I don't know where it started, but the "wounds one takes out three" magic caliber doesn't. That fantasy involves the belief that the enemy will exercise the same regard for wounded that we do. It implies they are raised to care about and want to help their wounded as much as we do.
I don't think so. It's a narrow minded provincial perspective. The waves of "Red Chinese" swarming the Korean peninsula didn't react that way, despite the huge amount of MG fire directed at their unarmed ranks. If "Chin" went down, too bad for him. Other religions do not exercise the same perspective, and a genuine lack of concern about surviving is part of it.
This warped and unrealistic view seems to crop up more often when the enemy is definitely not part of the Judeo-Christian ethic, and it's a known and apparent characteristic to simply step over a wounded comrade and continue the assault. Again, a concept totally out of touch with the actual experiences of serving soldiers, once again, an uninformed civilian viewpoint.
While it may be indicated that an intermediate cartridge weapon would be more likely to wound, what did the original 5.56 fired from a 20" barrel get characterized as? An explosively powerful lethal round that left devastating wounds. You can't have it both ways. What you do have is a enemy soldier out of the fight, which is all you need.
"Study your enemy." means understand their ethics and system of beliefs. In many ways we don't experience or understand, they don't much care for life on this planet, they largely get the short end of the stick. Their lack of income, oppressive society, omnipotent government, and constant endangerment of their few liberties give them an attitude that it's really not worth hanging around.
Unless they come to America, and see just how much the opposite it is here.
"Wounding bullets?" Nope.