In A&A-Europe - When does an economic attack makes sense?
Before the latest adjustments to 1940 editions, bombing has not been a favorite by players in  tripleA and in A&amp;A forums. Personally I disregard it as well as most friends I play with.


  I'd rather destroy a tank that cost 5 IPCs plus 3 turns to get to the
  front than to gamble on the off-chance that I could remove 6 IPCs in
  an Economic Attack.


This applies to all editions of A&amp;A. I agree, and I would add two more significant reasons not to bomb:


You are risking loosing a bomber (expensive unit)
and most importantly:
If that bomber is bombing there.. what is it not doing?


Bombers can do many thing, ranging from a sacrifice (I.E. clearing out an infantry unit to open the path for an allied blitz) to desperate defense (I.E. Need to defend moscow one turn and with range 6, only bombers can reach). 

In this version bombing is even more crippled because of the escort rules. The defender gains even more advantage. I never saw a game were bombing was decisive.  The only thing I can point out is:


Russia has usually only one fighter
If Leningrad and or Archangel have fallen, as germany you may be just waiting to more units to have better odds in Moscow's last stand; a SBR can help in that turn that you don't assault and want to deal some damage.
Germany is going to take Archangel/Leningrad?  Move the AA's out of there and when they conquer, you may have a free money drain as allies. That bomber is going to hang around for a final stand in moscow or Dday.


But even in these scenarios, there is usually an alternative to the SBR. We have sometimes adopted a house rule for AA fire on bombings:  roll once to abort (on 2 or less); if suceed , roll once more to destroy (2 or less). Even then bombings are rare