I've also read the manuscipt with great interest and I think that the topic of the paper is certainly of value. In my opinion, the paper has the potential of intended goals, i.e. (i) supporting flash flood management and (ii) increasing the knowledge of flash-flood damage mechanisms.
Still, I agree with the reviewers that a “brief communication” is not the best format for the manuscript and that a better investigation (and explanation) of several aspects is required. I suggest authors to review the manuscript in order to be published as a “research paper”, trying to incorporate all the very useful suggestions made by the reviewers.

Dear authors,
I have read with interest the new version of the manuscript and the referees’ reviews. I think that the paper is now well structured and complete; the aim is clear, methods are properly described, and results are clearly explained, supported and justified.
Then, I do not think that the paper requires a further review by referees.
However, I strongly agree with them that there are still some points that must be improved and/or better clarified. For this reason, I strongly recommend to answer to all of their concerns and, in particular:
With respect to referee 1:
- I agree that the description of the case study is out of place. I would move it at the end of Section 1 or at the beginning of Section 2
- Yes, probably differences with riverine floods can be more stressed
- Check the number of variables
With respect to referee 2:
- I do not agree on the need of discussing in deep the use of quantitative models for the solution of flow field during flash floods. Still, in order to use the results of the paper in a “forecasting” mode (e.g. to support the estimation of the expected damage within the Flood Risk Management Plans required by the Floods Directive, as authors suggest) a discussion on how information on significant variables for damage assessment can be retrieved can further increase the strength of the paper.
- I strongly agree that more information/description of damage classes can be useful for the comprehension of the paper and to replicate the methodology in other places. This is especially true when considering that the quoted reference is mainly in German.
- I also get confused with the first sentence at pg. 12 as I intended the local impact as a proxy of the hazard (not exposure). Please check the terminology in the paper.

Dear authors, I think that the paper is now ready for publication.
Still, check the following technical remarks

Please check sentence at pg. 3
"Especially the aspects of vulnerability estimations of the elements at risk as well as damage driving factors, flash floods are insufficiently understood"

Remove “and” in Table 1 row D3
"larger cracks and in wall"