Is This The World's Most Dangerous Wreck?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 26 тра 2022
- Go to curiositystream.thld.co/casua... and use code CASUAL to save 25% off today, that’s only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
------------------ABOUT THIS VIDEO------------------
In this video, we look at what happened to SS Richard Montgomery during WW2 and ask why the wreck has not been moved since.
--------------JOIN OUR COMMUNITY---------------
Join our new community of maritime enthusiasts:
★ / casualnavigation
When you join, you will become part of an Exclusive Community, gain Early Access to our UA-cam videos*, receive Exclusive Content* and have influence over Community Videos*
*Everyone becomes a part of our community, but additional rewards will depend on the tier you select.
---------------------WITH THANKS----------------------
★ Images used under license from shutterstock.com
Battleship - Petrov-K / Shutterstock.com
Bombs - Andrew Rybalko / Shutterstock.com
Stuka - Andreas Meyer / Shutterstock.com
Submarine - Shaineast / Shutterstock.com
------------------------DISCLAIMER-------------------------
All content on this channel is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although every effort has been made to ensure the content is accurate and up to date, it remains the responsibility of the viewer to determine its accuracy and validity. The content should never be used to substitute professional advice or education. - Розваги
Go to curiositystream.thld.co/casua... and use code CASUAL to save 25% off today, that’s only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
The carnival freedom caught fire will you cover that in a video?
Mid-roll ad? Thumbs down.
I would have question. Maybe it wouldn't make for whole episode but where is origin of "port board" and "star board"? Is it reminder of tradition in british owned ports? Also why not just calling it left and right side or green and red side?
@@jakubznojemsky4936 I can tell you one thing, instead of port Board sailors call it port
You should do a video on fatigue management of crew onboard ships. Obviously lots of your videos on incident involve a human element. But none of those touch on fatigue. In my experience I imagine it plays a part most of the time. I was chastised for being honest about my working hours, actively told to edit mine because it would be illegal otherwise. The non-officer non-West crew had it even worse tbh.
In the event of an explosion, the nearby large town of Sheerness will be close enough to suffer direct effects of the shockwave and the tidal wave that follows. Experts have estimated that, should the ship explode, the cost of damages to Sheerness may be in the dozens of pounds.
Err... please clarify, is "dozens of pounds" a typo or sarcasm?
@@M_Northstar Visit Sheerness yourself and find out!
I mean but explosives degrade with time
I can just imagine Humph speaking those words on I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue
😂 Well done
To be fair, the Kielce exploded because the contractor had the bright idea of dismantling it with explosives. What could go wrong?
as in RSD - Rapid Sheduled Disassembly?
I mean, it did successfully dismantle the ship, right?
sometimes, things work out in wonderfully boomy explodey ways. hope nobody died, or lost any limbs in the spectacle!
They must have gotten the idea from the expression "fight fire with fire". We all know how well that works!
@@unitrader403 RUED (Rapid Unscheduled Explosive Disassembly) or RUD (Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly).... Sorry, just realized I made a mistake, it should have been RUDE (Rapid Unschedule Disassembly, Explosively)
The problem I have with "doing nothing" is that over time the problems seem to get worse not better, like initially you have the problem of explosives in a shipwreck, but over time you eventually have decaying explosives in corroded casings in a crumbling shipwreck, it seems like the problem gets more complicated the longer it is left.
For munitions in sea water - the safest option is to do nothing. Over time the seawater will corrode the primer wells and soak into the explosives - rendering them inert. This is why UXO in deserts are so dangerous - little water equals little corrosion and no water soaking into the explosives.
As the munitions cases are corroded by contact with sea water. Sea water will penetrate the casings and the explosive content
will be neutralized.
@@donaldboughton8686 most of the time. Depending on the type of explosive, it could become instantly volatile.
@@donaldboughton8686 Nitrate filler explosives are not neutralized by sea water.
But technology and salvage techniques have also improved greatly over time, of course tech like underwater cameras, SONAR, mapping etc. have matured and the stuff down there is probably disintegrating at an increasing rate as casings deteriorate to allow sea water to enter, so the trade-off seems to favour the salvage option more and more.
At one point innWWII if a Liberty Ship completed one trip it was considered worth the time and materials to build, anything more than one trip was a bonus.
Massive tidal wave my foot. It's sitting in fairly shallow water so almost all of the blast is going to go upwards and the biggest risk is that it'll cause millions of pounds worth of improvements to Sheerness.
Such an eXplosion in San Francisco bay would cause hundreds of millions in improvements to San Francisco.
I did wonder, if there really was a chance of a massive tidal wave hitting London then I'm sure the IRA or Al Qaeda would have given it a go at some point.
So its either tsunami or air shockwave...
@@isilder Just the shock-wave really. Plus flying mud, stones and metal... And a sea-food salad I suppose. There'd be a wave just one that almost nobody would even notice.
You do realise it dosnt matter the amount of water its sitting in dosnt matter when it has a WHOLE ocean to displace
5:28 Brother, the SS Kielce blew up because the salvagers used explosive charges to "dismantle" her hull. It seems a little disingenuous to use that incident as an argument that old munitions blow up easily without telling your audience that these geniuses lit the fuse themselves.
Did they Darwin Award themselves or did they do it from far enough away?
@@CynicalOldDwarf Miracuously nobody got hurt despite the explosion causing a 4.5 richter scale earthquake lmao. Job well done, hull dismantled, back just in time for tea and medals.
Four of these Liberty ships still survive today and I've been on one that's in Baltimore that still sails on occasion
That's really interesting. I'll have to try and get on one some day.
Is that the John Brown?
@@CasualNavigation SS Jeremiah O'Brien is another Liberty ship that survives and sails too. She's in San Francisco. Her engine room was also used for scenes in Titanic.
@@CasualNavigation There's a liberty museum ship in Piraeus port, Greece :) Search for Hellas Liberty
I toured the SS Jeremiah O'Brien a few years ago. I wanted but didn't have time to also tour the nearby USS Pampanito which was used in Down Periscope. I had toured the USS Batfish earlier that year and was interested to see how they presented it.
As a matter of fact, Kielce was not sunk by German aircraft as shown in this video. It survived the war and sank in 1946 after a collision with the French steamer Lombardy. Fortunately, Lombardy didn't go down in the accident and even managed to rescue the entire crew of Kielce.
based
also each shipyard raced to see who could built liberty ships the fastest with the record speed being 4 days and 15.5 hours and the average being about 39 days
Looking at Wikipedia, the salvage company tried to dismantle the hull by setting an explosive charge which, in turn, exploded some of the cargo of explosives. Can anyone see the problem?
@@catalintimofti1117 I believe he was referring to total production of all yards in total.
@@jamesthompson3099 no each shipyard was launching one ship every 39 days on average with about 1700 of these built in total
Fast researched to produce content after the channel owners learned of the story.
Sad to say not every expert on youtube really is an expert, most are just mid level understanding making summaries of experts.
And the cycle of historical disinformation goes on even into the era where the right answer is instantly available.
I have been sailing these waters for many years and there's always something of a thrill when passing by the wreck, I'll be sorry to see the masts go as they're such a charismatic sight, but I can understand why they have to go. The Medway is full of wrecks, a feature like this on HMS Bulwark - the dreadnought that blew up itself there in 1914 - would be good.
HMS Bulwark was a Pre-Dreadnought
Hopefully the masts get put in a museum to educate everyone.
@@GrumpyIan Why would you put badly welded masts from mass produced junk in museum? There is nothing historically significant about them...
I have sailed past the Montgomery many times in the fifteen years I owned Lazy Days, she was built in 1930, went to Dunkirk in 1940 spending three days ferrying troops off the beach to larger craft off shore. Returning to Ramsgate fully loaded and holed near the waterline. Lazy Days then spent the rest of WWII attached to HMS Wildfire Chatham, berthed at Queensborough she made parachute mine patrols of the Thames Estuary. We would often moor at Queensborough at the jetty or on the barge, I also attended a church service there commemorating HMS Wildfire, Lazy Days was allowed to moor free when ever we were passing. It was full ahead while passing the wreck site, not that it would have done much good.
@@Siddingsby It didnt blow itself up either,it blew up while being rearmed and there was powder etc being stacked in places that shouldnt be stacked in.Resulted in changes being made.
I grew up in the Medway area and a common topic of conversation at school was along the lines of "if the Montgomery explodes, the whole town will be destroyed by a tsunami and we'll all die. Cool!" We all kinda thought it was just an exaggerated urban legend so growing up and learning it's actually almost as dangerous as we always joked about is pretty interesting! Fortunately my family have all moved away from the area recently so at least we're not in danger anymore lmao
Yea, but we also all grow up to realise that we actually do live in a pretty steep valley. So other than the Strand, Chatham Bus Station, the few businesses down the Leisure Park and the Marina - oh and that one random pub down by Strood River Park - other than that most of Medway is out of reach 😂
But if Medway was wiped, out - apart from Rochester - is anything of value truly lost?
@@MajesticDemonLord I mean hopefully it will get Southend too 🙏
@@pieppy6058 there’s dreaming.
20ish years ago I worked on a container ship carrying aviation ordinance. At our lightest load during my two tours on her, we had 2.5 times the explosive weight still on the MONTGOMERY. It's either everything is fine, or its not my problem anymore.
You deserve more respect than I think I have the balls to earn
Ordnance
@@scrambledmandible it’s honestly less worrisome than working on an oil tanker, at least in my mind.
I used to work with a Naval clearance diver who had explored the wreck 20 odd years ago.
Good news, things like machine gun bullets (wrapped in greased paper) were amazingly well preserved, looking almost like new.
Bad news - the wooden packing crates had all broken up, leaving the munitions all jumbled together. (In a way that's good news, as they have already fallen down without incident, and can't go any lower until the hull breaks up). More seriously, a lot of the safety arming wires on things like mortar shells had corroded away so that's one layer of protection removed.
I've seen a few videos about this ship but I enjoy your presentation style.
Cheers Brian.
it seems you're implying that the others have been... less enjoyable. what a shame.
I like the one by Tom Scott.
As a young teenager in the 60s I used to go fishing off the end of Southend Pier. We knew about the ship of explosives and always wanted to be on the pier when it went off. Of course we had no idea about exactly how big the explosion would be - just thought it would be fun!
Beavis would say : HA HAHAHA HA HA😁
I had quite a few conversations about this vessel with someone I used to work with at an old employer. She pointed out that yes it could be a very Big Bang, but was just as likely, maybe even more likely, to be a cascading series of explosions where not all of it detonates, but we just don’t know. Oh, she was the then receiver of wreck at the maritime and coastguard agency, and once a year when the survey report was done we would talk about it. I always liked seeing the scans before the were made public
I live 3 miles from this in Sheerness. We go about our daily lives but do get nervous when we hear about the SS Montgomery being touched. Some locals have paddle boarded out to it and I believe they got arrested and fined for their actions.
I would love to see a video about the Exxon Valdez.
It is on my list to cover...
@@CasualNavigation i trust you to release whatever's best on the list in your time. you've been a great source of curiosity satiation.
For many years it was the largest NTSB report ever written. I remember doing a research paper on it for my "Navigation Rules II" class at the maritime academy. My conclusion, Hazelwood was an excellent seaman but a bad manager of talent. He had no concept that because he could carry out a certain maneuver, at night, that his junior officer couldn't. That and any kind of effective risk management would say NOT to attempt such an exit from Valdez at night in those ice conditions (in fact, now its not allowed). It such beautiful country up there, and the spill was TOTALLY preventable. I also did my cadet shipping with SEARIVER, and several of my officers knew the officers and crew that night.
Everyone knows it sank at the end of Waterworld
I've sailed past the wreck twice on a modest sized yacht and found it a buttock clenching experience. On one trip we moored up a little way off and by chance happened to meet an unnamed person who was in the process of carrying out a survey of the ship. He wasn't allowed to tell us anything about what he had found, but I "somehow" discovered that some of the cargo "had moved a bit" since the previous survey.
I found out about this over four years ago, in a slightly offbeat way. I had booked passage on a small freighter - a hop from Rotterdam. At the time of booking they made it clear to me that the ship would sail into either Hull (Humber River) or Tilbury (entered through the mouth of the Thames), depending on the scheduling of the vessel. I did a lot of reading and research about what it was like to be on a commercial ship as a passenger. One of the preparatory steps I took was to scrutinize the online nav charts and learn a bit about the areas we would be sailing through. I figured it would enhance the experience overall, and provide some conversational fodder with the Captain. The Richard Montgomery stuck out amount the routine depth, reef and other markings - a mast enclosed by a diamond formation of warning buoys. I immediately looked this up and was fascinated by the history, and a bit creeped out by the potential peril it represents. I hope they deal with this expediently, and with no injury, or loss of life or property.
Go to curiositystream.thld.co/casual_0522 and use code CASUAL to save 25% off today, that’s only $14.99 a year. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
A vast majority of the estuary is only 10 metres deep. There isn't enough water to create a tidal wave.
I've lived in Sheerness and Queenborough all my life and have sailed boats past the wreck countless times.
The biggest threat is idiots on paddle boards going there. As for Medway Ports Authority, they do monitor the area on radar but is located in Liverpool.
There used to be a twenty four hour lookout based at Garrison point, but Peel Ports made them redundant and closed the look out station.
The balancing risk graphic is ingenious and well done in explaining the pros and cons of doing something or not.
They were talking about a third airport for London, originally at Foulness, back in 1967. Perhaps this vessel has assisted in invalidating all subsequent attempts to put in place an estuary airport.
Boris was still jabbering on about it a couple of years ago. Shutting down Heathrow and moving everything there.
I've spent over 50 years collecting cordite from that wreak from my beach at Margate. It still makes awesome rockets when you find enough.
That sounds rather scary... Where else can we expect unplanned fireworks in future, this landlubber wonders?
Keep up the good work Casual, I enjoy your content!
I'm always impressed by the size of these ships. Largest boat I've been on was a 1200 ton trawler and that's very large for a catcher boat!
I have seen a few other videos on this wreck, but yours is by far the best and up to date. None of the other documentaries mentioned the Kielce.
That's because the Kielce is irrelevant
When my mum was working for a dredger company, she sailed past the wreck of the Richard Montgomery, she said that whilst my dad is entering London via the Thames on a RFA Ship, he will see it aswell.
sorry if i sound crude, but did they conceive you while watching the masts of the SS Richard Montgomery? if so, you're truly a child of huge expectations (of explosions)!
Some other experts have calculated that should the ship explode the resulting blast may do several thousands of pounds worth of improvements to Sheeness
Fascinating. Never read about that wreck in my extensive WW2 Naval reading
I've known about the wreck for years, but I didn't know the details of the beginnings of operations to minimise risk. Thanks.
I live on the Essex side andmy dad told me all about it as a kid as I was fascinated by WW2. I remember trying to see the wreckage using my grandads old binoculars.
Excellent presentation. I was aware of the ship, but that was an interesting update on the situation.
I used to live in Burnham-on-Crouch, which is 12km as the crow flies from Shoeburyness. The testing of munitions at MOD Shoeburyness used to shake our house, despite the distance, so an uncontrolled detonation of the remaining munitions on the SS. Richard Montgomery is a frightening thought.
I don't know what the answer is, but it will be very expensive, whatever the outcome-either controlled removal with area evacuation or accidental explosion.
I may be cynical, but as has already occurred, decisions will be put off by each administration, leaving the problem for someone in the future.
When we hear nearly every year about yet another marine accident, with ships going aground, losing steerage way, or sinking, I am not confident that declaring a safety zone will achieve any more than Canute telling the tide to go away!
Seems the british government bis getting even better at kicking the can down the road in recent decades so I suppose we should all be bracing ourselves for the inevitable explosion, disaster, death, and explanation that we could have fixed it at any time but didn't because it was too expensive and not glamorous enough to fix.
We have a beach house at Point Clear, ST Oysth. When they test the munitions - the house would shock-shudder 4x, and the shock waves could be heard and felt quite far inland ~ emanating from the ground 😨, others want them to stop because of damage to buildings, and bizarrely - we live in north London and don’t feel them [far enough inland/affected by geology?]
Really enjoy this channel. Thankyou
Thanks Entropy!
With military and naval history as a hobby. I had actually heard of the Richard Montgomery before hand, but I had no idea she was still located where she wrecked. Stuff like this honestly is nightmare fuel for me. All it takes is one person with evil intentions to set off a literal tidal wave in the Temes.
I wonder if old Vlad in Moscow could get rid of it for Boris ?? ( just sayin )
Thames dude
Just here to enjoy the video and gain new knowledge,love your video,s
Thanks!
I always love seeing this get exposure! It’s well talked about in my local community, a lot of the locals sail by it a lot. It’ll be a shame for the masts to go but it needs to be done!
I was only thinking the other day how great it would be for your channal to do a video on this ship. Thankyou
Thanks Elliot. This one was good fun to make.
I see that the title and thumbnail have changed several times during the first day of the video's upload.
For a more catchy thumbnail, I suggest something that shows that London is at risk if the unexploded bombs go off.
I grew up pretty nearby this. Always kind of a weird thing to know to be always there.
I imagine given the existence of the thames barrier, it's probably not seen as much of a risk to the capital, hence why it's probably not as high priority as it's position might imply.
The wreck seems to be a minor tourist attraction. I've been round it twice on the PS Waverley!
WoW, this channel has very interesting topics, I am glad I subscribe 😀 👍
Your channel is the best! I always learn something. I'm always thinking "another shipwreck I never heard of!" You cover the seas well my friend. Thank you 🌹⚓
The problem ist that hte risk of explosion get larger the longer you wait.
I think it is pretty clear that it has to be salvaged sometime.
The longer you wait, the more the explosives degrade, the more unstable they get.
Meaning the longer you wait the more likely it is to explode when you eventually have to salvage it.
I think TNT is pretty stable overall, so waiting until the fuses and other explosives have fully degrated may be an option if this is possible without them exploding (and it doesn't take so long that other circumstances arise that you have to salvage it before this happens).
I see this as a gamble that gets worse the longer wait. And everyone with responisbility just hopes they can pass the gamble down to their successor while fully knowing the gamble gets worse with time...
i think we're all making fun guesses here... but i would bet the london exchange that whoever's actually in charge would probably have some thousand-page report on what exactly is going on in the wreck and some really brilliant interns have probably taken good stabs at coming up with potential salvage solutions. they probably all cost too many asteroids to be worth a serious consideration at the current risk level. also, politics probably figures into the thing at some level, and the UK is currently run by this dingbat called boris johnson... so there.
I'm not an expert by any means, but I highly doubt that the ordinance was shipped with the fuses installed. For safety reasons, that's normally done just prior to use. Still, it's continued presence creates an interesting problem where even the experts are operating on educated guesses.
The tnt isn't the main danger. It's the barrels of pikric acid that may go off from shock of being moved easier than the tnt
His words went from "It's safer to leave it alone completely"... but we know with time it will become dangerous and we will have to remove it and we knew this the whole time. Add in that these munitions will become more dangerous to handle over time due to corrosion/etc, add in that it's known that munitions could be carried from the ship and detonate on some random shorefront, etc and it sounds more like...
"It would be much safer for everyone if this ship had been taken care of long ago before the ship became a derelict danger, the munitions spread through the area quietly making hidden hazards, before the corrosion made these things ticking timebombs, etc etc
Was at anchor not to far from there in my younger days, as junior deckhand I always did the anchor watches. This was one of the few I had no trouble staying awake for!!!!
"do nothing" / "salvage" it's like the story of my life here
The new port at corringham a company from Holland had been dredging the mouth of the Thames to the port for over two years and this has increased the tidal flow affecting the wreck. Time will tell. The ordnance on the wreck some of the bombs had been fitted with the fuses intact in the cargo.
The Halifax explosion blew with twice that much high explosion in Port if you wanted a damage comparison.
They could install a ring of baffles around it that are all leaning slightly away from the populated zones then deliberately detonate it while the wind is also blowing away from populated areas. If they're daring enough they could even design the baffles to break during the blast too to make cleanup go faster.
I had no idea! Fascinating video.
Munitions being transported *shouldn't* have fuzes, or detonators fitted, these were extremely unstable and only paired to the explosive device immediately prior to use.
The munitions didn't have fuses or detonators fitted. The dangers lay in the type of explosives, phosphorus and other pyrotechnics in the 1,400 tons or ordanance left out of the original cargo of 6,100 tons.
While fuzes and detonators would not be fitted, it is likely they were transported on the same ship(s). the fear is that one could fail and trigger, causing others to go setting off the explosives. even if the explosives are not in a state to support self detination, there is a good likelyhood at least some of the cargo could still be triggered as a secondary.
@@grahamepigney8565 But that's the fun part though, he didn't mispoke, a lot of the bombs in that wreck are fused.
Munitions were not fused, they were stored separately. It's the picric acid and other things which are worrisome.
Bullets are self-contained with a primer that will detonate if struck, and can be fired in a vacuum because they have oxygen trapped inside.
I really enjoy your videos, thank you so much.
Thanks!
Great video !
1:44 Cannon fire from that warship to drop that Stuka!!! LMAO
I would think leaving it be is less dangerous now but is increasing the complication and therefor danger of doing something about it later.
That assessment of the consequences of the wreck exploding presumably assumes the entire cargo detonates all at once; however knowing that real explosives rarely work exactly as commonly portrayed in media begs the question: Would necessarily the entire cargo indeed go off? That could factor into the risk calculation. Not saying that's the case, I'm just pondering.
I asume the same but experience tells a difrent story 5:28
When an explosive device is a "dud," it isn't because there's something wrong with the explosive itself, it's because the primer didn't go off. If one TNT shell explodes, it creates a shockwave, which can then set off the TNT inside all the shells around it even if their primers don't work. So if you have an accidental detonation of explosives in storage there's no such thing as a dud.
@@ThoolooExpress I read an article on it many years ago whilst living in the Medway towns, the biggest problem is the purity of the explosive, military explosives at the time were not made to the same levels of purity (due to their relitivly short storage life), as a commercial grade, and so as they age can weep nitroglycerin, making them very unstable, and as has been pointed out it only takes one!,
The idea of the ship breaking up and the cargo disapateing was the preferred option then, and it's probably the safest option today, yes some will wash up and become very dangerous to whomever finds it but that would not set off the rest, and so not create the loss of life and devastation if it all went up, a bit hard and callous but in the grand scheme of things way cheaper. The article also stated that a Dutch company had raised and scrapped it after the war ended, according to American records, so nothing to do with them!! 😊.
@@ThoolooExpress I wouldn’t be so sure about that. In 2004 I was in Iraq. I’m able to write this right now because the blasting cap on the detonation cord wasn’t crimped right and the 10 rounds of 155mm artillery shells set up as an IED to kill us didn’t go off.
Once we realized what was going on we cleared the kill zone, and being that we had to go back that way to go home, we started firing at the IED to make it go off.
Long story short, we caught the grass and brush on fire with tracer rounds and the fire cooked off most of the artillery shells. There were still 2-3 that never exploded, even though they were fully engulfed in the fire, and in close proximity, about 10 feet, of other shells that did go off.
I would most certainly call these duds.
@@Linusgump Thing is, as long as some of these Shells(?), Bombs(?), blocks of Comp. B(?), or some combination of at leas two of these, and maybe some other explosives have been underwater they may have gone stabile and basically if an explosion does happen, it could be "A low order explosion".
I wonder if they actually know how much of what is still aboard the ship! They need to use RVs to see exactly what is left and where on the ship it is before going any further!!!
I learned something new today! This story is crazy.
The wreck can be intombed, where she lay's on the estuary bed, or encircled with a breakwater upto the surface and all around the wreck, which stops any munitions being moved by the estuary tides, either up or down stream or both?
My Dad was on a Liberty ship during the war. Considering they were notorious for the hulls breaking in a wave trough, it was obvious a grounding meant it would break. It well may become less dangerous. As water breaches into the cargo, I believe many explosives are biodegradable. Something which explodes is an energy source and explosives like ammonium nitrate is used mainly for two purposes, fertilizer and explosives. There are other additives, but I suspect the bacteria will discover a food source and consume it without setting it off. With the various forms of bacteria coming down the THAMES in sewage, stormwater and agricultural waste, some lifeforms will thrive. Bacteria are metabolizing the steel in the TITANIC'S hull, so explosives should be yummy for them.
There is still one or two of those mega mines that haven't detonated in Flanders left over from WWI which was designed to blow up the German trenches. As the result of a lightning ground strike in 1955, one of the mines left blew a massive crater in the countryside.
Nitrate filler explosives are not much degraded by sea water.
@@KB4QAA How water soluble is the stuff?
I think in this case, doing nothing as least risky option is a fallacy.
Sure it has the least immediate risk, but does not solve the underlying issue.
One day the risk will be large enough that she has to be salvaged, but by that time, it will be much more dangerous than doing it ASAP would have been.
Well said
you speak as if you understand the risk better than all the experts who have had to survey the site at actual risk to their own lives. the presentation may not have been in full detail, but i would imagine that there simply isn't a salvage operation available at the current moment (either due to cost or technological restriction) that can truly reliably clear the wreck. if any currently feasible "solution" bears a real risk of fucking shit up horrifically, then it's basically NOT a solution!
i think the actuarial equation of this risk of doing nothing vs risk of salvage will finally shift when "doing nothing" will STILL lead to an imminent disaster with high enough likelihood that it justifies some astronomical budget for some insane high-tech salvage solution. such as... isolating the entire water body around the wreck, freezing every fucking thing with liquid nitrogen, then slowly and gingerly attempting to move the frozen pieces away with some huge ass cranes or whatever. might need some ginormous shielded ship/rig that can hold the entire frozen wreck within inches of reinforced blastproof shield just in case any cosmic waves hit at just the right angle and trigger some whatever nonsense. i reckon the entire operation will only cost 3 scotlands and half a wales. london should be able to afford it by selling liverpool and newcastle (the towns AND the football clubs). ballpark figure of maybe 10 billion pounds? i might be off by 2 orders of magnitude. also, no idea if any of the tech that i just fished out of my addled brain would really work at all - for i am not a salvage expert by any means. just here for the casual navigation, my friends.
with such a potential "solution" depicted, does it help to see why the risk assessment seems to tip towards inaction? it is actually not a fallacy to "do nothing" if it really is the less risky option - especially since they do have constant monitoring and are planning to do some calculated risk reduction by removing the masts. 'twould be wise to investigate further, lest impatience were to dictate your next decision - especially if it involves 1,500 tonnes of high explosives.
@@alveolate Project Azorian cost about 4B$ adjusted for inflation, similar task, much deeper water, though no civilians nearby.
Annual Budget of London is 18BGBP or 22.5B$, its not that expensive, at least in government terms and most of that money would flow back into the local economy.
Unexploded bombs will not stop being dangerous in some miraculous way, in 2019 a WW2 bomb spontaneously exploded in a German field.
I know why risk assessment seems to tip towards inaction, the risk of a mishap are relatively low during the next legislative session and the costs are high.
But 50 years of tipping towards inaction are what brought us here in the first place and it's not going to get cheaper.
@@kilianortmann9979 i mean, i was completely spitballing, did you factor in the 2 orders of magnitude that i estimated to be my margin of error? that'd be up to 1 trillion. also, i have no basis for any of my numbers (source: my ass, basically).
as for the risk rising every year, that's definitely factored into whatever the actuarial equation is. in fact, that variable should be the most easy to predict based on the information they should have.
things not getting cheaper will likely be the crux of the matter at some point, assuming the politicians in charge aren't incompetent. at some point, clearly the best solution will have an astronomical cost that will get _too_ astronomical if they wait further, and someone will have to force the issue. and at that point, you bet some rag will accuse whoever made the decision for having made it too late and cost londoners an extra X billion pounds. it's basically all predictable, really.
Probably more of the case of who is going to foot the bill, The UK Govt, the US Govt, the Govt of the country of registration or the owners if still in existence?
My sailing club is close by the Montgomery, this is a regular visit with a sail out, round the Montgomery (danger buoys), and back - we even have a race based on it. Its been there a long time but its still a bit nerve wracking as you round it, to think it could go up at anytime. It is very, very close to the main shipping corridor and frankly I can't believe its not been run into before as everything except the masts is below the water by just a few feet
Worth noting is the continuing push to build and airport close enough to the wreck as to necessitate the complete salvage of the munitions.
the problem with this situation is mainly the ship itself, liberty class ships had a working life of only 5 years if I remember correctly and this girl was WAY overdue for scrap even during the time of the sinking. you should not repeatedly use a ship like that due to its incredibly short life time
Early liberty ships tended to break in half due to design flaw.
Needs must in Wartime. Ships were in short supply, anything that was capable of making an Atlantic crossing was pressed into service. Many would be classed as unseaworthy by todays safety standards.
Built from empty drydock to first float in about 4-1/2 months? a 5 year service life seems generous.
@@MonkeyJedi99 according to other comments the fastest one was built in 4 days and 15.5 hours
@@Tupsuu That is amazing.
SS John Harvey is another fun Liberty ship. This one wasn't a problem because it would go boom.... it was transporting a bomb called the M47A1, 2,000 of them.... that contained a total of around 130,000 lbs of *MUSTARD GAS*
edit: corrected M47 to M47A1... oh and this one did go boom... so yeah
Very funny indeed.
Great video. Would love to see one about the Halifax harbour explosion during WWI.
The ending xD thx casual navigation, it was a pleasure, as alwayls :)
The fastest a liberty ship was built was 4 days 15 hours 29 minutes
The statistic he mentioned is probably considering all of the liberty ship shipwrecks operating at once, not just the one in Jacksonville Fl... America was truly on an industrialized war time footing back then.
There are tons of ship wrecks all over the world's coasts rusting away. Back then they also used a much more toxic type of oil in operating those ships, so there is much worry in them springing a leak. Some countries are investigating wrecks on their shores to asses, if there's a possibility to safely breach their hulls and collect that oil, before it becomes a bigger problem.
I'd guess that electro-forming a hole into the fuel tanks would probably always be the best route, due to the general shortage of oxidizer that would be needed to cause a large explosion.
Somewhat slow process though.
OS: No, the oil was not 'more toxic".
As long as one of the Ever Whatever ships doesn't go off course in the area, things should be fine.
It’s probably best to leave it where it is, however a way should be found to stabilise the explosives so that it can’t shift and detonate even if the hull corroded completely.
I knew full well that the Montgomery was where she is and the issues surrounding her.
Personally I suspect salvage is too risky. I'd go for a controlled explosion at an exceptionally high Spring Tide.
Well done on getting 100k views for a well known problem.
There's only 2 choices:
1. Do nothing.
2. Try and blow it up remotely, with due warning.
You can't do anything else without endangering lives.
I love these types of videos.
Thanks Erwin. This one was fun to make.
Very very good advertisement for curiosity stream, honestly
Honestly, I'm terrified of the ocean and of ships, their size really freaks me out, but your videos are incredible and I can't help but subscribe!
now, imagine there's this relatively huge one stuck in your driveway, and it has 1,500 tonnes of high explosives from ww2. that, to me, is london now.
There isn't enough water in the estuary to create a tidal wave. A vast majority of the estuary other than the shipping lanes is around 30ft deep at high water.
What about high tide!
A lot of the container shipping have a deep draft. 30ft is probably at slack tide.
@@Bonzmanif you read my comment you would have seen I mention shipping lanes. Where do you think container ships go other than shipping lanes?
At low tide vast amounts of the estuary dry out with banks rising up to two metres above water. At high water (tide) out side of the shipping lanes there is only around 30ft of water.
I sail these waters and have done for decades. All people need to do is look at a chart and a tide table to understand this.
I am interested that they are finally doing something. I have know of the ship for a very long time and wondered when the risk would finally be too great to leave it completely alone.
I was 9, in 1967, living in Folkestone, and experienced the earthquake when the Kilce exploded. I was thrown off balance and fell over. However this is a lot bigger. Glad I'm not faced with the dilemma.
This has been discussed so many times, and actually it the responsibility of the Royal Engineers (EOD) for which I was one! Our base is just down the river from it.
We use it as a case study when we are learning 😜🤣.
It is now at a point where something will have to be done, but it will not be pretty!
Personally, I think this is just a great demonstration of the UK government's good old tactic of doing nothing, for many things 🤣
That boat,it was all Brexits fault anyway,those pesky polticians are too busy partying to care.....🤣🤣🤣
There are many different stories around the cargo. Apparently the majority of the ordinance does not have the detonators inserted, however there are rumours of phosphorus and other similar dangerous products
Amazing video as ussual.
Thanks Ragnar
Living in one of the Medway towns (thankfully in my case upstream, around a few bends and uphill), we occasionally talk about the Montgomery, especially a few decades ago when the Grain LNG Terminal was constructed. After all what could possibly go wrong sailing LNG carriers past an unstable wreck filled with explosives...
Well, if it makes you feel better, at least the LNG won't be able to do it's own worst in that circumstance- it would likely go up too soon for a perfect mixture to be reached.
Didn't the Halifax explosion show what can happen when munitions go off on a ship? Well, the reason was a collision with another ship and a resulting fire on board the ammunition ship. But the physical principle would remain the same in both cases. The reason for devastating destruction would then be the reflection of the pressure wave on the seabed and the resulting superposition of the actual pressure wave with the reflecting pressure wave. Exactly this phenomenon was also used for the first atomic bombs dropped on cities by letting them explode in the air. So it remains dangerous to work on this wreckage.
The Texas City disaster in the late 40s. A ship carrying ammonia based fertilizer blow up. Ammonia/Diesel explosives are still used in the mining industry. One strip mine in Wyoming sends notices into agencies that monitor for underground nuclear tests.
I love when I pay for a service and still receive commercials it's like fucking tv all over again
Can you make a video on why on slower ships the bridge windows are tilted forward, on fast ships (some ferries and military ships) they are tilted backwards, and on old(style) ships they are vertical. +some open deck craft (especially rescue and privat boats) sometimes have them in very small also sometimes tilted in- and sometimes tilted outwards; sometimes not at all
The mad, but fun solution. close the Thames Barrier, build temporary flood protection in nearby areas, and pull the trigger.
To be honest, I think that we should just blow it up.
Hear me out, we have a need in the UK for major improvements in flood and storm defences, not to mention rising sea levels. Such an explosion would create a tidal wave capable of testing these defences without waiting for a significant storm to come along. The Thames Barrier would also get some use.
After 80 years the risk is gradually getting big enough that many different attempts at salvage may result in a detonation killing many people close to the site, and causing widespread damage to the coastlines, shattering glass miles away, potentially resulting in many more deaths, severe and minor injuries. At this point, a controlled detonation of the explosives could be considered the most practical and safe solution.
You'd also have to consider the environmental impact of that plan. But there may be a way of covering the wreck with something creative before a controlled blast to help mitigate risks
@@FrankLeeMadeere With that much explosive, you'd bascially just be fueling it with more debris.
I am aware of the environmental impact, but if you think about it, you can reduce that by using various strategies to scare away the local fish population, beyond that, you don't need to worry too much, as most creatures in the Oceans are adapted to strong ocean currents, and many in other parts of the world are pretty much unaffected by Tsunamis, which are far more powerful than this would be.
Also, weigh up the impact against the effects of the long term release of toxic chemicals from the deterioration of the hull and cargo.
@@maecarpenter69 Those toxic chemicals don't magically disappear with the explosion, in fact you may be releasing them all at once. Obviously, you wouldn't add anything that would make the explosion worse, that's not very clever. I'm not against the idea of an explosion, we just don't want to repeat the whole "blow up the whale carcass on the beach" fiasco!
@@FrankLeeMadeere True, however those chemicals would likely degrade in the explosion (especially the explosives themselves) and the products of that would be spread over a far greater area, in a lower concentration, not to mention the fact that a lot of the products of the various reactions are gases, rather than solids.
@@FrankLeeMadeere I'm not denying the massive environmental impact, I'm just saying that it can be limited if done in a controlled way.
I had absolutely no idea this was a thing. Damn that has some potential to do damage...
I think that the best thing is to use some ROVs to slowly, very slowly breakdown and float parts away. that way the ship is less and less of a problem. once you expose some explosives, just slowly remove them one by one with the drone.
I think building a coffer dam a safe distance all the way around the wreck and then pumping out the water and doing a controlled detonation could be a safe way to dispose of it.
The boom would still be ginormous, but if you can remove enough of the water so that the incompressibility effect of the water is reduced, I think the resulting blast would go up and not out in the form of the tidal wave and vertical column of water.
Yeah, something along the lines of what they did to the russian ship Murmansk. Sverdlov-class that broke free and hit land in northern Norway.
You're forgetting that the shock wave would go in all directions, not just upwards! Have a look at what happened when an ammunition ship blew up in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada around the time of the First World War.
@@stevebarlow3154 But the coffer dam, and the water surrounding it, would force the explosion in that direction. Think of this idea like digging a hole and then setting off a bomb inside of it.
@@wilsonriley1856 I think you are underestimating the force of the explosion. It would be like a mini-nuclear weapon going off, the coffer dam would likely be vaporised! Have a read about the ammo ship going up in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. It is quite shocking!
@@stevebarlow3154 I am quite familiar with the explosion. Actually occurred on the day Finland gained independence. The vaporization of the coffer dam would be part of the solution however. Explosions always take the path of least resistance- just look at Drachinifel's videos on the Hood and Arizona. The dam, which would be backed by water which would brace it against the explosion, would help to funnel the explosion upwards. That would channel the pressure wave up, and although it would be a real hazard to low-flying aircraft, it would cause a lot less problems than letting it go off as is right now. The dam wouldn't even need to last for long, just enough to force the explosion into a V profile.
From a cumulative risk perspective, delaying salvage makes no sense. The risk of incident during salvage is the same whenever it occurs, but you avoid the ongoing risk of spontaneous incident if you salvage.
Not sure we watched the same video, though he left out the important point: With more time we gain better understanding of the chemical decay and greater access to high-tech options. 40 years ago a remote robot dismantling pieces of a ship underwater may have been easily imagined but practically very difficult.
Waiting allows for advances in technology that could make any salvage effort much safer.
I've also seen a documentary about an Italian ammunition transport ship that sunk inside the red sea in WW2 and now poses a serious threat.
Yay video! ❤️
I hope Putin isn't watching this.
Also the explosives are highly carcinogenic so they pose a massive biohazard threat when they mix with water
well they get diluted pretty hard... should not be such a big problem. I mean there is radioactive waste in the channel...
You can actually see the masts of the monty from Southend pier if you have good eyesight or with binoculars for those who need it. It’s also very close to the now rusting corpse of a German uboat
I actually did know about that wreck. It has several mentions on various UA-cam channels as well as a couple of WW2 history magazines.
Then again I am a history enthusiast.