[Lou L]

it sure does look like structural pieces on the Fitzgerald were displaced downward and forward from the downward motion of the Crystal’s hull.

It may be difficult to visualize, but Navy ships like the Fitzgerald generally heel to the opposite side they're turning. Assuming the Fitz was trying to avoid the Crystal (far too late) by turning away from her (to port), her starboard side would have been lower; i.e., closer to the the water. But a strike from the Crystal's bulbous bow would have lifted the Fitz's hull and starboard superstructure right into the top of the Crystal's bow.

The damage to the Fitz, and the scuffs on the Crystal's bow are consistent with this description. I suspect if you looked below the waterline at the Crystal, the bulbous bow would show the same.

[rlmorel]

I agree. I think all four of these things come into play:

The heeling of the Fitz making her starboard side closer to the water

The bulbous protrusion on the bow of the Crystal forcing the Fitz up out of the water

Pressure of the Fitz downward on the bulbous protrusion of the Crystal giving a downward impetus to the bow of the Crystal

Forward motion of the Fitz and forward motion of the Crystal.

[UCANSEE2]

The damage to the Fitz, and the scuffs on the Crystal's bow are consistent with this description. I suspect if you looked below the waterline at the Crystal, the bulbous bow would show the same.

Well.... here is a picture of the bulbous bow.

[mad_as_he$$]

“
It may be difficult to visualize, but Navy ships like the Fitzgerald generally heel to the opposite side they’re turning
“
So is it possible the Fitz was turning to starboard? Now that is a new wrinkle. We need dimensions of both ships and a sketch of damage to the Fitz with measurements noted.