Labelling the Battle a being designed as a pure strategic bomber is incorrect and without a basis in fact.
The battle was in response to a specification was for a "Light day bomber" to replace the Hart/Hind. The Hart and Hind, when used in combat, had been used almost exclusively as tactical bombers.
Was the Battle designed as a ground attack aircraft? Well, based on the specs and development history, attacking military targets such as troop--tactical use--was one of the roles that it was expected to accomplish. (And of course, one it notoriously failed at accomplishing.) It certainly was not developed exclusively as merely a ground support aircraft. But it was certainly not developed to be used only as a strategic bomber, solely to be used to destroy the enemy's economic ability to wage war.
BTW, as early as January of 1939 AOC-in-C of Bomber Combat indicated that the Battle should not be used in hostile airspace because the already obsolete Battle was too vulnerable.
Anyway, there were very few aircraft that were designed primarily exclusively for ground support and fewer that made it into production. Most planes used for close support were developed to perform a number of duties (e.g., the Douglas A-20) or adopted to perform the role (the Lockheed P-38). Even dive bomber advocates saw dive bombers as being used for strategic bombing and various tactical missions that were not truly ground support. (Indeed, none of the carrier dive bombers were designed as ground attack aircraft if you want really to consider what the original post actually asks. Their primary missions were killing ships not directly supporting ground troops.)
Really, only the aircraft that that were designed to be primarily ground attack aircraft (attacking enemy troops, armor, ground weapons, etc.) that saw action in any numbers in WW II that I can think of were the IL-2 and He-129. (Arguably, you might count the He-123 and possibly the Ju-87, also. However, both were designed to also be used as tactical bombers, for precision attacks on such things as factories, supply dumps, etc.)
Actually he hasn't. If you'd bothered to read the OP properly (rather than just seeing what you want to see) you would know that it only involved aircraft specifcially designed for ground attack. It has been pointed out repeatedly on this thread that the Battle was designed as a strategic bomber.
And do you honestly think the Battle was worse than the Breda 88? Really? Honestly?