These days everything neatly fits into labelled boxes dependent on a thing’s purpose and performance. And when you design something new you often tailor it to solve a specific problem or role. We do this from lessons mostly learned during world war two.

Things was not as neat during the second world war. This is because a lot of the tactics, equipment and material used during the war did not even exists before the war and was practically made up on the spot as they went along.

For example, when the war broke out in ’39 four of the major belligerents of the second world war still used biplanes fighters in active service. The US Navy still used the Grumman F3F. The Soviets had the Il-15/Il-153. The Italians had the Fiat Cr.42 and the British had the Gloster Gladiator, made famous by the defence of Malta.

Yet when the war ended it was being fought with jets.

The same can be said in general of the military of all the major powers when the war broke out. In the USA there were officers on the general staff that opposed the development of tanks in favour of the cavalry. The French and British armies was still mainly equipped and organized for fighting a static trench war in the style of the battles that was fought during WW1. And the German army, despite shocking the world with its blitzkrieg, still had more horse drawn carts than trucks.

Yet again at the end of the war the armies fought using the same integrated combined arms approach that is still used, and taken for granted, on the modern battlefield.

So why do I go on about how much things changed during the war? Because it is important to understand that when you try to put things in neat little boxes as a historian after the war you run the risk of inventing something that never existed because your neat boxes certainly did not exist. An air-plane developed for a specific role often found itself performing in a different role all together as changes in tactics and technical developments changed during the war.

For example, it easy to take a concept like a fighter bomber for granted these days but fighter bombers were first introduced on a large scale during the battle of Britain, so until then it was a concept that was largely unknown to most people, including the generals fighting the war.

That said there were neat little boxes to put things in even then, just not the ones we use today. (Humans have always liked neat little boxes after all.)

Let’s start with the different types of combat aircraft that were used during WW2.

Fighters. Were used to shoot down other air-planes.

Fighter Bombers. Could blow things up on the ground and shoot planes down.

Ground Attack Aircraft. Were used to blow things up on the ground.

Anti-submarine patrol aircraft. Bombed submarines.

Dive-bombers. Bombed things by diving straight down at the ground at a steep angle.

Torpedo bombers. Attacked ships using torpedoes.

Light bomber, medium bomber, heavy bomber. They all bombed things.

Reconnaissance/Observation planes. They looked for stuff.

Transport planes. They carried stuff and troops.

Those were the main types of planes that I can think of on the top of my head. And what should be obvious from even this list is that there is already a lot of overlap. And it is about to get messier.

Take the infamous Ju-87, Germany’s primary attack aircraft. It was designed to be a dive bomber, that is to drop it bombs by diving down at a steep angle. During the war depending on its armament which evolved during the course of the war, (bombs or 37mm cannons) it was used as dive bomber and a ground attack aircraft. Both variants performed in the role of what we today would call CAS, close air support. It is interesting to note that the Ju-87 was developed to work as flying artillery. There was a concern before the war in the German High Command that the fast-moving panzer divisions would outdistance the still mainly horse drawn artillery. So, the Ju-87 was introduced to provide artillery support to the panzer division by precision bombing, basically inventing CAS before it was even a thing. Yet for the Germans of the time the Ju-87 was never a CAS air-plane as we know it.

Another example is the P-47 Thunderbolt, a USAAF fighter/fighter bomber. It, like practically all USAAF fighters, were initially developed to be a high-altitude escort fighter, able to protect the bomber fleets flying deep over enemy territory. It did okay in that role but didn’t really shine. It wasn’t until was relegated to be a low-level fighter bomber performing the ground attack role that it did shine. Becoming arguably one of the best close air support planes of the war. Yet it was built to shoot down fighters high among the clouds.

(The USAAF didn’t manage to develop a great escort fighter until they mated the A-36 Mustang with the Rolls Royce Merlin engine, creating the thoroughbred that was the P-51 Mustang. In fact, if you study WW2 planes you’d notice that the Merlin engine is the common denominator for many of the greatest allied planes of the war, including two of their best fighters.)

Then we have probably one of the greatest planes of WW2. The de Havilland Mosquito. Powered by two Merlin engines (there it is again) and mainly made of wood it served in practically every role that there was. Starting out as fast bomber, a type of light bomber, it also served as a Fighter, Night Fighter, a Ground attack plane, as a Reconnaissance plane, Anti shipping and anti-submarine plane and a transport plane. It did well in all roles and was the best in some. Yet you can’t really assign it specific role or say it was of a certain type of aircraft. (I love how its Wikipedia page just states that it was a multirole combat aircraft. It’s almost like it isn’t even trying.)

And then we have bombing in WW2. Which is an entire mess in and of itself. I think I could write twice as much than this answer, on just that topic and not be able to untangle it completely.

For one thing when does a target become tactical and when is a target strategical? Take Pearl Harbour. The Japanese Navy bombed the naval bases in Hawaii, which is strategic targets, with the aim of neutralizing the US Pacific Navy, a strategic target. But they did it using dive bombers and torpedo bombers, which could be said to be tactical bombers, and instead of targeting base infrastructure they bombed the naval ships, which is tactical targets. So, you could say it was a strategical bombing using tactical bombers and tactical targets. Not so neat any more.

Heavy bombers like B-17 and B-24 bombed factories in Germany but they also bombed shore defences in Normandy during D-day (and missed but that is another topic). So, were the Flying Fortress and the Liberator strategic or tactical bombers?

So, to answer your question.

The answer to the first part is in short; it’s complicated. Because the classifications we use today didn’t exist then and the ones that were used back then evolved during the war.

The answer to the second part is that planes often did very well in different roles during WW2, including ones they never were designed for. Often because the role did not exist when they were designed.

That said there were naturally lots of planes that was absolutely horrible in any roles including the one they were designed for. (Fairey planes I’m looking at you. The Swordfish doesn’t get you off.)