Grunherz, he's not saying it's unrealistic. He's launching an ad hominem circumstantial attack, suppressing evidence, throwing in the straw man fallacy along with a toejamload of red herrings, that runs like this:
Some people argue against car-bombing, claiming it's unrealistic.
Those people also argue against guns on the ground, claiming it hurts gameplay.
IRL, guns could work on the ground, therefore, it is realistic that guns can work on the ground.
Thus those holding both positions are hypocrites, and the opposites should be conceded.
That is roadkill.
Straw man: those who are in favor of guns off on the ground argue for the position on grounds of gameplay alone, and those against carbombing argue realism.
roadkill.
Strong arguments can be made both from the POV of gameplay, and the POV of realism. And I'm sorry. Sure, bomber guns were manned during some low-level attacks on bases, but when those guys got killed, they didn't magically reappear.
ad hominem: even if the persons holding the argument were hypocrites, it wouldn't matter. What matters is the strength of the argument, dweeb, not the person making it. If that were the case, I'd ignore everything ever said by any assimilationist idiot who put squadron letters at the beginning of his name.
Red herrings: this isn't a discussion about vulching. period.
this isn't about how hard it is to take down a hanger.
Finally, you're begging the question: would allowing these idiotic aberrations reduce vulching?
Hell no! Rather, it'd prolong the festivities! It'd be easier to kill troops, and a vulchcap would be less secure, meaning more kills for everyone, and less air combat.
