system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
[Starwars] Are AT-AT's a viable battlefield asset or are they more purely a weapon of intimidation?

Imperial Space Station over Kuat: ISS Dominance

Imperial Weapons Procurement and Distribution Conference

3 ABY 





"Good morning Fleet Admiral, Field Marshal, Commandant and distinguished guests.

I would like to begin by saying AT-AT's are undeniably terrifying but is their utility on the battlefield comparable to their extreme cost and cumbersome operation a viable battlefield asset? It seems as though the AT-AT possesses some striking vulnerabilities that were discovered on the recent battle against the rebel base on Hoth. 

Particularly the vulnerability of weapons strikes to the undercarriage which resulted in total system failure. And also the tendency to trip when ensnared by tow cables. But the biggest death knell is the AT-AT's slow speed, lack of maneuverability and desperate lack of point defense cannons to engage troops underneath its chassis and also behind the vehicle.

Repulsor tanks such as the 2-M Saber Class seem to be a much more efficient use of the Empire's tax funds when it comes to direct combat engagement, and also I propose a new production run of the Low Altitude Assault Transport. The LAAT provides the utility of a fast transport and also the firepower of a close air support gunship in a tried and true package. The return of the LAAT will allow battlefield commanders a faster, more versatile method of tactically inserting our troops into combat. 

Thank you for your time and attention. I will now open the floor to questions and comments. "
gpt
It will not redeem their ridiculously high profile, but since blasters are linear, direct-fire weapons, the extra height of an AT-AT's turbolaser dramatically increases its range and utility, allowing the Imperial Army to deploy a heavy-duty, warship-grade artillery gun effectively on the ground when navy assets such as Star Destroyer atmospheric bombardment are unavailable.  On a shorter platform, a turbolaser would have trouble hitting ground-level targets or the inside of trenches such as those used by the Rebels on Hoth.

Why the Army doesn't just use parabolic projectile artillery is another question altogether, though perhaps shells are bulky while turbolasers are more available.