With all due respect, I sincerely recommend you browse though the literally thousands of World War II war artists' artworks accessible on the Imperial War Museum's website in its online collections. All of these men and women were "trained artist[s] with...sensitive eye[s] for color" yet their depictions of the scenes in front of them "done from life" often differ very significantly from what we know from documentation to be reality (purple and pink camouflage on tanks, Spitfires scrambling in Malta with red-white-blue upper wing roundels, for example). How could this be? First: how we see colours is not simply a function of the paints applied to the objects but very much a result of the light conditions and environment in which we view them. The same colour viewed at dusk, at noon, in the open ocean, in port may appear very different (think of Peter Scott's suggestion that white and pastel shades could render a ship "invisible" in a grey seascape). Second: their remit was to produce art, not photo-realism. Of course, accuracy had a place, but their job was to generate an emotional connection beyond that possible with a photograph. So, while I admire the detail and precision often found in war art, I would hesitate to use its imagery as conclusive, or even superceding other evidence of colour.