There are some older military historians who do great work and don't get respect, because just doing military history is considered old fashioned. And some of the old methods are not necessary bad, just considered bad but I don't always agree with that assessment.
And somewhat younger historians who are military historians but feel like they are kind of outsiders from their peers.
Many old methods are great! The point is that not all old methods are great. Fields move forward one funeral at a time, and there do remain a lot of aging researchers who are stuck in the past. This is not to say that every old researcher is doing a bad job or that every military historian is doing a bad job... it just seems to be the field that has resisted progress the most.
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.
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.