Question, if we now need proof that a 75mm and up shell fired from a tank shot down aircraft or it has to go....can I say I want proof of where we took large masses of land with 10 troops. Oh, it took us thousands to gain a little land? Then it should take thousands of troops to take a base, and if we're taking a base on a new island it should take even more (utmost respect for the troops, referring to Normandy). I have proof we needed thousands of troops (among other things) to take some land, so where's my base capture requiring thousands of people?
As said, we have:
>Correct guns
>Correct flight models
>Correct Turret elevations/rotation speeds
>Correct gun modeling (muzzle velocity, drop, range, etc.)
>Correct bullet penetration
>Correct armor values
So if a 75mm+ round were to be fired with the correct lead how would it
not penetrate the thin armor of a plane and shoot it down? Would it take luck? Yes. Would it take patience? Yes. Would it take a few tries? Yes Would it kill the pilot/plane if fired with the right lead and hit said plane? Yes.
We will always have things that did not happen in real life because we get more tries. I sure don't remember hearing of my grandfather getting shot down and appearing in a tower, hell took him getting shot down twice in a few hours to get home! Should we have to walk back to our tower or wait for rescue...wait you didn't bail? Best cancel that account.
Not trying to be mean, but clearly you're over-reacting, it may not have happened, it may have happened...who knows, the point is it "could" happen with all the correct data that we have for a fact put into effect.