Making attacks count against armoured carriers

Would tougher 27,000-ton carriers push navies away from dive bombing or toward aircraft with heavier payloads?

They would probably improve dive bombers first because they were familiar, while also pursuing alternatives such as heavier torpedo attacks.

An armoured carrier would not make dive bombing obsolete overnight. Existing dive bombers were a known capability, so an improved aircraft able to deliver a heavier bomb would be the safest early response. Britain would face an additional starting problem because it did not yet possess a purpose-built naval dive bomber, although some fighters could dive-bomb and the Skua would be procured under a fighter label while serving that role. Parallel experimentation would be more likely than a single abrupt doctrinal change. Larger torpedo aircraft, including a design able to drop a pair of torpedoes, could raise the probability of disabling a carrier whose deck resisted smaller bombs.