Dear Majid Hajipour et al.,

in order for me to accept the manuscript, please provide a detailed point-by-point response to all major and minor issues both reviewers still raise. Especially, please be very clear about the point raised by both reviewers: that you cannot distinguish between 5 different hydrometeor types by the applied Doppler Spectra partitioning.

I suggest to use a Grammar/Writing software to address the typographical errors.

Best regards
Ulrich Löhnert

Dear Majid Hajipour et al.,

I think the answers, clarifications and manuscript adjustments you propose are sufficient.

Except, from my perspective, the revised manuscript is still not clear enough concerning the actual information gained through the division of the Doppler spectra into five parts.

Important passages still imply to the reader that five different types of hydrometeors can be retrieved:
Abstract lines 7-8: the paper does not bring forth that you can ultimately differentiate five hydrometeor types
Caption Fig. 1: explicitly state that you are showing an idealized picture, otherwise the figure is misleading

In Section 3.2, the division into five classes needs to be physically justified. Especially the sentences
"This division into five parts was chosen because it is the best estimate to represent different hydrometeor types, accounting for various shapes"
and
"The amount of 5 parts was empirically chosen for this study, because usually not more than that amount of different particle shapes can be expected in a cloud volume"
need a quantitative reasoning, respectively confirmation through citation of relevant literature.

Instead of the Doppler spectrum depiction in terms of hydrometeor classes, I could imagine that argumenting with a composite analysis of different Doppler spectrum regimes could resolve these issues.

Please address these points.
Best regards
Ulrich Löhnert

Dear Majid Hajipour et al.,
very nice, I think the latest clarifications in your manuscript now meet the important points of the reviewers. I'm happy to confirm that the manuscript can now be published.
Best regards
Ulrich