Every time the jockstrappers start off with this bull they avoid the question why different levels for the girls and boys if it's all about operational requirements? Surely the ability to rough-it out in the field or run away bravely requires the same standards for all?
Case in point, young Maple pre Nazi fitness test, lugs LMG around like a good-un during tacevals, Maple's babeluscious friend, same age, complains the SMG is too heavy and can't keep up. Who is operationally fitter?
Fast forward 20 years, Maple can still outrun said girly, even if lumbered with GPMG but fails fitness test at level x for 38 YO bloke. Madam is only required to pass FT at level x-y so is fitter according to decidedly non-op PTIs, but now has problems shifting self, SA80 and kit more than a few yards.
Apart from the obvious charms of young lady who would you rather have in your improvised fire team?
Now to answer a few points from a wannabee PTI
Fitter people take less sick days. Fact.
Dunno what section/flight you worked in, it was always the sports freaks off sick with a strained metatarsal or some other nonce excuse
Fitter people have better levels of concentration. Fact.
Proof? Or propaganda?
Fitter people acclimatise quicker. Fact.
So that's why sportsmen need to high altitude train to play netball on Mt Kilimanjaro but the RAF are happy there is no requirement for same when dispatching unfortunates to Kandahar?
Fitter people can maintain higher levels of activity, for longer in extremes of temperature. Fact.
Er, except racing snakes are the first to fall out in extreme cold so NOT FACT
People who maintain good levels of fitness are more likely to eat a healthier diet. Fact.
Woopie doo, spot the sweeping generalisation, are you Rosemary Conley? - Ever been on real ops where the choice is compo or compo?
People who maintain good levels of fitness are less likely to smoke. Fact.
But failing the RAFFT doesn’t mean you immediately reach for the B&H so an irrelevant observation.
Apart from that what Pontius Navigator said