No, it is not a preference based on country of orgin.
As to it being highly flammable, the early models did tend to burn mainly because the ammunition was stored high in the hull where it was generally exposed to penetrating hits causing the vehicle to burn easily (had little to do with the fuel by-the-by). The US first added applique armor over the most vulnerable spots to reduce penetrations in those areas. The addition of wet stowage made the Sherman burn less often than any German tank.
Its armor, "poorly distributed" or otherwise, was equal to that of a T 34 in effective thickness and generally thicker (due to less slope in many areas) in basis and, it was also generally better than the Pz III or IV in this respect.
The Pz III with an L60 gun had great difficulty frontally penetrating a Sherman of any model. The availability of the AP40 APCR round was virtually non-existant due to Krupp monopolizing the Tungsten carbide supply in Germany. So, the round that could penetrate was rarely available.
As for other tanks; the Panther was plagued for virtually its entire service life with engine overheating and fire problems. It, along with other heavier German tanks also suffered from a weak transmission that often failed in service.
If you are looking for a true "ronson" try the JgPz VI JadgTiger. While not easily penetrated, if it was it almost certainly would burn. All of the ammunition was stored high in the hull and the use of seperate ammunition virtually ensured that it would ignite on a penetration.
The Sherman's short 75 was in 1942 better than the T 34/76's 76.2, the German 50/60 and equal to the 6 pdr in armor penetration, the standards of the time. The Germans were only just bringing the 75/43 - 48 gun into service on the Pz IV but, it was still a rarety at that point.
If, "It took superior numbers of tanks and air superiority to do the job" then why in the Allied advance across France in 1944 did the Germans lose almost equal numbers of AFV to the Allies? Even in specific cases where the Sherman took on German panzers the battle tended to end in favor of the Allies with casualties being equal or in favor of the Allies too? Air superiority was rarely a tactical cause for German armored failure. More often, it was a combination of seriously flawed tactics both tactically and operationally coupled with a failure to integrate all arms into operations by the Germans that caused their demise both offensively and defensively.
By the way, there is more to a tank than simply measuring its armor thickness, ability to penetrate another tank with its gun, and how fast it goes. Much of what made the Sherman good were these other factors like rapidity of engagement (a decent Sherman crew usually got in the first round on target), crew efficency, communications ability, reliability. On these the Sherman vastly out scores the T 34 and also outscores the Panzers.

Oh, read the article. Lots of flawed data and conclusions there. As but one example citing the Sherman as having 2" (50 mm) side armor being a flaw of the vehicle. I'd point out that this is thicker than the side and rear armor on both the Panther and Pz IV and about the same as on a T 34. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Given the Panther weighs about 10 tons more one would think it might have had a bit more side and rear protection. In my book this is a major flaw in that vehicle's design.