You provided your opinion, and I disagreed. Happy to move on
That is simply a misrepresentation of what has happened.
You provided an opinion on post 41 :
IRL it was extremely difficult for planes to reliably hit tanks with direct fire...
I provided historic fact that paint a different picture.
WWII planes could reliably hit other planes that moved 400 KM, so hitting a Tank which by comparison was sitting duck was much easier.
Further proof of that is that when the RAF decided to use Hurricanes vs Tank they equipped them with Guns and when Luftwaffe decided decided to use Stuka vs tanks they also equipped it with guns and they even designed a plane for that role which also carried guns.
Reliability for hitting tanks with guns can be easily seen in Rudel record who is credited with 519 tank destroyed. (Even if the number is inflated half the number 259 or even 1/3 173 is still impressive and strong indication of airplane had little trouble hitting tanks).
The fact that after the was the US force decided to develop a CAS airplane and decided to build it around a gun further supports the theory that airplanes can hit tank reliably.
Now you are entitled to your opinion but I have the fact do not agree with that opinion. In sort you expressed an opinion I provided theory based on documented facts.
If you disagree with the facts I have pointed out feel free to do so but I have not interest in being involved in "forum fight " with people who disagree with me as person and use ad hominem arguments.