The RAAF's acquisition and use of the Vultee Vengeance remains controversial.
The Air Power Development Centre judged that the type's service was not "conspicuously good or bad", and Stewart Wilson described it as having a "somewhat indifferent career".
Historian Peter C. Smith has argued that the decision to withdraw the Vengeances from combat was mistaken, as the Royal New Zealand Air Force and United States Marine Corps successfully used dive bombers for close air support tasks in the South West Pacific until the end of the war and the RAAF could have built on No.
77 Wing's "great but limited achievement".
Similarly, Michael Nelmes has written that No.
77 Wing's dive-bombing operations were successful.
In contrast, American historian Eric Bergerud has written that by selling Australia Vengeances, the US Government "unloaded junk".
In his memoirs, Jones described the type as "a hopeless failure".
Australian historian Chris Clark has noted that one of the reasons the RAAF was excluded from major campaigns during the last years of the Pacific War was that many of its units were equipped with inferior aircraft such as the Vengeance.

The Australian Government and RAAF were embarrassed by the rapid withdrawal from service of aircraft that had been acquired at considerable cost.
However, their crews generally acknowledged the Vengeance's shortcomings and accepted the decision.
Evatt also came to regret the deal he struck which led to the acquisition of the Vengeance, and jokingly told Jones at a War Cabinet meeting to not "mention the bloody Vultees or I'll break your wrist".
The Air Power Development Centre's analysis of the Vengeance's RAAF career concluded that the type had been unsuited to the service's requirements, and "demonstrates the need to align force structure, doctrine and equipment".
The RAAF's acquisition and use of the Vultee Vengeance remains controversial. The Air Power Development Centre judged that the type's service was not "conspicuously good or bad", and Stewart Wilson described it as having a "somewhat indifferent career". Historian Peter C. Smith has argued that the decision to withdraw the Vengeances from combat was mistaken, as the Royal New Zealand Air Force and United States Marine Corps successfully used dive bombers for close air support tasks in the South West Pacific until the end of the war and the RAAF could have built on No. 77 Wing's "great but limited achievement". Similarly, Michael Nelmes has written that No. 77 Wing's dive-bombing operations were successful. In contrast, American historian Eric Bergerud has written that by selling Australia Vengeances, the US Government "unloaded junk". In his memoirs, Jones described the type as "a hopeless failure". Australian historian Chris Clark has noted that one of the reasons the RAAF was excluded from major campaigns during the last years of the Pacific War was that many of its units were equipped with inferior aircraft such as the Vengeance.
The Australian Government and RAAF were embarrassed by the rapid withdrawal from service of aircraft that had been acquired at considerable cost. However, their crews generally acknowledged the Vengeance's shortcomings and accepted the decision. Evatt also came to regret the deal he struck which led to the acquisition of the Vengeance, and jokingly told Jones at a War Cabinet meeting to not "mention the bloody Vultees or I'll break your wrist". The Air Power Development Centre's analysis of the Vengeance's RAAF career concluded that the type had been unsuited to the service's requirements, and "demonstrates the need to align force structure, doctrine and equipment".
Vultee Vengeance in Australian service