Actually, dumbass...I suspect it has more to do with the fact that the Army purchases, uses and is required to maintain a lot more tanks, helicopters and other types of vehicles and equipment that the Marines have lesser numbers of or do not utilize.
Now....the term "Army men"......where did you come up with that? I swear to god, if you served, it was with the fucking boy scouts. Your use of inappropriate and utterly inapplicable terms when it comes to military matters is baffling in light of your claimed service. Army men? Really? "Army men" were plastic, 2 inches tall and something I got for my birthday when I was 10.
As for relevance. Sorry, but less money means less money to buy ammo. I guess a lack of funds to buy ammo is relevant to the inquiry. Now. After you throw up your obligatory "Blame Obama for this" post, please head back to your corner of the classroom.... and don't forget to slip on your duncecap....
It could have something to do with the fact that there are 3 times more army men than Marines or that a lot of Marines get around on Navy ships (so they don't need a lot of C-17s, C-5As, or C-130s). Could be that Marines are more professional and don't need someone to hold their hands like the army. Of course all of this is irrelevant to the topic. Are the Marines short of ammunition? Why? and who made that decision?
Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn