We often hear about the atrocious conditions the infantry had to endure during WW1, especially on the western front (at least just being from a western country). A lot of the terrible conditions were caused by the constant artillery fire, especially during famous battles like the Somme and Verdun, both because of the psychological effects of sitting and thinking 'when will I blow up', and also because of the huge craters the shells would leave, which would often fill with water. What was it like working as an artillery gunner? Were the conditions generally better? Were you out of range of the opposing forces' artillery? How did your daily life compare to your regular soldier?
Data for the Italian front appear to support the idea that artillery service was comparatively "safer" than infantry service. The numbers, compiled by statistician and demographer Giorgio Mortara in his La salute pubblica in Italia durante e dopo la Guerra (1925) - which are generally taken as reliable, broadly speaking, as they suffer from lack of precise data on the total Italian casualties (scarce information on prisoners of war, supposed deserters, etc.) - give us a more precise breakdown of the casualties according to army branches.
The table only accounts for the officially reported dead and wounded - and, for the dead, does not include accidental deaths and diseases, but only deaths caused by wounds suffered during service. Data are per year, per 1,000 men of average army size (somewhere between 2 and 2.5 million men).
While I can't answer in a general manner on how the average conditions of an infantryman would compare to those of an artillery corp enlisted man - since conditions would depend a lot on how much "action" your platoon would see, being at times almost completely idle, and other times going through so many casualties to force to reform the platoon - it's clear that infantry suffered most of the losses due to their decisive presence in the persistent offensive attempts on the Italian front.
This also means that these data may not correspond to those of other fronts. The Italian front was characterize by the Italian forces being usually on the offensive (at least from June 1915 to October 1917), against unfavorable terrain and vantage positions for the enemy, with a comparable advantage in manpower and a somewhat inadequate (less so during late 1916 - early 1917) artillery coverage. Similarly, while the Austrian artillery was at times noted for its efficiency, it lacked the overpowering size and concentration of certain engagements on the western front. Furthermore, its prevalent defensive function might have made artillery preparations aimed at the Italian artillery positions less frequent.
The idea that the "other" corps were somewhat privileged was a common theme of the "infantrymen narrative" of the Great War on the Italian front - and led to a certain degree of conflict among different branches, even if most of it came to involve the "strategic-exempt" factory workers, rather than artillery men and engineers.
The marked impact of offensive activity on the casualties (which can obviously be noted sector per sector) - and therefore on the conditions at the front - appear clear even with a general breakdown of casualties in action for year (1918 was spent by the Italian Army for the largest part on a stable defensive line, beyond the Piave river). Data are percentages over the average army size per year.
| Year | Dead | Wounded | Prisoners |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1915 | 6.7% | 19.2% | 2.5% |
| 1916 | 8.4% | 20.1% | 5.6% |
| 1917 | 7.4% | 17.8% | 19,3%^a |
| 1918 | 1.9% | 4.8% | 3.1% |
a - This accounts for the 250,000-300,000 prisoners taken after the defeat of Caporetto
It would certainly help to compare these data with those of other fronts. Sadly I don't have such data available myself, but given how your question was framed in general terms, I hope this gives you at least a partial answer.