Awkward sentence: how to split?

Maybe . . .

However, as he later disclosed, it wasn't the desire for glory that led to his audacious action, but months of preparations, during which he cleverly rigged his armored anti-infantry vehicles to use in an anti-tank role.

Or . . . desire for medals . . .

The original is 35 words. This is 28, a trim of 20%--but I don't like the end of it. I'm not sure how to phrase it better, but you can mess with it if the rest works for you.

Later he disclosed the lure of war decorations hadn't prompted his seemingly audacious operation. During months of preparation he'd cleverly rigged his anti-infantry armored vehicles to block tanks.

I think the reason I don't like the end is I can't guess exactly how the rigged vehicles fight tanks. But I bet you know that, huh?

Maryn, hoping this helps

I'd like to put my vote in for Maryn's suggestion

However, as he later disclosed, it wasn't the lure of war decorations that prompted his seemingly audacious operation but months of preparations during which he cleverly rigged his anti-infantry armored vehicles into an anti-tank role.

Wow! That's a bit of a mouthful, and his motivations aren't quite clear: you're comparing the lure of war decorations to months of preparation (I'm assuming you mean that his desire was to win the battle or war and so he took elaboration preparations?).

I rewrote the whole thing, boiling it down to its essence:

Years later he revealed that he had spent months fitting out his anti-personnel vehicles with heavier armor and anti-tank weapons, not for personal glory, but simply to destroy the enemy.

indigo123 said:

However, as he later disclosed, it wasn't the lure of war decorations that prompted his seemingly audacious operation but months of preparations during which he cleverly rigged his anti-infantry armored vehicles into an anti-tank role.

Click to expand...

However, as he later disclosed, it wasn't the lure of war decorations that prompted his seemingly audacious operation. It was months of preparations, during which he cleverly rigged his anti-infantry vehicles into an anti-tank role.

However, he later disclosed that it wasn't the lure of war decorations that prompted his seemingly audacious act, but months of painstaking preparation rigging his anti-infantry vehicles to work as anti-tank trucks.

However, he later disclosed that it wasn't the lure of war decorations that prompted his act, but months of preparation rigging anti-infantry vehicles to work as anti-tank trucks.

But he later said his actions weren't prompted by the lure of medals or decorations, but by months of hard work rigging his anti-infantry vehicles to work in an anti-tank capacity instead.

However, as he later disclosed, it wasn't the lure of war decorations that prompted his seemingly audacious operation but months of preparations during which he cleverly rigged his anti-infantry armored vehicles into an anti-tank role.

Click to expand...

I like Brianjanuary's retelling. In similar vein:

He later revealed the true inspiration for the operation, and its audacity: months spent preparing anti-infantry vehicles to take on an armored enemy. Not personal glory

Click to expand...

Only slightly shorter. But less clumsy?

I agree it's awkward.

If you have strict word limits I think your best bet is to scrap that sentence and have another shot at saying whatever it is you are trying to get across because the relative sentence is meaningless to me.

What is it you are trying to say in that sentence, because the rewrites are all guesses and many still don't make sense.

indigo123 said:

I have strict word limits, so I can't be very wordy but as I read this sentence now, it looks awkward.

Click to expand...

I'm clearly being overly picky here, but how can preparations prompt an action? What prompted the preparations?

absitinvidia said:

I'm clearly being overly picky here, but how can preparations prompt an action? What prompted the preparations?

Click to expand...

's

You're not being picky; that's what's wrong with the sentence.

The original reads well to me. (Note: I don't know what an "awkward" sentence is.)

Just because something prompted the preparations doesn't mean the preparations didn't prompt the action. If we always had to go back to the first cause, everything would end up prompted by the Big Bang or God.

As I understand it: The guy's motivation for doing the thing wasn't medals. He did it 'cause he'd spent months outfitting all his vehicles and was itchin' to use 'em against tanks.

But as he later revealed: it wasn't medals that prompted his operation. It was months of preparation—he'd transformed his vehicles into insane tank-killing machines!

Original is fine, but are many ways to say same in less words.

An awkward sentence is one that for whatever reason lacks clarity - like the one under discussion - and has to be read more than once in order to grasp what it means or what the writer is trying to get across.

Connecting preparation to prompted is not aiding clarity either in this case or in the latest revised version.

Also, in wartime I doubt the remotest thought of a medal ever crosses the mind of anyone about to engage in an audacious or life-threatening operation. Maybe the OP should consider deleting that opening phrase about the lure of medals, and reconsider the whole intended meaning of the sentence.

Posting out of context snippets is never a good idea.