Say you (allied) have this target on enemy (axis) grounds that you need to breach and you can either send troops with a mobile cannon to blow it or a plane to bomb it. Which do you think would be more realistic, which of these two would be a bigger loss resource-wise if it was destroyed?
What if you could try one first, the one imposing a smalle restrain on resources and then if that failed, try with the other one again? What do you think about that?
Depends if the target just happens to be a large anti-aircraft battery with lots of flak cannons.
If its not the plane would be much better. If it is, I guess it could go either way.
If its a static target, it would get bombed, or shelled with artillery or ship artillery.
Only after that you d send troops in, with the support of tanks. If they get stuck or heavily shot at, you d call for more artillery support or airplane support.
Then let me say that this target is static, protected by AA guns and far from any coast to be shot with ship artillery.
Does it make sense to have blast gates for an interior location that can stand mobile cannon or tank shells but not plane bombs?