Great in the Med, gives a lot of employment to the air/sea rescue boys
It just didn't have the range wanted. The A-20 went from 400 gallons to 540 gallons to 725 gallons. The B-25 went from 670 gallons on early C & D to 974 gallons in later C &D and all later aircraft in the wings, various ferry tank/combat tanks fitted later. B-26s started with 962 gallons in the wings with different arrangements of ferry tanks in the aft bomb bay.
So what? The Mosquoito only carried 458 gallons and had a far better range than any of those. The P-51D only carried 186 gallons and it flew further than any of them. Part of the reason was a much higher cruise speed! You analysis here is crude, war isn't so simple - aeronautics aren't so simple..
More to the point, Hurricanes were doing most of the tactical bombing in the Med and the Pe 2 out-ranged those significantly.
And as we have found out, it wasn't a Mosquito lite. It didn't really have the speed to keep it out of trouble.
Well speed is a factor. It's not the only factor, but it's a factor. I suspect speed is the main reason why the Pe 2 had a much lower loss rate than an A-20 in Soviet use (or an Il2)
According to this, the rate of missions per loss was:
IL-2 (two seat) 26
IL-2 (single seat) 13
So given that the A-20 was a successful "light" bomber for the Desert Air Force in 1942 and 1943, that they had similar range and bomb loads, and given that the Pe-2 was (as a dive bomber) more accurate, and based on the above statistics - could survive almost three times as many missions in a row before being shot down. And it could carry rockets!... I think it's a safe bet that the Pe-2 would have been pretty useful in the Med.
Maybe then they could have used their A-20s more for torpedo bombing though they already had the excellent Beaufighter for that.
Bombers are essentially bomb trucks, how much tonnage over what distance.
If you can't reach the target it is useless. IF it requires 3 trips to do the same damage as another plane can with one it doesn't look good either.
That is certainly one way to look at it, but I don't think it's the only way. You did a good job of articulating the essence of our disagreement though. "Bomb Truck" is basically how the US approached heavy bomber missions in WW2 and in the Korean War and Vietnam, with limited and diminishing effectiveness. But it's not just about tonnage and range - to me it is a very simplistic way to evaluate a bomber.
Range and bomb load matter, of course. But accuracy, speed, survivability, performance, and versatility also matter. There is more than one kind of bombing mission, there is more than one kind of target. There is more than one type of threat.
And more than one way to accomplish a mission.
Other missions (recon, strafing, transport interceptor, etc) are icing on the cake.
Being difficult to fly isn't in the plus column.
I think the Pe-2 was easier to fly (and more maneuverable than the others), maybe you are thinking of the B-26? Pe-2 was qualified for acrobatics: loops, rolls, steep bank turns etc., according to that USAAF film you posted earlier, the A-20 wasn't rated for that. I know the B-26 wasn't!