My country of Serbia still has the Bofors anti air gun in active service, unfortunately Wikipedia page lists all countries that at some point had it in service, but doesn’t list specifically which countries still actively use it, but still I suppose that at least many third world countries use it.
Back in 1999 when NATO and Yugoslavia/Serbia were fighting, NATO sent hundreds of planes (F-16, F-15, Harrier, F-117,etc.) to bomb Belgrade and other targets and specifically Belgrade was defended by the Bofors, it scored absolutely no shots whatsoever, it didn’t even damage anything. The more “modern” missile system Sa-3 Neva did, one F-16 (David Goldfein) and one F-117 (Dale Zelko), even though that’s also a extremely low result. Smaller ranged SA-6 Kub didn’t achieve anything either, although it did down a F-16 (Scott Grady) in a different war in Bosnia 4 years earlier.
So, if much more complex missile systems like the Sa-3 and Sa-6 are extremely inefficient and could barely achieve anything then, 20 years ago, would the Bofors have any sense in still using, at least in a different scenario? (If your country can’t afford anything else)
For example, Serbia also has the lesser known M53 Praga, which has a shorter range, similar muzzle velocity, but a faster firing rate, that gun is mounted on a vehicle and even though it also didn’t score anything in 1999, it was actively used in ground operations in both Kosovo and earlier Bosnia, since it is a 30mm gun and was at least a psychologically scary weapon if nothing else. The Bofors on the other hand is not propelled and it’s towed, so it would be much less practical to use for ground operations.
Could the Bofors at least down enemy planes in a scenario where the planes are providing close support for troops on ground, like an A-10 would for example or is being a Bofors crewman just signing up for a certain death?