Seems pretty accurate to me:

I didn't expect anything more from them. I also don't really care, but that has more to do with me being a husk and not feeling any great emotion towards any wars fought in the past. I've heard people describe this game as basically just feeling like a return to WWII games. I guess they thought setting it in an old war that hasn't been done to death would be better than taking it back to WWII.

It`s kind of hilarious when people show a glitch of someone clipping through a wall and say "this is nor historicly accurate!". If DICE wanted to make a very hirstorcally accurate game it seems like they made some weird compromises along the way, but it seems more like they are trying to capture the atmosphere more than anythin else. I think that`s a bit hard to do with the zanyness of the Battlefield, but if they can pull it off that could be neat.

But yeah, there are so many videos going around with the beta being glitchy and people using that to prove the game is not historically accurate, which I think is kind of ridiculous. The game is not very historically accurate, but that is not why.

DICE Design Director Lars Gustavsson: "As always since Battlefield 1942, we have done extensive research into finding the authenticity and picked out the core gameplay pillars. One of those core gameplay pillars is perceived realism. It is that we base the game on authenticity, and we extract those pieces to create a game, meaning that we don't get bogged down by history."

As with most of the other entries in the series, we'll get perceived realism.

Either way, forming opinions on the game's historical accuracy based on a multiplayer alpha/beta seems a little premature to me.