Incidents involving large amounts of military explosives and propellants

fat tony

fat tony

CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
111   0   0
Location
a forward observation post in the L-F-H horizon, o
If you have ever heard of the term: The safety procedures are written in blood, the following wikipedia post refers to that.

Some of the details could be off but the incidents are pretty well documented in any case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Largest_artificial_non-nuclear_explosions

Here in The Dartmouth area we have the largest military depot east of the Quebec area, as far as I know.

Not sure of the capacity, but a previous accident there in 1945 made the danger of careless handling procedures very clear, if that was not already understood.

The Bedford incident in 1945 was allegedly close to being something much worse, but for the actions of very dedicated firefighters.

Edit: one wonders about the wisdom of storing large amounts of military munitions in one place as we still (as far as I know) do in Canada. I put it down to lawyers, bureaucrats, and not in my backyard syndrome.

For one thing, it appears that the ability of the CF to fight back after its highly centralized munitions facilities were annihilated would be impaired.
 
Biggest accident we had in Canada was the Halifax Explosion in 1917. It was also the largest explosion ever made until the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. If I remember correctly about 2000 people died and Halifax was pretty much blown up. It was caused by two ships colliding, I know at least one was carrying ammo.
 
Eaglelord17 said:
Biggest accident we had in Canada was the Halifax Explosion in 1917. It was also the largest explosion ever made until the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. If I remember correctly about 2000 people died and Halifax was pretty much blown up. It was caused by two ships colliding, I know at least one was carrying ammo.
Click to expand...

(Without checking the Net Explosive Quantity statements) There were two other huge explosions in Canada that might challenge the Halifax Explosion. First was the largest non-nuclear explosion detonated on CFB Suffield. There are concentric ring roads on the base where the sensors were placed. Secondly, a big underwater rock off the BC coast was literally, taken off the coast. After too many ships wrecked in the channel, a mineshaft was sunk and filled with explosives. The explosion was less spectacular because it was contained by the water.

Edited - Three 500 tons in Suffield, and over 1500 tons in Ripple Rock in 1956. Unmeasured blasts like the Mississauga and Lac Megantic derailments not included.
 
Last edited:
maple_leaf_eh said:
(Without checking the Net Explosive Quantity statements) There were two other huge explosions in Canada that might challenge the Halifax Explosion. First was the largest non-nuclear explosion detonated on CFB Suffield. There are concentric ring roads on the base where the sensors were placed. Secondly, a big underwater rock off the BC coast was literally, taken off the coast. After too many ships wrecked in the channel, a mineshaft was sunk and filled with explosives. The explosion was less spectacular because it was contained by the water.

Edited - Three 500 tons in Suffield, and over 1500 tons in Ripple Rock in 1956. Unmeasured blasts like the Mississauga and Lac Megantic derailments not included.
Click to expand...

Buddy's dad was involved in the Suffield explosion. He had some neat photographs, you could hear it in Calgary.

Grizz
 
It's pretty tough to legislate against this. Even with the most stringent precautions accidents will happen. The Bedford ammo depot was established for the sole purpose of ammunitioning and de-ammunitioning naval vessels berthing in Halifax harbour. This requirement still remains. Unfortunately the geography of the Bedford Basin is such that the effects of an explosion at harbour level will be transmitted to the slopes surrounding the harbour as was seen in both the 1917 and 1945 incidents.

At one point in time there was a policy to disperse ammo stocks in depots at fairly isolated locations to mitigate the collateral damage from an accidental explosion. This is why the Army established it's primary post-war ammo depots in McGivney, NB, Dundurn, SK and St Therese, PQ. Two of these were closed as an austerity measure in the post-integration era. Large scale ammo storage requires special magazines, security, safety traverses, magazine islolation, separation by classes of ammunition and limits on explosive content per magazine. Extensive road/rail access and fire safety precautions are also needed. In the case of some modern munitions with electronic components temperature control is also a factor.

To some extent the closure of the depots in PQ and NB necessitated the expansion of storage facilities in places like Gagetown, Borden, Wainwright, Petawawa and Valcartier. Our adoption of the more stringent NATO ammo storage specs would have required costs for additional storage facilities and safety measures in any event. If we are going to retain a military with some level of readiness and ongoing training needs you can't get around the fact that large scale ammo storage facilities with an associated potential for accidents will continue to exist. Some dispersion of stocks is also a prudent measure in case of loss by accident or deliberate action.
 
Rule 303 said:
Hmmm...No mention of the atomic explosion in the St Lawrence River in November of 1950?
Click to expand...

Source?

Found it, interesting story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Rivière-du-Loup_B-50_nuclear_weapon_loss_incident

There were also several crashes of B-36 Peacemakers on Canadian soil. One was lost in the Yukon around the same era and the wreckage was not found for 4 yrs. In that incident, the atomic bomb was again jettisoned and detonated (without the pit) in accordance with USAF procedures.

It would be a big explosion as the all up weight of the device was 10,900 lbs :eek: but not nuclear in the strict sense.
 
Last edited:
maple_leaf_eh said:
(Without checking the Net Explosive Quantity statements) There were two other huge explosions in Canada that might challenge the Halifax Explosion. First was the largest non-nuclear explosion detonated on CFB Suffield. There are concentric ring roads on the base where the sensors were placed. Secondly, a big underwater rock off the BC coast was literally, taken off the coast. After too many ships wrecked in the channel, a mineshaft was sunk and filled with explosives. The explosion was less spectacular because it was contained by the water.

Edited - Three 500 tons in Suffield, and over 1500 tons in Ripple Rock in 1956. Unmeasured blasts like the Mississauga and Lac Megantic derailments not included.
Click to expand...

Oh I am not saying it was the largest in Canada even, I am just saying it is the largest man-made explosion until the Atomic bombs were dropped on Japan (so 1917 until 1945).
 
fat tony said:
Source?

Found it, interesting story.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_Rivière-du-Loup_B-50_nuclear_weapon_loss_incident

There were also several crashes of B-36 Peacemakers on Canadian soil. One was lost in the Yukon around the same era and the wreckage was not found for 4 yrs. In that incident, the atomic bomb was again jettisoned and detonated (without the pit) in accordance with USAF procedures.

It would be a big explosion as the all up weight of the device was 10,900 lbs :eek: but not nuclear in the strict sense.
Click to expand...

Gotta wonder given the attitudes of the day, if the bomb was actually destroyed, or that was just the public story. US air force specialists recovered the initiators from the wreck.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1950_British_Columbia_B-36_crash

Grizz
 
Last edited:
Being ex navy this stuff really p---ses me off. There are certain fundamental requirements for ammunition storage that can't be escaped. Ships hold a lot of firepower and when they come to home port they need to be unloaded for safety reason. The ammo is not just put in a single pile. Depots have a multitude of widely spaced blast resistant bunkers and the ammo is spread around. They try to disperse as much as practical. Different ship have different requirements, different types of ordinance etc. You have to know exactly where everything is. It is not realistic to spread depots around to much. Not much point in keeping ship ammo in Winnipeg. By necessity ammunition for the military MUST be keep convenient to whatever system is to use it. Not a whole lot of point to warships that sit idle for weeks until their ammo arrives. Generally the depots are built well away from people, housing etc and then people move in because the land close to the depot is cheap and then complain about the depot being there. Kind of like airports. In my view the very very small risk associated with modern well managed ammo depots is simply something that is a part of life. Don't like it don't live close to the depot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom