I think we can take it as an act of god to keep that thread clean.
Anyway, the question is interesting, and so would be to see some model of wing mounted guns vs. nose concentrated guns. Soviets and Germans preferred the latter, for it`s obvious advantages in long range deflection shots and concentration of firepower. US pilots also seem to praise the P-38 for having all guns in the nose, and so did Soviet pilots for the Yak/Lagg.
Further it also brings less recoil and sideways deviation from the recoil, more ammo can be stowed for the guns. The only downplay is that fewer guns could be mounted, which makes high caliber weapons an obvious choice. But what if it`s wing mounted cannons vs. a nose cannon? Werner Moelders would say he would give two wing mounted cannons for one nose mounted one, Adolph Galland says the opposite - even though Moelder`s comparison is with the lower velocity MG FF, and Galland critized the smaller caliber MG151/15 nose cannon on the early 109F..
Personally, I`d go with nose cannon, as long as anti-fighter engagement is expected. The targets are agile, so accuracy is important, and the concentrated hits on a small place of the relatively fragile airframe will make structural failure more likely than spraying it all over. 2-3 cannon rounds on the same spot may weaken the structure critically, but you can`t expect the same happen when the hits are spread out from one wingtip to another.
