Why I respect the bomber...

[n00bl3t]

uh dude enterprise was a CARRIER and she did damn near win the war(at one point she was our only running carrier) anyway i aprove of it but bombers arnt uberpwnzors in world war 2 you needed attack WAVES of bombes to taker out said battleship,destroyer,cxruiser alltho in world war two ships had proper AAA defences

i support bombers but at least make more versions of flak guns ifanything to give the hevy cruisers and the LABC some form of self defence(all cruisers need better defencive guns but the lighter ships can evade more easly)

Jimmy, you are so foolish.

Let us leave alone the fact that RL is not FL and examine one thing. Do you think bomberwhores care?

Have you missed the bragging posts? "I can kill an immobile BC in my barghest, olololol", and so forth. When, of course, you point out the difference in size:wtfpwn ratio, as well as maneuverability differences, the usual response is something along the lines of "this is not serious business" and similar apathetic responses.

Leaving out the fact that FL is not RL, let us examine the "omg your VHF flying skillz suck0rz olololol" argument. It seems people love, like FL does, to defy physics and have the cake still, after eating it. If bombers are meant to take out BS' every time, then should VHF's not take out bombers, every time?

Swiss cheese was inspired by these threads.

Eh.

---

Anything I say is not intended as offensive, and to try and deliberately misinterpret it as such would be an attempt at trolling via misrepresentation.

It's not a conspiracy, it's localised bias. They're not intelligent enough to form a conspiracy.