Okay, look, I'm not taking sides in this specific "Ta-152" debate because I just don't know, and frankly, the Ta-152 didn't fly and fight enough to HAVE a reputation, one way or the other.
But two points Karnak.
1. TURNING and handling is under discussion. Not weight, top speed, or other factors that are conveniently listed in the data sheets for these planes. Provide me sustained turn rate and radius data from WWII testing of these planes. Let me know how that goes. Tell me what evidence, if any, we actually DO have for relative turning performance for most WWII planes. Which leads me directly to point 2....
2. The extent to which we dismiss "anecdotal evidence" from pilots is frankly, asinine. I think a real pilot can recognize when they are winning or loosing a turning contest as easily as we can in this game. Pilots were able to CLEARLY recognize that the Japanese machines out-classed them in a turn fight, for instance. Their survival depended on it, and that survival factor makes highly doubtful of any notion that pilots were propagandizing, obfuscating, or "Whistling Dixie" in their combat reports.
No, you can't plug anecdotes in and come up with a flight model, but you SHOULD maybe examine that flight model for fallibility if, after CAREFUL examination of reports, its results conflict with enough information from those who actually flew the damn things.