There you go. The theory postulated "more enemy killed' but the reality is that all things being equal, the .308 puts them down and keeps them down. As far as the 45ACP-to-9mm, the typical female's ability to control 45ACP recoil was a factor, as was the cost of training ammunition and standardization to NATO (read the story of the Army's push to get NATO to move to 308, then the Army backing off to the 5.56mm round).
The average soldier (in the '80's) also barely had ammo to qualify on their rifle (pistols were only assigned to a few) under static conditions, much less develop proficiency under dynamic, stressful conditions.
Today, soldiers in the box have both rifle and sidearm, but are still stuck with the training resource constraints. I and about 300 of my compadres were issued 9mm pistols on our mobilization in 2007, and very few understood, much less had developed basic pistol-handling skills.
“There you go. The theory postulated “more enemy killed’...”
And that wounded was better, as the theory was that a guy who was wounded required two more to carry him out of the fight. That was a stupid idea, too, but it did influence the thinking. For starters, it only works with “civilized” opponents.
The fact is, however, that it takes some large number of shots fired in war to get some much smaller number of enemy troops dead or wounded. I’ve seen but forgotten the exact figure from one of the wars we’ve engaged in. So in essence, more shots fired IS more enemy killed. It’s not one-for-one, more like thousands for one, IIRC. I have not seen figures for Iraq or Afghanistan.
When I deployed for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, we had to sent some folks for quickie qualification training. So called. That unit did not do ANY realistic (or even non-realistic) combat training. You guys at least got to carry your weapons. We never saw ours for the duration. Admittedly, the only dangers we faced were SCUDs, Saudi drivers, and one Saudi guard freaking out while on post.
Make that well into the 90’s, btw, on the qualification training. I retired in 1997. My unit then, one of the USAF’s combat comm units did what they called Mob training, trying to give us something like “real” combat training. Mind you, AF people are not trained as infantrymen to begin with. Limited ammo, arbitrary rules, and a number of other problems. Well, at least our OpFor had a ball. I KNEW I wasn’t infantry material, or I’d have been in the Army or Marines.
I can handle a pistol, having been shooting them since age 4, but I’ve only gotten “trained” (i.e. military training) on them twice, once on the .38 M&P, back in the day, and later on the 92F, shortly before I retired. NEVER in anything resembling real combat.
Oh, and IIRC, most of those rounds fired in the stats I’m referring to were probably fired by someone with his eyes closed. I believe they said perhaps 1 in 10 of the shooters actually aimed their fire, and fired with intent to kill or wound. I never saw combat, for which I’m deeply grateful, but I intended to be one of those shooting with intent, anyway, if I ever found my self there.