Article 2(3). However, when coupled with drones, flamethrowers could be interpreted as “air-delivered incendiary weapons” subject to the more restrictive prohibitions on use stated in Article 2(2). But does it make sense for flamethrowers on small aerial drones to be categorized as “air-delivered” and subject to greater restriction?

Protocol III is primarily concerned with limiting the apparent indiscriminate and uncontrollable effects of fire as a weapon. Yet, available commercial flamethrower technologies, which include first-person view cameras and can be tightly controlled by the operator, could mitigate some of these concerns if eventually adopted for military use. Alternatively, these systems could be deployed (perhaps even autonomously) by ground, air, and sea and theoretically programed for use only in well-defined circumstances. In either situation, both the risk to the force and the risk to civilians is significantly reduced, especially in comparison to the historical use of flamethrowers.

Unlike many other air-delivered incendiary weapons, drone-enabled flamethrowers are capable of applying flame in a controlled and precise manner, mitigating some of the concerns alluded to in Article 2(2). Because they can be directed and guided throughout an operation, they should be treated like other non-air-delivered incendiary weapons subject to regulation under Article 2(3).

Concluding Thoughts

Some, but not all, commercial flamethrowers are relatively inexpensive and easy to use, making them inviting tools for adoption in combat. Flamethrowers have made an indelible mark on the pages of military history, and few weapons evoke the same primal terror and sense of destructive power. Unquestionably, many States would favor a total prohibition on the use of incendiary weapons, including flamethrowers. Burn injuries are not only extraordinarily painful, but also require exceptional resources for their medical treatment when compared to injuries by most other categories of weapons (Neer, p. 176).

Of course, any evaluation of flamethrowers cannot take place in a vacuum. The question is whether the suffering caused by flamethrowers provides no military advantage or is otherwise clearly disproportionate to the military advantage reasonably expected from their use (DoD, Law of War Manual, § 6.6.3). It is entirely reasonable to conclude that a remotely controlled drone or robot flamethrower may be militarily advantageous in attacking difficult to access hardened targets. The pressing issue, however, is how Protocol III should be interpreted and applied in light of rapidly evolving flamethrower technologies.

***

Brigadier General (ret.) David A. Wallace previously served as the Professor and Head of the Department of Law at the United States Military Academy, West Point, New York, and has been designated a Professor Emeritus. He is the United States Naval Academy Class of 1971 Distinguished Military Professor of Law & Leadership.

Brigadier General Shane R. Reeves is a Professor of Law and the 15th Dean of the Academic Board of the United States Military Academy, West Point.

 

 

 

 

 

Photo credit: Alan Wilson

Print Friendly, PDF & Email