Wow, very interesting. Finnish Air Force faced a similar situation. The Brewsters were less maneuverable and climbed worse than the I16s and I153s they faced. They were marginally faster though. Wind's lectures were especially intended for Brewster pilots. "How to wage war in the BW"...
The FAF solution for "not going to win any maneuvering contests" was classic BnZ tactics. Attack from above and use the element of surprise. TnB was a big no-no, and head on shots were to be avoided.
Interesting differences in philosophy between the different air forces!!
Camo, that's probably more a case of apples and oranges. If the Brewesters had x6 .50 cals and heavy armor, and was used mainly in low altitude ground attack, then perhaps Finnish tactics would have been closer to those with the P-40
At the time (mid war), the P-40 had a marginal turning(?)/rolling advantage over the 109/190 but no speed or climb advantage. It also didn't have the numbers through much of the early Med. and when used for ground attack was even less likely to have an advantage in either surprise or altitude.
The ultimate philosophy chosen to overcome the P-40's limitations by the US Air Corp was the P-51, P-47 and P-38. I believe the Me-109G was the ultimate solution for the Finns, combined with those tactics. Of course, having some operational discretion on when to engage and when not to engage makes those tactics even more valid
Charon
