You misunderstand my point. I’m not talking about modern countries deploying horses (who the hell still has actual cavalry on the roster ?!) but that just as in the past cavalry units were used when it probably wasn’t the best of ideas, so are tanks (modern horses) used today.
I.e. they’re probably not the best tool for the job (esp. if you want to avoid a massacre) and they can be defeated by motivated and trained insurgents as city fighting is far from a tank’s strong suit, but they’re scary enough that a crowd of random civilians is going to disperse away from them pretty darn quick.
Ok, I’m with you there completely.
I was confused because you said you disagreed with (“I doubt it”) the thought that there are no suitable alternatives to using tanks in modern times for developing countries, yet did not follow up with further explanation, but immediately launched into the historic use of cavalry to control riots.
I think the connection with the historic use of cavalry is interesting and definitely worth posting in this thread. I just don’t see why it was connected with a disagreement with my post.
In fact, if you’re saying neither tanks nor horses are the best of ideas, it seems to bolster, not contradict, the argument that they have been used because there is/was no suitable alternative. 
I know there are “beehive” antipersonnel rounds for some main guns.
I believe there are also “quick” fused HE rounds.
Small scout tanks & armored cars often carry rapid firing light autocannon, with HE shells.
The Abrams can fire the M1028 canister round, which contains 1100 or so tungsten balls. Though at the point you’re talking crowd elimination, not crowd control. “A whiff of the grape” indeed.
I think that often the tanks are used like my great-grandfather-the-cop’s horse was used: he never charged while on it, as far as I know, but it gave him a good view of a crowd on foot (he could pick up ringleaders easily, either from knowing them or from their behavior - I do know of at least one time he slapped one of them from there to next Thursday, as the ringleader in question happened to be his son/my grandfather, and the crowd immediately found things to do elsewhere), and it made him easily visible while saying I Am Authority.
People in cities back then did not normally go around on horseback (the cops were almost the only ones), people in cities nowadays don’t go around in tanks - and in general, the idea is to intimidate, not to fight. It doesn’t always work, but no strategy works 100% of the time.
Another random thought: confirmation bias.
When I was in Korea, I witnessed the police preparing for student demonstrations. Hiding behind a building from the local college was about 200 riot police with plastic shields, helmets, vests, etc.
Maybe tanks aren’t always used, but we think they are simply because they wind up on the news a lot.
Well, there always is: big burly bastards with sticks and/or rifles. I’m pretty sure they’re easier to come by than tanks, too :). And as has already been said, they’d be able to deal with a crowd more “subtly” (or at least with more options) and more effectively.
Trouble is, it’s IMO also more likely the crowd would think “we can take them !” based on their respective numbers.
Not that I know anything about the doctrine of this sort of thing. But my wild arse guesses would be
- Pure Intimidation. There is really nothing that a crowd can do against a tank. Yeah, sure you can talk about optics and what have you, but short of a trained unit in that sort of thing, nobody is going to be able to damage them.
- Once the tank is in place it “controls” the area. and who said the tank neccessarily has to be armed with lethal weapons? It would be one hell of a way to deliver (for example) tear gas. Or rubber bullets
- Couldn’t a tank be armed with a flame thrower if required? Which would make a pretty fantastic crowd control weapon wouldn’t it?
- Once the tank is in place and has no people nearby, who said it needs to be buttoned up? Couldn’t the commander pop his head and do all sorts of things with minimal risk?
I would think the answer would be obvious. Tanks are extremely effective if your message is “do as I say or I will crush and intimidate you” and you don’t care about the political consequences.
For most crowd control applications in more enlightened nations, tanks are considered an expensive and politically untenable overkill. Other, more effective techniques tend to be used, including:
- Dozens of cops in riot armor weilding less than lethal weapons
- Specialized light armored vehicles armed with water cannons
- Mounted police units (horses are pretty big and intimidating)
Of course, tanks are extremely ineffective crowd control weapons long term. Yes they have machineguns, canister rounds, possibly flamethrowers (Zippos) and are nearly indestructable. They are also extremely vulnurable to running out of gas. Extremely likely when your entire country shuts down because you’ve incited the whole nation to riot by flamethrowering a crowd.