Are Logistics+Industrialization(Lots of factories) better than few high tech factories with poor logistics?
Dont bring america into question because they have both.

Every war is different. If the geographic distances involved are miniscule then the importance of logistics dwindles as well. If you intend to fight across the planet then logistics determine everything. If you are Israel for example and you plan on hammering Gaza with 155mm shells it takes you like three and a half minutes to get from a warehouse to your artillery. Industrialization is also a thing where it depends on the size of your country and what exactly you are producing. If you are like Finland for example it doesn't take too many ballistic missiles to destroy like the Patria plants and whatnot and no matter how much you invest in your industrial base just by the sheer nature of the conflict all of your shit is bound to get fucked sooner or later. Depending on the nature of the conflict it may be better to just buy your shit from elsewhere and store as much of it as possible.

>>63978735 (OP)
Somewhat depends but basically lots of factories with sufficient infrastructure are better if you have he manpower to use them.
High-tech factories are more capable of both producing high-tech equipment and producing lots of equipment per factory but that doesn't matter if you can't get enough resources to them to keep them running at full capacity.
And all equipment needs to reach a critical mass to be worthwhile, even if you have 4 giga modern sci-fi artillery pieces you can't get much value out of them on a 1000 mile front.

>>63978793
The last paragraph is debatable, see the wildly outsized impact of the first 4 HIMARS launchers in Ukraine. Imagine how hard 4 Raptors would rape the russian air force, or what a single B-2 would do to tank factories.
Singular ultra-high performance platforms can totally change how a war plays out because while they can't be everywhere at once, they can show up anywhere and blow up high value targets.