My point exactly GarryB a towed AA gun delivered by helicopter ideal to protect high vantage points and if you do have to bug out not a massive loss or high tech.
In an emergency take the barrels and the bolts and pile the remaining ammo on top and set fire to what is left...
But very mobile and very useful systems that can reach out and touch an enemy that might otherwise think they are safe... modern thermal optics offer excellent long range visibility especially in some conditions like in the mountains or on open plains... having a weapon that can reach out and touch makes you safer.
But if not acted upon quick enough there comes a point something becomes so obsolete that only option is museum piece, target practice or scrap
The critical thing is ammo and do you have an alternative.
If you had millions of rounds of 30x165mm for your air force and suddenly your air force was grounded then it is an idea to work out some way of using the ammo... problems involved include most aircraft guns have very short ammo life spans... the single barrel 30mm cannon from the Flanker and Fulcrum are only good for 4-5 thousand rounds... which sounds bad... but they are compact and light and powerful and no fighter pilot would fire half that many rounds in an entire career let alone a fighter needing a replacement within the span of one war let alone several.
We see Ukrainians using the projectile from a 23mm cannon shell in a rifle muzzle mounted tube to act as a sort of grenade launcher... it is certainly a way to use up old cannon shells, but not really very safe and not really very effective... a 40mm grenade launcher would be much safer and more reliable and more accurate and effective...
The idea of putting old guns on new chassis and adding radar... when you add radar it starts to become expensive and much more automated... you need electric drives to operate the gun, which means rather sophisticated mounts etc etc
Most of the stuff we are looking at... ZU-23s lashed onto the back of APCs, or on flatbed trucks in open mounts are rather adhoc, but are also cheap and simple... they have the vehicles and the guns and clearly the ammo, so it makes sense.
As for the 57mm round etc how many
zsu-57-2 are laying around not just in Russian storage but around the world sitting doing nothing as well as other systems and vehicles? I remember an article on Belarus military which showed pictures that they were sitting with vast number of vehicles sitting doing nothing. Armoured vehicles and artillery guns a waste of money they could have cleared a lot of it decades ago. 2S1 and D-20 guns I remember was just sea of them.
When a real war starts it is often useful to have a reserve of weapons and ammo and parts to keep them operating... even if it is not your war, you can pass on ammo and weapons to allies.
There is the catch 22 of... if you keep the old stuff up to date and useful then it makes sense to actually use it, which makes things harder for new stuff that hasn't been made yet getting made.
Of course different militaries have different priorities... and different financial situations... a country like Belarus is a forward located Soviet country so there would likely have been rather more military equipment stored there than they could ever need... which was likely compounded by former Soviet forces in eastern europe likely passed through as they withdrew after the end of the cold war and might have dumped brand new kit... so of course weapons that a Syrian soldier would be happy to get his hands on might look like old crap to someone from Belarus who is not getting shot at.
In many places in Africa a ZSU-57-2 could be front line equipment that is vastly more useful than a tank because of its fire power... and lack of enemy MBTs...
In terms of self propelled weapons the ZSU-23-4 has advantage over the ZU-23-2.
The ZSU-23-4 is vastly more expensive to buy and to use than a towed ZU-23-2, and there are a lot of places you could never get a ZSU-23-4 that you could drag a ZU-23-2 and use effectively.
Lash a ZU-23-2 onto the back of a flatbed truck and it has a large portion of the mobility of the ZSU without the cost, but in terms of air defence performance the ZSU is rather better...
In terms of lighter man-portable weapons, the GSh-23 and GSh-30 (with 1, 2 or 6 barrels) have advantage over the ZU-23-2.
Well not really... if you want to use the GSh-23 or GSh-30 then you are going to have to rig up some sort of mount to use them and to store their ammo.... keep in mind that they are air force weapons so the ammo is electrically fired so you will need a good reliable power supply to fire them too... so the ammo needs to be air force ammo and it is not compatible with army ammo... which is percussion fired.
The aircraft weapons tend to have very high rates of fire.... which is usually not so important in ground to ground use... it would make short bursts rather devastating though.
Finland still use bmp-2 upgraded yet they have the cash to replace them must be a reason for it.
Couldn't be that it is a good vehicle suited to their conditions.... it wouldn't matter what they had in a real war...
Anti armour weapons are so widespread these days you need IFVs with tank level protection and even then they are not invincible...
And it's very unlikely you are going to air drop a zsu-23-4 on top of mountain etc.
And that is the important thing.... if you can't get heavy vehicles up there... neither can they... so the best they might have are mortars or HMGs... and the ZU-23 out ranges HMG by quite a distance...
In the mountains the advantage of being able to shoot at them and them not being able to shoot at you is the only advantage you need... there wont be jungle for them to hide in to sneak up on you... plus at higher altitudes helos become much easier targets as they are often struggling at the altitude and with no trees to hide behind...