Huge Explosion in Beirut

[DelW]

Reuters have a very interesting article on the comparative size of the explosion (click the link below the quote to see the very interesting graphics):

That's a fascinating comparison chart, though it doesn't mention a relatively local example around the top of the non-nuclear scale: RAF Fauld in Staffordshire. Wikipedia states that 3,500 to 4,000 tonnes of mostly high explosive was detonated, leaving a crater 230m across and 30m deep.

RAF Fauld explosion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

The RAF Fauld explosion was a military accident which occurred at 11:11 am on Monday, 27 November 1944 at the RAF Fauld underground munitions storage depot. It was one of the largest non-nuclear explosions in history and the largest on UK soil.
Between 3,500 and 4,000 tonnes of ordnance exploded, mostly high explosives. The explosion crater with a depth of 100 feet (30 m) and 250 yards (230 m) across is still visible just south of Fauld, to the east of Hanbury in Staffordshire, England. It is now known as the Hanbury Crater.[1][2][3] A nearby reservoir containing 450,000 cubic metres of water was obliterated in the incident, along with several buildings including a complete farm. Flooding caused by the destruction of the reservoir added to the damage directly caused by the explosion.[4]
The exact death toll is uncertain; it is believed that about 70 people died in the explosion and the resulting flood.[3]

Then of course there's the wreck of the Richard Montgomery lying in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness, thought to have around 1400 tonnes of assorted 76 year old explosives on board. If that ever goes off, Sheerness's port might look rather like Beirut's.

 

[Cowley]

That's a fascinating comparison chart, though it doesn't mention a relatively local example around the top of the non-nuclear scale: RAF Fauld in Staffordshire. Wikipedia states that 3,500 to 4,000 tonnes of mostly high explosive was detonated, leaving a crater 230m across and 30m deep.

RAF Fauld explosion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Then of course there's the wreck of the Richard Montgomery lying in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness, thought to have around 1400 tonnes of assorted 76 year old explosives on board. If that ever goes off, Sheerness's port might look rather like Beirut's.

I must admit that I’d never heard of this incident before Del. It looks like it was absolutely catastrophic, but luckily it was in a fairly sparsely populated area.
The one I always think of from those days was the explosion at Soham:

Soham rail disaster - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I read somewhere the other day that what happened in Beirut was the equivalent of 10% of the Little Boy atomic bomb that went off above Hiroshima. I’m not sure if that’s correct though (and obviously there was no nuclear fallout from the Beirut blast)?

 

[DelW]

I must admit that I’d never heard of this incident before Del. It looks like it was absolutely catastrophic, but luckily it was in a fairly sparsely populated area.
The one I always think of from those days was the explosion at Soham:

Soham rail disaster - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I read somewhere the other day that what happened in Beirut was the equivalent of 10% of the Little Boy atomic bomb that went off above Hiroshima. I’m not sure if that’s correct though (and obviously there was no nuclear fallout from the Beirut blast)?

The comparison chart linked to by Ainsworth74 works out at Beirut being more like 2 - 3% of Hiroshima, though the article does suggest some variations between methods of estimating the size.

Soham does seem to be much better known than Fauld, possibly because of the modern era locos commemorating the engine crew.

 

[Cowley]

One thing that did strike me about the explosion in Beirut was that the enormous grain silo in the harbour area took the full force of the explosion, and I wondered if it would have been worse if that hadn’t been there, or if it wouldn’t have made any difference because of the way a shockwave works?
I’m not sure about the science on this.

 

[Peter C]

That's a fascinating comparison chart, though it doesn't mention a relatively local example around the top of the non-nuclear scale: RAF Fauld in Staffordshire. Wikipedia states that 3,500 to 4,000 tonnes of mostly high explosive was detonated, leaving a crater 230m across and 30m deep.

RAF Fauld explosion - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Then of course there's the wreck of the Richard Montgomery lying in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness, thought to have around 1400 tonnes of assorted 76 year old explosives on board. If that ever goes off, Sheerness's port might look rather like Beirut's.

I must admit that I’d never heard of this incident before Del. It looks like it was absolutely catastrophic, but luckily it was in a fairly sparsely populated area.
The one I always think of from those days was the explosion at Soham:

Soham rail disaster - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I read somewhere the other day that what happened in Beirut was the equivalent of 10% of the Little Boy atomic bomb that went off above Hiroshima. I’m not sure if that’s correct though (and obviously there was no nuclear fallout from the Beirut blast)?

If you're interested in RAF Fauld or the SS Richard Montgomery, there's a good YouTube channel which has videos on them and loads more interesting topics:

RAF Fauld:

SS Richard Montgomery:

-Peter

 

[Cowley]

If you're interested in RAF Fauld or the SS Richard Montgomery, there's a good YouTube channel which has videos on them and loads more interesting topics:

RAF Fauld:

SS Richard Montgomery:

-Peter

That was an interesting couple of clips, thanks for that.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Then of course there's the wreck of the Richard Montgomery lying in the Thames Estuary off Sheerness, thought to have around 1400 tonnes of assorted 76 year old explosives on board.

Does WW2 vintage high explosive, that's been sat on the seabed for so long, lose its potency? And, if it did ever explode, would all 1400 tonnes blow at the same time?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Does WW2 vintage high explosive, that's been sat on the seabed for so long, lose its potency? And, if it did ever explode, would all 1400 tonnes blow at the same time?

Assuming the shell cases haven't corroded through, then just like with wartime bombs that are regularly turned up by building work they'll still be potent. As to whether or not the whole lot would blow at once, nobody really knows so it is better to plan on the assumption that it will. Certain types of explosive get very unstable as they age and can sometimes detonate just from a slight knock.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

As to whether or not the whole lot would blow at once, nobody really knows so it is better to plan on the assumption that it will. Certain types of explosive get very unstable as they age and can sometimes detonate just from a slight knock.

So, literally, "an accident waiting to happen"!

Have any attempts been made over the years to clean up the SS Richard Montgomery wreck, or does the comment about the possibility of accidental detonation preclude that?

 

[Peter Mugridge]

So, literally, "an accident waiting to happen"!

Have any attempts been made over the years to clean up the SS Richard Montgomery wreck, or does the comment about the possibility of accidental detonation preclude that?

From what I read a few years ago, last time it made one of its periodical "shock, horror!" stories in the press, someone official was quotes as saying they were looking into ways in which they could make the wreck safe, but I haven't heard anything since which sort of suggests they've decided to leave it well alone doesn't it? In turn, that suggests they are worried about an accidental detonation.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If it does ever blow, one can imagine the resulting political hoo-ha... "Why wasn't anything done?!)

Would certainly be a work creation bonanza for glaziers in the Sheerness and North Kent area.

 

[najaB]

One thing that did strike me about the explosion in Beirut was that the enormous grain silo in the harbour area took the full force of the explosion, and I wondered if it would have been worse if that hadn’t been there, or if it wouldn’t have made any difference because of the way a shockwave works?

To my mind they were very fortunate that it was there as it would have redirected a lot of the energy back out to sea.

 

[Peter C]

That was an interesting couple of clips, thanks for that.

You're welcome - there's loads and loads of interesting and funny videos on that channel.

-Peter

 

[DelW]

If it does ever blow, one can imagine the resulting political hoo-ha... "Why wasn't anything done?!)

Would certainly be a work creation bonanza for glaziers in the Sheerness and North Kent area.

And probably Southend on Sea and southern Essex.

The majority of the cargo was removed in the immediate aftermath of the sinking. AIUI what's left is the hardest to reach (logically enough).

I first heard of it in 1981 when I lived and worked on the Isle of Sheppey. At least since then, official policy is that it's more dangerous to intervene than to leave it in situ.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Off topic but relevant to the examples given.

There was press coverage recently: it has been decided to remove the masts from the SS Richard Montgomery. Hope they do it very carefully!

More recent pictures of the Fauld Crater:



There is lots on the internet if people are interested, including some recent pictures by Urban Explorers who found their way in (not that difficult at the time really - open doors!) - I think it was the 28 Days Later site.