0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
880 $

Houthis Conduct Two Attacks On Saudi-led Coalition Positions Along Western Yemeni Coast

Support SouthFront

Houthis Conduct Two Attacks On Saudi-led Coalition Positions Along Western Yemeni Coast

Illustrative image

On July 1, the Houthis launched a limited attack on several positions of the Saudi-led coalition and its Yemeni proxies around the village of al-Jubailiah south of the district of al-Tuhayat along the western Yemeni coast, according to the Yemeni al-Masirah TV.

The pro-Houthis TV channel said that Houthi fighters captured a key position of the Saudi-led coalition around the village after killing and injuring several Saudi-backed Yemeni fighters. The Houthis also targeted a gathering of coalition forces near the village of al-Faza with an anti-tank guided missile (ATGM).

Houthi fighters launched a second attack on the frontline of the Saudi-led coalition north of the district of al-Durayhimi, which is located only 18km south of the coastal city of al-Hudaydah. Coalition forces suffered from “catastrophic loses” as a result of the attack, according to al-Masirah.

Earlier today, the UAE’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Anwar Gargash announced that the Saudi-led coalition had  paused its operations along the western Yemeni coast in order to facilitate peaceful efforts. However, a spokesman of the Houthis denied such development hours later and said that the coalition is still carrying out attacks.

The upcoming days will likely witness intense battles between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition along the western coast of Yemen as the coalition appears to be preparing to launch a new attack on al-Hudaydah.

Support SouthFront


Notify of
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
S Melanson

The offensive, that was stopped dead in its tracks, has now been declared as ‘paused’ to allow time for UN diplomacy…

Bwahahahahahahahahahah, reach for glass of water… continue: Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Of course the Houthis are correct that operations continue. Air attacks continue to target civilians and efforts to restore supply lines also continue. Basically operations continue where supply is not a major issue.

The ‘pause’ applies to coalition forces dug in south of the airport and this further supports the contention the forces are supply starved and incapable of mounting offensives. So it is strange the article ends with an expectation the coalition will resume the assault on Hudaydah. I think not.

The Houthis continue to inflict casualties to the Coalition along the narrow coastal corridor. The coalition forces near the airport will draw coalition forces up the coastal highway to open up supply lines and relieve the siege of Stalingrad. Well like Stalingrad, expect these efforts to fail.

The coalition forces trapped just south of the airport are going to be waiting a while and this is a good thing. It will give the soldiers plenty of time to reflect,upon just how,naughty they and coalition have been. Then they can surrender.

Brother Ma

Great last two sentences.

Richard M

Of course Stalingrad turned on a massive counter-offensive. Operation Uranus, I believe. The logistics of Operation Uranus included Soviet and Allied efforts to deliver massive quantities of war material to the Front. The Houthis share the dedication and determination of Russia at Stalingrad, but do they have the logistics to stage a complete role reversal?

Which is not to say that a victory can not be achieved at Hudaydah. I’m not certain that victory would be the Game Changer that Stalingrad was.

S Melanson

Operation Uranus was the first offensive by the Russians utilizing mobile forces on a wide scale to penetrate deep into enemy territory. The Stalingrad phase of the operation was very successful. The second phase was to be a disaster – read up on Manstein’s Miracle. Stalingrad is often viewed as the defining moment of the conflict and it really was the first real demonstration of Russian capabilities to best the Germans.

But in my view, the game changer was the Russian counterattack’s of August to September 1941. The counterattack did not achieve any breakthrough but that was not the intention. The intention was to grind down the German advance to give time to develop defence in depth and retreating Russian formations that had been badly mauled to regroup and reinforce.

While the weather is given top billing for German setbacks before the gates of Moscow, the Russians had already blunted the German offensive when the chance of defeating the Russians was highest. The German troops were mostly veterans and well equipped. The Russians were poorly equipped and poorly led on the battlefield, thanks to Stalin’s purges of the more capable commanders to be replaced by incompetent but faithful toadies. The troops and commanders were also woefully inexperienced. Despite the risk, the Russian leadership correctly chose to immediately relocate heavy industry to the Urals well before the factories were overrun by the Germans. This would cause severe material shortages in the short term until factories in Urals were up and running. The gamble paid off.

What the Russians needed to do was to hang on against the Germans – and they did. By the fall of 1941, the German army was 30% depleted and the losses were veterans being replaced by conscripts and less capable minor allies such as Hungarian units. The Russians were able to tolerate huge losses far more than the Germans and were gaining experience – mounting more effective defensive actions. Better Russian commanders emerged and incompetent commanders replaced. Once factories in Urals got going, the Russians were producing three times more the tanks then German factories and Russian tanks were formidible.

Well before Stalingrad, Germany’s defeat was already sealed. Even failure of Uranus at Stalingrad and/or German victory at Kursk would not in the end change the outcome. But the big battles are far more sexy and riveting and so they get the focus.

The fight in Yemen is intense but on a vastly smaller scale. The Russian troops committed just to Operation Uranus were over a million. The coalition forces are numbered in the tens of thousands. The Houthis are likewise a small but highly effective force that rely on basic equipment that simplifies greatly logistical requirements. It also gives the Houthis good stealth ability and with local knowledge and mobility across most terrain types, have been able to best the coalition. I believe that the Houthis have managed to hang on while the coalition fired their best bolt.

I do not think the coalition can win, at best stalemate. But stalemate is not the Houthis plan. Can the Houthis reverse the role and sustain offensive operations to decisively beat the coalition? I think we are about to find out.


Good info “But in my view, the game changer was the Russian counterattack’s of August to September 1941.” I do not agree with this, the Russian counter attacks should not have been launched into defensive positions. In Sept AGC was detaching units to go after huge Kiev salient to the south, but this would take some time off the clock. Meanwhile Russian reserve armies where forming behind the lines. :)

S Melanson

Many do disagree but it may be due to my using a different measure. By the conclusion of the first Battle of Smolensk around mid-August, the German High Command realized the Russian Army was not a paper tiger that would crumble in a matter of a few weeks. In fact, to the horror of the German high command, they witnessed the German army getting steadily weaker and despite massive Russian losses, the Russians were steadily getting stronger. I consider this realization as the turning point which would be validated by the German failure to take Moscow or Leningrad.

However, Stalin overplayed his hand by launching a Spring offensive to retake Kharkov which was a disaster that ripped open a huge gap in the Russian lines south of Voronezh. This led to the German retaking of the initiative with an advance deep into the Caucasus and assault on Stalingrad. We know what happened at Stalingrad.

But if not Stalingrad, it would be some other disastrous battle for Germany as it was inevitable. The failure of the Germans to reach their Barbarossa objectives in 1941 when they were at their most capable and the Russians at their weakest meant the German Army could not defeat the Russians – the window of opportunity, if there even was one, was now lost. The first Battle of Smolensk, which held back the German offensive for weeks, was when the supreme confidence of the German High Command was shattered.

The Germans could not sustain the losses while the Russians could, and so the tide would turn eventually and the German High Command Intuitively realized this well before Stalingrad.

Note Guderian panzer army and an infantry army were detached from Army Group Centre in August and the Battle of the Kiev Salient began August 23.


Thank you for your time. I had run the simulation Barbarossa more than a few times. One wargame was huge from GDW and the maps where 2 x 1.5 meters, with units down to Div and Brigade level. Land, air, and naval units. As Russian player I always kept my lines straight and Germany would always lose in time, as the reserves came in to make the lines stronger.

S Melanson

Can you give me a link to the simulation and more info. I am interested in knowing more. I have played military board games and video games. I really liked Russian Campaign by Avalon Hill


Part of the GDW EUROPA series. “Fire In The East” and “Scorched Earth”. It is a monster game for sure. I also have many Avalon Hill. Pictured below appears to be Scorched Earth, starting positions April, 1942, looking south from Murmansk!. :) https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3db4475f1184a08f757afd48bc62f9f616bb169b48f2e8471c619720aa1fce1b.jpg


“Fire In The East” One possible starting position for AGN on the Lithuanian border. Also note the engineering units that will repair and re gauge the rail lines to keep supply lines going forward, and also to build airfields, etc. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/da6b781130fd725af953d3643a24f31343faeb01d844259fef74532408b0757e.jpg

S Melanson

I have not played Fire in the East but know it is so massive you need to dedicate a whole room for the map and for a year to play. I played a large scale scenario where we combined several copies of Panzer Leader with the Germans/western allies and several copies of the sister game with the Germans and Russians. The map covered four fold out tables. One guy played the Germans and me and another guy played the allies – US, UK and Russian.

Playing the game demonstrated the importance of coordinated defence and attack. The person playing the Germans sent all reinforcements against me and when I asked for,help from my partner he refused and did not even press any attack to take pressure off me.

For a while I held my own but in time the Germans built a large advantage in forces opposing mine and a major offensive was launched. Again the other guy would not help, not even provide any artillery support. My line defending the main city was smashed losing almost 20 tank platoons. My partner apparently was satisfied that he knocked out an observation post.

So I decided that I could not hold my entire front and so collapsed to a smaller area to defend. This also opened up the front line on the border of my partners portion of the board. The German player sent SS Panther platoons pouring through as well as armoured cars to spot his artillery. My partner quit the game saying I was deliberately trying to make him lose. The German player intervened to say that my partner assured our defeat by staying defensive and hoarding resources as I got steamrollered.

You learn something every day…


I no longer have time and space for monster games. I went back to Panzer Leader and Panzer Blitz scenarios. Tweaked the rules to be more like Arab-Israeli Wars as far as weapons effect chart and reduced movement by 1/3rd. Also have to expand the # of turns and decrease HE attack values. The scenarios became more tactical and interesting. :)

Richard M

Great analysis! Pleasure to meet a person who bases their opinions on facts and knowledge. Unfortunately, with FUKUS backing, the Wahhabistani Orcs have far superior logistics.

One other factor in WW2 was the megalomania of Adolf. His belief that his “Supermen” could win it all before winter arrived, followed by his nonsensical belief that “Ubermenschen” could fight effectively in -40 temperatures in light summer uniforms led to huge manpower losses that the Wehrmacht could not sustain. The autumn months of 1941 also saw the Wehrmacht mired in deep mud on western Russia’s rural unpaved roadways. So unforeseen weather events could play a factor in Yemen, but it is less certain than Russia’s winter.

Whether MbS shares the madness of der Fuhrer is debatable. I suspect his public persona and his inner motivations are two entirely different things.

As you point out, Axis victory at Stalingrad would not have won the war, but a more interesting “what if” would be the hypothetical success of Case Blue and the Axis seizure of Baku and the oilfields of the region. Would the Caucuses natives have rallied to the Axis flag? Georgians, Azerbaijanis, Armenians, Chechens etc. had little reason to love Stalin. Then, with Axis troops in Bulgaria and Greece, and in Armenia, would the Turks have renewed their WW1 alliance with Germany?

If I give my imagination free reign I can then imagine Franco’s Spain joining the Axis Pact and sealing the Straits of Gibraltar to Allied shipping along with India’s citizens joining Chandra Bose’s Indian National Army en masse.

One other fascinating “what if” is during the Winter War of 1939, UK and France wanted Norway and Sweden to allow Allied support of Finland against Stalin. Adolf threatened the Swedes with occupation if they allowed Allied transit of their territory. Adolf short sightedly considered Swedish iron ore to be of greater value to the Reich than the value of having UK and France being at war with Stalin’s Russia. That had the potential of being a complete game changer!

S Melanson

Those are a lot of great ‘What ifs’. A number of those what ifs are discussed in the War Diaries of Sir Alan Brooke 1939 to 1945, Chief of the British Imperial General Staff. Good read about the bleak first two years and then the turning point as well as the competing political versus military objectives and the tension it created.


It is simple to take an objective inside enemy territory , it is another thing to HOLD the objective from repeated counter attacks and cutting of your supply line.. Modern military operate on a secured supply line and will not last long if the supply is cut.

there’s a foolish grand strategy of Saudi coalition (backed by French and Brit commandos on the ground and US airpower).. it is a foolish strategy to think your own army will scare the enemy into fleeing the objective.. there’s a reason warfare is called battle of will , the US strategy in vietnam failed because they expect north vietnamese to FOLD after getting bombarded by massive air power.. heck the germans and japanese do not surrender even when american bombers massacre their civilians , why should vietnamese got scared of big bad USA ?

Brother Ma

Too true


“Houthis Conduct Two Attacks On Saudi-led Coalition Positions Along Western Yemeni Coast” Well I guess some of my “complains” were heard and the Houthis get some INTEL-informations from China or Russia, near some smuggled weapons..

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x