Il-2 attack aircraft proved to be a powerful means of destroying enemy personnel, equipment and fortifications. Due to the presence of powerful built-in small arms and cannon weapons, a wide range of suspended aircraft weapons and armor protection, the IL-2 was the most advanced aircraft in service with Soviet ground attack aircraft. But the anti-tank capabilities of the attack aircraft, despite attempts to increase the caliber of aircraft guns, remained weak.
From the very beginning, the IL-2's armament consisted of RS-82 and RS-132 rockets weighing 6, 8 and 23 kg, respectively. On Il-2 aircraft, for the RS-82 and RS-132 projectiles, there were usually 4-8 guides. This weapon gave good results against areal targets, but the experience of the combat use of rockets at the front showed their low efficiency when operating against single small targets due to the high dispersion of shells and, therefore, the low probability of hitting the target.
At the same time, in the manuals on the use of Il-2 weapons, rockets were considered an effective means of dealing with enemy armored vehicles. To clarify this issue, real launches on captured German tanks and self-propelled guns were carried out at the Air Force Research Institute at the beginning of 1942. During the tests, it turned out that the RS-82 in the warhead of which contained 360 g of TNT could destroy or permanently disable the German light tanks Pz. II Ausf F, Pz. 38 (t) Ausf C, as well as the Sd Kfz 250 armored vehicle only when direct hit. If you miss more than 1 meter, the armored vehicles were not damaged. The greatest hit probability was obtained with a salvo launch of four RS-82s from a distance of 400 m, with a gentle dive with an angle of 30 °.
During the tests, 186 RS-82s were used and 7 direct hits were achieved. The average percentage of rockets hitting a single tank when firing from a distance of 400-500 m was 1.1%, and in a column of tanks - 3.7%. Shooting was carried out from a height of 100-400 m, with a descent angle of 10-30 °. Aiming began at 800 m, and fire was opened from 300-500 m. Shooting was carried out with single RS-82 and salvo of 2, 4 and 8 shells.
The results of firing the RS-132 were even worse. The launches were carried out under the same conditions as the RS-82, but from a range of 500-600 meters. At the same time, the dispersion of shells compared to the RS-82 at dive angles of 25-30 ° was about 1.5 times higher. Just as in the case of the RS-82, the destruction of a medium tank required a direct hit from a projectile, the warhead of which contained about 1 kg of explosives. However, out of 134 RS-132 launched from the Il-2 at the test site, not a single direct hit was received on the tank.
On the basis of the existing jet aircraft 82 and 132-mm projectiles, special anti-tank RBS-82 and RBS-132 were created, distinguished by an armor-piercing warhead and more powerful engines. The fuses of the armor-piercing shells fired with a slowdown after the warhead penetrated the tank armor, causing maximum damage inside the tank. Due to the higher flight speed of armor-piercing shells, their dispersion was somewhat reduced, and as a result, the probability of hitting the target increased. The first batch of RBS-82 and RBS-132 was fired in the summer of 1941, and the shells showed good results at the front. However, their mass production began only in the spring of 1943. In addition, the thickness of penetration of tank armor significantly depended on the angle of encounter between the projectile and the armor.
Simultaneously with the start of mass production of armor-piercing RSs, ROFS-132 rockets were produced with an improved accuracy of fire compared to RBS-132 or PC-132. The warhead of the ROFS-132 projectile provided, with a direct hit, through penetration of 40-mm armor, regardless of the angle of encounter. According to reports submitted after the ROFS-132 field tests, depending on the angle of fall of the projectile relative to the target, at a distance of 1 m, shrapnel could pierce armor with a thickness of 15-30 mm.
However, rockets never became an effective means of dealing with German tanks. In the second half of the war, an increase in the protection of German medium and heavy tanks was noted at the front. In addition, after the Battle of Kursk, the Germans switched to dispersed battle formations, avoiding the possibility of group destruction of tanks as a result of an air strike. The best results were obtained when ROFS-132 was fired at areal targets: motorized columns, trains, artillery positions, warehouses, etc.
From the very beginning, the most effective means of fighting tanks in the Il-2 arsenal were 25-100 kg bombs. High-explosive fragmentation 50 kg and fragmentation 25 kg bombs, with a direct hit into the tank, ensured its unconditional defeat, and with a gap of 1-1.5 m, they ensured penetration of armor with a thickness of 15-20 mm. The best results were demonstrated by high-explosive fragmentation OFAB-100.
When the OFAB-100 burst, which contained about 30 kg of TNT, a continuous defeat of open manpower within a radius of 50 m was ensured. When used against enemy armored vehicles, it was possible to penetrate 40 mm of armor at a distance of 3 m, 30 mm - at a distance of 10 m and 15 mm - 15 m from the point of explosion. In addition, the blast wave destroyed welded seams and riveted joints.
Air bombs were the most versatile means of destruction of manpower, equipment, engineering structures and enemy fortifications. The normal bomb load of the Il-2 was 400 kg, in the overload - 600 kg. At the maximum bomb load, four 100-kg bombs were suspended externally, plus small bombs in the inner compartments.
But the effectiveness of the use of bomb weapons was reduced by the low accuracy of bombing. The Il-2 could not drop bombs from a steep dive, and the standard PBP-16 sight, originally installed on attack aircraft, was practically useless with the adopted tactics of inflicting strikes from low-level flight: the target ran over and disappeared from the eyes too quickly, even before the pilot had time to use the sight. Therefore, in a combat situation, before dropping bombs, the pilots fired a tracer machine-gun burst at the target and turned the plane depending on where the route lay, while the bombs were dropped according to the time delay. When bombing from level flight from heights of more than 50 m in the fall of 1941, they began to use the simplest sighting marks on the windshield of the cockpit canopy and the hood of the aircraft, but they did not provide acceptable accuracy and were inconvenient to use.
Compared to other combat aircraft of the Red Army Air Force, the Il-2 demonstrated better survivability when fired from the ground. The attack aircraft possessed powerful offensive weapons effective against a wide range of targets, but its anti-tank capabilities remained mediocre. Since the effectiveness of 20-23 mm cannons and rockets against medium and heavy tanks and self-propelled guns based on them was low, the main means of dealing with well-protected armor targets were 25-100 kg caliber bombs. At the same time, a specialized armored attack aircraft, originally created to combat enemy armored vehicles, did not surpass the Pe-2 bomber in its capabilities. Moreover, during dive bombing, the Pe-2, which had a normal bomb load of 600 kg, bombed more accurately.
In the initial period of the war, to combat armored vehicles, tin ampoules AZh-2 with a self-igniting liquid KS (a solution of white phosphorus in carbon disulfide) were actively used. When falling on an armored vehicle, the ampoule was destroyed, and the liquid of the COP ignited. If the burning liquid leaked into the tank, then it was impossible to extinguish it and the tank, as a rule, burned out.
The Il-2 small bomb cassettes contained 216 ampoules, while the probability of defeat was quite acceptable when operating in battle formations of tanks. However, the pilots of the KS ampoule disliked, since their use was associated with a great risk. In the event of a stray bullet or shrapnel hitting the bomb bay and even minor damage to one ampoule, the plane inevitably turned into a flying torch.
The use of aerial bombs filled with thermite balls against tanks gave a negative result. The combat equipment of the ZARP-100 incendiary bomb consisted of pressed thermite balls of one of three calibers: 485 pieces weighing 100 g each, 141 pieces weighing 300 g each or 85 pieces weighing 500 g each. radius of 15 meters, with an air blast, the radius of dispersion was 25-30 meters. The combustion products of the thermite mixture, formed at a temperature of about 3000 ° C, could well burn through the upper relatively thin armor. But the fact was that the termite, which had excellent incendiary properties, did not catch fire instantly. It took a few seconds for the thermite ball to ignite. Termite balls ejected from an aerial bomb did not have time to ignite and, as a rule, rolled off the armor of tanks.
Incendiary aerial bombs equipped with white phosphorus, which give good results when used against wooden structures and other non-fire-resistant targets, did not achieve the desired effect against armored vehicles. Granular white phosphorus with a combustion temperature of about 900 ° C, scattered after the explosion of an incendiary bomb, burns up quickly enough, and its combustion temperature is not enough to burn through the armor. A tank could be destroyed by a direct incendiary bomb hit, but this rarely happened.
During the war, ZAB-100-40P incendiary bombs were sometimes used against accumulations of enemy armored vehicles. This aircraft munition was the prototype of aircraft incendiary tanks. In its body made of pressed cardboard with a wall thickness of 8 mm, 38 kg of thickened gasoline or a self-igniting liquid KS was poured. The greatest effect against the accumulation of tanks was achieved with an air blast at a height of 15-20 m above the ground. When dropped from a height of 200 m, the simplest grating fuse was triggered. In case of his refusal, the bomb was equipped with a shock fuse. The effectiveness of the use of incendiary bombs with air detonation was highly dependent on the meteorological conditions and the time of year. In addition, for air detonation, it was necessary to strictly control the height of the bomb release.
As combat experience has shown, when operating against enemy tanks, a flight of four Il-2s, when using their entire arsenal, could destroy or seriously damage an average of 1-2 enemy tanks. Naturally, this situation did not suit the Soviet command, and the designers were tasked with creating an effective, cheap, technological, simple and safe anti-tank weapon.
It seemed quite logical to use the cumulative effect to penetrate the armor. The cumulative effect of a directional explosion became known soon after the mass production of high explosives began. The effect of a directed explosion with the formation of a cumulative jet of metal is achieved by imparting a special shape to explosive charges using a metal cladding with a thickness of 1-2 mm. For this, the explosive charge is made with a recess in the part opposite to its detonator. When the explosion is initiated, the converging flow of detonation products forms a high-speed cumulative jet. The speed of the metal jet reaches 10 km / s. Compared to the expanding detonation products of conventional charges, the pressure and density of matter and energy in the converging flow of shaped charge products are much higher, which ensures the directed action of the explosion and a high penetrating force of the cumulative jet. The positive aspect of using cumulative ammunition is that their armor penetration characteristics do not depend on the speed at which the projectile meets the armor.
The main difficulty in the creation of cumulative projectiles (in the 30-40 years they were called armor-piercing) was the development of reliably operating safe instant fuses. Experiments have shown that even a slight delay in the actuation of the fuse led to a decrease in armor penetration or even not to penetrate armor.
So, during tests of the 82-mm RBSK-82 cumulative rocket projectile, it turned out that the cumulative action armor-piercing projectile, equipped with an alloy of TNT with hexogen, with an M-50 fuse, pierced armor 50 mm thick at a right angle, with an increase in the meeting angle to 30 ° the thickness penetrated armor was reduced to 30 mm. The low penetration capacity of the RBSK-82 was explained by the delay in the fuse actuation, as a result of which the cumulative jet was formed with a crumpled cone. Due to the lack of advantages over standard aviation weapons, RBSK-82 rockets were not accepted into service.
In the summer of 1942 I. A. Larionov, who was previously engaged in the creation of fuses, proposed the design of a 10 kg anti-tank bomb of cumulative action. However, representatives of the Air Force reasonably pointed out that the thickness of the upper armor of heavy tanks does not exceed 30 mm, and proposed to reduce the mass of the bomb. Due to the urgent need for such ammunition, the pace of work was very high. The design was carried out at TsKB-22, the first batch of bombs was handed over for testing at the end of 1942.
The new ammunition, designated PTAB-2, 5-1, 5, was a cumulative anti-tank bomb with a mass of 1.5 kg in the dimensions of a 2.5-kg aviation fragmentation bomb. PTAB-2, 5-1, 5 was urgently put into service, and launched into mass production.
The bodies and riveted stabilizers of the first PTAB-2, 5-1, 5 were made of sheet steel with a thickness of 0.6 mm. For additional fragmentation action, a 1.5 mm steel shirt was put on the cylindrical part of the bomb body. PTAB consisted of 620 g of a mixed explosive TGA (a mixture of TNT, RDX and aluminum powder). To protect the AD-A fuse impeller from spontaneous transfer to the firing position, a special fuse was put on the bomb stabilizer from a square-shaped tin plate with a fork of two wire whiskers attached to it, passing between the blades. After dropping the PTAB from the plane, it was blown off the bomb by the oncoming air flow.
The minimum drop height of bombs, ensuring the reliability of its action and leveling the bomb before meeting the surface of the tank's armor, was 70 m. After hitting the tank's armor, the fuse was triggered, after which the main charge was detonated through the tetrile detonator stick. The cumulative jet formed during the explosion of PTAB-2, 5-1, 5 penetrated armor up to 60 mm thick at an encounter angle of 30 ° and 100 mm along the normal (the thickness of the Pz. Kpfw. VI Ausf. H1 upper armor was 28 mm, Pz. Kpfw V - 16 mm). If ammunition or fuel was encountered in the path of the jet, their detonation and ignition occurred. Il-2 could carry up to 192 PTAB-2, 5-1, 5 air bombs in 4 cassettes. Up to 220 shaped-charge bombs could be placed in the internal bomb bays, but such equipment was very time consuming.
By the middle of 1943, the industry was able to deliver more than 1,500 thousand PTAB-2, 5-1, 5. New anti-tank bombs from May came to the armament depots of the assault aviation regiments. But to create a factor of surprise in the upcoming summer decisive battles, by order of I. V. Stalin, it was strictly forbidden to use them until further notice. "Baptism of fire" PTAB took place on July 5 during the Battle of Kursk. On that day, the pilots of the 291st assault aviation division in the Voronezh region destroyed about 30 enemy tanks and self-propelled guns in a day. According to German data, the 3rd SS Panzer Division "Dead Head", which was subjected to several massive bombing attacks by attack aircraft in the area of Bolshiye Mayachki during the day, lost about 270 tanks, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and tracked tractors. The use of new anti-tank bombs led not only to large losses, but also had a strong psychological effect on the enemy.
The surprise effect played its role and initially the enemy suffered very heavy losses from the use of PTAB. By the middle of the war, tankers of all belligerents were accustomed to relatively low losses from bombing and assault air strikes. The rear units involved in the delivery of fuel and ammunition suffered much more from the actions of the attack aircraft. Therefore, in the initial period of the battle at Kursk, the enemy used the usual marching and pre-battle formations on the routes of movement as part of the columns, in the places of concentration and at the starting positions. Under these conditions, PTABs dropped in horizontal flight from a height of 75-100 m could cover the 15x75 m strip, destroying all enemy equipment in it. When the PTAB was dropped from a height of 200 m from level flight at a flight speed of 340-360 km / h, one bomb fell into an area equal to an average of 15 m².
PTAB-2, 5-1, 5 quickly gained popularity among pilots. With its help, attack aircraft successfully fought against armored vehicles, and also destroyed openly located ammunition and fuel depots, road and rail transport of the enemy.
However, the irrecoverable destruction of the tank occurred in the event of a cumulative bomb hitting the engine, fuel tanks or ammunition stowage. The penetration of the upper armor in the manned compartment, in the area of the power plant, often led to minor damage, death or injury of 1-2 crew members. In this case, there was only a temporary loss of the tank's combat effectiveness. In addition, the reliability of the first PTAB left much to be desired, due to jamming of the blades of the fuses in the cylindrical stabilizer. The ammunition, created in a hurry, had several significant drawbacks, and the development of the cumulative bombs continued until 1945. On the other hand, even with the existing design flaws and not always reliable operation of the actuator of the fuse, PTAB-2, 5-1, 5, with acceptable efficiency, had a low cost. That made it possible to use them in large quantities, which in the end, as you know, sometimes turns into quality. As of May 1945, more than 13 million cumulative aerial bombs were sent to the active army.
During the war, the irrecoverable losses of German tanks from aviation actions averaged no more than 5%, after the use of PTAB, in some sectors of the front, this figure exceeded 20%. It must be said that the enemy quickly recovered from the shock caused by the sudden use of cumulative aerial bombs. To reduce losses, the Germans switched to dispersed marching and pre-battle formations, which in turn greatly complicated the control of tank subunits, increased the time for their deployment, concentration and redeployment, and complicated interaction between them. During parking, German tankers began to place their vehicles under various sheds, trees, and install light metal nets over the roof of the tower and hull. At the same time, the losses of tanks from PTAB decreased by about 3 times.
A mixed bomb load consisting of 50% PTAB and 50% high-explosive fragmentation bombs of 50-100 kg caliber turned out to be more rational when operating against tanks supporting their infantry on the battlefield. In those cases when it was necessary to act on tanks preparing for an attack, concentrated in their initial positions or on the march, attack aircraft were loaded only with PTAB.
When the enemy's armored vehicles were concentrated in a relatively dense mass over a small area, aiming was carried out on the medium tank, along the side point at the time of entering into a gentle dive, with a turn of 25-30 °. Bombing was carried out at the exit from a dive from a height of 200-400 m, two cassettes, with the calculation of the overlap of the entire group of tanks. With low cloud cover, PTABs were dropped from an altitude of 100-150 m from level flight at an increased speed. When tanks were dispersed over a large area, attack aircraft struck at individual targets. At the same time, the height of the dropping of bombs at the exit from the dive was 150-200 m, and only one cassette was consumed in one combat run. The dispersal of the combat and marching formations of enemy armored vehicles in the final period of the war, of course, reduced the effectiveness of PTAB-2, 5-1, 5, but cumulative bombs still remained an effective anti-tank weapon, in many ways exceeding 25-100 kg of high-explosive fragmentation, high-explosive and incendiary bombs.
Having comprehended the experience of the combat use of PTAB-2, 5-1, 5, the specialists of the Air Force Research Institute issued a task to develop an anti-tank aerial bomb weighing 2.5 kg in the dimensions of 10-kg aviation ammunition (PTAB-10-2, 5), with armor penetration up to 160 mm … In 1944, industry supplied 100,000 aerial bombs for military trials. At the front, it turned out that PTAB-10-2, 5 had a number of significant shortcomings. Due to structural defects, when dropping bombs, they "hung" in the bomb compartments of aircraft. Due to their low strength, the tin stabilizers were deformed, which is why the fuse impellers did not fold in flight and the fuses were not cocked. Launching bombs and their fuses dragged on and PTAB-10-2, 5 were adopted after the end of hostilities.
IL-2 was not the only type of combat aircraft of the Red Army Air Force, from which PTAB was used. Due to its ease and versatility of use, this aviation ammunition was part of the bomb armament of Pe-2, Tu-2, Il-4 bombers. In clusters of small bombs KBM up to 132 PTAB-2, 5-1, 5 were suspended on Po-2 night bombers. Fighter-bombers Yak-9B could carry four clusters of 32 bombs each.
In June 1941, the aircraft designer P. O. Sukhoi presented a project for a single-seat long-range armored attack aircraft ODBSh with two M-71 air-cooled engines. The armor protection of the attack aircraft consisted of 15 mm armor plate in front of the pilot, armor plates 15 mm thick, 10 mm armor plates on the bottom and sides of the pilot. The cockpit canopy in front was protected by 64 mm bulletproof glass. During the consideration of the project, representatives of the Air Force indicated the need to introduce a second crew member and install defensive weapons to protect the rear hemisphere.
After the changes were made, the attack aircraft project was approved, and the construction of a two-seater model aircraft under the name DDBSH began. Due to the difficult situation at the front, the evacuation of industry, and the overload of production areas with a defense order, the practical implementation of the promising project was delayed. Tests of the heavy twin-engine attack aircraft, designated the Su-8, began only in March 1944.
The aircraft had very good flight data. With a normal takeoff weight of 12,410 kg, the Su-8 at an altitude of 4,600 meters developed a speed of 552 km / h, near the ground, in forced operation of the engines - 515 km / h. The maximum flight range with a combat load of 600 kg of bombs was 1500 km. The maximum bomb load of the Su-8 with an overload flight weight of 13,380 kg could reach 1400 kg.
The offensive armament of the attack aircraft was very powerful and included four 37-45-mm cannons under the fuselage and four rapid-fire machine guns of rifle caliber ShKAS in the wing consoles, 6-10 ROFS-132 rockets. The upper rear hemisphere was protected by a 12.7 mm UBT machine gun, fighter attacks from below were supposed to be repelled using a 7.62 mm ShKAS in the hatch installation.
Compared to the Il-2 with 37-mm cannons, the Su-8 artillery battery's fire accuracy was higher. This was due to the placement of Su-8 artillery weapons in the fuselage near the center of the aircraft. With the failure of one or two guns, there was no great tendency to deploy the attack aircraft as on the IL-2, and it was possible to conduct aimed fire. At the same time, the recoil with the simultaneous firing of all four guns was very significant, and the aircraft significantly slowed down in the air. During salvo firing, 2-3 shells in a queue from each gun went to the target, further the accuracy of the fire fell. Thus, it was rational to fire in short bursts, in addition, with the length of a continuous burst of more than 4 shells, the probability of a cannon failure increased. But even so, a flurry of 8-12 shells fell on the target.
A 45-mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile weighing 1065 g contained 52 grams of powerful A-IX-2 explosives, which is a mixture of hexogen (76%), aluminum powder (20%) and wax (4%). A high-explosive fragmentation projectile with an initial speed of 780 m / s was able to penetrate 12 mm armor, when it burst, it gave about 100 fragments with an effective impact zone of 7 meters. An armor-piercing tracer projectile weighing 1, 43g, at a distance of 400 m along the normal penetrated 52 mm of armor. To increase the effectiveness of firing from the NS-45 at armored targets, it was planned to create a sub-caliber projectile. But due to the limited production of 45-mm aircraft cannons, it did not come to this.
In terms of the range of characteristics, the Su-8 was superior to the serial Il-2 and Il-10 attack aircraft. According to Air Force estimates, a pilot with good flight training, on an attack aircraft with 45-mm NS-45 cannons, could hit 1-2 medium tanks during one sortie. In addition to the very powerful small arms and cannon armament, the Su-8 carried the entire arsenal used on the Il-2, including the PTAB.
Thanks to air-cooled engines, powerful armor and high flight speed, and good defensive armament, the Su-8 was relatively immune to anti-aircraft fire and fighter attacks. Taking into account the range and weight of the combat load, the Su-8 could become a very effective naval torpedo attack aircraft or be used for top-mast bombing. But, despite the positive feedback from test pilots and representatives of the Air Force, the Su-8 attack aircraft was not serially built.
It is generally accepted that this happened due to the unavailability of the M-71F engines, however, taking insurance, P. O. Sukhoi prepared a version with AM-42 liquid-cooled engines. The same serial engines were installed on Il-10 attack aircraft. In fairness, it is worth admitting that in 1944, when the outcome of the war was no longer in doubt, the need for a heavy and expensive twin-engined attack aircraft was not obvious. By that time, the country's leadership had the opinion that the war could be ended victoriously without such an expensive and complex machine as the Su-8, even if it was much more effective than the attack aircraft in service.
Almost simultaneously with the Su-8, tests of the Il-10 single-engine attack aircraft began. This machine, which embodied the experience of the combat use of the Il-2, was supposed to replace the last one in the series.
During state tests, the Il-10 demonstrated outstanding flight performance: with a flight weight of 6300 kg with a 400 kg bomb load, the maximum horizontal flight speed at an altitude of 2300 m turned out to be 550 km / h, which was almost 150 km / h more than the maximum speed of the IL-2 with AM-38F engine. In the range of altitudes typical for air combat on the Eastern Front, the speed of the Il-10 attack aircraft was only 10-15 km / h less than the maximum speeds of the German Fw-190A-4 and Bf-109G-2 fighters. It was noted that the attack aircraft has become much easier to fly. Possessing better stability, good controllability and higher maneuverability, the Il-10, in comparison with the Il-2, forgave the flight crew for mistakes and did not tire when flying into a bumpy flight.
Compared to the Il-2, the armor protection of the Il-10 has been optimized. Based on the analysis of combat damage, the thickness of the armor was distributed. As the experience of the combat use of the Il-2 showed, the upper front part of the armored hull was practically not affected. When the MZA was fired from the ground, it was inaccessible, the shooter protected it from the fire of fighters from the tail of the aircraft, and German fighters avoided attacking the attack aircraft head-on, fearing the firepower of offensive weapons. In this regard, the upper part of the Il-10 armored hull, which had a surface of double curvature, was made of duralumin sheets with a thickness of 1.5-6 mm. Which in turn led to weight savings.
Taking into account the fact that the composition of weapons and bomb load remained the same compared to the Il-2, the anti-tank capabilities of the Il-10 remained at the same level. Due to the fact that the number of bomb compartments was reduced to two, only 144 PTAB-2, 5-1 were placed in the Il-10. At the same time, bombs and rockets could be suspended on the outer nodes.
During military tests at the beginning of 1945, it turned out that a pilot with good training on the Il-10, attacking an armored target using cannon armament and rockets, could achieve a greater number of hits than on the Il-2. That is, the effectiveness of the Il-10 when operating against German tanks, compared with the Il-2, has increased, even despite the reduced number of loaded PTABs. But the new high-speed attack aircraft did not become an effective anti-tank vehicle during the war years. First of all, this was due to the numerous "childhood sores" of the Il-10 and the unreliability of the AM-42 engines. During military trials, more than 70% of aircraft engines failed, which in some cases led to accidents and disasters.
After the end of World War II, the production of the Il-10 continued. In addition to the Soviet Air Force, attack aircraft were supplied to the Allies. By the time the war in Korea began, the DPRK Air Force had 93 Il-10s. However, due to the poor training of North Korean pilots and technicians, as well as the air supremacy of the "UN forces" two months later, only 20 aircraft remained in service. According to American data, 11 Il-10s were shot down in air battles, two more attack aircraft were captured in good working order, after which they were sent for testing in the United States.
The disappointing results of the combat use of the Il-10 under the control of Chinese and Korean pilots became the reason for the modernization of the attack aircraft. On the plane, designated Il-10M, the offensive armament was strengthened by installing four 23-mm NR-23 cannons. The tail was protected by an electrified turret with a 20-mm B-20EN cannon. The bomb load remained unchanged. The upgraded attack aircraft became a little longer, the armor protection was improved and a fire extinguishing system appeared. Thanks to the changes made to the wing and the control system, maneuverability has improved and the takeoff roll has been shortened. At the same time, the maximum speed of the aircraft dropped to 512 km / h, which, among other things, was not critical for an armored attack aircraft operating near the ground.
By the beginning of the 50s, it was possible to resolve the issue of the reliability of the AM-42 engines. The Il-10M received on-board equipment, which was very perfect for that time: OSP-48 blind landing equipment, RV-2 radio altimeter, DGMK-3 remote compass, ARK-5 radio compass, MRP-48P marker receiver and GPK-48 gyrocompass. A snowplow and an anti-icing system appeared on the pilot's frontal armored glass. All this made it possible to use the attack aircraft in adverse weather conditions and at night.
At the same time, despite the improvement in reliability, increased maneuverability at the ground and increased offensive armament, there was no dramatic increase in the combat characteristics of the Il-10M. The 23-mm armor-piercing incendiary projectile fired from the NR-23 air cannon at a speed of 700 m / s could penetrate 25 mm armor along the normal at a distance of 200 m. with a rate of fire of about 900 rds / min, the weight of the second salvo increased. The 23 mm cannons mounted on the Il-10M could cope well with vehicles and light armored vehicles, but medium and heavy tanks were too tough for them.
