Originally Posted by PN
jaj, speaking from no particularly detailed study, but given as you say a huge landing area, that the actual tactic was to cut the taxi tracks from the HAS complexes - runway denial in a different way?
Not a bad idea, but SF makes a good point. Also, you don't know in advance if IAF a/c are airborne and so NOT denying landing surfaces (as opposed to
access to landing surfaces) may allow them to land and park/re-arm/refuel elsewhere. Some of these airfields were HUGE, and dispersal plans even had them towed out into the desert miles from HAS sites.
There was never an attempt to "guarantee" closing down each airfield....that would have taken too many a/c or sorties, but they were harassed enough to effectively close them down, so as ES says, "job done".
