Talk:Operation Windsor

Untitled
I added some information taken from Battle for Caen as the respective paragraph there was longer than his "main article". If for copyright reasons the original authors of that paragraph must be noted here, then someone may feel free to add them. --88.73.135.147 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Keegan - Six Armies in Normandy
I was browsing through the book to see if I could add any info, and sure enough Keegan does make a mention of the operation; however, it's so different to what's in the article I think I'll just quote it here in full:

'How seriously his order [Rommel's order to stand fast] was taken emerged during the fighting for Carpiquet on July 4th, when the Queen's Own Rifles Canada, the Chaudieres and the Fort Garry Horse struggled all day to wrest the airfield from a garrison later revealed to be no stronger than fifty young soldiers of the 12th SS Division.' [Keegan, Six Armies in Normandy, p. 187]

Now, that doesn't seem to square with what's in the article, but I've always thought Keegan to be quite accurate. But I'm guessing he's got his info mixed up here? Skinny87 (talk) 11:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I actually read his book earlier in the year, and I think he simply isn't specific enough with his dates.  The Canadians eventually took it on 8 July during Operation Charnwood. Cam (Chat) 16:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I did wonder, fifty soldiers holding back three battalions seems a tad...excessive! Skinny87 (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not a military expert but the book 12thSSPanzerDivision claim that there is only around 50 Germans defending the airfield. 21:21, 30 November 2010 "Pat"

Disputed
The historic Norman town of Caen was a major Operation Overlord objective for the British Second Army, having landed forces on three Normandy beaches to capture the town.[3]

Forces landing on Sword were given the objective of capturing the city, the Canadians were to capture Carpiquet and the guys at Gold - Bayeux. The sentance is inaccurate.

I would be in favour of copying the first portion of the intro from the Operation Epsom article to this one and building upon it for the releveance of this article i.e. the Epsom intro notes that 3rd Inf off sword was to capture Caen - this could then be expanded to note the Canadians setting out to capture Carpiquet etc

The passage, while being of FA standard, also contains background information that would allow the replacement of "attritional position-warfare" with additional information to show that the first weeks of the Normandy fighting were not WW1 trench warefare as the quote implys.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While that may be true, it is undeniable that the objective of the entire British 2nd Army was to capture Caen, similar to the way that the 1st US Army's objective revolved around capturing Cherbourg. Cam (Chat) 03:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A somewhat erroneous view to take, I Corps was the only formation given the task of initially capturing Caen (and then only elements of the 3rd Infantry Division and the armour that landed that day on Sword beach). Second Armys actual objective was to "secure and develop a bridghead south of the line Caumont-Caen and south-east of Caen in order to 'secure airfield sites and to protect the flank of the First United States Army while the latter capture Cherbourg'".(Ellis, p. 78)

On 19 July, British forces as part of Operation Goodwood, captured the remainder of Caen, while Canadian forces attacked German positions on Verrières Ridge as part of Operation Atlantic.[21]

British forces did not seize the remainder of Caen, Canadians troops did.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Map requested
This article could use a map of the operation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

CE
Spring-cleaned the page, added analysis section and some citations.Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Result
to Keith-264:

I’m struggling to see “original research” defining what I did. It seems “Allied Victory” was added by someone 10 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Windsor&oldid=478772383 Before that it was “Allied Strategic Victory, German Tactical Victory”. His explanation is false, since he seems to think only the village was the objective. Not sure why it went unchallenged, but he cited no source. I can find no source at all declaring this a victory either way, or any logical reason either. Asking the user to “See Aftermath” and judge for themselves seems to be the appropriate approach. In fact there is not judgement in that, the “Epsom” article is handled the same way. In absence of a source actually calling it a “victory”, I dont see what the problem is. Michaelson15 (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Well it would also appear that Mr Keith is now saying that somehow this wikipedia article is a source for itself…This is the lead for this article.. “On 4 July, the 8th Canadian Infantry Brigadeand an attached battalion of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division attacked Carpiquet, supported on the flanks by the 2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade. The village was captured by mid-afternoon but German resistance in the south defeated two attacks on the airfield, despite significant Allied tank and air support. Next day the Canadians repulsed German counter-attacks and held the village, which served as a base for Operation Charnwood, a Second Army attack on Caen, involving the rest of the 3rd Canadian Infantry Division on 8 July, and the airfield was captured by the Canadians on 9 July.”
 * Spurious to begin with to say its own article is the source of the outcome, but Im afraid the above does not support anything other than a mixed outcome. Michaelson15 (talk) 03:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I fear that your ignorance WP:AGF WP:civil is exceeded only by your bad manners. See Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

The permitted terms were altered a few years ago to avoid fatuous terms like Allied Strategic Victory, German Tactical Victory. The lead and infobox are summaries derived from the article, which as you can see is an A class effort, its sources are reliable and comprehensive. It is the reliable sources that determine the descriptions of events in the article and descriptions of the judgements made by historians in the Aftermath section. If you want to alter the result criterion you will need to base your opinion on reliable sources and seek consensus, rather than peremptory edits and mud-throwing. Keith-264 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keith-264 The only “mud-throwing” is being done by you, since your post is the only uncivil thing I’ve seen in this conversation. “I have bad manners” is the first and only ad-hominem used so far, and arguably citing my supposed ignorance is inflammatory too. You are the only one who has resulted to insulting language, and I’m unimpressed with your line of conduct frankly.


 * The permitted terms were altered to avoid “Tactical victory [one side], strategic victory [other side]”? Ok, so what does that have to do with “See Aftermath Section”, something which is espoused as an alternative by the very article you are citing? This is the subject of the edit to begin with. Nor does it change a lack of support dor the current result. The point was that it was unsourced and unsupported by much of anything, not that it was in bad faith.


 * As for the source being the article itself: my point is the only thing in the article that states or implies a Canadian victory at all is, you guessed it, the result in the infobox, which is unsourced. If you mean a result supported by the sourced material and writing of the rest the article, then yes I would agree, except none of the cited sources or wording in the article actually supports the idea of it being a Canadian victory at all, which renders the whole point moot. I already gave a sample of what the article says above, you can read the rest for yourself. This is from the Analysis section: ″ The success of the Germans defenders in maintaining their hold on the airfield, except for the north end and Carpiquet village, left the Canadians in a salient which was counter-attacked several times. The failure of the brigade to reach all its objectives, led to doubts about the fitness of Keller for his command, although the preparations for Operation Charnwood might have been the reason for Keller delegating planning for Operation Windsor to the 8th Canadian Infantry Brigade commander, Brigadier K. G. Blackader.″ from Reid. Where on earth do you read “Canadian Victory” for that text or the above?


 * 1. You continually use demonstrably false accusations such as Original Research (removing unsourced and unsupported information cannot be original research, the burden of proof is on information presented in an article, especially when the cited sources throughout the rest of the article don't support it either), edit warring (perhaps but mainly because of your lack of responsiveness on the talkpage until now and vagueness, but edit warring is something which you are guilty for sure), and incivility (the only ad-hominem I’ve read so far are that I’m ignorant and lack manners, thanks a lot friend), and now a need for assumption of good faith; actually Id argue you need to put this in use yourself, several responses were given to your concerns and you continually move to a next point and assumption of bad intent without even addressing the first response.


 * 2. Since you are keen to bring up wikipedia guidelines, allow me to recite these to you: what wikipedia actually encourages is Be bold, the articles are not static and are not set in stone, nor is it a requirement to consult everybody else at all times. If an article is considered controversial (this one has not been flagged as controversial), then its recommended to seek consensus.


 * The issue is that you keep shifting goal posts one edit after the other without identifying what the actual controversy is; its kind of hard seeking consensus with someone who isn’t interested in a discussion. You posted over a week ago to take it to the talkpage, when there was already a post there before your edit and you haven’t even posted at all until just now, apparently on some vague semantics about how a previous edit was made and how that somehow justifies itself. Circular logic doesn’t impress me either, nor does it constitute and argument or a source. Wether you are intentionally using a straw man or not, I’d recommend engaging in actual discourse. Michaelson15 (talk) 07:08, 24 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm a shift worker, you aren't judge and jury, you are just another editor like me, your sophistry does not do you credit. I suggest that you look at the WP I noted and try reading the article, checking the citations against the sources and introducing new sources or better descriptions of the existing ones. Bring your conclusions here and see what the other page watchers make of them. The corollary of bold is BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which is what we're doing. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keith-264Sophistry now? Make it a habit of accusing others of your actions do you? Btw, also funny how you brought up “judge and jury” whilst having brought up incivility and wikipedia guidelines to me, and doing so in a HIGHLY uncivil, finger wagging manner, among a slew of other lecture points about lack of manners and ignorance. “The corollary of bold is BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which is what we're doing.“ Well I’m glad, since as I said before you weren’t active on this discussion thread until now. Unfortunately, I have brought the conclusions here but you still don’t engage with them. Reid nor any of the other sources and sentences agree with the infobox result, but you kindly side step that the current result is unsupported by everything nor do you bring up counter examples, so why waste time repeating myself? Where is the discussion? Are we back on OR claims now? Michaelson15 (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm bored with this game you're playing. If you put as much effort into writing articles as you do complaining, they might be quite good; why don't you give it a try? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Keith-264 and I’m tired of your discussion avoidance and insults. Stop blockading other people and resulting to obfuscation, and start engaging others, and then any article can improve. You’re still dodging the points under discussion, and why you are opposed to such a change, where there is support for the current infobox result, etc. Michaelson15 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I forgot to grant you the last word. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No matter, since you won’t engage in a debate and are done with the discussion while still reverting I’ll submit a request for comment notice instead of a dispute resolution. No point wasting time if you’re done posting. I can’t reconcile your uncivil behavior toward me with Third opinion, so rfc it is. Michaelson15 (talk) 17:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Rfc on infobox result
The question is whether the current result of “Canadian Victory” is supported by the article, sources cited within it, and by sources in general. More in-depth discussion can be found under the “Result” topic. That discussion seems to be over without any points sufficiently addressed. Michaelson15 (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I’ll note that my reasons for relying on rfc in particular are deliberate topic avoidance of the other user I was discussing with. Scarcely a point was raised without a new accusation being made, without telling me where this supposed support for the result is. I’m ok with a disagreement, but with someone who relies on baiting responses that don’t have much to do with the article substance, I’m at my limits. He is apparently done with the conversation, and I’m still waiting on a source or sentence in this article that supports the Canadian Victory idea, or why “See Aftermath Section” or perhaps “inconclusive” is not the appropriate result.Michaelson15 (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The only substance I heard from Keith was that one of my edits had to be removed because “status quo cant be a territorial change”. Fair enough in itself, part of the change was emphasis on fact that the Airfield remained largely German held, but that hardly does justice to my edit since it was more emphasizing that the village was captured rather than the airfield, when before it simply read “Carpiquet captured”, no clear qualifier as to either the airfield or village. At least tacitly he agreed, since he retained the change of “Canadians Capture Carpiquet Village” instead of Capture Carpiquet hard-stop. Michaelson15 (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Some other sources say it was simply perceived as a failure, like Copp’s book on battle exhaustion. The word “victory” is noticeably absent from all of them.Michaelson15 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * From the Epsom article: Terry Copp, in 2003, wrote that too much emphasis had been given to a win-lose criterion, whereas a cost-benefit approach provided more insight. p. 18 Keith-264 (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t really disagree with that statement, but its more complicated than the result given in the infobox the way I see it. Michaelson15 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would note I did some early work on this article and have sporadically edited it over the years. Looking over the sources below, there seems to be a general consensus that 1) Carpiquet village was captured; 2) the Canadian assault to capture the whole airfield was defeated; 3) the German counterattack was defeated. Beyond that, conflating opinions on the meaningfulness of the operation and its wider impact. Seems like referring to the Aftermath section would be the simplest solution. I would caution over-reliance on Defta's assessment due to the language employed in his work, it reads like revisionism and an author who will end up on the Waffen-SS in popular culture list (not to state we cannot include his position, just that it should be used carefully).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerning the sources below, the point by Hart in “Colossal Cracks” that it should be viewed in context as a distraction to Operation Charnwood is disputed by some other authors. That the operation had actually little to do with Charnwood and was more related to Jupiter and Epsom is put forth in an essay by David Patterson in Volume 17, issue 2 of Canadian Military History, p. 2. The PDF of it can be found here. Perhaps a greater link to Epsom is also implied in the article lead.
 * From a purely personal point of view: its an odd argument to make, since distraction implies engaging and luring enemy forces on a different part of the front of your main offensive, but operation Charnwood included the entirety of the Windsor battlefield. Michaelson15 (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Several of the below sources also highlight what Patterson does, that Windsor originated earlier (to support Epsom) but was postponed to when it took place.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Enigma several other editors and me co-operated about fifteen years ago to revise a lot of Normandy articles using newer sources. It became evident that sources tended to be vague about criteria, were they on about tactical, operational and strategic effects, basing judgements about success on commanders' intentions, Terry Copp's win–lose or cost–benefit paradigms, the German übersoldier vs. Crap Allies cliche, the US rubbish but got better, British rubbish, stayed rubbish and 'what Canadians?' nationalistic posturing and (most notably) next to nothing from German language writing on the battle. Some of the examples below do advert to German views at the time but there still aren't that many. That Carpiquet was captured and stayed captured is the only fact in this debate. Keith-264 (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Aye, agreed. I think Coop, Hart, and French are the core for calling that out (and, since I have stepped back from my Normandy reading, I hope there has been continued work on that front my more modern works). The RFC, unless I am mistaken, is whether the infobox should refer to the aftermath section or call this a Canadian victory. Personally, I think the sources suggest a more nuanced position (including factoring in the above and Coop etc.) and even the Canadian official history only labels it a partial success. Both of those points are the basis for my own thinking of stating "see aftermath". But, it is an RFC, so I will allow others to provide their own feedback too so we can try and form a consensus to productively move forward.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * To Enigma, in my view Keith-264 keeps beating around the bush and results to red herrings — sometimes contradictory ones. How we can’t use simple win-lose logic for these articles for example, while at the same time thats exactly what he’s advocating for this infobox, which is why I’ve grown frustrated with engaging with him and partly why I put in an rfc. “That Carpiquet was captured[sic] and stayed captured is the only fact in this debate.” The fact that the village but not the airfield was captured? Differing between the two is important in this context. Pretty sure there are many more “facts” to consider regardless, its simply ironic he says this in the same breath as requesting more nuance than “win-lose”. Michaelson15 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do the sources say? Keith-264 (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Concur with Keith. To positively move forward, we need to develop a consensus that is based on the sources. So, with that in mind what do each of you propose?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Well sources are already listed below, and we are seeking consensus here with an rfc to draw others. I agree with Enigma that “See Aftermath Section” is the appropriate result, and I’m waiting for others to come here and post their opinions. Michaelson15 (talk) 22:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * By all means and agreed, I hope there is additional feedback shortly via the RFC being posted. However, we have at least laid some solid groundwork with sources and what each person's respective position is.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

See Aftermath is a cop-out. Keith-264 (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Canadian Victory or Marginal Canadian Victory - They took the town and the north end of the airfield and had a foothold to finish the job in the following operation.  ミラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 15:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

What do the sources say?

 * Buckley, 2004, British Armour in the Normandy Campaign, p. 30: "The assault struggled to make headway against determined opposition, but the village of Carpiquet was seized, though the airfield remained stubbornly out of reach ... armor duels .. Allies came off worst ... may well be the case that no German tank was irretrievably lost. ... 12th SS suffered the loss of 155 men [5 July counterattacks only] ... while the Canadians endured 377 casualties. Operation Windsor was considered a disappointment". Crocker blamed poor leadership for the "limited achievements" and attempted to have Keller removed.
 * Buckley, 2013, Monty's Men, p. ?: "Windsor...offensive [thwarted by] the desperate and determined resistance by 12th SS... though Carpiquet itself was captured. The Canadians beat off furious counter-attacks, inflicting some 155 casualties on the 12th SS Panzers, and they held on to the village, but they could prise the airfield from German control." Majority of Canadian casualties were caused by mortars due to the narrow nature of the attack. Future attacks would taken this in account and be launched of a broader front to dilute German artillery fire.
 * Copp, 2003, Fields of Fire, p. 100 is the source for Buckley's casualties above and is repeated; p. 101: "Both sides conducted post mortems on Carpiquet: The Germans concluded that the main attack to take Caen would shortly follow and could not be won", requests to pull the 12th SS off the line were rejected with the exception of supply units due to the 271st having not arrived yet; "The Canadian response to Carpiquet was to circulate a 'lesson learned' review, which included an implicit critique of the plan for Operation Windsor". It then elaborates on the points in this, that Monty had reached similar conclusions and incorporated such thoughts into the Operation Charnwood plan. p.258: "The battles for Caen ... revealed the strengths and weaknesses of the operational and tactical doctrines employed by British and Canadian divisions. With the enemy committed to holding...the Second British Army had little choice except to wage a series of attritional battles employing set piece techniques. Operations Marlet, Epsom, Windsor...succeeded in wearing down the enemy" although the Anglo-Canadians were not really prepared for such, and this had the knock-on effect of there not being enough infantry drafts to replace such losses.
 * Copp, 'The 21st Army Group In Normandy' in Buckley's 2006 "The Normandy Campaign 1944: Sixty Years On", p. 17 (p.18 contains specific examples related to Epsom, as explained above in discusion seciton): "Men in combat continually engage in cost-benefit analysis. Orders are ignored, amended or renegotiated as decision-makers engage in calculations of risk versus gain. This reality offends senior commanders whose plans are not carried out and military historians who seem to believe that actions that do not go as planned 'fail'. But the primary responsibility of the commander is to advance the goal of wining the war while the historian's job is to explain what happened not to issue pass/fail grades."
 * Defta, 2021, The 12th SS Panzer Division "Hitlerjugend", p. 207 describes the Canadian assault on Carpiquet as having “failed to achieve its strategic objective”
 * D'Este, 2004, Decision in Normandy, p. 306: "The Canadians succeeded in capturing Carpiquet village" but "secure[d] only a portion of the airfield..."
 * Ellis, 1964, Victory in the West, p. 310: briefly overviews the capture of the village and the failure to take the airfield
 * Evans and Gibbons, 2011, The Illustrated Timeline of World War II, p. 197 the entry for July 4, 1944 states “Canadians fail in attempt to take Carpiquet Airfield.”
 * Hamilton, 1983, Monty: Master of the Battlefield, 1942-1944, pp. 714–716 refers to the Canadian attack as a failure multiple times
 * Hart, 2007, Colossal Cracks, p. 96: Hart places Windsor in the context of Monty's operational method of alternative thrusts aimed at diverting and pinning down German forces away from the main attack (in this context, Charnwood).
 * Reynolds, Steel Inferno, pp. 147: "The 4th of July cannot be called a successful day for the Canadians. They had captured Carpiquet village" but had not captured the southern hangers and control tower. Reynolds praises the defense on page 148, stating a single German battalion held the airfield for a loss of 155 men against overwhelming odds and states were no tank losses. Notes the failure of the German counterattacks to retake the village and the loss of 118 men in the counterattacks.
 * Stacy, 1960, The Victory Campaign, p. 155: "The day's work had thus been only a partial victory... We now held Carpiquet village and the northern hangers; but the south hangars and the control buildings remained in enemy hands. ...The partial success of Operation "Windsor" had been dearly bought". 377 Canadian casualties including 117 dead
 * Saunders, Hone "12th Hitlerjugend SS Panzer Division in Normandy" (2021) "The loss of the northern part of the airfield and Carpiquet village was regarded as a serious compromise of the defence of Caen and its bridges over the Orne. Consequently, army headquarters ordered the Hitlerjugend to recapture the area that night....Carpiquet village remained securely in Canadian hands.....Of the now greatly weakened Hitlerjugend...." pp. 117–118 Keith-264 (talk) 08:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Zetterling "Normandy 1944" (2019) Tank losses 6–9 July 7 Pz IV, 11 Panther "Figures refer to total write-offs. Further vehicles were put out of action but repaired". P. 316
 * Operational tanks 4 July 37 Pz IV, 24 Panther; 5 July 30 Pz IV, 28 Panther, 6 July 32 Pz IV, 28 Panther. p. 320 Keith-264 (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2023 (UTC)