Sort of.
My wife is a historian, so I am friends with an unusually large number of history faculty. There is good military history that is widely respected by the community. The problem is that there are a lot of very old academics who refuse to acknowledge new ideas and methods, leading to a lot of continued publication of bad work.
It isn't military historians being free from conventions that trap other historians. The available analysis methods of modern history are very wide and there isn't a trend trapping the field. If anybody is stubborn and stuck in conventions, it is the aging group of military historians who refuse to integrate new ideas.
And somewhat younger historians who are military historians but feel like they are kind of outsiders from their peers.
I obviously don't have a full view of the field, but I do know a few military history faculty in their 30s and they don't view themselves as pariahs. They also scream at their laptops when terrible scholarship ends up flying off the bookshelves because bad military history sells like hotcakes.
Serious research is being done, serious books and papers published, serious courses and lessons are taught.
If you want a technologist analogy, there are some parallels to what I assume PHP or Perl communities might be like. Whenever you go out into the broader world, you need to acknowledge how everyone else likes to take potshots at your language, and then move on to explain why your language meets certain needs anyways. And in the end, all the pot shots taken at PHP or Perl don't remove any of the immediate needs.
Also, there's https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/collect.ht..., specifically the "U.S. Army in World War II Series".
There is ungodly amount of garbage history military history out there, because people want to read it. However, that does not mean there is not a huge amount of great work done in that field.
Its quite simply the case that for 1000s of years states major spending was on military and military matters, and the greatest transformation of society and economics happen during conflicts. Trying cut out military history from other fields is a fundamental mistake of the modern historians and more importantly universities.
I often listen to lectures from military historians and they quite often have a 'black sheep' feel around them, making self-depreciating jokes about how they still exist, this often leads to good lectures because they are already not inhibited by the conventions and trends other historians tend to follow.