Bomber crew morale

[martin goddard]

Apparently the JU 88 was good for crew morale because they all sat together.
Interesting area of thought that I had never considered.


martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

That is interesting, Martin.

I guess tanks are similar. I've not heard much about the morale if tank crews in WW2. I have seen Fury though 

Simon

[John Watson]

I suppose that makes sense if you look at the reverse. In allied bombers the most unpopular position in the crew was the ball gunner in a B17 or similar, followed by the tail end charlie, both because they were isolated from the rest of the crew.
John

[steve_holmes_11]

I've come across this suggestion in the past.

British being a maritime power designed their bombers like warships.
Germams - just getting to grips with armoured warfare designed their bombers like tanks.

The practice is somewhat different:

Germans operated mostly medium bombers, with the crew grouped - similar to the Battle, Blenhiem or Hampden.
The few heavies they developed had dispersed layout with dispersed gun positions.

The only standout among early British bombers was the Wellington.
Which begs two questions:
1. Was this more "naval" layout due to a pair of power turrets.
2. Was this more "naval" layout part of a global move to modernity (see also American, Japanese, Italian medium bombers).

[Colonel Kilgore]

I suppose that makes sense if you look at the reverse. In allied bombers the most unpopular position in the crew was the ball gunner in a B17 or similar, followed by the tail end charlie, both because they were isolated from the rest of the crew.
John

I thought part of the unpopularity of the tail gunner position was due to its vulnerability. I believe losses were highest there?

Simon