BBadanov (#10366),
...
But, it's a Vengeance IIA (ex AF941), so you are correct, it is not a Mk.IV...
I'm not completely correct, BB, I think Mk.Is were Northrop-built, and the IIs Vultee-built (as Vultee did not have the production capacity to fulfil both the British (taken over from the collapsed French) and American contracts.
I, II. III were exactly the same aeroplane. All Mark IIIs and IVs were Lend-Lease. Some later Is and IIs were Lend-Lease, the "A" may denote this. All 'ops' were flown in Is and IIs.
I never saw, much less flew or dived a IV. The Mark IV was "a horse of a different colour". Built at the behest of the USAAC, they put a 4° Angle of Incidence on the wing (which had previously had none), and called it their A-35 (the earlier version was the A-31). I would thnk the IV/A-35 would be a better aeroplane, but a worse dive-bomber.
Then the US washed their hands of both models, which were used only as target tugs by both the RAF and RAAF (apart from a few palmed off on Brazil and the Free French in N.Africa). [Source: "Vengeance" by Peter C. Smith]
(Caution: the "Vengeance pilot cockpit panel" illustrated (and photographed) in the above, and in Air Publications "Pilot's Notes", is nothing like a Mk I-II-III. I suspect what they have is from the sole survivor (Camden Museum, Norellan, Sydney): this is EZ999, a Mk.I kitted out (with 0.50 rear gun) as a Mk.IV. This panel
may be from a Mk.IV, but I think it's a "bitsa", cobbled together from any bits found lying around.
It was a "SEAC" roundel in SEAC. We just painted out the red centre. In the RAAF, they did the same, then made the white centre bigger.
Danny.