That was already covered. See data above.
Both B5N's and TBM's can dive to high speed. So can SBD's, D3A's, and lots of other planes. If a pilot with altitude is willing to blow altitude to avoid you, you will have a harder time shooting him down. That's just physics. But . . . all torpedo bombers -- TBM's, B5N's, Ju 88's, and Ki-67's -- are at 100 ft altitude and 200 mph near target. There's your huge advantage as a defender. That's why torpedo bombers are so very easy to shoot down that the vast majority of them (even Ju 88 formations and Ki-67 formations) die every mission they go out.
Brooke, I hope this helps to explain to you why regardless of the data that you present, that using the TBM-3 in early war PTO setups is a problem and not at all historical.
There are 3 stages to mounting a successful torpedo attack.
1. Approach to target.
2. Attack run
3. Egress
The difference in the balance between the TBM and B5N is in stage 1. When the IJN intercepts TBM's, they still have a fair chance of reaching a suitable drop point. When USN fighters intercept B5N's, the fighter's hold all the cards, and only the luckiest pilots get to drop their ord.
If Aces High had the TBD, the comparable difficulties facing torpedo pilots would be fairly equal. As is with the TBM as a substitute, this is not even close. If the aircraft itself can't be realistically substituted for, then the manner in which the substitute is utilized must be governed in order to achieve parity.
The logs from events only tells part of the story. I'm not saying that your data is not valid. It is valid, just incomplete. What is needed is a comprehensive study as to how the aircraft are employed, how many attackers make a torp run, success of attacks, the ability for defenders to mount attacks on torpedo planes, kills against torpedo planes, and effectiveness of tail gunners.
Should a study such as this be conducted, I am confident that the findings will bear the result of the TBM not being a wise choice for substitute without limitations.
Here's an example of the completely unrealistically (yet incredibly effective) method of using 20K TBM's to attack the carrier. Yes, most of the TBM's were shot down, but not before the carrier was crippled. It was finished off by a wave of unmolested SBD's, who went unopposed due to all the defenders needed to tackle the TBM's.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,348956.msg4608856.html#msg4608856If a competent Allied planner would use these assets like this consistently, the Allies would never lose. It is merely dumb luck if attacks fail, whereas dumb luck applies to the IJN if the attack is successful.