Counterpoint:However, the time frame for a fully worked-up carrier and air group had been considerably
underestimated. The theoretical aspects of the project were mastered remarkably
well in a short time, and the design demonstrates a reasonably good degree of
understanding of contemporary carrier development. While war games and plans
alone are insufficient evidence, they too show a reasonably good understanding of the
operational value of naval aviation. The practical side is more problematic. While the
vessel might have been completed in a similar time frame to the Bismarck or Tirpitz,
it would, like all the large combatants, have suffered propulsion problems.167 The
navy did well in developing carrier-specific equipment. For example, the arrester
system functioned very well, with few accidents in the thousands of landings conducted
at shore establishments.168
Apologies for the alignment of the pic, but a relevant passage for easier reading:
For their part, the Germans welcomed proposals to lighten and simplify the trolley and, above all, the new arrester hook adopted for the Re 2001. This was a masterstroke of reverse engineering by Pegna on the basis of a study he made in Egypt in 1941 of the wreck of a Fleet Air Arm Grumman Martlet shot down by a Fiat G 50 Near Sollum. Pegna, who was Project Leader for the aviation side of the Italian carriers, had worked using just the holes in the fuselage, as the tailhook had been removed before that aircraft, which belonged to a batch purchased originally by Belgium and later delivered to Britain, left the United States.
Tl;dr the Italians needed to copy an American arrester hook, because the German one didn't work, and even then both the Italians and Americans agreed that the arrester system itself on the carriers didn't work, either. Source is the most recent Warship International.