We pointed out the many flaws and you posted quibbles in return. While you did mention a few ASBs like a pacifist/unarmed UK, you also repeatedly stacked the deck in favor of your idea. You proposed that the UK be armed at an OTL June '39 level deliberately ignoring the effect a Red France would have on the UK. You had Red France win it's BoB, Red France drive the RN out of the Channel, and Red France pulling off a "Crete" despite the vast differences in situation among other things. Then, when all this nonsense was pointed out, you actually kept defending the idea.
I have done nothing of the sort. Maybe you haven't grasped that the there's is no proposition in the OP, no "this would have worked". The
question posed in the OP isn't even really "could this have worked?" but rather "what would it take for this to have worked - short of ASB". So you what you percieve as me "defending an idea" is actually me seeking an outcome by changing the circumstances - "stacking the deck" is not a bad analogy, actually.
As for France winning a BoB, I might have been unclear, but when I spoke about knocking out fighter command, it was not supposed to be by dint of defeating it in the air or even bombing the airfields a la Barbarossa, but rather by seizing its airfields in a night air drop. At the time, night interception was in infancy so once the transports are flying, there is very little the British could have done to stop the paras from reaching the ground.
Of course, that is when the real difficulties would have begun, and not before.
You could boil the problem down to this - how many airfields would have to be captured by paratroopers and/or gliders (the first wave) to cripple Fighter Commands southern groups so that they were unable to seriously oppose the follow up air bridge? And even more importantly, how many paras would it take to capture an airfield before dawn?
The answer to both questions depend on the strenght and preparedness of the British. Say that it would take capturing fifteen to twenty airfields, and that capturing each would require a regiment of paras. Then the operation is doomed from the start, because even two airborne divisions totalling six regiments in the first go is stretching into ASB territory.
Say on the other hand that the British guard the airfields far more weakly, and that only half a battallion is needed for each - then there's a chance, because then one divison of nine battallions could reliably capture eighten fields.
The OTL level of British armament was proposed as a baseline for comparison in the OP, not as an assumption. For the airborne invasion to work, would it suffice for the British to have historical strenght? Even weaker? Once the neccessary level of weakness has been established one can work backwards from there to find a plausible explanation for it.
See the method in my madness?
I did briefly toy with the idea that you were starting Yet Another Sealion Thread with some Red France camouflage.
I did infer from your level of vehemence that you had substituted some reading of the OP for assumptions based on earlier debates. For the record, I too believe the Nazis would have had to be extraordinarily lucky to achieve anything but disaster with that operation.