Institutional memory: the main proponents of this procedure are actually China, Japan and S-Korea. I haven't been to India, so I wouldn't know about them.
When I came to China first sporadically from 1987 onward and permanently from 2002 the first observations I recall, was that everything was being discussed and analyzed for hours upon e.g. how to repair a steel coil-feeder for a punching machine. From the engineer right down to the unskilled worker. (about 12 people).
After 4 hours I lost my "German" patience - and ordered them what and how to do. There were 2 people who liked this and 10 people almost violently objecting my proposal and instruction, simply because they could not follow my technical understanding and therefore my proposal. 1 hour later a repaired and entirely reconstructed feeder took up it's work again. (Staying in continuous operation for the next 8 years). 11 people smiling and applauding, 1 person obviously infuriated and angry.
The latter person was the Chief engineer and leader of this production section. Off course he was infuriated because through my actions I had made him loose his face or call it his standing amongst his workers. However I did recall my growing up in S.E.A. and therefore managed via some other "joint improvements" to regain his cooperation and standing amongst his colleges.
This above example illustrates China from 1986 - 2005. And drove many Europeans nut's in regards to China manufacturing status and it's workers - these endless discussions about everything. Thus having an entire production unit out of operation for hours - sometimes for days.
Via analysis I was soon aware that due to a change in educational policy - vocational training (apprenticeship) had been abolished in China around the end 80's. Thus some "elite" young total theory minded engineers and millions of inexperienced workers - contra a very few older experienced engineers and workers. Therefore these "endless" discussions were simply an attempt of conveying knowledge between the members of these two groups. Most of them still being embedded in a communist state styled industry mentality - "you get paid the same no matter if you produce or not".
From 2005 onward this has changed considerably - Due to Beijing recognizing this major issue and funding state-held companies to allocate huge resources towards training their staff. - in separate workshops and machine operating training facilities. Larger privately held companies (2000 workers and more) follow the same procedure. For smaller companies these issues still partially prevail but they found ways to improve that situation overall.
In Japan and S-Korea - they have a similar approach - but endless seeming discussions are still held in the offices of those holding a diploma or a degree.
The vast difference nowadays between the European e.g. German system and that of China? in Germany the individual is expected to learn by himself and enhance by himself - in China the group is expected to learn and enhance via exchanging ideas and knowledge amongst themselves. Therefore the Chinese school education system is also being changed - from the previous immense individual learning and homework stress towards a class enhancement process.
Exactly the same principle applies towards China's Armed Forces - via in-cooperation of all ranks from Private to NCO to Officers - the overall understanding and grasp towards a units importance and it's inter-meshing functions is far higher then that of e.g. the German Armed Forces. Not to mention moral and motivation.
China is cooperating in the exchange of military know-how - joint training - joint exercises and military college institutions - worldwide. - even with NATO institutions and units and with non-committed nations, e.g. Pakistan, India, Brazil, and so on. However their procedure is different - they prefer group training with individual selected forces - from individual nations. Those incorporated skills and knowledge are then masterfully exhibited demonstrated in China's MASSIVE military exercises-maneuvers, and large scale exercises with e.g. the CIS partners.
There is a reason why the UN's preferred units are consisting of China's PLA and WG. From what I have seen the most experienced units in regards to EOD issues worldwide - they know more about e.g. Israels bombs, missiles etc. then the USA - e.g. UN Lebanon missions.
It would be a huge mistake IMO to discredit or totally misjudge China's fighting skill and ability - just because they refrain mostly from joint exercises that behold US military. E.g. Chinese submarines have repeatably "targeted" (luckily in simulations) US carriers and naval assets a 1000km and further from China's coastline.
In case of Chinese forces having picked up e.g. a US carrier and in simulation destroyed it via missiles or other weapon systems would you know it? well hardly because China refrains from publicly announcing such results and the US has no big reason to publish it either. Unless e.g. PLAF J-20's picked up onto F-35's and the USA unveiling such Chinese capabilities in order to portray them as being aggressive!!
Your example from 1986 is a good example in regards to continuously develop new abilities. But if you should believe that China isn't aware of that, and is not capable to develop exactly such abilities then again you would be very wrong.
And in a last: Aside from Israel - I am not aware of any other nation that could show that "constant practical military involvement" - therefore even the US Forces are in an exchange with the IDF and btw, so is China. Did the US have any previous mass combat experience in the previous 30 years when embarking onto the operation desert storm? no, not at all. Did the Iraqi forces have such experience? - yes for more then 10 continuous years. (trained foremost by Russia, France, Pakistan and even the USA) But again fighting an inferior (military hardware and morals) underdog isn't really a proof towards the US Forces capability.
You believe that the German Army might be so capable because of joint operations with US forces?
In vast majority in regards to position 1-3 amongst NATO forces maneuver results - you will hardly find the US forces amongst those 3.
Within NATO we all know the actual capability of the individual US Forces - and it's not impressive at all. The latter is also a learning process
not excluding the possibility that there might be a thing or two that could be placed into the section - positive added learning.
What is impressive is their quantity and abundance in conventional material - and this is were they are already getting outmatched by China.
No doubt the US Forces are vastly superior in regards to space tech - e.g. satellites, coms, or ECM and alike in comparence to the German forces - however their standard dudes and vast majority of their junior officers are simply are not able to make use of it, or gain an advantage during maneuvers. US high-tech and the actual performance and skill level of their forces are indeed two separate facts. Not just as you assume only the CN forces to be.
I am aware however that in most S.E.A. countries the US still carry that nimbus of wooha...
And since the US is starting to loose out worldwide on that nimbus - the rhetoric since around 2018 of "ah China got no practical war experience" has significantly risen.
en.baochinhphu.vn
military-history.fandom.com
en.wikipedia.org
