Steffen, I am afraid to say you are very wrong.
Whilst some German companies were world leaders German industry a a whole was very mixed , with a large craft sector. Total manufacturing productivity was no higher than Britain in 1939, and the overall productibity of the economy noticeably lower. Solving this would acually be very difficult - it is not a case of certain companies sorting themselves out (they way it would be in Britain in the 30s say) but of whole craft industries needing to be destoryed and replaced by whole new companies (something more like Britain in the 80s)
Germany was the economy that prepared earliest for world war two, and had total defence spending of circa 25% of GDP by 39, far higher than any other country.
Germany remained the most mobilised combatant throughout the early years of war:
1940 - Germany domestic spending on the war is 36% of GDP, UK 31%
1941 -Germany 44%, UK 41%
1942 (the year Speer takes over - Germany 52%, UK 43% (but USSR 66%)
1943 - UK 47%, Germany 60%, USSR 58%
After this there are no accurate figures for Germany.
Th crucial thing about these figures is that they are domestically financed - they ignore lend-lease and German plunder. They show quite clearly that Germany was always more deeply mobilised than the UK, and that both economies were able to deepen molibilisation over time - which suggests that the idea that the Germans were holding back on mobilisation is wrong.
The Soviet figures - declining after the 60% peak (mobilisation declined to over 52% in 44) suggest that the German peak of 60% might also have been unsustainable (and Harrison provides further figures on workforce mobilisation to support this view.)
The conclusion therefore is that Germany went for military production, fairly hell for leather, and the fact that the Nazis were out-produced has other causes - possibly, going back to the topic, productive efficiency, possibly allocative efficiency but most likely of all sheer resource shortage.
The full and fascinating details can be found at the link below, where Mark Harrison explains why Berenice Carroll's figures are wrong:
http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/economics/staff/faculty/harrison/public/
On the other topic consumption was low in Nazi Germany - it fell from 81% of GDP to 59% from 32-39. An interesting question does exist about whether it could have been even lower - that the Germans might have done their 39/40 mobilisation in say, 1936. Tim Mason would argue not for reasons of popularity, and he may be right for the wrong reasons - that there not could be a further push on military spending because it was already very high.