I think GP's "fire and move long before the shell lands" meant the gun moves, to avoid counter-battery fire (based on the shell's trajectory). Which is an orthogonal problem to the target moving.
> The laser target designator is then used to illuminate the target and the in-flight projectile detects the radiant laser energy reflected by the target and the navigation system steers the shell towards the point of greatest incident energy—the designated target with top attack pattern
I think means that the shell basically hits where the drone-laser points at any one moment, not where the drone-laser was pointing when the shell was first fired. Which means that if the target moves then the laser can still remain focused on it for the shell to hit said target, even if the target is moving.
The counter-battery fire uses radar to calculate where incoming shells are fired from and shoots at that point.
But now the original artillery tries to move away from that point before the counter fire hits it.
That counter fire isn't laser guided.
Is the counter-fire mobile as well? Has it moved from its original point of counter-fire?
If not, there's only a couple rounds of this before counter-fire ends.
Or the counter-fire is protected by a C-RAM system like Phalanx, Iron Dome, MANTIS, or Porcupine/DRACO.
Every counter has a counter. It's turtles all the way down.
Then it's an artillery vs artillery battle, and the side with the best artillery wins (ignoring for the moment airspace superiority), which only adds to the point that tanks are mostly obsolete, they're not part of the conversation at all. I do agree that tanks do look cool and that they create more jobs and help preserve more technical know-how in times of peace, but out on today's fronts it looks like they're not as needed as before.
But at 30Km range even a classic shell becomes hard to precisely track. A guided shell just makes it worse. At long range a counter shot would basically be a blind shot because the target area is large enough to be considered unacceptable.