Самое адекватное, что попалось)) в логике не откажешь...
A BMPT as shown the last 10 years doesn't make much sense on it's own, it's stupid for a 50 ton vehicle not to carry infantry if it doesn't carry a high caliber cannon with bulky ammo, and only carries a 30mm cannon like 10 ton BMPs and BMDs, which both still have space for infantry.
So they decided to drop the twin 30mm gun layout (I only see one barrel on the video), instead using the new universal RCWS turret with a single 30mm and 4 ATGM (the BMPT had twin 30mm and 4 ATGM, so a tiny reduction in firepower) and good panoramic optics for the commander, and to put in space for infantry, and to use that as tank support vehicle instead of the BMPs they previously had for that role, while the idea of a BMPT without infantry and only 30mm has been dropped.
Remember what the point of the original BMPT idea was: a vehicle that has rapid fire of smaller caliber enough to deal with infantry and with higher elevation angles than tanks, but protected against 12/14 mm machineguns/rifles and RPGs, which the BMPs and BTRs culdn't deal with, so a vehicle which can follow tanks into high risk areas and survive and even win and push forward, which can take more punishment and is harder to destroy than lighter vehicles. This is that, only better because it also carries infantry.
Watch the videos from Syria how they ship in infantry to building entrances in BMP-2 and ambulance BMPs, they are too thin skinned often and can not withstand an RPG, high caliber rifle or even smaller explosive devices, this vehicle would do that much better, like the Israelis with the Namer.
You are too hung up for some reason on the whole BMPT thing, like that vehicle is somehow special or better than the Armata based IFV as we see it now. The only thing the Armata IFV loses from the BMPT is one single 30mm cannon, that's it, nothing else. But it gains space and infantry, and it will have space to carry extra ammo and weapons (like RPO, grenade launchers, bulky weapons etc) which that infantry can employ against other infantry positions. There is literally no drawback here compared to the BMPT, unless you consider a second 30mm cannon essential, and plenty of valuable advantage over it.
At the end of the day, you can call this what ever you want, a BMPT, a BMP-T, a Tank BMP, a heavy BMP, whatever, but it doesn't really change the reality of what it is, and it's not a step down from what you say it should be. So call it a BMPT if it makes you feel better, it's no more or less right than when others call it an Armata based heavy IFV.
