Jump to content

Talk:SS Richard Montgomery

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grr, making an article from web searches only is hard. There seems to be some confusion over whether it's the USS Richard Montgomery, the SS Richard Montgomery, or just the Richard Montgomery.

Um, anyone know about this stuff? :-) Evercat 21:09 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It is SS Richard montgomery. you will find links to lots of useful information, historical, as well as up to date, Including a chart of the area. alongside link to my my film script!

Ron angel The richard montgomery matter http://www.ssrichardmontgomery.com Updated Feb 2008

Note: S.S. should be just S S when searching web otherewise results are limited. there are no dots in ships titles. eg: u.s.s.= U S S

Edit - POV

[edit]

I have moved the following content, as it appears to be POV (If Foley did not attend the inquiy, this is presumably not the finding of the inquiry, so the source should be explict)

However, the ultimate reason for the disaster lies with the harbour master, who was confident that his choice of berth for the ship was safe, despite objections by the assistant harbour master who tried to have it relocated, but was countermanded by his superior. Foley, the assistant, insisted upon a written confirmation of these instructions, which was refused; with this Foley left the office.
After the disaster, Foley was posted to another department, which prevented his attendance at the inquiry, and so obscured the fact that the ship was incompetently parked by the harbour master, who then refused to consider otherwise.

Viv Hamilton 12:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UK/US spellings

[edit]

I have changed the spelling of harbour master back to the UK version, as in the context of this article it is referring to a UK job title. Given that the article is about a former US ship lying in UK waters, it is not clear whether US or UK spellings should be used in general, althouh the interest in this wreck is predominantly UK. Viv Hamilton 13:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't actually chamnge it Viv but I have now. Kevin McE 23:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - slightly flaky computer crashed mid-edit. I also failed to implement the above POV edit, which I have now done Viv Hamilton 08:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just blow it up?

[edit]

If the ship is such a danger, why don't they just temporarily evacuate the town, blow it up, and repair whatever gets damaged? --96.255.87.77 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This may help explain:
In 1970 it was determined that if the wreck of the Montgomery were to explode it would throw a 1000-foot wide column of water and debris 10,000 feet in the air and generate a wave 16 feet high.
Not only could the explosion bring chaos and destruction to the nearby Sheerness, it could destroy the shipping port and, it has been suggested, cause a Tsunami along the River Thames. Which happens to run through the city of London. While the last ultrasound showed that there were no grounds for increased cause for alarm, a new survey of the munitions on board has been called for and a report in 2001 from the Maritime and Coastguard Agency concluded that "doing nothing was not an option for much longer. Hmm, it's only about 30 miles maybe I should move! Lynbarn (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinate error

[edit]

Hello everyone just a little note of caution the coordinates for the SS Richard Montgomery are incorrect, the coordinates display a house at the end of a housing estate. I believe the vessel lies at 51 28'04.62"N, 0 47'12.74"E.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasy87 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The given co-ordinates don't appear to be all that inaccurate, and do point to the Thames Estuary in approximately the correct location, rather than on land as suggested. The UK Maritime and coastguard agency state that the wreck is designated under section 2 of the Protection of Wrecks Act 1973, which means that there is a no-entry exclusion zone around the wreck. The wreck is clearly marked on the relevant Admiralty Charts. The exclusion zone is defined by the following co-ordinates:
  • 51° 28’ 04” N 00° 47’ 12” E
  • 51° 27’ 57” N 00° 47’ 22” E
  • 51° 27’ 50” N 00° 47’ 11” E
  • 51° 27’ 58” N 00° 47’ 01” E

Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2000 MCA report referenced in article says sandbank (at 51°78'57"N 00°47'12"E). Referenced figure should be given. Pol098 (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinance Weights Incorrect?

[edit]

The article states:

  • 286 × 2,000 lb (910 kg) high explosive "Blockbuster" bombs
  • 4,439 × 1,000 lb (450 kg) bombs of various types
  • 1,925 × 500 lb (230 kg) bombs
  • 2,815 fragmentation bombs and bomb clusters

Which, not counting fragmentation bombs, is 2,700 tonnes, not the 1,400 tonnes stated immediately above that.

The weights for each bomb type refer to the weight of the whole bomb, rather than just the explosive within them, so the totals won't match. Elder pegasus (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And Sheerness says 3,172 tonnes. They can't all be right. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This Maritime and Coastguard Agency report also states 1400 tons. Chelb (talk) 09:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some of her cargo was salvaged. This could account for the discrepancy, with the lower amount being that not salvaged. Mjroots (talk) 11:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the quantity of explosives from the Sheerness article so there is no contradiction any longer. Dormskirk (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the prior section. WWII Artillery and aircraft ordinance weight was typically average of 50% casing and 50% explosives. They could be 25% to 75% casing. So three tons of ordinance could easily be around 1,500 tons of HE (high explosives) If you look at the chart someone else noted, you can see there is plenty of ordinance that is under 25% explosive. Indeed an AN mark 33 bomb was 1,000 lbs and had about 144lbs of explosives (under 15%) most of the gross weight of bombs on that ship were 1,000 pounders. Explainador (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article states the Kielce had a "similar" amount of ordinance to the Montgomery, then immediately in the next sentence goes on to say that the ordinance Kielce carried was "just a fraction" of that of the Montgomery. So which is it?

Indeed, it would be interesting to make s comparison what awaits if/when the Montgomery blows up. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:65EE:1699:9B95:BBFE (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on SS Richard Montgomery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why no photo of the actual ship?

[edit]

There's a photo of the bits sticking out of the water, and a map, but no photo of the ship as it was before it sank, nor a photo of the underwater scan. I think both of those would be good to have on this article, if at all possible to acquire in the open. 194.81.226.175 (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Mail Online has a photo, as well as one of the ship's current situation in the sea bed, but I don't know whether it's correct (the Daily Fail is hardly renowned for rigour) or what its copyright situation is (I imagine fair use applies). Hairy Dude (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added a link to the archive of the 2008-2009 report. She was one of 2710 liberty ships. This picture of the cargo holds might be useful.
Profile plan of a Liberty ship
JRPG (talk) 20:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dates: mdy vs dmy

[edit]

MOS:NUM says the choice between mdy and dmy dates should be made in part due to "strong national ties". This article is about the ship (which is American) and not just its wreck (which is in UK waters), so it seems apparent to me that the article's strongest national tie is to the USA, and therefore it should use mdy dates. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:21, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has used dmy dates for years. It has been in UK waters for over 70 years, compared with a couple of years in service. I see no good reason to change the date format. Mjroots (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the article is irrelevant. As for the other argument, would you say the Dalai Lama has stronger ties to India than Tibet because he's lived there much longer? Hairy Dude (talk) 03:51, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wreck in UK waters and as far as it being any kind of issue, it is a UK issue. It was wreck caused by an error by a UK harbormaster, and a wreck which is potential hazard to the UK. I agree it should be DMY. The Dali Lama is not a good analogy. The only thing remarkable about this one, of thousands of liberty ships like it, is that it is wreck in the Thames Estuary -- which is in the UK. The article frankly should be "SS Richard Montgomery Wreck," just as there is an article on the Hindenburg disaster.Explainador (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory paragraph

[edit]

The 6th paragraph in 'Status and risk' contradicts itself with information about how much munitions was aboard 'Kielce', the Polish ship. "... Kielce, which contained a comparable amount of ordnance, ..." "... and had "just a fraction" of the load of explosives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.31.77 (talk) 12:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on SS Richard Montgomery. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:SS_Richard_Montgomery&oldid=1213159274"