Might make all the difference if you're actually trying to hit a point target like a tank or bunker: 3m (10 feet) is better than 10m (33 feet).

a 3m CEP means you might actually hit the front or back end of the tank if you lase the middle/turret, and even if you don't catastrophically kill the tank, the crew and vehicle will suffer more damage than a miss 30 feet away.

 

Same goes for a fortified position: hitting 10 feet away makes a big difference as compared to hitting 30+ feet away (especially if surrounding obstacles are present), even for a "big" round such as a 155.

A CEP means that 50% of rounds will fall inside that distance.  IIRC the usual NATO criteria for lt AFV armour is to withstand a 155mm burst 10 m away.  If you're talking reasonably built weapon pits (ie good ground such as laterite or revetting if it lacks structural strenght) then even 3 metres miss is useless, although you might get some concussive effects.  Having seen phyically undamaged fire trenches with OHP where the 500lb bomb craters touch the edge of the OHP I realised a long time ago that a miss is as good a mile, and 500 lb bombs have what, 350lbs of HE whereas the best 155mm HE has only about 25lbs and most perhaps half that.

A laser guided MLRS rocket seems to make more sense to me

The show "Future Weapons" (Discovery Channel) had an episode a couple weeks back from a test range demonstration of the MLRS rockets (G-MLRS w/ unitary warhead), showing the effects of the new airburst-capable fuze against area targets (a derelict artillery piece and its mannikin crew), as well as direct-impacts (3, IIRC) against a fairly-well-put-together earth-and-lumber recessed bunker.

3 GPS-guided 90kg unitary wareads did quite a number on even a semi-underground fortification.

I think I'd go that direction, too: rockets may be bigger and cost more, but for certain targets, you need brass (or rather, HE) <B>on</B> target, not <B>near</B> target. And 90kg is much better than a "mere" 25 pounds.

But then of course, a G-MLRS in impact mode would definitely be overkill against any known AFV...but so is any of those LGBs that have been dropped on/near countless vehicles in several years' worth of desert combat ops (and it's not like the SDB will be any less overkill, with a warhead of about 50 pounds or so?).

Rural, open areas: LGBs, JDAMs, SDBs, and G-MLRS.

Urban areas where we want to avoid as much collateral damage as possible: guided arty PGMs (mortars or howitzers), Hellfires, and that APKWS...if they ever get it right.

(crap!... so I take it then all our old-school methods of bold, italics, and the like using brackets just don't work with this new SP format?)

looks like it, but the really bad thing is trying to scroll down to the bottom of any of the 1000 post super threads.

"let the Air Force take out the tanks"???
Heh, that assumes that you can get a fighter-bomber when you need it, like when facing an armored rush by some third-world nation that can still afford plenty of obsolete Soviet-era tanks, at night, in the rain (although admittedly precip doesn't help laser designators) or when the Air Force just "has something better to do" with their planes.
Although I'm sure any AF types reading appreciated that comment greatly.
Two comparisons would be useful:
amount of money spent on aircraft, and their R&D costs, ordinance, pilots, ground crew, maintenance, vs. the same expenses for artillery (arty is so cheap by comparison)
unavailability - defined as number of times a weapons system was available in theater but unable to respond (quickly) to a call for fire/help from a ground unit in contact. (Arty, your day/night, all-weather friend, "on station" 24 hours a day)
I'm sure the cost of developing an updated laser-guided round would still be quite cheap, in the grand scheme of things.