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

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

I can't believe that the answer above suggested extending the magino line! It was technology from WW1! Most of the French tactics came from WW1, they were still using carrier pigeon to send there messages! France could have prepared for a more modern war but they could not envisage it, all there technology was outdated. There wasn't much the British could do when the French were so much in the past.

Answer 3

Do you mean in the second world war. If you do then:
the problem was the French and British and the Nazis were in substance preparing 'different' wars. F and B on the one side were doing things by the book and defending only the German border and letting Hitler pretty much arm himself to the teeth even though Germany wasn't even supposed to have an army.

Anyways by the time the Nazis made their move they came in through a country that was supposed to be neutral and 'untouchable' (Belgium) with a huge army they weren't supposed to have and 'forgot' to tell F and B they were coming, as the Geneva convention said they should.

So all in all it wasn't a problem of military tactics but of naivity and arrogance really; and the origins of that were complex and various.

Answer 4

Definitely. The French & British actually had more tanks than the Germans. They were completely unprepared for the offensive plan used by the Germans.

Where they really failed was in their grand strategy, they had (by treaty) casus beli against Hitler when he reoccupied the Rhineland in the mid-thirties, had France & Britain attacked Germany then it(WWII) would have been over before it started.

Answer 5

Well that would have involved them (and the rest of Europe for that matter!)getting their collective heads out of their respective butts long enough to see what was going around them and seeing and understanding what was coming; Oh no wait that's the war on terror, no wait that was WWII, No I think it was the war on terror, no wait , AHHH I'm confused!!!

Answer 6

Which fall of France? There have been several.

Answer 7

google search: Wars won by France
results: No Match Found!

Answer 8

yes. primarily, if the French had occupied the Rhineland when the Germans first militarized it, the nazis would have crumbled.