Lee, in 'Open Cockpit' opines that Camels proved better for ground strafing because their lighter engines and natural tail heaviness made them easier to pull out of a dive than an SE or SPAD. D.H. 5s, the other aircraft of choice for low level pilot wastage were so chosen, Lee says bluntly, because they were useless at anything else.

Well I admire Lee, and have always been a fan of "No Parachute" (not having read...yet..."Open Cockpit") but I would take that statement with a grain of salt.
EDIT: Reread your post again a few minutes ago. Should I have understood that he considered the DH5 useless and not the Camel? If so you can disregard the next paragraph. All the periods threw me off..hehe.

The Camel useless? In the fall of 1917 when he flew it?
Granted I was not there nor a Great War pilot but I find that statement a little much at face value. He seemed damned glad to get it in "No Parachute." And we all know that the Camel had more victories awarded to it then any other Allied aircraft. Late war they were hard pressed by the DVII's but not helpless and certainly a match (or more then one) against the Alb's IMHO.

So why exactly were the Camels used for low level work quite a bit?
I have heard several reasons over the years. That the radial engines work better the lower the altitude. The great manuverabilty made it ideal for this type of work at low level. Combine the two with twin Vickers and great cockpit visibility and it sounds like a perfect fit. And he mentioned the "tail heavy" thing in "No Parachute" and I guess that makes a kind of sense? Someone had to do it as its importance became obvious. Se5's did this type of work too during German offensive operations and during 1918 but the Camel seemed preferred. I think the bombload (Coopers) was the same for both? And the Se didn't lose power "high up" like the radial Camels but I don't know. As we talked previously the 46 Squadron pilots like to fight high in their Pups vs the Alb and they had radials. And the obvious loss of power is never mentioned. But it seems an accepted fact that radials lost more power then inlines in thinner air. I am not an engineer but didn't the Snipe have a radial?
If their ever was an "official RFC reason" for this preference I do not recall it.

As for low level work, DH5s got it because they were not deemed much good for anything else. Bristols were solid for longer range recce and escort, plus they exposed two persons to the hazards of low level attack for no added hitting power. SE5s and Dolphins were air superiority fighters and best at high altitude. Camels were slower and well gunned, lacked the ceiling of SE5s, and there were a heck of a lot of them. So Camels it was. Had the war lasted longer we would have seen the Salamander take over the role.

Lee, in "Open Cockpit" recounts that before the Cambrai push they practised low level work and found that the tail-heavy Camel required constant forward pressure on the stick to fly steadily and safely at low level.

No worries. I'm accustomed to being misunderstood.

To be clear, Lee rated the Camel highly, whilst also noting the danger of its twitchiness at low level.

ITOH, his opinion of ground strafing work is scathing, in a Camel or otherwise, including the inadequacy of 20lb Coopers.

You should read 'Open Cockpit', sir.

It has a valuable, quality of reflection missing from 'No Parachute' but lacks the immediacy, of course.

They are two different books by an astute individual, one depicting a man in the daily thick of it, the other the more reflective view of the seasoned warrior. Both fascinating and my personally highest rated WW1 aerial autobiographies by far.

Yes I have heard that about "Open Cockpit" and it is defintely on my list.