Navaleye,
My personal opinion is that the fuel used by the Vulcans couldn't possibly have been used to support Harrier or Sea Harrier missions because it was in totally the wrong place. Someone correct me if I am wrong but no carrier missions were ever cancelled due to lack of avgas or of 1000lb weapons, were they? Was avgas was held at Ascension for Vulcan that should have been shipped south?
I think we all accept that the FRS 1 and GR3 crews were rushed off their feet down south, so to have attempted to 'black' Stanley would have required them to be apportioned away from their other roles.
Having read RAF Harrier Ground Attack Falklands (possible one for the grammar thread) I was very surprised to hear that the GR3 QWIs didn't know what a high angle dive site picture was, but the upshot would mean that runway cratering was unlikely by GR3. (Corporate LGB knowledge was understandably non-existent it would appear as well from the use of the GR3 laser for guidance). Cratering was also unlikely by FRS 1 using Navhars which would at best have given a 0.1nm accuracy at pickle, or loft which would give about a 30 degree impact.
That being said, there is more to the effect of reducing the enemies supply capacity than disabling an airhead. In turn there's more to disabling an airhead than targeting the runway - and any munition falling may well have contributed to the overall aim.
For me the key point is that the Argentinians appear to have never seriously considered using the field for fast air, but kept it open as a logistics hub throughout the war with what sounds like incredible efficiency.
If we had cratered Stanley - could they repair it and could a C-130 have used Goose Green or Pebble Island? Were we primed to sink any sea lift they attempted?
(No doubt someone will remember what we fuelled the early Pegasus with and what it was then called, if it wasn't avgas I do apologise - but you get the point)
Last edited by orca; 11th Mar 2012 at 19:34.
Reason: Correction