It would be absurd because bombers were designed to find defense in numbers, flying in tight formation and using defensive armament. Fighters did not.
Indeed, the combat box was designed for defense. So what stops bomber pilots from flying in formation with other bombers?
The basic unit of fighter combat is the wing pair. By the logic of that gives us buff formations, I should get an AI wingman. After all, who can go to the trouble of finding other pilots to fly with
I'm not really in favor of getting rid of formation, I'm just demonstrating what a huge concession formations alone are for bombers, before we even get to discussing other concessions.
I was talking about the statistics. The k/d ratio for the most used bomber, the lancaster, is about 0,14. A whole formation of bombers is less likely to survive than a lone fighter attacking them. I'm not refering to personal experience but statistics.
The k/d ratio of the toughest heavies is about .3 though. That means the formation as a whole has a k/d of about 1. And looking at the formation as a unit makes sense, since it essentially is one unit controlled by one player. If there were some kind of fighter/attack aircraft that had a k/d around 1 AND could carry tens of thousands of pounds of ord AND could hit targets accurately without descending below 20K, I think the cries for perking it would be multitudinous.
Let's take one of the most popular jabos and bombers, the P-38L and Lancaster. At 14K one will be cruising at 350mph and can fight you on equal grounds, while the other is travelling at 270mph and can't even make evasive turns. But yeah, the jabo is absolutely easier to reach and kill 
I have seen bombers making hard-to-believe "evasive turns" often, not losing drones and warping all over the place. The drone leash is buggy as hell. And yes, the P-38 jabo is absolutely easier to run down and kill. Laden with a max ord load, it is 40-60 mph slower than common LW rides, it has no rearward firing guns so a co-alt dead six chase is just fine, and it cannot defensively turn EFFECTIVELY without pickling its ord, which is mission busted right then and there. And that is not even getting into the fact that it has only enough ord to kill one hangar at a time, and must get quite low to deliver it accurately.
So a guy was a better at gunning than flying a fighter. It's almost like some players are better in some kind of planes....sorry, I'm a fan of conspiracy theories! 
It's almost like with nearly no skill someone flying buffs in AH can be more dangerous than the fighters who historically had to protect even the best-defended bombers ever made from being slaughtered by other fighters. Last time I flew buffs I shot down two planes with a MOUSE before flying into a mountain because I was laughing so hard and not paying attention. It is literally an EZ mode point-and-click enterprise. Compare this to all that goes into being a decent shot and maneuvering pilot in fighters.
You mean bombing things? Some of us already do that from time to time. You call it tool-shedding, you mentioned it in a quite irate thread. So you want bombers to bluw stuff up or not? Make up your mind! 
Yes, in a game which is drying up and dying because players cannot find fights, a fundamentally anti-fight dynamic like toolshedding (or downing HQ) is very bad, almost suicidal. Still, bombers should have targets. Large cityscapes in the back country of each side on the map would be realistic target for realistically (in)accurate level bombing. The destruction of them could have an effect on many strategic things, such as how fast destroyed ack guns and town buildings re-up, something of that nature. Or come up with your own idea. Whatever, buffs need something important to do that DOESN'T add to the lack of fights problem with current player numbers.
What nerf would you like to see? But I believe that by a realistic and fun team experience you mean being able to creep up a bomber's six and shoot it down without having to climb too much.
Many bombers were destroyed over Germany precisely by a 190 or 110 creeping up on their six and shooting them down. Realistically, a tailgunner, wielding a relatively inaccurate flex-mounted gun in a huge target is overmatched when it comes to a shootout with a small target heavily armed with fixed-forward firing guns. That said, I doubt a bomber with all gun positions manned by a player would be an easy kill in AH. That is precisely what I meant by a "team experience" and you know it.
As to changes to bring bombers more back into reason...Well first I'd look at the accuracy of flex mounted machine guns, which I think may be too high. The bombing accuracy thing has been discussed at length. I think a SINGLE player should control and fire one gun position in the formation at a time...the tail guns, or the ball turrets, or the top guns, etc. Additional players would mean additional guns firing simultaneously. Thus there would be some REASON to have gunners join your plane. Finally, I'd take a look at the drone leash bugs and what I call the "iron gunner" problem-Even a single ping in the canopy region in fighter combat often leads to a pilot-kill and POOF. We've all seen that. OTOH, I've seen many instances of shooting at a gunner position on a buff formation, landing many pings right where the human gunner would be, and it continues to fire.
Yet you have no trouble with GVs, shore batteries, CV groups or PT boats. You can turn an entire CV group with a few mouse clips, when in reality those ships were manned by crews in the thousands. Is that realistic? No. It's called a compromise.
GVs an PT boats only come in multiples of one, and don't have the same strategic effect on the game that bomber formations do. Manned guns are by definition locked to the landscape of the base they are defending, so the comparison there doesn't really hold water. Your CV group comparison would be pretty damming, except for a few little details. Details like the fact that each side only gets a very limited number of them, and they have to creep about at 30 knots. If any and every player in the game could repeatedly up his own CV group from virtually any base, then that would make it a different story. But such is not the case.
