打巷戰時(或者攻城),直昇機好定裝甲車好?

打巷戰時(或者攻城),直昇機好定裝甲車好?

All i can say is, if you want to fight urban warfare, onfoot is the best.

The funny things is, what you ask is to compare Flying Coffin (Helicopter) or Bullet Magnet (Armor). BOTH ARE NOT GOOD ON FIGHTING URBAN

Bad things about Attack Helicopter
-In urban area, there are WAY TOO MANY place for people to hide. It not like RPG is an expensive weapon anyway, people can easily afford 4,5 or even 20 of those launcher. If you have to call in helicopter,chances are enemy could just pop out some RPG every once in a while and harass you. And when you see a RPG flying your way in a helicopter. Believe me.....you better pray.....

Also, dense building also prevent precise missile strike, although you can still use chaingun to straf the enemy, but it would be any good

Bad things about Armor (Tank)
-Those are urban bullet magnet, wherever you go in a tank, you go with noise and poise....Enemy will hear you coming from mile and prepare for it.

Also guns elevation aren't that good in tanks and your gun cannot raise to certain degree when you fight in close range. That is you actually become a 56 ton of steel in the town center with nothing but thumbs up your behind....

However, if i have to choose between one to take with me for urban siege, i would take tank, well, at least, when you were fire upon, you can get out and take cover...You cannot do that in an helicopter flying...

J_hungary兄回歸真係好，小弟先係呢度向大哥打聲招呼！其實J_hungary兄憑佢既實戰經驗已經答左炮兵兄既問題，小弟係度只想補充少少野。
當年蘇軍打阿富汗面對既都係類似既問題。為左打游擊隊，蘇軍引入左好多對地攻擊機，主力係米-24及Su-25。呢兩架機殺傷力當然勁，殺人無數，不過就對週圍走既游擊隊就無咩威脅，因為游擊隊唔似手無寸鐵既平民咁任飛機殺，佢地會係山區偏僻既地方呢埋。
米-24及Su-25殺人威力大，但問題係佢地只能對付係開闊地既“敵人”，但兩款飛機係多山既阿富汗執勤就真係找死，當時美國提供左刺針飛彈比游擊隊，從此蘇軍戰機就要面對一場巨大既災難。刺針飛彈有三樣野令佢成為一件好恐怖既武器，首先佢好平，每支飛彈只係幾萬美元，可以大量製造。第二佢既操作極簡單，只要接通電源，打開瞄準鏡，跟住就會聽到蜂鳴聲，其實只要聽到蜂鳴聲，跟住只要敵機大致係瞄準鏡內就可以發射，由開機至發射時間大概只係一分鐘多啲。第三個恐怖係刺針飛彈命中率高，好多時都中，就係因為咁就令戰爭既方向有改變。
據我所知，蘇軍係呢場戰爭損失左差唔多三百架飛機。每架飛機值幾百萬美元，可想而知蘇軍既損失係幾咁慘重。當然咁大既戰果同刺針飛彈既出色性能有好大關係，但另外一個緊要既原因係直升機或對地攻擊機天生就係唔適宜對付有高度靈活性及隱蔽性既輕裝游擊隊。因為游擊隊可以四處躲避，而且就算係直昇機都飛得太快，好難搵到游擊隊黎打。反而直昇機飛係無遮無掩既天空就係最好既目標，蘇軍高層既頭腦一向極廢，以上咁簡單既道理都要損失左成300架飛機先至唸得到。

其實兩個都唔安全,先講直升機

直升機雖然可以全角度性觀察，但敵人也可以係全角色性攻擊自已，我相信問者一定有睇黑鷹十五小時喇！你自已想下如果索馬里唔係淨係得RPG和無訓練過既民兵,我相信唔止兩部黑鷹俾人擊落。仲有E家既國家大多數用防空導彈，自動追蹤，命中率高。然後講城的密度，你話好似旺角或銅鑼灣咁密既地方用低空搜索，你係直升機到未見到敵人，人地就係你後面射一枝RPG你就可以準備收工喇。

到裝甲部隊，機動性不足係致命點，用旺角為例、路窄如甕中捉鱉，如果敵人好似中國軍隊打遊擊戰，係屋到埋伏，等敵人既先導車同後尾車入左射程範圍內，打爆左E兩部既話，一個裝甲部隊就好似甕中既鱉一樣，等死，因為無退路啊嗎。打城市戰要有高機動性、高靈活性、能隱藏自已(姐係Cover)、高自由性(問者講左)和能夠佔領既軍事單位。

我個人推薦係士兵，如果你話直升機和裝甲部隊邊樣兩者安全D，我個人覺得裝甲部隊比較安全，起碼容易比自已人救走。

個人認為是直昇機較安全，因直昇機較機動靈活，輕型火力較強及可向四方八面射擊，視界亦大很多，能清楚看到敵人。樓主所舉兩個戰例是有問題的，首先索馬里美軍當時之軍事目標是運送士兵與人士，並無戰鬥直昇機保護及支援，或當時指揮認為其火力已足夠(未有估算對方之反抗力量及反應時間)。因意外地被擊落直昇機，引起後來之傷亡。
以黎戰爭，雖然以色列有幾隻直昇機被擊落，但如使用裝甲部隊，被誤剎之平民會較多，而裝甲部隊之死傷亦會較大。