Three reviews of this manuscript have been submitted. All three of these reviews indicate that the manuscript needs major revisions before it is ready for publication. The main issues raised by the reviewers are
- The objectives of the manuscript that are presented in the introduction are inconsistent with the rest of the manuscript.
- A more in-depth description of the event is necessary, particularly in connection with the interpretation of the observation of large fall velocities, high reflectivity, and high rhoHV up to 4 km altitude.
- A more in-depth description of the hydrometeor classification algorithm should be included in the manuscript.
- The evaluation of the hydrometeor classification algorithm should be greatly extended, and in particular a direct comparison of the two radars (vertical profiles at Hohenpeissenberg and PPIs from Memmingen) should be included.

In their replies to the reviewers' comments, the authors have indicated that they will place less emphasis on the full evaluation of the hydrometeor classification scheme in a revised version of the manuscript. It is important that the introduction is adapted accordingly. Even so, the use of radar-radar comparisons for such evaluations would be very interesting, and I strongly suggest that the authors include such analyses in the revised version of the manuscript. I also think that despite the fact that Hymec is still under evaluation, the authors should include a complete description of this hydrometeor classification scheme, so that the readers of the manuscript will be able to place the results in perspective.

When you revise the manuscript, please provide a point-by-point response on how you dealt with the points raised by the reviewers.

I am looking forward to the revised manuscript.

I have received reviews of the manuscript from two referees that also reviewed the first version. Referee #2 advises to reject the paper because this referee feels that no new ideas are presented in the paper. However, referee #1 is more satisfied with the improvements made to the manuscript, and recommends minor revisions. Given the diversity of the reviews, I think that the paper should be revised once more, where all of the points raised by referee #1 should be addressed. Furthermore, based on the motivation of referee #2 for recommending rejection of the paper, you should make sure that the novel and original aspects of this paper are explicitly stated in the introduction. You should also make very clear in the introduction what questions you would like to answer in this study, and return to these questions in the conclusions by providing clear answers..

When you revise the manuscript, please provide a point-by-point response on how you dealt with the points raised by reviewer #1 and how you've incorporate the suggestions made above.

I am looking forward to the revised manuscript.

The comments of the reviewes have been addressed satisfactorily. The paper is now ready for publication.