Innovative Approaches to the Use of Artillery in Wildfire Suppression

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I have reviewed the submission titled “Innovative Approaches to the Use of Artillery in Wildfire Suppression” and I find the concept very promising and interesting. Despite this, several questions were risen considering its efficacy and cost – especially for the use of shells to deliver fire retardant agents. I believe that the use of artillery can accelerate the creation of new fire breaks in front of the burning firefront, but it is just a belief and I haven’t seen if it proven in your paper. Also, important considerations exist on how we can eliminate or reduce the potential of unwanted ignitions. Below are some of my concerns that I would like to see get addressed in a revised version of your manuscript.

I would like to read more information, accompanied by photographs and reports, of how effective was the use of Swedish Air Force to combat the fire. What types of ammunition were used? Why it has not be repeated in other cases, like the fires in Greece or elsewhere where huge uninhabited forests were burned? Is it because of environmental concerns or were the results not satisfying?

In rugged terrain, such as the one found in southern Mediterranean, it is difficult to arrange the artillery barrage to shoot in straight line. The use of artillery should be focused on trajectories to achieve the linear results we anticipate in the creation of a new fire break. How difficult is to set up an artillery barrage with trajectories to form that fire breaks? You are only mentioning the linear positioning of them.

Any artillery use should be coupled with direct aerial fire suppression to avoid unwanted ignitions and ensure that the new fireline is accessible and safe for personnel and special firefighting forces to reach the place and enhance the efficacy of the new fireline.

I have major concerns about the explosion and whether it can create new ignitions. Are there specific ammunition that can only produce blasts without fire or the fire that will probably get ignited be extinguished by the shockwave?

Are there specific ammunition that can form a wider blast zone than those described so that with fewer firing, we can achieve a larger impact zone (thus, with fewer rounds fire we lower the probability of unwanted ignitions?

What about the use of artillery directly on the combustion zone? Can it be effective? Is the blast capable or reducing flames that can reach up of 40 m in height? To put it simple, can the destruction of the burning material at the firefront stop a spreading fire?

Figure 5: How effective is the Fire-retarding artillery shell when fired at a firefront with high intensity fire? Is it only effective for the smaller shrub fires or can also work in larger canopy ones? See next comment.

Page 11, lines 378-279 “In the simulation, a detonation altitude of eight meters above ground level was selected, allowing optimal dispersal before the suppressant reaches the surface, thereby increasing its effectiveness.” In a forested landscape, where trees are 20-30 m in height, this means that the detonation should occur above the canopy. That will have as effect the dispersal to occur only in the upper parts of the canopy. If the fire is surface, that means that the fire retardant will never reach the ground. Aerial means can deliver high quantities of fire retardant that eventually can reach the ground. The shells seem that will have no effect on altering surface fires and can only have some impact if the fire is spread at the canopy (if any).

Page 11, line 397: the dispersal of 0.006 m3 of fire retardant seems very low. Can you make a projection and say how many shells would be needed to create a typical 1 km fireline (and a cost estimation). If the cost is too high, then why not using an aerial mean instead?

Figure 7, although well designed, offers nothing to the understanding. First, the use of fire retardant is to create a new fireline ahead of the fire front (not directly shot over a burning landscape with trees 20-30 m and flames reaching 30-40 m. The phos check would be instantly evaporated or consumed by the tremendous energy release or dispersed by the high winds. I still don’t understand how explosions in real-time conditions can stop a spreading fire. It only makes sense if the purpose is to destroy the standing trees (or those already in flames) so that we can disrupt the continuity of the forest canopy.

Who owns the software TerEx and SPREAD EXPLOS? Can it be used and tested by independent researchers or it is proprietary and you don’t provide access to it? I think it is crucial to provide some info on how it can be retrieved and used for validation, verification and to serve open science goals.

I am still unsure of how we can eliminate the unwanted ignition from the artillery use. Are there ammunition that do not cause new fires and produce only a blast and shockwaves?

Author Response

I apologize for any confusion—my previous message mistakenly included a response intended for a different reviewer. I am now sending you the correct version of the response that addresses your review specifically. My bad.

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the entire author team, I would like to express our sincere thanks for your insightful, objective, and highly professional comments on our article. We greatly appreciate your trust in the potential of the concept as well as your emphasis on thoroughness, verifiability, and practical applicability. In the revised version of the article, you are listed as Reviewer 3, and the implemented comments are progressively marked using in-text annotations (indicating the reviewer number and the point addressed). Based on your recommendations, we have made the following modifications in the revised manuscript:

Point 1) Deployment of the Swedish Air Force

The deployment of the Swedish Air Force during large-scale forest fires took place in 2018. The intervention occurred within the Älvdalen military training area. The munition used was the GBU-49 Paveway II, a 227 kg precision-guided air-to-ground bomb. The GBU-49 is equipped with a combined laser and GPS guidance system and is primarily intended for the destruction of armored targets. Its advantages include all-weather capability and the ability to achieve high precision with a release range of up to 15 km.

In an official media interview, incident commander Johan Szymanski stated: “We wanted to try it because the fire was on the range. According to our preliminary assessment, the bombing worked well.” Thus, the intervention can be considered technically successful. He further added that this method may be reconsidered in the future. However, no formal scientific study was conducted in this context.

One of Sweden’s main advantages compared to other countries is its experience with using munitions for extinguishing smaller fires. In certain cases, Sweden also utilizes artillery for fire suppression on military ranges. The Swedish Armed Forces can employ munitions within their own training areas without requiring a special approval process—whereas in civilian areas, such an approach would necessitate legislative changes and authorization from relevant authorities, making rapid deployment difficult. This specific legal framework is the primary reason why this method has not been replicated, for instance, during wildfires in Greece or other countries. Another limiting factor is the availability of suitable munitions and qualified personnel—not only must the appropriate type of munitions be in inventory, but the personnel must also be technically and organizationally prepared to use them in this unconventional scenario. For these reasons, the Swedish Air Force intervention can be considered an exceptional precedent, which nonetheless clearly demonstrates the potential of precision-guided munitions under extreme conditions such as wildfire suppression.

References:

https://www.twz.com/22395/a-swedish-air-force-gripen-fighter-jet-just-literally-bombed-a-forest-fire

https://wildfiretoday.com/2018/07/25/armed-forces-in-sweden-attempt-to-stop-wildfire-with-a-bomb/

https://ctif.org/news/2018-wildfires-swedish-air-force-successfully-used-fighter-jets-bombs-blow-out-forest-fire

Point 2) Fire in Rugged Terrain and Trajectories

Thank you for your observation. In the article, linear fire was presented only as an illustrative example. The actual varied distribution of impacts does not represent a technical limitation. In practice, artillery fire is planned depending on the type of terrain and the desired effect on the target. Shell trajectories are adjusted through necessary calculations to create a functionally continuous firebreak—regardless of whether the impacts form a geometrically linear path. (see article)

Point 3) Combination with Aerial Firefighting

We agree, and this concept has been considered from the outset. (see article)

Point 4) Secondary Ignition and Types of Munitions

The question regarding the risk of secondary fires caused by explosions is highly relevant. Based on our practical experience, secondary ignition is indeed a risk—especially with conventional high-explosive fragmentation shells or shrapnel-based munitions with a larger explosive payload, particularly if detonation occurs above dry vegetation. A critical factor is also the fuse setting—if a conventional shell is configured for a ground-burst detonation, the risk of ignition is significantly minimized.

Furthermore, in our proposed fire suppressant munition, only a small initiation charge is considered, optimized solely for rupturing the casing and dispersing the suppressant. We took inspiration from the so-called “paper shell” used in artillery training, which does not contain a standard explosive payload. This type of munition includes only a small initiating charge and does not typically cause secondary ignition. (see article)

As you correctly point out, the blast wave from an explosion can indeed extinguish incipient fires. Within the Czech Armed Forces, this capability is not commonly utilized, as internal safety regulations require fire missions to cease in the event of a fire, and firefighting units must be present during live fire exercises. However, colleagues from other military units (e.g., Sweden, Lithuania) confirmed that in cases where a fire breaks out on the range, they often switch the fuse to a ground-burst mode and continue firing, thereby suppressing the flames through successive detonations.

Regarding the note on blast-effect munitions: the Department of Weapons and Ammunition at the University of Defence is currently conducting tests on shells with low ignition probability. However, to date, there has been no formal requirement from either the commercial or military sector for the development of munitions specifically designed to operate without causing ignition.

An artillery shell, depending on its design and mission, can fulfill multiple functions: to destroy, suppress, disrupt, harass, demolish, obscure, ignite, illuminate, blind, or mark a target—depending on the operational requirement.

Point 5) Increased Effect and Number of Rounds Required

The article describes a model version of a shell with a powdered fire suppressant payload, optimized for the most common dimensions of a 155 mm round. The potential for increased effect was discussed with a leading Czech ammunition manufacturer, STV Group, and we agreed that such a solution is theoretically feasible from a design standpoint. In practice, developing a shell with a larger suppressant capacity—enabling broader coverage—could be achieved through the deployment of submunitions, similar to smoke or cluster munitions. Such a shell could theoretically cover up to twice the area of the current design.

Point 6) Possibility of Direct Impact on the Fire Front

From both theoretical and practical perspectives, the effect of a blast wave can have a positive impact when directly targeting actively burning vegetation—particularly in the case of low-lying growth or when aiming to break the horizontal continuity of combustible material. However, in the case of the extreme wildfires you mentioned, with flame heights reaching 30–40 meters, the effect of a standard artillery shell’s blast wave is significantly limited due to the restricted explosive charge capacity. Based on our estimates, a shell would need to contain more than 100 kg of explosive filler to generate a sufficient blast wave to effectively impact such intense fires. This notion is supported by experiments conducted on oil well fires in Kuwait.

While the blast wave from a typical artillery shell may cause partial “blow-off” or destabilization of an established flame front, it is unrealistic to expect complete extinguishment without additional support. In this context, we recommend considering direct artillery impact on the fire front primarily as a supplementary method. That said, when using fire suppressant munitions, it may be appropriate in certain situations to target active fire lines directly.

Point 7) Effectiveness Depending on Fire Type

Patent US20160216091A1 does not present direct results from tests on effectiveness during extremely intense fires, such as crown fires with flame heights exceeding 30–40 meters. The shell is designed to release fire suppressant over vegetation. According to statements from Boeing Company, the prototype depicted in Figure 5 was effective in suppressing fires of medium intensity.

Point 8) Detonation Height and Dense Tree Crowns

Proximity fuzes—such as the HS-94 or its modernized version HS-94M—operate based on detecting the distance to an obstacle, such as the treetops. If a detonation is programmed for 8 meters, the explosion will occur approximately 8 meters above the detected obstacle (e.g., above the tree crown, not the ground). If needed, the fuze can also be set to different burst heights, such as 2 meters.

Should the proximity function not result in optimal dispersion of the suppressant—depending on the terrain and vegetation characteristics—a time fuze may be used as an alternative. In this mode, flight time is determined based on ballistic tables and used to set the expected detonation time. This timing can then be fine-tuned by the artillery forward observer based on the real-time course of fire, ensuring effective impact even in uneven vegetation or complex terrain. (see article)

Point 9) Dispersal and Effectiveness

Based on simulation data, the effectiveness of a single artillery shell filled with 6,000 cm³ of suppressant was modeled as high to moderate across an area of approximately 80–100 m² (depending on meteorological conditions and terrain characteristics). To create a continuous firebreak line 1 km long and approximately 100 m wide (i.e., 10,000 m²), approximately 100–125 shells would be required.

Given an estimated unit cost of specialized fire suppressant shells ranging from USD 3,000 to 6,000 (see previous section), the cost of a single such operation would range from USD 300,000 to 750,000. This price range was confirmed through consultation with STV GROUP, the largest Czech manufacturer of artillery ammunition. It should be noted that from the perspective of military procurement standards, this is not an unusually high amount—conventional shells are typically priced around USD 3,000 each. (see article)

The use of artillery offers a clear advantage in its ability to operate in difficult-to-access terrain and under adverse conditions (e.g., at night or in dense smoke). A significant benefit is also the reduced risk to response personnel, as artillery operators can engage from a safe distance. As stated in the conclusion of the article, artillery fire should not be seen as a replacement for traditional methods, but rather as a complementary tactic—ideally in combination with aerial support in areas where ground intervention is not possible, or as a first-response method in locations where aircraft deployment is not immediately feasible.

Point 10) Figure 8

We agree that the primary purpose of retardants such as Phos-Chek is not to extinguish an already ignited fire front, but rather to establish a protective barrier ahead of the fire, thereby preventing its further spread. We also concur that under conditions of high flame intensity and strong winds, the effectiveness of conventional suppressants is significantly reduced. The article already presents the possibility of combining standard munitions with suppressant shells, resulting in both a disruption of vegetation continuity and a simultaneous application of suppressant to the area.

Figure 8 is intended as an illustrative diagram and not as a precise depiction of effects in a critical fire front.

Point 11) TerEx Software and SPREAD Module

This section has been added to the article. The TerEx software, including its SPREAD and SPREAD EXPLOS extension modules, is owned by the company T-SOFT a.s., which served as the main contractor for research project 1H-PK2/35, funded by the Ministry of Industry and Trade of the Czech Republic during the years 2005–2009. Other institutions involved in its development included the University of Defence, the Occupational Safety Research Institute (a public research institution), and the 31st Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Protection Brigade of the Czech Armed Forces. The software is not publicly available for download; access is proprietary and subject to a licensing regime governed by T-SOFT. Use by independent researchers is possible upon request by contacting either the University of Defence or T-SOFT. The simulation model has been validated through field tests and has been utilized in official training sessions and exercises of both the Integrated Rescue System and the military. (see article)

Point 12) Final Concern Regarding Ignition

We believe this issue has already been sufficiently addressed in the previous responses. A key factor is the choice of fuze type—when using conventional munitions, the risk of unintended ignition can be significantly reduced by employing a high-explosive (HE) effect fuze, which triggers detonation only after the shell has penetrated the ground. This eliminates direct contact with air and vegetation, substantially lowering the likelihood of fire ignition. In the case of specialized fire suppressant munitions, the proposed design involves only a very small charge, intended exclusively to rupture the casing and disperse the suppressant—without any destructive effect. Foreign experience (e.g., from Lithuania and Sweden) confirms that repeated artillery fire using a combination of high-explosive fragmentation and pure HE effects can have a smothering impact on emerging fire hotspots due to the generated blast waves.

 

Thank you once again for your review. We believe the article now meets the required standards of the journal, and we look forward to further collaboration.

Have a nice day and thank you.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors explore the potential of using artillery systems and specialized munitions to suppress wildfires, which is a significant departure from conventional approaches. They provide a comprehensive review of previous experiments and non-standard methods, highlighting the potential of military technologies to create firebreaks or directly extinguish fires. The study is particularly timely, as recent catastrophic wildfires in regions such as the Czech Republic, the USA, and South Korea have underscored the need for more effective firefighting strategies. By integrating military and civilian technologies, this research could pave the way for more efficient and safer wildfire management, given the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires globally, driven by climate change and other factors.

 

The manuscript is well-structured and provides a thorough analysis of the problem and potential solutions. By making use of simulation tool to model the dispersion of fire suppressants from artillery shells, offering valuable insights into the effectiveness and safety of this approach. The discussion of the technical requirements for specialized artillery shells, including materials, trigger mechanisms, and types of fire suppressants, demonstrates a reasonable understanding on both military technology and firefighting needs.

 

While the study presents a promising concept, it lacks systematical data to support the hypothesis and in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of using artillery in firefighting. The potential for soil contamination, secondary ignition sources, and the broader ecological consequences need to be thoroughly evaluated. Additionally, the manuscript could benefit from more detailed discussions on the logistical challenges of deploying artillery systems in emergency situations, including transportation, setup time, and coordination with other firefighting efforts. The safety aspects for firefighters, civilians, and the environment should also be more comprehensively addressed, especially considering the risks associated with explosions and the use of explosives.

 

Evidently, to address the set goals for fire flighting, the alternative ways to handle the impending issues in wildland fire prevention and protection sectors should be acknowledged at the same time. To do the modification in expanding such aspects, the reading of a recent literature could be beneficial: “Refining Ecological Techniques for Forest Fire Prevention and Evaluating Their Diverse Benefits” (Fire 2024, 7(4), 129. https://doi.org/10.3390/fire704012).

 

Although the integration of military technologies into firefighting represents a promising area of research, the present research seems too slim to be considered as a regular research paper without sufficient data, especially the lack of addressing the environmental and logistical challenges, as well as the safety and effectiveness of artillery-based firefighting methods. To ease the existing major issues, it might be a good option to present the paper as a review rather than a usual research paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n/a.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

On behalf of the entire author team, I would like to sincerely thank you for your insightful, constructive, and highly professional comments on our manuscript. We deeply appreciate your recognition of the relevance of the topic and the interdisciplinary nature of our research, which aims to bridge military technologies with civilian crisis infrastructure. Based on your suggestions, we have made several updates to the manuscript. In the revised version, you are designated as Reviewer 2, and the incorporated comments are marked throughout the text using reviewer and comment numbers. Below, we provide our responses to your key points:

Point 1) Safety Aspects

We expanded the section on secondary fragmentation and the risk of ignition. We included an estimate of the probability of secondary ignition and described how fuze settings influence this risk. For specialized fire suppressant munitions, we clarified that only a small initiating charge is used, designed solely to rupture the casing without any accompanying destructive effect. We also discussed these risks in the context of operational safety for both emergency responders and civilians. However, it is important to note that in practice, it is common for friendly military units to operate in relative proximity to fire missions. The artillery forward observer plays a crucial role in continually evaluating the safety situation, coordinating fire, and ensuring compliance with all safety protocols. (see article)

Point 2) Ecology

The section on environmental impacts has been expanded. We added references to field studies on soil contamination in military training areas and emphasized the difference between conventional and specialized fire suppressant munitions. (see article)

Point 3) Coordination and Cooperation

In the limitations section, we added a description of the required training for Fire Rescue Service (FRS) personnel (30–40 hours) and stressed the importance of joint training exercises with artillery observers (Fire Observer – FO, Joint Fire Observer – JFO). We highlighted the need to develop joint tactical standards and the critical role of observers in coordinating between artillery and air support. (see article)

Point 4) Logistics

We extended the discussion of logistical challenges associated with artillery deployment. However, we would like to emphasize that this topic is very broad, and the article is already densely packed with content. We plan to elaborate on specific logistical procedures in subsequent research. Currently, a study focused on additional logistical options within the Czech Armed Forces is underway at our department. Upon its completion, we intend to expand our analysis to include approaches used in other countries. (see article)

Point 5) Future Research Intentions

The conclusion has been expanded to include specific research directions: the development of a prototype shell, legal analysis of artillery use outside training areas, environmental impact testing of shell use, and the creation of a test consortium. (see article)

Point 6) Citations

Thank you for sharing the very interesting study. Our author team has agreed to cite it directly in the article. (see article)

 

Thank you also for suggesting that the manuscript be reformulated as a review article. However, we believe that this would not be appropriate in this case. The article combines an analytical approach, innovative solutions, and conceptual proposals. Its structure maintains a scientific hypothesis while integrating a research overview, simulation results, and application design.

We believe the article now meets the required standards of the journal and we look forward to further collaboration.

Have a nice day and thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article presents a new and extremely timely perspective on the use of artillery systems for controlling wildfires, addressing the intensifying challenges of extensive fires in inaccessible regions. The interdisciplinary nature of the research work—bridging army technology with environmental emergency management—adds great value to and uniqueness in the study.

The paper is well structured with ample simulations, historical examples, and design concepts. Some points require explanation, additional justification, or elaboration to enhance the academic merit and applicability of the paper.

1.    The abstract is a satisfactory summary but might be enhanced by more precise quantification of outcomes (e.g., how much ground may be controlled by artillery, comparative costs).
2.    Problem Statement (Lines 10–27): The problem is adequately defined, but incorporating some global fire statistics (e.g., average annual area burned or economic loss) would enhance the paper.
3.    Literature Context (Lines 29–62): Include a brief comparison with contemporary suppression systems such as aerial retardants, UAV-dispersion systems, or high-pressure water guns.
4.    Safety Considerations (Lines 70–85): The secondary fragmentation or ignition risks could be explained in more detail. Having a risk matrix or table might be useful.
5.    Environmental Impact Analysis (Lines 216–222): Add more references or findings from actual artillery exercises measuring contamination and soil recovery time.
6.    Simulation Validation (Lines 318–343): Promising TerEx simulation platform; however, please confirm whether results are compared with any field data or third-party solutions.
7.    Shell Design Description (Lines 350–386): Very good section; however, a discussion of cost-benefit would enhance the practical aspect. What is the production cost per shell estimated?
8.    Deployment Limitations (Lines 419–427): Explain the field training demanded by fire service personnel—include a rough approximation of training hours or cooperation demands.
9.    Figures and Diagrams: All the illustrations are descriptive but could be improved with unequivocal scale indications and unit consistency. For example, Figure 10 should have distances clearly labeled in meters.
10.    Ethical and Legal Issues:  The report can benefit from a short subsection on legal constraints or regulatory principles likely to have some impact on the employment of artillery in civilian firefighting.
11.    Machine Learning Reference (Line 569–570): The machine learning reference is intriguing. Could you add an example or a reference of how ML would actually be applied into the artillery deployment procedure?
12.    Conclusion Clarity (Lines 555–589): The conclusion could be more clearly focusing on actionable next steps—e.g., forming test consortia, prototype development, or pilot deployment.
13.    References:  Some sources are reports or websites; they need to comply with the peer-reviewed citation requirements of the journal.
14.    Language and Style: Generally, professional and clear. A minor language edit for short sentences to minimize long ones (e.g., Lines 205–215) is recommended

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language and Style: Generally, professional and clear. A minor language edit for short sentences to minimize long ones (e.g., Lines 205–215) is recommended.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your thorough evaluation of our manuscript and for your valuable comments. We have addressed all points to the best of our ability and knowledge. In the attached revised version of the article, you are assigned as Reviewer 1. All implemented revisions are marked step by step using comments (indicating the reviewer number and the number of the addressed point). Please find below our responses to your review points:

Point 1 – Abstract:

The abstract has been supplemented with specific quantifications. (see article)

Point 2 – Problem Definition:

We have added annual wildfire area data from the Global Wildfire Information System. A graphical representation has also been included. (see article)

Point 3 – Literature Context:

A textual comparison with current firefighting methods has been added. (see article)

Point 4 – Safety Aspects:

We have included a description of the probability of ignition and the risk of fragmentation. An explanation of these issues is provided. Statistical data, risk matrices, and relevant tables will be part of a subsequent scientific article. (see article)

Point 5 – Environmental Impact:

We have incorporated results from Jenkins et al. (2006), Hewitt et al. (2007), and Barker et al. (2020), summarizing findings from military training areas. These remain relevant. The article by Ivan et al. (2025) connects these findings and presents new insights and additional experiments. We also described contaminant persistence and sampling methods. (see article)

Point 6 – Simulation Validation:

The section was expanded with information about the origin of the TerEx simulation tool. The software was validated through field tests conducted between 2006–2009. These tests verified the accuracy of aerosol dispersion calculations via detonation, comparing model outputs with real data. Development was supported by the University of Defence, the Occupational Safety Research Institute (a public research institution), and the 31st Brigade of Radiation, Chemical and Biological Protection of the Czech Armed Forces. The software is not freely available; access is proprietary and subject to licensing by the company T-SOFT. Independent researchers may use it upon request to the University of Defence or T-SOFT. (see article)

Point 7 – Shell Construction Description:

Based on consultation with STV GROUP a.s., the development of a new shell including certification and testing is estimated at USD 2–5 million. The unit cost of a shell may range from USD 3 000–6 000, depending on production volume. (see article)

Point 8 – Deployment Limitations:

A training course proposal for members of the Fire Rescue Service (FRS) has been added, including general training topics. (see article)

Point 9 – Figures and Schematics:

The specified diagram includes measurement units – it is a results diagram from the TerEx application. We added a description in the title and explanation in the analysis for better clarity. (see article)

Point 10 – Ethical and Legal Issues:

A separate paragraph was added discussing legal restrictions on deploying artillery in civilian areas. The topic of artillery use outside military zones during peacetime is currently under investigation as part of another research effort. For this reason, we have decided to leave detailed legal analysis and proposals for regulatory mechanisms as a topic for a follow-up study. (see article)

Point 11 – Machine Learning:

The section was expanded with a practical description. (see article)

Point 12 – Conclusion:

The concluding section was enriched with specific proposals for further research. (see article)

Point 13 – Citations:

Web sources have been replaced or supplemented where possible. Some current data on recent fires or information on historically unconventional technologies is not yet available in the desired peer-reviewed format.

Point 14 – Language and Style:

The manuscript has been revised by a professional translator.

 

We believe the article now meets the journal’s required standards and we look forward to further cooperation.

Have a nice day and thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for addresing all my comments. I suggest the article for publications since I find that it has value and can contribute to design more effective firefighting techniques.

Sincerely

The reviewer

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The potential of utilizing artillery systems and specialized munitions for wildfire suppression is studied in the present work. This study is particularly timely, as recent catastrophic wildfires in regions such as the Czech Republic, the USA, and South Korea have underscored the need for more effective firefighting strategies. By integrating military and civilian technologies, this research could pave the way for more efficient and safer wildfire management, given the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires globally, driven by climate change and other factors.

 

The manuscript is well-structured and provides a thorough analysis of the problem and potential solutions. The use of a simulation tool to model the dispersion of fire suppressants from artillery shells offers valuable insights into the effectiveness and safety of this approach. The discussion of the technical requirements for specialized artillery shells, including materials, trigger mechanisms, and types of fire suppressants, demonstrates a reasonable understanding of both military technology and firefighting needs.

 

While the study presents a promising concept, it lacks systematic data to support the hypothesis and in-depth analysis of the environmental impacts of using artillery in firefighting. The potential for soil contamination, secondary ignition sources, and broader ecological consequences need to be thoroughly evaluated. Additionally, the manuscript could benefit from more detailed discussions on the logistical challenges of deploying artillery systems in emergency situations, including transportation, setup time, and coordination with other firefighting efforts. The safety aspects for firefighters, civilians, and the environment should also be more comprehensively addressed, especially considering the risks associated with explosions and the use of explosives.

 

Although the integration of military technologies into firefighting represents a promising area of research, the current study appears to be insufficiently developed to be considered a regular research paper, essentially due to the lack of data and the failure to address environmental and logistical challenges, as well as the safety and effectiveness of artillery-based firefighting methods. It should be more appropriate to present this paper as a review rather than a typical research paper to better align with its current scope and content. This must be the easiest way to get this work done, primarily by making appropriate arrangement of the titles of subsections, rephrasing some statements in several sections and removing the section of Results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

n/a