British Ordnance Collectors Network
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Thames shipwrecks.
- Thread starter kahu1
- Start date
That's going to be expensive if you want to clean the wreck of the major bulk of explosives, however not as expensive as the costs that will occur IF the ship will accidentily exoplode.
The small advantage is that it's in quite shallow water, so one could construct a temporary bassin by using Larsen sheet piling and at least remove the 285 pcs of 900kg blockbusters. They will do most damage if a detonation occurs.
The small advantage is that it's in quite shallow water, so one could construct a temporary bassin by using Larsen sheet piling and at least remove the 285 pcs of 900kg blockbusters. They will do most damage if a detonation occurs.
glevum
Well-Known Member
After the salvage attempt on the Kielce in the 60s, it was decieded to leave the wreck alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Kielce
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Kielce
"1967, the salvage company tried to dismantle part of the hull by setting explosive charges. On 22 July 1967, the third of these charges detonated some of her cargo. "
Well, maybe this time be a bit more carefull than to use explosives to open the hull of an ammunition ship
Well, maybe this time be a bit more carefull than to use explosives to open the hull of an ammunition ship
as lived with this in my part of the world, each year media report the cargo gets more devastating to the point in 20 years will likely to be reported more powerful than a nuke, I'm bored of the scare mongering.
Ammo found on land is one proposition. Ammo in the sea near the high tide mark is another and likely to be more unstable / sensitive than ammo at or below the low tide mark. I believe the reason to be temperature cycling and interaction with sea water. Trying to unscrew anything found high up on a beach or inland that may have explosive exudation between the threads is asking for trouble. A detonator in your hand that contains one gramme NEQ of HE will wreck your hand. I certainly would not want to try anything more than gently lifting a shell found high up on a beach or inland and removing it into a prepared hole to blow it. If there is a whole stack in a ship exposed at low tide after many years I would not want to go near it. Perhaps that was the same thought decades ago when the wrecks happened and nothing was done about them then, when the condition of the ammo was much better than it is now. Ammo found around the low tide mark will still be at least partially viable and potentially deadly to you and others. On the plus side it will have remained at relatively stable temperatures, not enough to cause explosive exudation. Also with increased pressure when it is several metres underwater, the seawater will leach out part of the steel of the shell and mingle with the filling to produce a slurry. I once found a 56 Lb steel weight on my favourite beach. Initially it was very large, indicating several decades in the sea, until I knocked off the rust, getting it to a manageable size to carry off the beach. When I got home I weighed it and instead of 56 Lb it was actually 48 Lb.