<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">

	<channel>
	  <!-- main channel info -->
        <title>No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i </title>
        <link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/19051/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work</link>
        <description>
        <![CDATA[ 

No
Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work in progress) 

This
is my fun at creating a what if timeline depicting what would happen if the
Washington Naval Conference failed in 1922 which resulted that there was no
London Naval Treaty in 1930 ore Second London Naval Treaty in 1936 and that the
world nation’s entered into a naval arms race which causes a total alternate
Word War II.

While
I have already many things filled in I am still working on completing it... ]]>
        </description>

		<!-- optional elements -->
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2011, Yuku</copyright>
		<managingEditor>feeds@yuku.com (FeedMaster)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>webmaster@yuku.com (WebMaster)</webMaster>
		<!-- note: dates need to be RFC 822 formated "Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:00:01 GMT" -->
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:03:09 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:55:34 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>Kickapps Feeds 1.0</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<rating>
		{pics-1.1 &quot;http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) &quot;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://yuku.com&quot; r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 ))
		</rating>
		<textInput>
			<title>Search</title>
			<description>Search Domain</description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://yuku.com/search/direct/</link>
		</textInput>
		<!-- skip
		<skipHours>
			<hour>23</hour>
		</skipHours>
		<skipDays>
			<day>Monday</day>
			<day>Wednesday</day>
			<day>Friday</day>
		</skipDays>-->
		<!-- extensions -->


		<!-- channel items -->
		<!-- descriptions should be shorter than 500 char to be polite -->
		<!-- html shoud be stripped or escaped -->
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311138/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311138</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ It's an interesting question, despite the fact that a likely completion date for the maltas even under extended leand lease is perhaps more like 1948-9 or possibly even later.

Another imponderable, is lend lease still operating?

Why don't you post t...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311138/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311138">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311138</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:55:33 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311075/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311075</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ So no Sea Vampire for use on board the Malta-class.

What would a orbat for a Malta-class look like pre-1946 with the main focus will be bombing missions and anti kamikaze flights and would the Malta class use it full capacity of 80 planes or would the ...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311075/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311075">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (lordhen)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311075</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 18:05:24 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311016/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311016</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ If I wanted a jet, I would hang on for the Hawker Sea Hawk, a neat little machine with a good engine, and good handling, if not a lot of payload and range.

Pre jet and the RN post 45 will indeed be built around sea furies, fireflies, late mark Seafires...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311016/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311016">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311016</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:20:46 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311009/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311009</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ NG, don't you mean the SeaFury?  Add to it the SeaHornet and you get some very potent RN fighters operating of Maltas ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Larrikin22)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311009</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:42:05 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311006/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311006</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ The Sea Vampire did its landing and take off trials off HMS Ocean, a colossus class carrier, which technically meant that that they could be operated by any of the post 1936 RN light fleet or fleet carriers with i suspect some modification of the wires an...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311006/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-311006">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/311006</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 27 Oct 2012 07:22:03 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/310887/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-310887</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I have a question relating to my timeline , as my pacific war last until 1946 and with the entry of my Malta-class aircraft carriers with the Royal Navy of the United Kingdom. Can they operate the de Havilland Sea Vampire from them. ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (lordhen)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/310887</guid>
			<pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:42:46 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309952/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309952</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ &nbsp; Edgeworthy&nbsp; Its an idea but it sounds very dubious.&nbsp; Given how devastated France and Belgium were by the war, let alone Serbia and parts of Italy, Poland etc I can't see how Britain could claim that high a proportion of the reparations.&n...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309952/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309952">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (stevep59)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309952</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2012 10:24:36 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309903/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309903</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ stevep59 wrote:edgeworthy wrote:   Yes, the designs are quoted at full load displacement, which is a far more accurate indicator of actual fighting ability!And why do some people, you know who you are!, insist that Japan and, especially, Britain would not...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309903/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309903">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (edgeworthy)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309903</guid>
			<pubDate>Sun, 21 Oct 2012 19:49:58 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309032/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309032</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ edgeworthy wrote:   Yes, the designs are quoted at full load displacement, which is a far more accurate indicator of actual fighting ability!And why do some people, you know who you are!, insist that Japan and, especially, Britain would not be able to&nbs...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309032/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309032">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (stevep59)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309032</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:22:23 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309027/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309027</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ edgeworthy wrote:I decided to include a bit more on alternative construction, and atleast the first&nbsp;set of designs are from Jane's!&nbsp;... Looks hideously expensive to me. ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (PMN1)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309027</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:08:26 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309026/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309026</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ &nbsp; David&nbsp; While I agree with the basis of you're argument that CVs would be less important and numerous in TTL didn't Britain have 5 BB and 6CV in its original plans?&nbsp; True there were also the Lion's, which were a bit later so it might depen...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309026/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-309026">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (stevep59)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/309026</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2012 15:03:53 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308888/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308888</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ edgeworthy wrote:By the late 30's most navies were laying down more carriers than battleships, construction priorities change, and early carriers were smaller and cheaper than battleships, even the Essex class were a third the size of the Yamotos!Which na...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308888/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308888">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (David Chessum)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308888</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 22:24:09 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308801/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308801</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ stevep59 wrote:edgeworthy

  I think those schedules and designs are rather OTT.  The US might be able to manage such designs if all internal opposition to such massive spending programmes disappeared.  For Britain, even without WWI it would probably go...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308801/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308801">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (edgeworthy)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308801</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 17:46:02 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308720/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308720</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ edgeworthy wrote:I don't think anyone has mentioned this before, but has anyone referenced the post WW1 defence review done by the Committee for Imperial Defence?This is usually where the oft quoted figure of Britain needing 70 cruisers comes from; Are yo...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308720/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308720">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (David Chessum)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308720</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 12:17:28 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308711/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308711</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ US and Japanese 8" cruisers would be a few thousand tons larger than historical if they still want the range.  The WNT 8" cruisers were as artificial in their constraints as the WNT BBs were. ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (Larrikin22)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308711</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:50:55 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308710/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308710</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ edgeworthy

  I think those schedules and designs are rather OTT.  The US might be able to manage such designs if all internal opposition to such massive spending programmes disappeared.  For Britain, even without WWI it would probably go bankrupt if it...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308710/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308710">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (stevep59)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308710</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2012 11:47:37 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308580/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308580</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ I decided to include a bit more on alternative construction, and atleast the first&nbsp;set of designs are from Jane's!&nbsp;... No Washington designs


Class
Displacement
Main Armament
Secondary Armament
Belt Armour
Deck Armour

RN G3 (32 kts)...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308580/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308580">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (edgeworthy)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308580</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:09:11 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308578/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308578</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ NewGolconda wrote:Sydney is built on a rock formation called. hawksberry sandstone.

It's a nice easily sawn clean and well cemented sandstone, and the early convicts spent a lot of time quarrying it.

Cockatoo Island is abundant in the stuff and conv...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308578/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308578">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (edgeworthy)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308578</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 21:00:54 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308438/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308438</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ StevoJH wrote:&nbsp;
Would have been interesting if 13 QE class battleships had been build with Canada paying for 3, Agincourt not being cancelled, the R-class built as QE's and Repulse and Renown not being reordered.http://warships1discussio...eths?page...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308438/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308438">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (PMN1)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308438</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 11:04:41 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Re: No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308426/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308426</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Five KGVS is very strait forward and answered cleared in Moores building for victory.

Available gun pits dictated a 3, 2, 2 tempo.

1936 program KGV,  POW
1937 program DoY, An, Howe
1938 Programme Lion, Tem

More gun pits could be built, but thei...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308426/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work#reply-308426">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (NewGolconda)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/reply/308426</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2012 08:50:25 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ No Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work i  ]]></title>
			<link>http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/19051/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ No
Washington Naval Treaty; An alternate Word War II (Work in progress) 

This
is my fun at creating a what if timeline depicting what would happen if the
Washington Naval Conference failed in 1922 which resulted that there was no
London Naval T...<br /><a href="http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/19051/Washington-Naval-Treaty-alternate-Word-War-II-Work">Read More</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@yuku.com (lordhen)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://warships1discussionboards.yuku.com/topic/19051</guid>
			<pubDate>Sat, 07 Jan 2012 23:03:09 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
    <!-- end items -->

  </channel>
</rss>
