If the French and British had used different tactics, could they have prevented the Fall of France?

These are some:

1. Use of their armored formations in divisional strength rather than in the penny-packets that they used. The French/British armor were equal to and better than the Germans in the beginning.

2. Extension of the Maginot Line to the coast, rather than only to the Ardennes and Low Countries (even tho they might have pissed off Belgium and Holland.

3. The French High Command was in dire need of new leadership, they were stuck in the tactics of WWI (static defence/trenches). The French General's HQ was in a chateau with no radio communications, only by couriers to his various commands.

4. The BEF could've been used to defend Paris rather than be encricled at Dunkirk, of course, they were put into Hitler's trap via the Ardennes breakthrough at Sedan.

5. An offensive-minded spirit could've saved the day by a push through the Siegfried Line, but the defeatist attitude of the French (most likely from their tremendous losses in WWI) did not call for an agressive stance.

As it was, generals like Rommel achieved breakthroughs during the course of the French campaign.

Books on WWII