I think we need to be a little clearer on terminology. In the WWII timeframe the USN identified four different air attack profiles
1. dive bombing
2. glide bombing
3. horizontal bombing at level flight
4. low-level bombing at minimum altitudes
Dive bombing was defined as occurring at angles of attack ranging from 90° down to 60°. If you were to look at the major "real" dive bombers from the war years (SBD, D3A, Ju87, SB2C and so on) you would quick note that they all have common features, among which was that they carried their primary ordnance center-lined and they all employed bomb displacement gear to swing said ordnance when released clear of the propeller arc. Bomb displacement gear was developed in the late 1920s when it was determined that a steep angle dive and release could present some unpleasant results if the ordnance were to come in contact with a spinning propeller. This unhappy fact was in conflict with the greater accuracy, not to mention certain foiling of defensive fire solutions, one could achieve with near vertical angles of attack and a center-line carrying of the ordnance. Thus the displacement gear would swing the bomb clear in an arc and producing a known trajectory pattern for which one could account in one's sighting picture. The other handy piece of equipment was a dive brake of some kind, not so much to slow the aircraft, but to provide stabilization during the ordnance delivery. This was found in various forms on the major dive bomber players; its absence was a noticeable performance limiter in others such as the SB2U.
Such WW2 dive bombing attacks as defined by and executed by the USN (90° down to 60°) fell easily in the realm of the SBD and the SB2C, both of which were equipped with said bomb displacement gear and dive brakes. A dive bombing attack, correctly executed, especially when in the 75° plus angles of attack range was very difficult to defend against from either directed AA fire or even from a CAP. (The SB2U, again, was a whole different ballgame in spite of the presence of displacement gear but without a dive brake.)
Glide bombing was defined as occurring at angles of attack ranging from 55° down to 30°. Glide bombing by attack, as opposed to fighter, aircraft was where one could expect to find torpedo-bombers as no displacement gear is required. The TBF, then, was not a "dive bomber" nor was it used for dive bombing attacks as defined by the USN. There are two issues here, the construction of the aircraft and doctrine, the second being somewhat driven by the first.
If you look at the TBF/TBM you can see that the ordnance is carried internally in a closed bomb bay. The airplane did not have displacement gear and so, with the combined factors of internal storage and simple drop mechanism, glide bombing the best the type could do. Quite frankly, a discussion centered on lowering ones landing gear to reduce diving speed, and thus facilitate a dive bombing profile, is so much nonsense . . . no displacement gear equals no dive bombing.
The TBF/TBM could most certainly execute a glide bombing attack and, especially as worthy targets for torpedoes went away, quite often did. Glide bomb, however, remained a very dangerous way of doing business. Although one keeps one's speed up, it requires a straight in approach on a target which, if shooting back, is straight into the optimal angle of defensive fires. This is similar to the torpedo attack profile which was not known for happy outcomes. Note the results with VMSB-241 at Midway, in the aforementioned SB2U (the non-dive bombing dive bomber) . . . losses not as bad as VT-8 (det), VT-8, VT-6 or VT-3, but certainly bad enough, and mostly due to over-exposure. The only advantage over the torpedo approach was speed, the more the better.
Horizontal level bombing is usually, and correctly, thought of as being in the province of the multi-engine bomber - more often than not carried out at some altitude above the expected effective AA fire. What is often forgotten is that the TBF/TBMs were equipped with Norden bomb sights (after all, the Norden bomb sight was developed for the USN long before the USAAF ever got their hands on one). But what should be remembered is that the USN was well aware that level bombing of moving ships was pretty much an exercise in futility. Level bombing by TBF/TBMs was pretty much limited to shore targets and usually from those higher altitudes. At the end of the war it was not unusual to see flights of TBMs unloading their ordnance on stationary targets such as the ferry docks at Hakodate on Hokkaido while the dive bombers and fighter-bombers went after the ferries themselves. Interestingly, in the last month of combat operation by the fast carriers of TF-38, not a single torpedo was dropped. TBMs were exclusively bomb haulers, almost exclusively in the level bombing profile, and SUBCAP depth bomb carriers.
Low level bombing was originally the preferred method for fighters, back to the days of F4Fs carrying itty-bitty bombs. Some early fighter squadrons, VF-42 and VF-3 come to mind, dispensed with the idea entirely and removed the bomb racks from under the wings of their aircraft. No racks, no low level bombing. All that said, the advent of the rocket for low level attacks reopened the field to just about anyone who wanted to play. All the active carrier aircraft by the end of the war, F6F, F4U, FM-2, TBM, TBF, SB2C carried and dispensed rockets with great abandon at maritime and land targets. One F6F driver even was able to down a Japanese airplane with a rocket. Napalm was another interesting capability brought increased usage of low level bombing in support of ground forces.
And then there were the variations on a theme. Fighters such as the F6F and F4U, by the end of the war were known for their bomb hauling ability. It is oft bandied about that these fighters, when not performing more glamorous fighter type shooting up the bad guys' airplanes duties or even those pesky, and much more common, low level attacks, executed dive bombing attacks. Well, yes . . . and no. A more correct description was a very steep glide bombing profile or, perhaps, a not so steep dive bombing attack. The truth to the matter was these attacks were usually conducted at attack angle ranging from about 40° up to around 65°, on rare occasion up as high as 70°. Note that this profile neatly straddles the high end of the glide profile, the 5° demarcation between glide and dive profile and into the low end of the dive profile. While still facing the potential problem of traveling through some prime defensive fire terrain, the speeds at which such attacks could be executed paid off more for the attacker then the angle of approach did for the defender . . . not to mention that Japanese AA fire had its, ummm, problems, which only got worse as time went on. Bombs on these types were usually carried somewhat off center and attached to underside pylons. This method provided a separation factor which allowed them to enter the attack profile nether area somewhere between the glide bombing and dive bombing profiles. It was certainly not, popular tales to the contrary, a common practice to lower landing gear in the F4U, nor the F6F for that matter, when delivering any bomb attack. It should be remembered that speed was the name of the game, more speed meant less time under fire. The inconvenient fact arguing against such an odd practice was that there were limits to the speeds at which one should or could lower one's landing gear, specifically pointed out the respective pilot's manuals. In neither of the manuals is there any discussion of lowering landing gear in a dive profile; in fact, for example, the F4U manual warns against EXCEEDING 375 kts in a dive when carrying ordnance. The gunsight in these fighters could be used to arrive at the correct release point for the weight of bomb carried at the speed the airplane was travelling; there was no need to slow down, nor any desire to do so. Generally, attacks by these fighter attacks would be generally classed as low-level and glide bombing attacks were one to adhere to the doctrinal definitions . . . if a true dive-bombing attack profile was called for, there were dedicated aircraft for that purpose and fighters were better used for AA suppression.
A big part of the problem in discussing dive bombing and USN aircraft is correct use of the terminology. Dive bombing has a very specific meaning and does not mean simply some degrees off the horizontal. By the USN's own definitions, the TBF/TBM was a glide bomber, not a dive bomber.
Rich