Sheerness Heritage Centre Rose St

page1 Home pages1-39

Sheppey Where and what??

Hasted map Kent

Page2Chronology

Page3 Royal Dockyard

Page4MedwayRaid

Page5The Residents

Page6SheernessCoop

Page7Jewishcommun

Page8BuildRailway

page9Dr Beeching BR

HMS Bulwark

page10spiesandtraitors

page11loselspystory

12SnesDunkirk paddlersan

page13sinkingofTruculent

page14notesonfreemasons

page15UveJohnson

page16Oddsandends

page17PrincessAlice

page18McCuddens

page19warmemorial

page20Directories

page21RichardParker

page22The Nore

page23HulksBluetown

page24HMSubSahib

page25johnjanmansbottles

Page26John WesleySheerne

page27CharlesDickens

page28DukeofClarence

page29Zeppelnraid1tWW

page30Wildfire

page31William and Mary

page32Nelson Sheerness

page33J ButlerS'ness&BGS

page34RichardMontgomery

page35S'nessVlissingen

page36Lord WilliamPenney

page37Scorpion

page38Henry Russell

page39Sir StanleyHooker

page40 hundred years ago

picsfresidents' cottage.Clic

Picsfortatsheerness

tramsandrailClicktoenlargeWe

PICSSHEERNESSTOWNCENTRE

pics Sheerness on SeaWe welc

ecconomicalandcoopClicktoenl

picsbluetownanddockyardWe we

picsQBCvariousreps

Picschurchesdisusedandused.W

Schools and pupils

Picsthebridges. Click to enl

StagescreenincSheppey Little

Picsmiscellaneouspeople

Sheppey families past and pr

Weather-ice, wind and floods

Guestbook

Acknowledgments

linkSwalemuseums

linkSbourneKemsleyLtRail

Link Penney Sheppey

linkS'gbourneheritage

linkBredgarWrmshill rail

linkTrevspicsSheppey

linkRichardMontgomery

linkHighwaysSheppeyCross

Spa Valley Railway

linkundergroundKent

linkPSKingswearcastle

linkKent&ESussexLt Rly

LinkSheppeywebsite

Link MedwayQueen

linkKentpolicemuseum

LinkSheppeyLittleTheatre

Parsons directory
 

THE PAST RECREATED   


                               SS Richard Montgomery

 ran aground near the Nore just off  

Sheerness laden with explosives destined for D Day 1944

 

 

 

S.S Richard Montgomery" was built in 1943 by the St Johns River Shipbuilding Company, Jacksonville, Florida USA.

After taking on board 6127 tons of bombs and ammunition at Hog Island, Philadelphia, USA she sailed across the Atlantic to join a convoy to Cherbourg. Whilst waiting for the convoy to form she was berthed off the North edge of the Sheerness Middle Sand, off the coast of the Isle of Sheppey, Kent, England.

On Aug 20th 1944 in strong winds the USS Richard Montgomery ran aground and over a period of days became stuck fast in the sand bank.

During the coming weeks Stevedores from Rochester, Kent were able to remove a large quantity of the explosives from the holds of the ship. The ship was finally abandoned on 25th September 1944 along with its remaining cargo which amounted to some 3200 tons of explosives

Article from the New Wide World Magazine for October 1964
The bombs weigh more than seven million pounds. At this moment they are lying unattended beneath the rippling surface of the Thames Estuary within fifty miles of central London. Set them off and you have the most catastrophic non-nuclear explosion in history. And, make no mistake about it, these bombs are still very much alive. They might easily explode.
How much damage could they do? This is something that no-one can predict precisely, for too many factors have to be taken into account. The level of the clouds, the direction and force of the wind and the tides, as well as the temperatures of the air and water at the instant of detonation will each have some effect. However, a conservative forecast was made for wide world by retired Royal Engineer Major A. B. Hartley, m.b.e., g.m., Britain's most famous and the world's most experienced bomb disposal expert.
Windows would be shattered in Southend-on-Sea, Westcliff-on-Sea, Leigh-on-Sea, Shoeburyness and a number of smaller communities with a total population of at least 375,000. All these places might also suffer a heavy fall of shrapnel.
The vast oil refineries and the petroleum harbour on the Isle of Grain, Kent, happen to be much nearer the bombs. They would therefore be hit much harder.
The bombs are closer still to the town of Sheerness, Kent. And so every building and every thing as well as all the 14,000 people who live in that town  would be destroyed. A tidal wave would inevitably follow the big blast to wash away the last traces of the sorry debris that was Sheerness.
The bombs also happen to lie alongside the Thames  main fairway used by thousands of the world's merchant ships and naval vessels, by countless amateur yachtsmen and by the Queen's own yacht, Britannia. Any ships, however large or small, in the vicinity of the explosion would go down.
A tidal wave might also sweep up the River Medway to cause havoc in Rochester, Chatham, Gillingham and a dozen or more outlying places in Kent.
Depending on atmospheric and tidal conditions at the instant of detonation, the bombs' effect might be felt as far up river as London. Certainly most of south-eastern England would hear them go off
.

The story of the bombs under the Thames began twenty years ago, in August, 1944, when a year-old American Liberty ship, the Richard Montgomery., crossed the Atlantic. Snugly packed in this freighter's four cargo holds were aerial fragmentation bombs of various sizes. Altogether they weighed between six and seven thousand U.S. tons (one U.S. ton equals 2,000 pounds). They had been earmarked for the use of American forces already on the Continent, and no records now exist to explain why the Richard Montgomery brought them to Britain.
At any rate, the Liberty ship pulled far enough into the Thames Estuary to clear the submarine boom, and the River Medway pilot was asked to find her a berth. Although the Thames was tightly jammed with post D-Day shipping, an anchorage was eventually selected off the shoal known as the Nore Sands. The ship's first officer then remained aboard, and the other thirty-four members of her crew were ferried across the Thames to Southend, to a hostel for American merchant seamen.
Mr. R. C. Coward, at that time managing director of William Hurst, Ltd., the agents in Sheerness for the American Maritime Commission, had some trouble persuading stevedores to off-load the Richard Montgomery's cargo. In fact, that work wasn't commenced until Coward agreed to pay the stevedores danger money.
At about the time that the ship's first two holds, numbers three and four, had been cleared, Coward received a general weather warning. A force eight gale was expected to hit the Medway, and so he sent a boat out to relay the storm warning to the men on the Richard Montgomery.
When that boat reached the Richard Montgomery's anchorage all of the freighter's hatches were open. But when the stevedores were told about the impending storm, they demanded to be taken ashore right away. They argued about who was to cover the cargo holds the full holds as well as the empty and in the end nobody covered them. When the Richard Montgomery's first officer returned to Sheerness with those stevedores they left behind them bombs weighing 3,691 U.S. tons 7,382,000 pounds.
The weather forecast turned out to be accurate. That night the Richard Montgomery's holds were flooded, and a fierce wind made her drag anchor southward of number nine Medway buoy and on to the Nore Sands. The sands at once broke her back, snapping her hull in half amidships. And so the next morning only the tips of the ship's derricks, the peaks of her masts and the railings of her bridge showed above the water. The storm that had finished her had also sheared off her funnel.
During those first months after D-Day the Thames Estuary was so busy that no one had time to bother about the Richard Montgomery or even to bother about those thousands of tons of bombs inside her. Mr. Coward immediately sent a full report to Washington, but no action was taken either by British or American authorities. The wreck and her bombs were left where they were.
In April 1948 a representative of Phillip's Craft and Fisher, an American firm, visited Sheerness. He called at Mr. Coward's office on a quayside in the town, hired a small boat, and went out to examine the wreck of the Richard Montgomery, presumably with a view to salvage. Neither Coward nor anyone else in Sheerness knows what conclusion that visitor came to. For he left the town without discussing the matter, and he never turned up there again.
Since the Richard Montgomery wasn't lying immediately in the path of big ships and therefore couldn't be classed as a major navigational hazard, it's not surprising that in the last months of the war she hadn't worried many people. At that time the contents of her holds was not generally known, so local people had no reason to be concerned about the bombs. Why neither British nor American authorities insisted on salvaging the ship after the war is a question yet to be answered satisfactorily.
In 1951 a Dutch salvage firm considered raising the wreck but decided that her scrap value wasn't worth the effort. A representative of the Dutch company told people in Sheerness that, in his opinion, the best way to deal with the wreck was to suck the sand from beneath her and let her sink into the ooze. This would have kept the wreck from being a navigational hazard to small boats. But it wouldn't have disposed of that cargo of deadly bombs. In any case, this operation was never attempted.
In 1952 the Admiralty notified the Port of London Authority, which controls shipping on the Thames and which, according to the Admiralty, is legally responsible for the wreck, that it would be safer to leave the Richard Montgomery where she is than risk tampering with her cargo.
Incredibly, since then nothing has been done about the Richard Montgomery. She still lies half submerged on the Nore Sands, clearly visible from the windows of the houses along the Sheerness sea front and still loaded with those seven million pounds of unexploded World War II bombs. Most people in Sheerness don't even realise that the bombs are there and many of the people who once knew about them seem to have forgotten them. Even Mr. J. Griffiths, the Sheerness Town Clerk, was unaware of the tremendous tonnage of bombs until informed by wide world.
Nowadays the Richard Montgomery is a local curiosity a somewhat offbeat memento of the war. Tourists who visit Sheerness are taken out in boats from the town for a short cruise around the wreck. Amateur yachtsmen often sail around it and sometimes right over it.
On the official Admiralty chart of the Thames the Richard Montgomery is indicated merely as a wreck, and a light on her is supposed to warn pilots at night to give her a clear berth.  A fantastic state of affairs ? Indeed, and yet one that doesn't seem to worry the people it should.
When he was told of the ship's potentially lethal contents, Mr. A. Glen, the Town Clerk of Southend, said, "We've known about it for twenty years".
Asked if the presence of the bomb-laden wreck opposite his town disturbed him, Mr. Glen replied, "No. We've lived with it for twenty years, and so far it hasn't blown up".
And when told that bomb disposal expert Hartley said that the ship might well blow up of its own accord or could easily be made to blow up in any one of a number of ways, Glen dismissed this, saying, "We're prepared to accept the advice of our government on matters like this".
Viscount Simon, Chairman of the Port of London Authority, describes the Richard Montgomery as "How shall I say? A well-known landmark on the Thames." The viscount is convinced in his own mind that in thirty or forty years the wreck will sink harmlessly into the mud. He does not think that it will ever explode because he says that he has been assured of this by the Admiralty. Mr. Griffiths, the Sheerness Town Clerk, put the matter before the town council after his discussion with wide world, and he was instructed to consult the Admiralty. Whatever he was told, no action has been initiated in Sheerness.
If officials who know about the bomb-laden wreck lose no sleep over it, why should anyone else be bothered by it?
First, because the official Admiralty pronouncement on the wreck is not as reassuring as Town Clerk Glen or Viscount Simon suggest. Second, because the official records on the Richard Montgomery are muddled in a way that suggests that only a series of administrative oversights have so far kept anything from being done about the wreck. And finally because of the opinion of Major Hartley, based on his expert knowledge of military explosives.
Just how the Admiralty came to the conclusion that the Richard Montgomery is safe is anybody's guess. Admiralty spokesmen either don't know or won't say. But Royal Navy frogmen have never clambered down into the wreck to examine the bombs which nestle together in the two holds of the ship. And the one loading plan of the Richard Montgomery which was for many years available in this country was never studied by Admiralty investigators. That plan was in Mr. Coward's office in Sheerness until three years ago when, about to retire, he destroyed it along with a lot
of other wartime files which seemed no longer to be of use. Mr. Coward says that he was never at any time questioned about the ship by Admiralty investigators.
Lloyd's Register of Shipping would not help anyone curious about the ship. Their entry on the Richard Montgomery simply states that she " was stranded in August 1944 and after repeated attempts at salvage was officially declared a total loss on February 26, 1945"                                              

The United States Maritime Administration   

 has a file on the Richard Montgomery in Washington which doesn't mention the bombs, either. According to M. I. Goodman, chief of the Maritime Administration's office of Ship Operations, the ship was merely " carrying military cargo," and his records show that portions of this were " salvaged from August 23, 1944, to September 1944," and 3,691 tons were left aboard. Mr. Goodman informed wide world that his files also state that on November 25, 1944, the Admiralty's Deputy Director of Salvage wrote to Washington that " the cost of removing this wreck would far exceed its value ".
Mr. Goodman said that his department still holds title to the wreck, and he believes that a record of a hearing into the stranding of the ship is in the files of the Cabinet Office's historical section in London.
In fact, there is no such record because no such hearing was ever held.
In 1962 the Sheerness Urban District Council considered dedicating a plaque on the
town's waterfront to the Richard Montgomery so that tourists' questions about the wreck would be answered. To find out more about the ship, Lieutenant-Colonel H. H. McKechnie, the council's Sea Front Controller, wrote to the American Navy headquarters in London, and his query was relayed to the Pentagon. Eventually Colonel McKechnie was informed that the American Navy's records indicated that the Richard Montgomery " was raised and scrapped in April 1948 and sold to Philipp™s Craft and Fisher Company on 28 April 1948". Somehow the American Navy has convinced itself that the ship doesn't even exist.
When bomb-disposal expert Major Hartley was told about the Richard Montgomery and her abandoned cargo he was astounded. "Leaving that ship there," he said, "is like finding a long forgotten bomb dump in a crowded suburb and then walking away from it without bothering even to tell anyone. In my opinion those bombs are a major hazard. They won't make themselves safe. On the contrary, as time passes they may become more dangerous. A lot more dangerous.
The major then explained that fragmentation bombs such as those in the Richard Montgomery have very thick steel casings-so thick that they account for sixty per cent, of the bombs' weight. Although he doesn't doubt that these particular bombs were originally packed in the ship very carefully, and although he is sure that they have never had fuses in them, he says that these facts do not make the bombs safe now. "The paint they used on American wartime bombs was of such good quality he explained, "that when I fished a Yank fragmentation bomb out of the Ipswich harbour fifteen years after it had been dropped there, and when I'd wiped off the muck, I could read its stencilled markings." Such protective paint, he feels, would prevent the casings of the bombs in the Richard Montgomery from rusting for a long time. And, he then added, "Those bombs' water-tight casings are so thick that salt water might take a thousand years or more to penetrate them."
And what of the explosives inside those bombs? Major Hartley had this to say: "Some sixteen different basic combinations of explosives were used in American fragmentation bombs during the war. Those that were filled with TNT might remain comparatively safe for a long time provided, of course, the TNT hadn't crystallized (crystalline TNT is so unstable that the tip of a penknife blade scraped across its surface may cause it to detonate). And provided that the TNT was pure to begin with. But the production standards of all explosives made by the warring nations Allied and Axis became less rigid toward the end of the war. And by 1944 manufacturers were required only to produce explosive fillings with sufficient 'shelf life' to get them through the war. Those bombs inside your ship have existed long past their intended shelf life."
If the bombs inside the Richard Montgomery contain other explosive substances than TNT  and the only way to ascertain this is to open them to see Major Hartley believes that they will be much more dangerous. He explained: "Most of those sixteen combinations of bomb fillings contain one or more nitrates which, in my experience, tend to break themselves down as they age. In this process of breaking down, these explosives begin to generate gases. They build up pressure inside bombs, generate heat, and will, I think, in time set themselves off." Thus, even with no-one tampering with them, the bombs in the Richard Montgomery could explode at any time.
Major Hartley isn't sure that if one of these bombs bursts it would necessarily set off all the others. Nobody could be sure of this. "But," he cautioned," the detonation of one of them could set off all the others. And even if one went off without doing that, it would, in addition to hurting anyone who happened to be in the vicinity of the explosion, probably scatter the rest of the bombs. And their recovery would become one of the most complicated and dangerous bomb-disposal operations of all time."

But what worries Major Hartley far more than anything else is the fact that the Richard Montgomery's bombs lie unattended beneath the Thames, well within reach of anyone. An amateur frogman exploring the wreck could easily set off the bombs accidentally and, said the major, " I dread to think what would happen if a malicious person began tampering with them."
An endless number of other things could also cause the bombs to detonate. The rotting away of the wooden packing around them could cause them to shift and set themselves off. So could a strong enough current. Although a deep draught ship probably wouldn't be able to plough through the silt to strike the Richard Montgomery, a shallow draught ship lost in a storm or just plain lost could hit her. According to boatmen in Sheerness, the currents around the wreck are very dangerous, and at least one small vessel has been holed because it veered off its course and scraped over the wreck. Many of the ships that enter the Thames are shallow-draught coasters some British, many from the Continent and not all of these boats take on river pilots when they enter the estuary. The possibility of an amateur frogman tampering with the Richard Montgomery's bombs is not at all remote. According to Sheerness boatmen, at least one amateur frogman has already been down in the wreck and has carried away some of her brass fittings.
Beyond doubt the Richard Montgomery is a menace and will remain a menace as long as she is left in the Thames Estuary with those millions of pounds of bombs inside her. "If the Admiralty could be persuaded to do something about her right away," Major Hartley said," the operation might still be relatively easy." He feels that it might even be done without ordering a mass evacuation from the shores of the Thames Estuary. But if the ship is left to sink into the mud, as the Port of London Authority says she will, he is sure that the bomb disposal job is going to be a lot more difficult.
Although none of the facts concerning the case of the Richard Montgomery is secret, assembling information on the wreck took a long time.
Repeatedly during this investigation the responsible authorities were made aware of the information that came into wide world's possession. Yet no-one could be persuaded to take any positive action to render the Richard Montgomery's bombs harmless. Everyone accepts what the Admiralty calls its "consensus of expert opinion" as an excuse to do nothing possibly because it would be embarrassing to admit after all these years that nothing had been done.
And everyone forgets that the Admiralty has never stated that the ship could not explode but, rather, as they put their case in a reply to our query, "it is far safer to leave the wreck alone than take any action which might lead to an explosion".
This seems to imply that the uncontrolled risk of leaving the ship alone is preferable to the controlled disposal of the bombs.
All attempts to compel the authorities to take action have failed, to publish the facts seemed the only answer.
Perhaps now someone may be forced to do something about the Richard Montgomery and its lethal cargo and at last remove from the people of Sheerness the shadow of death which hangs over their town. This is a race against time

 

The Richard Montgomery

by Peter Mitchell on July 1, 2007

Tucked away in the south east corner of England is the seaside town of Sheerness. On the surface you would think that Sheerness was just another pleasant holiday town, and you would be right, because you would have to go underneath the surface to a spot some three thousand yards off the seafront to find the dangerous secret that Sheer- ness has harboured for over forty years. A secret that although buried In sand and silt sixty feet down within the rusting hull of a World War 2 Liberty ship, Is so potentially hazardous that nothing is allowed nearer than five hundred feet.

The Montgomery, with Navy Diver's inspecting the ammunition

When that Liberty ship , the Richard Montgomery, sank all those years ago it contained over seven thousand tons of explosives, enough to blow Sheerness and all its neighbours sky high, and In credibly its still all there like some giant time bomb ticking relentlessly away. The trouble is that nobody can seem to agree whether the clock has stopped, or is just about ready to strike. With today's attitudes on all things 'green' it seems absurd that the Montgomery's cargo was not made safe years ago, but absurdity and incompetence often go hand in hand, and incompetence certainly seems to have been the hallmark of this story right from the start.

Location of the Richard Montgomery

The Richard Montgomery started life as the seventh ship in a production line of eighty two Liberty ships built by the St John's River Shipbuilding Company in Jacksonville, Florida, and was launched in July 1943. She was named after an Irish soldier, who after getting himself elected to the American Congress fought in the war against the British in Canada and was killed in the final assault on Quebec In 1775. Only a year after her launch In August 1944, the Richard Montgomery, on what was to be her final voyage loaded up with over seven thousand tons of bombs and munitions at Hog Island, Philadelphia and slipped quietly from the Delaware River and crossed the Atlantic to the Thames Estuary where she was to await a convoy for Cherbourg. At Southend she came under the orders of the Thames Naval Control and the Kings Harbour Master ordered her to anchor in a berth just off the north edge of the Sheerness Middle Sand. Considering the fact at low water there was only about thirty foot of water atthisanchorage and the Richard Montgomery drew just over thirty one feet, it was fairly obvious that the Kings Harbour Master had made a grave error of judgement. So obvious was this that the Assistant Harbour Master refused to carry out the order unless it was put in writing.

The wreck still sticks out of the water

A noisy argument ensued which attracted their superior officer who sided with the . Kings Harbour Master and told him to confirm the order. The Assistant stormed out and was posted to another position two days later. Significantly his evidence was not heard at the resulting board of enquiry which did not even mention the difference of opinion. Early on Sunday morning, August 20, lookouts on the ships anchored near the Richard Montgomery saw her swinging towards the shoal as the tide flowed in and frantically sounded their sirens in warning. The Chief Officer who was on watch did nothing to save his ship, not even bothering to wake his Captain who was peacefully asleep in his cabin. Soon the tide pushed the Liberty ship right onto the top of the Sheerness Middle Sand where she became completely I stranded. As the tide ebbed the ship settled down more firmly on her silty bed and buckled some of her plates, causing them to emit cracking noises that sounded like loud gunshots. The crew. not unnaturally apprehensive about their cargo suddenly decided that they all wanted to be landlubbers and deserted the ship in a flurry of lifeboats and rafts. Since the Montgomery had stranded on a neap tide she could not be refloated for about two weeks, and even then only if most of her cargo was removed.

Drawing showing how she lies

Immediately an emergency operation was put together and the next morning unloading started using the ships own cargo handling equipment which was still intact. At this stage there was liffie damage to the ship and all the cargo hatches were still securely in place. Twenty four hours later however. disaster finally struck when the strain on the hull became too much and it cracked like an eggshell at the front end of No 3 hold. Flooding quickly swept though No 1 and No 2 holds. and early the next day the Richard Montgomery completely broke her back. Salvage continued until all of No 4 and No 5 holds. which were still above water. were emptied. The unloading was aban- doned when it became obvious that the ship was now a total loss. Decaying, unstable explosives With the war reaching its final crescendo there were plenty of other ships that needed attention and the Richard Montgomery was deserted In the fond hope that 'somebody' would do something later on after the war was over. But nobody ever did, and the remaining cargo, some three and a half thousand tons of decaying unstable explosive Is still there today buried in her hull.

Layout of the ship

So what are the risks? Well most people agree that If the Richard Montgomery blew up, it would be the largest non-nuclear explosion in history. Would Sheerness and the nearby oil refinery on the Isle of Grain be swamped by a huge tidal wave, or engulfed by an awesome fireball as some experts have predicted? Would terrorists use the terrifying potential of the ship to hold the Government to ransom by threatening to eradicate the population of a small town as some journalists have suggested? Or has the vessel's cargo now decayed to a point where it has become a minimal risk as various Government surveys have suggested? Curiously the answer lies in a mix of all these. Of the three and a half thousand tons of explosives left, most contain TNT and are impervious to seawater. It is highly probable that their fuses have long since deteriorated and would therefore need something else to set them off. Unfortunately on the deck above these are approximately one hundred and seventy five tons of fragmentation cluster bombs fully armed and ready to go. These are considered to be the main danger, because if the decking collapses these bombs could fall on top of the others and set the whole thing off.

The wreck might still pose a risk.

This is not as far fetched as It might seem, Already the ship is broken into three pieces and In 1980, after an underwater survey Norman Tebbitt, then Minister of State for Trade said that the " risks of removing bombs from the stricken wreck were unacceptable." This statement supports the view taken way back in 1948, and later in 1967 when the American Government, still nominally the owners of the vessel, offered to make the Montgomery's cargo safe, The Government of the day refused point blank on the grounds that it was too dangerous and that the bombs would get 'safer' the longer they were left alone.

In August 1981 a thorough under- water survey was carried out by Navy divers, including going right into the holds containing the bombs After nearly a month their verdict was that although the bombs were still potentially dangerous, it would be safe to remove them from the ship. Said Des Bloy, Moorings and Salvage Officer at Chatham, "it would take one hell of a detonation to make that ship blow up".Apart from malicious or terrorist action, one of the most likely causes of detonation are the huge amount of ships that pass daily close to the wreck.

Over the years twenty four near misses have been recorded, and once a cargo vessel actually hit the wreck knocking down one of her guns and demolishing a ventilator. What the consequencesofa large passenger ferry hitting the wreck would be God only knows, but repeated appeals to the Authorities for a solution have come up against a stone wall of indifference and worries about the cost of a safety operation. So there the Richard Montgomery lies, gently rusting away, probably safe, but still a huge potential threat to the communities that surround her. As one Sheerness councillor bitterly said, "If this boat had gone down outside the Houses of Parliament, something would have been done long ago. How far down the river do you have to go before a dangerous wreck becomes acceptable?"

 

 

 

 seabed chart www.ssrichardmontgomery.com

 

Sheerness, Middle Sand.
The following wreck site has been declared a restricted area under the Act due to the potentially

dangerous condition of the wreck:
An area round the stranded wreck of the “Richard Montgomery” enclosed by straight lines joining the following positions:
51° 28´·067N., 0° 47´·200E. [OSGB36]; 51° 28´·099N., 0° 47´·100E. [WGS84],
51° 27´·950N., 0° 47´·367E. [OSGB36]; 51° 27´·950N., 0° 47´·367E. [WGS84],
51° 27´·833N., 0° 47´·183E. [OSGB36]; 51° 27´·865N., 0° 47´·083E. [WGS84],
51° 27´·967N., 0° 47´·017E. [OSGB36]; 51° 27´·999N., 0° 46´·916E. [WGS84].
has been declared a prohibited area on account of explosives contained in the wreck which make it a potential danger to life

She still lies there with most of her cargo still intact

A report in local paper on the state of the wreck

Warning buoy to one side of the wreck which can just be seen in the backgound

 

Her masts still stick out of the water with signs saying  DANGER

and Do not approach or board the wreck

Another view of the wreck with Port authority vessel nearby

SS Richard Montgomery NOT USS Richard Montgomery as she was a merchant vessel

and USS signifies a Navy vessel. She did,however, carry 30 Navy gunners.

                                                       

Shown above the different ladings possible with a liberty ship

Pity Richard Montgomery didn't load differently in United States

Survey crew working on Montgomery

SS Richard Montgomery en route to Thames Estuary and disaster

East Kent  Gazette 7th April 2004

sheppey Gazette bomb ship munitions

 

More views on the Montgomery

The Stranding.

After taking on bombs and munitions at Hog Island, Philadelphia, the Richard Montgomery sailed from the Delaware River to the Thames Estuary, to await a convoy for Cherbourg.

On arrival off Southend, she came under the authority of the Thames Naval Control at HMS Leigh, which was, in fact. Southend Pier. The King's Harbour Master, who controlled the shipping movements and anchorages in the estuary, ordered her to anchor off the north end of the Sheerness Middle Sand in about 33 ft of water at low tide.

The berth was not the most suitable for a vessel of her size, particularly since she was trimmed to a draft of 31 ft aft, over 3 ft more than usual for a 'Liberty’ ship.

Richard Montgomery grounded on Sunday, 20th August 1944 when the wind went northerly.

She was stranded on top of the Sheerness Middle Sand at the height of the spring tide. She was therefore beneaped until the next spring tide due two weeks later. She grounded across the ridge of the shoal with her bows nearly due north.

As the tide ebbed the strain on her hull caused some welded plates to crack and buckle with a loud report. This sudden noise was heard and remarked upon by the crew of the motor launch British Queen, fishing over a mile away. They then saw the crew of the Richard Montgomery conducting an emergency evacuation of their ship.

Cargo Salvage Operation.

A firm of stevedores from Rochester was engaged to carry out a cargo salvage operation. This commenced three days after the stranding when it was found that the vessel did not appear damaged or taking water. The ships own cargo gear was used, with the winches powered by steam from a vessel moored alongside.

On Thursday, 24th August, the hull cracked transversely at the fore end of No 3 hold. This flooded through to No 1 and No 2 holds. The vessel finally broke her back on Friday, 8th September and was permanently stranded.

As the cargo was removed from Nos 4 and 5 holds, the buoyancy of the stem increased, until by 20th September, it was hinging on the bow section at deck level and tilting with the tidal movement. The whole of the skeg and propeller showed at high water.

After finally flooding, the stem section separated and moved several feet southwards and pivoted approximately 12 degrees clockwise about the after mast before settling aground. The interaction between the two sections of the wreck has induced a scouring action which has changed the sea bed structure, and has had an effect on the velocity of tidal movement.

Salvage continued until 25th September, when the after holds, nos 4 and 5, were cleared. The wreck was then abandoned.

Today the submerged sections of the hull are now three. A further transverse break in the bow section between the forward mast and the forward end of No 2 hold occurred in the 1960's. Banks of silt and sand have built up around the hull and powerful tide rips build up with the current at half tide.

The principle source of explosive hazard is the concentration of GP and SAP bombs in the forward section.

Some experts feel the explosives have become safer with their length of submergence. Others feel the opposite.

For the people of Sheerness, Southend -on-Sea, and the adjacent towns, who would be affected by an explosion and resulting tidal wave, there are two glimmers of hope.

1) The cargo will eventually deteriorate to the safety level.

2). If an explosion occurs, it should be hoped that it will occur at low water. When an impact of the ensuing tidal wave will be greatly diminished.

 

S.S. Richard Montgomery was launched in July 1943. She was the seventh of 82 dry cargo 'Liberty' steamers to be built by the St. John's River Shipbuilding Co at Jacksonville, Florida.

 

 

SS Richard Montgomery

2006 Survey Report

 

2

Executive Summary

In September 2006 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency commissioned a repeat high definition

multi-beam sonar survey, in order to gather information about the current state

of the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery. In particular, information was sought on the

state of the hull of the vessel, any changes to the known cracks and the shape of the

surrounding seabed with its ongoing pattern of erosion and deposition.

The survey used a high resolution Reson 8125 multibeam sonar mounted on an

Independent Sonar Head Attitude and Positioning system. This provided detailed images

of higher resolution than earlier surveys of the wreck.

The survey of the wreck confirmed that there have been no significant changes between

the 2005 and 2006 investigations. The key observations made during the 2006 survey

are:

The orientation, list and pitch of the two sections of the wreck remain unchanged

since 2005.

The 2m gap under the forefoot of the bow, which was observed in 2005, is now

fully supported by sediment.

The condition of the hull continues to be one of slow deterioration.

Improved methodology in data acquisition enabled visualization of cargo in lower

hold 3 and upper hold 2.

A survey of 64,000m2 of seabed around the wreck was also undertaken. This was of

sufficient resolution to identify and position scattered debris, including all the 2005

targets; no significant changes were apparent. A clear topographical representation of

these sediments was generated and comparisons made with previous surveys.

Although minor changes have been observed between the 2005 and 2006 surveys, they

are not significant and are unlikely to influence the stability of the wreck.

3

Introduction

The SS Richard Montgomery was a Liberty Ship built by the St. John's River

Shipbuilding Company, Jacksonville, USA in 1943. The ship sailed from the USA to the

UK as part of a convoy in summer 1944 with a cargo of munitions, of which

approximately 1,400 tons Net Explosive Quantity (NEQ) is still in the forward section. On

arrival in the Thames Estuary the vessel was directed to anchor in the Great Nore

Anchorage, off Sheerness. On the next tide, however, the ship's anchor dragged and it

drifted on to a bank running east from the Isle of Grain north of the Medway Approach

Channel. The ship grounded amidships on the crest of the bank and shortly afterwards

broke in two. The aft section of the ship was salvaged at the time.

Background

In September 2006 the Maritime and Coastguard Agency commissioned a highdefinition

multi-beam sonar survey from ADUS St Andrews University, in order to gather

information about the current state of the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery. In

particular, information was sought on the state of the hull of the vessel, any changes to

the known cracks and the shape of the surrounding seabed with its ongoing pattern of

erosion and deposition.

Visibility on site is notoriously bad and for this reason the use of remote sensing such as

multibeam sonar provides more reliable information than can be achieved by diving on

the wreck.

The three-dimensional images which were acquired during this survey provide a unique

‘snapshot’ of the wreck in 2006.

Survey Methodology

The 2006 survey encompassed not only the hull but also the masts, overhanging rigging

and debris around the wreck and between the two sections of the wreck. It visualized all

evident splits, cracks, buckling and apertures of any significant size. A detailed

topographical survey of the surrounding seabed out to 400m was also undertaken.

Because of the detail provided by the survey and the fact that it is fully geo-referenced,

the 2006 survey can be used as a datum against which any future surveys can be

measured and will therefore allow comparisons and a greater understanding of the rate

of deterioration.

The survey used a high resolution Reson 8125 multibeam sonar mounted on an

Independent Sonar Head Attitude and Positioning system. This provided detailed images

of higher resolution than earlier surveys the wreck.

The Reson Seabat 8125 sonar covers a 120º swath on the seafloor consisting of 240

dynamically focused beams. The 8125 uses focused true time delay beam forming to

provide an excellent level of detail. Up to 240 soundings are collected with every pulse of

the multibeam across the swath and this can happen up to 40 times per second

depending on the depth of water.

4

The multibeam and positioning system used for this survey allowed all the main features

of the wreck surveyed in 2005 and 2006 to be relatively positioned to centimetric

accuracy, and absolutely to within c.10cm.

Rather than following a pattern of regularly spaced lines, the helmsman made use of the

digital display of the seabed and wreck on the helm monitor to ensure full coverage of

the area survey. As this was in real-time, it was possible to identify gaps and then go

back and fill them in. The detailed survey of the wreck was accomplished at high and

low slack water, with a mixture of parallel and thwart-ship runs to ensure total coverage

of all surfaces of the wreck.

A Trimble 5700 RTK base station was relocated at the position used for the 2005 survey;

point GP1 located on the Fort at Garrison Point, within the Sheerness Docks complex of

Medway Ports, approximately 3km from the site of the Richard Montgomery.

Survey Findings - Hull

The wreck still looks in remarkably good condition. The results of the 2005 and 2006

surveys indicate that there are some structural problems with the hull, which is

consistent with other wrecks of a similar age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Although detailed information was collected about both sections of the wreck, and a

detailed analysis was undertaken of the whole wreck, attention was focused on

interpretation of the bow section data since this contains the munitions.

Orientation, List and Pitch

The attitude of the wreck is the same as in 2005. It is still in two sections with the break

at the bulkhead between the aft end of Hold 3 and the Engine Room.

5

The forward section of the wreck to the north is aligned 1º east of UTM grid north, lists

17º to starboard and lays bow down by approximately 9º.

The aft section is aligned 12º east of UTM grid north, lists 14º to starboard and lays with

the stern down by approximately 3º.

Evidence of Hogging

The 2006 data indicates that both sections of hull are hogged and that this has not

changed measurably since 2005.

It is probable that there is still moveable sediment under parts of the hull. The forefoot

which was unsupported for approximately 2m back from the stem in 2005, now appears

to be resting on sand. As there has been no increase in depth over the bow, it is likely

that this is due to a replenishment phase in a cycle of sand movement at that location.

In 2005, it was noted that the forefoot at the bow was lower than the rest of the forward

section and could possibly drop still further if supporting sediment is removed by current

diverted around the bow (although this is not currently the case).

Although flexing of the forward section could exacerbate the deterioration of the

structure, there has been no measurable movement in the last 12 months. A

comparison of nine points either side of the major portside split of deck plating adjacent

to Hold 2 shows no significant changes in height difference either side of the split

between 2005 and 2006. What changes there are can be accounted for by loose debris

on the deck combined with limitations of the positioning system used to locate the

measurement points.

Deterioration Due to External Forces

The numerous apertures in the wreck as a whole provide evidence that some corrosion

is active and ongoing.

In particular, the relatively thin plating of the bulwarks is corroded all around the wreck

and a number of apertures in the main deck and on the boat deck are evident. These

are likely to be constructed of thinner steel than the 5/8” (15.5mm) of the hull plating.

Other evidence of corrosion can be seen in the irregular shape of most apertures and

edges to splits.

The hull is in two parts. It is broken at the forward end of the deck-house where it meets

the aft end of the hatch opening for Hold 3. However, below the ‘Tween deck, the hull is

broken at frame 88, the bulkhead between Hold 3 and the Engine Room .

The hull separation, which happened when the vessel sank in 1944, has caused

extensive collateral damage in the area and most visible elements of the structure have

irregular edges, splits and apertures in the immediate vicinity.

The sonar evidence suggests that the contents of lower Hold 3 are largely constrained

by the bulkhead whereas the boiler end of the Engine Room is open. However, the

overhanging boat deck prevents a clear sonar image of the aft interior being collected

using a surface-mounted sonar system.

6

Perforations of the bulkhead and in the portside hull plating allowed good sonar

evidence to be collected from within lower Hold 3. The 2006 data shows very clearly

regular stacking of bombs up to a height of at least 7.5m from the deck of the hold.

A significant proportion of the upper part of Hold 3 is exposed where the deck-house has

separated from the forward section of the wreck. An area the full width of the ship and

5m long is exposed, and a section of the weather deck above, along the port side of the

hatch, is known to have collapsed in the past. There are no obvious differences between

the 2005 and 2006 surveys of this area.

Deterioration Due to Internal Forces

Distortion in the area of Hold 2 identified in earlier surveys (probably as a result of the

weight of the cargo) is still apparent in 2006. On the starboard side there is a

longitudinal crease in the hull plating at ‘Tween deck level running for 11m from a major

split to the aft end of Hold 2. Below this the side of the ship just above the turn of the

bilge has been pushed outboard by up to 2m. Forward of the split there appears to be a

4m long aperture just detectable at the turn of the bilge.

On the opposite (port) side there is bulging of c.0.5m at seabed sediment level, with a

slight, but perceptible, increase in the 12 months between recent surveys. There is still a

c.20cm deflection inwards above this, below ‘Tween deck level. This is all indicative of

substantial weight in the upper hold bearing down on the deck and deforming the

supporting hull plating, which will have already been weakened by the large split at this

point.

The weight of the hull and the ordnance inside the forward section is obviously providing

a continuous downward force. Although there has been no apparent change since

2005, should the supporting sediments be removed by currents, it is possible that further

hogging and settling of the hull could occur.

The weight of the ordnance is also causing an outward force, with maximum pressure

probably at the turn of the bilge on the starboard side by Hold 2. This effect is likely to

become more significant as the steel of the hull continues to corrode.

Cargo

Contemporary records relating to the SS Richard Montgomery indicate that ordnance

was salvaged from the vessel soon after it went aground and that the aft section was

completely cleared.

Previous surveys have provided little direct evidence for in situ cargo thought to be in the

forward section of the wreck. The improved methodology used during the 2006 survey

provided valuable information about the contents of lower Hold 3 and upper Hold 2. This

confirms that salvage of the forward section was only partial at best, as ordnance is

stacked to a height of at least 7.5m in lower Hold 3 and 2.5m in upper Hold 2.

There were apertures in all three forward holds that gave acoustic returns. In upper Hold

2 on the port side, material is stacked to a height of c.2.5m above the level of the Tween

deck, suggesting that these upper holds are not empty. Although the relatively thin split

7

in the deck head above limits this, the cross-sectional information in two of the 2006

survey lines shows clear indications of box-like features.

The combined evidence suggests that all of the original cargo in the forward lower holds

is likely to survive in situ, together with at least some in the forward upper holds.

A comparison between the three multibeam surveys undertaken in 2002, 2005 and 2006

indicates that no change has taken place in the size and shape of the debris, much of it

presumably spilt cargo, on the seabed between the two sections of the wreck.

Survey Findings - Seabed

A survey of 64,000m2 of seabed around the wreck was also undertaken. This was of

sufficient resolution to identify and position scattered debris, including all the 2005

targets; no significant changes were apparent. A clear topographical representation of

these sediments was generated and comparisons made with previous surveys.

Although changes have occurred between the 2005 and 2006 surveys, they are not

significant and are unlikely to influence the stability of the wreck.

 

 

 

 

An area around the wreck is marked with twelve red danger buoys and four yellow

navigational buoys at cardinal points. Each buoy’s position is indicated in the figure

above and, in some cases, their sinkers and associated scour can be identified on the

seabed close to the buoys.

8

General Observations

Three important features are the fore, main and mizzen masts with seven of the nine

original cargo handling booms still attached to the mast houses. The three masts are

substantial structures, each with a considerable mass leaning to starboard.

Four of the original eight 20mm anti-aircraft gun tubs survive without their guns, but the

larger bow and stern tubs still have their 3” 50 calibre guns in situ.

Other significant features are the 4-bladed propeller and rudder, the remains of an antitorpedo

net cage and four substantial structures on the weather deck for life-rafts.

Conclusion

The improved resolution of the 2006 survey confirms that there is a substantial quantity

of ordnance in the forward section of the wreck. Definite stacking of bombs is evident in

lower Hold 3 and cases are apparent in upper Hold 2.

The forefoot now appears to be resting on the seabed, whereas in 2005 it was

unsupported for a length of c.2m. Although this will help prevent hogging of the forward

section of the wreck, movement of the sediments in the future may impose additional

strain on the hull.

The corrosion of plating and the major discontinuities in the hull identified in the 2005

survey has not changed significantly in the last 12 months.

Severe bulging and distortion of hull plating either side of Hold 2 were recorded in 2005.

Since then barely perceptible changes have been detected but these are so small as to

be difficult to measure.

Further surveys will be undertaken in the future to ensure that the condition of the wreck

is appropriately monitored.

 



Welcome


Recent Photos
 


Recent Forum Posts
No recent posts

Upcoming Events
No upcoming events

Recent Blog Entries
No recent entries

Featured Products
No featured products



 
© 2005 All Rights Reserved.