One does not need to be a military strategy genius to comprehend the numbers. There is no point in arguing further on this topic. Your position is entirely divorced from reality and therefore might as well be entirely made up.
As an observer of this debate, I would say you're the one completely ignoring all arguments from the other side as "divorced from reality". It seems you're the one who is avoiding reality here.
As another observer of this debate, I disagree completely with brabel, and think that your assessment of your opponent's "arguments" is in fact correct: they're dismissing contemporary US estimates which are well-documented, and which we know were not even intended at the time to be shared with civilians as "propaganda" is hilarious, and divorced from reality. It's probably not worth debating the matter with these particular opponents.
My position, as expressed in my only comment in this entire sub thread, is that you should read more on the subject.
There is no "arguing further on this topic", that was my only contribution, and I reiterate it.
Circle back to the original material and the historic commentary on that material, it's not clear whether you have read any of it let alone grasped the breadth of it.