# Why use tanks, specifically, to suppress/intimidate protesting crowds? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [February 20, 2011, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022 "2011-02-20T17:13:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/7cd45c/32.png) [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elendil_s_Heir)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/21 "2011-02-21T05:02:45Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#): > > There have been a few civilians that have gotten control of tanks even in the U.S. and the results [are not a joke.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TIun536HFo)… Here’s more on that incident (it was an M60 and not an M6 tank, BTW): [Shawn Nelson - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson) ---
**Author:** ![Patch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a183cd/32.png) [@Patch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Patch)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/22 "2011-02-21T05:11:49Z")
> [@Elendil\_s\_Heir](#): > > Here’s more on that incident (it was an M60 and not an M6 tank, BTW): [Shawn Nelson - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Nelson) Didn’t someone get ahold of an M48 in West Germany years ago? ISTR a photo in Der Spiegel of the tank being driven off a bridge. ---
**Author:** ![Spiny\_Norman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Spiny\_Norman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spiny_Norman)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/23 "2011-02-21T05:33:49Z")
> [@Patch](#): > > I’ve seen photos of tanks destroyed by civilians in Budapest in 1956, and the Chinese destroyed a number of armored vehicles in Tienanmen Square. Molotov cocktails aren’t exactly complicated to make, and tanks are vulnerable to them. Modern tanks have better fire suppression capabilities than earlier vehicles, but the supply isn’t infinite. Modern tanks are specifically designed to handle molotov cocktails, although I seem to recall that at least some Warsaw Pact designs didn’t do what it said on the box and popped the fire suppression system, forcing the crew to evacuate. My old field manuals state 5 kg of explosive “in direct contact” or a proper anti-armor weapon - ie., shaped charge of some sort, preferably not on the frontal armor. Everything else - molotov cocktails or its bigger brother - the perforated jerrycan with a side of smoke grenade - is to hinder and confuse, it won’t stop a tank. On the flip side, rolling out tanks means “this is war”. You’ve admitted, in the political sense, that your opponents are worth taking seriously. And you’ve pulled the army into the conflict. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/24 "2011-02-21T08:12:40Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > Your average tank has at least two machine guns, which are very useful against protesters. The first is the coaxial, which is right by the main gun and is operated by the gunner; its field of vision is a bit limited, but it makes up for it with incredible accuracy and all of the tank’s imaging devices (like infra-red vision). The second machine gun is the commander’s gun, which is located to the turret roof by the commander’s hatch; the its user has an excellent field of vision and a high vantage point. Against any sort of infantry out in the open - and that includes protesters - the combination of the two is devastating. > > Plus, you can run people over. IIRC tanks also have a special anti-personnel shell. Essentially it makes the main gun a big honking shot gun. ---
**Author:** ![FasterThanMeerkats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@FasterThanMeerkats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FasterThanMeerkats)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/25 "2011-02-21T13:34:12Z")
I wonder if it’s not so much that the tank is perfect for the situation, but that there is no suitable alternative available. Most developing countries don’t invest a lot in civilian or police armored vehicles, but there’s plenty of tanks around, especially when the military gets involved. ---
**Author:** ![JerseyMarine2092](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JerseyMarine2092](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyMarine2092)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/26 "2011-02-21T14:30:32Z")
> [@Spiny\_Norman](#): > > Modern tanks are specifically designed to handle molotov cocktails, although I seem to recall that at least some Warsaw Pact designs didn’t do what it said on the box and popped the fire suppression system, forcing the crew to evacuate. > > My old field manuals state 5 kg of explosive “in direct contact” or a proper anti-armor weapon - ie., shaped charge of some sort, preferably not on the frontal armor. Everything else - molotov cocktails or its bigger brother - the perforated jerrycan with a side of smoke grenade - is to hinder and confuse, it won’t stop a tank. > > On the flip side, rolling out tanks means “this is war”. You’ve admitted, in the political sense, that your opponents are worth taking seriously. And you’ve pulled the army into the conflict. A tanks optics are still exceptionally vulnerable. Damned if I want to get close enough to a tank to throw a Molotov on it though! ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 2:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/27 "2011-02-21T14:41:04Z")
> [@FasterThanMeerkats](#): > > I wonder if it’s not so much that the tank is perfect for the situation, but that there is no suitable alternative available. > > Most developing countries don’t invest a lot in civilian or police armored vehicles, but there’s plenty of tanks around, especially when the military gets involved. I dout it. Backtrack a century or two and you’ll find instances of cavalry units being deployed to break strikes or as riot police (see: Peterloo Massacre). Which seems really stupid because horsemen really, really don’t like streetfigthing. In fact, horsemen really don’t like any sort of close combat - their job is to rush in, lop heads & rush out because once they’re bogged down they get massacred. It’s really hard to defend yourself from the front, back and underside when you’re on horseback. They’d have been more effective had they left the horses at the stable and came to control the crowd on foot. However, war horses are big and mean and intimidating enough to someone who isn’t aware of the previous fact. I guess the same reasoning applies to tanks. ---
**Author:** ![Markxxx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5daacb/32.png) [@Markxxx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Markxxx)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/28 "2011-02-21T15:59:07Z")
As bad as they are, they’re not nearly as bad as being in your underwear, and having a hillbilly girl, holds a gun and point at you, while you’re picture is being taken 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/29 "2011-02-21T16:02:49Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I dout it. Backtrack a century or two and you’ll find instances of cavalry units being deployed to break strikes or as riot police (see: Peterloo Massacre). > > Which seems really stupid because horsemen really, really don’t like streetfigthing. In fact, horsemen really don’t like any sort of close combat - their job is to rush in, lop heads & rush out because once they’re bogged down they get massacred. It’s really hard to defend yourself from the front, back and underside when you’re on horseback. They’d have been more effective had they left the horses at the stable and came to control the crowd on foot. > > However, war horses are big and mean and intimidating enough to someone who isn’t aware of the previous fact. I guess the same reasoning applies to tanks. Awhile back Chicago was considering getting rid of its mounted police units to save money. The police strongly objected. They said when it came to crowd control police on horses couldn’t be beat. Of course their goal is not outright battle either. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/30 "2011-02-21T16:03:55Z")
Horses can easily be defeated by disciplined infantry, which is exactly what street protesters aren’t. Cavalry is useful in breaking up demonstrations for the same reason they were useful in breaking up formations of secondary infantry–the infantry doesn’t have the discipline to all stand together and form up ranks against the cavalry. And so the guys in the front rank try to run away, and then everyone runs away, and it becomes a rout. And once everyone is running away, the cavalry can run them down, it’s hard to run faster than a horse. Of course, in close quarter street fighting the footmen have a huge advantage, but they have to be disciplined enough to take advantage of it. When the street protesters are forming up ranks with pikes to receive cavalry, that isn’t a street protest anymore but a civil war. ---
**Author:** ![Agnostic\_Pagan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c4cdca/32.png) [@Agnostic\_Pagan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Agnostic_Pagan)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/31 "2011-02-21T16:29:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Awhile back Chicago was considering getting rid of its mounted police units to save money. The police strongly objected. They said when it came to crowd control police on horses couldn’t be beat. > > Of course their goal is not outright battle either. I think the key here is crown control. I saw them used on Rush Street one year (can’t remember the exact occasion, but I think it was New Years or one the Bulls championships), and when they decided the party was over and it was time to clear the streets a line of mounted officers starting slowly walking down it. Crowd realized it was time to go home. I know officers also like them for festivals and other events. Gives them a great sight advantage, and a horse can push through a crowd a lot more effectively than officer on foot could. I doubt they would be effective against a mob of protesters, but are great a managing non-violent crowds. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/32 "2011-02-21T17:06:15Z")
> [@JerseyMarine2092](#): > > A tanks optics are still exceptionally vulnerable. ! From the latest news, it seems that most vulnerable part of a tank is the crew, when they decide to hand the keys to the protestors. Anyway : how can tanks prevent people from climbing on the back of the vehicle (assuming there’s some point in climbing on the tanks, like destroying the optics as you mention)? Can other tanks safely open fire on people/infantry around/on the tank, or is there a risk that the friendly tank could be damaged by the machine guns? ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/33 "2011-02-21T17:20:18Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > Can other tanks safely open fire on people/infantry around/on the tank, or is there a risk that the friendly tank could be damaged by the machine guns? The story goes that during the Israeli defense of the Golan Heights in 1973, a brigade commander went on the radio to order his tank commanders to move forward to repulse yet another Syrian attack, and was answered with total silence. It seems that after three straight days of combat, hist tank commanders were too tired, too shell-shocked and too scared to move. So the commander opened his hatch, grabbed his machine gun and opened fire on the tank next to him until he got a response. He then ordered him to fire on the tank next to him, and so it went until he whole line was ready get back into the fray. So yeah, tanks can shoot at each other, if they have to. Still, the best protection tanks can have from infantry in close-combat environments is their own infantry to look after their backs. ---
**Author:** ![FasterThanMeerkats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@FasterThanMeerkats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FasterThanMeerkats)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/34 "2011-02-21T17:25:30Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I dout it. Backtrack a century or two and you’ll find instances of cavalry units being deployed to break strikes or as riot police (see: Peterloo Massacre). > > Which seems really stupid because horsemen really, really don’t like streetfigthing. In fact, horsemen really don’t like any sort of close combat - their job is to rush in, lop heads & rush out because once they’re bogged down they get massacred. It’s really hard to defend yourself from the front, back and underside when you’re on horseback. They’d have been more effective had they left the horses at the stable and came to control the crowd on foot. > > However, war horses are big and mean and intimidating enough to someone who isn’t aware of the previous fact. I guess the same reasoning applies to tanks. I don’t disagree about the effectiveness of using horses, but it seems the argument of availability in developing countries still stands. Chicago and other 1st world city options aren’t comparable to the countries specificially mentioned by the OP: Libya, China, and Egypt. Respectfully, for the horse alternative to stand, evidence would have to show that these countries routinely maintain either A) a sizable force of mounted police like Chicago, (my quick search comes up with [none](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mounted_police_forces)) or B) a sizable force of military horse cavalry that is not just for show. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/35 "2011-02-21T17:46:16Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I dout it. Backtrack a century or two and you’ll find instances of cavalry units being deployed to break strikes or as riot police (see: Peterloo Massacre). Not to be a pest about the Bonus March, but U.S. tanks _were_ cavalry then. They supported horse troops at the march. My bad: The Army wasn’t a skeleton force then, but it did have skeleton equipment. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/36 "2011-02-21T17:48:26Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > From the latest news, it seems that most vulnerable part of a tank is the crew, when they decide to hand the keys to the protestors. > > Anyway : how can tanks prevent people from climbing on the back of the vehicle (assuming there’s some point in climbing on the tanks, like destroying the optics as you mention)? > > Can other tanks safely open fire on people/infantry around/on the tank, or is there a risk that the friendly tank could be damaged by the machine guns? I believe it is standard doctrine for friendly tanks to spray each other with machine gun fire if enemy infantry manages to get close. The original purpose of a tank is to be a machine-gun/barbed-wire proof mobile pillbox, so a vehicle that can’t withstand machine-gun fire isn’t a tank. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/37 "2011-02-21T18:14:23Z")
WAG: It’s cheaper. You’ll spend less moving a column of tanks than a battalion of troops, and the effective fighting power will be far greater against protesters. Let’s say the effectiveness factor is 2:1 (tanks are twice as effective vs protesters than troops.) However, the cost is probably 1:2 or 1:3 or more. Imagine moving 1 tank vs 100 troops. You probably need 10 vehicles to move the troops that cost as much in fuel as the one tank. ---
**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/38 "2011-02-21T18:59:34Z")
> [@Superhal](#): > > WAG: It’s cheaper. You’ll spend less moving a column of tanks than a battalion of troops, and the effective fighting power will be far greater against protesters. Let’s say the effectiveness factor is 2:1 (tanks are twice as effective vs protesters than troops.) However, the cost is probably 1:2 or 1:3 or more. Imagine moving 1 tank vs 100 troops. You probably need 10 vehicles to move the troops that cost as much in fuel as the one tank. The tanks are going to require a LOT more maintenance than the trucks, even if you have the foresight/ability to transport the tanks to the battle area. Tracked vehicles, including tanks, generally don’t road march very well w/o considerable attrition, another reason why the “left hook” in Desert Storm was so amazing. No idea what the time between overhaul is on an M-1, but I’ll be stunned if they could go 1/20th as long as a 6x6 diesel truck. They’re awfully hard on your roads too, though at that point, saving money on road construction is the last thing on your mind. Further, tanks are notorious gas hogs. The [M-1 Abrams](http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m1-specs.htm) that we so thoughtfully supplied to most of the MidEast governments at issue, gets roughly 1.7 - 2 gallons per mile. The turbine’s fuel consumption doesn’t vary that much between tactical idle and Whoa!. No idea what the APU’s consumption is. From global [security.org](http://security.org): > [@](#): > > A tank will need approximately 300 gallons every eight hours; this will vary depending on mission, terrain, and weather. A single tank takes 10 minutes to refuel. Refueling and rearming of a tank platoon–four tanks–is approximately 30 minutes under ideal conditions. > 0.6 miles per gallon. > 60 gallons per hour when traveling cross-country > 30+ gallons per hour while operating at a tactical ideal > 10 gallons basic idle Your [basic Army truck](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M35_2%C2%BD_ton_cargo_truck) (using the figures for the M-35 2.5 ton truck) has a fuel economy anywhere from 8 to 20 times that of the tank. > [@](#): > > Fuel economy is 11 mpg-US (21 L/100 km; 13 mpg-imp) highway and 8 mpg-US (29 L/100 km; 9.6 mpg-imp) city As far as fighting power goes, it’s protesters, not trained infantry dug in with crew-served automatic weapons. A company of infantry, if ass-kicking was all that was required, provides a greater force continuum than tanks—you can give the infantry sticks, tasers, etc—and is capable of clearing a square of protesters as easily as a tank. ---
**Author:** ![Superhal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Superhal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Superhal)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/39 "2011-02-21T19:04:57Z")
I still think it’s cheaper. You can compare 1 tank to 1 truck, but moving people requires many more trucks. I also think there’s a very good reason, costwise, that they use tanks instead of marching soldiers. Obviously, equipping one soldier costs less than 1 tank, but you need a lot more soldiers. ---
**Author:** ![JerseyMarine2092](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/8491ac/32.png) [@JerseyMarine2092](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JerseyMarine2092)\ **Post date:** [February 21, 2011, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022/40 "2011-02-21T19:17:07Z")
> [@clairobscur](#): > > From the latest news, it seems that most vulnerable part of a tank is the crew, when they decide to hand the keys to the protestors. > > Anyway : how can tanks prevent people from climbing on the back of the vehicle (assuming there’s some point in climbing on the tanks, like destroying the optics as you mention)? > > Can other tanks safely open fire on people/infantry around/on the tank, or is there a risk that the friendly tank could be damaged by the machine guns? There’s not much a tank can do if it’s operating by itself. To make it worse, a buttoned up tank (a tank with all the hatches closed) have some pretty considerable blind spots. The most effective way to protect your tank from have this happen is to have some friendly infantry types come with you. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-use-tanks-specifically-to-suppress-intimidate-protesting-crowds/572022.md?page=3)