AK, bite me.
First, this is an arena where field capture is based on bringing ten little soldiers into one building; realism has little to do with it.
Second, both positions are consitent from a "pro-realism" perspective anyway.
Here's your "gameplay" perspective:
Bombs should be dropped hot from bombers on the ground because it's a great and fun defense against vulchers.
Guns on the ground should be enabled because it's fun to sit in the planes and shoot stuff down.
The counterargument is pretty strong:
In a game based on flying planes any activity that encourages planes to stay on the ground is counterproductive. Period.
Now for realism:
Yes, you could run the guns on the ground IRL, and there are accounts of people doing it. But most fields had anti-aircraft guns that were a helluva lot cheaper to build and replace, and the overwhelming majority of aircraft kills occured from fixed AA guns, not from Johnny CMH running to a B17 full of fuel and bombs and firing at strafing aircraft.
IRL, when a plane is strafed to the point of destruction, it doesn't come back immediately, fully armed.
enabling guns on the ground allows players to use bombers primarily as ground-based anti-aircraft batteries, something that from a perspective that looks for realism is completely absurd. 10 .50 cal guns cost way less than one b17g.
and IRL, bomber crews did not often blow themselves to hell in the hope that they might catch one or two enemy fighters in the blast. Sorry.
Anything that encourages using bombers as ground-based defense systems is wrong from both a gameplay and a realism point of view. The damn thing has wings, it should have to fly.
