arab, great points. i see that conflict as a line of demarcation between the era of troops and trenches and the current " faceless death from above" strategy currently favored. the nazis had one foot a little too far in the former without a viable heavy bomber and pouring money into supertigers that ate the fuel you just spoke about like harry weiss eats kfc. sure, vietnam, iraq, and a few others give momentum to the "you stilll need a strong land army" theory, but we were bombing strategically more often than for body count. Before the threat of someone sending an icbm with a physics experiment in the warhead at you for being too ruthless in killing civilians, heavy tonnage on a country without great food stores or having the ground cover a jungle provides you would be devestating. B-17 tonnage dropped on Russia, lacking weird tunnels to burrow into that asian countries seem to have or any signifigant means of anti-aircraft defense would have been a big deal. armored cavalry was, like, soooo last century. and it takes gas and tons of it. why bother if you're already at peace with killing women and children from above so you can wait for secondary effects of massive bombing campaigns like disease and starvation to kill off a few cities before you go clean up the mess and pilfer stoli from the deceased.
drop a carrier or 2 in the black and the bosphorus around 1941 when the allies didn't have the p-47/51s or spitfire variants with drop tanks and uboats were still viable and you gain a nice way to russia.