One thing they are probably already noticing in BMPT is an unusual armored beast with lots of firepower on paper but not many stowed kills per se not to mention its expensive BMPT supposedly cost 2x of a T90 , while much better armored than BMP without APS is still as vulnerable as a tank

BMP Berezhok Turret has one 30mm gun with 500rds, with elevation up to 75° and 4 Kornet ATGMS with 152mm diameter warhead, is actualy more powerful than the missile used in BMPT , not to mention Berezhok turret has a thermal channel in both sights as well, while BMPT likely doesn't have the same.  1x coax MG and 1x Grenade launcher

BMPT Packs 2x 30mm gun with elevation up to 45° , 850rds  and 4x 130mm Ataka ATGMS , only advantage ataka might have over kornet is against airborne targets as its a supersonic missile.

1 coax MG and 2 hull-mounted grenadelaunchers.

Algerian T62 with Berezhok turret once they uparmor it  kinda makes more sense as a budget BMPT than the original Russian  BMPT

Bushmaster wreck

https://t.me/ChDambiev/17155

Bushmaster is a protected mobility vehicle- it really cannot stand up to KPV+ firepower, it’s STANAG 3. It’s no surprise that when lit up with AT weapons it gets K-killed. I hope the crew had enough time to bail out and casevac, it’s pretty hard to see any penetrations in that drive by.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

with lots of firepower on paper but not many stowed kills per se

^^
With >800 rds 30 mm AC and hundreds of 30 mm AGS round plus thousands MG round it seems the vehicle has enough stored kills to depolulate a small town.
 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

BMPT supposedly cost 2x of a T90

That is very questionable. Where is this cost increase supposed to come from? Since the BMPT is not any more sofisticated than the T90 it just carries different weapons it is to be expected that its about the same cost per unit.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

only advantage ataka might have over kornet is against airborne targets as its a supersonic missile.

Seriously? Do you actually read any thing? Any form of research?
Ataka is superiour to Kornet in allmost any conceivable way. It has more range, higher speed and allmost twice the warhead size. The missile is allmost twice the weight and conciderably larger. Its like comparing TOW to a Hellfire.

The problem with the BMP turret is that it has no armor to speak of. The whole point of the BMPT is to get this level of firepower under MBT like armor protection so it can operate close to MBTs without being blown appart when somebody looks at it funny.
The question is if it works.
Also the grenade launchers are independent of the turret and have their own gunners. The theory is that this way multiple targets can be engaged or supressed at the same time. Never versions of the BMPT don't seem have these anymore though.

Those two cannons can also eat the ammo at twice the rate so would expect 1000rds minimum and more ATGMs , considering it carries no reloads 

BMPT cost is probably down to it being small series, and build being on an extensively modified tank platform with more systems and optics (4 mayor sights)  than a tank vs BMPT2 that looked like a turret swap was limited to prototypes as it lost the whole engaging multiple targets at once capabilty. Next terminator if this one works out seems to be with 57mm canon and 4 atgms.

Like said Ataka has some advantages over Kornet , but it seems that was more the case 20y ago when BMPT was being developed, in the meantime Kornet  received a longer range and out penetrates Ataka, warhead diameter is very important to armor penetration of the shaped charges, while Ataka is much heavier armor penetration behind reactive armor is stated as 800-950mm vs Kornet 1000-1300mm  ,

Kornet also added fire and forget in EM versions that has thus much higher hit probability over extended ranges vs SALCOS Ataka . Am somewhat surprised they didn't end up with chrisantema that enables simutaneus multi target engagement with atgms

Yes BMPT crew is well protected, but so far the main gain i see in the BMPT concept is the situational awareness over a tank or a IFV as basically it has 3 gunners with their sights and a panoramic commander's sight high up

Pre-historic BMPT prototype had 1 cannon an 4 Kornets . but lacked a real panoramic sight.

Ukraine played with similar concept as the Algerians BMP turret on obsolte T55 chassis

And these days there are Unmanned Turrets like an Epoch that could be used on old tank hulls ,if the concept proves viable, lack of T72 turret at -12tons frees of add on capacity for protection kits 

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Those two cannons can also eat the ammo at twice the rate so would expect 1000rds minimum and more ATGMs , considering it carries no reloads

This would only be the case if they fire both in long bursts all the time. As far as I know the two guns are mostly for redundancy. Secondary to be able to fire them alternating to get supression over longer time. Only in a pinch the two guns are supposed to fire at the same time.

The ATGMs are the secondary weapon. To knock out field fortifications at long range and for self defense against AFVs. Since the BMPT is supposed to work close with tanks more ATGMs don't seem that important.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

but it seems that was more than case 20y ago when BMPT was being developed

What makes you think Ataka has not been improved?
A modernised version has a range of 10.000 m for example. The warhead also is improved and has better penetration.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

warhead diameter is very important to armor penetration of the shaped charges,

No its not. That has been true in the '40 and '50. Its only somewhat true if all other things are equal today. The warhead of the Ataka is allmost twice the weight so things are obviously not equal.
But by putting more explosive behind a thicker liner the penetration of smaller diameters can be increased significantly. Tandem warheads also have this effect. The current Ataka tandem warhead has penetration in the 1000 mm RHAe range behind ERA. That is comparable to Kornet. Because of the larger and heavier warhead its blast and fragmentation will be better. Resulting in an overall more effective warhead.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Kornet also added fire and forget in EM versions has a much higher hit probability over extended ranges vs SALCOS Ataka

Fire and forget does not automatically have a higher hit propability compared to SACLOS. Actually often the oposit is true.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Ukraine played with similar concept as the Algerians BMP turret on obsolte T55 chassis

On the picture is a modified T-64.

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

Yes BMPT crew is well protected, but so far the main gain i see in the BMPT concept is the situational awareness over a tank or a IFV as basically has 3 gunners with their sights and a panoramic comanders sight high up

The use of the BMPT is to have a weapons suite that suplements that of tanks with a similar level of protection. The BMPT is supposed to quickly supress AT teams and deliver overvelming rapid fire against area targets. Something tanks are notoriously bad at. Its also better at short range fighting (< 500 m) again somthing tanks are notoriously bad at. Simplied it closes a capability gap and covers blind spots.
Which is actually the mission on an IFV. But since the Soviet/Russian legacy IFV are extremly bad protected they can not perform this mission in a modern environment anymore. The BMPT is a stopgap to adress this.
Once or better if the Russians roll out the T-15 in serious numbers the BMPT might not be needed anymore.

https://archive.ph/pb95O

https://youtu.be/o13DDweu1p8

Both sides seem to be using the grenade launchers also in indirect fire capacity,with third party spotting fires.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGXsuHmwtk4

FNH70s under fire

https://t.me/RVvoenkor/14175

More Buggy Busters, this time using Chinese ATV's similar to the Polaris in concept:

https://www.armyrecognition.com/ukraine_-_russia_conflict_war_2022/ukrainian_soldiers_use_all-terrain_vehicle_geon_strike_1000_armed_with_skif_anti-tank_missile.html

I just love these little things. 

Man i would love to get one of these