Not only are there projects where waterfall methodologies were applied, but they are sometimes (gasp!) appropriate.
In the majority of cases, iterative development of some sort is necessary, because the requirements keep changing. Waterfall simply doesn't allow for changing requirements, so it's hopeless in those cases.
But where requirements are stable, waterfall is a reasonable approach. Remember, it had its origins in the big iron days, when vast project teams analysed and replaced existing manual systems. For those projects, waterfall worked.
If you're writing the code for a space probe, or a missile, there's a limited opportunity to iterate once the item is deployed... requirements are stable, waterfall can be a rational choice.
Not only are there projects where waterfall methodologies were applied, but they are sometimes (gasp!) appropriate.
In the majority of cases, iterative development of some sort is necessary, because the requirements keep changing. Waterfall simply doesn't allow for changing requirements, so it's hopeless in those cases.
But where requirements are stable, waterfall is a reasonable approach. Remember, it had its origins in the big iron days, when vast project teams analysed and replaced existing manual systems. For those projects, waterfall worked.
If you're writing the code for a space probe, or a missile, there's a limited opportunity to iterate once the item is deployed... requirements are stable, waterfall can be a rational choice.