I am beginning to think that a standard ground-based Moscow crush is more reliable for Germany, but that bombers allow a player to have a chance against a superior opponent.
I did some theory craft with this a couple of years ago with a friend, and recently in a sad-lonely game against myself for the first 4-5 turns because the internet went out at my house.
I would agree that the “classic” ground-based approach to Moscow, in a vacuum of sorts, is a superior method of taking Moscow.
I also agree that a bunch of German bombers makes the Allies need to pay much more thought time into what they intend to do, because you’re increasing the load of “what-ifs” substantially due to the range of bombers. This can have the effect of having them forgetting some of those options, especially in a real-life context where spending and hour and a half pondering your US/UK turn+repercussions+long-term options is rather frowned upon, which ups your chances of having the allies make a mistake somewhere.
Whether or not it allows you to do better against a “superior” opponent, I’m not sure. I am especially not sure if that is the case in a play-by-email/play-by-forum tripleA game, where time is much less of a concern.