Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
I read it in a book 12+ years ago but don't remember which one. I'll have a look around and see if I can find it. The other source of the info was my father. He was with the 490th bomb Group, 8th Air Force and when I quoted what I had read to him about Doolittle, he went off on Doolittle using very colorful language. Apparently he too knew that Doolittle was the cause of the B-24s being moved to the 15th Air Force. My fathers colorful language was due to the fact that he was moved to Italy along with the Liberators and went from being quartered in a cozy heated quonset hut to living in a tent.This is doubly interesting because both Kenney and Doolittle were reputed to be among the most technically savvy generals! What did they know about these aircraft (B-24 / A-35) or the dive bombing technique that turned them off to them/it? Do you have a reference for Doolittle's antipathy to the Liberator? I'd like to read more on that. B-24 and PB4Y has always been a favorite of mine, but don't know much about them other than some very favorable operational accounts
Ju87B-1 (the model in service in 1939-1940), "was to prove effective in the hands of expert pilots, who, in dives of eighty degrees to within 2,300 feet from the ground, could deliver a bomb with an accuracy of less than thirty yards. Even average pilots could achieve a twenty-five percent success rate in hitting their targets
Bombing a 25 foot circle, SBDs could expect to obtain 1.4 per cent hits, the Corsair 1.1 per cent. Attacking a 250 foot circle the SBDs recorded 75.1 per cent while Corsairs scored 68.2 per cent. "Unlike the SBD, which best performed in a 70 degree dive, experimentation showed the F4U could bomb at angles up to 85 degrees." I have no doubt that as Rich mentioned the Corsair was not routinely used as a steep angle dive bomber.
Actually, the Corsair was originally designed to be a bomber as well as a fighter. The XF4U had bomb compartments in the wings which is where the guns wound up reposing.
As far as I can gather, Renrich was correct, the TBF was not employed as a dive bomber (at least typically). My statement that it was, is suspect, since I have only been able to find a couple of references to its potential use as a dive bomber but no instances of its actual use. I thought the best possibility might be chichi jima, but haven't found any verification of that. The use of the landing gear as a dive break is mentioned on a number of sites and I can assure you that Grumman iron works would be capable of producing landing gear assemblies with that kind of strength, so perhaps it was occasionally used in that manner.
Would I want to do it? Personnally, I don't like the idea. Let the F4U studs adopt that tactic. Evidently the F4U Main gear doors (purpose designed?) acting as ersatz dive breaks:
WHINE about the sair and hellcat [Archive] - Ubisoft Forums
with F4U dive methodology described in this forum in a lengthy post reproduced from FAA test pilot Capt Eric Brown's Wings of the Navy.
Scrivner's TBF/TBM Avenger in action Series pub states that a weapon delivery on a moving vessel was to attack in a 30-45 degree dive to a release point at 500 ft or less altitude. An intervalometer was used to release the bombs (presumably a stick of 4 x 500 pounders) in a string 60-75 feet apart.