On a technicality it is both. The flamethrower was used to “clear brush” and bunker burns… people inside were technically casualties of accidental death.
Same thing for things like the .50 cal. People are not legal targets with such a large caliber, it is anti-equipment/vehicle, if the bullet passes through say a car door cause you’re a “bad shot” and kills someone it’s written off as accident. By all rights a vest or a helmet is technically “equipment” but harder to justify.
No. Protocol III of the Geneva Convention only puts limits on using incendiary weapons on civilians or forests/plants:
>1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
>2. It 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.
>3. 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.
>4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
What’s funny is that flamethrowers were used by Germans (most notably) but they got all pissy about American shotgun users (particularly the now famed Trench Gun) and defined people to have shotguns as human rights violators and they were to be executed promptly
Nope. The Geneva Conventions only ban the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets, areas where civilians are present, or with the intent of deforestation, and this is set in the pre-Conventions era anyway. Enemy combatants are still fair game, although it is still frowned upon and just about nobody except China actually uses traditional flamethrowers as military weapons these days.
Yes, but a good one
are wars crimes?
On a technicality it is both. The flamethrower was used to “clear brush” and bunker burns… people inside were technically casualties of accidental death.
Same thing for things like the .50 cal. People are not legal targets with such a large caliber, it is anti-equipment/vehicle, if the bullet passes through say a car door cause you’re a “bad shot” and kills someone it’s written off as accident. By all rights a vest or a helmet is technically “equipment” but harder to justify.
Nah man, you were just shooting fire at their weapons to neutralize the threat.
Like flechette rockets, always aim for the weapon.
Only if you are on the losing side at the end of the war.
Geneva convention Geneva suggestion
People are still playing my beloved BF1?
So why did I switch to BF5 and now this BF2042 crap?
I don’t think it was until the 2nd world War? Correct me if I’m wrong reddit
No
Holy Shit! BF1. I miss this game. So many fun maps.
I saw brush and cobwebs in there! No!
Only if you forgot to bring the mobile crematorium.
Only if they die, these guys are just sleeping, sleeping
I way I see it you were burning heresy
It would have been a crime not to.
I’m more impressed you were able to get in there without first getting destroyed
Remember lads the Geneva convention is like all international laws, merely a suggestion
No. Protocol III of the Geneva Convention only puts limits on using incendiary weapons on civilians or forests/plants:
>1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons.
>2. It 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.
>3. 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.
>4. It is prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/515-830002?OpenDocument
Additionally, Protocol III was ratified in 1980 and I believe the game is set in 1917.
Modern problems needs old flamethrower
ww1 doesn’t even know the meaning of “war crimes”
It’s never a war crime the first time!
I don’t think people are getting the joke
Only if the other side is using shotguns
Is this battlefield 1? I loved that game but didn’t know it was still kicking
I think it’s a videogame
What’s funny is that flamethrowers were used by Germans (most notably) but they got all pissy about American shotgun users (particularly the now famed Trench Gun) and defined people to have shotguns as human rights violators and they were to be executed promptly
Depends. Is America on your side? Because America and our allies get away with literal murder.
geneva convention happend in 1929. For the time period no. WW1 went from 1914-1918.
Doyle! Do it!
Yes, the type of crime that earn medals
J’ai ai toute toasté
Can’t break the Geneva convention before its signed
It’s only a war crime if you lose
Not back in those days.
Perfectly balanced with no Exploits.
Not in WW1 it wasnt
Imagine going from such a game to bf 2042 the downfall is hard asf
Only if you leave survivors to tell on you
Depends….against imperial Japanese no…..against anyone else…maybe…
So many BF1 clips these days. I should probably give it a go again with a 3080ti
No, its just Pyro helping people
Only if there is survivors
Nope. The Geneva Conventions only ban the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets, areas where civilians are present, or with the intent of deforestation, and this is set in the pre-Conventions era anyway. Enemy combatants are still fair game, although it is still frowned upon and just about nobody except China actually uses traditional flamethrowers as military weapons these days.
Yes in fact it is, good job on completing your checklist
Not at the time
Not during that time period
Lucky for you the Geneva convention Doesn’t exist yet.
Remember kids: It’s only a warcrime if you’re on the losing side.
If no one is alive then it isn’t a war crime since no one saw it