But the war in Ukraine has highlighted that modern military doctrine assumes short engagements using smart weapons. The reality is if you get into a long conflict supply of smart weapons struggles to keep up. The key factor to who might win a conflict is now who has the ability to quickly replace the weapons and ammunition that are being used.
That's probably always been the case unless the invader can secure a quick and decisive victory.
In WW1 they ramped up production of shells etc and I believe this is what caused the introduction of licencing laws in pubs so that workers weren't too pissed and came back to work
There is also a series on the Yesterday channel called something like WW2 in numbers and it goes through what equipment each side had at the start of the war and how over the years the production numbers developed.
It's well worth a watch if you get a chance and quite eye opening, what I took away from the series is that Hitler should / could have won the war if he'd played his hand differently and stopped interfering with production and let his Generals do their job.
German production stalled as Hitler kept going for the "Big projects" but had so many on the go that there weren't enough resource so in the end most never actually got finished.
He fucked up production of things like newly developed bombers as he'd insist on the design being changed at the last minute, one instance was when he said that a new bomber had to be changed so that it was a "dive bomber" like the Stuka which had great success however the original design had to basically be scrapped as that wasn't the original brief they had worked to
The allies really came good once America ramped up production using mass production line techniques and entered the war, eventually
