Stop reading Corelli Barnett and start reading Paul Kennedy! I'll put my copy of Rise and Fall of the Great Powers in a packet and send it to you if you'll provide me with your address.Because British steel and machine tools (capital goods) production were vastly inferior to Germany, their main foe, and was insufficient to meet demand. It had to import more from the US and Sweden to make good of the shortages in these products.
E.g.
Steel production in 1913:
UK: 8 million tons
Germany: 16 million tons.
You again misunderstand my point that the British munitions industry in 1914 was a joke because Britain maintained a much smaller army than the other great powers. It took time to convert the industry we did have from civil to military production. An expansion from 6 infantry division to 70 plus the arms supplied to the Dominion and Indian Armies plus the Allies was IMHO a commendable achievement given such a small mobilisation base.
Even the United States did not immediately begin to churn out vast quantities of munitions in 1917. It took time to convert their factories from civil to military production too.
I don't deny that the British produced less steel. I admit that it put us at a disadvantage. What I do deny is how it fits into your bigger picture.
In spite of all Germany's alleged advantages, who won? Your reply will be the UK but only because it had the British Empire, France, Russia, Italy, Belgium, Japan and America on its side. But that's what the Britain had been doing since the wars with Louis XIV, that is defeat a stronger enemy by being the core of a coalition of weaker nations that were collectively stronger than the enemy. The big exception being the American Revolutionary War when the rest of Europe combined against Britain.