Talk:V-weapons

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Robot Blitz?[edit]

I've reworded a link to The Blitz to remove references to robots. If this was a factual reference to some bizarre secret Nazi program involving UAVs please feel free to revert me, but on first glance it looks like nonsense. 90.205.32.78 (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Merge?[edit]

These pages are about the same topic. maybe the merge should be the other way as it's English language but Vergeltungswaffe is the original name.Shimbo 14:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the most commonly known English name (if it had one) for this article - I think it'd be "V weapons". GraemeLeggett 14:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vengeance weapon (and Vengence weapon for those of us who can't spell) are both already redirects to Reprisal weapon. I'm not really bothered which page is kept as long as there's only one. I'd agree "V-weapons" is the most common English name, the problem seems to be that the original German phrase can translate several ways, which is why I lean slightly towards making this the main page and redirecting the others to it. Shimbo 16:49, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I merged Reprisal weapon to this article, as stated by Shimbo, Vergeltungswaffe is the original name. --Nkcs 03:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countermeasures[edit]

I have heard stories of Spitfire pilots using their planes' wings to contact V1's wings, to tilt them and send them off-target. Anyone know of definitive sources ?--195.137.93.171 (talk) 17:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but it is already covered in V-1 flying bomb. This page is an overview of all the Vergeltungswaffe and so doesn't go into that much detail.--Shimbo (talk) 18:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't actually make wing-to-wing contact. The airflow over the Spitfire's wingtip at almost 400 mph was more than enough to cause the V1 to roll. Actual contact would have been extremely dangerous. (I'm a commercial pilot.)173.62.11.8 (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Immolated Child Necessary?[edit]

I know it was put in to show the horror and simply facts of the weapon, but the picture of the child who had been killed and set on fire might disturb some people - is it really necessary? I won't delete it, but hope that someone else might. 213.78.183.91 (talk) 15:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia, adding significantly to its accompanying article. Earlier versions of this article identify it as a young man.--Elvey (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:V-1.jpg[edit]

The image Image:V-1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V-Weapons[edit]

Wouldn't English V-Weapons be a better name for this article than the German word, which must be unintelligible to non-linguists? This is the English language wikipedia! Colin4C (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that according to WP:COMMONNAME, it should be V-weapons, from which there is already a redirect. Hohum 20:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be better to redirect "Vergeltungswaffe" to "V-weapons" rather than vice-versa? The German word is unintelligible to non-linguists. And that's not the worst of it, we seem to expect than non-linguists will know (or guess) that the plural form of "Vergeltungswaffe" is "Vergeltungswaffen". Actually it seems that even the long-standing editors here must have blissfully ignorant of that before I changed the third person singular verb "was" to the third person plural "were" in the introductory sentence an hour ago to conform with "Vergeltungswaffen"! Btw anybody know the genitive form of "Vergeltungswaffe" in case we have to use it later in the text? Or are we going to apply English grammar to a German nouns on an ad-hoc basis and produce nightmare hybrid's like "Vergeltungswaffe's"? Colin4C (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be better. IMO the article body should mostly use the common English term rather than the German. Hohum 22:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hate "me toos", but, er, me too. I think it's very obvious that it should be called V-weapons and refer to them as such, with the German term as a redirect. Shall we request this move? cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have requested this move: please see below and at Wikipedia:Requested_moves when it shows up there in a short while. I hope it works but if nothing else it should get the topic discussed a bit more! Cheers, DBaK (talk) 08:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was away when all this happened, and then for a bit longer than intended. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it be mentioned that "vengeance weapons" is a common rendering into English of these? 65.95.15.144 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many V2s launched against the UK?[edit]

Please see Talk:V-2#How_many_V2s_launched_against_the_UK.3F, if interested, for a question on this subject. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Vergeltungswaffe → V-weapons — Per the article Talk page, Vergeltungswaffe is only obvious to German speakers and other knowledgeable types. V-weapons is much more accessible and makes more sense than looking for the perfect translation of Vergeltung; and Vergeltungswaffe and the translations can/are/should be redirects to V-weapons. Current discussion so far is in favour of this; the last discussion was some years ago and did not reach a very forceful consensus. Thank you for your time. DBaK (talk) 08:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is use in the English language literature? Some terms remain untranslated as loanwords. Can you demonstrate that V-weapons is used more often in English than Vergeltungswaffe? Knepflerle (talk) 12:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble about using the German word is that we are constrained either to use German grammar throughout the article or invent bizarre hybrids of German and English grammar. Thus we have for the name of the article the German singular: Vergeltungswaffe and in the first sentence of the article the German plural: Vergeltungswaffen (or should we alternatively invent an English-German hybrid Vergeltungswaffes?). To be consistent we should use the German genitive form and all the other inflections (ablative, locative etc) of the German language, but at this point, unfortunately my knowledge of German grammar ceases meaning that we have to marry English grammar to German grammar and give birth to such weird linguistic abortions as: Vergeltungswaffe's or even Vergeltungswaffen's. All in all best to use the English "V weapons" methinks. Colin4C (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon for German plurals to be used in English, at least in the United Kingdom. The German länder (the German states), gemeinden (municipalities) or landkreise (counties) are definitely encountered, without anyone bothering to worry about the various cases of German grammar. The same has been happening with uses of other languages. We even have football commentators referring to the San Marinese! Skinsmoke (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never come across any of these terms being used in the UK. Ever. So I invite you to prove it. (Hohum @) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can't really be arsed as its not strictly relevant to what we call this article, and I'm off shopping in a moment. Perhaps you need to widen your reading and TV viewing a bit. Skinsmoke (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, I can wait for your proof. (Hohum @) 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Vengeance weapons" would be better. It also explicitly spells out what "V" means. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. "V weapons" with or without the hyphen is by far the most common English name for them, which is the criteria per WP:COMMONNAME. "Vengeance weapons" is not normally used in sources except to explain what the V means. Searching google for "v weapons" -wikipedia gives about 16,000 results, "vengeance weapons" -wikipedia" gives about 3,500. A google book search for intitle:+"v weapons" gives 95 results, while intitle:+"vengeance weapons" gives 1. (Hohum @) 18:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment alot of abbreviations are spelled full out on Wikipedia, even if it is more commonly abbreviated... like UN, IEEE, etc. 76.66.192.73 (talk) 06:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. What and why other articles have been named isn't really the concern of this discussion - they may have had good reason to go against Policy, or been named before the policy was created and not got consensus to be renamed. We need to consider the merits of various names for this article. I think I have adequately shown what the most commonly used English name used is. (Hohum @) 15:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reply is based on a mis-reading of the policy. Those articles are complying with the policy which states, basically, don't use abbreviations. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, my reply completely ignored the passage abbreviations and provided evidence about the actual usage. I think that a 95:1 ratio of V-weapons to Vengeance weapons in book titles shows how commonly it is used in English, especially for the title of the subject. (Hohum @) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "V weapons" - for reasons given above. Colin4C (talk) 08:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per UCN. Flamarande (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not quite as straight forward as use the common name. The Naming Conventions also state that we should avoid abbreviations unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation. So the question we should be asking is: Are these weapons almost exclusively known as "V weapons"? If not, per the Naming conventions, the title should stay as it is. Skinsmoke (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have demonstrated a 95:1 preference in English book titles on the subject. That is almost exclusively. In common parlance, at least in the UK, the individual weapons are almost always referred to as V1 (or doodlebug), and V2, and collectively as V weapons. (Hohum @) 02:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I really doubt that "doodlebug" is the dominant name for the V1 buzzbomb. And neither "V1" or "V2" have any bearing on this discussion, since those do not refer to the collective, but rather, individual ones. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the standard books on the subject uses the term "V-weapons". See: Basil Collier (1976) The Battle of the V-Weapons. Colin4C (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Good. We've got an example. Can we find anymore? I really am prepared to be convinced on this one. Incidentally, I'm more familiar with doodlebug too: have never heard the term buzzbomb used, though perhaps it's a regional thing or something to do with my parents' generation? Skinsmoke (talk) 17:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A recent one is Impact: The History of Germany's V-Weapons in World War II (2003) by Benjamin King and Timothy Kutta. Looks like quite an interesting book, being a strategic study of the V-weapon campaign in WW2. Colin4C (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard it as both buzzbomb and doodlebug, my mother (Londoner) saw a couple fly over, it probably is a mix of generational and regional.
  • Flying bomb: the story of Hitler's V-weapons in World War II, Cooksley
  • V-weapons (Crossbow) campaign, USSBS, (several USSBS publications use this term in the title)
  • The V-weapons, Ramsey
  • V Weapons Hunt, Stanley
(Hohum @) 21:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:V-weapons&oldid=1210820368"