Launching a missile from a Heimars rocket launcher. Picture: Shutterstock/Anelo
Journalists rarely name the explosive weapon used when reporting on armed conflict. And the minority of cases in which weapons are identified all relate to Russian attacks on Ukraine.
According to UK-based charity Action on Armed Violence, its research highlights a “persistent shortfall in war reporting, one that makes it harder for journalists, policymakers and the public to hold governments and arms manufacturers to account”.
The charity said it analysed 10,000 English-language news reports covering explosive violence in populated areas between January 2022 and November 2025 relating to Ukraine (6,891 reports), Gaza (2,946), Myanmar (584) and Sudan (168).
Journalists named the explosive weapon used in just 11% of cases. The rest did not go beyond the use of generic terms like “airstrike” or “shelling”.
The charity’s executive director Iain Overton said: “This absence of detail is of importance. Explosive weapons do their greatest damage when used in towns and cities, where blast and wide-area fragmentation meet dense populations and urban infrastructure. In 2025, 97% of all civilian casualties from explosive violence globally occurred in populated areas.
“Without knowing what weapon was used, it becomes harder to assess proportionality, foreseeability of harm, or compliance with international humanitarian law.”
Some 95% of reports which did identify a weapon related to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Weapons identified in Ukraine reports include the Shahed-136 loitering munition, designed in Iran and now produced in Russia.
Overton said: “The difference for more detailed reporting from Ukraine appears to lie in media access and corresponding capacity for verification. Ukraine has an ecosystem of local and international journalists, backed by open-source investigators and weapons analysts. Reporters can often reach strike sites, photograph fragments, consult specialists and cross-check official claims. Weapon attribution remains difficult, but it is frequently possible.
“In Gaza, Myanmar and Sudan, it usually is not. Gaza has been largely closed to foreign journalists. In Myanmar and Sudan, insecurity, repression and the targeting of reporters sharply limit independent coverage. Reporting therefore relies heavily on official statements, eyewitness testimony and casualty figures, with little detail about the weapons involved.
“The result is stark. In Gaza, Israel is known to use a mix of domestically produced weapons and internationally manufactured bombs. Yet out of nearly 2,900 English-language reports analysed, just 28 linked civilian harm to a specific weapon. The Israeli Defence Forces’ arsenal is widely known in general terms, but individual incidents linked to civilian harm are rarely reported as being from particular munitions.
“Myanmar’s military is also known to use weapons supplied by Russia, China and Belarus, including thermobaric or fuel-air explosives. Sudan’s armed forces have drawn on opaque supply chains that, according to Amnesty International , circumvent UN arms embargoes, alongside improvised barrel bombs. Yet only a handful of reports in either country named a specific weapon at all.
“This absence of detail has consequences beyond journalistic rigour. International frameworks such as the Arms Trade Treaty in part rely on journalists exposing the failure of states preventing certain weapons from getting from manufacturer to battlefield. If reporting does not identify what was used, it becomes harder to assess whether exports were lawful, whether civilian harm was foreseeable, or whether governments met their international obligations.
“Journalists cannot wholly be blamed for conditions that make verification impossible. Access restrictions, security risks and the absence of independent experts on the ground constrain reporting. But not all omissions are explained by these limits.”
Overton added: “In some cases, they reflect editorial choices about time, resources and what is deemed essential. And when weapons go unnamed, responsibility can be deflected, and the machinery of modern war can continue to take lives in the shadows.”
Email [email protected] to point out mistakes, provide story tips or send in a letter for publication on our “Letters Page” blog