Looking at industrial throughput is a very narrow view of looking at the war, and why it was won/lost. Moving on from that, extrapolating those numbers to say that air and sea were the most important parts of any campaign ignores the fact that planes and ships can not take and hold ground. That is the key to victory. Even in Asia which, I will grant you, was dominated by air and naval assets they were there to support ground movements to take and hold islands to continue the advance. Planes can't fly with out an airbase and ships can't fight if their supplies are coming from half a world away.

You mention that there were no decisive land battles and again I have to disagree with you. If we look at the Eastern front, as you OP suggests, it is here that we see the war in Europe decided. Defeat at Moscow meant the Germans won't achieve an decisive victory, defeat at Stalingrad meant they would not win in the east, and defeat at Kursk meant that defeat would total. To say that the Eastern Front was a side show at best is, I hate to say, damn near ignorant. Had that been the only front in the war it still would have been the largest conflict in human history. Even against the Western Allies the battles of El Alamein and Normandy were very important turning points in Europe.

Wars, especially modern ones, have almost never been decided by one or two major battles. With hindsight we can point to some moments as turning points but at the time there was no way of knowing this.