Not a stretch in my opinion, I'm making a point. Just because you've never seen it done doesn't mean anything, except that maybe the rules are wrong or the idea wasn't imagined by the writers. Or they had to trim to fit the rules into a reasonable package.
I've never done it either, not because I haven't wanted to, but because it is wrong in my opinion. And there'd be nothing to gain tactically if I tried it the way I feel it should work. If I were in a combat and tried to use an atmosphere (say, a gas giant) by diving my smaller ships into it, there's nothing to prevent my opponent's capital ships from following, at full thrust and agility, provided they have streamlining of course (and few wouldn't given the rules). And the ensuing dogfight in atmo, and under gravity, between a long, heavy, large capital ship and short, light, small fighters would be run EXACTLY the same as if they were in vacuum and deep space with ZERO performance difference. That makes sense? I'd like a little more veracity to my rules, without resorting to too many "magic tech" handwaves
But the Traveller rules allow a 1Mton behemoth to operate in atmo, at 6G, as agilely as a 10ton 6G fighter, in exactly the same way as in space. Tell me that makes sense 
