The V-72 was a private venture to cater to foreign needs, and was ordered by the French and that order was taken over by the British, who named it Vengeance. When lend-lease came into effect, it require a USAAF designation, and A-31 was picked. When the US entered the war, they dipped into production and used them as target tugs. The British used them as dive bombers, notably during Imphal and Kohima, to good effect. They were a crappy airplane due to CW engine garbocity, as well as zero forward visibility and poor take-off characteristics, but they were said to be accurate dive bombers, due to the wing's lack of incidence. The US developed a version called A-35 with wing incidence, wherein it became a better target tug, but lost bombing accuracy.
Perhaps you would like to counter with the tale of the Whitley bomber. There never was an A-35 version of that one.
And guess what? The British found a use for it in Burma... as a target tug.
You missed out the bit where did praiseworthy service, before it was cast aside in haste.
Recommended reading Ground Attack Aircraft of World War II by Christopher Shores, then there's Peter S Smith (a great fan of dive bombers) - try 'Dive Bomber! an illustrated History, or Dive Bombers in action, or Close Air Support an illustrated history from 194 to the present, from p.106 "The only genuine dive bomber to finally to be used by the RAF was the Vultee Vengeance, which was used by four RAF and two Indian air force squadrons in Burma. Their accuracy was phenomenal and their work was highly praised. After the various Arakan campaigns the main role of these squadrons became holding off Japanese attacks against the surrounded garrisons at Kohima and Imphal in 1944. Here the Vengeance units were called upon to drop their bombs onto enemy positions that were within only a few feet from the defenders."
Some - target tug!
I don't know if I prefer the jet or the propeller version. Both are cool planes. I have the Hasegawa model kit of the propeller version. Don't know if I'll ever try to put it together.
The jet version also looks like it could fly alongside the X-wing and Y-wing as a Rebel Starfighter.
The USN and American army tested the planes. Rejected same as described. As for the Whitely?
Therein lies a curious counter. The Whitely did not need to be "fixed" with the new wing, did it? The A-31/35 was a turkey.
When the P-40 is a better and more accurate dive bomber, one has problems defending the A-31/35
Hasegawa also did the jet version - the 72nd kit had a new sprue with the intakes and exhaust. IIRC it was for the Japanese market only but some escaped into the wider world.
Really, sources please? Close Air Support again p.115 - "A political decision removed them but the RAAF continued to fly close-support missions with Curtiss Kityhawks, although with less accuracy and a higher casualty rate as these fighters were not so robust on the jungle airstrips as the Vengeance's had been".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vultee_A-31_Vengeance
Though an M3 Lee would be a terror to IJA armor and Infantryit was a case of bad being better than nothing. As soon as proper aircraft showed up, the Vultees were kicked back to scut work. It was BURMA the place where all the castoffs and rejects wound up;
----------------------------------------------------------------Though an M3 Lee would be a terror to IJA armor and Infantry
The Brewster Bermuda
At some point Short wanted to produce Bermudas under licence in Belfast, but got cold feet.
They were planning to stick a pair of Merlins on later versions of the P-67. But seeing as there were no Axis heavy bombers to Massacre the whole project was cancelled after the first prototype was destroyed.XP-55 and his two competitors, XP-54 and XP-56. I kind of prefers the XP-67, but performance sucked.