Battlefield 2042

No. The agents from Special Operations Executive were dropped BEHIND the enemy lines to do sabotage. They were not fighters, they were spies. Accidentally getting into a fight after blowing your cover is not the same as actively going against the enemy in open combat.

You're the one trying to find the fringiest types of evidence to justify yourself.

I have "Nothing" because there is no evidence of active female british soldiers. You're the one trying to prove something that is not real.

Would you mind linking the source for this claim? I suppose they were disabled as well?

Well, Nancy Wake and Pearl Witherington come to mind. These two not only fought but even led resistance movements in guerrilla warfare that resulted in killing thousands of German soldiers. 

Front line: the military line or part of an army that is closest to the enemy.
By the definition of front line, they absolutely were.

Special agents don't serve on the front lines.

The firm's analyst said preorders for “Battlefield V” are tracking more than 85 percent behind “Call of Duty: Black Ops 4,” which is substantially worse than previous instances.

That's a big, big number. 85% behind Black Ops 4? These numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt, but that's huge. It shocked the hell out of me! I was expecting it to have a small dip in pre-orders because of the release window, but it sounds like pre-orders have collapsed.

www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/cowen-predicts-eas-battlefield-v-will-be-a-serious-disappointment-citing-weak-pre-orders.html

Trust me, I know quite a bit about various women who parachuted behind enemy lines during WW2.
(and a lot of those stories didn't have a happy ending obviously, some were killed immediately on arrival, etc.)

That said, they didn't fight on the western front, they always served primarily as saboteurs, spies, and couriers.
As far as I know, there were no women in the trenches of the western front. No women in infantry roles, and no women in Tanks.

The thing is, the argument isn't even about historical accuracy from EA's side, they made their point fairly clearly when that EA guy told that sad story about his daughter who just wants to play a female character in a WW2 game and he doesn't have the heart to tell her "you can't because you are a girl".

Of course, the appropriate response would be "well, let me tell you a bit about the history and the realities of WW2", a game about WW2 isn't yet another battle-royale, historical accuracy has value, especially when it comes to WW2.

Personally, I'd like to see those games becoming more faithful in their portrayal, certainly not less.

Again, if you want to have a mindless fantasy shooter with a WW2 theme - that's fine, but make that clear, don't send mixed messages.

I have other games that have my interest this year: Spider-Man, Red Dead and Assassins Creed (maybe a few others), but how can people pay $60 for what is essentially a Battle Royale experience? Especially when Fortnight is "free." People care that much about zombies?

Well, regardless the Battlefield, i always wants the core elements be intact:

An easy way to play a combine arms war with practical elements

Now, this royale thing, it's not my thing, but again, it's entirely skippable. (Conquest ftw)

DICE have clearly cherry-picked such a circumstance to show game inclusivity.

Can't say it troubles me.