Sure, you would lose more bombers without fighters, but, flying in formation, you could get the job done.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I am not a bomber. I'm more about precision and being target-oriented. I have to rely on all parts of my game firing if I'm going to win.
Of course, with the increasing number of aeroplanes one gains increased opportunities for shooting down one's enemies, but at the same time, the possibility of being shot down one's self increases.
The more bombers, the less room for doves of peace.
Why does the Air Force need expensive new bombers? Have the people we've been bombing over the years been complaining?
I've always wanted to be a fighter pilot. But I don't want to kill people. I'd hate to.
During World War II, the pilot losses were staggering. In some bombing raids, as many as 80% of the planes that left did not return.
Most pilots learn, when they pin on their wings and go out and get in a fighter, especially, that one thing you don't do, you don't believe anything anybody tells you about an airplane.
Flying is one of the safest jobs in the Army as long as you don't drop out. If you do drop out, you are a dead man, and dropping out means, usually, that you have made a mistake or let go of your grip.
I would think flying would be pretty cool. You would be able to fly away from all your enemies and get where you're going much faster. But being invisible? You probably wouldn't use that for the good of man.
The bomber will always get through. The only defense is in offense, which means that you have to kill more women and children more quickly that the enemy if you want to save yourselves.