Regarding the use of 'correct tactics', here are several 'snipets'
In WWI, the Bristol F2 was introduced to replace earlier 2 seaters, and arrived on the front at the height of "bloody April" (when the average life expectancy of allied pilots was ~2 weeks). Leefe Robinson (VC) was put in charge of the first squadron of F2's on the assumption that he could provide good leadership and generally raise morale. On the first flight (which he also led), 6x F2a bumped into 5-6 Albatross from Jasta 11 (Richtofen's squadron). The F2a's formed a tight circle, the standard defensive manoeuver of the time - which was not an appropriate tactic for this particular type of aircraft - resulting in 4x F2a shot down (including Leefe Robinson) and one badly damaged for no discernable damage to the enemy.
Consequently the F2 was considered to be a poor replacement and the allies struggled on as before for several months. It was only when aircrew discovered that the F2 was in fact almost as manoeuverable as most fighters that they started to use more aggressive tactics. Often mounting a 2nd Lewis in the rear cockpit, the F2a and then the more famous F2b (nicknamed the Bristol "Fighter") came into its own. Indeed it was so good that the type was then flown into the 1930s.
Or consider the Curtis P-40B flown by the "Flying Tigers" in China against the Japanese. Their leader, Claire Chennault, trained his pilots to use the P-40's particular performance advantages. The P-40 had a higher dive speed than any Japanese fighter aircraft of the early war years, and could be used to exploit so-called "boom-and-zoom" tactics, but could not match the maneuverability of the Japanese fighters in a dogfight.
The reverse is also true, especially where technical inovation was attempted to solve a particular problem.
In WWI before the invention of the interrupter gear, it was recognised that shooting forwards in the direction the aircraft was travelling was much more accurate than shooting sideways. So, to overcome the problem of shooting through the propeller, SPAD decided to to mount the observer in a basket
in front of the propeller. The basket was linked to the propeller and held rigid by a light frame and wires attached to the wings. Needless to say, one wrong move by the observer and any poor landings had very dire consequences and the
SPAD A2 design was so unpopular that the French aircrews mutinied and refused to fly it. So the French sold the entire lot to the Russians - who were more vigorous in pursuading crews to use it.
And in WWII, there were similar examples like the Bell Aircobra that was designed with an engine mounted in the middle of the fuselage. When it was discovered to be inferior to Axis aircraft, the aircobra was similarly sent to Russia. Or the Boulton Paul Defiant that took the Bristol F2 design to new heights by mounting four guns in a turret on a single engine fighter - but had no forward firing guns. This was turned from a very inferior day figther into a very effective Night fighter that at one point had more kills than any other type.