@JTam Actually based on articles I have read I can confirm the armor existing and them making more of it apparently the standard large "male" armor size created defense gaps when worn by smaller people that snipers could take advantage of and did quite alot not to mention using the bathroom😆(though the bun hair hole thing does seem like waste, but what the heck🤣). Likewise from what I recall reading once the old standard male sized BDUs apparently rub/chaff our girls raw possibly to the point of bleeding in embarassing areas (think about your crouch area getting to that point during combat, cause that was kind of what they were "sucking up" from what I was hearing and if you don't need to imagine cause you lived it than you probbably should have spoke up about it since that does not seem like good fighting condtion for a soldier).
All that aside, I agree with you on the Nappy guard, they look more like"long haired Swedish dudes in french uniforms selling fake butter" than women except maybe the third to the right who looks like they are trying real hard to pass as a man if they are not one😆.
To be honest though, I think reason they look the way they do currently has more to do with timing. My guess these are actually the male guard sculpts with headswaps to make them look more "Female" for womens day cause why not which is fine for now I guess, that said I do think they could put more effort into them later on and should if they plan on eventual plastic😉.
@Mark Dewis if they are going to be realisticly dressed....Then they shouldn't do females in line infantry uniforms before WW1 at all IN THE FIRST PLACE🤣 (no arguments to the contrary here since we are not talking character sculpts of real historical women that crossdressed but something that could be an "army builder" in the unlikely event they got to plastic given the poses I am seeing😆).
Now if WA is going to go ahead and do women in pre 20th century soldier uniforms like they have here, then they have already broken the "be realisticly dress rule" and like pretty much anything "not real" they should be brave and just go full Hollywood/Japanime with them (or at least half Hollywood/Japanime 😉), particularly since it is a chance to do historical scale proportion female bodies in something other than civilian cloths, Fantasy armor or unrealistic bikini armor.
So with that out of the way let’s get down to brass tacks. This is likely going to sound a bit harsh but this meant to be constructive:
Despite questionable propaganda to the contrary, big bustlines are a real biological phenomena that happens all the time among women and military uniforms from the 18th-19th century would likely still show that off pretty clearly albeit not as sexily as a dress (I should know I have a sister who did marching band). So in a regment I would expect see some examples of that among other things and these just don't really show any biological difference from men in close up pics of the sculpts (not just in the bustline department). I can only guess how confused some war gamers would be if faced with these and told by thier opponet that the minis are women since they have big manly hands, no busts or hips to speak of and faces that mostly look just enough like "Fabio to Putian" mannish to not hit the mark (if the heads are what you are going to use to tell the veiwer its female, you actually do need to make them "pretty and girlish" and not "plain/homely and mannish" at all cause the end result will look like a 28mm man otherwise if a head is all the sculpt has got making them female).
Not to mention argueable things like historical height diffrences between men and women which after long hard look does not seem to be there (those muskets should probably look a good deal longer next women of the timeframe than they do next to men, like anime weapon longer almost).
Also let’s be honest, in real life if there had been a publicly known "all female fighting force" even in a small regiment/unite they would likely not be wearing men’s uniforms at all but women’s uniform or "men's uniforms" that would be heavily modifed to fit women and be respectable to the soicial norms of the time to the point that they are womens uniforms. (Soldiers had to live in their uniforms back then so of course they got tailored one way or the other, they would likely be getting repaired and modified all the time by the soldiers themselves if nothing else).
What that means is if they are wearing "women’s uniforms" they would most likely have skirts given the timeframe, not pants and there is NO practical reason why they would have pants over skirts since we have scots recorded as wearing kilts,etc. So any argument for white western European girls dressed in uniform pants is historical and culturally faulty at best or an argument for crossdressing in a time period were it was frowned on HEAVILY by society, so they both kind of seem like epic 🤡 arguments with regards to a female guard unite that would be advertised as such publicly in the time of. Now there is a third reason to do "pre-20th century uniform girls pants", but that is "cheesecake reasons" and really not what I am seeing with these sculpts.
Literally the only "good" non-cheesecakey reason I can see to do them into plastic currently is if WA is trying really hard to reproduce the look of some work of visual media I have never seen or heard of with a 18th-19th century style soldier girl force in pants cause the person in charge of that other original media work either didn't want long skirts (maybe for some artistic reason) did not really read up on the cultures they were trying to emulate in thier story, or it was a British comedy about an all women reenactor club😆.