Bigger isn’t better. Think the Bismarck.
I also recall a documentary a few years back where Nazi Germany built one model of a super huge tank. I do not recall the specs, but it was a monster. The problem was not enough materials to go into production. IMO the real problem was being a huge waste of resources as it could have been easily knocked out. Where as if the same resources were used to build smaller tanks more would survive to do their intended tasks before being knocked out... If that makes sense.
Another issue, at least with humongous tanks, is mobility. The Tiger tanks were too heavy for many road bridges, such as those in the Ardennes.
Think Bismarck’s problem wasn’t size but a) there was only one of them and b) it was used in the wrong role. Should have sent fast cruisers on commerce raiding.
The Bismarck was a 50,000 ton hulking mass of awesome, that was only sank after an exhaustive chase through the north sea, and into the mid-north Atlantic where she suffered a lucky torpedo strike on her rudder, making her spin in circles.
In Bismarcks case, her size and armor plating made it almost indestructible, as it took a majority of the British fleet, hours and hours of point blank shots (turned out to be bad tactics), including multiple torpedo strikes, and they still never sank the ship. Bismarck crew scuttled her flaming husk.
I think Bismarck isn’t a good example of bigger isn’t better. My opinion.
Think Titanic.