Explosion in New York Harbor in 1943

Geon

Donor
Yesterday I discovered a video on The History Guy's channel on an incident that happened in New York Harbor on April 24, 1943. The S.S. Elestro was docked in the Jersey shore area or near it. The ship was being loaded with armaments for the European theater. Several tons of explosives were on board including several of the "blockbuster" bombs. A fire broke out in the engine room of the vessel. As if this wasn't bad enough the vessel was docked near another ship similarly loaded and there were railroad cars with even more ordinance on the dock waiting to be loaded. Only a heroic effort by the crew and by the coast guard prevented what could have been a major disaster. Had they been unable to stop the explosion the blast would according to one account have been the equivalent of a tactical nuclear weapon. In the words of one of the officers on duty that day at the loading area, "The blast would have made the Black Tom Explosion look like a marshmallow roast!"

The results of such an explosion would according to the video have flattened a good part of downtown Manhattan and the surrounding area including destroying The Empire State Building and shredding the Statue of Liberty! Hundreds of thousands would have been killed or wounded and most of the area would probably been consumed in firestorm by the fuel tanks that were near the ship! For all intents and purposes New York would have been rendered inoperative for the foreseeable future as a port.

Here are some questions I have for discussion. What are the short term effects of the explosion on the war effort? What are the long term effects? How long before the New York harbor would be able to service war material again?

I can think of one short term result right off the bat. A certain Fuehrer in Germany is going to be positively giddy and consider this a "gift of providence" as his cherished dream of seeing New York in flames is realized.

For those interested in details please visit "The History Guy" channel for further information on the incident.
 

BlueTrousers

Okay, looking at the incident in question (SS EL ESTERO on Wikipedia, for anyone who doesn't want to watch a video) involved 1,365 tons of mixed ammunition aboard ship, plus other ordnance ashore and on neighbouring ships bringing the total to 5,000 tons. Not all of which would be explosives.

For comparison, other similar explosions included:
  • Halifax in 1917, involving 2,800 tons of explosives
  • Bombay in 1944, involving 1,400 tons of explosives and 240 tons of torpedoes and other ammunition
  • PORT CHICAGO in 1944, involving in the region of 4,600 tons of explosives and other ammunition, with a combined explosive yield of between 1,600 and 2,100 tons of TNT
Based on the effects of those explosions, such things as 'destroying the Empire State Building' and hundreds of thousands of dead can be ruled out. Several hundred dead and several thousand wounded seems far more likely. The Statue of Liberty might well be struck by shrapnel, but 'shredded' seems like an exaggeration, and New York certainly wouldn't be rendered inoperative as a port.

Overall effect on the war effort? Again, probably look at PORT CHICAGO for that, minus the racial angle. Which is to say, disruptive, but far from crippling.
 

jlckansas

Empire State Building took a direct hit with a B 25 plowing into it and basically the fire was easily contained and no problems. Given the distance between the center of the Explosion and the Empire State Building, maybe some broken glass but that is about it. Statue of Liberty getting shrapnel yes, Ellis Island yes, Castle Clinton and extreme Lower Manhatten yes, but that would be about it. It would be alot worse for the Jersey side of the for Bayonne and Jersey City. Google earth Cavin Point Jersey city and see how far south of Manhatten that is.
 

njslim

RLBH said:
Okay, looking at the incident in question (SS EL ESTERO on Wikipedia, for anyone who doesn't want to watch a video) involved 1,365 tons of mixed ammunition aboard ship, plus other ordnance ashore and on neighbouring ships bringing the total to 5,000 tons. Not all of which would be explosives.

For comparison, other similar explosions included:
  • Halifax in 1917, involving 2,800 tons of explosives
  • Bombay in 1944, involving 1,400 tons of explosives and 240 tons of torpedoes and other ammunition
  • PORT CHICAGO in 1944, involving in the region of 4,600 tons of explosives and other ammunition, with a combined explosive yield of between 1,600 and 2,100 tons of TNT
Based on the effects of those explosions, such things as 'destroying the Empire State Building' and hundreds of thousands of dead can be ruled out. Several hundred dead and several thousand wounded seems far more likely. The Statue of Liberty might well be struck by shrapnel, but 'shredded' seems like an exaggeration, and New York certainly wouldn't be rendered inoperative as a port.

Overall effect on the war effort? Again, probably look at PORT CHICAGO for that, minus the racial angle. Which is to say, disruptive, but far from crippling.
Click to expand...
During WWI German agents set fire to the Black Tom pier in Jersey City, across the Hudson from New York Black Tom was the primary shipping point for munitions purchased by the Allies during WW I

en.wikipedia.org

Black Tom explosion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Some 2 million lbs (900,00 kg) of munitions were stored on the pier including 100,000 lbs (45,00 kg )TNT on a barge moored to the pier
The fires ignited a series of massive explosions in the munition Debris from the explosions damaged the Statue of Liberty in the harbor

Luckily only 4 people, including a infant were killed by the explosions as happened at night when no worker present and the watchmen fled before the explosion
 
Last edited:

njslim

jlckansas said:
Empire State Building took a direct hit with a B 25 plowing into it and basically the fire was easily contained and no problems. Given the distance between the center of the Explosion and the Empire State Building, maybe some broken glass but that is about it. Statue of Liberty getting shrapnel yes, Ellis Island yes, Castle Clinton and extreme Lower Manhatten yes, but that would be about it. It would be alot worse for the Jersey side of the for Bayonne and Jersey City. Google earth Cavin Point Jersey city and see how far south of Manhatten that is.
Click to expand...
Biggest danger in Jersey City and Manhattan would have been shattered glass raining down on the streets following the blast The shards of glass falling down would inflict serious if not fatal injury to those below
 

Geon

Donor
So approximately what is the realistic power of the blast that would occur if there were an explosion? Does the 1.5 kiloton projection above sound accurate? Remember we're not just talking about the ship but also the neighboring vessel and a railroad car loaded with explosive material in the main blast radius.
 

jlckansas

Geon said:
So approximately what is the realistic power of the blast that would occur if there were an explosion? Does the 1.5 kiloton projection above sound accurate? Remember we're not just talking about the ship but also the neighboring vessel and a railroad car loaded with explosive material in the main blast radius.
Click to expand...
Here is a link. to 6.5KT blast.

nuclearsecrecy.com

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

NUKEMAP is a mapping mash-up that calculates the effects of the detonation of a nuclear bomb.
nuclearsecrecy.com nuclearsecrecy.com
 
BELFAST

BELFAST

The worse place for that ship to explode would be the Panama Canal in the lock gates near Gatun Lake. That would drain the lake and it would take many wet years after repair to refill the lake. that would put the canal out of action for the duration of the war and some time after the war.
 

jlckansas

BELFAST said:
The worse place for that ship to explode would be the Panama Canal in the lock gates near Gatun Lake. That would drain the lake and it would take many wet years after repair to refill the lake. that would put the canal out of action for the duration of the war and some time after the war.
Click to expand...
See this link in the Forum for all things Panama. That Equus Cabellus has been beat quite a bit. Won't bother the dam at all is the consensus.
 

lionhead

Seems like an explosion equivalent to Port Chicago Disaster. Its not exactly the Halifax explosion then. Now that would render New York quite cripppled for a long time.
 

CaptainCalvert

RLBH said:
Okay, looking at the incident in question (SS EL ESTERO on Wikipedia, for anyone who doesn't want to watch a video) involved 1,365 tons of mixed ammunition aboard ship, plus other ordnance ashore and on neighbouring ships bringing the total to 5,000 tons. Not all of which would be explosives.

For comparison, other similar explosions included:
  • Halifax in 1917, involving 2,800 tons of explosives
  • Bombay in 1944, involving 1,400 tons of explosives and 240 tons of torpedoes and other ammunition
  • PORT CHICAGO in 1944, involving in the region of 4,600 tons of explosives and other ammunition, with a combined explosive yield of between 1,600 and 2,100 tons of TNT
Based on the effects of those explosions, such things as 'destroying the Empire State Building' and hundreds of thousands of dead can be ruled out. Several hundred dead and several thousand wounded seems far more likely. The Statue of Liberty might well be struck by shrapnel, but 'shredded' seems like an exaggeration, and New York certainly wouldn't be rendered inoperative as a port.

Overall effect on the war effort? Again, probably look at PORT CHICAGO for that, minus the racial angle. Which is to say, disruptive, but far from crippling.
Click to expand...
There's also the Beirut fertilizer explosion which was somewhere in the 1/2 to 1 kT range. Some substantial concrete structures survived and protected areas behind them. If big warehouses were presentaround the docks in New York a similar effect could be expected.
New York's grid-like streets would probably channel the blast so that damage might also be unevenly distributed from that.
 
Gabingston

Gabingston

BELFAST said:
The worse place for that ship to explode would be the Panama Canal in the lock gates near Gatun Lake. That would drain the lake and it would take many wet years after repair to refill the lake. that would put the canal out of action for the duration of the war and some time after the war.
Click to expand...
 

BlueTrousers

Geon said:
So approximately what is the realistic power of the blast that would occur if there were an explosion? Does the 1.5 kiloton projection above sound accurate? Remember we're not just talking about the ship but also the neighboring vessel and a railroad car loaded with explosive material in the main blast radius.
Click to expand...
Absolute maximum of about 5,000 tons, but more realistically around 2,000 tons TNT equivalent, give or take 250 tons. Not all of the weight of munitions would be explosives, and not all of the explosives would become involved in the explosion.
lionhead said:
Seems like an explosion equivalent to Port Chicago Disaster. Its not exactly the Halifax explosion then. Now that would render New York quite cripppled for a long time.
Click to expand...
To be honest, the two were pretty comparable as explosions. The major difference was that the Halifax explosion was close to a populated area, and PORT CHICAGO was in a naval ammunition depot. EL ESTERO would be somewhere in between, but probably closer to PORT CHICAGO.

Black Tom is a useful reference point, but it's worth noting that that explosion was substantially closer to the Statue of Liberty and to Manhattan than the Caven Point terminal where EL ESTERO was moored at the time of the fire, which would offset the larger explosion. Casualties and damage would mostly be in the Bayonne/Jersey City area.
 

ric350

FYI - shortly after the El Estero fire, plans were quickly drawn up for a weapons depot to be constructed in (at the time) lightly populated sections of coastal Monmouth County NJ, to be commissioned in 1943 as Naval Weapons Station Earle. It consists of a location on the coast of Sandy Hook Bay, which utilized a pier extending 3 miles into the bay, and a 10000 acre inland storage area. A 15 mile restricted government controlled railway connects the two. The depot is still in operation today, though population growth has pushed to every edge of the facility.
It has always been rumored (never confirmed) that the Navy stored nuclear weapons at the site. However, back on the 80s, I use to work with a gentleman who had been a Marine stationed at the site. He was often assigned to guard various public road intersections of the Earle rail line when munition trains would transit between the two locations. However on one occasion he was assigned to guard an intersection in the very early hours. As he stood his post, a train going toward the pier, approached at a very slow rate. As it got closer he saw why. The train was led by a truck riding on the adjacent access road. It had spotlights shining on the track ahead. Ahead of the train/truck were addition Marines walking along the rails inspecting the track and access road on each side. As this procession moved past, he saw that the train consisted of a single diesel locomotive, one boxcar, and a caboose (with two more Marines standing on its rear platform). Given the heightened security, he had a pretty good idea what was in that boxcar.

ric350
 

DougM

Didn’t the military have a special car for moving nuclear devices? I seam to recall they were designed to take a huge impact.
 

njslim

ric350 said:
FYI - shortly after the El Estero fire, plans were quickly drawn up for a weapons depot to be constructed in (at the time) lightly populated sections of coastal Monmouth County NJ, to be commissioned in 1943 as Naval Weapons Station Earle. It consists of a location on the coast of Sandy Hook Bay, which utilized a pier extending 3 miles into the bay, and a 10000 acre inland storage area. A 15 mile restricted government controlled railway connects the two. The depot is still in operation today, though population growth has pushed to every edge of the facility.
It has always been rumored (never confirmed) that the Navy stored nuclear weapons at the site. However, back on the 80s, I use to work with a gentleman who had been a Marine stationed at the site. He was often assigned to guard various public road intersections of the Earle rail line when munition trains would transit between the two locations. However on one occasion he was assigned to guard an intersection in the very early hours. As he stood his post, a train going toward the pier, approached at a very slow rate. As it got closer he saw why. The train was led by a truck riding on the adjacent access road. It had spotlights shining on the track ahead. Ahead of the train/truck were addition Marines walking along the rails inspecting the track and access road on each side. As this procession moved past, he saw that the train consisted of a single diesel locomotive, one boxcar, and a caboose (with two more Marines standing on its rear platform). Given the heightened security, he had a pretty good idea what was in that boxcar.

ric350
Click to expand...
In 1926 a lightning strike set fire to an Naval Ammunition dump at what was called Lake Denmark in New Jersey Present site of Picatinny Army Arsenal

Lake Denmark Powder Depot​


Officers' quarters, Lake Denmark, July 1926
In 1891, the navy acquired 317 acres (1.28 km2) of the arsenal to establish the Lake Denmark Powder Depot, later known as the "Lake Denmark Naval Ammunition Depot". On July 10, 1926, lightning struck one of the explosives storage structures during a thunderstorm and started a fire. As a result, several million pounds of explosives detonated over a period of two or three days. Captain Otto Dowling, USN was in charge at the time, and received a Distinguished Service Cross for his handling of the situation. This caused $47,000,000 in damage, massive structural devastation (187 of 200 buildings destroyed), and military and civilian casualties. As a result of a full-scale Congressional investigation, Congress directed the establishment of the Armed Forces Explosives Safety Board to provide oversight on every aspect of explosives under the control of the US Armed Forces.

In 1960, the army resumed control of land it had given the navy, bringing the installation to its current size and shape.
 

njslim

Left out of the discussion is the TEXAS CITY DISASTER in 1947, where 2 ships loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer exploded
The ship GRANDCDAMP caught fire and to smother the fire captain ordered hatches sealed and steam from engine room injected into hold - BAD MOVE!! as only raised temperature of ammonium nitrate to detonation point Exploded , wiping out local fire department. Destroyed Monsanto chemical works nearby ant set second ship, HIGHFLYER on fire Several hours later it exploded with a bigger explosion leveling what was left Over 550 killed
en.wikipedia.org

Texas City disaster - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Found later that ammonium nitrate had been coated with wax as moisture repellant which only sensitized it into high explosive
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top