In what ways might World War I still be affecting our own times?

7 ways WWI still impacts today's Army

1 / 4

SHOW CAPTION +

7 ways WWI still impacts today's Army

2 / 4

SHOW CAPTION +

7 ways WWI still impacts today's Army

3 / 4

SHOW CAPTION +

7 ways WWI still impacts today's Army

4 / 4

SHOW CAPTION +

WASHINGTON -- One hundred years after the U.S. entry into World War I, many of the logistics and strategies developed during that era still have an impact on Army operations today -- including the use of the division as a stand-alone unit, the employment of tactical armored vehicles, and the use of aircraft on the battlefield. Here are seven ways that the First World War still influences the Army today.

AIRPOWER

The major European armies possessed airplanes prior to August 1914, but no one believed they would play a major role during World War I. As with most technological advances in wartime, military aircraft proved to be a more vital tool in the war than anyone originally envisioned.

By mid-1915, European combatants sought to produce a new generation of superior warplanes every year. Aircraft development in the United States, however, remained stagnant because of limited funding and the Wright Brothers' efforts to monopolize the U.S aviation industry.

The American Expeditionary Forces Air Service was airborne over the Western Front in early 1918, using French and British planes. The American pilots faced experienced opponents that were equipped with the most capable combat aircraft at that time -- underscoring the necessity for the American forces to develop capable air resources of their own. Today, an entire military service, the Air Force, is dedicated to airpower.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Extensive chemical operations had been in place on the Western Front since April 1915, using phosgene, chlorine, and mustard gas. Although the German Army was the first to use chemicals, all nations were soon using chemical weapons.

The United States, however, entered the war unprepared for this particular weapon. The U.S. Army and Marine Corps had to rely on French and British expertise for chemical training, doctrine, and materiel. The Army eventually established a separate Chemical Warfare Service to coordinate the offensive, defensive, and supply problems inherent in chemical weapons.

Gas was responsible over a quarter of all American Expeditionary Forces casualties. While the U.S. military and most militaries no longer use chemical weapons in warfare in accordance with the Geneva Protocol, the Army's modern Chemical Corps still works to protect Soldiers against chemical and biological attacks.

COMMUNICATIONS

Electronic communication made tremendous advancements during World War I. Using transoceanic telegraph wires, American forces in Europe were able to maintain communication with their leaders back home.

American Signal Corps Soldiers built a large-scale communication network in France that included telephone and telegraph lines. In combat zones, telephone lines ran from divisional headquarters to the battalion level, and also between battalions. The Signal Corps used both earth telegraphy and field telephones.

Radio enabled air-to-air and air-to-ground communication for the first time. While much of this technology was initially limited, it created the first real-time communication network within a combat zone.

the vast majority of ballots have been counted nearly two weeks after one of the biggest political upsets in modern u.s. history catapulted donald trump to the presidency.

estimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election, nearly breaking even with the turnout rate set during the last presidential election in 2012, even as the final tallies in states like california continue to be calculated, according to statistics collected by the u.s. elections project.

but among those figures were stark contrasts in key states that swing the election to trump — in ohio, wisconsin, iowa, michigan and elsewhere — indicating the president-elect’s leap from long-shot candidate to the most powerful political position in the world may have happened in part because of apathy toward hillary clinton’s candidacy, especially among the democratic base, several political scientists and organizations monitoring voter turnout told the pbs newshour.

while clinton is leading the popular vote by more than 1.5 million over trump as of sunday, she trails president obama’s 2012 totals by more than 2 million ballots — a chasm that may have cost her the election, said david becker, co-founder of the center for election and innovation and research.

“several million voters didn’t come out to vote,” becker said. “which is telling me that this idea of the trump wave, a huge number of voters shifting over to trump, is certainly not the story.”