2023 Israeli-Gazan War

[Officer of Engineers]

I doubt they have the sea lift to land and most importantly sustain divisional plus size forces in or near Beirut with the intention of firstly securing a bridgehead/port then pivoting and advancing south. Conduct large scale raids in force yes. Stage what would amount to a maritime based invasion, no. It's not really the IDFs 'forte'.

Of course were certain allied nations prepared to provided them with the sea lift and landing capacity they'd need it would be another story. I can't see that happening though, it would take far to long to organize and co-ordinate..

Against a 60K Hezbollah Force? I think you're over-estimating Hebollah's chances. A brigade landing force will more than suffice, especially combining with a breakout from the Israeli borders.

[Gun Grape]

Against a 60K Hezbollah Force? I think you're over-estimating Hebollah's chances. A brigade landing force will more than suffice, especially combining with a breakout from the Israeli borders.

Land at the airport. Its on the beach outside of town.

Keep a Bn for security. Punch north. The port is mayby 5 miles up the road. If you want to take it

They just got 2 Landing Craft that are close to General Frank S. Besson Class LSVs. Those could disembark equipment at the airport.

[Monash]

Against a 60K Hezbollah Force? I think you're over-estimating Hebollah's chances. A brigade landing force will more than suffice, especially combining with a breakout from the Israeli borders.

Only if HB was so silly as to concentrate its forces and commit to a direct face to face confrontation. Why should it? What does it gain from doing so? Lebanon is not a large country but in the absence of a pitched battle there's still thousands of square kilometers of heavily populated ground that Israel has to seize and hold as it drives south for the border. HB would probably try to do most its fighting behind the advance not in front of it.

[Officer of Engineers]

Only if HB was so silly as to concentrate its forces and commit to a direct face to face confrontation. Why should it?

Because it's won them their war the last time around.

[Monash]

Because it's won them their war the last time around.

They didn't fight conventionally. Firstly they weren't equipped to fight a conventional battle against Israeli forces, instead they used hidden tunnels and bunker complexes, ambushes & guerilla warfare tactics to great effect. Secondly ultimately they did have to concede ground and couldn't stop the Israeli troops reaching the outskirts of Beirut if memory serves. Ultimately they made the cost of staying in place there more than Israel was prepared to pay at the time but unless you consider what effectively amounted to a stalemate as a victory it wasn't one.

Any attempt to land extensive conventional forces inside Beirut itself from the sea and then swing south faces exactly the same kind of problems Israel faced in 2006 only in reverse. Instead of facing a fight into the the city (which they avoided doing at the time) now they would be have no choice but to try and fight their out of it, with more hard fighting ahead of them before they reached the border. That or they linked up with whatever forces Israel was moving north to meet them.

Finally a two pronged attack, while it might force Hezbollah to divide its attention and resources would still probably mean bloody house to house fighting until such time as the landing force managed to clear a pathway out of the city for itself and the support elements following it. Beirut has a population of 2.4 million people and even though only a tiny % of that population would be enemy combatants your still asking a lot of one brigade, even with total air superiority.

[Officer of Engineers]

They didn't fight conventionally.

Yes, they did. A series of fortifications that stopped Israeli advances cold. Hezbollah ATGMs decimated the Israeli tank corps.

Finally a two pronged attack, while it might force Hezbollah to divide its attention and resources would still probably mean bloody house to house fighting until such time as the landing force managed to clear a pathway out of the city for itself and the support elements following it. Beirut has a population of 2.4 million people and even though only a tiny % of that population would be enemy combatants your still asking a lot of one brigade, even with total air superiority.

THe bulk of Hezbollah 60K fighters is on the border. There's only a token Hezbollah presence in Beirut.

[Albany Rifles]

The Marines would help. Oct 23d. 40 yrs ago today the bombing of the Marine Barracks at the airport in Beruit

Remember it well, Gunny. Sadly. I was on my way to Hohenfels Training Area leading a convoy in my quarter ton when we heard it on AFN. We were PISSED!!! We reacted more angrily to this than anything about Grenada. When we got to Hohenfels we moved into TAAs and acted like we did when we got our monthly alerts. When we found out about Grenada we drew war reserves of ammo and moved quickly to our preselected general defensive positions (GDPs) with quartering parties in case the balloon went up. Turned out to be just great training.

[Ironduke]

Yes, they did. A series of fortifications that stopped Israeli advances cold. Hezbollah ATGMs decimated the Israeli tank corps.

THe bulk of Hezbollah 60K fighters is on the border. There's only a token Hezbollah presence in Beirut.

I think they have more than a token presence in Beirut. They did take over the city within 24 hours on March 8/9 2008. I'd go as far as to suggest they have more fighters they can call on in the city than any other faction including the government.

[Officer of Engineers]

Events have overtaken the scenario. The US has stated that any major escalation will be met by American force.

[Monash]

Yes, they did. A series of fortifications that stopped Israeli advances cold. Hezbollah ATGMs decimated the Israeli tank corps.

Yes, the fortifications and ambushes and IEDs etc did cause heavy losses but it didn't stop the Israeli's from reaching Beirut. The only thing that stopped them at that point was a simple cost benefit analysis. Were the gains that would potentially be achieved from fighting their way into Beirut, inflicting further damage on HB in the process worth the potential price in terms of both casualties and international reputational damage to Israel? Answer? No.

Seventeen years later and doing exactly the same analysis with Gaza? This time around the answer (unfortunately for the civilian population) appears to be 'yes'.

[Monash]

Just puzzling over the impending Gaza invasion and Israel's 'tunnel' problem. Would uber amounts of OC gas be an option or is that a Geneva Convention issue? Which if so would be kind of weird given high explosives white phosphorus and apparently even flame throwers! get a free pass.

[Officer of Engineers]

Gray area. Israel signed the CWC but has not ratified it.

[Albany Rifles]

CS & CN gas are considered irritants and not chemical weapons. CS gas can be used on the battlefield. We used it in Vietnam and in some instances in GWOT.

But the amount needed to flood the Gaza tunnels would take a full container ship.

[Monash]

CS & CN gas are considered irritants and not chemical weapons. CS gas can be used on the battlefield. We used it in Vietnam and in some instances in GWOT.

But the amount needed to flood the Gaza tunnels would take a full container ship.

Well if they're to have any hope of using direct action to rescue as many of the kidnapped Israeli's as they can the IDF is going to need a shit tonne of CS anyway so I hope they've cornered the market. I cannot think of a worse hostage rescue scenario than those tunnels.

[Officer of Engineers]

Iran backed milita struck US bases and the Americans hit Syrian bases. The war has expanded.