SS Richard Montgomery

[Daydream believer]

A few years ago, whilst returning from Ostend , we picked up a VHF transmission from a French warship announcing that they intended to detonate an ordinance & all shipping to give 2 miles distance. We were just inside this & i was below in the heads when the countdown went. My crew could see the ship from my boat but no sign of the explosion. However, I felt the jolt on the side of the boat a few seconds after the zero countdown from the warship. I was surprised how sharp it really was.
On that basis, if the Montgomery did actually explode, rather than fizzle, then I would not want to have my boat anywhere near it. Might do some good to the view from the river Medway perhaps. That would not be a bad thing, as it is a pretty morbid derelict area to sail.
Over the years I have picked up transmissions concerning a number of proposed controlled explosions. More so on the French coast. Presumably the currents & fishing activities expose various mines. They might then roll along the sea bed. It only wants one to roll within a mile of the Monty , explode on its own & the jolt may be enough to kick the Monty awake.

 

[rgarside]

It may sound counterintuitive, but recognised good practice for disposing of a large quantity of HE is to burn it - the controlled explosion approach is preferred for single rounds (bomb, mine, shell, torpedo) of munitions found remote from any recognised burning ground (yes, they exist, and are licensed for just that purpose) as it avoids the transportation risk. Don't know how they would go about dealing with Monty's payload when they finally get round to it and I suspect I won't be around by that time.

Peter.

I guess Shoeburyness is a "recognised burning ground", so it would only be necessary to extend the range boundary for a day to get the job done.

 

[Wing Mark]

Nor a media expert either, by the sound of it. The Telegraph is one of the better funded out there, and its reporters among the best paid.
The article was written by the Telegraph's defence editor, not some pimply youth. If you need to check his specialist chops, just click on the by-line link: Dominic served for 23 years in the British Army with operational deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Northern Ireland.
I suspect he is an explosive's expert.
He hasn't just 'picked something up from a dodgy website', but based the story on "An MoD document seen by The Telegraph...", then backed that up by interviewing some dodgy geezer down the pub Lieutenant General Ian Cave, Commander Home Command and Standing Joint Command (UK), who also probably knows a thing or two about explosives.
Then consider who he is writing for. Not a selection of maritime pub bores, but a general readership that doesn't give a fig about MoD subcontracting processes, nor whether a Liberty ship loaded with ammunition during the war was really a warship or not.
But, sure, go ahead, admit you don't know what you're talking about and slag off at other people who do.

It's still pathetic.
It's not really a warship and it's not really in the 'River' Thames is it?
Perhaps they should have asked somebody other than a Rupert from the Home Guard Command.
They have a problem with being a bit sycophantic to anyone with a long title.
Having brainwashed ex-forces people as defence editors is probably not a great idea.

I gave up subscribing to the Telegraph a long time ago.
It seemed to be pandering to a 'general readership' who weren't much bothered about learning anything new.

 

[Fr J Hackett]

In the early 80s I was diving on the Volnay off the Manacles and one of the group lugged a bloody great shell up. We took it to a beach and he prised off the brass trimming mechanism which was very much prized by divers then, there were quite a number of lead balls and then the big brass casing full of cordite which we burned on an open fire. There was still a firing detonator / primer in the case which our adventurous companion repeatedly tried to set off by banging it with the point of a big knife. The seabed was littered with cordite straws from shell casings that had opened or been opened as they made good umbrella stands.
The Volnay was a first world war wreck carrying munitions.

 

[oldmanofthehills]

It's still pathetic.
It's not really a warship and it's not really in the 'River' Thames is it?
Perhaps they should have asked somebody other than a Rupert from the Home Guard Command.
They have a problem with being a bit sycophantic to anyone with a long title.
Having brainwashed ex-forces people as defence editors is probably not a great idea.

I gave up subscribing to the Telegraph a long time ago.
It seemed to be pandering to a 'general readership' who weren't much bothered about learning anything new.

The Telegraphs declared expert was a brown job, A Rupert. No sailer and possibly ignorant of seas and their geography. Of course some editor may have cooked up the title, as the start of the article correctly declares the vessel a liberty ship etc

 

[Elessar]

It's still pathetic.
It's not really a warship and it's not really in the 'River' Thames is it?
Perhaps they should have asked somebody other than a Rupert from the Home Guard Command.
They have a problem with being a bit sycophantic to anyone with a long title.
Having brainwashed ex-forces people as defence editors is probably not a great idea.

I gave up subscribing to the Telegraph a long time ago.
It seemed to be pandering to a 'general readership' who weren't much bothered about learning anything new.

You seem to like precision.
If it’s not in the Thames, precisely where is it?
“not really in the Thames”‘won’t do.

 

[Capt Popeye]

Might be of interest to know what depth of water the Montgomery lies in at LW Springs

For if considering a Dam arround it it would be of general interest

Could the Montgomery be covered with another device /ship so as to soften the explosion , or would that make the Explosion worse ?

 

[Capt Popeye]

Obviously a slow news week. Ye olde news to us locals . We are all going to ?????? within a 10 K/25K/50K radius, depending on which dead tree news source you take.
A lot of hard work here to resuscitate this corpse of a story.

This invariably is followed by the stunning and amazing (re)discovery of SCORPIONS in the curtain wall of Sheerness Dockyard.
First spotted around 300 years ago and hot news .
BBC - Kent - Nature - Sheerness scorpions

The Montgomery tsunami should reach me in about 60 seconds, should I move everything upstairs now .
file:///C:/Users/admin/Downloads/ntom-no-41-of-2021-ss-richard-montgomery-hydrographic-survey.pdf

So wishing you a happy New Year whilst we can , then {#

 

[Elessar]

Might be of interest to know what depth of water the Montgomery lies in at LW Springs

For if considering a Dam arround it it would be of general interest

Could the Montgomery be covered with another device /ship so as to soften the explosion , or would that make the Explosion worse ?

About 7m at LAT.

 

[Wing Mark]

You seem to like precision.
If it’s not in the Thames, precisely where is it?
“not really in the Thames”‘won’t do.

If i was paying for the T'graph, I'd expect them to be correct.
The Montgomery is at the end of the Thames estuary.
I said not in the RIVER Thames.
Might as well read the Sun, who [Unwelcome content deleted] said it was 'in Kent'.
Maybe if it goes off, some it will be 'in Kent'?

 

[Elessar]

If i was paying for the T'graph, I'd expect them to be correct.
The Montgomery is at the end of the Thames estuary.
I said not in the RIVER Thames.
Might as well read the Sun, who [Unwelcome content deleted] said it was 'in Kent'.
Maybe if it goes off, some it will be 'in Kent'?

An estuary is the tidal mouth of a large river and is part of the river.
Tell me where in your world the Thames becomes an estuary and not a river?
On the right bank the river used to be recognised to end at Warden point. Some publications now say Shoeburyness.
All say “where the river becomes the sea”. And all are downstream of the Montgomery.

In other words you are definitely wrong.

 

[Sandy]

This is one small WWII bomb going off quite near us

Watch moment WW2 bomb is detonated

 

[Elessar]

This is one small WWII bomb going off quite near us

Watch moment WW2 bomb is detonated

Different footage of the one I spoke about in #24.
Crater the size of a bus and a lot of local buildings damaged.
Quite a bang!!

 

[Thistle]

An estuary is the tidal mouth of a large river and is part of the river.
Tell me where in your world the Thames becomes an estuary and not a river?
On the right bank the river used to be recognised to end at Warden point. Some publications now say Shoeburyness.
All say “where the river becomes the sea”. And all are downstream of the Montgomery.

You may find some guidance about the meaning of "estuary" in a maritime context at The Finance & Tax Tribunal

Enjoy!

 

[PeterWright]

Nor a media expert either, by the sound of it. The Telegraph is one of the better funded out there, and its reporters among the best paid.
The article was written by the Telegraph's defence editor, not some pimply youth. If you need to check his specialist chops, just click on the by-line link: Dominic served for 23 years in the British Army with operational deployments in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans and Northern Ireland.
I suspect he is an explosive's expert.
He hasn't just 'picked something up from a dodgy website', but based the story on "An MoD document seen by The Telegraph...", then backed that up by interviewing some dodgy geezer down the pub Lieutenant General Ian Cave, Commander Home Command and Standing Joint Command (UK), who also probably knows a thing or two about explosives.
Then consider who he is writing for. Not a selection of maritime pub bores, but a general readership that doesn't give a fig about MoD subcontracting processes, nor whether a Liberty ship loaded with ammunition during the war was really a warship or not.
But, sure, go ahead, admit you don't know what you're talking about and slag off at other people who do.

No I'm not a media expert either but I do recognise that the Telegraph is one of the better funded newspapers available in the UK and is generally reasonably reliable on facts once the extreme right wing ERG bias has been mentally filtered out.

Recognising that just increases my disappointment at this misleading report, those who are familiar with the Montgomery and her history were fully aware that an enquiry had gone out for the relatively minor work of removing her masts nearly a year ago, to report that as "dismantling the vessel" is misleading and, if the author is as well informed as you describe, it seems to me that it must be deliberately misleading in the interests of making a bigger story while recycling old news.

I have great respect for the Officers and Men of all our armed forces, neither this nor my previous post are intended to be pokes at them . When I wrote the previous post I was unaware that the author had previously served, not that this fact changes my view. I merely write as I find about an article in a newspaper which for whatever reason made a poor fist of communicating the facts about the work to be undertaken in the Montgomery and by whom. Whether his readership give a fig about factual accuracy or not, as a journalist he has a duty to report the facts accurately, if only for the good reputation of the paper he represents - it's as easy to write accuratelly as inaccurately once you have done the research.

For the record, the Montgomery lies in the mouth of the Medway estuary but I guess calling that the Thames merely perpetuates the nonsense of naming a small container port further up the Medway "Thamesport"

Peter.

 

[Flynnbarr]

Flipping eck……first the chimney now the masts….how‘s a chap supposed to find the Medway

 

[Elessar]

For the record, the Montgomery lies in the mouth of the Medway estuary but I guess calling that the Thames merely perpetuates the nonsense of naming a small container port further up the Medway "Thamesport"

You’re wrong too. It’s in the Thames!

red arrow is approx.

 

[Blueboatman]

deleted

 

[PeterWright]

I guess Shoeburyness is a "recognised burning ground", so it would only be necessary to extend the range boundary for a day to get the job done.

I'm fairly sure that the Foulness facility will have a designated burning ground somewhere but less certain about Shoeburyness. It won't be the whole of that vast site, just a small area licensed for that purpose. To increase the physical area of either of those ranges would take an act of parliament.

Peter.

 

[PeterWright]

You’re wrong too. It’s in the Thames!

red arrow is approx.

View attachment 127873

I agree that she's more or less where your red arrow is. For me the Mouth of the Medway starts at the next cardinal down river.

Peter.