Classification of battles by "historicalness" (as written up by Ranger503):
1) True historical: Players play scenarios carefully crafted to reflect specific battles using the realistic OOB for that specific battle (notice how I didn't mention MTOE). Players stick to WWII tactics as learned from historical sources.
2) Semi-historical 1: Scenarios reflect specific battles using realistic OOB; players have little or now clue how WWII units fought, yet have some tactical common sense (Real Life, wargaming experience, etc) and try to fight like real commanders would fight.
3) Semi-historical 2: Regardless of scenario, players pick force structures exactly, or close to the TO&E's of the day. They fight as they do in "Semi-historical 1. Some of the rules (ala Fionn Kelly, Stryker rarity, etc) help players to do this.
4) Tactically Correct / force optimized: Players have experience in military tactics (real or wargaming) and use common sense, but purchase the force best suited to their tactics and chances of winning.
5) Force / optimized / anything goes: Players use specially-designed tactics and force selection to win at all costs, minus the absurd. Think of massive Arty parties, fleets of wasps, M8's, legions of SMG troops, etc.
6) The absurd: Taking advantage of design flaws in the modelling of equipment or using digital men and equipment for purposes not intended for them in RL.