Have you heard of Long Range Bombers
Pe-8?
The only thing is that USSR had really produced them much much fewer than there were B-29. And Soviets had high-altitude interceptors La-5TK or MiG-3s (unfortunately, by 1945 there were quite a few MiG-3s in the West) capable of taking Superfortresses off the skies. Jet-fighters were no problem because of shorter range and could not cover bombers all the way to target.
Big Stick? Hmm... We are discussing Patton vs Zhukov, and now we are seem to be starting measuring dicks on the national scale...

We still don't have a task set out clearly with limits defined, and laying down the playground wherein we could play our game.
Pe-8? Somewhere between 80 & 93 built, including a number with diesel engines (IIRC a unique feature among WW II bombers) by May 1945 roughly 30 remained active, mainly in the transport role (by comparison the USAAF accepted some 12,000 B-17s,18,000 B-24s, 3,900 B-29s, & even 118 B-32s, an aircraft built
just in case the B-29 didn't pan out).
Slower version of the contemporary B-17B (Pe-8 273mph max/211 cruise; B-17 323/250); similar range & practical bombload, very similar perfomance (speed and altitude) to Avro Lancaster but far inferior bomb load. Unlike American & British contemporaries the aircraft was never upgraded to meet later war standards. Notably inferior to the B-29 & B-32 across the performance envelope (as one would expect from a four year older design)
Overall, an interesting mid-30's design that was never properly developed for 1940's combat.
MiG-3? Fairly fast (414 MPH), especially when first introduced, high altitude fighter. Woefully undergunned, with 1 12.7mm & 2 7.62mm machine guns, to the point that it is an open question if the aircraft had the ability to down any Western Heavy bomber except by ramming. Inferior across the performance envelope, save service ceiling, to every piston engined fighter the Allied produced from mid-1943 onward. Main use in last year of the war was as a High altitude/high speed recon aircraft, where it was far less capable than the de Havilland Mosquito & Lockheed P-38, which were faster, far more heavily armed and had a higher ceiling.
Had misfortune to share Mikulin engine with Il-2 ground attack fighter/bomber resulting in end of production run. Exceptionally uncomfortable place to die if the pilot was foolish enough to engage almost any fighter produced after 1940, suicide machine against a P-38, -47, 51, and any Spitfire mark after the VA
La-5? Decent low altitude fighter, sturdy construction. Evolved into La-7, possibily the best Soviet fighter of the war (although the YaK-9 had superior manueverability) As was common among later Soviet fighter designs was armed with 20-mm ShVAK cannon (two, in some marks, three, weapons), a weapon with a high rate of fire, but reputedly with a serious jamming problem (possibly traceable to the design being an enlarged version of the 12.7mm machine gun that was not sufficiently robust for the cartridge fired). Both designs inferior at altitude to P-51 & later marks of Spirfire, although a formidable opponent at lower flight levels (rather like the U.S. P-47 & RAF Typhoon, although not as well armed as either Western fighter).
As far as the parameters of the potential battlefield, there is a rather lengthy thread where a main force on force Spring 1945 war between the Western Allies and the USSR is kicked around elsewhere in this forum. Nevertheless, in any wider discussion of a possible Western/Soviet clash in mid 1945 or later the fact that the United States had access to a weapon of incredible tactical, as well as strategic, utility has to be factored into the mix.
The scenario that was initiated here has little to do with any serious discussion on the issue, being a rather insipid effort to compare two General officers who are not even the best representatives produced by their respective countries, much less of the entire war.