The paper is interesting, and I personally think it meets the overall criteria for publication. However, I had a number of doubts while reading it, which I -hopefully- wrote down clearly in the “Major Comments” section of the attached file, which I consider essential to address before closing the review process. Some other formalities also have to be fixed, especially in the first two paragraphs.

I hope you find my comments stimulating.

The study “statistical calibration of probabilistic medium-range fire weather index forecasts in Europe” of Bohlmann and Leine shows how the Fire Weather Index (FWI) can be calibrated in medium-range weather forecasts to improve FWI in weather forecast and enhance preparedness of fire-fighting resources during high FWI periods. This topic is scientifically important and suits well into the scope of NHESS. 

The authors show that their chosen method, i. e., non-homogenous Gaussian regression (NGR) improves the FWI derived from medium-range weather forecasts at shorter lead times by presenting results of different skill metrics, i.e., RSME, ME and CPRSS. I appreciated that the manuscript is well-written and in general easy to follow. Unfortunately, a clear research question is missing, which makes it hard for the reader to know what to expect from the paper. Further, it is not clear in methods and data section for what post-processing steps which datasets are used. This can be improved by revising the manuscript carefully as outlined in the comments below. The results are presented in a clear structure and the figures are easy to interpret, because of the good metric description in the method section. However, the visualization can be improved by minor adjustments. The discussion section is missing, which is unfortunate as a reflection of the authors on the strengths and weaknesses of their method and achieved results, in comparison to other studies would be very valuable for other researchers in this field.

Before publication, the manuscript needs major revisions. I suggest the authors to revise the manuscript carefully, correct and clarify the methods, data and results section and add a discussion section. You can find my specific comments in the attachment and I am happy to read the revised manuscript again.