There's a bit of old gun lore that later generation intermediate cartridges (5.56 NATO, 5.45x39) were adopted because they specifically caused fewer deaths but more woundings thus tying up enemy resources in medical care. Substance or complete myth?

by screwyoushadowban

Is there any sign that this was ever a concern for military planners? It kinda seems like "armchair expertise" from an 80s gun magazine. Doesn't any casualty in represent the tactical loss of a fighting unit? I have a hard time imagining military research and procurement people cared that much about making rifles less lethal.