It isn't hard to argue that most of the advances that people recognize as scientific advances are more from material sciences than they have ever been theoretical physics, though?
Even claiming that theoretical physics enabled the industrial revolution feels off to me. What supports that claim?
Well it is hard to talk about theoretical physics at the XVIII century since physics in general was nascent and there was little separation between the disciplines. But I believe the industrial revolution was largely driven by the development of the steam engine, so Watt, Carnot, later Kalvin, etc.
Of course that's not the only factor. Like computers rely on XIX century physics but it took almost a century before the technology became industrially significant.
Even claiming that theoretical physics enabled the industrial revolution feels off to me. What supports that claim?