The "bunk about the letter V being pronounced like a W" actually sprang from technical analysis of the linguistic evidence that we do have access to about the way the Romans pronounced their language.
The basics: we have evidence not only from pronunciation in the Romance languages, but internal evidence from variations in Latin spelling and comparative evidence from borrowings into and from other languages. Consideration of this evidence has indicated that the consonantal U (which is what the v really is) was pronounced more like modern English W. This is generally accepted by people who have more than a modicum of concern for evidence and accuracy.
But don't believe me, because I'm a nutcase on the internet and can say anything I want without anyone interfering with my jabbering. So I will provide bibliography: Vox Latina by W. Sidney Allen. It's not long, and probably still available from the Cambridge University Press.
The basics: we have evidence not only from pronunciation in the Romance languages, but internal evidence from variations in Latin spelling and comparative evidence from borrowings into and from other languages. Consideration of this evidence has indicated that the consonantal U (which is what the v really is) was pronounced more like modern English W. This is generally accepted by people who have more than a modicum of concern for evidence and accuracy.
But don't believe me, because I'm a nutcase on the internet and can say anything I want without anyone interfering with my jabbering. So I will provide bibliography: Vox Latina by W. Sidney Allen. It's not long, and probably still available from the Cambridge University Press.