There's plenty of gun-camera footage from WW2 that says otherwise. Gun-camera footage was reviewed after every mission and any pilot whose gun-camera footage showed him shooting empty ground while enemy units could be seen elsewhere would be grounded. If your CO saw footage of you continually shooting at nothing, you'd be stuck scrubbing toilets while all your buddies were off getting the glory.
My point is that, as long as strafes target a spot on the ground instead of enemy units, they are an unrealistic waste of munitions. No human behaves the way the stupid AI does when it comes to strafes. The difficulty of hitting the target should be addressed through the amount of damage done, not by making it nearly impossible to hit anything that can move.
Millitary Aviation History made an amazing video called "The Great Tank Destruction Myth ft. The Chieftain." In the video he explains just how effective or more accurately ineffective airplanes were at destroying tanks. The most striking and useful example in the video to me was the British test fire on a Panther. The British actually took a captured Panther, painted it entirely white, put it in the middle of a field with no cover, and then strafed it several times with Hawker Typhoons. The Typhoons fired 64 rockets, but even in this perfect situation they only hit the Panther with 3 out of 64 rockets.
Whatever gun camera footage you've seen was extremely deceptive because it doesn't matter at all how much it looks like you hit a target, it only matters if you actually did which is another thing that the video gives examples of, which is extremely exaggerated kill claims by pilots. This isn't usually even the fault of the pilot it's just a result of the fact that there isn't any way to observe the effect of fire on target when you just flew past it at several hundreds of MPH and you just blew a bunch of debris in the air. It was also common for planes from different squadrons to both strafe a target and both claim a kill. Also the gun camera footage online is probably only the most impressive and not the most average example.
Weaponry and aircraft were nowhere near as precise as they are today, to expect WW2 era aircraft to be able to somehow target and track a target is absurd, because that was impossible. When a plane in WW2 strafed a target it commited to a path and took that path, it didn't change direction at the last second to correct for the movement of a vehicle or squad because that's not how momentum and inertia work and their weapons were fixed and unguided.
Aircraft were indeed effective at attacking ground targets in WW2, but their effectiveness against infantry was mostly psychological and their physical effectiveness was only exceptional against static targets, or convoys with thinly or non-armored vehicles that could be destroyed by indirect hits.
Also, "getting the glory" are you serious? There isn't a single thing glorious about gunning down a bunch of virtually defenseless people on the ground, now dogfighting, that's glorious.