I wrote :
  Nice strawman indeed.  The discussion is not about whether there were
tanks
  used in sixties riots; instead, it is about whether those tanks fired
their
  main guns in one of those riots.  You claim they did.  That claim is
  ludicrous.

Awesley replied:
     I repeated what I had been told, under what context I had heard it,
  supporting the claim that tanks were indeed used in Detroit in 67.

The issue has never been whether tanks were used in Detroit in 1967.  It
has been whether they fired their main guns.  You did not merely claim that
tanks were used--you claimed that they fired their main guns to suppress
sniper fire and that they were "quite" effective at this.  You continue to
back away from this claim and defend something else that nobody is
disputing.

Awesley went on:
  I
  spent a few minutes in a library today -- found their computer was
  down and they don't have a card catalog.  Anyway, it took about 10
  minutes to find this in _Nightmare in Detroit, A Rebellion and It's
  Victims_ by Sauter and Hines, on page 133, telling of the death of
  Tonia Blanding, age 4.
   
        "When the tank was fired upon by snipers it turned in the direction
  the shots came from. [...] the fifty-caliber machine gun mounted on the
  tank belched fire into the buildings.  After a short round into the front
  of the buildings, the tank guns spit again, tearing apart huge holes out
  of the side of the apartment."
  
       Well, it's not the main gun.  

"Well, it's not the main gun."  Gee, that's only the entire point.  Are you
now going to admit that you were wrong?

  will I see any pictures of tanks firing their main
  guns?  Will I see pictures of buildings damaged by the shells?  Will I
read
  the reports of the tank fire?  I'll bet you dollar to doughnuts I won't. 
  It will take more than second-hand accounts from a few old National Guard
  sergeants shooting the shit to convince me that tanks shelled American
  cities in the Sixties.

Awesley replied:
    Well, if you bothered to read them, it wouldn't take long at all to
  find reports of tank * fire * -- although not necessarily of the main
  guns.

I will never read of tanks firing their main guns in Detroit in the '67
riots.  There is simply no way that such an event could have taken place
without it being common knowledge even 26 years later.  The American
military firing shells from tanks in American cities on blacks would have
been *big* news.

Awesley goes on:
  You can also read of the troops using grenade launchers.

To fire fragmentary grenades?  I doubt that as well.  To fire concussion
grenades?  Perhaps.  To fire tear gas?  Certainly.  But you would be
perfectly willing to let us believe they fired frags, wouldn't you, since
it makes your other claim seem more plausible.

And on:
  I don't
  expect to convince you; you'll have to open your mind and eyes and
actually
  do a little research to be convinced one way or the other.  Let me know
  what you find.

I already know what you found: nothing.  If I claimed that the Marines used
F-4s to launch rockets at buildings in Trenton, New Jersey would you
believe me?  Would you suspend judgment until you had a chance to research
it?  Or would your bullshit filters kick in?

If tanks had fired their main guns in Detroit, people would have been
screaming about it for the past two and half decades.  I would know about
it.  Unless you also claim that the National Guard managed to cover it up. 
If your mind is open enough to believe that, well, good for you.  I prefer
to live in reality.   And here in reality, I find it hard to believe that
those tanks even had any shells, much less fired them.