Talk:Wunderwaffe

Germany Mid‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II List‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

List

This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

more stuff to add?

I'm not qualified to edit this article at all, but I recently saw a show that talked about several Nazi super-weapon designs not mentioned here.. such as a bomber that could enter orbit and hit any target around the word.. etc... can anyone expand? 70.177.12.108 03:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the onlookers, the list has been significantly expanded since last July and now includes the Silbervogel bomber. (Thanks, everyone!) --Kiz o r 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My german is a bit rusty; what does "dfsdfsdfdfsdgsdfhfjgfgjfgjfjfgjfgjfgjfgjabbreviation" mean? - 12.232.97.226 (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that it is only a crackpot rumor, should the Die Glocke be removed? The very title of its category sounds like something from a video game. Robert Berkshire (talk) 01:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been re-added... It really shouldn't be there, afaik there is no proof of it's existence. Ran4 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria?

Are thefor inclusion on this page? Some citeable reference to the item being called that, for example? Or is this just a list out of someone’s head on what should be here?
The term also seems to have several meanings, and there’s no indication what items are what. On the one hand these things are superweapons ie an “extremely powerful weapon by the standards of its time and its scale” and (as described here) “they represented designs and prototypes that were extremely advanced for their time”. OTOH it is a term of derision, and describes a series of Nazi pipedreams; developmental dead-ends, and fanciful or unfeasible notions requiring years of development if they were to work at all, with the implication that they represent a futile waste of resources, destined never to produce the results hoped for. Should the items here be split according to which they were?
Quite a number are nothing special, particularly the naval ones (the Type XI “submarine aircraft carrier”, for example (in fact it was a submarine cruiser); these had been already built, by the British , French, and Japanese (and found wanting). Why are they here?
Many of them reflect a fascination with giantism, of size for its own sake; most of the giants here would have been (or in a couple of cases that actually got built, were) of little practical use (and are reminiscent of Frederick William I of Prussia’s regiment of giant soldiers) Does that qualify them as "wunderwaffe's"?
Also, there's also no indication of how far they got; some are just ideas/theoretical notions that never even got to the detailed planning stage; not all plans turned into prototypes, not all prototypes went into production, and not all those produced became operational. A table, indicating what stage they got to, would be useful.
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political correctness.

Is it really correct to call some of the "ficticious" weapons as just fictional? Wouldn't they technically be undiscovered or hypothesized? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.191.23 (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderwaffle listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wonderwaffle. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:12, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]