>>9035545Here's what the expert they had to help them with the accuracy of their Real colours of British WW2 armour had to say about things:
"Regarding the AK book. To be honest I am livid and disgusted at the way they published the British section. My submitted original text was requested to be shortened, which I did. They then edited that without my knowledge. I sent complete sets of camouflage diagrams with copies of the official orders. These orders were totally ignored. Then redrew some of the disruptive diagrams in their own style and colours transposed onto mostly American vehicles, apparently the British didn't have any of their own. To cap it they then applied a disruptive pattern from one tank type onto another type, it doesn't fit of course. The ultimate was putting the pattern for the Greek based A10s onto a Crusader which never carried the design nor deployed to Greece. Samples of their paint were sent to me for assessment. None were accurate, not even close, which I reported back with larger samples. New samples then arrived for testing, still not right. In discussion I discovered that they were matching under 'daylight' lighting! FGS are they not sharp or what? I gave them up as a waste of my time, I told them that too. Rant over."
Colour reproduction in the book also seems to be a bit, well... though as-printed it might match their colours (happy little coincidences you know). Note that we're on a German example here, so not the UK book. Whether any of the other books are any better (or worse) I have no idea.
