Our Ned

In addition to the problem of the port-side blind spot, I suspect the flying bridge was intended to make it easier to keep the ship on the planned track in confined waters. The inboard end was on the ship's centreline, thus the jackstaff (when rigged) and the stem would be directly ahead of the compass repeat, and it would be easy to see whether the intended headmark was actually directly ahead of the ship, and any planned transit (if there was one) would be easier to follow. The "angle-off" of the jackstaff or stem when seen from the island could lead to problems in determining the true course of the ship when conning her from there. The USN, in more recent years, has attempted to deal with a related problem by the installation of the so-called "Belknap Pole" in the flightdeck catwalk directly ahead of the bridge in their carriers (after the incident where USS JOHN F KENNEDY collided with USS BELKNAP). See, for example, https://bremolympicnlus.wordpress.com/2013/03/19/uss-ronald-reagan-homeward-bound/. It definitely was nothing to do with aviation! Would anyone want to be on the end of such a platform when aircraft were landing on?

The church pennant over the "interrogative" flag was alledgedly flown by a "navigationally challenged" US destroyer - when asked the meaning of the flag hoist, she is said to have replied "God, where am I?" - don't you just love apocryphal stories!

To make it less vague, study relevant photographs! There are some of MATABELE's port (left) side in the Imperial War Museum's collection (eg https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205140701 and https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205120190 (also available in the Wikipedia article). Note that her starboard side wore an entirely different pattern; photos of this are much less common, but it was almost identical to ASHANTI's starboard side (see https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205140130). Interpreting colours from black and white images is not easy, and, over the years, there have been a number of attempts to do so! RDF (early term for what we now call radar) Type 285 is the row of Yagi aerials on top of the rangefinder on top of the bridge - it was fitted to most RN destroyers during the war, and there are plenty of photos showing it available online. RDF Type 286 is the fixed antenna visible at the foremasthead in some photos of MATABELE. The beam view I linked to shows the extent of the after funnel height reduction, and the port bow photo shows the "goalpost" aerial spreader which replaced the mainmast.

Initially the RN Tribals' DC throwers were fitted on the after superstructure; later they were moved down to upper deck level (to reduce topweight?). Photos of COSSACK after being torpedoed show that she was lost with the throwers still on the superstructure. The RAN and RCN ships had throwers at upper deck level from build.

Some photos of torpedo firings https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205146971 (HMS DERWENT), https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205093626 (HMS BELFAST), https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/401650932190 (HMS AFRIDI).

I'd suggest removing all but one of the thwarts, and adding an engine casing, as in the first of the two photos I linked to earlier.

Most, if not all Tribal class ships carried a 16' Fast Motor Boat on a trolley, usually stowed to port of the after funnel. Some landed theis boat during the war. The trolley enabled it to be fleeted aft so that the torpedo davit could plumb the boat. At least one 16' FMB survives in Portsmouth Historic Dockyard - photos at https://www.modelboats.co.uk/sites/2/images/member_albums/1557/639715.jpg and https://www.modelboats.co.uk/sites/2/images/member_albums/1557/639714.jpg

Eng - for an interesting and apparently well-researched answer to your query about "Squirrel Grey", there is a four-page article on the subject in the December 2019 issue of Scale Aircraft Modelling.

According to John English Afridi to Nizam (Kendal: World Ship Society, 2001), COSSACK's "X" mounting was replaced by a twin 4" HA mounting during her battle damage repairs completed in June 1940. She had RDF Type 286M (radar) fitted at the foretopmasthead during a repair period in January-February 1941. Photos of her just before she sank (available on the previouslymentioned Cossack Association website, eg http://www.hmscossack.org/images/LO3_Sinking2.JPG) show a shortened after funnel, and a slightly shorter mainmast (the yard moved down to just below the level of the top of the tripod support legs and the mast itself cut off at the top of the legs).

The "other thread running" discusses the colour schemes of the Second World War ARK ROYAL, not the ship represented in the Atlantic Models kit.

Flyhawk kits often include "spare" parts - on one of the sprues ("GB04" http://www.modelwarships.com/reviews/ships/hms/cl/Naiad-700-fh/Naiad-GB04b.jpg), if you can find one, there are several suitable pieces - alternatively, at 1/700 scale, simple lengths of plastic rod of appropriate diameter may suffice.

A neat build - thank you for your postings. Whilst the kit has many good points and seems reasonably accurate in most areas, there are some details which IBG appear to have omitted, that you might wish to consider: The kit's bridge is almost devoid of fittings, apart from the director and rangefinder (Parts G9 and G22); in fact there were compasses, sights and other items here. All the photos of the ship which I have seen, eg https://www.flickr.com/photos/ww2images/6854959786, showed splinter shields at the deck edge outboard of "A" and "Y" mountings. All the photos of the ship which I have seen also showed TSDS winches outboard of the after shelter deck where the instructions show two depth charge loading racks should be fitted (Parts G25, PE29 and PE30) - also (just) visible in the above photo. ITHURIEL's ready-use depth charges were stowed on their arbors, and are represented by Parts A8 and G24.

The photo to which the comment from Frank Campey refers is indeed in Scale Aircraft Modelling Volme 4, No. 8, May 1982 It is, as he wrote, a very poor photo showing two Hurricanes taking off - the further one is coded GN-A - however, it is taken from the port side, so does not help answer the OP's question. There is a line drawing of another 249 Sqn aircraft, also showing the port side, coded GD-C (no serial shown). The text of the article states: "Markings during the Battle of Britain were standard for the period - that is dark earth and dark green uppersurfaces and sky under­sides. Type B roundels were above and type A below the wings with type Al on the fuselage. On reforming in May 1940 the squadron was allocated the code letters GN and these were carried with the individual letter in medium grey on the fuselage forward of the black serials. The GN codes were aft of the roundel on the starboard side and forward on the port. Examples of Hurricanes with 249 during this period were P3088 GN:G and V6728 GN:Z." No other reference seems to be quoted.

Having taken a close look at the photo in Cocker's book (captioned as "HMS Inconstant (ex-Turkish) entering Barrow on Builder's trials. Vickers" but clearly displaying pendants H05!) which shows her from the port bow, with some ill-defined land showing behind her, the dark panel on the port side forward is as dickrd describes in the NARA photo. An undated photo showing part of her starboard side (with the same pattern as the photo taken in Malta) is at http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/download/file.php?id=118056&mode=view.

The IWM photo linked by dickrd depicts ITHURIEL on 16 June 1942, after Operation Harpoon. The kit depicts her somewhat later, after the midships quadruple 0.5" mountings had been replaced by another pair of single 20mm Oerlikons. This change probably took place after her damage repairs following the ramming of the Italian submarine Cobalto on 12 August 1942 - a photo at http://www.historyofwar.org/Pictures/pictures_HMS_Ithuriel_snapshot.html shows she still had the 0.5"s at that date. I've not seen a starboard-side photo which shows the midships Oerlikons, so cannot say whether it then matched the port-side pattern - certainly the port side pattern was that shown in the kit instructions when she left the shipyard (photo in Maurice Cocker Destroyers of the Royal Navy 1893-1981 (London: Ian Allan, 1981)). The only starboard-side depiction I know of with the mirror-image pattern is the Raven drawing in the earlier post by Rob, which depicts her with the midships 0.5"s - ie a different pattern from that from the Harpoon photos (and one stated to be during Operation Pedestal (in Peter Jacobs Fortress Island Malta (Pen and Sword, 2016))). My guess, therefore, is that the assymetric pattern depicted in the IWM photo was worn throughout ITHURIEL's short active career.

The KGV kit has the bulwarks, which were fitted to all the surviving members of the class when they lost their catapults.

As corroboration of the signal hoisted (admittedly in a secondary source), an article entitled The Battle of the River Plate: A Tactical Analysis by Alan D Zimm in Warship 2018 (Conway Maritime Press, 2018) states "0616 Exeter: Signals, ‘I think it is a pocket battleship’, then ‘Enemy in sight bearing 322.’ Action Stations is sounded." However, it doesn't show the flag hoists concerned.

Google is your friend? https://www.1999.co.jp/eng/10025017

The forward pair of quadruple 40mm Bofors, their platform and associated supports replaced the armoured director hood on top of the conning tower ahead of the bridge. The after pair and their sponsons were new additions when the boat deck was remodelled and boat stowage reduced/rearranged. To backdate to early-mid 44, 24 of the 20mm Oerlikons (and their "tubs, ready-use lockers etc) must also be omitted; references are unclear, but some of: four of those on the foc's'le, the two abreast "B" 16" turret, two of those atop "C" turret, two of those abreast the after edge of the tower bridge at shelter-deck level, all ten of those at shelter-deck level on the boat deck, the six at conning-tower platform level, the after one of the three each side on the sponson at projector-platform level and the four on platforms on the tripod mainmast. The photos at https://i.redd.it/bgvu8n9iz0hy.jpg and https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Nov1942_NA-Torch-Nelson.jpg may help. Sorry I didn't read the thread before you started on the Bofors mountings!

If the intention is to depict the ship accurately in her 1944 camouflage scheme, then do not fit the quadruple 40mm Bofors mountings. These were fitted in her 1944-45 refit, after which she wore the scheme shown on the boxlid. The model depicts the configuration after this refit; to show her in her multi-coloured scheme other changes would be needed (reduction in light anti-aircraft armament, reinstatement of armoured director hood forward of the bridge, rearrangement of boat storage etc). Note that there are several examples of completed models of NELSON purporting to represent her D-Day configuration which depict the Bofors mountings - this is incorrect! Alternatively, if depicting her after her 1944-45 refit, the shields should be fitted to the Bofors mountings. Photos taken as she left New York show them, as does a photo taken just after the war.

In ships without a centreline (or near-centreline) hawse,one means of getting the bower anchor out of the way, so that the cable could be led to the bouy, was to cat the anchor - see, for example, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dj45h7fWwAA8smj.jpg:large

AJM Models offer BLACK SWAN and IBIS in 1/700 scale - good kits, but lots of very small parts, both resin and photo-etch. Both are depicted in an earlier fit than when Johnnie Walker's 2nd Escort Group came to fame.

There's another ship which (alledgedly) was never served "IN" - HMS AISNE.

Whilst the key in Raven and Roberts does indeed say "Six quadruple Bofors fitted" to HOWE, the drawing only shows the usual two mountings, and there's no indication in other references (inlcluding Alan Raven Ensign 1: King George the Fifth Class Battleships (London: Bivouac Books, 1972)) that she ever carried more than the usual two mountings (on the after superstructure).

For more detail, you may find a thread on the Ship Model Forum useful: http://www.shipmodels.info/mws_forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=4870. Prewar, ARK was painted in AP507A, a dark grey colour, with a bronze grey flight deck. The boat bays, fo'cs'le and other areas opening in the ship's side were the same colour as the ship's side, but the quarterdeck (the term "fantail" is an American one, and woyuld be unfamiliar to RN sailors!) was white - note that the deck areas in all of these openings would have been either unpainted teak or, in some areas, covered in linoleum or painted - not sure what colour. Her configuration changed little from completion until she was sunk; the only significant alterations were the addition of the two port-side pompoms (omitted on build because the flight deck crash barriers had not been fitted) and the addition of a degaussing cable around the ship (visible above the quarterdeck openings in some of the later photo in the article to which you included a link. The pompoms, crash barriers and degaussing cable were fitted after the war began; the pompoms and barriers probably in May 1941 and degaussing in March 1940. Edit: I stand corrected - Jamie has done a lot of research into RN colours!