Ok, when did they come up with these or the name at least? I know about the old Regimental Combat Teams and about how brigades were organized but I just found out about this term.

HarryP:
Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) have been around for about the last 8 years. When the Army Transformation Plan was publicized by Gen. Shinseki, the Task Force Structure was forever changed. The Army decided to go with a "deployable package" of units, that were self-sufficient for 6 months in combat. Before, you needed a Division to deploy, with all the support assets, or a Corps Support Command (COSCOM) to help mediate logistic/materiel needs. The BCT Concept is to make it self-contained for as long as possible without requiring external support assets.

A BCT organization is very similar to the Cavalry now in its modern state; just on a larger scale.
Example: The 4th ID, 3rd BCT is at Fort Carson, Colorado. Comprised of Brigade HQ Company, ADA Battery, Signal Company, MI Company, Cavalry Recon Troop, 2 Mech Infantry Battalions, Tank Battalion, Combat Engineer Battalion, an FA Battalion, and a Forward Support Battalion. Total of about 3800-4000 some Soldiers.
The 1st Squadron, 3rd ACR. Comprised of 3 Cavalry Troops, 1 Tank Company, 1 FA Battery, 1 ADA Battery, HHT (HQ, and HQ Troop). About 1200 troopers.
Not exactly the same, I know. But the Commander's Intent was to shape all units in the Army like the ACRs, and old RCTs; and require less attaching, detaching, of supporting units like GSR, MI, etc etc., and utilize less supporting units from Division assets and Corps Support assets.

Thanks CavScout (I thought you would answer this one).

I am amazed that they do not go back to separate brigades and assign them to division control like they used to do. I think that the 23rd Infantry Division was the last set up that way during Vietnam. Maybe that will happen eventually.

Cavalry units seem to be set up unto smaller sized organizations than Infantry units – maybe that makes them more mobile. I notice that every brigade seems to have a cavalry unit these days.

I'm in total agreement. The placing of a Cav unit in all the Brigades is somewhat silly to me. They are called RSTAs. Recon and Survelliance Team Assets. It seems that the Army is making a concerted effort to put Scouts where they belong, doing Scout tasks. But all the Infantry Divisions compensated for our not being there by training their own Brigade "Scouts." Seems like doubling up, or double pumping the target, its unnecessary. Granted the training is secondary because they are all infantrymen, and they don't necessarily get the same training we scouts get. Its not to say they are not effective, they very much are, just not as specialized with exact taskings. I feel its only a matter of time before these proud designations blur together (as is the Army plan) into the Full-Spectrum Warrior. Where a Scout/Infantry/FO/Combat Engineer are all merged into some super hybrid.

I agree with the Brigade policy from Vietnam whole-heartedly. It makes sense to fight the small scale conflict, or "zoned engagements" with the task structure from Vietnam. We operate in a very similar battlefield. Not so much like WWII when there was a somewhat distinct frontline, but like Arizona Valley, where the frontline is just outside the perimeter of your firebase, in every direction. And the enemy is a civilian when he's being bombed or mortared, but when the sun goes down, the black pajamas are creeping in the grass (or sand).

Full Spectrum Warrior -- there will only be a hundred guys left who can carry this off and half of them will be on guard duty.

I can see it for specialized operations with unique units but do we really need to have every troop be elite? If we had better trained soldiers on D-Day would it have changed the outcome more than slightly or would we have lost just as many men who it took longer to train?

The world has changes and training is more complicated because of technology but considering that things one does not use on a daily basis have a somewhat short half life – maybe it is not such a good idea.

Not sure if this will help clear anything up.

BCT's were established for a few reasons. First, the army realized that many times, assets like fires, scouts, mortars, medics, FSOs, etc were not framiliar with the units they worked with because they were always delegated out as per command. With BCTs, you will have BDEs fighting as BDEs and not having to worry about going to division for assets or clearing fires, etc.

Mobilization was another factor. Today's army needs to be a quick force. With BCTs, bdes can mobilize much faster than divisions can.