So you don’t think a strategic bombing campaign could be more effective than great troops?
My problem with strategic bombing campaigns is dice/odds and how their effect on such a campaign.
Statistically, for every 6th bombing roll one of the bombers will be shot and each successful bomber will roll 3.5 IPC of damage. Plus the US will only be able to take away 16 IPC per round from Germany (10 for bombing Germany, 6 from Southern Europe).
If the US sends 6 bombers, 4 to Germany, 2 to S. Europe then theoretically they should be able to deal the 16 IPC worth of damage while losing only 1 bomber, costing them 15 IPC. So the net result would benefit the Allies since G would only have 24 or less IPCs to spend while the overall cost/loss ration would slightly favor the Allies.
The problem is, dice have no memory of past rolls. If you send 6 bombers all results are possible for the AA, including 0 hits or all 6 being shot down by the AA. When you send the initial US bomber it can be shot down right away.
And when that starts to happen then the whole strat bombing campaign model mentioned above can easily become invalidated. Losses to AA may become a lot greater than the damage inflicted on Germany, having no effect what so ever on its ability to defend against UK landings.
Botttom line: if the dice gods favor you, then a strat campaign bombing will be effective. But if you are using a strat that relies on constant favorable rolls then you’re throwing your strategy to chance. And if the AAs keep rolling those 1s then you get defeated not just by the dice but by your choice of following such a strategy that gives you so few options.