“...found that the limited gun traverse and tactical vulnerability caused problems...”
The Nashorn and Elefant SPGs at Kursk and other Eastern front battles are a good example of what you say...
Your Kursk example is correct. An analogy would be an unbalanced infantry regiment, with too many snipers and not enough general combat platoons. It would work fine in some situations, but your enemy would figure out your vulnerabilities and take advantage of them.
The PzKw VI Ausf. E (Tiger I) was very heavy at 56 tons. It had a KwK 36 88mm L56 gun. Recovery of knocked out Tigers usually required another Tiger to recover them and so many tanks that should have been fixed and returned to service had to be destroyed in place.
The PzKw VI Ausf. B (Tiger II) was even heavier and larger than the Tiger I. The Tiger II up-gunned to the KwK43 88mm L71 gun. Weight increased to 75 tons and the tank's great weight hampered mobility and recovery when broken down or damaged.
Total production for PzKw V (all versions) was about 6,000; production for all PzKw VI Ausf. E was 1,347; production for all PzKw VI Ausf. B was 492. These were Germany's best tanks and total production was 7,839. In comparison, America not only produced all manner of armor for its own use, but for its Commonwealth allies and Russia. America buried its enemies under a flood of production.