I read once that during WW1 the US was actually less concerned about the causalities its units sustained than Britain or Germany. Is this true and what were the views of the other allies in sustaining casualties?
^ these answers I've given should be pertinent; while I can't exactly speak to WWII, I can to WWI.
In WWI, both France and Britain being democracies meant that there was considerable pressure to avoid 'profligate' losses, though avoiding this proved nigh on impossible. Casualty lists appeared in the papers, wounded soldiers were often sent home to convalesce, and of course telegrams arrived weekly informing families of losses, meaning the casualties were difficult to hide.
In the House of Commons and the Chamber of Deputies, MPs often criticized the military's conduct; the best example of this being Winston Churchill's 'Blood Test' speech, given before the Hoc and widely published in the press, claiming that British losses in the Somme offensive were higher than those of the Germans. When Haig and the BEF embarked on the Ypres Offensive of 1917, Lloyd-George and the cabinet gave their support, so long as 'Somme fighting' was avoided. Although British losses were well below those of the Somme, they were still high, and this combined with failure at Cambrai lead to a shakedown at GHQ.
There was also criticism in France, with General Joffre coming under heavy pressure for the losses at Verdun and in 1915, with him ultimately losing his job over the perceived 'failure' of the Somme offensive. Ultimately, the government would throw it's support behind Robert Nivelle's offensive scheme because it promised a breakthrough in 48 hours with 40 000 casualties, and an end to the war in 1917. [It's failure catalyzed the French Army Mutinies.] (http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/350akm/how_serious_were_the_mutinies_and_morale_problem/)
the US was actually less concerned about the causalities its units sustained than Britain or Germany
British methods were meant to avoid unnecessary losses, emphasizing combined arms and technology over sheer manpower. This set them apart from German and American methods, both of which left much to be desired. Pershing had hoped to avoid heavy losses, but this proved impossible with the American level of training and the conditions they were fighting in.