There is practically zero relationship between how we implement the AH strategic game and historical WWII operational or strategic reality. As I mentioned in another post, the purpose of the AH strat game is to add game play interest and facilitate individual fights between aircraft (and latterly GVs).
Now if you support towns for vBases because you think it would make the game more fun, then I could respect that. But arguing for it on the basis of historical realism indicates that you need to buy a few history books. No offense intended. 
Well yes it would be more fun to be a little more historically accurate in terms of combat "routine" and strat objectives................
clearly there is considerable role play in the game and (with the overriding principle in place that it has to add fun) enhancing game play should follow history where ever it can be applied positively IMO.
and I have plenty of history books..............
re caldera's point I would fully concurr that towns might be better further from airfields but added to be close to gv fields............. gv spawns would target towns and so not approach air fields.......... air fields would have a single gv spawn to its town..................
capture battle is moved further away from the airfield
air fields have no offencive gv role
gv fields are close to towns so spawns join towns to each other across the map
OK it wont kill off air fields being horded, porked and "over" capped but it would reduce the tendancy. IMO it would draw battle away from the air field and place it over a town............ some of which would have GV fields attached
for the rest leave the town as it is.................it's pretty neat compared to where AH started from in terms of towns and capture IMO