Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Why would you want to mix weapons with such different shell trajectories? Furthermore mounting high velocity MG151/20 cannons outboard negates their range advantage. Convergence plus wing flexing makes the outboard weapon positions useless for anything except close range.
I'm still trying to figure out the best way to arm the Fw-190A series for both the fighter and bomber-killer mission. How about this: 2 x MG151 over the engine, 2 x MG151/20 in the wing roots, 2 x MG151 in the outboard stations. This arrangement would reduced the weight and wing flexing while adding the equivalent firepower of two .50 cal Brownings. As an added plus, a bullet impact would not detonate the ammunition drum of a MG-151 and blow the wing off the airplane the way 20mm drums did.
Moss
the MG 151s won't fit. the MG 151/15mm and the MG 151/20mm used the same receiver.
A single 3cm mine shell or a couple 2cm mine shells were normally enough to inflict crippling damage on the wing of an enemy fighter aircraft. Consequently you can kill enemy fighter aircraft on a single quick firing pass. Something that didn't often happen when firing machineguns. That's why mine shells are worth having even if they pose an explosive hazzard to your own aircraft.PETN/HA41 explosive in the 15/20/30mm cannon shell would detonate when struck by .50 cal rounds. The shell's explosive charge would explode--not the propellant in the case--and then the entire box (not drum) of ammo would sympathetically detonate and blow the whole damn wing off