American ground strategies since the Civil War have been willing to take massive casualties. Infantrymen are sacrificed rather than take time to plan and execute more conservative maneuvers. In WWII faster frontal assaults were preferred, as the same situation applied as did in WWI and the Civil War. The enemy had limited manpower, the US virtually unlimited.

The South Pacific invasions were often poorly planned, with many landing craft becoming stranded 600 or 700 yards off the beach. People were forced to wade through the water and machine gun fire simply to get ashore. Even though it was a slaughter, some made it and the powers that be regarded those losses as acceptable.

American Generals had problems with Montgomery's deliberateness in WW II. The British had only so many people available, and he tried to conserve lives. The US didn't care, despite what one would like to believe. The revered Patton made his reputation over the bodies of people killed in reckless operations, regarded casualties as irrelevant. The PR a General could command during combat precluded anything but favorable information getting out.

In Vietnam units would be chewed up attacking an position, generally a hill, win it, then retreat. After a while they would be sent up it again, get thoroughly chewed up, and retreat again. The idea was to attrit the enemy, if the numbers were truly honest would show that those attacks were not effective. And, we'll never know the numbers.