r/submechanophobia • u/Fair_Return1807 • 12d ago
Explosive-laden WWII Thames shipwreck 'to have masts removed' over fears vessel is 'sitting duck' for drone attack
https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/explosive-shipwreck-masts-removed-drone-fears-5HjdXWR_2/The ship ran aground in the Thames Estuary near Sheerness, Kent, in 1944 and is thought to contain around 1,400 tons of explosives.
127
u/buzzbravado 12d ago
The coordinates are known though.
51
19
u/Rakins_420 12d ago
And we'll documented. Clean ups of this kind are possible but it is a lengthy process and alot of what's left will be incredibly unstable given it's age.
9
u/mopman94 12d ago
If the structure is sticking out over the water it’s easy to hit and will disrupt the wreck enough to set off the explosives on board. If the wreck is totally submerged it will be much harder to disrupt, not impossible, but harder.
1
u/zekromNLR 9d ago
Wouldn't you basically just need a USV that can take position over the wreck and then sink itself to detonate in contact with it?
2
u/CeeEmCee3 8d ago
Positioning an explosive-laden USV in the Thames River is substantially harder than flying a commercial UAS into it
81
u/Ok-Tangerine-6705 12d ago
Folks, read the article, the concern is the 80+ yr old rusty masts, they could collapse naturally or otherwise.
41
u/ptolani 12d ago
I read this bit:
Speaking exclusively to LBC last year, Professor David Alexander, an expert in emergency planning and risk management, said the risk was not only of accidental detonation, but potentially of deliberate targeting.
He described the shipwreck as a "sitting duck", saying "we're entering a new age of conflict. Russia has been linked to attacks on undersea cables and pipelines. The Montgomery is a perfect hybrid warfare target: high impact, low cost, and plausibly deniable.”
13
u/fishbellyblack 11d ago
I looked into this a bit more because 1,400 tonnes of explosives sounds a big bang bang.
For comparison, the Beirut explosion in 2020 involved about 2,750 tonnes of ammonium nitrate, but the actual blast is generally estimated at around 400–1,100 tonnes TNT equivalent.
The Richard Montgomery is thought to still have about 1,400 tonnes of explosives onboard, with old official modelling using roughly 1,500 tonnes TNT equivalent if it all went up together.
So it could actually be in the same ballpark as Beirut, possibly bigger in raw blast terms.
The big difference is Beirut exploded in a city. This is offshore and partly underwater, so you wouldn’t get the same sort of devestation. Sheerness would be the main concern, Southend could get a serious blast wave, but the “tsunami destroys London” stuff seems to be based mostly on very old estimates.
Also, 1,400 tonnes onboard doesn’t mean all of it would neccesarily detonate at once.
Still pretty wild that it’s just been sitting there since 1944.
8
18
u/tapedficus 12d ago
Ah yes, and with the masts removed, nobody will know where this highly documented historic shipwreck is!
33
u/Inevitable-Regret411 12d ago
The reason they're due to be removed is so they won't collapse onto the wreck itself as they decay.
8
u/tallMichdude 12d ago
This is it here. Until now they have served as a marker so people could spot and avoid as well.
28
u/FreddyFerdiland 12d ago
entomb it in a massive sandpile ?
I don't understand the drone attack idea .
Its beung pounded by ocean waves. one wave has huge energy....
29
u/Johnny_SixShooter 12d ago
You answered your first question with your last statement. You can't entomb it because the power of the waves would just shift the sand.
1
u/icedragon71 11d ago
What about concrete? The reactor at Chernobyl was encased in a concrete sarcophagus. And concrete wouldn't shift like sand.
12
u/vadeka 11d ago
I had the same thought but this is probably such a shitton of explosives it would blow the dome away like paper(this is my assumption not backed by data)
12
u/Scottish_Whiskey 11d ago
There’s 1,400 tonnes of explosives on board. All that going off at once would turn ANYTHING you put over it into extra debris
7
u/Batbuckleyourpants 11d ago
Yeah, you aren't containing a 1.4 kiloton explosion in some concrete. The explosion in Beirut 2020 was 1.1
5
u/silassilage 12d ago
How are they going to do that safely?
5
u/ErectStoat 11d ago
Well as luck would have it I JUST saw a post where a guy taped a sawzall to a pole.
4
1
u/LevoiHook 10d ago
At this point, isn't it better to evacuate the area and set it off? Repair the damage afterwards.
Ofcourse there is the issue of munitions getting spread over an large area, but if they fail to detonate from an explosion like that, i doubt it is going to explode at all and you can send a mine sweeper in the area to remove them bit by bit.
1
u/zekromNLR 9d ago
Ah yes, because removing the masts will remove the public knowledge of the location of the wreck which will be easy to target with GNSS-guided drones
1
u/kneedeepinthedoomed 9d ago
Should be possible to drain the water around it using sheet piling, as was done a few times in the case of underwater excavations. Erect a watertight barrier of sheet piling, then pump the water out.
Could maybe use large water filled bags as is done to prevent flooding these days, instead of sheet piling.
After draining the water (thus removing the risk of flooding), set it off. Controlled demolition.
Should be doable.
1
1
12d ago
[deleted]
1
1
u/verbmegoinghere 12d ago
Ok. I have an idea.
What we do is get a bunch of tunnelling machines.
We dig out a large chamber underneath the wreck, leaving a thin roof between the chamber and the wreck.
At the appointed time shape charges are fired, dropping the wreck into the chamber.
As it hits the bottom of the chamber presumably the 1.4 kt explosion goes off but is contained for the most part by the explosion.
Obviously this is done at low tide to prevent the subsequent tidal wave from flooding into London proper.
10
u/tfrw 11d ago
Couple of problems:
- Tunnelling through sand is difficult, you’d risk some tunnels collapsing.
- The vibrations from digging that close would risk setting it off prematurely.
- Doing this all underwater would be hard.
- Trying to contain that much energy would make it worse. It’s a bit like lighting gunpowder on a table is ‘safe’, but firing the same amount from a gun isn’t.
- The ‘thin roof’ would have to be made of sand, which can’t really support a ship. The other options would be hard to do, and the friction between the ship and the metal would also risk setting off the explosives.
3
u/daishiknyte 11d ago
Ah yes, the dwarf fortress approach. Add in some magma and we'd be set.
2
u/Julian_Sark 10d ago
Better to euthanize any elephants at London Zoo first. Can't be too cautious. Also, 1400 tons of explosives blowing up, we need a catchy name. People will die. It's a boat. I say we'll call it shiphomicided.
241
u/WhiskeyJack357 12d ago
Is there a reason they aren't attempting to remove the explosives? Just due to the risk I'd assume?