CHARACTERISATION OF EXPLOSIVE WEAPONS

ANNEX D

115 MM, 120 MM &

125 MM TANK GUNS
The Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) is an expert organisation working
to reduce the impact of mines, cluster munitions and other explosive hazards, in close partnership
with states, the UN and other human security actors. Based at the Maison de la paix in Geneva,

Cover image: Russian Tank T-90MS-V firing its main gun (Photo credit: photobucket bhenkz2)
the GICHD employs around 55 staff from over 15 countries with unique expertise and knowledge.
Our work is made possible by core contributions, project funding and in-kind support from more
than 20 governments and organisations.

The research project was guided and advised by a group of 18 international experts dealing with
weapons-related research and practitioners who address the implications of explosive weapons in
humanitarian, policy, advocacy and legal fields. This document contributes to the research of the
characterisation of explosive weapons (CEW) project in 2015-2016.

Characterisation of explosive weapons study, annex D 115 mm, 120 mm & 125 mm tank guns
GICHD, Geneva, February 2017
ISBN: 978-2-940369-65-2

The content of this publication, its presentation and the designations employed do not imply the expression of any opinion
whatsoever on the part of the Geneva International Centre for Humanitarian Demining (GICHD) regarding the legal status of
any country, territory or armed group, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. All content remains the
sole responsibility of the GICHD.
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 4

TANK GUNS 6

High Explosive Tank Gun Ammunition 8

TANK GUN CASE STUDIES 11

Brief Descriptions 11

CASE STUDIES 13

Case Study 1 13
Case Study 2 17
Case Study 3 21
Case Study 4 24
Case Study 5 26

Annex D Contents 3
 INTRODUCTION

This study examines the characteristics, use and effects of tank guns and tank
projectiles. It is part of a series of technical studies on explosive weapons
undertaken by the GICHD, providing evidence and contributing to the analysis
of the final report on Characterisation of Explosive Weapons (GICHD, 2017).

Photo 1. Blast effects of a

tank projectile on a school in
Gaza, July 2014 (Photo credit:
The Associated Press).

Tanks are mobile, armoured, heavy weapons platforms that have been used in the
majority of conflicts since World War II. Tanks differ from the other land-based
weapon systems examined in this series of studies by employing primarily direct
fire weapons; when firing its main gun, the gunner can see its target and aims
directly at it, rather than firing at an indirect trajectory. Although technological
advances have ensured modern tanks far exceed the performance of their prede-
cessors, simultaneous advances in anti-tank systems have meant that most
remain vulnerable to both conventional military forces and non-state actors
employing asymmetric warfare techniques.

This report covers tank guns of 115 mm, 120 mm, and 125 mm in calibre, which
encompasses the majority of tank guns that have been produced since 1961,
when the Soviet Union introduced the T-62 main battle tank (MBT). It is necessary
to limit the scope of this study, and the increase of Soviet tank gun calibres
from 100 mm to 120 mm in 1961 provides an appropriate cut-off point in time.
Although the T-62 partially replaced the earlier T-55 model with its 100 mm main
gun, T-55 tanks remain commonly encountered today. While HE and HE-FRAG

Annex D Introduction 4
 ammunition does exist for tank guns, these are more commonly used by tank
guns of Russian design. The majority of tank gun ammunition employed by
modern militaries is dual-purpose in nature, designed to destroy enemy armoured
fighting vehicles, whilst also offering a fragmentation effect for use in an anti-
personnel role.

Tanks often take on a high-profile role in modern conflicts. Capable of very high
precision in their direct fire role, tanks have been involved extensively in attacks
within populated areas.

Annex D Introduction 5
 TANK GUNS

The majority of modern tanks are fitted with smootbore guns, which do not utilise
rifled barrels in order to impart spin to projectiles as they are fired (see Annex A).
A notable exception is the British Challenger 2 tank, which uses the 120 mm L30
rifled gun. Unlike many other militaries armoured units, the British Army continue
to use a rifled gun, as their primary tank ammunition is of the high explosive
squash-head (HESH) type. HESH ammunition is used both as a general-purpose
high explosive projectile, and also against other tanks and armoured vehicles.
When a HESH ammunition is fired from a rifled barrel, spin imparted to the
projectile helps ensure a predictable distribution of the plasticised explosive filler,
and thus maximises its efficiency in the anti-tank role. The smootbore design of
most modern tank barrels makes it easier for tanks to fire missiles through the
same barrel used to fire projectiles.

Photo 2. British 120 mm

L30A1 tank gun mounted on
Challenger 2 (Photo credit:
Graeme Main, licensed
under the Open Government
Licence v1.0).

12
20 mm L4
44

12
20 mm L5
55 Figure 1. 120 mm
smootbore tank guns
(image credit: Thai Military
and Asian Region).

Annex D Tank Guns 6

 Photo 3. The Israeli Military
Industries (IMI) 120 mm L44
MG251/3 smootbore gun
(Photo credit: IMI).

The gun itself is not the sole factor influencing the range of a tank during combat
operations. Weapons may have both a maximum range, the farthest that a
projectile will travel under optimal conditions, and an effective range. The
definition of the latter varies by user, but is generally considered to be the
maximum distance at which a weapon may be expected to be accurate and
achieve the desired effect (DoD, 2016). The effective range should only be
considered indicative. It varies with ammunition, training, sights used, whether
the weapon platform is stable or mobile, weather conditions and other factors.
For example, the Russian 115 mm 2A20 Molot tank gun fitted with the TSHS-41U
telescopic sight and firing the 3OF18 HE-FRAG projectile has an effective range
of 3000 m. At night, firing with the TPN-1 night sight, it is 800 m for all projectile
types a limitation of the sight, not the ammunition. However, the maximum
range of the 3OF18 projectile at all times is 9500 m when fired at a gun angle of
16 (Nikolskiy, 1997).

The German Rheinmetall 120 mm smootbore gun is fitted to the German Leopard
2 tank and to the American Abrams. It can also be found on tanks produced by
Japan, South Korea, and Turkey. Owing to the widespread adoption of both the
Leopard 2 and the Abrams, the Rheinmetall 120 mm gun is the most widely
used weapon system in its class. This gun comes in two versions the shorter
L44, and the longer L55. Both versions can fire the same types of ammunition,
the difference being that the longer L55 allows ammunition to generate a higher
velocity, which can lead to better performance against other tanks for certain
ammunition types (Rheinmetall Defence, 2016).

The Russian-designed 115 mm 2A20 Molot gun is fitted to the T-62 tank,
introduced into service in 1962. This was the first smootbore gun to be fitted to
a tank (Tucker, 2004)). It can fire the 3OF18 HE-FRAG projectile out to an effective
range of 3,000 m (Nikolskiy, 1997). This tank has been operated by numerous
countries (IISS, 2016), and despite its relative age, it is still deployed by many
armed forces.

The Russian 125 mm 2A46 (D-81) smootbore gun has been widely adopted on
Russian-designed tanks and their foreign copies and derivatives. Versions of this
gun have been in use since 1964, and even some of the T-55 tanks, which were
first introduced into service in 1958, have been retrofitted with this gun during
modernisation programmes in Ukraine and China (Lavrov, 2016). The 2A46 has
been updated since its introduction; its more modern version has been given the
designation 2A46M-5, but both versions are very similar.

Annex D Tank Guns 7

 Photo 4. A Russian T-62
tank fitted with the 115 mm
main gun (Photo credit:
The Federation of American
Scientists).

Photo 5. The Russian

125 mm 2A75 tank gun (left),
and the 2A46M-5 (right)
(Photo credit: Otvaga2004).

HIGH EXPLOSIVE TANK GUN AMMUNITION

Tank guns can typically fire a range of different projectiles, most commonly
including anti-armour and multipurpose types, the latter used to engage light
vehicles, personnel, and fortifications. Anti-armour warheads may be either
chemical energy penetrators, or kinetic energy penetrators. The latter type
is most commonly shaped like a dart or small-calibre rifle projectile, and are
generally non-explosive (Cross et al., 2016). These are not examined in this study.
Chemical energy penetrators rely on the energy of an explosive detonation
generated when the munition functions on approaching or reaching its target
(Meyers, 1994). Examples include shaped charge warheads (including high
explosive anti-tank, or HEAT, and explosively formed penetrator, or EFP), high
explosive squash-head (HESH) warheads, and other types. As these do not
typically have wide-area effects relevant to their use in populated areas, they
are not considered further in this study.

High explosive or multi-purpose tank gun ammunition consists, at its simplest,

of a high explosive charge packed into a thick casing, typically constructed of
hardened steel, a fuze, and (typically), a cartridge case containing propellant. The
steel munition body serves two functions: firstly, it ensures that the ammunition
is robust enough to withstand the intense forces it is subjected to during firing

Annex D Tank Guns 8

 and whilst in flight; secondly, when the explosive fill detonates, it provides the
primary fragmentation effect. Different types of projectile bodies use different
types of steel alloys. Some modern projectiles use steel that has not been heat-
treated, because it has been found that this type of steel shatters into smaller
and more regular fragments than other types of steel, thus increasing the lethal
area of the projectile for the same weight of ammunition.

Figure 2. Illustration
showing the rounded head
and thin sides of a HESH
projectile (image credit:
British MoD).

Regardless of whether a projectile is fired from rifled or smootbore barrels, it must

fit snugly inside the gun barrel to ensure that there is no movement along the axis
of fire. Projectiles fired from rifled barrels have a soft metal driving band fitted
towards the rear of the parallel-sided section of the projectile, which prevents
any movement in the bore. Most projectiles are also stabilised in the barrel by an
almost imperceptible, slightly raised band towards the front of the parallel-sided
section.1 This is called a bourrelet. The combination of the bourrelet and the driving
band keeps the projectile seated inside the barrel both before, and during, firing.
The soft metal of the driving band is forced against the hard metal rifling lands
along the inside of the barrel. The metal of the driving band then conforms to
the hard metal grooves, which results in the projectile being made to spin as it
is fired (Goad & Halsey, 1982).

Projectiles fired from smootbore barrels lack a driving band at the rear, but do
require an obturating band to provide both an effective gas seal, and as a means 1 Some projectiles may have more
to stabilise and centre the projectile in the barrel (Goad & Halsey, 1982). than one bourrelet.

Annex D Tank Guns 9

 Each projectile is fitted with a fuze, either at time of manufacture or, more
commonly, prior to firing. The fuze must serve three functions: 1) ensuring a
munition can be safely handled during the loading process and in transit; 2)
arming the munition at a given time or position; and 3) ensuring the munition
functions at a given time or position (Dullum et al. 2016; King, 2011). HE projectiles
are most often fitted with impact fuzes, but may occasionally be fitted with a
proximity fuze that detonates the munition at a pre-determined distance from
the target.

Many modern fuzes are multi-function types, allowing the required mode of
operation to be selected immediately prior to firing. When using conventional
fuzes, the correct type of fuze needs to be selected and fitted before loading.
If the type of target changes, older fuzes may need to be removed and replaced
by a different type, but more modern fuzes can simply be reprogrammed.

Figure 3. A Russian 125 mm

high explosive projectile
(and separate propelling
charge) that is designed
to be fired from the D-81
(2A46) tank gun (image
credit: Russian Federal
State Unitary Enterprise
Mechanical Engineering
Research Institute).

Annex D Tank Guns 10

 TANK GUN CASE STUDIES

More than 20 cases were studied where tank guns were involved. Five case
studies were selected for this report on the basis of the confirmed use of these
weapons, the accuracy of documentation, and to geographical distribution of
conflicts across the weapon studies. These cover the period from October 1999
to July 2014, and the following countries and territories: Russia, Libya and
Palestine.

TABLE 1 CASE STUDIES FOR 115-125 MM TANK GUNS

CASE STUDY DATE LOCATION DEATHS INJURIES

1 20 July 2014 Deir el Balah, Gaza 5 70

2 24 July 2014 Beit Hanoun, Gaza 15 200

3 18 March 2011 Central Misrata, 25-35 Yes, but not

Libya specified

4 5 October 1999 Chervlennaya, 28 17

Chechnya, Russia

5 20 July 2014 Ash Shijaiyah, Gaza City 65 Approx. 100

BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS

CASE STUDY No 1

Deir el Balah, Gaza 21 July 2014

On 21 July 2014, the Al Aqsa Martyrs Hospital was attacked by tanks. Reports
vary as to the exact number of projectiles that hit the hospital, but there appears
to have been a minimum of three, and a maximum of twelve, 120 mm projectiles
fired from Merkava tanks. As a result of the attack, five people were killed and
more than seventy injured. Two ambulances that attempted to move the injured
to another hospital were also destroyed. The firing also damaged the X-ray
facilities, the maternity ward, the intensive care unit and the surgical department.
Several operating rooms, as well as key equipment, including hospital beds and
medical supplies, were destroyed. An oxygen production unit, which is used in
a wide range of operations and procedures, was also destroyed.

Annex D Tank Gun Case Studies 11

 CASE STUDY No 2

Beit Hanoun, Gaza, 24 July 2014, 15:00

At 15:00, on the afternoon of 24 July 2014, between four and five tank projectiles
hit the UN school in Beit Hanoun. At the time, it was being used as a temporary
refugee shelter, hence crowded with people. It is estimated that up to 1,500
people were inside the structure at the time of the attack. The tank projectiles
were 120 mm projectiles fired from Merkava tanks. Fifteen people were killed,
and two hundred injured in this attack. Some of the casualties were caused by
collapsing ceilings. Many of those injured suffered amputations, allegedly caused
by fragmentation.

CASE STUDY No 3

Central Misrata, Libya, 18 March, 2011, 07:00

At 07:00, on 18 March 2011, T-72 tanks attacked the central area of Misrata. The
attack was centred on Tripoli Street. It is reported that between 25 and 35 people,
including children, were killed during this attack. Unsubstantiated eyewitness
reports mention seeing between 20 and 40 tanks. It is not clear exactly how
many projectiles were fired during the attack, but substantial infrastructural
damage was caused. Mosques, schools, homes and a hospital were all damaged
during the fighting, with reports that the hospital was abandoned as a result of
the damage it sustained.

CASE STUDY No 4

Chervlennaya, Chechnya, Russia 5 October, 1999, 14:00

At 14:00, on 5 October 1999, a bus containing displaced people was hit by a
single tank projectile fired from a T-90 tank. The passengers on the bus were
attempting to return to their homes, after having been displaced to Grozny during
recent fighting. Reports vary as to the exact number of people who were on the
bus, but it would appear that 28 of them were killed and another 17 were injured.
Chervlennaya is cited as Chervlyonnaya in reports.

CASE STUDY No 5

Ash Shijaiyah, Gaza City, 20 July 2014, throughout the evening.

On the evening of 20 July 2014, tanks began firing into the Ash Shijaiyah area
of Gaza City. The attack lasted several hours and resulted in 65 deaths, with
reports of one hundred injured. Dozens of homes over several blocks were
reported as being destroyed or badly damaged.

Annex D Tank Gun Case Studies 12

 CASE STUDIES

CASE STUDY

01
DATE/TIME OF ATTACK
21 July 2014, unknown time.

LOCATION
Al Aqsa Martyrs Hospital, Deir el Balah, Gaza.

MAP OF THE AREA

Figure 4.

WEAPON SYSTEM
120 mm tank gun, reportedly Merkava tanks.

NUMBER OF PROJECTILES FIRED

Between 3 and 12 projectiles fired (reports vary on the exact number).

RANGE PROJECTILES FIRED FROM

The exact range is unknown.

ESTIMATED IMPACT AREA

See Figure 4 the main area impacted was the hospital itself. There were also
reports of projectiles landing in an empty lot near the hospital.

Annex D Case Studies 13

 CASE STUDY 01
CASUALTIES/INJURED
5 killed and more than 70 injured.

DAMAGE
There was significant damage done to the hospital during this attack (see infra-
structure damage for details). Two ambulances trying to move the wounded
to Shifa hospital, in Gaza City, were then also hit. The shelling destroyed beds
and important medical equipment.

INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE
There was substantial infrastructure damage to the hospital (see Photos 6 to 9).
The third and fourth floors, the reception area, and the upper floor were all
badly damaged one report concluded that the third and fourth floors were
completely destroyed. Several exterior walls of the hospital were damaged.
The attack also damaged the X-ray facilities, the maternity ward, the intensive
care unit, and the surgery department. Several operating rooms, key equipment
including hospital beds, and medical supplies were destroyed. An oxygen
production unit, which is used in a wide range of operations and procedures,
was also destroyed.

REMARKS
The attack did not only kill and injure patients in the hospital; approximately
30 of those injured were medical staff working at the hospital at the time.

One report cited Aqsa hospital in central Gaza as one of the only hospitals
providing services to several refugee camps, including al-Maghazi and
al-Nuseirat, as well as towns and villages including Deir el Balah and Juhu
al-Dik, which severely impeded access to medical treatment for the injured.

PHOTOS OF DAMAGE

Annex D Case Studies 14

 CASE STUDY 01

Photo 7.

Annex D Case Studies 15

 CASE STUDY 01

SOURCES

1. Al Jazeera: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/07/deaths-as-israeli-tanks-
shell-gaza-hospital-2014721124111171397.html
2. The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-
conflict-tanks-shell-gaza-hospital-killing-four-and-wounding-30-medical-staff-as-seven-
9619055.html
3. Middle East Eye: http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/al-aqsa-hospital-hit-strikes-gazas-
medical-facilities-continue-1701468997
4. The Wall Street Journal: http://www.wsj.com/articles/gaza-hospital-attack-caught-
civilians-in-crossfire-1406158568

Note: some sources also include video/news reporting of incident.

Annex D Case Studies 16

 CASE STUDY

02
DATE/TIME OF ATTACK
24 July 2014, at approximately 15:00.

LOCATION
UN School/Camp in Beit Hanoun, Gaza City.

MAP OF THE AREA

Unable to find exact location of where in Beit Hanoun the school was located.
Figure 4 marks the general Beit Hanoun location within Gaza as a built-up area.

Figure 5.

WEAPON SYSTEM
120 mm tank gun, reportedly one Merkava battle tank.

NUMBER OF PROJECTILES FIRED

Four to five tank projectiles.

CASUALTIES/INJURED
15 killed, over 200 injured.

Annex D Case Studies 17

 CASE STUDY 02
DAMAGE
Major damage was caused to a UN school from multiple tank projectiles (see
Photos 10-13 for infrastructure damage). At the edge of the schoolyard, some
20 donkeys lay dead, still tied to the railings. According to one report, primary
fragmentation was widespread across the area, resulting in many amputations.

INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE
The school itself was very badly damaged (see Photos 10-12). It is reported that
an entire classroom collapsed on the people who were inside. One projectile
created a large hole in the ceiling of a second-floor classroom. Several ceilings
collapsed throughout the school.

REMARKS
The school was a UN-managed refugee centre, which was housing close to
1,500 people when it was attacked. According to survivors, one projectile
landed in the schoolyard, followed by several more rounds that hit the upper
stories of the building.

PHOTOS OF DAMAGE

Annex D Case Studies 18

 CASE STUDY 02

Annex D Case Studies 19

 CASE STUDY 02

SOURCES

1. International Business Times: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gaza-strip-massacre-un-school-

powerful-photos-israeli-tank-shell-attack-palestinian-1458205
2. The Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-gaza-
conflict-un-school-shelled-by-israeli-tanks-leaving-15-dead-and-200-wounded-
9626621.html
3. The Daily Mail UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2711444/U-S-condemns-
Israeli-aggression-tank-attack-kills-15-men-women-children-asleep-UN-school-refuge.html
4. The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/24/israeli-strike-un-school-
gaza-kills-women-children

Annex D Case Studies 20

 CASE STUDY

03
DATE/TIME OF ATTACK
18 March 2011, 07:00

LOCATION
Central Misrata, Libya

MAP OF THE AREA

Figure 6.

WEAPON SYSTEM
125 mm tank guns, reportedly Russian-made T-72 battle tanks.

RANGE PROJECTILE FIRED FROM

Unknown, but assumed close range (within city borders).

ESTIMATED IMPACT AREA

Unknown.

CASUALTIES/INJURED
25-35 deaths reported, including children.

INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE
Shells hit several mosques, schools, and residential buildings. According to one
report, a hospital in the city was badly damaged during the fighting. Scenes in
one video 2 show glass, rubble, and wrecked medical equipment littering the
floors of the abandoned medical facility. A gaping hole is seen in one of the
hospitals walls.
2 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/
worldnews/africaandindianocean/
libya/8405273/Libya-Misurata-
hospital-damaged-in-fighting.html

Annex D Case Studies 21

 CASE STUDY 03
REMARKS
Several reports indicate that many of the dead and injured were children and
other civilians. One eyewitness claimed there were at least 20 tanks in the
city. Other reports cited as many as 40 tanks entering Misrata that day. In the
weeks leading up to the event, Gaddafis forces had repeatedly attacked Misrata
water supplies were cut off, there were frequent power cuts, and communica-
tions were frequently down.

PHOTOS OF DAMAGE
Misrata came under heavy fire throughout the final months of the Gaddafi
regime, thus it is not possible to determine exactly what structural damage
was caused in the attack on 18 March, and what may have already existed.

Annex D Case Studies 22

 CASE STUDY 03

Photo 15.

Photo 16.

SOURCES

1. Reuters UK: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/us-libya-misrata-bombard-

idUKTRE72H4L520110318
2. Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/18/libya-fm-declares-immediate-halt-
military-action-anti-government-forces/
3. Reuters: http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/18/idINIndia-55695920110318
4. Democratic Underground: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.
php?az=view_all&address=102x4776859
5. The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/
libya/8405273/Libya-Misurata-hospital-damaged-in-fighting.html

Annex D Case Studies 23

 CASE STUDY

04
DATE/TIME OF ATTACK
5 October 1999, 14:00.

LOCATION
Chervlennaya (cited as Chervlyonnaya), Chechnya Russia.

MAP OF THE AREA

WEAPON SYSTEM
125 mm tank gun, Russian-made battle tank of an unspecified model.

NUMBER OF PROJECTILES FIRED

Reports point to only one projectile hitting the bus.

CASUALTIES/INJURED
Exact casualties varied from report to report, but there seems to have been
at least 45 civilians (mostly women and children) on the bus when it was hit.
The most commonly cited number of those killed was 28, with approximately
17 people being injured.

DAMAGE
The majority of the damage was to the bus itself. According to reports, it was
completely wrecked, torn into two pieces and almost completely burned.

INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE
No reports of infrastructure damage.

Annex D Case Studies 24

 CASE STUDY 04
REMARKS
One survivor reported to the NY Times that It was 2:00 p.m. and we went over
the Terek River and turned toward Chervlyonnaya when they started to fire.
The bus turned back, and suddenly we were hit from behind.

SOURCES

1. New Strait Times: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1309&dat=19991007&id=c

OROAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fxQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4758,2506938&hl=en
2. The Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/08/russia.chechnya
3. Chicago Tribune: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-10-08/news/9910080389_1_
grozny-series-of-apartment-bombings-russian-forces
4. CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/chechnya-pleads-for-peace/
5. Human Rights Watch: https://www.hrw.org/legacy/bac kgrounder/eca/chechnya0403/3.htm
6. Relief Web: http://reliefweb.int/report/russian-federation/russia-officials-deny-attacking-
refugee-bus-chechnya

Annex D Case Studies 25

 CASE STUDY

05
DATE/TIME OF ATTACK
20 July 2014, throughout the evening.

LOCATION
Ash Shijaiyah, Gaza City.

MAP OF THE AREA

Figure 8.

WEAPON SYSTEM
120 mm tank gun, Merkava battle tank.

NUMBER OF PROJECTILES FIRED

As this incident happened over a period of hours, it is not possible to determine
the exact number of projectiles fired.

CASUALTIES
65 people killed, reports of 100 injured.

DAMAGE
Reports indicate that during this particular attack residential homes were hit,
leading to considerable infrastructure damage to homes and shelters.

INFRASTRUCTURE DAMAGE
Dozens of houses over several blocks were destroyed or badly damaged.
The ICRC reported that they rescued 11 civilians from the rubble.

Annex D Case Studies 26

 CASE STUDY 05
REMARKS
On the night of 20 July, around midnight, tanks arrived at the edge of the
Shijaiyah neighbourhood prior to hours of firing taking place. In Shijaiyah,
the heavy shelling began around midnight as tanks reached the edge of the
neighbourhood, residents said.

This particular attack in Gaza displaced thousands of refugees, who were

living in Shijaiyah. While Gazas health minister claimed that more than 35,000
were displaced during this one day, UNOCHA reported that half of the towns
population of 92,000 had fled to Gaza City because of the fighting.

PHOTOS OF DAMAGE

Photo 17.

Annex D Case Studies 27

 CASE STUDY 05

SOURCES

1. The Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698878/Indiscriminate-

bloodshed-continues-Gaza-20-Palestinians-killed-Israeli-shelling-hospitals-overflow-
women-children.html
2. Seattle Times: http://o.www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/panicked-residents-flee-
israeli-tank-fire-on-gaza/
3. Portland Press Herald: http://www.pressherald.com/2014/07/20/israel-escalates-ground-
offensive-in-gaza/
4. Central Maine: http://www.centralmaine.com/2014/07/20/israel-escalates-ground-
offensive-in-gaza/
5. The Atlantic: http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2014/07/bloody-weekend-in-gaza/100778/
6. UN Office for Coordinating Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA): https://www.ochaopt.org/
documents/ocha_opt_sitrep_21_07_2014.pdf
7. ICRC Article 25 July 2014: https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/article/
editorial/07-24-gaza-israel-palestine-maio.htm

Annex D Case Studies 28

 Follow us on
gichd.org
facebook
twitter

Geneva International Centre

for Humanitarian Demining
Maison de la paix, Tower 3
Chemin Eugne-Rigot 2C
PO Box 1300
CH 1211 Geneva 1, Switzerland
info @ gichd.org characterisationexplosiveweapons.org