SS Richard Montgomery masts finally to be removed next year

Concerto · 15 Apr 2024

After the survey in 2022 of the SS Richard Montomery wreck off Sheerness, which found 18 metallic objects close to the wreck, the masts should be removed next year. So still time for anyone to come and sail by to view them.

Removal of masts on shipwreck filled with bombs to start within next year

Snowgoose-1 · 15 Apr 2024

Concerto said:
After the survey in 2022 of the SS Richard Montomery wreck off Sheerness, which found 18 metallic objects close to the wreck, the masts should be removed next year. So still time for anyone to come and sail by to view them.

Removal of masts on shipwreck filled with bombs to start within next year

Shame . Probably a very good reason why they have to come out .

Koeketiene · 15 Apr 2024

Explosives-filled shipwreck has safety work delayed as objects found

VicS · 15 Apr 2024

Snowgoose-1 said:
Shame . Probably a very good reason why they have to come out .

Before they fall down and detonate the whole thing!

PeterV · 16 Apr 2024

I remember sailing between them before the barrier buoys were put around them, early 70s!

oldgit · 17 Apr 2024

Pesronally still think the airport was good idea !

Major_Clanger · 17 Apr 2024

I was running a boatyard in 2019 when the RN were inviting tenders to remove the masts. It wasn't our field of knowledge but I would have gone down there armed with snorkel and hacksaw for a couple of £M.

I did/do think it's sad though, perhaps even pathetic, that the navy don't have the equipment to to the job themselves.

AntarcticPilot · 17 Apr 2024

Major_Clanger said:
I was running a boatyard in 2019 when the RN were inviting tenders to remove the masts. It wasn't our field of knowledge but I would have gone down there armed with snorkel and hacksaw for a couple of £M.

I did/do think it's sad though, perhaps even pathetic, that the navy don't have the equipment to to the job themselves.

Given the high risk, it's certainly a job I would think to be more appropriate for the armed forces than for a civilian contractor. After all, bomb disposal on shore is a military job.

And the point is that the removal must NOT cause excessive vibration, and there must be no possibility of the masts falling on to the wreck. In either case, you might be saying goodbye to the Medway towns.

johnalison · 17 Apr 2024

I must dig out my ear defenders and lower the shutters on the patio door and perhaps tape up the glass elsewhere.

Fr J Hackett · 17 Apr 2024

AntarcticPilot said:
Given the high risk, it's certainly a job I would think to be more appropriate for the armed forces than for a civilian contractor. After all, bomb disposal on shore is a military job.

And the point is that the removal must NOT cause excessive vibration, and there must be no possibility of the masts falling on to the wreck. In either case, you might be saying goodbye to the Medway towns.

I think civilian contractors will be far more experienced and have access to the required equipment for "salvage" work and the cutting away of the masts than navy clearance divers.
It does surprise me that the navy has not progressively removed the ordnance from the wreck over the years. I do wonder if it has been exaggerated how "delicate a state the ordnance is in, when the navy do remove and dispose of unexploded WW2 ordnance it takes an explosive charge to detonate it and much of the explosion is down to the detonating charge. That is not to say that if one or two of the shells did manage to be detonated then there would be a knock on effect and the whole lot could go up possibly considerably improving the landscape and local real estate values in the process.

MoodySabre · 17 Apr 2024

oldgit said:
Pesronally still think the airport was good idea !

Strapping Boris to the masts would have been a better idea.

MikeBz · 17 Apr 2024

That’s a great idea. With him jabbering his incomprehensible nonsense nobody would want to go near it.

tillergirl · 17 Apr 2024

I do remember - which might be faulty of course, - at the time of the grounding some significant ordnance was removed. Then there was a further attempt to remove more but that stopped on account of risk. That's what I recall. And I think it has been said that just how much remains is not definitively known - although enough remains.

AntarcticPilot · 17 Apr 2024

tillergirl said:
I do remember - which might be faulty of course, - at the time of the grounding some significant ordnance was removed. Then there was a further attempt to remove more but that stopped on account of risk. That's what I recall. And I think it has been said that just how much remains is not definitively known - although enough remains.

That's what I understand. Also, when she went down it was thought the explosives would become safer with time, but opinion has changed - the explosives become unpredictably more sensitive.

RunAgroundHard · 17 Apr 2024

AntarcticPilot said:
... the explosives become unpredictably more sensitive.

A recent article summarising this very point.

Unexploded bombs from the second world war are getting more dangerous.

A study of unexploded shells from the second world war has shown that one of the explosives they contain is becoming more sensitive to impacts, meaning it could be set off if they are dropped during disposal. ... tested the impact sensitivity ... of Amatol taken from unexploded WWII bombs and shells ... dropping weights ... to make them explode. ... samples were more sensitive to impacts than expected for Amatol ...

38mess · 17 Apr 2024

Imagine a torpedo hit on one of these ammo ships

my old man was on oil tankers in WW2 which were bad enough.

Concerto · 17 Apr 2024

RunAgroundHard said:
A recent article summarising this very point.

Unexploded bombs from the second world war are getting more dangerous.

There is a link to an article published in 2022 on the Richard Montgomery, discussing the problem.

'Doomsday' shipwreck exposed by New Scientist finally being tackled

RivalRedwing · 17 Apr 2024

AntarcticPilot said:
Given the high risk, it's certainly a job I would think to be more appropriate for the armed forces than for a civilian contractor. After all, bomb disposal on shore is a military job.

And the point is that the removal must NOT cause excessive vibration, and there must be no possibility of the masts falling on to the wreck. In either case, you might be saying goodbye to the Medway towns.

Sheerness perhaps, the Medway Towns are at the other end of the Estuary, 10 miles away as the degraded munition flies, Southend on the other hand is 6 miles across open water, anyone for a small Essex tsunami? and don't forget the LNG terminal and storage on Grain

Cobra · 24 Apr 2024

RivalRedwing said:
Sheerness perhaps, the Medway Towns are at the other end of the Estuary, 10 miles away as the degraded munition flies, Southend on the other hand is 6 miles across open water, anyone for a small Essex tsunami? and don't forget the LNG terminal and storage on Grain

A shame that Jaywick is not just a bit closer!

|Argonaughty · 24 Apr 2024

I do that lovely Minster coastal walk with my dog on a monthly basis. Seeing the masts gives me some comfort......some comfort we're not about to be engulfed by a wall of water. I will miss them.

SS Richard Montgomery masts finally to be removed next year

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member

Other threads that may be of interest

Share this page