Talk:Lince (tank)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lince (tank)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. I've given the article a thorough copyedit and left one comment below, but I am happy to pass this as a well-written and sourced article on an interesting minor military topic. Congratulations.--Jackyd101 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

• "the Spanish Ministry of Defense agreed to modernize the Army's AMX-30Es and alloted 155 million dollars" - Why are dollars used here when pesetas were used earlier? Stick with one, preferably the currency in use in Spain at the time.
• Any internet source needs full publication information. - title, date, publisher and last access date.

Why did this exist?

Can someone explain why there was any effort to develop this tank? Considering it consisted mostly of L2 parts, what's the purpose of building a new tank? Was this a case of NIH? The article states that the Lince was slightly lighter than the L2 and slightly more mobile. However, the degree of both of these strikes me as very low. I really don't see how they expected it would be able to compete internationally with the L2, and given the L2's record of local production, I don't see much of a reason for it either. Maury (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a forum, so I don't see how this comment is relevant to the talk page. You could have, instead, sent me a message on my talk page. Krauss-Maffei's bid for the Lince was a Leopard 2 optimised for Spanish terrain, so it was lighter and smaller. The tank wasn't meant to compete with the Leopard 2 on the international market; my sources state that there were supposed to be 100 built for export, and it seems that the candidates were known (although, there is nothing that confirms this). In any case, I don't see how these questions are pertinent. Why did Italy build the Ariete? Why did France build the Leclerc? JonCatalan (talk) 22:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The political reasoning behind any expensive project is extremely important to the reader in terms of giving a complete picture of the history. For instance, the story of the B-1 Lancer would be completely remiss if it did not include details about the twenty years of tortuous political changes before it finally flew.

In this specific case, my question arrises because Spain had no indigenous tank design teams. Their only recent tanks were hand-me-downs from the US, or French designs built under license. Now sure, anyone can build a tank, but considering the weight is only slightly better than the L2, and that it's P/W and speeds are essentially identical, this was clearly not being driven by a performance requirement, unless there is some other requirement simply isn't mentioned in the article. So given all of this, it seems extremely odd that they would choose to make a new design, when they could have customized an existing one. Further, by designing locally they were accepting all of the cost and all of the risk, without there being a second customer to cancel-proof the design (not that that always works). So basically it was a huge risk for zero payoff.

If this is simply a case of NIH, that's just as important to talk about. Countries all around the world often demand locally-designed vehicles even if they are inferior in both price and performance to off-the-shelf designs; examples include the Bobcat or EE-T1 Osório. If that is the case here, obviously its important to mention. Moreover, if the Lince was a product of NIH, what changed between the program's inception in 1984 and the recent purchase of the L2A5 in 2005? Obviously something changed because they didn't continue the program, and since the article doesn't mention what changed, I consider the history to be incomplete.

To answer your questions, the Leclerc was originally part of the L2 program and then was offered as part of the Lince. It was only when the Lince went elsewhere that the French were left on their own (much to their chagrin, I imagine). The Ariete was absolutely the result of NIH. Maury (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This are the requirements stated in my sources. If you have a source that states otherwise, please share! The requirements were both political (the requirement to build the tank inside Spain - Germany was not completely willing to sell the Leopard 2 at the time) and due to geographic reasons. The payoffs were for the national industry, not for the tank. The problem is that you can't talk about things like this unless you can source them, and I'm not about to add unsourced statements taht can't be backed up, just because one person sees no reason for the tank (a person that had nothing to do with the program). Like the article states, the generals preferred the Lince, at the time, to anything else. ... and the article does mention what changed - it mentions that KMW freezed the contract due to the 'waste of money', and so Spain opted to upgrade its AMX-30s and buy M60s instead.

And the Leclerc was not part of the Leopard 2 program. The Germans and French embarked on a joint-program, but the Leopard 2 concept had nothing to do with it. The Germans felt that the French had nothing to offer them, and so opted to continue on with production of the Leopard 2. JonCatalan (talk) 11:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Well I doubt I'll be able to add much, not speaking Spanish. But the L2 was already being sold to foreign armies as early as 1979 and deliveries were already made by the time the Lince project was reported to have started. So if there was some reason that they were not being sold to Spain, then that should be mentioned. Again, the project disappeared into history but the article doesn't mention any reason why, and I consider it incomplete for that reason. Maury (talk) 14:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think you're missing my point. It's 'incomplete' due to the lack of available information'. Even then, it does mention why the program is canceled. It says specifically it was due to the mismanagement of money and the freeze of the bid. JonCatalan (talk) 11:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I can give some answers to Maury's questions: Spain in the early eighties wanted a modern, yet not too expensive, reasonably well protected, tank in the MLC 50 weight class, i.e. preferably not heavier than around 45 metric tonnes. The lower weight was very desirable given Spain's maintenance capacities of the time and the demand for compatibility with the existing support structure. Spain didn't insist on a new design, but as it happened most existing projects were either too heavy (M1, Leopard 2), not yet fully developed (Leclerc) or of dubious quality (Valiant, AMX 40). The German and the German/Italian design proposals were intended to meet Spain's demands directly. As early as 1985 however, Spain concluded that the project was already obsolete due to advances in anti-tank technology. Even a 49 tonne tank of normal size would, using cheaper steel perforated armour, have a protection equivalent of just about 450 mm and that was simply not enough any more; the down-sized version was very cramped. Today Spain has become a much wealthier and more modernised nation which can both afford and maintain even the most expensive tanks currently available. Given a bit of effort ;o).--MWAK (talk) 06:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent into MWAK. I suspected it was something more than "must fit on train". To me this stuck out like a sore thumb. This whole issue simply re-enforces my low opinion of FA process. Maury (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, read the FAC; the article was promoted after you removed your oppose; you surrendered the opportunity to Oppose, so please don't attribute that to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is Maury that your claims are largely unfounded and unsupported. You have a low opinion of the FAC process because it holds sourced statements over your theoritical opposition. The reasons why the tank was developed and the reasons for canceling the tank are explicitely stated in the article and sourced - I mean, you can continue to claim that this is just the 'best I can offer, but there is really more to it', but in the end these are just unfounded opinions. Furthermore, you need to stop taking comments out of context - the reasons for its coming into being are quite well stated in the article; mobility over Spanish terrain (even the current Leopard 2E is modified for Spanish terrain and there have been complaints about the tank's high weight), existing rail way restrictions (restrictions which are not only common to Spain - there were issues with train beds for Australian M1A1s, as well) and the vehicle's mobility in general. As the article states, the M1 and Valiant were actually not admitted because neither General Dynamics nor Vickers were willing to offer Spain the ability to produce these tanks indigenously (a clear requirement), and the Leclerc suffered the same issue until the French offered both indigenous production and the ability to export it without going through GIAT. To keep this short, I think that my sourced statements are more 'true' than your opinions based on just that - opinion. JonCatalán (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too Maury, but at a more fundamental level than appears to be discussed above, i.e. what threat is there that is the basis for Spain to spend this kind of money on? I could see it if it were in the Franco era. Or is this something Spain is compelled to do as a NATO member (if it became one after Franco)? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Copied from WT:MAIN

Errors in the summary of today's or tomorrow's featured article Tomorrow's FA is a bit of a mess: was the Lince a programme, or a tank? Unrelated pronouns abound. The Lince did not receive Patton tanks during an assistance programme. Is "the program" in the fourth sentence the same program as that in the first sentence or in the second? Why is this European themed article using US English (program, focused, canceled, armor), with apparently no effort to use VNE? Kevin McE (talk) 11:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your program issue, in terms of the language used, that is a question for the article's authors and not WP:ERRORS. Woody (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but its still an awful mess: a programme cannot replace tanks, the Lince programme did not receive tanks from military assistance programmes. Had it ever been made (was it ever made? The extract is unclear) it would have been the tank, not the development programme, that would have complemented AMX 30Es. "The vehicle's size": what vehicle? Last I checked, Spain was in Europe, so in what way were the M60s "retired from Europe" if used in Spain? Is this really a Main Page worthy example of clarity and cohesive writing, even ignoring its apparent indifference to ENGVAR? Kevin McE (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good points; just looking at the lead, the tank itself is conflated with a program. It would be good to sort this before mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Too late. Lead is nothing less than a confusing mess as it is and I can't see it getting fixed by the day's end.  ƒox  00:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Lince was both a program and a tank. KM's tank prototype was the Lince, but it was also the name of the overall program. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the M60s, I'm not sure where the confusion lies. The sentence is explicit, "The Lince was eventually canceled in 1990 when Spain adopted a large number of North American M60 Patton tanks retired from Europe in accordance with the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe...." ← emphasis mine. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary!

> The vehicle's size would also have been restricted by the Spanish rail and highway network. <

This sentence of the article makes no sense. Actually Spain has extremely wide railways (1688mm gauge), so their tank could be twice as large as the tanks of any other country, literally Maus size if desired! 87.97.104.143 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing added is what is verified by sources. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Style editing

"However, the French admitted that there would be restrictions placed on Empresa Nacional Santa Bárbara when it came to exporting the tank." - I don't think "came to exporting the tank" makes much sense, and in general the statement is pretty unclear, 12.69.234.130 (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It means that the French would put restrictions on ENSB's ability to export the tank. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lince (tank). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090318112223/http://www.isdefe.es/webisdefe.nsf/web/Carros+de+Combate.+Evoluci%C3%B3n%2C+presente+y+futuro/%24file/CarrosBN.pdf to http://www.isdefe.es/webisdefe.nsf/web/Carros+de+Combate.+Evoluci%C3%B3n%2C+presente+y+futuro/%24file/CarrosBN.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)