Sortof.

The advantages of having the sprocket at the front include an easier time shifting the transmission, because the transmission is also at the front of the tank, the 'track' gets cleaned off before it hits the sprocket's teeth on the long run back to the front of the tank, and if the engine is at the back, having a more 'balanced' design because of weight distribution and one may well have an easier-to-repair design because the components are more spaced out.

However, and this is a really big however, having the engine and the drive at opposite ends of the tank takes up a LOT of room because of the need to provide room for a power train from the back to the front. This either requires that the tank be bigger than it otherwise would be, or that interior space be sacrificed. Thus, once the systems became more reliable and compact (and easier to change out), the default became that the engine and the transmission be at the same end. If it's at the front, you get to have room at the back of the vehicle for troop ramps, artillery pieces etc. If at the back, you protect the engine and balance the weight a bit to have a few more tons at the rear of the tank.

Mmmm depends. Germans preference for the drive wheel in the front is due to the frontally mounted transmission on all tanks during the war. The transmission could absorb rounds. It also made designing the shifters easier as the transmission was sitting directly in front of the driver and thus was relatively simple mechanical shifting. While I'm not sure on the gross HP vs the net HP at the drive wheel, the frontally mounted transmission also requires the driveline to run underneath the turret basket of the tank, like the Sherman, to reach the engine, which is cause for the extremely tall heights of the Tigers, Panthers, and Shermans.

The British and Russians, and then later the Americans, opted for a transversely mounted transmission in the rear as it was easier to remove and they could remove it when they were maintaining the engine (not having to move the crane around from front to back) as well as providing more net HP at the drive wheel. Plus the removal of the drive line through the floor of the tank meant the entire tanks height could be shorter as well as allowing more armor on the floor plus being less likely to be incapacitated by a mine.

You did lose some armor at the driver and machine gunner/co-driver however and the shifting mechanism was a more complex mechanical shifter running the length of the tank however (cause for the notorious shifting issues on early T-34's and KV's) but was later fixed with electrical, hydraulic, or pneumatic shifters.

Sources

Thomas Jentz's Panther and Tiger

R.P. Hunnicutt's Sherman, A History of the American Medium Tank and Pershing, A History of the Medium Tank T20 Series

David Fletcher's Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942-50 and Crusader Cruiser Tank 1939-45

And Steven Zaloga's T-34/76 Medium Tank 1941-45 as well as T-34-85 Medium Tank 1944-94

And a few engineering blogs