Logig doesen't make sense?
So you disagree that a navy that has fielded SAMs in its warships since the 60's hasen't got any benefits over navy that has operated them since mid 90's and still having almoust 50% of its major surface combatants lacking them completely? You are saying that decades of familirazing with some weapon branch is irrelevant to pass on the right and proper training and operational doctrines? If these fundamental things are unclear to you and seems illogical, who is to blame? Me or you?
If the other navy decided to field SAMs in the last two years or so, then I would say, you have an argument.
But if it was like 10 years? I say no.
Your tank comparison is weak as all of those major powers that you mentioned fielded their first tanks in the same period and for example Tsarist Russia was developing tanks right from the same point as British, they just didn't managed to fininsh any ideas.
The Germans were not allowed to field tanks at all. That is like what---two decades before they started to make tanks again. While the French and the British had two continous decades of fielding tanks. The experience the Germans had fielding captured British tanks in WWI does not count.
The Germans had only five freaking years from receiving their first Panzer Mk. 1---a light training tank---when they initiated Blitzkrieg.
If you wish to put JMSDF and PLAN to that same frame, Imagine JMSDF being The soviet union, familiar with tanks since the wwI era and PLAN would been, well china with first ever tanks arriving just in the outbreake of WWII and those tanks being the technological level of the very early Renault's...
How is that different from Germany in 1939? The Panzer Mk 1s and IIs were critically inferior against the best British, French and even Russian tanks like the Matildas, the Char and the KT-1s. Nor were they even a match against the Czech tanks. The best German tank was the Panzer Mk III, whose 37mm was seriously outgunned, and was few, as well the Panzer Mk. IV, which was even fewer, but more critically had a 75mm gun with a very short barrel that was totally useless against other tanks. The Mark IV was merely used for infantry support.
Compared to the PLAN, the Wehrmacht actually had it worst. If it was the PLAN, those tanks would have guns outranging the Allies.
But in general its irrelevant to say that chinese has operated SAMs in general earlier to Japan, it has nothing to do with the navy. Chinese expereince in SAM systems in land is quite useless beyond few general concepts of shooting planes out of the sky as A those missiles, HQ-2 notably is completely different than any of the SAMs fielded by PLAN, and B the operative enviroment is copletely different and thus is the role of the weapon system.
Sorry to say this, but operating SAMs whether its sea or ground is still operating SAMs, and share practically very similar methods and tactics.
The Chinese experience in SAMs actually amount to shooting down something, as well as foreign power actually using electronic warfare against these units.
The HQ-2 is not completely different from any of the SAMs fielded by the PLAN, certainly not in its operating principles---command guided or semi active homing.
Its useless and plain silly to throw arguments that has nbothing to do with the actual issue and thus you are harming the actual discussion. THe subject was JMSDF capacity and how is it compared to PLAN. Chinese land forces or air forces actions has nothing to do with it.
I think what you're trying to suggest that PLAN does not know how to use a SAM after only 10 years (actually more like 15 years).
What counts is whether you have enough for your own. When a certain point passes, it does not matter one bit if you have fifteen, 50 or 150 years of experience operating that system. None of that would make it better.
How long did the PLAAF had the experience of using the SA-2 before they were actually shooting down U-2s?
