The point is you can trace back the shell trajectory to its source and counterfire on that source location, unless the gun had already moved. I don't see how what you quoted changed that. Are you saying that because the trajectory is more dynamic that it's harder to trace back to its source, even if it's still there?
Usually tracing the origin of an artillery shot is relatively straight forward if you know one slice of the trajectory because it's a ballistic trajectory. If a counter-battery radar can track a shell before it becomes "guided" then it can determine the point it was fired from. And since tracking the origin of a shot might also use optical and acoustic detection that pinpoints the gun firing real time, fire and move makes total sense even with guided shells.
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.
That's the "optical" detection I was referring to. At long range I don't think any ground based device can reliably identify a muzzle flash without LoS.
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.
