/u/Bernardito has addressed one part of the trailer here, but I would add two quick addendum to that.

The first is that my understanding based on statements like this one from a GM involved with the game is that the trailer mostly was intended to highlight the customization options of characters in multiplayer, so doesn't necessarily reflect on the historical portrayal in the single player campaign, but in any case, the production team is quite on record that they are not exactly striving for authenticity, as evidenced by statements such as this one on Twitter from Aleksander Grøndal, an executive producer. When more Single Player gameplay comes out, it of course can be evaluated, but even then, it certainly must be tempered and contextualized in that light, which brings us to the second point, which personally I feel is a much broader and more important one.

/u/commiespaceinvader wrote a fantastic Monday Methods on 'accuracy' and 'authenticity' in historical media, which I would urge you to check out (and also this), and if I may toot my own horn a bit, this post by one particularly insightful user speaks specifically about video gaming, although the previous iteration of the Battlefield franchise. The core point though is that when we talk about a game being accurate, or giving us an authentic experience, we mostly are talking about it in a very shallow sense. The accuracy is really just about the skins on the guns, the details of the uniforms, etc. and so on, but rarely are complaints about accuracy focused on actual gameplay mechanics. In BF1 I used the example of people who complained about women being present in the game but not about the proliferation of SMGs, despite more women fighting in the war than there were of most SMG models featured in the game. In comparing the two aspects, one of those things, apparently, broke the "immersion" for more people - or at least those who wanted to be vocal about it - but in point of fact it was the less inaccurate aspect of the game. The loss of most automatic weapons, presumably, would have detracted from the game experience, so isn't made into a big issue by many.

So in short there both is and isn't merit to the accusations. Is it an accurate portrayal of WWII? I think that me and my friends running around in the woods with 'finger guns' going "BANG BANG I GOT YOU!" when we were little kids is more accurate in some ways, at least. But is that actually a big issue? For someone who has played earlier Battlefield or COD games - BF1, 1942, World at War, etc. - I've never considered any of them to be particularly accurate, and it strikes me as the only difference here being that they are caring less about the veneer of authenticity slightly less than before, and if I might editorialize a little, if the game is fun, that's what matters in the end, and if you can't have fun because something is skinned 'inaccurately', that is a very strange complaint to have.