I did a little more research and it looks like the main cause of the loss of performance that pissed the British off was not due to the lack of turbocharger but rather the increase in weight of the actual aircraft in combat configuration. Even with the turbocharger it still would not have met the promised performance, but then with better high altitude performance it might have met RAF requirements. The low altitude performance was only marginally worse without it, but the climb performance really got hurt with the extra weight. It was analogous to the Curtiss P-46 making performance specification without being fully equiped. The fully equiped P-46 worse performance than a P-40D. Bell gave the British fantastic performance numbers that were based on prototype figures without armaments or armour.
Actually it's not wrong to call a turbocharger a supercharger since a turbocharger is a specific kind of supercharger. The problem is that there were two superchargers, one integral to the engine and the other of course the turbo so it's confusing when one says the supercharger was removed. Functionally it's a two stage system.