[perplex]

My uncle was career officer in the Army and told me once that the M16, with its smaller faster bullet would wound the enemy, compared to the AK47 with its large slow bullet would kill, and that a wounded enemy was more expensive than a dead solider because you had to extract and care for the wounded.

Not sure if there was any factual evidence behind his theory, but I found this idea fascinating when I heard it.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M1...

[quonn]

Short-term, perhaps, but overall the cost of replacing a dead soldier is higher (like 15 years of schooling and parenting and all the other costs). A wounded soldier might be back on the battlefield half a year later.