Sure, the rancor is too resistant to blasters, however the AT-AT is geatly overfeared. The legs are surely resistant to blaster bolts, but it's likely they are not very strong, otherwise a small cable wouldn't take them down. Someone argued that the legs must be strong, however I ask you to stand the core of you toilet paper roll on end on your desk. Push down on it and it will take great weight, push on it's side and it crumples easily.
Another person said that the advanced metals would be stronger than steel. Have you seen what a Stealth Bomber is made of? Composites. Graphite composites are light and strong, but can't take physical damage. They are brittle. A simple hammer will make short work of composite structures. The periodic table is what it is, and I don't think the Star Wars universe is so different from ours.
The legs of a walker are also laden with moving parts and joints, and they are long. Long, thin supports are easy to break. The walker is an all-terrain transport, designed to work on many worlds. It's not an indestructable behemoth. It's just a little much for the blasters on a speeder, or anything smaller. Walkers seem to be quite nimble for their size, supporting my theory that they are constructed lightly.
This must be a good debate. It's drawn more interest than most other threads. I must ask why the walker is thought to be so strong. I would think that a tank would be smaller but stonger than an armored transport. Does that not make sense?
Gary Swift (aka gswift)
Lenexa, Kansas USA
You can try to monkey-proof your program, but you'll never monkey-proof the monkey.