Dear Dr Cécé:
Two reviewers have positively commented your results. Another reviewer has asked you to better specify some information. I have read your answers and how you plan to modify your manuscript. On this basis, I consider that your article can be published subject to minor revisions (review by editor).

You are requested to submit a revised version of your manuscript, where you implement the answers that you have published in the interactive discussion. Please, submit, together with the revised version, a copy of your manuscript where all your changes are annotated and the list of your detailed answers to the reviewers’ comments (you may use the text that you have already published online).

Further, I think that abstract and conclusions should highlight better some of the merits of your study to help the readers to fully appreciate its value. Therefore, I am requiring you to slightly expand the abstract and the conclusion, clarifying the following points:

1) Which are the features of the extreme gusts that are present only or much better reproduced in the 30m?
I actually cannot find in the manuscript a comparison against observations that describes the better accuracy of the 30m resolution simulation with respect to the others. Do you mean that there is evidence that 400m scale vortices with speed above 130m/s are expected to be present over sea and they are reproduced only in the 30m simulation? Or there is an objective validation against observation that could be used to assess the improvement of the highest adopted simulation? Please clarify.

2) What are the details of the building damages that are explained or have a match only in the 30m resolution simulation?
This is not related to the vortices over sea of my point 1), but with the intensification of the wind gusts over land. Increasing resolution increases the maximum speed of wing gusts (note that adding a table or a map comparing the different simulations would help to appreciate this). Do you have an estimate of the gusts thta are associated with the damages to be compared with the values in the simulations? Is only the maximum gust speed that depends of the simulation or also the details of the affected area?

In general, your manuscript would benefit from a table or a map describing the improving quality of the simulation for increasing resolution over land (I see only Figure 5, but I find difficult to match it with the damaged areas, and to understand, by comparing with figure 2, whether the plotted area should include any coastline)

Looking forward to receiving your revised manuscript
Best regards
Piero Lionello

Dear Dr Cécé:
Thanks for your replies. I have no further comments on the revised version of your manuscript, and I am happy to recommend your article for publication in NHESS.
I thank you for having considered NHESS for the publications of your research.
Best regards,
Piero Lionello