I can't remember for sure but wasn't this an issue that was pointed out BEFORE making the decision to go to the 5.56 round instead of the 7.62?
Yes, it was. The 5.56 round is intended to wound an enemy soldier, not kill him, and to be light enough that a soldier can carry a lot of ammo with him.
The 5.56 was intended to be used in a war of attrition against the might of the Soviet Union. A dead enemy soldier consumes little to no enemy resources (if the enemy is someone like a Western country or the Soviets); a wounded one takes three people out of battle, at a minimum - someone has to haul him back to the aid station or hospital, someone else has to patch him up, and a third person has to nurse him back to health. Not trivial concerns when your anticipated enemy is the Soviet horde.
Thing is, we ended up NOT fighting the Soviet hordes, and instead fought people who *didn't* care about their wounded. Might as well just kill the enemy combatants as all wounding will do is let them continue to try to fight or take you with them.
yes, it was brought up then.
Not only that, but the ostensible reason they went toa smaller round in the first place was so the troops could carry more rounds with less weight.
Now, with this new order, they will have to carry twice as many rounds for the same firepower.
Go figure.