[glider1]

I do not doubt that the ORB states the reduction was in the, "liberal use of aircraft in support rôles owing to the shortage of both Typhoon and Spitfire aircraft and the weariness of the pilots."

Weariness means weariness i.e. tiredness, lack of sleep, need to relax some R and R. Had the reason been losses, then I have no doubt they would have said losses. There is no shame in that and a number of RAF sqadrons were withdrawn during the war from the battles in 1940 to the Battle of Britain, the far east and the RAF never hesitated to say, losses were the reason.

Aircraft wear out, they need regular maintanence, you can push an aircraft past its regular servicing schedule so far, but sooner or later it needs to be done. As mentioned in my earlier posting I gave examples of squadrons being pulled out of the front line for reequipping, retraining and even one wing that was told to hold back due to losses. This was 122 wing and they were told not to go out in groups of less than 16 for a short period of time.
With reduced resources you have to cut your cloth for what you have available and the decisions seem sensible to me. If you have artillery that can do counter battery work then let them have first go, why not, thats what they were designed to do.

You keep going on about unarmoured Typhoons and that clearly isn't the case they were well protected against mg fire, with the obvious radiator problem. Obviously they were not as well protected as the Il 2 but that doesn't mean that they were lacking protection. You have not denied that the IL 2 would have been a much easier target to hit, as well as the losses, the availability rate for the IL 2 units might make interesting reading. They may well make it home when others wouldn't but those holes need to be repaired, and that takes time.

I could be wrong about the Wresel Bridge but my understanding was that these were more akin to a viaduct with massive foundations and the actual spans being some 75 meters in the air. Should this be the case an AP bomb would simply go through it and explode below with little impact on the span. Should you hit the foundation you would need some serious explosive to do any damage, a 1000 lb wouldn't even come close.
The Seine Bridges were a lot smaller and closer to the ground/water. Also most of them were stone bridges not steel bridges. With a stone bridge the blast will do a lot of damage to the stone structure, with a steel bridge the blast will simply go past the girders doing little if any damage.

Eventually you can wear them down but the Allied forces put a lot of effort into detroying those bridge with little benefit and I cannot see how the VVS would have done any better, they didn't have the equipment.