This is going to be a multi part answer. Basically this is my attempt to update Claude Blair's work from 65 years ago with the latest scholarship and add some historiographic context.

So the short answer here is that yes, there were regional styles of armour - not just the shape and construction of the metal but regional preferences in what armour to wear and -how- armour was worn. In some periods and between some places the differences between these styles was very notable - as was the case between later 15th century Southern German lands and later 15th century northern Italian lands (remember, there was no united Germany or Italy in the Middle Ages or the early modern period). At other times in history, the regional differences may seem subtler to us, or there might be more borrowing between regions.

In this answer I'm going to focus on one period, the last three quarters of the 15th century. This is a period of significant stylistic diversity (not to say there weren't regional styles or differences before or after that, but the 1425-1500 period sees an incredibly diverse variety of armours across Europe - moreover because this the period where full plate armour becomes mature, you see stylistic preferences reflected in steel, so they're easier to see and more dramatic).

As a preface, some historiography. The study of armour developed from 19th century antiquarian interest in armour as a romantic or even 'gothic' remnant of the medieval past. So these early antiquarians primarily studied -surviving- armours - those were the objects that they bought and then studied, or acquired for their patrons, or even organized into early attempts at historical displays of armour (like Samuel Rush Meyrick's update to the 'Line of Kings' to more accurately reflect the origins of the armour, rather than fancifully dressing 'William the Conqueror' in Henry VIII's full plate armour). As armour studies evolved it came to be caught up in the larger world of art museums (like the collection of other objects like furniture) and related concepts like 'decorative arts' and the larger umbrella of art history. But through this all it remained primarily the study of surviving objects. This mean that armour studies was incredibly vulnerable to survival bias - the pieces that survived were not representative of what had existed historically. This is worse than you might think. As Dr. Tobias Capwell of the Wallace collection points out, many armours survive only by chance - most of the surviving full Italian armours from the 15th century come from only two sites - the arsenal of the Counts von Trapp of Churburg Castle (heirs of the medieval holders, the von Masch family) in Tyrol and the church of Santa Marie della Grazie near Mantua. A number of other Italian armours survive from the armouries of the Habsburgs, and a number of excavated pieces only come from a few archaeological finds. So these few fairly random survivals are not necessarily representative of what did exist - though they do reflect the fact that Italian-made armour was incredibly common (more below). Meanwhile, between the armouries of the Habsburgs and a number of arsenals of minor princes, a number of South German armours from the last quarter of the 15th century survived as well (though generally as 'composites - different armours combined, possibly in their working life but much more often after the fact). In contrast, no complete 15th century English armour survives, and even the pieces we have (helmets, almost exclusively) aren't necessarily made in England. Similarly we have very few 15th century armours from Spain, or from northern Germany, and not many from France, or the Low Countries.

So the scholarship of the antiquarians of the Victorian period and the increasingly rigorous scholars of the 20th century focused much of their efforts in studying 15th century armour on armour from Italy and Southern Germany, and mostly that of the second half of the century or in the case of German Lands, the last third of the century. This created a stylistic distinction in a lot of the literature between German and Italian armour or 'Milanese' and 'Gothic' armours. You can see a number of popular accounts of this division to this day, including online. In the works of a number of armour scholars, you do see efforts to complicate this, including the work of Claude Blair, whose work European Armour c 1066-1700 draws from artistic and documentary accounts as well as surviving pieces. Blair was a brilliant scholar and he makes a number of very important points about the differences in constructions beween the armour made in Italy and that made in German lands. He also includes some brief and tantalizing notes about other stylistic variations in other countries, even though the bulk of the work's 15th century chapters are dedicated to the German and Italian armours that have surviving examples.

For this reason, I think it's important to be very clear that when we're talking about the styles of armour as they were actually worn in the later middle ages in Europe (not just those that survive) we need to look at other sources aside from surviving pieces.

Actually to a certain degree yes. The thing to realise is that armour tended to be fairly centralised in manufacture, Milan and Augsburg where the two really major producers of armour in the period. And other smaller local manufacturers tended to copy their styles or vary them a little, often because they imported and re-exported items from the major manufacturers. But also that the finest armour was bespoke and thus would be made to whatever crazy fancy the buyer wanted, there are local fashion trends to it, somewhat. Later on we also speak about Greenwich armours, as the English kings established a royal armoury to make bespoke suits for the king and upper echelons of English society at the tail end of the medieval period. Most of the truly fancy armours, the ones that end up in the Metropolitan Museum in New York e.g. are armour from that last stages of the medieval period when artistry started triumphing functionality for styling and decoration because armours were less functional items and more for display.

There was a Milanese style and a "German" or "Gothic" style. The former is often called white armour and was a mostly unadorned as decorations and stuff because you want the armour to deflect blows away and not stick on detailing. The German style was fairly decorative with fluted decorations. These are the only really major and easily distinguishable styles. Broadly speaking Milanese armour was more "rounded" and the "German" style a bit more angular. So armour would be broadly speaking fairly similar both with some stylistic variation. The armour users all belonged to the same broad cultural circle of Western European Latin medieval so they had similar needs and similar solutions. Ironically Augsburg and Milan, the major centres or manufacturer are fairly close too.

That is to say there were some fairly minor stylistic choices that could be said to belong to one country or another. But you can't really say just from the look that it was made there as a skilled armourer could imitate another style if desired. E.g. the armour of Gustav Vasa you linked in first link (better pic here:https://samlingar.shm.se/object/49A564EF-61BA-4CBD-876F-46826C28C0EF) would probably be classed as Milanese style even though it's German made.

This was supposed to be an armour for Henry VIII it'd be in the Italian style, arguably, but it is made in Greenwich https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-19.html

This is the classic "Gothic" look: https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-39777.html

This armour is assembled from both German (upper parts), and Milanese (leg bits) style pieces: https://collections.royalarmouries.org/object/rac-object-3178.html

It's also important to note that armour changes in look over the centuries due to manufacturing techniques, metallurgy and skill of armourers, fashions, and how they are used and what needs exist foot/horse and so on. How armour was put together, which bits attached to where also changed partly for functional but also stylistic reasons.

It is possible to somewhat say what style an armour is, and thus likely where it is from, but without looking at a maker's mark you can't really be certain.

NB please see my answer elsewhere for a complete response but I wanted to note a bit about the pictures you included. Image 1 is a German made armour c.1530-40 for Gustav Vasa. I have seen this attributed to both Desiderius Helmschmidt of Augsburg and Kunz Lochner of Nuremberg. Similarly the third armour is also a German armour probably from around 1540, perhaps from Landshut. The second armour is a fantasy armour with some general inspiration from history.