This is a great topic, and one that unfortunately never may be *fully* explored outside of weapons-cold mock dogfights. I say this not because modern air combat precludes 1 on 1 guns/rear-aspect meetings, but because modern air strategy and the evolving realities of late 20th/early 21st century warfare make most air campaigns a lopsided affair.
I'm no expert, but seems to me that every air campaign the United States has been involved in since, oh, just around Rolling Thunder '65, has been categorized by heavy emphasis on neutralization of enemy air assets in the opening days of the campaign, followed by a prolonged SEAD/Interdiction phase. Large scale air battles are no longer occurring; major military powers are no longer fighter each other in traditional wars, and any nation that finds itself against a major military power will attempt to negate the A/C numerical advantage of the latter by simplying staying on the ground and relying on air defense networks.
Sure, there have been A2A kills in many military operations post-Vietnam. However, they have resulted from attempts made by the "lesser military power" to strike back in the skies, and their sorties are often unorganized, sporadic, and poorly advised. Modern, organized air power has no problem eliminating these threats, often at ranges greater than 100nm.
For 1v1 guns/rear-aspect only combat to occur with any regularity, there needs to be a fight between two similiar military powers, or the air campaign needs to be of so prolonged a nature that the lesser air power can choose their battles and allocate their resources effectively (think Israel vs. her neighbours, for decades. In fact, I'd bet the Israeli Air Force has the most guns hot experience with close range 1v1's out of any other modern air power)
Anyway, to the issue of how a close-in 1v1 might be different in today's planes as opposed to WWII craft. Again, take this with a grain of salt, the following opinion following comes from flight simulations only. But when I play the Falcon series, or any other modern air combat sim, I'm always amused at how the maneuevers are so nearly the exact same, yet require a different skillset to be competitive with. Closure rate and throttle maintenence are very much more important to pay attention to, whereas energy maintenance is no longer the utmost thing. Manuevers are wider, there are less crossing snapshots but more of an importance upon choosing the proper type of pursuit (lag, true, lead). Even weaker climbing modern planes still climb like a banshee, so maintaining a 'perch' is not the methodical dance of move/countermove it is in WWII craft. These are my impressions, someone else may have others, but I think overall it is safe to state that there are similiarities in concept that may be slightly altered in application. Assuming a guns-only fight, I see no reason that the old adage of "it's not the plane, it's the pilot" would not still hold true (assuming, of course, you're not doing something like taking a MiG-21 against an F-16).
