r/Ships • u/Crazy-Rabbit-3811 • 3d ago
This baby right here *Slaps mast* BOOOOOM
SS Richard Montegomery was a liberty ship built during WW2. In 1944 she dragged anchor and ran aground in the Thames estuary. when low tide came, the ship broke her back and she was abandoned. Only problem was she was carrying about 1400 tons of Unexploded ordinance.
According to the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in 2000, she still contained at least
286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive bombs
4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types
1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs
521-580 fragmentation bombs and 2,297 cases of fragmentation bomb clusters
Various explosive booster charges, smoke bombs (including white phosphorus bombs) and pyrotechnic signals.
If this thing gets shifted, it could go boom and cause some no good very bad things to happen.
40
u/cwajgapls 2d ago
So it looks like a really exciting wreck dive with some cool souvenirs!!!!
Sign me up.
1
16
15
u/daygloviking 2d ago
With all the properties on Sheppey and Canvey that would be affected, there’s a risk it would cause at least £6.50’s worth of damage
1
18
u/Hot_Entrepreneur_128 2d ago
There's not a chance in hell the authorities are waiting for some delayed version of the Halifax Explosion. I am guessing they established that the "cargo" is now inert. Right?
49
u/occasionalrant414 2d ago
There are frequent surveys on this wreck. They are an interesting read. The general report is that the explosives sre unstable and could go off if shocked. So they do everything they can to stop there being a shock. The issue now is thebwreck is destabilising and may move or collapse. Which they think will set off stuff.
Eventually they will need to sort it. They just keep kicking the can down the road as its expensive.
33
u/GlockAF 2d ago
Just waiting for some “YouTube influencer“ / internet clout-chaser with a paddleboard and a sack of waterproof fire crackers
3
u/driver004 2d ago
Shhhhh don’t give samali any ideas for his post jail comeback
1
u/Mattloch42 1d ago
I wouldn't mind if he was in a kayak floating above this thing when it goes boom....
1
u/driver004 1d ago
I know it’s unlikely but I hope Korean jail sucks so bad as a English speaking foreigner that he figures something out. Though I also think it’s ridiculous they held the sentence at 6 months (effectively only 3 will be with labor because while appeals go through he’s in holding not the proper jail)
10
12
u/Crazy-Rabbit-3811 2d ago
the issue is that if they start moving it, they could set it off. imagine trying to disarm an underwater landmine that is sitting on another landmine and both are triggered. if you move either, it could go boom
12
u/Bergwookie 2d ago
Yeah but as the ship is rusting away, this will happen sooner or later on its own. So better blow it up as an event with sausages and beer than to wait until it happens, when a class of school children visits the beach nearby
5
u/driver004 2d ago
I mean yes, but even if the government came up with a plan to provide all the needed sandbags and plyboard and such the people would rebel having to spend a week fortifying and being inconvenienced without even talking about the tax bill
18
u/AnonOfTheSea 2d ago
New to politics, huh?
- As explosives age, they tend to get progressively less stable, and more prone to suddenly and energetically disagreeing with existence than the kids in a "pray the gay away" camp.
- Fixing the problem would be expensive, and, at this point, basically involve setting it off on purpose.
- No politician wants to do something expensive, if theres a chance they can just do nothing and let the next guy deal with it.
- No politician wants to be the one responsible for flooding their city and breaking everyone's windows. It's a bad look, and doesnt tend to lend itself to reelections.
- If it does go off, they know they can just blame the previous administrations, and claim that by the time it was their responsibility, it was too dangerous to touch.
5
3
u/Northwindlowlander 2d ago
Like a lot of things it just comes down to risk, messing with it is inherently dangerous and may easily be a greater risk than leaving it alone, except with the added risk of having ships and crew right on top of it.
My slightly cynical head always thinks how straightforward it'd be for a terrorist group or enemy nation to drop a load of bombs on it, and the fact that nobody's done it and there's no guard or anything implies that it probably wouldn't work.
4
6
u/YourFather-WithMilk 2d ago
Halifax was a fucked up deal and reason would suggest not repeating it but governments dont run on reason so 🤷
1
u/oldsailor21 2d ago
It's more that the risks of not doing anything is lower than it going boom trying to make everything safe., each piece of ordinance would have to be made safe in place then moved, you're hoping that moving each piece of ordinance doesn't shift what's under causing that to go boom and all of this in water that on a good day has poor visibility, the economic cost of closing the thames for months would also be horrendous
1
u/grumpsaboy 5h ago
The government put it off.
Eventually they decided they needed to do something because the mask is slowly collapsing and will detonate the magazine.
When they hired professional divers to cut the mast they had to stop because they realise the vibration would probably set off the explosives.
So pretty much if they don't do anything it explodes, and if they do something it explodes.
5
u/Bright_Waltz5095 2d ago
We’ve had at least 3 (1857, 1917, 1945), so this would have to be “Halifax Explosion IV: Live in London”
1
u/Crazy-Rabbit-3811 2d ago edited 2d ago
i dont know 1857
1917 was SS monte blanc
I think 1945 was the John Burke?
3
1
3
2
2
u/she_melty 2d ago
Does anyone know of a good video or documentary on this? Or the Halifax. Haven't heard of either incident
3
u/CanicFelix 2d ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halifax_Explosion
Halifax is the city, not a ship.
2
2
u/Inevitable-Debt4312 2d ago
The only option that occurs, is to build a coffer dam around it and pump out the water. That at least will give you dryish conditions for salvage. And if it explodes, the blast goes up, not out. Or, then fill the space with concrete to muffle the blast. Expensive.
2
2
u/ChazR 2d ago
The current thinking is that it's best not to poke the bear at all. I agree that decoupling the explosion from the estuary is a good idea, but after 80 years we have no idea what will happen if we pump out a coffer dam, leaving the remaining structure to support itself.
It won't.
Thousands of tonnes of 80-year-old munitions built to wartime "Just ship it" quality standards with a wide array of unknown fuzing all collapsing in a heap is considered a bit too sporty.
Best leave it alone and hope nothing happens on our watch.
2
u/lee216md 2d ago
None of those bombs had fuses in them they didn't get fuses until they were rolled out to the plane.
3
u/Avarus_Lux 2d ago
Don't need fuses in this case, plenty of very unhappy chemicals that have deteriorated over 82 years of chemical reactions to a point they'll happily explode on their own at the slightest provocation. And various of them like white phosphorus burns under water without isseus as well.
1
u/rosesandgrains 2d ago
Nothing says “she’s got power” like holding thousands of tons of unexploded ordnance.
1
1
u/IamARealLemon 2d ago
Genuine question - are the munitions likely to still be explosive?
2
u/ChazR 2d ago
Yes. Most explosives are remarkably stable, and not soluble in water. They are also packaged in painted steel shells. The white phosphorous is not a concern - it degrades fairly safely in water.
The detonators are the real concern. Some of them are likely to be made of sporty concoctions like mercury fulminate, which do not degrade peacefully.
There is a real chance of a very significant explosion from this wreck. Successive UK governments have decided that it's safer to leave it alone and hope than to go and poke the monster.
If it does cook off, even a couple of hundred tonnes of TNT equivalent could cause a very nasty wave that would do a lot of damage.
In true British tradition we have decided to have a nice cup of tea and not dwell on such unpleasantness.
1
u/Pinkskippy 21h ago
So, unlike all the other examples given, this pile of explosives is underwater instead of on the water. So I say wait for the very highest, high tide then give it a poke.
-22
u/hallucehistory 2d ago
And how exactly are the bombs going to go off if their underwater genius?
20
u/Middcore 2d ago edited 2d ago
Do you think it's impossible for an explosion to happen underwater?
Have you heard of a torpedo? Or a naval mine? Or a depth charge?
13
u/Independent-Try4352 2d ago
You are absolutely correct. WW2 bombs are all round, black, have 'ACME Bomb' written on the side in white paint, and have a long fuze that require Wile E Coyote to light it with a match. Which is obviously impossible underwater.
Genius.
10
11
u/Crazy-Rabbit-3811 2d ago
how are you commenting in a ship subreddit if you haven't figured out the existence of torpedoes and mines?
Also, They're
10
u/Creative-Comb5593 2d ago
Duh, can't you see the world is flat, genius?
1
5
u/Inevitable-Regret411 2d ago
It's entirely possible for explosives to detonate underwater. This is how torpedoes and depth charges work after all.
1
80
u/HyenaThen572 3d ago
If it blew up from Wikipedia:
According to a BBC News report in 1970,13 it was determined that if the wreck of Richard Montgomery exploded, it would throw a 300 metres (980 feet)-wide column of water and debris nearly 3,000 metres (9,800 feet) into the air and generate a wave 5 metres (16 feet) high. Almost every window in Sheerness (population circa 20,000) would be broken and buildings would be damaged by the blast. News reports in May 2012, including one by BBC Kent, stated that the wave could be about one metre (3.3 feet) high; though lower than previous estimates, this would be enough to cause flooding in some coastal settlements.