Pretty badass indeed.
Re: The guy up there who is offended by people liking US vehicles;
Afghanistan is what we would call "Not good tank country." No matter how badass and indestructible your tank may seem, in afghanistan it will be severely limited. Yes, casualties dropped when the ZSUs were used, but the primary purpose of tanks is not to protect themselves. That is what bunkers are for. In Afghanistan tanks lacked the mobility to do much, which is why the ISAF has not deployed many or any tanks but has deployed huge numbers of light infantry and helicopters.
Yes, the BMPT is a better support vehicle, and the TOS-1 is a better kill'em'all vehicle, but there are differences. The US has never needed vehicles like that, quite frankly, and it is very unfair to compare the Stryker to the BMPT.
The US doesn't use urban warfare tactics or strategy that would permit use of a system such as a TOS-1, and never really needed it; US strategy has usually depended on heavy armor and speed along with close air support to launch a fast moving Uber-Blitzkrieg, and so the fortifications would be attacked with long range artillery and close air support, and all the ground vehicles would be for direct engagement, not support. The Abrams is accurate out to 3500m and capable of killing T-series tank chassis at that range, but can close the distance extremely rapidly, making TOS-1 type systems not terribly useful; with good communications air support can be more effective, and we DONT use blanket bombardments against civilian structures.
The BMPT is not a fait comparison to the stryker; one is an APC and one is an...well, whatever it is, its not an APC. in the current wars, I would say that the Stryker is much more useful than the BMPT, considering that most casualties come from IEDs and not from small arms fire. MRAPs are even more relevant, and are something the russians are not known for. If we needed the BMPT, we would probably make one, but it has apparently been unnecessary till now. Also note, the lack of those vehicles did nothing to keep us out of baghdad; it certainly didn't turn into a us-Grozny type thing.
American tactics are different than russian ones, and our vehicles are different as well. The russians used a conscript army, whereas the US uses a volunteer force. The russians use human wave style mass assaults, while the US uses fast moving highly skilled spearheads with CAS. (also note that the stryker which everyone derides has proven to be extremely durable.)
In the conflicts we are in, helicopters and infantry are far more useful than tanks. Yes, I'd like to have a BMPT in a city, but it would still be very restricted and no less vulnerable than a tank against ieds. I'd sooner have a blackhawk or apache or platoon of infantry, to be quite honest.
Also, you'll be hard pressed to find a vehicle more badass than the vigilante:
Yes, thats a 37mm 6 barreled gatling gun firing at 3000 rpm.
I would also debate the point that all russian ground vehicles are always better than american ones. Yes, the M1 absolutely raped T-72s and chinese vehicles during Gulf War, but do you really think the T-90 could have fared any better, especially considering that the T-90 has the same gun as the T-72, which could not penetrate abrams armor from frontal arc at 50m?