+1I saw the photographs in an entirely different way.
They are from a soldiers point of view. The soldier has no clear idea of what is going on, their only hope of survival is to keep their head down. They have little or no knowledge of the landscape around them, and even if they had been there before the shells started falling the landscape would have soon become featureless. The soldiers days would be grey, monotonous, lacking in anything pretty.
So I think Killington is using the expressive power of the photograph to reflect these points, purposely avoiding your average chocolate box clarity where you can point at something identifiable, because there was nothing a soldier could identify with, everything was alien, except the prospect of death.
So I really don't know what you think can be achieved by using a lens and making topographic records of the places (besides which it has been done before). There is no point at all in technical mastery if that is all you've got, and I'd say there was more technical mastery in Killington's pictures in discovering an image form that expressed the soldiers perspective than knowing what happens when you stop the lens down to f/32 and use a few camera movements. Just a few people know the rules well enough to know how to break them, who go out on a limb and be brave enough to translate a feeling and sense of alienation into a photograph, and I think he succeeds.
My only criticism is that the images are presented in too small a format...