Spassky attacked a little bit better than the average guy on the street.
He played the King's Gambit and the Closed Sicilian for a good chunk of his career. They aren't exactly similar, but the closed would cut out a bunch of your study time, if you intended to get into it deeply, and would still offer you plent of attacking chances, as long as you didn't mind that black could theoretically equalize. The lines are equal but with chances for both sides, rather than drawn, if you get me.
Thank you for your answers.
I feel I should clarify myself on few things -
'early' attack - I do not advertise that I should be attacking from second move - if I start attacking in middle game, after all the pieces have been developed, in 10th move, or even later, that's also fine.
In queen's gambit, you start actively attacking in the very endgame, after you make advance with queen's pawns. Everything up until that point, in most variations, is preparing of the terrain.
About strategy depth - it's unfair to say aggressivesociopath that I want just one plan. As I said, I have three main lines with Scandinavian, and quite a few sublines, and would be willing to learn a few for white. I just don't want to go into the staggering amount of variations Sicilian offers. Depending on the white's response, you need to play totally different approach with it.
I'll leave it to better minds than mine.
I'll try King's gambit first, looks mighty fine opening, then Benoni and Ponziani, and will report to you guys how all that went.