I'm sorry but, this doesn't actually answer my question. Which cases where revolution was successful did mass desertion or side switching not occur?

You cite Cuba but in this book produced by an awful US think tank they cite Castro's ability to turn many of Batista's officers as a key point in his success. Check page 107 cited [291]. Now, I know you're going to say "american think tank" but rand have absolutely nothing to gain from misleading their own ranks on what was and was not successful about these events, it is essential for these think tanks, particularly in these kinds of matters, to generally be actually effective. Cuba isn't just a story of a ragtag bunch of folks succeeding because regular people joined them. There's more detail to it than that.

Turning them is essential. NOT just the lower ranks. The officers. Turning the officers is absolutely essential.

I really mean this question. Can you think of ONE successful revolution where it has not played a significant role like this? I can't. And it is important to remember that if a revolution is to occur it MUST succeed because failed revolutions become fascism, it is better to have not even had a revolution at all if it is going to fail. I firmly firmly believe that a commitment to turning the military is an essential factor in this. I also firmly believe that the officers are easier to turn than the lower ranks anyway, they are informed, educated and politically more aware on top of the fact that they have been trained to think far more than the average soldier.