Comments on: Shipwreck: SS Richard Montgomery

By: Mike Halligan

Mike Halligan — Sun, 05 Oct 2014 16:20:41 +0000

I recall a similar disaster plan for Customs’ operational computers then (1970s) on the Essex bank.
It attempted to suggest that if the Shoeburyness site were inundated, then back-up at Southend could cut in. However, many of those expected to clear up the mess were very close professionally or personally to those who trapped right in the middle of it.
I was never persuaded that Southend would necessarily survive the blast anyway.

I believe this particular threat no longer applies in 2014.

By: Amelia Astley

Amelia Astley — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:30:16 +0000

What a chilling thought. There’s still a reasonable probability that if one explosive device detonates then the others will not also. There are just so many unknowns with regards to the wrecks hazardous nature.

By: Amelia Astley

Amelia Astley — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:26:08 +0000

If you don’t know what you are looking for, and especially at high tide, it’s very easy to pass right by the wreck without noticing it.

The Gahnnis D looks absolutely stunning, I really wish the Montgomery was in a tropical location and not filled with munitions so I could go and dive it in the same way you can dive the Ghannis D.

By: Amelia Astley

Amelia Astley — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:22:06 +0000

Thank you John for your comment. I’m always interested how ‘locals’ view the wreck and whether or not they see it as a threat or as a ‘titilating curosity’ (as someone put it in the house of commons). There’s still question as to the length scale involved with the degradation of the munitions i.e. whether or not they are already defused or if it will still take further decades. This largely depends on the type of munitions I believe.

By: Amelia Astley

Amelia Astley — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 09:18:44 +0000

Perhaps unaltered isn’t the best phraseology. What I was attempting to highlight was that many of the other Liberty ships were refitted for other purposes following the war, therefore the Montgomery is unaltered in the sense that it still contains all the original fixtures and fittings as it would have had during its original intended use. The fact that it has split in half does not degrade the ‘time-capsule’ nature of the wreck.

By: Ian Barefoot

Ian Barefoot — Wed, 01 Oct 2014 00:11:18 +0000

As an (ex-) police officer, a friend of mine was DCC(Ops) for Kent Police. Their disaster plan for the RLM took account of 50% of the on-duty officers being disabled by the blast. The damage radius stretches from Thanet through Canterbury & Maidstone, Chatham & the Isle of Grain (with its oil refineries…) – plus the ‘Essex Bank’. Far & away the most dangerous site in UK waters.

By: lambskin92

lambskin92 — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 21:05:59 +0000

I have been around that area countless times and I never knew that there was a partly submerged wreck there!! As evalmedi says, it sounds dangerous, but I too will reserve judgement until after week 2.
I now live in Cornwall and there are many wrecks along the coastline. I have 2 wrecks that I love, 1) is a fabulous 2.5 metre bronze statue called Christ of the Abyss at San Fruttuoso in Italy. Not exactly a wreck but submerged 17 metres deep, near the spot where the first Italian diver to use scuba equipment died in 1947. 2) is the ship Ghannis D that lies at the bottom on the Red Sea.

By: Amelia Astley

Amelia Astley — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:35:15 +0000

Hi evalmedi. I completely agree that it is a danger in its present position, but a removal operation would also put a large number of people in danger. I think it’s a very hard decision for the involved authorities as to how to deal with the wreck. However, I also think as more pressure is put on the surrounding areas of land, through port expansions and airport constructions, the issue of the Montgomery will have to be dealt with in the near future.

By: John McGarvey

John McGarvey — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:17:18 +0000

Just a further thought re the wreck. I`m afraid it cannot be described as `unaltered` as my last review indicated it had broken up into at least two sections.

By: John McGarvey

John McGarvey — Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:11:50 +0000

I spent two years from 1950-52 in the army at Sheerness when this wreck was very recent(1944) and
it was more than a little disturbing to think of hundreds of tons of high explosive sitting under two miles away in the estuary.
I have kept aware of developments since and after many inspections and much deliberation it seems
that the wreck will be left undisturbed, with the hope that all the explosives will continue to degrade.
The worst scenario is a massive explosion causing immense damage to Sheerness.