[Graham Boak]

The Pe 2 had dive brakes, and was at least as capable a divebomber as the Ju 88, which used the technique successfully on a number of occasions. I believe the career of Soviet dive-bomber specialist Polbin (sp?) and his techniques with the Pe 2 has been written up in English-language sources. Perhaps Christopher Shores' Ground Attack Aircraft mentioned earlier in the thread? The Pe 2 was often, even most often, used as a level bomber, though this is barely mentioned in Peter Smith's book on the type, which concentrates almost entirely on its use as a divebomber. But then that is Peter Smith's obsession.

The Tu 2 is another matter. It is not clear to be how capable it would have been as a divebomber, but there seems to be no evidence of its use in the role. I think the Do 217 a closer equivalent than the He 177, although some do compare it with the Ju 88.

Tom: re the technical point of wing incidence. I think you are being a bit casual with terms, and confusing wing-body incidence with angle-of-attack (or wing to free stream incidence). Dive bombers were not designed with wings at zero w-b incidence, as this would mean flying with the fuselage at an uncomfortable nose-up attitude and cause problems in take-off and landing. For a vertical dive to remain vertical, then the wing would have to be at zero angle-of-attack, or more strictly at the angle producing zero lift, allowing for tailplane trim. However this can be obtained in an aircraft of conventional configuration, where the wing is mounted at a positive w-b incidence, in order to provide low drag and good views in level flight at a positive Angle of Attack.

This does make the point, however, that to obtain a truly vertical dive, with the wing at a zero-lift AoA, requires the fuselage to be over the vertical. No wonder it was difficult to carry out, and so many were misled as to the steepness of their dives. I suspect that most divebombers had larger than normal tailplanes to use trim to reduce this effect.