There are two opportunistic reasons to think so.
1. Digital historians have always been very interested in public audiences; military history has always been one of the keenest areas of public interest.
2. The data is there for algorithmic exploration. In most countries, no organization is better at keeping structured records than the military.
And the stuff is interesting. It's easy, for example,to pull out the locations of nearly the entire US Navy, season-by-season, in the Pacific Theater:
|Click to enlarge.|
(Best in HD).
I can pull a little out of this: the closing of the Panama Canal to Japanese shipping before the war, the gradual creep of American operations up through the Pacific atolls, and so forth. But I really don't have a clue. Like a lot of historians trained at top graduate programs, one of my great fears is that some knowledgeable undergrad will expose my complete ignorance of anything about--say--the battle of Spotsylvania.
Most historians think we don't need a revival of traditional maps-and-battles military history; the cultural shift in recent decades is worth protecting, a military-digital history would confirm digital history as a boys' playground, and so forth. This is my first instinct, too. But I also sometimes wonder if the flatlining of military history in the most prestigious programs isn't part of a general failure of imagination around structural histories more generally--something I'm on record as saying digital histories might help us overcome.
The Overview project has been analyzing hundreds of thousands of reports from the Iraq War as one of its basic demonstration prototypes. I find it hard to believe that there aren't some new insights buried in all the imperfectly digitized paper the military-industrial complex creates as a matter of course.
Anyhow, just a thought.