'set piece attack' explanation

[poesel]

Could someone please explain the term 'set piece attack'?

I've found various descriptions of said attacks so I get the meaning of it. But no definitions or translations. The closest was 'standard situations' for football.

Thanks.

[Vanir Ausf B]

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/48646/what-is-the-meaning-and-origin-of-set-piece-battle

[JonS]

http://english.stackexchange.com/

What a neat resource.

[umlaut]

What a neat resource.

A bit superficial, don´t you think?

[Chainsaw]

My attack in "In the shadows of the hill" that we play PBEM right now is a set-piece attack. and considering how its turning out you can see both outcomes. ones that succedes and one who didnt.

[poesel]

Thanks Vanir - so it basically means 'attack with a very thorough plan'.

@chainsaw: I do my very best!

[c3k]

Nice link. It also carries a connotation, at least for me, of massive artillery preparation. This is FAR more artillery than for other attacks. Set-piece attacks need a lot of logistics build up. Montgomery seemed to be the main practitioner for the Allies. Long delays during the buildup, massive ordnance, short advance, dig in, repeat.

[Chris Ferrous]

Monty was quite prepared to call off a set-piece plan if he thought it was going askew, then dig-in, and make a new plan, sometimes undertaken only the very next day.

Just like Patton, Monty didn't like paying in blood for the same ground twice, and he knew a good defensive stance was likely to disrupt the enemy further if they attempted a counterattack. One could even argue that a sit-and-wait-for-the-counterattack doctrine could be part of the overall set-piece battle!

Overall, I don't think one can argue about the effectiveness of the El Alemein set-piece battle; it resulted in something like a 1000 mile advance to Tripoli with no set-piece battles interrupting that advance at all.

BTW, even Patton didn't achieve that sort of advance, and by comparison his logistical problem was trivial.