Also, there are a LOT of misconceptions in the post about military being pawns .... I am a veteran, and yes, a soldier is allowed to refuse suicidal orders. While a commander can order troops into imminent danger, he cannot order suicide. There has to be a reasonable expectation of success, or that commander is guilty of murder, same as if he decided to just start shooting his own men. That is why morale is so important ---- and along with that, also understanding of the mission at hand ---- the worst soldier is the stupid soldier ---- you want soldiers that think and look for ways to fulfill their orders in the most efficient way, with the least losses and resource usage.
Now, you mention the beaches at Normandy, and those are great examples ---- most of those soldiers had trained for months, at least the first wave, because we knew that it was going to be rough --- anywhere we tried to invade Europe was going to be a hard fight. We figured that out fighting "Smiling" Albert Kesselring in Italy ----
Even Churchill noted that any time the allies met the Germans with anything resembling parity, that the Germans won --- they were experienced, and hardened.
However, that is bringing real world into it --- so I am going to try and keep it somewhat abstract, but answer as a soldier. I will charge a machine gun nest, over ground with some cover, and a means by which I see that it can be done. I was also an NCO, and responsible for men under my care --- and that is how it is worded and understood by the military. Those men were under my care, and I and my men were under the Platoon Leaders care, in the usual case, a Lieutenant, but not always ---- however, that individual, and the men under him are in the Company Commander's Care, and so on. Those officers are where you start seeing decisions made --- now crappy officers will order their men to rush across parking lots, because they want the awards and prestige for completing the objective. Good officers will look at the objective, and try and find a way to do it, without the heavy losses of men, and all the training dollars involved. And officers do have to account for losses. Officers that continue to lose men are held accountable, and we have cashiered officers for using too many men to take objectives ..... however, that line is difficult to define. There are many variables -- taking a hill where the enemy has artillery that is raining down destruction on your side is far more important, than say, taking a phone center. Yes, taking that phone center can disrupt enemy coms, but you can do that with jamming, or just hitting it with enough bombs ----- where as taking a hardened position, where the enemy is able to rain down destruction on your side, is far more critical.
Now, soldiers know this ---- we know what's necessary, and what's not, and we act accordingly. When you get called up for a critical mission, you do that mission --- because it needs to be done. It has nothing to do with who you are fighting, but instead, who you are protecting, whether it's your buddies, or your family back home. At the same time, you also don't use scouts for attacking fortifications, unless you have nothing else, and you don't use supply staff to engage enemy tanks, again, unless you have absolutely nothing else. That's why we have different units, trained to perform different tasks. Now, if my commander is ordering us to rush across the earlier mentioned parking lot, with no cover, and try and swarm a machine gun at the far side, as a responsible NCO, I am going to question that order. I am going to see if I can get artillery, or maybe a mortar team up to hit it from cover --- at the bare minimum, I want continuous support fire from as many sources as I can get, before I order my men into that ...... those men matter. And it would be the absolute height of negligence, as well as outright murder to do otherwise, than try and find another way to deal with that target.
And just to be clear, I am a combat veteran, I have seen enough of it, that I hope to whatever anyone holds sacred, that I never have to see it again. I enjoy games like Battletech, as well as Flames of War, and others, because I was trained to utilize my tactical thinking, and I enjoy the exercise of those skills ---- and I have found that whether I consider my "units" to be expendable, or not, whether I win or lose is based more on my tactics and how I utilize the board, not how I bargain my trades. Besides, no battle is a vacuum, and a smart commander preserves as many troops as possible for the next one --- experienced veterans are a valuable resource that no commander can be without ..... and if you just churn your troops through a meat grinder, then all you are doing is ensuring that your side is being fought for with only green troops, and costing them constant equipment ----- and no faction or side can long withstand that kind of cost.
Nahuris