Sorry but I don't blame aircrews for trying to fly the mission in an inadequate and dangerous aircraft. The TBM should have been withdrawn from service and replaced with the SB2C-5 which had the required airframe strength to fly the missions safely.
I don't think it was that dangerous, or even "inadequate", in WWII ...mMaybe you have loss rates, to support this assertion? While you're at it, maybe present same for the Fairey so we might get a direct comparison?
The USN certainly valued divebombing post war and kept the SB2C on their carriers until replaced by the Skyraider, another torpedo-divebomber. The RN introduced a number of attack aircraft post war and the TBM wasn't considered to be one of them.
Sure, by 1955 everyone was looking to jets. By 1950, both dive- and torpedo-bombing were regarded largely as suicidal, against ships, due to advances in fighters.
The FAA got the post war TBM ASW aircraft for free... that kinda puts some thumbs on the scales as to whether they actually would have paid money for it.
I'd think that if the 'Cudas they already had in service were better at the job, the free Grummans would get a "thanks but no thanks", don't you? "I already have something better, appreciate the offer, but we're good" would be better than having to pay for retraining, and revised logistics chains as well. But no -- the FAA decided it better to take these free planes, and spend money retraining aircrew and establishing new logistics chains as well. That speaks to their opinions on the planes, don't you think? This in a UK working through austerity, where every pound counted? Yet they took the Grumman and retired the Fairey.
I see the Barra similar to the Helldiver - a wartime expedient laden with flaws (though not so many as the Curtiss, which was a pig, to be fair). But by 1950, no dive-bomber or torpedo attack against a target defended by fighters was getting anywhere ... which is why air forces moved on to jets for attack roles.