The Air Wars over Europe & the Pacific are widely covered, understood, and romanticized aspects of WWII, while later conflicts don't seem to offer nearly as much material. To the casual observer, it might be easily said that as avionics transformed from propeller craft to super-sonic speeds, traditional dog-fighting and bombing escort missions met a sharp decline, and the role of the military pilot became more technical and less instinctual.
In my casual ignorance, I might liken the advent of jet fighter-power to be similar in trajectory as the early development of machine guns and howitzers during the American Civil War: equal parts Clumsy and Devastating with no shortage of unforeseen consequences on both sides.
How might I be wrong in these assertions, and what further reading might an interested person find to elaborate more clearly the role of fighter and bomber aircraft in our [NATO/UN] earliest conflict with organized Communist powers?
Thanks!
As for lessons learned in Korea, it was a first for jet fighters and helicopters, but the Allies still applied principles from WW2 in their operational thinking.
The switch to jet power did not change traditional dogfighting too much because the rules stayed the same whether the pilot was in a P-51 fighting a Bf-109 or an F-86 against a MiG-15. The pilot had to conserve his energy to get into a position of advantage against his opponent in order to win. You say "...the role of the military pilot became more technical and less instinctual", this is both true and false. John Boyd (I do recommend his biography, "Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War" by Robert Coram) who flew in the Korean War, created the "Energy-Maneuverability Theory", which shows aircraft performance in kinetic and potential energy. With this theory, John Boyd helped create the F-15 and F-16, which are two of the most successful aircraft of all time. The F-15 has never had a combat loss to another aircraft and the F-16 is one of the most widely-sold fighters. Thanks to the E-M Theory, when applied correctly, a pilot will know the technical limits of his jet and where he has the advantage, so he would never put himself into a position of disadvantage. I can go further into this if you would like. This may seem like a departure from instinctual flying since fighting is based off physics as opposed to gut feelings, but there are still split-second decisions a fighter pilot makes in a dogfight that will determine if he wins or not, regardless of the physics. Despite an aircraft's capabilities and all the bells and whistles that come on, the outcome of a fight still comes down to the skills of the men at the sticks.
Somewhat related, you said later conflicts don't seem to offer nearly as much material. There are volumes on the air war in Vietnam and the First Gulf War concerning the use of air power in that war, mostly critical about Vietnam and praising in the Gulf War.