Talk:Wunderwaffe

message: 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)
replies: text: For the onlookers, the list has been significantly expanded since last July and now includes the Silbervogel bomber. (Thanks, everyone!) --Kizor 17:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Done. Nick-D (talk) 03:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  more stuff to add? 

message: 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?</br>
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?</br> 
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? </br>
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"?</br>
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.</br> 
Any thoughts? Xyl 54 (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Political correctness. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wonderwaffle listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]