poesel Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/48646/what-is-the-meaning-and-origin-of-set-piece-battle 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 http://english.stackexchange.com/ What a neat resource. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
umlaut Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 What a neat resource. A bit superficial, don´t you think? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chainsaw Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted May 27, 2012 Author Share Posted May 27, 2012 Thanks Vanir - so it basically means 'attack with a very thorough plan'. @chainsaw: I do my very best! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Ferrous Posted May 27, 2012 Share Posted May 27, 2012 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.