Del, the Pensacola class CAs launched in 1929-30 had a RADIUS of action of 13000 miles at 15 knots with 1500 tons of fuel. That is substantially better than the PBs. Of course you are right that the 11 inch guns of the PBs would be a deterrent to an enemy cruiser. The answer to the PBs was of course what actually happened. Several cruisers. Actually I think two well handled CAs would have had a good chance of defeating a PB. The 11 inch guns were as far I know never used against a merchant ship. The 5.9s were all that was needed.
World War 2 Cruisers
The Pensacola class is reported to have a range (not radius!) of 10.000nm at
15 Kts with a max. oil buncerage of 2.116tons. A figure showing a very efficient fuel consumption. A radius of action in this level would imply a more effecient fuel consumption than all post war classes of cruisers well into the late 50´s. Note that this range was with caged boilers!
To put this in prospect with the Panzerschiff Deutschland (the first of it´s class), it had a range of 10.000nm @
19 Kts with a max. diesel buncerage of 3.300 ton. The corresponding range for 15 Kts was 18.650 nm.
Janes is a credible source but will not provide unquestioned datas, esspeccially from the wartime issues. Glider has named Conways, which is excellent for this purpose.
I agree in the two CA vs PB issue with the limitation that I am not convinced that this belongs to County class CA, due to their terrible turret protection (these are NOT splinterproof vs 11" lateral fragmentation, not to speak of the heavier nose base pieces nor a direct hit).
The difficulty the PBs would have with two CAs would be similar to the real battle with GS. GS concentrated her fire from the 11 inchers on what she at first perceived as the only cruiser(thinking the CLs were DDs) As the action progressed the two CLs only had to contend with four 5.9s(see plan of GS) but the CLs were at too great a range to be effective with their 6 inchers. The CLs were on one beam of GS, the CA was on other beam. CA was facing six 11inchers and four 5.9s and the CA could only reply with six 8 inchers. When Harwood ordered the CLs to close( 11000 yards) the GS had to switch the 11 inch guns to the CLs and let the CA only have to deal with the 5.9s. When the CLs withdrew after it got too hot for them then GS finished putting the CA out of action. If you look at the plan of GS, two CAs with their superior speed could force the PB to confront 12 or more 8 inch guns with only three eleven inch guns all in one turret and a few 5.9s. Of course all ships would be altering course to unmask as much of their main battery as possible. The 11 inch guns had a big range advantage over the 8 inch guns but the action at the Plate began at about 20000 yards which was almost at the limit of visiblity but still well within range of the British 8 inch gun.
Agreed. From my memory of fighting steel resims, I lost out three of four matches from River Plate if the enemy handled more agressively than historically. On range (GS opened at 210hm = ca. 22.000 yards), the 11" no doubt is better than an 8" could be, due to A) it´s flatter trajectory, which translates into a larger dangerspace behind the target and thus a higher hit probability in the first, B) it´s better salvo consistency due to the heavier projectile, C) the shorter time to range figure and D) the generally more advanced firecontroll gears in use by PB´s (basically on par with what was used on a BB).
At this range 8"ers did not straddled that much but the CA´s are in a position to close the range on their own initiative and thus to get into their optimal firing range as they historically did.
Renrich is also right on the 5.91"ers on GS- they are pedestal mounts behind splinter screens and suffer from a lower rof accuracy.