[Graham Boak]

What is appropriate for a top ace and superb shot is not necessarily what works best for the wider number of wartime pilots. Some of the Russians also preferred the "sniper" approach, but it lead to the slow-firing heavy cannon of the Korean War period that were less than optimum.

I might prefer what I could get. 4xHispanos were available in 1941, in the wing of single-engined fighters or in the fuselage of twins. It is fair to say that it overloaded the 1930s generation of fighters, needing some 1500-2000hp to benefit, and for dogfights a lighter armament was better. However, you were the one who introduced the B-29 as the potential target! Please be consistent in your arguments.

The 4-cannon in fuselage Lavochkin was 1946, and used the much smaller lighter Russian cannon that did not appear until the very end of WW2. Nobody ever put 4 Hispanos into a single-engine fuselage. The Hispano was designed in the mid thirties: it is always possible to produce something better, ten years later.

As for quality standards, excessive quality in wartime production is a waste. This was normally very much the Russian approach, with high quality only applied where it was vitally necessary. After some development of the French original the Hispano worked: that's all that was needed. If the MG151 was "better" made, then it was worse made.