In my opinion, all the reviewers' recommendations were followed and the new manuscript was really improved in this new version by the authors.
The answers provided are broad and detailed and represent a good opportunity for a high quality discussion on the topics treated, with special enphasis on the limitations of hydrologic performance of coupled atmospheric-hydrologic models when forced with observed convective rainfall events and when forced with modelled precipitation. Paper remarks WRF rainfall forecasts may not be sufficiently accurate for predicting the location and size of the floods of these kind of catchments, although the use of modelled precipitation input data remains important for studying the effect of future extremes on flooding and water resources.
My overall recommendation is that the manuscript can be published in its current form.

The authors' responses seem to address all the comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. My decision is to encourage authors to re-submit their improved version of the manuscript for a second round of the review process.

Dear authors,
I am pleased to inform you that the reviewers contacted by this journal consider that the article has been significantly improved in the new submitted version. One of the reviewers still expresses a doubt about a sentence in the conclusions. I kindly ask you to consider this minor comment proposing an updating of the text of your manuscript in order to be able to proceed with the prompt publication of your work.
Kind regards,
Beniamino Russo

The authors answered the last pending suggestion provided by the 2nd reviewer and deleted the sentences in the conclusions about the generalization of the achieved results concerning the use of the downscaled product.
My final decision is to publish the new version of the manuscript as is.