Originally Posted by
rowman
In WWII, and even today, there are Bombers and there are Fighter aircraft. Both are manned by someone "dressed as pilots". Bombers are ususlly escorted by fighters. One is designed to carry a heavy payload and drop weapons from the belly. The other is designed to be fast, manurverable and capable of air to air combat.
Now we all know that a Loon flies over a target and drops bombs on that target. That includes Bomb Towers. They target them just like any other structures. So in fact Loons fly at a higher altitude than the tower itself. This has been true for the entire history of warfare, all ground based antiaircraft, even when atop a tower, must shoot upward.
So you accept that a Loon flying at the same altitude as another Loon cannot "bomb" each other, yet a bomber below that loon should be able to?
.
In the entire history of warfare, there has always been an advantage to higher ground. The call was always "run to the hills", not "run to the valley". High ground allows for sight advantage, and range advantage (gravity works with you). So mideval castles had walls and towers to allow them to see farther, shoot farther, and yes, drop things on invading troops like hot oil, or rocks. They were not built that high to defend against the then nonexistent aircraft.