Is it 13:00 or 1300 hours?

gomezz

Well-Known Member
Just something that occurred to me this morning. There doesn't seem to be any online consensus or even the usual big-endian or little-endian controversy. I am not sure about writing just 1300 as the context may not make it clear I am meaning a time rather than something else.
 
If you'd say "thirteen hundred hours" it's 1300.
I'd probably write something like: "I'll meet you at 1300 hours", or ""I'll meet you at 13:00". So, yes, context is everything. One way or another I'd make sure time was being referenced. (Maybe, pure conjecture, take with large pinch of salt...)
 
Anybody been in the military? What do they do?
I was, but 50 years ago ...
I think we always used 13:00 in printed stuff but spoke it as 1300 hours.
The only thing I do remember for sure was that 00:00 never happened - midnight was always 23:59 or 00:01, so you couldn't be 24 hours late, or early.
 
spoke it as 1300 hours
Being inclined to take things literally, this has always struck me as odd. I mean, in what way is it thirteen hundred hours? Thirteen hours and no minutes after midnight... did somebody make a conscious decision to define "hours" and "hundred" in that context?
 
did somebody make a conscious decision to define "hours" and "hundred" in that context?
I don't know, but in the military, and other places like aviation, clear and concise communication is in the desired-to-essential category.
So reducing the length (eg. syllables) per 'transmission' while maintaining clarity makes "thirteen hundred hours" (5) a better option than "Thirteen hours and no minutes" (7).
 
All my digital display clocks and watches put the colon in whether in 12 hour mode or 24 hour mode.
 
Back
Top