Monty, would you say NZ historians are focusing their attention more on Italy than other historians. There was an NZ division active in Italy so I assume the NZ historians pay some attention to it
The danger with having your own experience of the matter might be the objectivity of the conflict. In all fields of science, the bias problem is always presence. We can try to reduce it's impact on the science, but not remove it completely, especially in the field of humanities. (history belongs there and not within social science) As long as the academic adviser for a Master thesis and a dissertation knew about it, he or she might be able to avoid the issues.
If one puts it into the category of a science then I must vehemently disagree. I have published numerous engineering publications that were much more instructive and to the point than the typical publication written by academia which are usually dry and devoid of real down to earth content. These are often written for PHD's to gain accreditation rather than further the working knowledge of the engineering science or disciple in question.
Quoiting Clausewitz is certainty a popular cliquishly when one wishes to sound more profound ( intelligent ) then one really is .
There is a difference between engineering and human activity. History is studied as a human activity and wars are the most extreme of activities. For a historian, the most important source is the primary source and finding new interpretation of the primary source with a combination of secondary sources. The objectivity can be a problem if the historian has personal opinions or experiences in what he or she is studying. This is not an issue if the historian is dealing with the Second World War or earlier armed conflicts