Kaimo Kuusk, the Estonian Ambassador to Ukraine apparently announced that:
We are giving all our 155mm howitzers to Ukraine.
I can't see how an army would agree to give all their artillery in that caliber (which is fairly important) to another country. So is there some caveat to this announcement? Are they getting newer ones as replacements?
The ambassador's promise is referring to the donations set out in the recent Tallinn pledge. The UK government has summarised the contents of the donation package from each country involved here. For Estonia's part, this is as follows:
The Estonian package consists of tens of 155mm FH-70 and 122mm D-30 howitzers, thousands of rounds of 155mm artillery ammunition, support vehicles for artillery units, hundreds of Carl-Gustaf M2 anti-tank grenade launchers with ammunition with the total replacement values of approx. 113 million euros. In addition, Estonia will continue to provide both basic and specialist training to hundreds of Ukrainian Armed Forces members in 2023.
The press release on the package from the Estonian Ministry of Defence is fairly clear that this promise does not include the K9 155m howitzers that they're transitioning to:
Military aid to Ukraine does not reduce Estonia's defense capability, the lack of combat readiness of the donated artillery will be fully restored in the near future. A planned transition to K9 mobile artillery is underway, and in addition, Estonia's defense will be strengthened by the presence of allies, including the recently added US HIMARS.
Apparently, I guess correctly. They are giving all their existing, towed 155mm howitzers and getting self-propelled ones instead.
As it turns out, Estonia is giving Ukraine all 24 FH-70 howitzers from the army, especially since these guns are being removed from Estonian artillery and replaced with South Korean K9 Thunder self-propelled guns. Estonia purchased 39 units of the South [Korean] self-propelled howitzers.
According to Wikipedia
Fire support for infantry units is mainly provided by towed howitzers, including the lighter 122mm D-30H63 and heavier 155mm FH-70 field howitzers.[23] However, in recent years, Estonia has started to procure increasing numbers of self-propelled artillery vehicles to provide fire support for its increasingly mechanized infantry, reducing the role of towed artillery. Estonia donated at least nine D-30s as well as an unspecified number of FH-70 howitzers to Ukraine as part of its military support to Ukraine's defence against the Russian invasion of 202
So maybe Estonia is donating equipment that would soon be retired from service or placed in reserve.
Those FH-70 155 mm howitzers are presumably to be replaced in Estonian service with "self-propelled artillery vehicles".
Bit of a frame shift, since we already know the Estonian particulars - this gear is older gear (towed 155s) Estonia's doctrine is de-emphasizing and replacing (with self-propelled 155s).
So, let's talk about Denmark, which is donating all of their 19 Caesar 155mm towed artillery, new and yet to be delivered equipment.
A nation like Denmark, or Estonia, will be fighting within the NATO structure for any critical national emergency. By itself, it really can't do all that much against a large size adversary. Unlike say Greece, Denmark/Estonia also doesn't have to worry about a near-peer traditional adversary (Turkey) that NATO might sit out.
That means that their, temporary, capability gap can and will be plugged by other NATO members.
Germany donating all its artillery? Not so much.
It is hard to envision Denmark or Estonia, with no ex-colonial ties sending their troops abroad on their own or within a small coalition (yes, yes, I know, Afghanistan). This would also be true of Germany. Contrast that with France, with its missions in the Sahel. Or the UK in Lybia. So that weapon class will not be needed by Danes or Estonians abroad.
Being heavy weapons, the Danish 155s are in a discrete spot in the Danish Army in 2020. The 1st Artillery Battalion (400-500 men sized unit), Danish Artillery Regiment, to be precise, within one of its brigades (4000 men sized unit). All of its gear. They are not an organic part of more numerous units. In other words, it's not like Danish infantry throughout the army is suddenly going to say "why did we donate all of our squad heavy machine guns?". Again, NATO trains constantly to integrate multinational units within the brigade level (which is all that up to now was going up in the Baltics).
The one drawback with the Danish donation seems to me that this now an artillery unit without even any guns to train with. This kinda sucks with artillery, it would definitely render an air force impotent for decades if all its fighter pilots ceased to have planes for 5 years.
Caesars are $8-10M so 19 of them aren't huge in Denmark's $4.9 military budget. They are still being built. And a big part of military procurement is deciding what to buy, which is typically a multi-year process. IF they re-buy Caesars, that easy enough to do. And since they donated all of them, they can be replaced with an equally coherent set of Caesars. Or another gun type.
In contrast, Challenger 2s aren't being built anymore (I think). Donating 14 out of 200+, UK will either do without or will have to buy 14 different MBTs to fill the gap.
Canada was more in the Denmark end of things with its park of 37 777s. They could have been replaced en bloc. And Canada could have been more generous.
But they donated only 4. An opportunity missed. Being Canadian, this is one reason I wrote this answer.
I assume Danish people will be fine with repurchases, but I am willing to bet the Estonian public won't be too critical on re-purchasing replacements.
Last, but not least, NATO is largely oriented towards Russia, in Europe. Nuclear worries aside, Russia is currently about as unthreatening as it has ever been right on the Baltics/Danish end of things.
Not because Russia is a peaceful country, no. But because it has committed most of its best combat troops to the "special military operation" in Ukraine. They've suffered tremendous losses in men and equipment.
Even if Russians can't/don't see the benefit in voting out, or deposing, their warmongering government, the Russia bear will be licking its wounds for years to come, especially as a lot of the gear they have, and lost, is Soviet-vintage and their ability to build new stuff at scale is questionable. It will be a loooong time before they consider taking on NATO conventionally. Plenty of time to replenish those stocks.
