Does WWII wreck SS Richard Montgomery threaten Thames airport? - moved by moderator

[Kevin]

For anyone interested

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-17513286

[Anja]

Hello Kevin,

 

This was a very interesting to read.

 

With all those studies going on and exploring all posibilities, I wander what will be decided in the end.

Remove the wreck, do a controlled explosion as suggested or just remove the ammunition?

 

Thanks,

 

Anja

[Adrieke]

its a typical case of its too big a problem to deal with so I ll just leave it to the next guy to take care off. if they had dealt with it straight after the war they could have removed the ammunition more easily. now I think a controlled explosion would be the best option as all precautions to minimize damage could be taken. leaving it like it is could end up in not only lots of damage but loss of life

[realworkingsailor]

That's it really, it's too late to go messing with it now. Question is, how much of that explosive is still volatile enough to amplify any "controlled" demolition into a catastrophe. And in case anyone has any doubts as to the nature of explosives left under water, you can dive on various wrecks of British battleships sunk during the Galipoli campaign, all over them are rods of cordite that are still reactive. You just need to strike off the encrustations and they light off with a match.

 

Andy

[Adrieke]

I would expect they would investigate worse case scenarios so that they can prepare for that. I had a look at the incident of the SS Kielce and was surprised about damage to windows and such as I would expect the shockwave of the explosion to mostly disperse through the water

Edited June 28, 2013 by Adrieke

[42rocker]

Well this should be worth a lot of money to someone. No matter how they do it.

 

Interesting thought, what would have happened in WW2 if this ship had been hit and blown up while sitting on top of the water. If they are currently worried about the problems now that it's down "deep" under water think of it blowing up on the surface.

 

Good Luck to them

 

Later 42rocker

[jmorgan11]

Having worked with explosives for 8 years, I can say a controlled explosion would be very dangerous.  The danger is not from the explosion.  The danger is not all the explosives on board actually detonating which is probably what would happen.  Some explosive items would be thrown through the air and land who knows where, without detonating.  That makes clean up a real problem.

 

How do I know this?  Been there, done that (but not at this scale).

 

When you see EOD and Engineers do a mass controlled explosion, the explosives are back together for sympathetic detonation.  On a ship like this, that wouldn't be the case.

 

-Jesse

[normanh]

The wreck is nearer the Sheerness than Essex where I live but its been forecast for as long as I can remember that it would cause serious damage to the Southend area, whilst I no expert in these matters but none of the bombs or shells on board were armed with a fuse so I am not sure on what the immediate threat is. I have been past her many times and at a very low water a good deal of her can be seen rising up out of the sea. We have been taliking about airports in the the thames since about 1970 when I was a schoolboy - I am sure it will never happen, theres more unexploded ordanance of Shoebury where the military range is located plus at least 4 or 5 times a year local fisherman bring up a German mine from the river. In fact the foreshore is riddled with shells that keep popping up.

 

Norman

[Nirvana]

Controlled explosion would be the best solution, other options seem to be to risky.

Even a controlled is very risky but has been done before.

Interesting which way they are to take.