Evening star., 1914-10-29
FALLOF ANTWERP DUE
T0NTERvALS UNNAMED
Lord Sydenham, British Expert.
Says He Warned Leopold of Bel.
gian Forts Weaknesses.
Declares Intrenched Rifle Lines Are
Best Defense. as Shown by
Aisne Battle.

Correspondence Of the Associated Press
LONDON. October l6.-Speaking of
the fall of Antwerp. Lord Sydenham.
the leading British fertilization expert,
states that when he examined Bel
gium's defenses IN 1890, at the request
of King Leopold. he strongly con-
demned those of both Liege and Namur.
and expressed disappointment in the
plans then being carried out to Ant
werp. These forts, Lord Sydenham
says he announced at that time. could
not have then withstood a concentrated
attack by field artillery. This state
ment led to controversy With the
famous Belgian engineer and author
of the defense plans. Gen. Brial
mont. But Brialmont was able to con-
vince his government and carry out his
plans
AS to the forts of Li-ge and Namur
then under construction, Lord Syden-
ham says he gave the following reports
to Leopold:
81 declared they could not hold their
intervals properly, that their arma-
mentS We're. weak and SLOW i'll action,
and that il the places were to be held
it could he done only by constructing
field intrenchmrnts. with artillery and
obstacles in the intervals. The num-
alone 1 placed at 70.o60 men. exclusive
OF the garrisons of the forts.
Intervals Neglected.
at is clear that in the recent fight
ing the intervals were neither properly
intrenched nor adequately manned. The
reason why the Germans failed at the
beginning to carry Liege was only be-
cause they tried to storm the eastern
front without adequate artillery prep
aration. Nevertheless, they entered
the town through undefended intervals.
and as soon as the artillery came up
the forts FELL
Lord Sydenham does not understand
why the Belgian army. following the
easy smashing of the lines around
Liese and Namur. did not create rough
greater faith than in conventional forti-
tications.
These conventional works of the
great engineers invariably prove dis
appointment" adds the critic. They
cannot stand the test of experience.
The ordinary permanent fort is simply
"a shell trap. which cannot resist the
concentrated fire of modern howitzers.
These days the conventional forts are
at further disadvantage in that the
attacking fire is directed by aero
planes"
Rifle Lines Best Defense.
Lord S'ydenham considers his theory
further borne out in the battle along
the Aisne. These two vast armies con-
Quoted an artillery battle for weeks
| without either side gaining i material
advantage, lighting from the extempore
fortifications erected during the course
Of war.
His lordships theories of defense
which brought him into controversy
with Gen. Brialnont. were derived
, from the siege of Plevna. That place
| was defended mainly by rife lines. with
shelters, to which the men could
retire when under artillery fire. Its
forts We're SO small and insufficient
as to be little damaged by the Russian
shell fire.
ARTILLERY defense must be independ-
ent of the forts,' Lord Sydenham con-
cludes. with guns and howitzers we'll
concealed in the intervals. but SO
placed that they can be moved from
spot to spot; Infantry intrenchments
with good shelters, are the backbone
of defense. If the Belgians had done
this at Antwerp the loss OF fort
need not have compromised the de-
fense"